Campaign 2016

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Actually, much of Trump's support is from low income, low education Americans who are the MOST likely to be on the public dole. Hence the fact that Trump has never really advocated entitlement reform. When you say "leeches," I suspect you really mean "non-white" and the reason "non-whites" are protesting-- for better or for worse, violent or non-violent-- is because Trump has repeatedly signaled that he is trying to be the president of "White America."

Wait-- he loves taco bowls. Never mind! Race is a construct!

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/Donald-Trump-Rally-in-San-Jose-Draws-Protesters-381728251.html

But, of course, people attending Trump rallies deserve this treatment, right?  They are asking for it just by being there.  And none of the violence towards them is planned or orchestrated in any way.

[Emily]

So, my last few posts were out of line and I'm thinking of deleting the text. But seriously, if people are going to have an outbreak of flaming in main threads, they might expect a return flame or two. It really annoys me when people say really aggressive button-pushing things then cry about "censorship" or "PC" when people react. It's so privileged and baby whiney.
Also, the white guys (yes, not all men) who don't get that they are advantaged for their whiteness and guyness and boohoo because everyone else (including many white guys) sees that they are, and are pissed off because they are gradually losing their privileges, are doing EXACTLY the same thing they complain about others doing because they might lose their "hand outs".
White guys have been the real welfare kings for a couple of millennia now and if that's not obvious then something is misfiring in your brain.

[Emily]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/Donald-Trump-Rally-in-San-Jose-Draws-Protesters-381728251.html

But, of course, people attending Trump rallies deserve this treatment, right?  They are asking for it just by being there.  And none of the violence towards them is planned or orchestrated in any way.

Of course they don't deserve it. It's appalling. The level of violence this campaign season is completely distressing.
I have no idea if it was planned or orchestrated. I hope not. If it was, the planners and orchestrators should be arrested for inciting violence. As should Trump.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

These disruptive protests are destroying one of the best parts of American democracy: Our elections have been, by and large, a paragon of civility compared to the rest of the world. We have been an example for other democracies (aside from low turnout). If our elections continue to descend into this kind of violent conflict, it is a sure sign that this country really is in deep trouble.

The news these days is rather demoralizing...

[the professor]

There are more of us "highly educated" Trump supporters than you think. . . .

The Professor

Actually, much of Trump's support is from low income, low education Americans who are the MOST likely to be on the public dole. Hence the fact that Trump has never really advocated entitlement reform. When you say "leeches," I suspect you really mean "non-white" and the reason "non-whites" are protesting-- for better or for worse, violent or non-violent-- is because Trump has repeatedly signaled that he is trying to be the president of "White America."

Wait-- he loves taco bowls. Never mind! Race is a construct!

[Douchepool]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

[filledeplage]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Whoever (except perhaps the wild cards of Bernie Sanders, and Trump) ends up being nominated is more like headhunting for a CEO.  It is a political cartel who chooses. It is not the citizenry.  We get whom they give us and it has nothing to do with merit. This is Demmie party pay-back for Hillary's stepping aside, after being thrown under the bus, in 2008. She was promised the spot. 

This election is bringing out the best and the worst of the process.  Susan Sarandon is courageously challenging the super delegates to support Bernie.  It takes courage for a woman to go into disconnect mode and support a male when this is the first potentially truly viable female candidate.  The violent and some paid-for staged demonstrations, moving from state to state are the bad aspect.     

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Where are these handouts, and where can I get some?

[Emily]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Whoever (except perhaps the wild cards of Bernie Sanders, and Trump) ends up being nominated is more like headhunting for a CEO.  It is a political cartel who chooses. It is not the citizenry.  We get whom they give us and it has nothing to do with merit. This is Demmie party pay-back for Hillary's stepping aside, after being thrown under the bus, in 2008. She was promised the spot. 
  

Funny how it still works out that the ones with the most votes and highest in the polls get the nominations.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Yes. Agreed. All terrible.

