Sounding like Hit Em Up

God I hope it works. I have my doubts. Good on her though.

it aint over... feeeeel the Bern

It might, arguably, be "not over" if Bernie were polling at something like 70% in California. But he's not.

The delegate deficit he has right now (four times what Obama had over Hillary at the end of 2008, from what I last heard), means that coming in close or doing "better than expected" counts for nothing.

In fact, unless he turns around a few hundred superdelegates (which he's failed to do so far), it looks like the California result won't matter for anything anyway. Hillary will have the primary numerically tied up immediately after the New Jersey results come in. And again, this is even if Bernie wins New Jersey.

I've seen in done in trials. Ask a witness a question. Once they get an answer immediately cue up a video of that same witness saying the exact opposite and then ask that witness to explain the differences in answers.

I think they did that at one of the GOP debates. It would be glorious in the general election debates...if the debate hosts have the balls to do it.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Would love to see that, but not. gonna. happen.

in terms of the permission it gives people to be their obnoxious, bigoted, xenophobic selves?

like i think it has little to do with his performance, what he says, ways in which he's shown to be correct or incorrect or consistent or inconsistent or whatever

i don't think showing him to be a lying incompetent, or showing it moreso or more publicly, would really make much of a difference

they just want their bigoted white guy

like who is really on the fence about trump? people are all in or disgusted

There are some casual voters who are wondering exactly how terrible Trump could actually be that could be persuaded by such a showing.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Especially the casual voter.

and i do think it could be effective.

but this would be a little dangerous given that the opposition, while *much much much* more consistent, has a reputation for being inconsistent.

it all depends on the spin and the attention spans. if we're going 30 secs of gotcha, though, this tactic hurts both candidates.

and it doesn't help much with the big key to the dems winning....getting their people to vote. i think you can persuade people to come out and vote AGAINST donald trump if you can nail him down with some really terrible and empty policy ideas. i think it will be harder to get people to show up and vote against trump merely for being a shill.

inconsistencies.

Thing about HRC is that I think that she is less inconsistent and more slick when she speaks. If you listen closely she uses her words very precisely like a lawyer does. She is prone to saying things that are technically true but misleading.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

i'm still shook from kerry getting swiftboated.

in this climate, if it's close at all at the debates, trump/hillary is going to get spun as kennedy/nixon.

she needs to knock it out of the park.

Primary debates are run, and the rules are set, by the networks and the parties. They set those rules however they like. In particular, they are broadcast on only one channel, and there are ad breaks. This means there are ratings, and that means there are motivations to juice those ratings with gimmicks like Facebook questions, video clips, and the kind of Daily Show bullshit that you're talking about.

The general election debates are run by a non-profit corporation, the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the formats change very little from cycle to cycle.

One aspect of this that I think will be a big deal is that in GE debates there normally either isn't a studio audience or that audience is not allowed to cheer, applaud, or otherwise interact with the candidates. The one exception to this is the 'town hall' debate, where there's obviously an audience interacting with the candidates. But even then, the audience is carefully selected to be truly nonpartisan, or of predetermined partisan and demographic breakdown.

Trump feeds off of audience feedback. It could be really weird for him to be debating in a room that's not supposed to respond to him.

Nowadays primary debates work like a 90s daytime talk show, but general election debates work like PBS. A lot of people are expecting this to give Hillary a huge advantage in the debates.

(Trouble is, if this expectation sets in too strongly, then Trump gets to 'win' by outperforming expectations, like when people thought Sarah Palin won the '08 VP debate by somehow managing not to fall over.)

yeah the regular season was nice...its playoffs now...he getting swept fellas..

Fucking bazzar world we're living in b

These are legitimately scary words to come from a person trying to be president. He's been dog whistling for the past week. Every time he would talk about the case he would, as a side note, mention that the judge is Mexican (he's from Indiana btw).
But now he just went out and said it. Any group of people he has attacked or insulted would be biased against him. So basically, only white men can judge him.

"In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said."


http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442

Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary.

In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

The New York businessman also alleged the judge was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge and the lawyer once worked together as federal prosecutors, but the lawyer, Jason Forge, in an interview said he had never seen the judge socially.

“Neither Judge Curiel’s ethnicity nor the fact that we crossed paths as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office well over a decade ago is to blame” for Mr. Trump’s actions, said Mr. Forge, who is with the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

An assistant in Judge Curiel’s chambers said he wasn’t commenting on the matter. An aide to the judge has previously said the judicial code of conduct prevents him from responding to Mr. Trump. Judge Curiel is an Obama nominee who has served on the district court in San Diego since the Senate confirmed him in 2012.

Judge Curiel’s older brother, Raul Curiel, a 67-year-old in Hammond, Ind., said his brother wasn’t fazed by Mr. Trump’s comments. “He’s taking it pretty much in stride,” the elder Mr. Curiel said.

For judges, being criticized for rulings comes with the territory, but court watchers say it is a degree far different when the critic could win the nation’s highest office, is involved in a pending case and references the judge's ethnicity.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Burbank said it was “absolute nonsense” that the judge shouldn’t be able to preside over the case because of his ethnicity.

“If this continues, I would hope that some prominent federal judges would set Mr. Trump straight on what’s appropriate and what’s not in our democracy,” Mr. Burbank said.

Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., noted that whatever Mr. Trump’s grievances, his lawyers haven’t filed any motion asking for the case to be reassigned to a different judge. If Mr. Trump has a problem with the judge, “that’s the legitimate way” to register a complaint, he said.

Mr. Trump in the interview said that he may do so. Other judges, he said, would have thrown out the plaintiffs’ case against the school, he said.

The GOP candidate’s comments follow a San Diego speech last week in which he called the judge “a hater of Donald Trump” and “a total disgrace,” while referencing the judge’s ethnicity.

Mr. Trump also criticized the judge Thursday on Twitter, saying he would win the litigation and reopen the now-defunct Trump University when the cases were done.

While Mr. Trump’s comments prompted criticism, he said he believed the bigger threat is to be treated unfairly by the courts. “It’s called freedom of speech,” he said of the criticisms.

Legal experts agreed that defendants have the First Amendment freedom to express opinions about a judge hearing their case—as long as they aren’t disruptive in the courtroom.

“It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1941 Supreme Court decision that threw out contempt convictions of a newspaper publisher and a labor leader for speaking out on pending litigation.

Judge Curiel is presiding over a pair of cases in which the plaintiffs alleged Trump University duped them into paying tens of thousands of dollars on the belief they would be trained to learn Mr. Trump’s real-estate strategies. Mr. Trump denies the allegations, saying the students got their money’s worth, with many offering positive evaluations of the program.

The judge has issued pre-trial rulings against Mr. Trump and has unsealed documents in the case offering a detailed look at the business’s operations and scathing assessments from some former workers. One case is set to go to trial in November, after the election. No trial date has been set in the other case, with the next pretrial hearing set for July.

Such criticism is a closer call if the critic is a lawyer in the case, because attorneys are bound by professional conduct rules.

Lawyers in some instances have faced sanctions for controversial criticisms of judges, while in other cases they have avoided punishment.

Mr. Trump is being represented by a prominent national law firm, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, whose alumni include federal appeals court Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was on President Barack Obama’s recent short list for the Supreme Court.

Firm representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The code of conduct for federal judges restricts them from “mak public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court” and bars them from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office. But in at least one rare instance, judges came to the defense of a colleague they believed was being unfairly targeted with political attacks.

During the 1996 presidential campaign, both President Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, the Republican nominee, criticized a Clinton-appointed New York federal judge, Harold Baer, who excluded prosecutors’ evidence in a high-profile narcotics case. In response, four judges on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a statement in defense of Judge Baer, saying the officials’ remarks had gone “too far” and could intimidate other judges.

Judge Baer later reversed his ruling, though he said it wasn’t because of political pressure. He eventually took himself off the case.

how bout asking...WTF DOES THE JUDGE BEING MEXICAN HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING..I MEAN ANYTHING...AND THEN CALL OUT HIS SUPPORTERS...PUSSY ASS MEDIA

One small step in the right direction.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/02/3784234/screenshot-provides-glimmer-hope-media-coverage-donald-trump/


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

the country go to shit with a known con artist..than call it and him what he is on a daily basis....and CALL OUT HIS STUPID ASS SUPPORTERS..i dont see why DUMB ass voters cant be shitted on....never will get that..

obviously CNN would never, but if there's anyone in this race who can be called out for saying one thing then and a different thing now, it's her.

or fucking bill right now.... this is how it goes down....we talking about a known con artist right now....and need to keep focus on that...yes hillary has issues....but this fool dont know wtf hes talking about half the time and EVERYONE can see that....

that's totally different than saying, i didnt say that'
when its right there that you said it

i get tired of reading articles that just report what the candidates say
but dont really get into whether its factual or not
or even makes sense

like the articles on the mexican judge and trump- i dont see writers going into why this is wrong on every level (not just racist)
but also the fact that it is disrespectful to the judiciary
(only the guardian really got into this)

media really sucks.
its one thing to be 'fair and balanced'
its another to refuse to check and report on facts (instead of on just what was said)
there used to be something called a conclusion.. where reporters would give a 'final say'

its non existent in the american press

and then ask his supporters so u want a guy to be pres who want to manipulate federal judges based on race and money??? this is your guy right?? they should pound their own stupidity into their heads on a daily basis...



>that's totally different than saying, i didnt say that'
>when its right there that you said it
>
>i get tired of reading articles that just report what the
>candidates say
>but dont really get into whether its factual or not
>or even makes sense
>
>like the articles on the mexican judge and trump- i dont see
>writers going into why this is wrong on every level (not just
>racist)
>but also the fact that it is disrespectful to the judiciary
>(only the guardian really got into this)
>
>media really sucks.
>its one thing to be 'fair and balanced'
>its another to refuse to check and report on facts (instead of
>on just what was said)
>there used to be something called a conclusion.. where
>reporters would give a 'final say'
>
>its non existent in the american press

is now considered a good thing
we are supposed to be constantly changing and learning and being influenced by how the world works

somehow its now considered a bad thing

who are these people?

i mean, why?

she went from, 'im a tough journalist who asks hard questions'
to... shit i dont know wtf that was
it really wasnt an interview.

