Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[deadlymonkey]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?

Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns.  Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.

[Midwest]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?

Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns.  Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.

So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights?  So is the ACLU.   http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/

[GuitarStv]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?

Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns.  Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.

So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights?  So is the ACLU.   http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/

Good point.  How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?

[Midwest]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?

Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns.  Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.

So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights?  So is the ACLU.   http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/

Good point.  How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?

Don't say no one.  I don't like secret surveillance of US citizens either. 

[GuitarStv]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?

Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns.  Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.

So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights?  So is the ACLU.   http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/

Good point.  How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?

Don't say no one.  I don't like secret surveillance of US citizens either.

Yeah, but why are people prevented from flying by being on these lists?  Because of the risk of terrorism of course.  Buy a gun though?  No problem, we have to assume that they're not terrorists.

:P

[Midwest]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?

Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns.  Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.

So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights?  So is the ACLU.   http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/

Good point.  How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?

Don't say no one.  I don't like secret surveillance of US citizens either.

Yeah, but why are people prevented from flying by being on these lists?  Because of the risk of terrorism of course.  Buy a gun though?  No problem, we have to assume that they're not terrorists.

:P

I don't agree with the no fly for US citizens in it's current form either.

[Glenstache]

Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?

The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?

Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868

A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns.  Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.

So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights?  So is the ACLU.   http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/

Good point.  How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?

Obviously it's because airplanes are not mentioned in the constitution. /s

[MoonShadow]

I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.

Bullshit.  Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted.  You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.

[MoonShadow]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

I'm not quite following this line of attack.  I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.
The Article II (aka "the second amendment") says in it's entirety:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia argued convincingly that if we are to be guided by the constitution we must consider the intent and scope at the time it was written. The argument there is that in the 1770s individuals kept rifles and firearms in their personal homes, and it was these individuals who banded together to form the militias (e.g. the "Minute Men").

Yes, it does.  And the reference that I provided gives the definitions of what a "well regulated militia" meant in the 1780's.  You guys are digging your hole of ignorance.

[forummm]

I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.

Bullshit.  Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted.  You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.

One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.

Your reference was to Wikipedia.

And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.

[nereo]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

I'm not quite following this line of attack.  I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.
The Article II (aka "the second amendment") says in it's entirety:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia argued convincingly that if we are to be guided by the constitution we must consider the intent and scope at the time it was written. The argument there is that in the 1770s individuals kept rifles and firearms in their personal homes, and it was these individuals who banded together to form the militias (e.g. the "Minute Men").

Yes, it does.  And the reference that I provided gives the definitions of what a "well regulated militia" meant in the 1780's.  You guys are digging your hole of ignorance.

Do you actually read what I type, or do you just disagree as a knee-jerk reaction and then call me ignorant?  You are arguing when I raise the same point.

As I stated directly above, while the text of Article II does not specifically reference an individual's right, the understanding of what a "well regulated Militia" meant at the time it was written encompasses the individual.  THe people in this sense are a check on a standing army for the states, and the constitution gives the federal government the right to form and fund a standing army.

[MoonShadow]

I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.

Bullshit.  Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted.  You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.

One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.

Your reference was to Wikipedia.

Appeal to authority, still bullshit.

And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.

So what?  We don't need to know what they would think about it today, we only need to understand how the rule was intended.  The Constitution is not a "living document", it's a social contract.  Again, a method exists to modify that social contract, if you don't like the terms or believe it's outdated.  Until then, those are the terms of the social contract, learn to deal with them.

Also, nice try attempting to pivot from your earlier claim that the individual interpretation was a recent development. 

[MoonShadow]

Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...

The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.

I'm not quite following this line of attack.  I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.
The Article II (aka "the second amendment") says in it's entirety:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia argued convincingly that if we are to be guided by the constitution we must consider the intent and scope at the time it was written. The argument there is that in the 1770s individuals kept rifles and firearms in their personal homes, and it was these individuals who banded together to form the militias (e.g. the "Minute Men").