[filledeplage]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Whoever (except perhaps the wild cards of Bernie Sanders, and Trump) ends up being nominated is more like headhunting for a CEO.  It is a political cartel who chooses. It is not the citizenry.  We get whom they give us and it has nothing to do with merit. This is Demmie party pay-back for Hillary's stepping aside, after being thrown under the bus, in 2008. She was promised the spot.  
  

Funny how it still works out that the ones with the most votes and highest in the polls get the nominations.

Emily - let's not forget the Electoral College.  

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

And, the super delegates whom Susan Sarandon is lobbying tirelessly, to switch from Hillary to Bernie Sanders, who has won multiple recent primaries.  

An interesting map of the 2008 primary season. Hillary's percentages were higher than Obama's but he got the delegates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008    

(mobile device version)  

[Emily]

Yeah. It's ironic that Sanders is trying to get himself appointed by the super delegates after losing the votes.

[Douchepool]

The irony of Sanders fans bitching about delegates still tickles me to this day. "You earned that? Actually, we're gonna redistribute that because fairness!" It's just too freakin' hilarious. See, they only want redistribution they agree with.

[Emily]

The irony of Sanders fans bitching about delegates still tickles me to this day. "You earned that? Actually, we're gonna redistribute that because fairness!" It's just too freakin' hilarious. See, they only want redistribution they agree with.

Touché on the last point.

[Emily]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Whoever (except perhaps the wild cards of Bernie Sanders, and Trump) ends up being nominated is more like headhunting for a CEO.  It is a political cartel who chooses. It is not the citizenry.  We get whom they give us and it has nothing to do with merit. This is Demmie party pay-back for Hillary's stepping aside, after being thrown under the bus, in 2008. She was promised the spot.  
  

Funny how it still works out that the ones with the most votes and highest in the polls get the nominations.

Emily - let's not forget the Electoral College.  

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

And, the super delegates whom Susan Sarandon is lobbying tirelessly, to switch from Hillary to Bernie Sanders, who has won multiple recent primaries.  

An interesting map of the 2008 primary season. Hillary's percentages were higher than Obama's but he got the delegates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008    

(mobile device version)  

Quite obviously, the electoral college is entirely irrelevant to my comment about who got the nominations.
With Obama, if you give him a proportional vote for the caucuses, he won the vote; he was also higher in polls.
So, your comment is not a successful rebuttal.

[filledeplage]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Whoever (except perhaps the wild cards of Bernie Sanders, and Trump) ends up being nominated is more like headhunting for a CEO.  It is a political cartel who chooses. It is not the citizenry.  We get whom they give us and it has nothing to do with merit. This is Demmie party pay-back for Hillary's stepping aside, after being thrown under the bus, in 2008. She was promised the spot.  
  

Funny how it still works out that the ones with the most votes and highest in the polls get the nominations.

Emily - let's not forget the Electoral College.  

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

And, the super delegates whom Susan Sarandon is lobbying tirelessly, to switch from Hillary to Bernie Sanders, who has won multiple recent primaries.  

An interesting map of the 2008 primary season. Hillary's percentages were higher than Obama's but he got the delegates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008    

(mobile device version)  

Quite obviously, the electoral college is entirely irrelevant to my comment about who got the nominations.
With Obama, if you give him a proportional vote for the caucuses, he won the vote; he was also higher in polls.
So, your comment is not a successful rebuttal.

Well, Emily - let's not forget whether there was caucus cheating in 2008.

In this election the biggest roadblock for someone who actually get more votes is the "deal making" for the super delegates which removes the power of the individual citizen voter.

http://caucuscheating.blogspot.com/2008/08/meet-hillary-clinton-delegates-who-were.htm

It was the sixth hit on the search so someone is looking at the prospect.  And Senator Sanders insists that the process is "rigged."  Hillary got a squeak more in popular votes than Barack.  He had the super delegates in the bag, as a first term senator.  A relative unknown.  That there was no chicanery is not even plausible. 

And, Bernie is being blocked from a venue by one of Hillary's supporters. 

https:www.yahoo.com/news/6886-180157763.html

All this nonsense is only helping Bernie and the other guy.  The people know it is a rigged system.