That Barbara Walters special with Trump was an embarrassment.
But in general, she seems less like a conservative shill than the other Fox News people. She is not always in defense mode.

Like this lawsuit stuff with Trump for example. She was ripping him up about it.

Funny thing is behind the scenes when they were beefing Murdoch was launching hella salvos at Trump on twitter.

The problem is we are watching the media give up whatever ounce of journalistic souls they have left for RATINGS.

While it was for chuckles at the time, Trump threatening to now do any more debates last year because they were 'unfair' aka would call him on his shit....AND HAVING IT ACTUALLY WORK...is chilling. Like how insane is that? Dude wasn't even seen as 'real' contender at the time but they went out of their way to enable him because of the cash involved.

While I can wax poetic on good plans for governmental reform...mainstream journalism is in such disarray I don't even think its salvageable.

Latin America dictatory, or just old school dictatory. He gets animated and uses his hands and arms alot, like Fidel, or that guy from Germany back in the 30s. Kruschev used to speak like that, too.

It's something I've noted on here, even before this campaign, that American politicians speak in a very staid, calm styles, for the most part. But not Trump.

Also, his not being a career politician, but having been a celebrity for the last 35 years, means that the old rules about what will and won't work don't necessarily apply to him.

The debates will be truly wild, I predict. Like, historically wild. In the late 21st Century, people will ask "Where were you during the Clinton-Trump debates?"

for someone who has words, the best words, im the best with words...

i think he should release his college transcripts
i really find it hard to believe this dude can write an essay.

i mean.... i dont understand people who say they agree with his policies
what policies?

People like to hear about jobs coming back from overseas and a re-examine of trade.

(Even though his extreme pro-business slant+deregulation would lead to the exact opposite of what he's saying)

People want to hear about America becoming an economic powerhouse again

(Even though America IS an economic powerhouse again, compared to even China we are rocking and rolling...WE don't feel it because income inequality which he's just gonna accelerate see above)


People like to hear about America being tough militarily and tackling our 'foes' overseas

(For once this ain't Trumps fault since America's love of war, indifference to collataral damage, suppressed guilt for the young american's it puts in that meat grinder has been a hypocritical balancing act since WWII)


>for someone who has words, the best words, im the best with
>words...
>
>i think he should release his college transcripts
>i really find it hard to believe this dude can write an
>essay.
>
>i mean.... i dont understand people who say they agree with
>his policies
>what policies?
>
>

what exactly are we trying to get back to?? what time frame??? someone need to ask that

like really, when are we talking
the 60s? 70s? 80s?

when?
why doesnt anyone ask this.
the "again" part is the most important part of the statement

to say..so you plan on bringing crack back to pay to fight against ISIS or something to that effect??? bcz thats kind of what reagan did????

this is how u question a hustler..

But Trump can't even say that about Reagan...Because he was shitting on Ronnie back in the '80s, complaining how was a weak President and how America was in the crapper...lol

He's doing the same thing with Obama right now...Dude is full of shit...

just im the best at military, im even better than the generals
im great with economic things. i create jobs
i will build a wall

its like a laundry list or wish list

and there's not enough reporters challenging him on how he intends to do this
they just let him get away with saying, look, im the greatest at being president. i will be the bestest president ever
i will grow the economy, blablabla
wtf america???

so many late night infomercials and whole channels devoted to selling bullshit...bcz some people (mostly cracka ass crackas) will fall for fucking anything....like i bet a good many of these mofos have like 6 blenders on they counters from infomercials or some shit...

that he's a reality TV troll archetype. He represents a middle finger to the people they have gripes with: the highly educated, minorities, immigrants, city dwellers on the coasts, everyone on the cultural Left. Catching him in lies or flip-flopping or whatever is not directly relevant to any of that for them.

He's not going to try to win over swing voters. He's going to try to pull as many of the types of voters I just mentioned out as he can.

on the Latino vote and is now reprtedly trying to stir up the Black vote....really nigga??? you think niggas gona get you over?? fuck outta here.... hes cooked already...


>that he's a reality TV troll archetype. He represents a
>middle finger to the people they have gripes with: the highly
>educated, minorities, immigrants, city dwellers on the coasts,
>everyone on the cultural Left. Catching him in lies or
>flip-flopping or whatever is not directly relevant to any of
>that for them.
>
>He's not going to try to win over swing voters. He's going to
>try to pull as many of the types of voters I just mentioned
>out as he can.

I think landslides are more likely to happen when people come out to vote out of excitement (and even in '08, where Obama had that, it wasn't a landslide), not so much just in opposition.

I really don't see a landslide defeat. If he loses, and that's still an if, it'll be close.

Unless the Right runs a spoiler candidate to ensure a Hillary victory, of course.

EDIT - I think it's important to note what's being called the Great White Death: alot of middle, lower middle class and poor white folks are taking Ls left and right. Suicide and drug addiction, for example, have shot way up (no pun intended) among them in the last 10 or 15 years. *They* know they're pissed off and hurting, but alot of us who aren't in that demographic don't know that because we're not exposed to them much. Those are the types who find Trump appealing, and they're a growing group.

plus these people you names are going to vote regardless..

educated, minorities, immigrants, city dwellers on the coasts,
>everyone on the cultural Left.

Trumps fans love him. I think that kind political "love" tends to defeat hate/opposition (c) Radio Raheem. So if that's the case, then numbers are what really matter. And with an electoral college system, numbers in certain states matter most, not just aggregate totals.

i just need them to vote for her.
period.
even if you are voting because you hate trump- thats a good enough reason
signs are.... the latinos are gearing up to vote against him
they should. he's despicable

I thought it was the latter.

and they dont really love hillary ...the women card is going to be huge in this election... dude is going to get blown out..it wont be close......or else this country has real problem...

income gap, college debt, welfare is up, endless wars..

a lot of Americans are sick and tired of politicians talking that same bullshit.

so you have Hillary Clinton of all names running on one side, 17 GOP candidates trying to out conservative each other and Trump saying what the people want to hear.

Build a wall, get tough on trade and win wars... plus he is viewed as a job creator.

it's a wrap IMO. I still think the Dems AND the GOP establishment will do all they can to stop him because dude is a loose canon.

When it comes to Mexican tough talk tho... it still comes down to how many of them can actually vote and where they live. Latinos voting in strong numbers in Dem heavy ares don't really help the Dems beat Trump. unless they swing states it's just going to be landslides in New Mexico and Cali and maybe AZ as well.

to people who want or are used to having the Head Cracka in Charge....which is really a twaspoon of people....we all know hillary is establishment bro..and we know the problems here... i dont need the bernie talk...he done.... so the most sane people (the majority of the country) will vote with the most sane candidate and it will be a landslide like i said...


>income gap, college debt, welfare is up, endless wars..
>
>a lot of Americans are sick and tired of politicians talking
>that same bullshit.
>
>so you have Hillary Clinton of all names running on one side,
>17 GOP candidates trying to out conservative each other and
>Trump saying what the people want to hear.
>
>Build a wall, get tough on trade and win wars... plus he is
>viewed as a job creator.
>
>it's a wrap IMO. I still think the Dems AND the GOP
>establishment will do all they can to stop him because dude is
>a loose canon.
>
>When it comes to Mexican tough talk tho... it still comes down
>to how many of them can actually vote and where they live.
>Latinos voting in strong numbers in Dem heavy ares don't
>really help the Dems beat Trump. unless they swing states it's
>just going to be landslides in New Mexico and Cali and maybe
>AZ as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>

they can't go vote just like anybody else (without a felony).

that's the question i'll be waiting to see answered
when the election results are announced

just what proportion of americans agree with racist, hateful speech and want to see it translated into action
if its the majority of voters?

im ready to wtf amerikkka!!!

it shouldnt even be close doggg


>that's the question i'll be waiting to see answered
>when the election results are announced
>
>just what proportion of americans agree with racist, hateful
>speech and want to see it translated into action
>if its the majority of voters?
>
>im ready to wtf amerikkka!!!
>
>
>
>

and even if we have more sane people than all of them it still comes down to where they live.

Ohio, PA, Michigan, Florida are probably the most critical states in play.

PA is Pittsburgh, Philly and KY in the middle. Ohio is filled with hella racist and Michigan is working class whites and voting poor... Florida is Florida.


Polls have it at 45 to 43... IMO thats way too close. i know,its early but still, it Trump.

yeah those states are filled with some mad crackaz...but its not enough nephew..not nearly enough to turn an election or even make that shit close....do you not get this??


>and even if we have more sane people than all of them it
>still comes down to where they live.
>
>Ohio, PA, Michigan, Florida are probably the most critical
>states in play.
>
>PA is Pittsburgh, Philly and KY in the middle. Ohio is filled
>with hella racist and Michigan is working class whites and
>voting poor... Florida is Florida.
>
>
>Polls have it at 45 to 43... IMO thats way too close. i
>know,its early but still, it Trump.
>
>

negative polling numbers

who says they won't vote 3rd party?

https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10156957001515716


Dan Rather
June 1 at 3:53am ·

I felt a shudder down my spine yesterday watching Donald Trump's fusilade against the press. This is not a moment to be trifled with. It wasn't his first tirade and it won't be his last.

I was reminded of my college journalism professor, the late Hugh Cunningham, who would exhort his young charges in a thundering voice to "never let them scare you." It was his most important lesson. One of Edward R. Murrow's favorite words was "steady." That also bears repeating today.