Yes, it does.  And the reference that I provided gives the definitions of what a "well regulated militia" meant in the 1780's.  You guys are digging your hole of ignorance.

Do you actually read what I type, or do you just disagree as a knee-jerk reaction and then call me ignorant?  You are arguing when I raise the same point.

My apologies.  Some how I read that part backwards the first time, and interpreted it as a claim that Scalia was erroneous in his arguments.

As I stated directly above, while the text of Article II does not specifically reference an individual's right, the understanding of what a "well regulated Militia" meant at the time it was written encompasses the individual.  THe people in this sense are a check on a standing army for the states, and the constitution gives the federal government the right to form and fund a standing army.

That's true, but it's not the 2nd that establishes that right.  That would be Article 1, Section 8; the enumerated powers of Congress.

[infogoon]

Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?

[forummm]

I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.

Bullshit.  Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted.  You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.

One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.

Your reference was to Wikipedia.

Appeal to authority, still bullshit.

And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.

So what?  We don't need to know what they would think about it today, we only need to understand how the rule was intended.  The Constitution is not a "living document", it's a social contract.  Again, a method exists to modify that social contract, if you don't like the terms or believe it's outdated.  Until then, those are the terms of the social contract, learn to deal with them.

Also, nice try attempting to pivot from your earlier claim that the individual interpretation was a recent development. 

Re #1, Irony is lost on you.

Re #2, No, still saying that words that people decided not to use aren't that useful. Other people clearly decided they didn't want those words. Some people may have thought one thing ("everyone gets as many guns as they want") and others disagreed ("well regulated state militia members get guns because we don't have a federal army and we need someone to defend the country").

[Glenstache]

Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?

Yep. This is not a targeted criticism of one particular candidate (though few are spared), but I found it a fascinating read and worth the time to get through it. It is a long essay discussing political philosophy back to Plato and doing an excellent job of tying it in to more recent political developments in the US. I think that one of the key themes is the consequence of the removal of common sources of "facts" to discuss. I think there are plenty of instances in the previous 38 (!) pages of this thread alone to highlight that point. It also shines a pretty clear light on the appeal of Trump and his supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

One line of argument for Trump has been that the current system is so broken that we just need to change it. This has even prompted some Bernie supporters to say they would vote Trump if Sanders is not an option. To me this is absolute fucking lunacy because it disregards the question of what the current system would be replaced with. Trump is not the solution supposed progressives should be looking to. If they want to make a statement as an alternate to Clinton, they should look to a write-in or Green Party candidate (presumably Stein, again).

This is also succinctly stated in the attached cartoon.

[Jeremy E.]

I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.

Bullshit.  Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted.  You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.

One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.

Your reference was to Wikipedia.

Appeal to authority, still bullshit.

And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.

So what?  We don't need to know what they would think about it today, we only need to understand how the rule was intended.  The Constitution is not a "living document", it's a social contract.  Again, a method exists to modify that social contract, if you don't like the terms or believe it's outdated.  Until then, those are the terms of the social contract, learn to deal with them.

Also, nice try attempting to pivot from your earlier claim that the individual interpretation was a recent development. 

Re #1, Irony is lost on you.

Re #2, No, still saying that words that people decided not to use aren't that useful. Other people clearly decided they didn't want those words. Some people may have thought one thing ("everyone gets as many guns as they want") and others disagreed ("well regulated state militia members get guns because we don't have a federal army and we need someone to defend the country").

First off, "people" didn't draft the bill of rights, James Madison did. When he says, "the people" he is clearly speaking of the people of the United States. 

[thd7t]

I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.

Bullshit.  Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted.  You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.

One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.

Your reference was to Wikipedia.

Appeal to authority, still bullshit.

And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.

So what?  We don't need to know what they would think about it today, we only need to understand how the rule was intended.  The Constitution is not a "living document", it's a social contract.  Again, a method exists to modify that social contract, if you don't like the terms or believe it's outdated.  Until then, those are the terms of the social contract, learn to deal with them.

Also, nice try attempting to pivot from your earlier claim that the individual interpretation was a recent development. 

