The retards over on Bo have latched on to that insane 'Vote for trump if burnie doesn't get the nomination since one term of trump is better than Hillary winning because Hillary spilled my milk' idea.

How will that go if Cruz gets nominated and Trump runs as an independent? The delicious evil candy options will have doubled, do you think it would split the autodestruct vote? It's interesting to wonder if standard vote splitting works consistently even under political conditions bordering on the random.

I'm pretty sure whatever happens with trump, he has single-handedly lost the election for the GOP.

He runs, he will lose against Hillary

GOP screws him over at the convention and runs a candidate that polls well against Hillary, Trump will throw a shit-fit like you've never seen and split/ruin the vote for the GOP.



And Bernie not getting the nomination is 100% on him. He's losing to one of the most widely attacked and vilified (for decades) democratic politicians in the country mainly because he thought doing almost nothing in office and then just pandering to white college kids would be enough.

Counterpoint: You're a retarded cunt.

Motion enthusiastically seconded!

How is he delusional? OZ gave you the timestamp to look at, he all but conceded.

It's too bad, I was really hoping that the upset in MI (one of the biggest in US political history) foreshadowed NY.

"SolRo
The retards over on Bo have latched on to that insane 'Vote for trump if burnie doesn't get the nomination since one term of trump is better than Hillary winning because Hillary spilled my milk' idea."


Yeah, well the people who think like that are morons.

heaven forbid he hold out for meaningful concessions in the party platform at the convention instead of just rolling over wholesale for the deep state

Oh, I think it would be crazy for him to not push as hard as possible in the primaries, if only to force the Clinton campaign a bit left (there are even some vague suggestions of tapping Warren as a running mate to appease Sanders supporters coming out of her camp, although I'll believe it when I see it and I would hope Warren would decline since she can do a lot more good where she is), but in the general election there's no choice. Entertainment value notwithstanding, a Trump presidency would mean decades of corporatist majority in the supreme court and would pretty much ruin most of the rest of our lives in the US and wouldn't be so hot for the rest of the world either (but great for the Zuckerbergses and Gateses and Jobses of the ascendant technocracy).

why am I not surprised that the cock sucking gun nut of the site would like sanders' cock sucking of the firearms manufacturers of his state.

You shouldn't call OZ a "cock-sucking gun nut". It's rude.

I just read his Daily News interview. My god what embarrassing answers he gave to "Which laws were broken?"

"I HAVE FEELINGS!!!!!"


That's not even mentioning his answer to the Palestine question re: the international criminal court. Holy fucking shit.

"Minus five phantom stars for how Bernie thinks he can do better than Hillary in the general elections when he can't even beat her in the primaries. All the Republicans have to do is point out how single payer failed in Bernie's home state and he's done. He has got to know this."


I know general election projections are wildly inaccurate, but most have him matching up much more strongly against the GOP frontrunners than her (in fact, in some of the projections he loses).

Basically, the most electable candidates in the race are Sanders and Kaisich, but that's not the race we're going to get, which doesn't surprise me. As much as it makes me feel good that Bernie is literally the first candidate in my lifetime who has actually spoken to my concerns, I never expected him to get anywhere near this far, so seeing the window of opportunity closing is disappointing but not surprising, and as much as I don't like voting for Hillary on the grounds that she's right of Trump when it comes to business and economics, as well as CERTAIN AREAS of foreign policy, there's obviously no comparison in terms of experience and social issues.

The Sanders campaign started as an act of protest and the Trump campaign started as a guerilla marketing campaign for the Trump brand, and both have succeeded far beyond all expectations, and I have a lot of hope for the next few election cycles if Clinton manages to win the general and pressure is kept on her administration from the left while also shifting the demographics in congress, fix the superdelegate system and fix the huge problem with institutionalized vote suppression by both parties (you wouldn't believe what's happening in Rhode Island this weekend, makes the Brooklyn debacle look puny by comparison, although that was strategically more important).


Oh, and I didn't find that timestamp, Bort, that was the first place I clicked in the timeline, because if you click almost anywhere in one of his actual speeches (as opposed to the soundbite-machine TV interviews) you're going to find something of substance.

"Which laws were broken?"

"I HAVE FEELINGS!!!!!"