This is a dirty, nasty election. And it is only going to get worse. The reporters in the trenches need no lecture from me. They are walking through daily minefields, bracing themselves against winds of discontent whose effects no one can predict.

I know what it is like to sit in those seats and feel the scorn and even wrath of politicians of all political persuasions. Attacking the press for unfair coverage has long been a bipartisan pursuit. Sometimes it works. I am happy to say that more often it doesn't. But Trump's brand of vituperation is particularly personal and vicious. It carries with it the drumbeats of threatening violence. It cannot be left unanswered.

This is not about politics or policy. It's about protecting our most cherished principles. The relationship between the press and the powerful they cover is by its very definition confrontational. That is how the Founding Fathers envisioned it, with noble clauses of protection enshrined in our Constitution.

Good journalism--the kind that matters--requires reporters who won't back up, back down, back away or turn around when faced with efforts to intimidate them. It also requires owners and other bosses with guts, who stand by and for their reporters when the heat is on.

I still believe the pen is mightier than the sword. And in these conflicted and troubled times, we should reward the bravery of the men and women not afraid to ask the hard questions of everyone in power. Our nation's future depends on it.


a couple comments both on point:

Jen Colvin Malave Il don't understand how anyone can watch that press conference and not see the con job of all that is Donald Trump. It shouldn't be ok with anyone that he called a reporter a sleaze for asking a valid question. We are watch Trump dish it out but he can't take it. It's so blatantly obvious he's unfit to hold office. Journalist world wide should take up the cause of holding him accountable - he's the sleaze!



Elle Paul
Elle Paul society has been dumbed down. This has been the goal for decades, Trump success has confirmed its working. Not being a jerk or sarcastic, this is the truth.

it's one of the reasons MHP is out of a job. They want you to read the prompter and stick to the script.

lol smh

https://youtu.be/37-M_AzPxmM?t=31s

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11856328/trump-look-at-my-african-american

At a Friday campaign rally in Redding, California, Donald Trump pointed to a supporter in the audience and said, "Look at my African-American over here."

Trump had been discussing the violent protesters who came to his rally in San Jose, and called them "thugs."

Then he pivoted to talking about an earlier campaign rally in March, which was reportedly interrupted by protesters wearing Ku Klux Klan hoods. A black Trump supporter punched one of the protesters, and all were escorted out.

"We had a case where we had an African-American guy who was a fan of mine. Great fan, great guy. In fact, I wanna find out what's going on with him," Trump said. Then he pointed to someone in the audience who caught his attention — presumably the man Trump was referring to.

"Look at my African-American over here, look at him," Trump said. "Are you the greatest?"

Trump continued with the story of how this "African-American" had "cold-cocked" the guy in the Ku Klux Klan outfit, and said the media had unfairly assumed the black Trump supporter was actually the protester.

Some observers pointed out that putting a person of color on display in this way, especially while calling him "my African-American," was incredibly racially insensitive.

This incident came as the campaign press was still busy talking about Trump's repeated racist remarks against a Hispanic federal judge.

Trump also told the crowd that "when we have a protester inside, which isn't even very often, I say: 'Be very gentle, please don't hurt him, take care of him. If he wants to shout, if he punches you in the face — smile, as your nose is pouring blood out of it, be very, very nice.'"

This claim is absurd on its face, given that Trump has directly encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies. Recently, Trump even told his supporters as a protester was being escorted out, "Don't hurt him. I say that for the television cameras."

he doesnt truly understand the implications of the road he's travelling...there are repubs turning to hildawg bcz this fool wont shut his mouth...hildawg landslide

It's so bad that people on his own team are throwing up their hands....lol

They can't believe Trump even said THAT....And he's been tripling down on it...It's some surreal shit...

He'll overcome this just like every other coffin nail

>He'll overcome this just like every other coffin nail


No...those other nails were in the GOP primary...

Now? This is the real world....

"lots of people come up to me.."

"lots of lawyers say to me..."


who is convinced by statements like that its so weird

"First of all, i don't have thin skin. I have strong, very thick skin. I have a strong temperament. a great temperament. the best temperament"

It would be funnier if I didn't know millions of people are falling for this shit

The "mexican" judge stuff..

Dude just rambles and lies at a pace its nearly impossible to wrangle it all, so when he's in an interview 2 things get called out but 18 other things get through


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/donald_trump_s_cnn_interview_is_incoherent_racist_and_terrifying.html

is a fucking idiot.. period.

...without their permission for campaign ad....Dude is flagrant...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/trump-fake-photo?utm_term=.ujLXOw5wJ4#.bkbbaQJQL5

He's going to bypass this by saying it was just a retweet.

In my perception....he's manufacturing this. Not bypassing.

These are not mistakes. Just like the Moussilini quote and the retweeting white supremacist posts were not mistakes.

It would have been easy for Trump to find one black family that legitimately supports him. This is a plant. He KNEW it would be revealed that the photo was taken out of context.

What people perceive to be mistakes by Trump are actually very deliberately planned.

A crazy uncle, a desperate aunt??? Sure.., but a wife, husband and kids? Fucking impossible Denny.

I really truly hope he is not serious. Clinton leads the popular vote by what, 3 million? *smh*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/bernie-sanders-contested-convention-222685

Bernie Sanders predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton would not win enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination ahead of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, and he delivered his most forceful call yet for superdelegates in states he's won to consider throwing their support to him.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the Vermont senator argued that Clinton "will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, it will be a contested convention."

Sanders said that in the states where he handily defeated Clinton, superdelegates who aren't supporting him should reconsider aligning themselves with the will of voters of those states.

"In the state of Washington, we won that caucus with almost 73 percent of the vote there — 73 percent of the vote. In anybody's opinion, that is a massive landslide. But at this point Secretary Clinton has 10 superdelegates from the state of Washington, we have zero," Sanders said, offering an example of a state where he won the popular vote but did not collect any superdelegates. "I would ask the superdelegates from the state of Washington to respect the wishes from the people in their state and the votes they have cast."

Sanders' comments came just ahead of Tuesday’s Indiana primary, as his path to the nomination has become even more narrow due to recent defeats. The campaign recently laid off a large number of staff members in states that have voted.
160501-sanders-ap-1160.jpg

Sanders raised over $25 million in April, a steep drop from March

By Daniel Strauss

Clinton currently has 1,645 delegates and 520 superdelegates, while Sanders has 1,318 delegates and 39 superdelegates. In total, 2,383 delegates are needed to win the Democratic nomination.

Sanders conceded that it wouldn't be easy for him to close the margin, but he said he would continue fighting.

"For us to win the majority of pledged delegates, we need to win 710 out of the remaining 1083," Sanders said. "That is 65 percent. That is, admittedly, a tough road to climb, but not an impossible one. And we intend to fight for every vote and delegate remaining."

Oh...he's very serious...

Bernie also just said that the voting in Puerto Rico is fixed....Any time he loses that's his go-to fall back...

I keep telling folks...I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat if it came to it....But dude's spoiler behavior has been WILD...And dangerous....

he is arguing that superdelegates are not following the will of the people
because they are voting against the majority will
and so he wants them to switch their votes to him
but the majority of the democratic party did *not* vote for him
so he wants the DP to go against the will of the majority?

how is this rational?

perhaps he can say, lets *not* look at superdelegates and see the outcome
but the issue certainly isnt who got the most votes in the DP

>he is arguing that superdelegates are not following the will
>of the people
>because they are voting against the majority will
>and so he wants them to switch their votes to him
>but the majority of the democratic party did *not* vote for
>him
>so he wants the DP to go against the will of the majority?
>
>how is this rational?

It's not....

I got 0 love for Trump but these videos are fodder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmBXNE8gZvI

While the left and right are saying that the anti-trump violence makes him stronger, they are wrong; trump supporters always felt attacked. Its why when the tables were turned earlier and they were the ones attacking protestors 20-1 they were screaming it was the victims fault for trying to silence them, lol.

There's no one undecided thats like, "OMG, they are killing his freedom of speech! im going all trump!".

The thing is, this was bound to happen with his rhetoric. And its not surprising the first big violent anti-trump backlash is happening in California, which is basically little Mexico, LOL. Dude inadvertently doubled down on his mexican hate when he went at that judge...you've got people that see him as Hitler incarnate and of course they are gonna go at him.

His death threats must be beating Obama's at the moment, LOL.

That said, this can only end badly because Trump protestors will escalate

Smiling snark should be the go to. Their anger is because they are losing on a number of fronts and they know it. Thus the winning rhetoric.

Protestors should be smiling and singing with the self satisfaction of people who know history will be on their side. Nothing will neuter their anger quite like a serene, pat on their head, condescending response.

This^^^^^^^^

it aint no puzzle

>it aint no puzzle


Yeah...But that's not the issue though....

The issue is what goes down OUTSIDE that Democratic convention....It could get really nasty....REALLY fucked up....

women gon be next..... has anyone ever lost all 50 states??

Here is a inside look at his campaign operations. His people (experts in campaigns) smartly to his media representatives to stop talking about the case. Trump overrules them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-06/trump-orders-surrogates-to-intensify-criticism-of-judge-and-journalists

and is living in the 80s still

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

its going to make the writers of Game CHange look PG-13 in comparison

This New Yorker article on political spies is overall very scary. Imagine a billionaire or anyone really deciding to target you because of your politics and activistism and devoting money and energy to take you down?

But this quote was interesting from the article:

"In the era of “dark money,” as anonymous political donations are often described, Project Veritas has been thriving. According to its federal tax filings, between 2013 and 2014 its budget doubled, from $1.2 million to $2.4 million. O’Keefe told me that he has “about a dozen undercover operations ongoing at any given time.” One of these, he said, involves “someone working for Hillary Clinton full time, as a paid staffer.” This “embedded” operative, he said, “is employed in the campaign in the highest echelons.” (He declined to be more specific.) Every day, the operative sends “video to us over our own server.” He added, “Just like Hillary Clinton, we have our own Internet server in Westchester County!” He went on, “We see everything. We have thousands of hours of video. You’ll see infighting, plans, strategy.” O’Keefe said that he has been compiling a feature film from the operative’s footage, but won’t release it until the late summer or fall, when it will have maximum impact. In the meantime, he has posted teasers online; several of the clips end with the words “Stay tuned, Hillary, and check your e-mail.”