Re #1, Irony is lost on you.

Re #2, No, still saying that words that people decided not to use aren't that useful. Other people clearly decided they didn't want those words. Some people may have thought one thing ("everyone gets as many guns as they want") and others disagreed ("well regulated state militia members get guns because we don't have a federal army and we need someone to defend the country").

First off, "people" didn't draft the bill of rights, James Madison did. When he says, "the people" he is clearly speaking of the people of the United States.

Madison wrote a number of drafts of the 2nd Amendment. His initial draft gave more power to the Federal government, but southern interests pushed for more individual and states' rights.

[Midwest]

Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?

Yep. This is not a targeted criticism of one particular candidate (though few are spared), but I found it a fascinating read and worth the time to get through it. It is a long essay discussing political philosophy back to Plato and doing an excellent job of tying it in to more recent political developments in the US. I think that one of the key themes is the consequence of the removal of common sources of "facts" to discuss. I think there are plenty of instances in the previous 38 (!) pages of this thread alone to highlight that point. It also shines a pretty clear light on the appeal of Trump and his supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

One line of argument for Trump has been that the current system is so broken that we just need to change it. This has even prompted some Bernie supporters to say they would vote Trump if Sanders is not an option. To me this is absolute fucking lunacy because it disregards the question of what the current system would be replaced with. Trump is not the solution supposed progressives should be looking to. If they want to make a statement as an alternate to Clinton, they should look to a write-in or Green Party candidate (presumably Stein, again).

This is also succinctly stated in the attached cartoon.

Maybe some of those Sanders supporters legitimately think Trump is the lesser of two evils at this point.  It's unlikely that a Green Party candidate will win.  Regardless of how bad you think Trump is, he's not be investigated by the FBI.  The dem's should dump Clinton and let Sanders win. 

[Glenstache]

Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?

Yep. This is not a targeted criticism of one particular candidate (though few are spared), but I found it a fascinating read and worth the time to get through it. It is a long essay discussing political philosophy back to Plato and doing an excellent job of tying it in to more recent political developments in the US. I think that one of the key themes is the consequence of the removal of common sources of "facts" to discuss. I think there are plenty of instances in the previous 38 (!) pages of this thread alone to highlight that point. It also shines a pretty clear light on the appeal of Trump and his supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

One line of argument for Trump has been that the current system is so broken that we just need to change it. This has even prompted some Bernie supporters to say they would vote Trump if Sanders is not an option. To me this is absolute fucking lunacy because it disregards the question of what the current system would be replaced with. Trump is not the solution supposed progressives should be looking to. If they want to make a statement as an alternate to Clinton, they should look to a write-in or Green Party candidate (presumably Stein, again).

This is also succinctly stated in the attached cartoon.

Maybe some of those Sanders supporters legitimately think Trump is the lesser of two evils at this point.  It's unlikely that a Green Party candidate will win.  Regardless of how bad you think Trump is, he's not be investigated by the FBI.  The dem's should dump Clinton and let Sanders win.

Perhaps... but there are quite a number of fraud investigations on Trump.

I'm not weighing in on Clinton vs Sanders at this point, just the lunacy of going from supporting Sanders to Trump. Voting for Trump because he might win is not a good reason. There is more than one way to have a political revolution... and the visions from Trump and Sanders are very different. Sanders has a legacy of supporting concepts. Trump has a history of supporting Trump and Trump alone.

[beltim]

Maybe some of those Sanders supporters legitimately think Trump is the lesser of two evils at this point.  It's unlikely that a Green Party candidate will win.

Some, sure.  But far more Clinton supporters said they wouldn't support Obama in 2008, but essentially all of them did.

Regardless of how bad you think Trump is, he's not be investigated by the FBI.  The dem's should dump Clinton and let Sanders win.

True... but there aren't actually any enforcement actions being taken against Clinton.  In contrast, investigations against Trump have progressed to the filing of suits by at least the New York Attorney General.  And, he's paid off a few other state AG's to prevent them from joining that case.

As for dumping Clinton, there's no mechanism to do that, just like there's no mechanism for the Republicans to dump Trump.