It would be okay for you, or me, or 99.999% of Americans to have no good answer to the question. But Bernie is running for President on that issue, and it's Palin-grade ignorant of him to have never even looked into the matter.

People are saying that some of his other answers weren't that bad -- if you shuffle it around it gets coherent -- but even that is a problem. Sanders has been on the campaign trail long enough that he should have had canned, prepared answers to this stuff, and he didn't.

The Daily News interviewed Hillary the other week, and you know why it didn't make a big splash? Because she knew what she was talking about and sounded like it.

"I know general election projections are wildly inaccurate, but most have him matching up much more strongly against the GOP frontrunners than her (in fact, in some of the projections he loses)."

He's doing very well for a candidate whom everyone has been extra polite and respectful towards. Hillary has treated him with kid gloves because she grasps the concept of party unity. The Republicans have left him alone because he is useful to them right now for challenging Hillary, but should he become the nominee, expect the knives to come out. Any halfway decent fact checker could come up with material to torpedo Sanders, to say nothing of the sheer lies the Republicans will come up with.

They can kill Bernie just on taxes. Even Bernie's supporters don't want to fund Bernie's proposals.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bern ie-sanders-tax-revolution

"Hillary has treated him with kid gloves because she grasps the concept of party unity."


Oh lord.

"Hillary is at least sending a big chunk of her money to help other Democrats"

Oh lordy lordy lord.

Bort, don't say another word online until you get paid to!
http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-super-pac-busted/
http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-co rrect-the-record/
No shit, I kick myself for not being a part of this, I'd have been great. Fuck, super great!

The GOP has been running Kasich since 2008. The first one's name was John McCain and the second one's name was Mitt Romney. The GOP's Stepford candidates weren't electable then and they're even less electable now that Trump has shattered the old political paradigm. At this point, it's Trump or GTFO for most Republicans and a lot of fed-up ex-Democrats.

Bort, talk to me about what happened to about the .5 million of the money raised by the Victory Fund was transferred to the Clinton campaign and the .2 million it raised that the DNC used to run pro Clinton ad campaigns. How does that help down-ticket candidates?

While you're at it, explain to me how the David Brock orchestrated media campaign to paint Sanders supporters as racist antifeminists is treating him with kid gloves. Is it because she hired someone else to do the dirty work? What do you think Anita Hill has to say about it?

Hate to break it to you, but a yuge block of the Sanders support base IS racist as fuck, and only slightly less chauvinistic.

Tell me, was this written by someone on Hillary's payroll? Or was it written by someone who was positive towards Sanders but was sick of being attacked by Sanders supporters, as far back as August 2015?

http://rewire.news/ablc/2015/08/11/blacklivesmatter-hurt-feeli ngs-white-progressives/

Everyone is horrible on Twitter, got anything that's not six month old social media drama?

Okay, what forms of evidence of racism will you accept?

Let me tell you about the concept of swing voters.

I haven't heard anything radical out of Sanders yet.

You know...

"It may be difficult to imagine progress in this current climate when many Israelis doubt that a willing and capable partner for peace even exists. But inaction cannot be an option. Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity. And only a negotiated two-state agreement can survive those outcomes."

... is not something I would have expected Hillary to say to AIPAC even if a banker offered her 300G's for it. I actually thought speaking those words would make her spontaneously go on a murder rampage of buffet eating and Russian glossalalia until she had to be put down by Jesus Himself.

So maybe there is hope she might approximate human.

Otherwise, the challenge to her party from the left in 2020 will have to be from the UN, there will be no liberal Democrats after she's been in for four years.

Any worries that 'we liberal lefties' are drifting into a wrong-headed and wrong-hearted unelectable area?

I don't necessarily mean 'we' on this site.

That Guy, I do worry about the personality cultists but they're pretty evenly distributed across the political spectrum (other than Trump, who really has the market cornered on the right this cycle). The "Bernie or Bust" business is a concern, although I think mainstream media has grossly exaggerated it, and is totally contradictory to Bernie's own message, but it's also no worse than the people who are supporting Hillary unequivocally because "it's her turn" or, well, anyone voting Trump.