O’Keefe promised that footage he has acquired through his various operatives “will force people to resign.” He later added that he had video of “top, top, top-ranking officials discussing how and why they commit” voter fraud “to sway races.”"


The whole article is a good read but, Colin Powell.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

or will be paid off.

I bet fake money this never comes out.

Nor should they.

He'll put out something completely fake. Fox will breathlessly report it for about a week, and then it'll fizzle.

The GOP scandal machine will come out with something much better than that.

GOP will jus be tryin to save them senate seats at that point

Hahaha!!! That dude has already been stamped as a troll....lol

This the best they got? Really? Better off praying for a FBI indictment...

I wonder what Jr High School he or she goes to.

Someone who can avoid the bizarre non-sequiturs about pee-pee.

>
>Someone who can avoid the bizarre non-sequiturs about
>pee-pee.
>

Instead of halfway finished sentences and Based God stream of consciousness speeches, this speech was actually cohesive.
Even had the 'America First' talking point that I think he's gonna run with.

dont see why yall dont get that...

>dont see why yall dont get that...

This would be easy if he continued to be dumb and make unforced errors. I worry that he will learn through trial by fire to look more like a traditional politician and people will start talking about how presidential he looks in the fall because he has already lowered the bar so much.
**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Insomuch that they are deliberate. I can see what you mean but I'd call it 'pivoting' before I call it a mistake correction. He's not feeling his way through this. EVERYTHING about his campaign has been completely calculated. You might agree with that and it's just the semantics that I'm trying to clarify here. But it's not like Trump has thought to himself: 'Hmmm...maybe I should change the way I'm talking about issue X'. It's moreso that even when he was making those 'mistakes'.....it was a set-up for what was to come later. He's playing chess. Any change of tone that might be happening now was planned from the get-go.

And lowering the bar has certainly been part of the plan too. He needed to set-up an extreme position so that he can play out a redemptive narrative to get moderate conservatives on his side.

The fact is.....EVERYTHING he is doing (and has done) is working perfectly. He's got his finger on the pulse of the American paradigm and manufactured a frankenstein of anti-intellectual populism. Charlie Sheen, Kanye West, Rob Ford, the way that people socialize on the internet. I'm obsessed with what I perceive happening. These are the seeds of facism. Logic and reason and articulation are viewed with suspicion. The general population seems to have an increased hypnotic allure to strong-man tactics. I'm convinced that this is a by-product of growing income inequality. An entire culture living with the despair of clinical depression.

I'm terrified. Not just of a Trump presidency. But of what seems to have been laying dormant in the undertones of American culture....and how that might manifest even if Trump doesn't win.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

His wife and kids are highly intelligent. Listen to his wife talk....you think someone who is that articulate spends her time with someone who sounds like Trump during his campaign speeches? Just listening to his wife and kids talk you could tell that his whole persona is a sham. He's playing a character. He is not that stupid.

he knows the media will focus in his gaffes and thus, he gets free promotion and once he gets on TV he simply dials it back a little bit or corrects his mistake and all is forgiven because his people "know what he really meant from the beginning"

I still think its a sham tho... the day Hillary won the nomination damn jear half the GOP was out denouncing Trump. Shit is pkaying out perfectly for Hillary.

I still dont have faith in her or the American people so i will sit back and enjoy the shit show

Donald Trump sounds like the older Brooklyn, Staten Island white guys I work with who bitch about Obama and De Blasio, thought Rudy Guiliani was the greatest mayor, and think Cam Newton and other black athletes should shut up and be grateful for the money they are making now. Alot of these are smart guys, but alot of them hold plenty of racist beliefs.

These dudes say racist things all the time, and while sometimes, the know it's not PC to say, they don't think it's racist, they think it's just telling it like it is.

Donald Trump doesn't think he is saying racist terrible shit, he think he is saying what every one else is thinking but to scared to say. That's why he think he is popular. Hell, that's why he IS popular. He is saying what alot of people are thinking and scared to say.

He isn't some evil genius who thinks, well I'll say dumb racist things now and rally the base and get free coverage and then tone it down for the general election.

No, he is a 69-year-old guy who tends to think about the world in the racist misogynistic way 69-year-old privileged white guys tend to think of the world. Saying what he has probably has said 1000 times in private conversation with other older white men.




>His wife and kids are highly intelligent. Listen to his wife
>talk....you think someone who is that articulate spends her
>time with someone who sounds like Trump during his campaign
>speeches?

Yes. Alot of beautiful smart women get with crude rich guys all the time.

His kids I am sure are smart enough and sound smart because he can afford to send them to great schools.






Just listening to his wife and kids talk you could
>tell that his whole persona is a sham. He's playing a
>character. He is not that stupid.




I say you give him to much credit because the way you describe it he isn't really racist so much as saying racist things as part of an election strategy.


I'll say it again. I had a classmate that went to work for him and she said dude was a sociopath. Worst person she ever met and I don't doubt it one bit. It ain't an act.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

What u said...EVERYTHING.....On the money...

People really give Trump way too much credit...All dude is doing is being himself....A racist businessman who thinks that he's some anti-politically incorrect savior....

Dude is a fraud...But his racist mindset is for real...

I don't see how those two observations can be consistent of each other. If he's a fraud...then by definition, he's NOT the caricature that he presents.

Correct me if I'm wrong....but the heart of the issue is that I perceive Trump to be extremely intelligent while manipulating his persona in any way that achieves success. You perceive Trump to be the bumbling idiot he presents himself as. So when you call him a 'fraud'...you're essentially talking about the substance of his rhetoric. The quantifiable lies. When I call him a fraud...I'm more talking about how he is not the person he is pretending to be.

>Correct me if I'm wrong....but the heart of the issue is that
>I perceive Trump to be extremely intelligent

Listen to his wife and daughter speak. They are extremely intelligent. This whole thing is an act. So when I call him a fraud...I mean that in the truest sense of the word. He is not who he is pretending to be.

>Listen to his wife and daughter speak. They are extremely
>intelligent. This whole thing is an act. So when I call him
>a fraud...I mean that in the truest sense of the word. He is
>not who he is pretending to be.


You can't be an idiot dealing with dollar figures this high

He's no idiot

He timed this run just perfectly

He caught the wave and rode it to the RNC nomination

America has always been on some violent, racist,dumb shit..

There have been other racist presidential candidates. Why didn't David Duke succeed? What Trump has accomplished right now is unprecedented.

Trump has been part of America's identity for 20+ years. He is a household name and he is actually a funny dude.

Pocahontus? cmon... that shit is hilarious and I like Elizabeth Warren.

Another thing is before Obama how many people on OKP were screaming about how Trump was a well known racist?

I contend that Trump is pretending to be racist.

I'd contend that Trump is basically a blank fucking slate in regards to beliefs and values. His racist rants aren't genuine. And you can't be racist if you have no beliefs and values. He's saying what will win the election and nothing more. He's completely amoral. This is why there is no trace of any anti-hispanic sentiments in his past. As a businessman...hispanics were a resource. As a presidential candidate...hispanics are a target that can be exploited to persuade his intended demographic.

its a sham and we all fell for it. Well, not literally all of us but plenty of people actually believe Trump is genuine.

He's just talking shit, trolling... not sure why more people on OKP cant see it for what it is.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-racist-meme/

and no this was not all planned. If he planned this the way you said he did part of that plan would include bringing someone into the campaign who wants him to do the opposite of what he is doing. Part of the plan would include his latest speech where he used a speech writer and a teleprompter.



>I contend that Trump is pretending to be racist.
>
>I'd contend that Trump is basically a blank fucking slate in
>regards to beliefs and values. His racist rants aren't
>genuine. And you can't be racist if you have no beliefs and
>values. He's saying what will win the election and nothing
>more. He's completely amoral. This is why there is no trace
>of any anti-hispanic sentiments in his past. As a
>businessman...hispanics were a resource. As a presidential
>candidate...hispanics are a target that can be exploited to
>persuade his intended demographic.

Look....he was a prominent, out-spoken, media-focused public figure for 30 years before he ran for president. Overnight....he switches from someone who barely EVER said anything about race to someone who ONLY talks about race.

Did he have some sort of awakening or something? No. He saw an opportunity to achieve success in this platform by talking about race and did so. Compare the Trump public persona in 1995 to current day. They are two completely different people. He's a blank slate. If he thought he could've won the election by advocating a black panther inspired platform, he would have. He's an opportunist posing as a racist. And in 1973, he discriminated against people of color in his real estate business because of money. If he could profit by dealing with POC...he would've done so. This is not a man with strong convictions....whether racist or not.

so it fits your narrative.


>Look....he was a prominent, out-spoken, media-focused public
>figure for 30 years before he ran for president.
>Overnight....he switches from someone who barely EVER said
>anything about race to someone who ONLY talks about race.

Did you read the link ?

"barely EVER said anything about race"

The real estate mogul was also accused of making racist remarks after he testified before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee in 1993:

A book written by one of Donald Trump's former casino executives accuses Trump of calling his biggest gamblers "slobs," of making racial slurs against black people and of being largely ignorant about the casino business.


>Did he have some sort of awakening or something? No. He saw
>an opportunity to achieve success in this platform by talking
>about race and did so. Compare the Trump public persona in
>1995 to current day. They are two completely different
>people. He's a blank slate. If he thought he could've won the
>election by advocating a black panther inspired platform, he
>would have. He's an opportunist posing as a racist.