"I will tell you that in every state that we have gone into, we have taken o the entire Democratic establishment," Sanders said.  "It's not surprising to me that, you know, we will have the Democratic establishment supporting Hillary Clinton. And Bernie's numbers keep climbing. 

 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is making the rounds online so I'm far from the first to bring it up but it is worth discussing these two Donald Trump quotations:

"Obama said in his speech that Muslims are our sports heroes. What sport is he talking about, and who? Is Obama profiling?" - December 6, 2015

"Muhammad Ali is dead at 74! A truly great champion and a wonderful guy. He will be missed by all!" - June 3, 2016.

This demonstrates that Trump is either ignorant, a shameless and calculating political opportunist, purposefully inciting prejudicial flames, or all three. But he can't be none of these things.

[Emily]

This is making the rounds online so I'm far from the first to bring it up but it is worth discussing these two Donald Trump quotations:

"Obama said in his speech that Muslims are our sports heroes. What sport is he talking about, and who? Is Obama profiling?" - December 6, 2015

"Muhammad Ali is dead at 74! A truly great champion and a wonderful guy. He will be missed by all!" - June 3, 2016.

This demonstrates that Trump is either ignorant, a shameless and calculating political opportunist, purposefully inciting prejudicial flames, or all three. But he can't be none of these things.

Hi.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is making the rounds online so I'm far from the first to bring it up but it is worth discussing these two Donald Trump quotations:

"Obama said in his speech that Muslims are our sports heroes. What sport is he talking about, and who? Is Obama profiling?" - December 6, 2015

"Muhammad Ali is dead at 74! A truly great champion and a wonderful guy. He will be missed by all!" - June 3, 2016.

This demonstrates that Trump is either ignorant, a shameless and calculating political opportunist, purposefully inciting prejudicial flames, or all three. But he can't be none of these things.

Hi.

Hello!

[Emily]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Whoever (except perhaps the wild cards of Bernie Sanders, and Trump) ends up being nominated is more like headhunting for a CEO.  It is a political cartel who chooses. It is not the citizenry.  We get whom they give us and it has nothing to do with merit. This is Demmie party pay-back for Hillary's stepping aside, after being thrown under the bus, in 2008. She was promised the spot.  
  

Funny how it still works out that the ones with the most votes and highest in the polls get the nominations.

Emily - let's not forget the Electoral College.  

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

And, the super delegates whom Susan Sarandon is lobbying tirelessly, to switch from Hillary to Bernie Sanders, who has won multiple recent primaries.  

An interesting map of the 2008 primary season. Hillary's percentages were higher than Obama's but he got the delegates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008    

(mobile device version)  

Quite obviously, the electoral college is entirely irrelevant to my comment about who got the nominations.
With Obama, if you give him a proportional vote for the caucuses, he won the vote; he was also higher in polls.
So, your comment is not a successful rebuttal.

Well, Emily - let's not forget whether there was caucus cheating in 2008.

In this election the biggest roadblock for someone who actually get more votes is the "deal making" for the super delegates which removes the power of the individual citizen voter.

http://caucuscheating.blogspot.com/2008/08/meet-hillary-clinton-delegates-who-were.htm

It was the sixth hit on the search so someone is looking at the prospect.  And Senator Sanders insists that the process is "rigged."  Hillary got a squeak more in popular votes than Barack.  He had the super delegates in the bag, as a first term senator.  A relative unknown.  That there was no chicanery is not even plausible.  

And, Bernie is being blocked from a venue by one of Hillary's supporters.  

https:www.yahoo.com/news/6886-180157763.html

All this nonsense is only helping Bernie and the other guy.  The people know it is a rigged system.

"I will tell you that in every state that we have gone into, we have taken o the entire Democratic establishment," Sanders said.  "It's not surprising to me that, you know, we will have the Democratic establishment supporting Hillary Clinton. And Bernie's numbers keep climbing.  

  

Nonsense. Just because a lot of people are searching for something doesn't mean on a serious level that 'someone's looking into it.'
Also, Sander's numbers aren't climbing. They've flatlined. In this case, the candidate with the preponderance of superdelegates is also the person who got more votes.