[mrpercentage]

I just registered for the primary as a Democrat so I can vote Sanders. Until Trump has the gonads to square off with Sanders, or go on Real Time where someone will challenge him. I need to see him under real pressure on camera because the Whitehouse has lots of it. The U.S. can't file bankruptcy and it can't deal rashly with nations that house nuclear weapons. That said there is something to him. I like his outside quality and I know he would fire people. Thats important because government is PC enough to make incompetence rampant in some areas. You can't get stuck with hostile work environment, racism, or harassment even if they deserve to get canned-- can you-- nope

[sol]

You can't get stuck with hostile work environment, racism, or harassment even if they deserve to get canned-- can you-- nope

Have you ever worked in government?  Discrimination and harassment can absolutely get you canned with a quickness. 

It's the incompetent people we have a harder time getting rid of, because there are so many second chances to right your ship.  But discrimination, harassment, violence, and fraud are all instantly fireable offenses.

[mrpercentage]

You can't get stuck with hostile work environment, racism, or harassment even if they deserve to get canned-- can you-- nope

Have you ever worked in government?  Discrimination and harassment can absolutely get you canned with a quickness. 

It's the incompetent people we have a harder time getting rid of, because there are so many second chances to right your ship.  But discrimination, harassment, violence, and fraud are all instantly fireable offenses.

I work in a government job and the allegation of one of those things from a total bag of _______ will often keep that total bag of _______ from getting fired.

[MoonShadow]

You can't get stuck with hostile work environment, racism, or harassment even if they deserve to get canned-- can you-- nope

Have you ever worked in government?  Discrimination and harassment can absolutely get you canned with a quickness. 

It's the incompetent people we have a harder time getting rid of, because there are so many second chances to right your ship.  But discrimination, harassment, violence, and fraud are all instantly fireable offenses.

I work in a government job and the allegation of one of those things from a total bag of _______ will often keep that total bag of _______ from getting fired.

I have worked in government service in the past, and this was the SOP for the union rep to defend an incompetent SOB.  Deflect blame, deny accusations, make counter accusations, repeat.  This shit can go on for years.  Sol might legitimately work in a section with low incidence of this kind of thing, but that would almost certainly be an aberration.  I had heard many times from old salts that, if you found yourself in a section where everyone seemed like great people to work with, and you can't find the shitbird, then you are probably a shitbird.

[EMP]

Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?

Yep. This is not a targeted criticism of one particular candidate (though few are spared), but I found it a fascinating read and worth the time to get through it. It is a long essay discussing political philosophy back to Plato and doing an excellent job of tying it in to more recent political developments in the US. I think that one of the key themes is the consequence of the removal of common sources of "facts" to discuss. I think there are plenty of instances in the previous 38 (!) pages of this thread alone to highlight that point. It also shines a pretty clear light on the appeal of Trump and his supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

One line of argument for Trump has been that the current system is so broken that we just need to change it. This has even prompted some Bernie supporters to say they would vote Trump if Sanders is not an option. To me this is absolute fucking lunacy because it disregards the question of what the current system would be replaced with. Trump is not the solution supposed progressives should be looking to. If they want to make a statement as an alternate to Clinton, they should look to a write-in or Green Party candidate (presumably Stein, again).

This is also succinctly stated in the attached cartoon.

That was an interesting read. I'm a Sanders fan (Green if he doesn't get the nod). I agree that cooler heads should prevail, that the media/political establishment has underestimated Trump to everyone's sorrow, and that we're ripe for a tyrant.
I don't see HRC bEing the one that stops Trump. Warren could do it in a heartbeat.
I'm not sold on Obama's populist credentials as the author has laid them out.

[boy_bye]

Until the Bush administration answers for the blatant lies and war crimes that resulted in the death and maiming of thousands of people, and until the leaders of the financial industry are brought to justice for the greed and manipulation that resulted in the economic decimation of millions of people, I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.