Yes Trump is an oppertunist but that does not mean he is not a racist. He is not a blank slate using a master plan to fool everyone.

C'mon man. He is currently speaking in front of millions of people saying mexicans are rapists. That's a little different than an employee allegedly over-hearing something said in the manager's office of a casino.

i swear you shop on infomercials all night if you falling for this trump bullshit

>i swear you shop on infomercials all night if you falling for
>this trump bullshit


lol.....

The real estate mogul was also accused of making racist remarks after he testified before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee in 1993:


>C'mon man. He is currently speaking in front of millions of
>people saying mexicans are rapists. That's a little different
>than an employee allegedly over-hearing something said in the
>manager's office of a casino.

That was only a few examples out of every thing listed in the link. You said Trump

"switches from someone who barely EVER said anything about race"

despite the fact that he is on record saying something racist. You're going hard in the paint for Trump.

But it's difficult to speak with a person who demonstrates over and over again that they cannot differentiate between advocacy and observation.

would work better if you used the same "observation" when discussing minorities who will vote for Trump because he gives them shiny things, instead of the double standard you are using.

It's similar to what I linked below about Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert saying Trump is going to win in a landslide.

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/08/no_joke_dilbert_creator_scott_adams_just_loves_donald_trump_so_why_cant_he_just_admit_it/

>But it's difficult to speak with a person who demonstrates
>over and over again that they cannot differentiate between
>advocacy and observation.
>

This is true^^^^^

And Duke also wasn't running when the GOP was a flaming mess......

They are doing a focus group and I swear a brawl is about to break out.

>They are doing a focus group and I swear a brawl is about to
>break out.


"I Love It"......See Jeezy.....

some cracka on twitter jus told me that Trump is going to beat Hillary on the minority vote bcz of minorities are mad at Obamas failed policies and hillary is just an extension of that.


now i know some arty smarty nigga will come here and agree , but thats the craziest shit ive heard in a minute.

that that argument is what's winning republicans states and the house

(and maybe the senate and presidency)

>some cracka on twitter jus told me that Trump is going to
>beat Hillary on the minority vote bcz of minorities are mad at
>Obamas failed policies and hillary is just an extension of
>that.

These misguided Repubs have been trying to convince themselves for years that that will happen. A Republican Presidential candidate hasn't won the minority vote since the Reconstruction era, thanks only to Lincoln, but somehow, Trump polling at 6 percent black and 11 percent latino is going to flip that around this year. Next time that comes up, ask that delusional nutcase how come the existing poll numbers dont back up his statement?

I guess we can take solace in acknowledging that the black vote matters. Say that also to that delusional misguided guy next time he brings it up. Say "thanks for admitting that the black vote matters to you and the Republicans". Be prepared for no response and complete silence from that nutcase.

Not with the minority vote....but overall. He's in the lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

http://www.electionprojection.com/latest-polls/national-presidential-polls-trump-vs-clinton.php

Clinton leads in 8 of ten polls, excluding fox news and the washington post.

I hadn't checked since last week. And Clinton had a good week last week. So it's good to see....but Trump was leading for a short time before last week.

I would venture that with the eventual Sanders drop out she might get a little spike there too. The problem is.....the way these dynamics are set for the coming months. Trump can't get hurt by scandal or controversy....or at least has shown that so far. When he makes what pundits call a 'mistake'...his poll numbers rise. Clinton doesn't have that power. So Trump can say a bunch of shit without consequences. Clinton missteps actually cost her. It's not a fair fight.

I liken it to family dynamics that we've all seen in our personal lives. There's two kids. One's a goody-goody...the other is charming and troubled. When the goody-goody graduates high school...everyone says 'so what?'. When the troubled, charming one graduates high school it's a redemptive triumph. That's the way Trump has set this table.

>Not with the minority vote....but overall. He's in the
>lead.


In the lead of what?

Trump benefited from the GOP coming together on THEIR candidate...That's why he started to surge poll wise...

But now that he is under fire for his racist comments about the Latino judge AND saying that a Muslim could not judge him, GOP folks who once supported him are now turning their back on him...There's talk that they will try to push him out at the convention and take an L to Clinton rather than make it a House/Senate bloodbath...

Next week sometime Clinton's numbers will shoot up after Obama walks Bernie off the stage so the real game can begin....Clinton will have a 7 to 8 point lead over Trump....And once the GOP sees that Clinton will indeed clean Trump's clock they will attempt to separate themselves from the man that has now become the face of their party...

I told what was going to happen....That Trump sticking with his racist and hateful GOP Primary strategy would sink him.....It's going down as we speak....

They've been standing by for his speech for like an hour and a half. Maybe revising his speech after this Cali blowout?

He can talk to Hillary and Obama and the other power players in the party until then, and he can figure out what his role will be in this general election.

Fuck 2016.

hes won as much as he gonna win player...get serious..

>Fuck 2016.


It's going to be OK dog...Trump ain't winning shit...In fact, as I write this post, the GOP is plotting to get him out the race...

In other words, the GOP is in full fiasco mode...

I will never accept less than a true progressive. This campaign was monumental if not paradigm shifting.

from santa monica.

the energy in that place was bleeding through the tv.

Accusing the Nevada party of shenanigans over two delegates, while saying nothing about his supporters interrupting the state convention and calling Barbara Boxer a cunt? Bernie's idea.

Building the NY campaign around a sexist dog whistle in his opponent's home state? Bernie's idea.

Throwing the party under the bus by inviting Trump to debate him? Bernie's idea.

Personal vendettas against Barney Frank, Sherrod Brown, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Russ Feingold? Bernie.

"Every time Sanders got into a knife fight, aides say, they ended up losing. But they could never stop Sanders when he got his back up."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

Well that certainly is ONE way of looking at it.

If you play politics, he could have done better.

If you play integrity, aint much more you can ask of the man.

the struggle continues.

When people in your own staff is throwing u under the bus, it's not bullshit...lol

some folks in his camp are of the establishment set, and there is a "way" to do things on the campaign trail, and ways to say things and issues he shouldn't bring up because it "hurts" the party....

then you got Jim Weaver who is ride or die for the CAUSE. Bernie handled this as he should to his own campaign and merit. To his supporters we are ready to move into the next position then it is our torch to carry. If some dude got mad and leaked this shit there is nothing to see here. He absolutely should have spoken truth to power wherever he saw fit. But only gripe about his campaign is she should go HARDER.

but we will see. The struggle continues.

Like I said...If u feel that the Democratic party is on some Banana Republic shit and rigging elections with a smile on their face, I think it would be a good idea (as you've already stated) to switch parties or go the Independent route...

Because if u r looking for purity from the Left or the Right you will drive yourself crazy...

whatever vote I cast in November will not be as a member of the Democratic party. Good job Hillary, you were able to get an active voter for the past 13 years OUT of your party. That's how you unite!

Do u homie....Good luck on all that...And great debates, BTW....

to set back any hope for progressive goals, then it's no big loss.

solid stances against citizens united, campaign finance reform, fracking, and predatory wall street while also tossing in some civil and social protections and health care, yeah I didn't know that was too big a compromise for the Democratic Party. I won't be missed because the Democratic Party is not a Progressive Party, and I thank Bernie for getting me out of the "Blue no matter who" fog.

>solid stances against citizens united,

Identical position to Bernie Sanders. The only thing you can do about that case is appoint a Supreme Court Justice who would overturn it.

The plaintiff in Citizens United was an organization that wanted to raise money specifically to run anti-Hillary propaganda. You'd have to be a complete idiot to think she doesn't vehemently oppose that decision.

>campaign finance reform,

An issue that's identical to Citizens United at this point. What regulations has Bernie proposed that differ from standard Democratic Party positions?

>fracking,

I'll be generous and give you that one. Personally, as someone who considers global warming the most serious single issue the world currently faces, I prefer her more nuanced, more informed position to Bernie's childish movement-driven "fracking is bad" position.

>and predatory wall street

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. She doesn't plan to put bankers in prison over the financial crisis, just like Obama didn't. And despite what he says to manipulate his crowds, Bernie wouldn't either. People still have to be convicted of crimes to be put in prison.

As for new financial regulations, Hillary's proposals are more comprehensive than Bernie's, and just as strict.

>while also tossing
>in some civil and social protections and health care,

She's fought for health care for over two decades. In fact, two decades ago, she took precisely Bernie's approach, right down to the expectation that a popular movement would rise up to fight back against the sinister insurance companies.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-2016-progressives-213916

We now have very clear evidence that that approach cannot work.

Now we're making progress. We've regulated the system, improved the market forces (you might not believe that, but Bernie Sanders does). We're still fighting for a public option, which in the long run will become a single payer system not through government fiat, but simply through the fact that it's better. This is how you make progress on this issue. This is how it happened in Canada, Australia, basically everywhere other than western Europe, where the economic collapse after WWII gave them a rare opportunity to build a system from scratch.

>yeah I
>didn't know that was too big a compromise for the Democratic
>Party. I won't be missed because the Democratic Party is not
>a Progressive Party, and I thank Bernie for getting me out of
>the "Blue no matter who" fog.

Just to put up my Trotskyite flag for a second: if Bernie were a real socialist, then he would care about party discipline, and he'd put it above his own vain ideas about his "movement." His ideas *aren't* fundamentally different from those of the Democratic party, and by misleading his supporters on that point, he has set back the very issues he claims to support.

if you will acknowledge that I need to revisit the prospect of voting for Hillary when I'm less ethical.

There is no emotion in this decision, it is logical. After I subtract my affiliation to the Democratic Party, what allegiance is there for me to give them my vote? Because Hillary isn't Trump? Because she's a woman? So is Jill Stein, and her politics align with mine in much greater capacity. The DNC is choosing their candidate and the party is moving moderately Republicany. That is their vision to have, but it is not my vision and I am not blind for not accepting it.

