patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Bill at least kept the peace and only sparingly used the military and only for precise and limited missions.

True. In fact if you go back to Bill's Presidency, it was Hillary that pushed him to intervene in Yugoslavia and bomb Belgrade in 1999.

I urged him to bomb

Dan8267 says

I actually don't fear a Trump presidency too much if the Democrats sweep the house and senate.

This is an ideal outcome, second only to a Bernie Victory and a Democrat Congressional sweep. BOTH the Clintonista and McConnell-Ryan Wings of both parties will be chasened, and real Democrats like Alan Grayson could work with Trump on H1-B Reform and Unfair Trade Issues.

thunderlips11 says

This time, the Clintonistas won't just get the Progressive Base vote automatically.

And that's the real story behind this election. Both Bernie and Trump represent the same change in American politics.

About every forty years we enter a new party system where allegiances change.

We are currently in the sixth party system, which began around 1960 according to this history of party systems by Arizona University. Now the transition from one party system to the next doesn't happen in just one election, but sometimes an election makes the transition very poignant.

I believe that this election marks the start of a transition to a new, seventh party system in which the Southern Strategy no longer can keep conservatives in control because the racists they rely upon simply don't make up a high enough percentage of the population to counter all the immigration and changing demographics of our country over the past two generations.

I don't know what the seventh party system will look like yet, but like all prior transitions, this transition is largely marked by an utter contempt for the establishment. That contempt has been building up for thirty years, but now it's at critical mass.

What constitutes the left and the right may very well change as alliances are broken and new ones formed. The Republicans have lost control of their base, the Tea Party, and have been taken over almost completely by Christian fundamentalists as Barry Goldwater predicted decades ago.

The Democratic Party has moved too far in favor of big business and the military industrial complex, a position that used to be the realm of Republicans. As a result, liberals are disgusted with the party even if less so than they are disgusted with Republicans. Furthermore, the Millennials, many of which are in their 30s, do not consider socialism to be a dirty word and are highly pissed off at the fact that the middle class has been eroded and the promise that any American who works hard and produces will have a good, stable life has been broken by both parties.

If I were to take a guess, it would be that the pro-big-business constituents of the Democratic Party will get kicked out and we'll see more and younger pro-socialist politicians over the next 20 years. Democrats will start talking openly about being socialists and how good socialism is. This will be a striking contrast with today when the term is used like "mother-fucker". We might even see a resurgence of labor rights movements. Progressives are getting pissed off that most of the gains in the early 20th century have been whittled away.

Hopefully, the new Democratic Party's core platform will be one of protecting and expanding the middle class, something that the old party has failed to do since Reagan.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

that isn't the system we have,

I'd rather get a better system by letting Trump win, then continue to support the old system by letting Hillary win. The system is more important than the candidate.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

And incidentally, he isn't perfect.

No one is, but he's clearly better than Hillary, whereas Hillary isn't clearly better than Trump, especially in the long run.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Trump is too dangerous

Hillary is just as dangerous -- for different reasons -- but just as dangerous.

thunderlips11 says

Dan8267 says

Bill at least kept the peace and only sparingly used the military and only for precise and limited missions.

True. In fact if you go back to Bill's Presidency, it was Hillary that pushed him to intervene in Yugoslavia and bomb Belgrade in 1999.

I remember when Bill responded to terrorism in a rational, proportional manner, the god-damn GOP accused him of Wag the Doging to distract from their contrived sex scandal.

In any case, Hillary's use of the military would be far greater. She, like Obama, essentially follows the Bush Doctrine. On the bright side, she at least knows what the Bush doctrine is, unlike Sarah Palin.

thunderlips11 says

This is an ideal outcome, second only to a Bernie Victory and a Democrat Congressional sweep. BOTH the Clintonista and McConnell-Ryan Wings of both parties will be chasened, and real Democrats like Alan Grayson could work with Trump on H1-B Reform and Unfair Trade Issues.