Honestly, I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of the end of the "third way democrat" garbage that's been driving the party to the right for the last 30 years, and they're not going to give up without a fight, but honestly, I think in a couple decades the Republican party is going to be a splintered mess if it's even still functioning, the Democrats will be the new Republicans, and hopefully the left will have a party of their own again (or better yet we'll have finally gotten rid of first-past-the-post elections and we'll actually have some semblance of real democracy again and won't NEED a two party system, but I'm not holding out much hope for that).

No more than I worry that the political parties are drifting into a wrong-headed and wrong-hearted unmaintainable civilization.

I mean, they are, but I don't worry about it. Why be attached to something terrible on its way out? That's just sentimental.

I doubt the liberal lefties will care that they were disenfranchised from a system that wants to destroy them for not being death profiteers. Okay, some might, but they can change for the worse to fit in.

If history can inform us, the Democrat party's simultaneous march to the hard right social darwinist capitalist side of evil along with their complete co-opting and destruction of the GOP's role in massaging said evil may result in the Republican party tacking hard left just to survive as a recognized brand.

If it does, most will just switch parties as usual, minus the Strom Thurmond types who will always be there to symbolic vote nay on whatever brown transsexual cyborg ends up being the chair of the RNC. Meanwhile, the Democrats will start trying to pass cyborg bans and you know how this shit cycles forever.

It's kind of boring at the end of the day.

Goodness gracious, with that last line I might believe you've finally reach satori.

I like OZ's answer better!

OZ seems to view the Democrat party as mostly leftie with a viral strain of rightwingers infecting its colon, while I see the numbers switched, with the colon infection being the long term normal and the actual lefties being just a minor chill in its left nipple.

Nirvana is the biggest ghetto in Samsara, Brother Wildcat. It is filled with the tightest grasps and the longest mantras.

"OZ seems to view the Democrat party as mostly leftie with a viral strain of rightwingers infecting its colon, while I see the numbers switched, with the colon infection being the long term normal and the actual lefties being just a minor chill in its left nipple."


Depends on whether you're talking state or federal level. On the federal level I'm pretty much with you. On the state level I think there's more hope, if only because on the state level politicians are more likely to actually see the consequences of their actions, and maybe occasionally even be held accountable. On the federal level it's got to be pretty much a big, high stakes game of Sim City. I doubt many people rise that far in politics with much sense of perspective intact.


I'm a proud, life long independent. Although the first time I registered to vote I wrote in "practical conservative" as an homage to Zappa, because I was a gigantic dickweed.

^ meant as reply to above thread ^

Also, I'm not implying Trump = libertarian, I'm implying that it might show the R's a path toward that.

Two words, my man.

Blue Confederacy.

That tiny rush of adrenaline that just raced down your spine into your taint? Yeah, that's the good scary.

The left needs to go anti-Federalist and take all the state governments. This worked so incredibly well for the GOP that if that party does tack left, the power structure in place is arguably stronger than the Fed itself.

Think of the Federal government as a jettisonable tarbaby for oligarchs. Like tank armor that blows off when a shell hits it.

Our unique form of hybrid hierarchical government holds astounding opportunities for anyone who looks beyond the established rigged system and at the exploitable game mechanics of politics itself. The hard work has been done and the playbooks are all written. The left just needs to pick up the one that worked over the one published for them by their political opponents in their own party.

Yes, that was hope I just spouted, don't tell anyone or I will deny it.

That is all good points.

Partisanship is exactly the oppose of what empowered the Sanders campaign to get as far as it has.

what a bunch of utter retards.

A little partisanship would have helped in the midterms, kept both chambers of Congress, maybe even pushed the Senate to a filibuster-proof condition. (Though I think the smarter option remains to fix the filibuster by forcing the filibustering minority to remain in the chamber or else a simple majority breaks the filibuster. The technical justification of the filibuster is claiming that a given matter has not been debated to close, so fine, force the filibusterers to put up or shut up by listening to the debate. Let's see how many frivolous filibusters they care to mount if it means pain for 41 Senators every time.)

A little partisanship would have rendered the Sanders campaign much more obviously unnecessary and pointless. The Sanders campaign thrives only because people don't understand that 1) the problem lies primarily in the legislative branch and 2) it can't be fixed from the executive branch. These myths manage to persist among Sanders' faithful, no matter how much you swear Sanders has been trying to teach them better.