Look At u like ur a fucking idiot if u voted for her. U don't owe her or the democrats anything if that's how u feel. Ur one vote won't change the course of history. That's just reality. Ull live with the consequences of ur actions like the rest of us

U seem passionate about Bernie, I'm confused as to why u wouldn't vote for him? U can write in his name in November. I kno u aren't concerned with "wasting" ur vote right?

Bernie can win with independents (which is what he political iDs as anyway). That's what you all having been saying right?

1. I am a Bernie supporter but I am not beholden to "Bernie". My endorsement of his candidacy is more about his policies than just the man himself.

2. Other persons have similar positions to Bernie Sanders politically, so I can use my vote on them if I want to vote my conscious. But this is about one man having a "tantrum" and not voting for Hillary. This is about many people being dissatisfied with the coronation process of the DNC, and not accepting Hillary vs Trump as a real choice. It is about making a concerted landable punch for progressive issues.

3. There are more elections at stake than just the Presidential one. We are sort of like the Browns right now. We didn't get the quarterback we wanted in the draft, but we have a lot of holes to fill. We can still elect a progressive Congress which is the best approach in pushing actual legislation.

4. Right now, I would love for Bernie to team with Jill Stein (as her VP) so that we can keep progressive issues on the platform of the general election debates. Jill can face off with Hillary as to what an actual progressive woman looks like, and Bernie can face off with Elizabeth Warren, where she can tell him why THEIR stance on the issues is wrong.

I actually feel pretty liberated, and I have been in the Democratic Party longer than Bernie. I hope he gives no fucks.

>
>4. Right now, I would love for Bernie to team with Jill Stein
>(as her VP) so that we can keep progressive issues on the
>platform of the general election debates. Jill can face off
>with Hillary as to what an actual progressive woman looks
>like
>

I guess u are the authority on what a progressive WOMAN should look like, why not leave it at this is what a real progressive should look like. Bernie bros need to accept the latent gender issues they have going on

If Jill stein has the policies u support u shoulda supported her from the get. The policies of the Democratic Party didn't just change in the last six months.

>
>
And ur exactly right. It's way more than just the top of the ticket and there are plenty of diverse democrats down ticket that any considerate voter wouldn't wash away in full becuz they HATE (and you people do HATE) Hilary

>
>>
>>4. Right now, I would love for Bernie to team with Jill
>Stein
>>(as her VP) so that we can keep progressive issues on the
>>platform of the general election debates. Jill can face off
>>with Hillary as to what an actual progressive woman looks
>>like
>>
>
>I guess u are the authority on what a progressive WOMAN should
>look like, why not leave it at this is what a real progressive
>should look like. Bernie bros need to accept the latent gender
>issues they have going on
>
>If Jill stein has the policies u support u shoulda supported
>her from the get. The policies of the Democratic Party didn't
>just change in the last six months.

Um, no, I don't want to genderfy the politics, but that apparently is the lone requirement for Hillary Clinton to be Presidential right now. When you look at her policies she leaves much to be desired on a progressive level. I bring up Jill Stein's gender only because for her to square off again Hillary would diffuse the gender angle and have it be actual issues vs issues, and Jill should be revealed as the actual Progressive, and is also a woman. Jill is more to the left than Bernie Sanders, and some could say MORE Progressive. I definitely embrace her perspective on feminism more than Hillary's, but I am no authority on their gender identities. I WILL comment on the gender politics at play though.

>And ur exactly right. It's way more than just the top of the
>ticket and there are plenty of diverse democrats down ticket
>that any considerate voter wouldn't wash away in full becuz
>they HATE (and you people do HATE) Hillary

I don't hate Hillary. I strongly dislike her political shortsightedness and her noncommittals in times of necessary declarative action....when she DOES come through in this regard it is often on the wrong side of history. My avy sums it up: she is PROBLEMATIC. Not the devil, not evil, not a nuclear shit show. But I strongly question her motives and agenda once in the White House because of everything she has done leading up to this. People think we are getting Wellesley Hillary and we are getting Arkansas first lady Hillary.

If I hate anything it is that most of her supporters still cannot give me definitive reasons for why they are pro-Hillary for President. Her experience and decision making is questionable at best and at the very least very self serving. But I can clearly express why I support Bernie, and will not support Hillary. It has more to do with love than hate. I know there are people who desperately need the change that Bernie is proposing. I hate that people are so shortsighted that they would rather deny people health care and opportunity because they couldn't be bothered to wrap their heads around a concept beyond a few corporate talking points. The struggle continues though, and we are still fighting.

>solid stances against citizens united, campaign finance
>reform, fracking, and predatory wall street while also tossing
>in some civil and social protections and health care,

at least state what she has said she will do and what you disagree with
i see her talking about reforming the prison industrial complex, reduce oil consumption and renewable energy, stricter gun control, retaining obamacare (and hopefully we can more to a more sensible payer system) etc
her plan on financial reform is also pretty comprehensive

what do you disagree with, exactly?

>>solid stances against citizens united, campaign finance
>>reform, fracking, and predatory wall street while also
>tossing
>>in some civil and social protections and health care,
>
>at least state what she has said she will do and what you
>disagree with
>i see her talking about reforming the prison industrial
>complex, reduce oil consumption and renewable energy, stricter
>gun control, retaining obamacare (and hopefully we can more to
>a more sensible payer system) etc
>her plan on financial reform is also pretty comprehensive
>
>what do you disagree with, exactly?

So lets look at this point by point:

Prison Industrial Complex Reform - so she currently has a high position campaign staffer who is a lobbyist for the private prison complex. She has accepted numerous donations from private prison firms and lobbyists and they have been a long standing supporter of the Clinton since the 90s and the "three strikes" legislation. If she plans on "reforming" the private prison complex I don't know how she will be able to when these same institutions have given her millions of dollars.

Retaining Obamacare - Obamacare is an achievement, but it is built on relic Republican legislation that is very pro-corporation. Ultimately it covered about 90% of the country either in Medicaid or a mandate saying that you MUST purchase insurance. To me it almost got me evicted from my apartment because I all of a sudden had to pay for heath insurance on top of my taxes. The only thing I can point to Obamacare doing is that it helped my girlfriend resolve a foot injury she's had forever, and couldn't get access toward. But it wasn't Obamacare that got her fixed, it was Medicare. Bernie wants a single payer Medicare for all option to cut costs and guarantee health care as a right. Hillary says that we can not afford to make this a debate right now when 90% of Americans are now covered, and we should push for 100%. Meanwhile, on the corporate side, just at my jobs premiums are about to go up 40% in out of pocket month costs. There is no regulation on the pricing of the plan once you enroll. Many of my coworkers will just opt out of insurance and pay the fine (coming July 1st, 2016). So now we have paid for a year's worth of health care only to not go to the doctor, and to end up not covered and pay a fine at the end of the year. That is a broken system and we can do better.

Stricter Gun Control - no one disagrees with criminal background checks, and some are open to a ban on assault rifles. Clinton has said that Bernie was against gun legislation due to ONE bill he didn't vote on because it had so much pork and earmarks on it that it was not Halal for consumption. She had said he defended the gun manufacturers in the Sandy Hook massacre which is a distortion of the truth, and she also says more guns "per capita" come out of Vermont and end up in NYC via violent crimes. In my view, if she is going to take the moralistic positioning to condemn anyone's participation in witnessing gun violence, then she should probably not be such a strong figure representing brokering international arms and weapons deals which leads to civilians being terrorized in MUCH greater scale. She championed that position, and looks to continue it as President. She all but giddily danced on Gaddafi's grave, and I do not support her moralistic position on gun control. It is disingenuous at best.

Financial Reform - so Hillary cut her teeth as a lawyer helping WalMart become one of the largest corporations in the world at the expense of working class families. WalMart's corporate structure is one set on exporting manufacturing jobs to other countries, importing cheap goods, selling said cheap goods, and paying domestic workers minimum wages. On top of that, they subsidize the payroll by keeping employees earning enough to still qualify for food stamps and medicaid. That money comes out of your and my pockets. On TOP of that, she also has defended the import/outport bank which is just another means of subsidizing large corporations rather than provide monies to small businesses where it should go. So in summation, when I hear her say that $15 is too high, but $12 sounds better, that is exactly what I would expect for someone from WalMart's perspective to say. She is speaking administratively, and not on behalf of the millions of workers going without a living wage. She is instead protecting the earnings of a family with as much wealth as the combined lower 46% of the country. That is not financial reform that I wish to vote for.

Reduce Oil Consumption - "Reduce oil consumption" is another one of those empty rhetoric statements that she is famous for. So she will say something ambiguous like that, and then stay silent on clarification. So the reason she does that is because saying "I support fracking for methane gas extraction, and want to pipeline it across the country" isn't too popular. So for her to support fracking and methane gas production, when it is actually verifiable that it is WORSE of a carbon imprint than coal shows me that she is more in line with setting up an infrastructure to produce this product for decades rather then invest those decades in actual clean and green renewable energy. On top of THAT she also doesn't want to impose the carbon tax.

On nearly every issue she is on the corporate/establishment side of things. She is not fighting for US. She is fighting for US Steel. Not my vote. Never Hillary.

she is going to do.


>Prison Industrial Complex Reform - so she currently has a high
>position campaign staffer who is a lobbyist for the private
>prison complex.
here's what she says she wants to do:

PIC:
End the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory minimum sentences, and end private prisons.
Encourage the use of smart strategies—like police body cameras—and end racial profiling to rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities.
Help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter society.

Health care:
medicaid expansion is part of ACA, btw. so if your girlfriend resolved her foot injury using medicare- guess what? that's ACA. And the way ACA was originally envisioned, it was as a single payer system - so what bernie is saying isnt new. what he needs to have been saying is *how* he would achieve this, given that even Obama himself failed to get this (and clinton before him, btw).
clinton: Defend the Affordable Care Act and build on it to slow the growth of out-of-pocket costs.