Exactly my thinking.

thunderlips11 says

True. In fact if you go back to Bill's Presidency, it was Hillary that pushed him to intervene in Yugoslavia and bomb Belgrade in 1999.

I urged him to bomb

which prevented a genocide in Kosovo.

So using this one as your "hillary = war criminal" given that even more liberal pacifistic NATO allies joined in is simply not true.

Even the war in Iraq, given the actual information we had at that time, is not the black and white issues milleniatards want to paint it as. I watched Collin Powells testimony at the UN, and was deeply conflicted. If what he was saying was true, we might have needed a war. It was only years later, that it became clear their were no actual weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ, and that Bush jr. was either absolutely lying, or running a very incompetent administration. But either way, as a peace loving generally liberal person, I can acknowledge that I just wasn't sure if we should go in or not, unlike a lot of people who have changed their opinions retroactively in hindsight. Of course, given the utter incompetence and lack of planning for the aftermath, its easy to have a different opinion today. However, her decision then has to be taken in light of the information available to make a decision then, and it was a pretty damn big consensus then, even if relying on false information. She joined a huge majority of democrats, and the country in general, in supporting a war, as a last resort. Multiple comments at the time of the vote show that she had very strong reservations about a war, and the actual language of the bill stated that negotiations and UN inspections to remove weapons of mass destruction were to be exhausted first.

Dan8267 says

I'd rather get a better system by letting Trump win

that sir, is the delusional part of berntards. Sad.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Dan8267 says

I'd rather get a better system by letting Trump win

that sir, is the delusional part of berntards. Sad.

I have given rational reasons to believe that and support all my positions with evidence. In contrast you have done nothing by assert your position. If anyone here is delusional, it is you.

The bottom line is that your inference here, that the system cannot be changed, is empirically false. As I have stated above, the system has changed no fewer than five times, approximately every 40 years, and we are exactly on schedule for another systematic change. Seeing patterns in history is not delusion. Thinking that history will not repeat itself is.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

that sir, is the delusional part of berntards. Sad.

By the way, that's another reason people who support Bernie Sanders, both democrats and independents, won't vote for Hillary. Her supporters are all assholes.

It's one thing to reluctantly choose Hillary over Trump because Sanders loses. It's quite another to ridicule those who do support Sanders. It demonstrates exactly the ideological differences that motivate Sanders supporters to not support Hillary. You can call them the irreconcilable differences that are the reason the Democratic Party is going through a divorce right now.

Bertnards? Well at least you are putting forth your best reasoned argument. But seriously I will not vote for Hillary because of what she stands for and her history and not because I want Trump to win. But then again I will not stand hostage to the Powers that be in the Democratic Party (including the Clinton s) based on the 'Trump threat'. If the system is rigged to require that, then it must happen.

Quite frankly, 40 years of "vote for me or the other guy will destroy everything" fear mongering has left me and many other tired of that line. It no longer works.

Remember the election of 2008? The Democratic Party knew that Hillary could not defeat McCain and so Harry Reid hand picked Obama for the sole purpose of preventing a McCain presidency. Trump is way the fuck more popular than old-man McCain was. The superdelegates will be fools to vote for her.

Dan8267 says

It's one thing to reluctantly choose Hillary over Trump because Sanders loses. It's quite another to ridicule those who do support Sanders. It demonstrates exactly the ideological differences that motivate Sanders supporters to not support Hillary. You can call them the irreconcilable differences that are the reason the Democratic Party is going through a divorce right now.

Good summary.

Sanders lost.

He's down 4-2 in a best-of-seven playoff, and demands they play the last game.

When we vote in November, the choice is Hillary for 8 years or Trump maybe for 2 or 3. You have to keep that in mind.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

which prevented a genocide in Kosovo.

No it didn't, as the Kosovar Serbs will tell you.

tr6 says

It's one thing to reluctantly choose Hillary over Trump because Sanders loses. It's quite another to ridicule those who do support Sanders. It demonstrates exactly the ideological differences that motivate Sanders supporters to not support Hillary. You can call them the irreconcilable differences that are the reason the Democratic Party is going through a divorce right now.