[Steve Rogers]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

[Northwestie]

WSJ Editorial:

A dozen Mexican states held elections on Sunday, and—ho-hum—the center-right National Action Party, or PAN, appears to have won seven of the races. The Journal reports that voters in the world’s 15th-largest economy were turned off by the ruling party’s failure to cut debt and tackle crime, and by a boy-wonder president,  Enrique Peña Nieto, whom they now regard as more boy than wonder.

I mention this to illustrate that Mexico is a functioning democracy whose voters tend to favor pro-business conservatives, not a North American version of Libya, exporting jihad and boat people to its neighbors. Somebody ought to explain this to Republican voters, whose brains, like pickles in brine, have marinated too long in anti-Mexican nonsense.

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-gops-mexico-derangement-1465254607-lMyQjAxMTI2MjA5NzUwNjc1Wj

[jrhampt]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts.  Not sure why it should be any different this time around.

[thd7t]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts.  Not sure why it should be any different this time around.

People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.

[jrhampt]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts.  Not sure why it should be any different this time around.

People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.

I think the people who are irritated (i.e., Sanders supporters) would have been irritated either way.  She is the presumptive nominee; eventually they need to stop sulking and get over it.  I was disappointed when Hillary lost to Obama in 2008, but she lost gracefully with much narrower margins (yes, which included super delegates - this is nothing new), gave a great concession speech, and I subsequently voted for Obama in November. 

[forummm]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts.  Not sure why it should be any different this time around.

People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.

Facts matter. It's absolute BS to call her the "nominee" (as I have seen several times this morning) or say she has "clinched" the nomination (the NYT headline). No, the convention hasn't happened yet, and superdelegates could still change their mind (and did en masse last time). It's highly unlikely they will change this time and it's appropriate for news organizations to make this point. News organizations do need to let people know what's likely to happen given the best information we have now. Reporting on the updated superdelegate endorsements and saying "likely nominee" or "presumptive nominee" would be accurate and convey all the necessary and useful information. But that's not what the media is doing. The fact that the Democratic Party has anti-democratic nominating processes is the real source of this confusion and uncertainty. They could have a system without superdelegates but still have some kind of a "pull in case of emergency" provision to change the nominee if there's a major problem (like indictment or health problem or whatever).

Until the Bush administration answers for the blatant lies and war crimes that resulted in the death and maiming of thousands of people, and until the leaders of the financial industry are brought to justice for the greed and manipulation that resulted in the economic decimation of millions of people,

The Democrats (mostly Obama) explicitly decided not to let Bush et al face any consequences for their actions. He wanted to look "forward" and not "backward". Which is odd because looking backwards is what you do to deal with criminal behavior (hard to do that otherwise, unless we figure out pre-crime somehow).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K27oIJlAlA

I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.

Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.

[thd7t]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts.  Not sure why it should be any different this time around.

People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.

Facts matter. It's absolute BS to call her the "nominee" (as I have seen several times this morning) or say she has "clinched" the nomination (the NYT headline). No, the convention hasn't happened yet, and superdelegates could still change their mind (and did en masse last time). It's highly unlikely they will change this time and it's appropriate for news organizations to make this point. News organizations do need to let people know what's likely to happen given the best information we have now. Reporting on the updated superdelegate endorsements and saying "likely nominee" or "presumptive nominee" would be accurate and convey all the necessary and useful information. But that's not what the media is doing. The fact that the Democratic Party has anti-democratic nominating processes is the real source of this confusion and uncertainty. They could have a system without superdelegates but still have some kind of a "pull in case of emergency" provision to change the nominee if there's a major problem (like indictment or health problem or whatever).

It is inappropriate for the media to call Clinton the nominee, but "presumptive nominee" is a term that describes her accurately and takes the possible uncertainty into account. It's an official term.

I think that it is a good time for the Democratic party to consider reviewing it's primary process. Jesse Jackson used his position after the 1988 primaries (he won 13) to get the party to eliminate winner take all primaries. Now may be the time to eliminate closed primaries and caucuses.

[forummm]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts.  Not sure why it should be any different this time around.

People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.