>Hillary says that
>we can not afford to make this a debate right now when 90% of
>Americans are now covered, and we should push for 100%.

its true though. there has to be enough political support- otherwise we are back to where republicans did everything they could to decimate and illegitimize ACA. perhaps this increase in premiums *will* force the debate forward.
again, its not the what, its the how? none of y'all are saying *how* and acting as though its a decision one person can make independent of house and senate

>
>Stricter Gun Control - no one disagrees with criminal
>background checks, and some are open to a ban on assault
>rifles. Clinton has said that Bernie was against gun
>legislation

he was. this is inarguable. he believes its a state issue. well, thats the status quo.
this not about a vote on a bill. its about what he has stated
he can change his mind though, its allowed.

here's what she wants to do on gun control:
Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.
Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.
Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.


>Financial Reform - so Hillary cut her teeth as a lawyer
>helping WalMart become one of the largest corporations in the
>world at the expense of working class families.

have you read her policy prescription on reforming finance?
you should. its much more comprehensive than what anyone has put out there.

lets have a policy argument, not a discussion on what you *think* her policies are.

>
>Reduce Oil Consumption - "Reduce oil consumption" is another
>one of those empty rhetoric statements that she is famous for.

here's what she says on the environment;
Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards
Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities and give them the tools and resources they need to go beyond federal standards in cutting carbon pollution and expanding clean energy.
Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development

so im not sure what policies *you* are talking about
this sounds more like talking points.

but its fine. vote for whomever you want to (thats democracy)
but at least be honest about the policies of the person you decry.

This isn't what I *think* this has been the positions she's taken in debates, on her site, and through the press. Her voting record and alliances also show me how to think based on what she's done, but I will engage you.

>>Prison Industrial Complex Reform - so she currently has a
>high
>>position campaign staffer who is a lobbyist for the private
>>prison complex.
>here's what she says she wants to do:
>
>PIC:
>End the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory minimum
>sentences, and end private prisons.
>Encourage the use of smart strategies—like police body
>cameras—and end racial profiling to rebuild trust between
>law enforcement and communities.
>Help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter
>society.

Nice, I've heard it before, from other progressives, and for her to be the driving force behind the Clinton campaign that looked to push the Democratic Party more to the right, and introduce 3 strikes law, and mandatory minimums for crack possession vs cocaine is much of HER doing and influence. I see nothing genuine about her about face on the issues simply because she says it. In fact I totally reject it because of the private prison money she STILL takes, and because she decided to get out ahead of this story for the PR'ness of it. Don't believe her.

>Health care:
>medicaid expansion is part of ACA, btw. so if your girlfriend
>resolved her foot injury using medicare- guess what? that's
>ACA. And the way ACA was originally envisioned, it was as a
>single payer system - so what bernie is saying isnt new. what
>he needs to have been saying is *how* he would achieve this,
>given that even Obama himself failed to get this (and clinton
>before him, btw).
>clinton: Defend the Affordable Care Act and build on it to
>slow the growth of out-of-pocket costs.

So to clarify my point, it has been the point I have made with many Hillary issues: if you expand Medicare as a single payer system then my girlfriends foot would still be fixed. The ACA isn't a necessary component of expanding Medicare. It is there to protect private insurance and pharmaceutical companies to keep market rates high by excluding a majority of Americans.

>>Hillary says that
>>we can not afford to make this a debate right now when 90%
>of
>>Americans are now covered, and we should push for 100%.
>
>its true though. there has to be enough political support-
>otherwise we are back to where republicans did everything they
>could to decimate and illegitimize ACA. perhaps this increase
>in premiums *will* force the debate forward.
>again, its not the what, its the how? none of y'all are saying
>*how* and acting as though its a decision one person can make
>independent of house and senate

This country can not afford to censor ANY debate. To say the ACA works and we should just deal with it and move on because it was a lot of work is like saying "hold on now, we just got over Jim Crow. Now yall wanna vote? Let's not throw this country back into a debate". If Medicare expansion is a component of the ACA, then when when Bernie says let's have Medicare for all does it conversation not become "yeah, let's implement that portion of the ACA" instead of framing it as an ATTACK on the ACA? It is specifically because to protect that private interest it must be postured that that notion is unrealistic and unattainable.

>>Stricter Gun Control - no one disagrees with criminal
>>background checks, and some are open to a ban on assault
>>rifles. Clinton has said that Bernie was against gun
>>legislation
>
>he was. this is inarguable. he believes its a state issue.
>well, thats the status quo.
>this not about a vote on a bill. its about what he has stated
>he can change his mind though, its allowed.
>
>here's what she wants to do on gun control:
>Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in
>the current system.
>Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.
>Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers,
>other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

What Bernie has done has said he WANTS to have the debate, and that their needs to be a comprehensive conversation about the role of guns in our society. The 2nd amendment exists, and it is being abused. But there are rural parts of the country that have a different relationship with guns than the urban areas. The Sandy Hook angle was total bullshit because you don't sue Toyota because someone got drunk and crashed their car into you. That is not the manufacturer's fault. But on gun control in general, he nor his supporters are against background checks and stronger, stricter regulation. For Hillary to boo hoo as a mom over gun violence is laughable when she drone striking mad brown people in the face breh.


>>Financial Reform - so Hillary cut her teeth as a lawyer
>>helping WalMart become one of the largest corporations in
>the
>>world at the expense of working class families.
>
>have you read her policy prescription on reforming finance?
>you should. its much more comprehensive than what anyone has
>put out there.
>
>lets have a policy argument, not a discussion on what you
>*think* her policies are.

so I base my positions of her positions from her site:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/

It is against THIS backdrop in language that I roll my eyes at her "policy" because again, for her to have an about face on these issue seems very disengenuous when taking these same companies' money. I don't disagree that she said it. I disagree that she will do it. Her trade related decisions and prospectus is NOT about main street. She defends corporate subsidies, and even voted for the Bush tax cuts. NOW all of a sudden she is going to do an about face? I still don't believe her.

>>Reduce Oil Consumption - "Reduce oil consumption" is another
>>one of those empty rhetoric statements that she is famous
>for.
>
>here's what she says on the environment;
>Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency
>standards
>Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with
>states, cities, and rural communities and give them the tools
>and resources they need to go beyond federal standards in
>cutting carbon pollution and expanding clean energy.
>Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation,
>manufacturing and workforce development
>
>so im not sure what policies *you* are talking about
>this sounds more like talking points.
>
>but its fine. vote for whomever you want to (thats democracy)
>but at least be honest about the policies of the person you
>decry.


Again, referencing here:


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

(notice fracking isn't even listed, btw)

From HER stances, it is disingenuous. She is a master of skirting around the issues and saying just enough to sound in favor when in reality she is not doing an about face. If you can point me to where I am wrong I will GLADLY entertain it. But she is not anti fracking, she says single payer with NEVER happen, America's raise should be $12, not $15, arbitrarily, and that is IF she decided to hold onto those views heading into November. Naw, I'm good.

you know what HRC's list would look like. Stop it.

He got thrown into the lion's den lol. It was 8 on 1. Even the moderator (Anderson Cooper) got into the mix.
He better get extra hazard pay for this.


I'll skip to the real good part.
https://youtu.be/s2pqX27lc-4?t=9m36s

"It's not racist. He's calling attention to racism"

LOL

It's incredible to watch....A lot of careers r going to be defined by the Trump era...And not in a productive, positive way....

When it didn't work out the way he wanted. I'm not surprised in a sense that he took that savy politic route since he IS a Washington insider just like any other senator who has served for decades but if you have never identified as a democrat why would u run for the democratic nomination?

I mean I kno why, becuz u neeeded that platform. Most of ur rabid fans hadn't even heard of u a year and a half ago ( truly engaged progressives and ppl who pay attention to govt, or shit even ppl who listen to NPR regularly, have been aware of u forever), so you needed that large showcase, going against a big name in a very shallow field to get ur message out there. Cause u hadn't made enuff of a splash or impact in ur largely ineffective tenure in congress.

So u whipped all these ppl into a stupor to what end tho? Bernie let his ppl down worst of all and now he can go back to being an independent in congress.

Should run as in independent and the republicans who kno good and got damn well trump is a disaster need to be brave and break that party up.

Yet no one is willing to do that??? I don't get it. Bernie said Clinton is unqualified so seeing him "supporting her" will just be goofy. All these never Hillary yahoos are just deciding not to vote (many of the ppl at these rallies I expect aren't even registered tho lol) instead of encouraging Bernie to run??! Acting as if Bernie is the savior of humanity and ready to literally fist fight over him and then just giving up???

I wanna see Bernie and his supporters follow thru. If we democrats loose the White House then at least it will truly shake things up.

Is it becuz u all kno Bernie can't win?? Y'all harp about how the closed primaries killed Bernie, well let's see him in a general. No restrictions!

If Bernie, Clinton and trump are in it I don't think trump will win. If the repubs finally get some balls and run someone else it will be a four way race. That's what I'd like to see.

I.e. the House selects the president

I mainly want Bernie supporters to stand in their truth and back up their rhetoric

I am a HRC supporter. I think she would make the best president. But ppl need to be engaged with the political system and I think a strong multi party system would be a good thing and lead to more cooperation and consensus building than gridlock

I've lived under republican and democratic presidents. I've seen my rights expended and decreased. I kno their are dire real world consequences if the wrong person gets in the White House but I would also like to see the status quo rocked

To win, please see the elections of 1912 and 1948 for reference

And btw the second I think that person will be Clinton, whoever gets the most votes gets all the votes of the whole state. Even if the most 40 percent

>If Bernie, Clinton and trump are in it I don't think trump
>will win. If the repubs finally get some balls and run someone
>else it will be a four way race. That's what I'd like to see.
>

at the same time, bernie ultimately doesn't wanna "Nader" this election either --- he'd be taking votes from clinton. pretty sure the risks of this came up with in his convo with obama. i ain't saying it's right to be a good soldier, but he probably sees the possibility of trump sliding in as too great a risk.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/bernie-sanders-washington/index.html

(CNN)Bernie Sanders on Thursday emerged from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and vowed to work together with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November.