Good summary.

Not really.

a spoiled entitled little milleneal cunt whining about his candidate, who is down several million total votes. Berniebutts were in favor of caucauses when he won them, then they became unfair when he lost them. etc. etc. the math is what it is.

I voted for Bernie in my state primary you silly little shit. But anyone voting for Trump for any of the reasons you quote, "make it worse now to make it better... cause then everyone will see it needs to get better... name one country and one time when that ever worked out... of course you can't, because reality doesn't work that way.

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

Dan8267 says

I actually don't fear a Trump presidency too much if the Democrats sweep the house and senate.

This is an ideal outcome, second only to a Bernie Victory and a Democrat Congressional sweep. BOTH the Clintonista and McConnell-Ryan Wings of both parties will be chasened, and real Democrats like Alan Grayson could work with Trump on H1-B Reform and Unfair Trade Issues.

Exactly my thinking.

Thunderlips, Bernie or Bust advocates, and I aren't the only ones thinking along these lines. On the Republican side, conservative propagandist, er writer, George F. Will, yes that George Will, says If Trump is nominated, the GOP must keep him out of the White House in the New York Post of all rags,

Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction.

Trump would be the most unpopular nominee ever, unable to even come close to Mitt Romney’s insufficient support among women, minorities and young people. In losing disastrously, Trump probably would create down-ballot carnage sufficient to end even Republican control of the House.

Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life. Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.

If Clinton gives her party its first 12 consecutive White House years since 1945, Republicans can help Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, or someone else who has honorably recoiled from Trump, confine her to a single term.

George Will understands that sometimes you must deliberately lose a battle to win a war. He is outright stating that for conservatives it would be better if Trump lost and Hillary became a one-term president than to allow Trump to become president and destroy the Republican Party and lose both chambers of Congress.

So I state again,

6. Every fuck up that Trump will make as president -- and there will be lots of these -- will put another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party. Trump heralds the end of the GOP dominance in our country and the success of Richard Nixon's evil Southern Strategy.

7. Quite frankly, the races in the Senate and House are far more important than the White House. I'd much rather see the Democrats take the House and Senate than the White House. It will add to Trump's failures and hasten the demise of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Hillary is a life-line for conservatism.

8. The Democratic establishment must get the message that nepotism will not be rewarded and that they will lose elections if they ignore all the liberals and independents. Even the fucked-up right can no longer win elections by appealing only to its base. The Democratic tent is far bigger and has to include liberals and independents, not just leftists.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

What happens when IHLlary releases the Dworkin Golem?

www.youtube.com/embed/d-sALU_hveA

Dan8267 says

6. Every fuck up that Trump will make as president -- and there will be lots of these -- will put another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party.

OR possible a nail in the coffin of the USA. You know, overreact to some threat from China, get us in a war while in a depression due to multiple trade wars at the same time, lose our allies in europe.

Your entire philosophy is just so fucking stupid. Vote for Cesar because after the terrible leader, we'll bring back a better democracy and Rome will be even better. OOPS. 4000 years and still waiting!

Vote for hitler, and then people will get tired of nazism. Oops, we just got bombed to shit and occupied.

Vote for Chavez in Venezuela, and then people will realize that we need more democracy, not less. Oops, the whole country, which was one of the nicest places I've ever personally lived, went right down the toilet.

I'm still waiting for your example of a country electing someone as unfit for leadership as trump ever getting better later....

Maybe Russia with Putin? you know, just wait another few years or a hundred?

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses, which superpac is paying you to be on this forum?

tr6 says

which superpac is paying you to be on this forum?

Whichever it is, they're not getting their money's worth. It might be a false flag of some sort:

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Vote for Cesar because after the terrible leader, we'll bring back a better democracy and Rome will be even better. OOPS. 4000 years and still waiting!

I had no idea the Bell-Beaker people elected "Cesar," whoever that was, but if they're still alive after 4,000 years I would definitely like to meet them.