[filledeplage]

This election has provided us with some (if not the) of the most worthless candidates on record. Trump? Hillary? Sanders? Bunch of losers, the lot of 'em. Depending upon who you ask, I'm either a bleeding heart liberal, a wacky libertarian, a far-right racist, or a closeted gay progressive (no bullshit; an alt-righter accused me of that when I said the alt-right were social justice warriors). These candidates this election cycle are FUCKING HORRIBLE. They just suck. Third parties barely matter; the Libertarian Party will probably take 2% at most despite Gary Johnson's recent polling at 11%.

The electorate doesn't get the candidates they need; they get the candidates they deserve.

Whoever (except perhaps the wild cards of Bernie Sanders, and Trump) ends up being nominated is more like headhunting for a CEO.  It is a political cartel who chooses. It is not the citizenry.  We get whom they give us and it has nothing to do with merit. This is Demmie party pay-back for Hillary's stepping aside, after being thrown under the bus, in 2008. She was promised the spot.  
  

Funny how it still works out that the ones with the most votes and highest in the polls get the nominations.

Emily - let's not forget the Electoral College.  

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

And, the super delegates whom Susan Sarandon is lobbying tirelessly, to switch from Hillary to Bernie Sanders, who has won multiple recent primaries.  

An interesting map of the 2008 primary season. Hillary's percentages were higher than Obama's but he got the delegates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008    

(mobile device version)  

Quite obviously, the electoral college is entirely irrelevant to my comment about who got the nominations.
With Obama, if you give him a proportional vote for the caucuses, he won the vote; he was also higher in polls.
So, your comment is not a successful rebuttal.

Well, Emily - let's not forget whether there was caucus cheating in 2008.

In this election the biggest roadblock for someone who actually get more votes is the "deal making" for the super delegates which removes the power of the individual citizen voter.

http://caucuscheating.blogspot.com/2008/08/meet-hillary-clinton-delegates-who-were.htm

It was the sixth hit on the search so someone is looking at the prospect.  And Senator Sanders insists that the process is "rigged."  Hillary got a squeak more in popular votes than Barack.  He had the super delegates in the bag, as a first term senator.  A relative unknown.  That there was no chicanery is not even plausible.  

And, Bernie is being blocked from a venue by one of Hillary's supporters.  

https:www.yahoo.com/news/6886-180157763.html

All this nonsense is only helping Bernie and the other guy.  The people know it is a rigged system.

"I will tell you that in every state that we have gone into, we have taken o the entire Democratic establishment," Sanders said.  "It's not surprising to me that, you know, we will have the Democratic establishment supporting Hillary Clinton. And Bernie's numbers keep climbing.  

  

Nonsense. Just because a lot of people are searching for something doesn't mean on a serious level that 'someone's looking into it.'
Also, Sander's numbers aren't climbing. They've flatlined. In this case, the candidate with the preponderance of superdelegates is also the person who got more votes.

We'll see soon enough. 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-california-primary-polls

Feel the Bern!    

[Emily]

There's nothing to be seen sooner or later. As the article you posted points out, it doesn't matter if he wins California by a few points.

[bluesno1fann]

Well, it's safe to say that Sanders is finished. Which greatly disappoints me, since he is someone I greatly admire - for what he has done and what he stands for. He would have made a spectacular President, and would have certainly curb-stomped Trump. But it's time to accept reality

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, it's safe to say that Sanders is finished. Which greatly disappoints me, since he is someone I greatly admire - for what he has done and what he stands for. He would have made a spectacular President, and would have certainly curb-stomped Trump. But it's time to accept reality

I feel somewhat the same except I am surprised he made it as far as he did. Personally, if we can look positively on the situation, he has probably achieved his greatest accomplishment, which was to demonstrate how there is a popular movement out there that genuinely want positive change. With any luck, now, people will realize that they are not alone and that they can belong to a movement which can put significant pressure on political power, if they are organized and unified. Again, genuine change must happen at the level of popular grassroots activism, not at the level of political power, if it is going to have a genuinely positive and lasting effect. That Sanders has potentially motivated and mobilized the population is far more important than anything he could have done at the political level.