Facts matter. It's absolute BS to call her the "nominee" (as I have seen several times this morning) or say she has "clinched" the nomination (the NYT headline). No, the convention hasn't happened yet, and superdelegates could still change their mind (and did en masse last time). It's highly unlikely they will change this time and it's appropriate for news organizations to make this point. News organizations do need to let people know what's likely to happen given the best information we have now. Reporting on the updated superdelegate endorsements and saying "likely nominee" or "presumptive nominee" would be accurate and convey all the necessary and useful information. But that's not what the media is doing. The fact that the Democratic Party has anti-democratic nominating processes is the real source of this confusion and uncertainty. They could have a system without superdelegates but still have some kind of a "pull in case of emergency" provision to change the nominee if there's a major problem (like indictment or health problem or whatever).

It is inappropriate for the media to call Clinton the nominee, but "presumptive nominee" is a term that describes her accurately and takes the possible uncertainty into account. It's an official term.

I think that it is a good time for the Democratic party to consider reviewing it's primary process. Jesse Jackson used his position after the 1988 primaries (he won 13) to get the party to eliminate winner take all primaries. Now may be the time to eliminate closed primaries and caucuses.

Yes, likely or presumptive nominee are fine.

And do away with superdelegates (except the "pull in case of emergency" option). And maybe do something to prevent the party from rigging the debate schedule too.

[Gin1984]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

Speaking reality, that at the current rate he can't win the amount of people he'd need to win should not anger people.  If speaking reality does, that is on them.

[thd7t]

People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.

It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts.  Not sure why it should be any different this time around.

People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.

Facts matter. It's absolute BS to call her the "nominee" (as I have seen several times this morning) or say she has "clinched" the nomination (the NYT headline). No, the convention hasn't happened yet, and superdelegates could still change their mind (and did en masse last time). It's highly unlikely they will change this time and it's appropriate for news organizations to make this point. News organizations do need to let people know what's likely to happen given the best information we have now. Reporting on the updated superdelegate endorsements and saying "likely nominee" or "presumptive nominee" would be accurate and convey all the necessary and useful information. But that's not what the media is doing. The fact that the Democratic Party has anti-democratic nominating processes is the real source of this confusion and uncertainty. They could have a system without superdelegates but still have some kind of a "pull in case of emergency" provision to change the nominee if there's a major problem (like indictment or health problem or whatever).

It is inappropriate for the media to call Clinton the nominee, but "presumptive nominee" is a term that describes her accurately and takes the possible uncertainty into account. It's an official term.

I think that it is a good time for the Democratic party to consider reviewing it's primary process. Jesse Jackson used his position after the 1988 primaries (he won 13) to get the party to eliminate winner take all primaries. Now may be the time to eliminate closed primaries and caucuses.

Yes, likely or presumptive nominee are fine.

And do away with superdelegates (except the "pull in case of emergency" option). And maybe do something to prevent the party from rigging the debate schedule too.

Yes, superdelegates were supposed to be my first line item!

[boy_bye]

I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.

Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.

Definitely not crying wolf here (and it's a little condescending for you to presume that I am).

Sexism isn't just stuff like blond jokes and "that woman is not pretty" just like racism isn't just "I hate that black guy." It's much more insidious and pervasive than that. Why do people shit on Hillary for doing exactly the same stuff that make politicians do all the freakin time? If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.

[MDM]

If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.

What criticism of Clinton would you consider non-sexist, and what of Obama would you consider non-racist?

[Midwest]

I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.

Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.

Definitely not crying wolf here (and it's a little condescending for you to presume that I am).

Sexism isn't just stuff like blond jokes and "that woman is not pretty" just like racism isn't just "I hate that black guy." It's much more insidious and pervasive than that. Why do people shit on Hillary for doing exactly the same stuff that make politicians do all the freakin time? If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.

Hillary set a private server which she used to set up and receive sensitive e-mails.  In all likelihood the server was hacked potentially exposing sensitive materials to people who shouldn't have gotten them.  The FBI is investigating the situation and state department (the one she managed and still being headed by a Democrat) said she violated the rules.