Bernie must stay in it until the end. Every vote he earns sends a message not only to Ratched but to powers that be in corporate america. Hopefully he does well in Cali as it does not represent the state that he would typically do well in from demographics standpoint. Too many coke or chevron for life voters around here...

dublin hillz says

coke or chevron for life voters

I haven't seen that phrase before. What does it mean?

curious2 says

I haven't seen that phrase before. What does it mean?

Some consumers only stick to certain brands and don't ever buy alternatives, just like some voters will only vote for politicians that they are familiar with.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

OR possible a nail in the coffin of the USA. You know, overreact to some threat from China, get us in a war while in a depression due to multiple trade wars at the same time, lose our allies in europe.

Let's consider this. China wants to make the South China Sea it's Gulf of Mexico They don't want foreign powers in the South China Sea anymore than the US permits foreign powers to operate in the Gulf of Mexico. It's not up for debate, it's a geopolitical fact. China overawes every entity in the region.

So, we should continue to outsource high tech manufacturing, including processors and GPS systems, to China? Not only do we lose the jobs, we give a potential competitor dual use technologies. One day if there is a limited war over the South China Sea, a missile might sink a US Ship with a hundred sailors, thanks to FoxConn being the subcontractor on an Apple or Samsung technology.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Your entire philosophy is just so fucking stupid. Vote for Cesar because after the terrible leader, we'll bring back a better democracy and Rome will be even better. OOPS. 4000 years and still waiting!

Democracy wasn't in great shape when Caesar took power, and he was forced into it. There was a guy called Sulla, he was the first Dictator for Life, just a few years before Caesar, and he acted for the wealthy. Caesar had to either install himself dictator or be executed on trumped up charges by asshole optimates Cicero the Slumlord and Cato the thief of Veteran's farmland.

Voting for Hillary continues the anti-democratic Globalist Neoliberalism bent. A recent study looking over the last few decades of US Policy and Congress found the preferences of the top 10% are implemented over majority opposition, but policies supported by the majority are seldom implemented. Support among the 10% for a policy or treaty was the single best indicator that a policy would pass, and it usually benefited their class at the expense of everybody else.

The big myth is that outsourcing and globalization was just an accident. It has been continuously driven by the 1% since the end of the Cold War, with armies of lobbyists, MBAs, CEOs, lawyers, and brought out politicians in NY, DC, and LA pushing it hard through a variety of big funded think tanks, their control of the media, and of course Congress, supported by billions over the years.

Even back in the early 90s, Perot pointed out Mexico spent a small fortune lobbying for NAFTA.

dublin hillz says

curious2 says

I haven't seen that phrase before. What does it mean?

Some consumers only stick to certain brands and don't ever buy alternatives, just like some voters will only vote for politicians that they are familiar with.

Oh. I think you meant "Coke or Pepsi" instead of coke (a fuel derived from coal) or chevron (the insignia worn by Lance Corporals in the Marines, among others).

thunderlips11 says

It has been continuously driven by the 1% since the end of the Cold War

Very likely because after soviet union imploded there was no longer a need for prosperous middle class in the battle for hearts and minds of the citizens.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Vote for Cesar because after the terrible leader, we'll bring back a better democracy and Rome will be even better. OOPS. 4000 years and still waiting!

Not OOPS: as a matter of fact, Rome grew more powerful and rich after Cesar.
Americans should remember the fall of the republic and the fall of Rome was not exactly the same thing.

Dan8267 says

I know full well the dangers of a Trump presidency.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/05/donald-trump-and-supreme-court

neplusultra57 says

Dan8267 says

I know full well the dangers of a Trump presidency.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/05/donald-trump-and-supreme-court

Another reason to demand the superdelegates choose Bernie. All those independents who could not vote in closed primaries aren't going to vote for Hillary. The superdelegates should do their sole job, which is to choose the will of the people in the general election over the will of the much smaller group of people who can and choose to vote in the primary. That's the only purpose of even having superdelegates.