The state department certainly wasn't playing politics and I don't believe the FBI is either.  The fact is she made a poor decision that may or may not be criminal.  Obviously Secretary Clinton does not like the facts, but pointing out the facts is in no way sexist nor was the IG report or the ongoing FBI investigation.

On a related note, it's fairly comical that Hillary is criticizing Trump for being unable to deal with classified material given her history with the server.

Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

[matchewed]

Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

no

[Jeremy E.]

Clinton is going to be the democratic nominee, might as well just call it like it is and say it's Trump vs Clinton. Sanders has no chance.

[Jeremy E.]

Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

no

I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.

[deadlymonkey]

Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

no

I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.

I like some of his positions, but even though I am personally fiscally conservative, I think it is naïve to say business and "the market" will solve all the problems that he wants the government to get out of.  I think we have seen time and time again that when given the chance, "the market" prefers short term profits over long term viability.

[Jeremy E.]

Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

no

I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.

I like some of his positions, but even though I am personally fiscally conservative, I think it is naïve to say business and "the market" will solve all the problems that he wants the government to get out of.  I think we have seen time and time again that when given the chance, "the market" prefers short term profits over long term viability.

Sure, but you also have to consider what a president can actually do. He can't repeal bills, and executive orders aren't going to allow him to repeal our social programs. He can at best not veto legislation that repeals them, or veto legislation that would add more. For executive orders, the only one he said he currently has planned is preventing the satellites that the NSA is using to illegally spy on it's own citizens and instead aim them at the enemy. He will probably nominate fiscally conservative supreme court justices as well, but generally social programs are not brought up in courts, so I don't understand what you are worried about.

[Glenstache]

Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

no

I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.

Setting aside agreement/disagreement on his policy stance, Gary Johnson will never get traction with a broad audience because his personality will hinder him. He quite frankly lacks the air of professionalism and gravitas to hold the position.

[forummm]

I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.

Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.

Definitely not crying wolf here (and it's a little condescending for you to presume that I am).

Sexism isn't just stuff like blond jokes and "that woman is not pretty" just like racism isn't just "I hate that black guy." It's much more insidious and pervasive than that. Why do people shit on Hillary for doing exactly the same stuff that make politicians do all the freakin time? If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.

The Obama birther stuff (and Muslim stuff) was entirely predicated on the idea of him being an "other". Clearly racist from start to finish. Very different. Hillary's email stuff is has no sexism undertones to it. It's entirely about "let's get the person who's likely to be the opposing nominee for president". Same with Benghazi. They harassed Bill the same way. Was that sexist? They investigated his Christmas card list. And his cat. He was impeached for having an affair (while the top GOPers were also having affairs). They accused him of murdering his friend Vince Foster, doctoring fundraising tapes, and selling burial plots in Arlington National Cemetary. Sexist? No, BS politics.

Now if the committee chair were talking about how she used a private email server because as a woman she was too stupid to understand and follow the rules, that would be different.

[Jeremy E.]

Can we get a reasonable third candidate?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

no

I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.

Setting aside agreement/disagreement on his policy stance, Gary Johnson will never get traction with a broad audience because his personality will hinder him. He quite frankly lacks the air of professionalism and gravitas to hold the position.

I disagree, I just watched an interview he had 1 or 2 days ago with thehill, and he was very professional, the only thing I think that would put some people off is that he said Instantly veto any bill that increased spending, and would be okay with getting rid of any federal departments. I like the fact that he's also climbed the highest peaks on each of the 7 continents, including Mt. Everest, and has run over 100 marathons with one as early as last year and has even run a 100 mile ultramarathon. I think he will captivate a great many people.

[infogoon]

Dear lord, the Bernie and Hillary supporters on my Facebook feed are getting so goddamned obnoxious I want to go back in time and vote for O'Malley.

[forummm]

Dear lord, the Bernie and Hillary supporters on my Facebook feed are getting so goddamned obnoxious I want to go back in time and vote for O'Malley.

It's primary day. Give it a month or so and you can just look forward to hearing lots about how Trump sucks.