Warning that a Trump presidency would be a "disaster," the Vermont senator -- who pledged to continue his White House bid even after Clinton became the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee -- said he would "work as hard as I can to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the Untied States."
"I look forward to meeting with (Clinton) in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and to create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent," Sanders told reporters after an Oval Office meeting that lasted more than one hour.
The senator thanked both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden for showing "impartiality" during the course of the Democratic campaign.
"They said in the beginning is that they would not put their thumb on the scales and they kept their word and I appreciate that very, very much," Sanders said.
He added that he will monitor a "full counting of the votes" in California, where Clinton won the Democratic primary contest on Tuesday. The results will show "a much closer vote," Sanders predicted.
Sanders' high-profile meeting with Obama and his public remarks afterward come just days after Sanders declared that he intends to continue his 2016 campaign. At a rally Tuesday night, Sanders had declined to acknowledge that Clinton had secured the necessary delegates to win her party's nomination. He vowed to forge ahead to the District of Columbia's primary next week, and then on to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
This decision has put Democrats on high alert, as they look to quickly change gears and take on Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Progressive senator expects Sanders will campaign with Clinton
The Sanders-Obama meeting Wednesday marked the two men's second White House sitdown this primary season and the fourth time they've spoken in the last month. Aides said Obama would work to move Sanders toward an acceptance of Clinton as the nominee.
Senior Democrats say it's unlikely Obama will make any joint appearances with Clinton before next week's primary, the final nominating contest this year. However, a formal Obama endorsement could come earlier -- perhaps as early as Thursday.
Thursday has the potential to shed even more light on the senator's intentions and state of mind as the general election kicks off in earnest.
An aide to Biden says the vice president "plans on speaking to both (Clinton and Sanders) in the near future," but Biden was not be at the Sanders-Obama meeting. He also won't offer any endorsement before those conversations, the aide said.

White House officials hoped Obama could prod the Vermont senator toward eventually acting as a unifying figure for the Democratic Party.
"My hope is, is that over the next couple of weeks, we're able to pull things together," Obama told Jimmy Fallon during a taping of "The Tonight Show" Wednesday. "The main role I'm gonna be playing in this process is -- to remind the American people that this is a serious job. You know, this is not reality TV. I've seen the decisions that have to be made. And the work that has to be done. And I have a lot of confidence that if the American people are reminded of what's at stake and all the incredible important issues that we gotta get right, that they're gonna make a good choice. That's what they usually do."
Sanders will also meet in the afternoon with his long-time friend and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who has publicly said Sanders should "give up."
Reid wants to listen to what Sanders has to say and is not interested in strong-arming his colleague, according to a source familiar with Reid's thinking. The source added that Reid believes Sanders can be helpful in Senate races, including in raising money, and is open to any number of ways to unite the party.
In the evening, Sanders will attend a campaign rally in Washington.

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who has endorsed Sanders, told CNN on Wednesday that he is confident Sanders is committed to unifying the party and helping to defeat Trump in November. Continuing his campaign, Merkley said, is Sanders' way of ensuring that the voices of his supporters are heard.
"If you ask people to shut down a race early and their supporters don't have a chance to express themselves, it's much less likely they're going to come together afterward," Merkley said. "I think it's been very valuable to the party and to our nominee to have had the campaigns run their course and have everybody in America be able to participate."
Since clinching her party's nomination, Clinton has stuck to a conciliatory tone when it comes to her rival.
In her victory speech in Brooklyn Tuesday night, Clinton congratulated Sanders for an "extraordinary campaign" and sought to reach out to his supporters.
"Let there be no mistake: Sen. Sanders, his campaign, and the vigorous debate that we've had about how to raise incomes, reduce inequality, and increase upward mobility, have been very good for the Democratic Party and for America," Clinton said.
As a part of an overarching strategy to bring Sanders fans into the fold, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have no plans to call on the senator to get out of the race.
"Bernie Sanders has really done a great job for our country, for our democracy, certainly for the Democratic Party and for young people," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday. "Now, what's the next step? That's really up to him. He deserves the time."

Still, Sanders' stubborn refusal to drop out of the 2016 race and his sharp criticism of Clinton have irked plenty of Democrats.
Former Rep. Barney Frank, a co-chairman of the party's Rules Committee, has exchanged harsh words with Sanders. The senator asked the Democratic National Committee to remove Frank and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy from their co-chairmen positions, calling them "aggressive attack surrogates for the Clinton campaign."
In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Frank said he believes Sanders has "stirred up" anger among his supporters against Clinton. Sanders has every right to stay in the race, Frank said, but he also has a responsibility to bring them around to the party's nominee.
"I have a profound difference with his approach to how you bring about progressive change," Frank said. "I would hope that he would spend some of his energy persuading those people that they don't have to like her but if they believe in the values that his campaign is advancing, they have to help her beat Donald Trump."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-09/hillary-clinton-to-donald-trump-delete-your-account

Don't know if she originated them but seem fair:

"I'll have great respect you for supporting Bernie if 3 conditions are met

1. You can advocate for him independently without attacking HRC.

2. You also refused to support Kerry and Gore against W (to whom all the same HRC criticisms apply)... which shows you're applying an even standard. *BG Commentary: I think it shouldn't be against W but against Nader, Howard Dean or any candidate running left of Kerry or Gore*

3. You are also highly critical of Obama for being too moderate (he is way to the right of Bernie).

If those 3 conditions are met, I can see what we're really talking about is ideological differences which I can totally respect and understand. Otherwise to me it feels like double-standards and Fox news talking points"



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

but I get the logic behind her sensitivity.

I stopped advocating for/debate about Bernie here quite awhile ago. But I would hope that more objective observers like Murph and Strav would characterize my support for him as legitimate. (? lol)

Yes....Obama is to the right of Bernie. But I've opined here before that Obama (like all liberal candidates) had to play the game. In my view...Bernie is doing alot of things that Obama would WANT to do in his truest of hearts (campaign financing for sure)....but knew he couldn't if he wanted to acheive power. I supported Obama....but I wouldn't if he was going up against a candidate that was undertaking the stances that Bernie has. I'm a socialist.

What was spectacular about Bernie is he was the first real LEFTIST alternative in the D race. Supporting center-leftists previously was the best we could get.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282864-roseanne-barr-we-would-be-so-lucky-if-trump-won

Nice play.

and I was very confused why she would endorse him.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

paul ryan??? what you say???? mitch?? anyone???? 5 more mos of this shit...oh boy...

https://youtu.be/DoAriULv1P8

Did he just done watching Three Kings or something? lol
I would say this dude needs to stay with the prompter, but I'm not sure.

A regular campaign would do so research to figure out whether rabid, off the cuff is the better play than the "statesman" Trump. But from what I've seen so far, the staff/campaign is dysfunctional. So who knows what's going on.

I will say he's winning this week. He struck oil with this Orlando attack and he is cookin.

and the margin is widening BECAUSE of this week...what do you be lookin at my nigga?? Like Warren said..Obeezy put that nigga and the entire GOP in the sleeper today..and now they gotta answer for this Iraq vet shit. He cookin aiiight..he'll be served with fries and cole slaw by august


>Did he just done watching Three Kings or something? lol
>I would say this dude needs to stay with the prompter, but I'm
>not sure.
>
>A regular campaign would do so research to figure out whether
>rabid, off the cuff is the better play than the "statesman"
>Trump. But from what I've seen so far, the staff/campaign is
>dysfunctional. So who knows what's going on.
>
>I will say he's winning this week. He struck oil with this
>Orlando attack and he is cookin.
>

is it only when Hilldawg is up?

Cause if 2 weeks from now it's close I bet yall will say those polls are skewed.

I don't trust any polls these days.

I trust nothing.

Forget the head to head polls #'s...That's more political cotton candy.....

What u have to pay attention to is SPECIFIC poll numbers and trends....

Not only is Clinton rising and Trump is dropping in EVERY Poll, including FOX NEWS, but FIFTY-FIVE percent in that same Bloomberg poll said that they would NEVER vote for Trump...Usually, you want that number to be in the high 30's, low 40's in today's extreme political polarization. But Trump is knocking on 60 %....He's already on some record-breaking shit...

Oh yeah, 63 percent of women said they they would NEVER vote for Trump....That's basically the kiss of death for any candidate given that women are the most powerful voting block....

Nah dog...Polls def. matter early on (when you dig into the specifics)....

When you see Trump struggling against Clinton in a dark red state like Utah (Clinton is tied with Trump in Mormon country---which has been the most conservative state in the country consistently. They always go for the Republican no matter what....) there is indeed reason to panic for Trump...

Don;t trust the polls...Trust the trends and the numbers BEHIND the polls....

i bet my left kidney if numbers were trending the other way you would laugh them off as being "too early"


imo polls only matter when your side is winning.

>i bet my left kidney if numbers were trending the other way
>you would laugh them off as being "too early"
>
>
>imo polls only matter when your side is winning.


Nah...u still don't get it....When Trump was beating Clinton by 2 to 3 points that didn't matter to me...

But I was spooked as hell when I saw the poll numbers that Trump would do better than Clinton on foreign policy because that's a SPECIFIC number that matters. That poll spelled trouble for Clinton and I made that very point in another post.....Well, guess what?.....Clinton is now beating Trump in that department .....

Again, general head to head numbers pretty much go up and down, so I never put too much stock in that....They are useless in the summer....

What I care about is numbers like these:

77% women
73% moderates
52% white men
53% blue collar whites

These ^^^^ are Trump's unfavorable numbers right now.

U better believe if Clinton or any other Democrat had upside down numbers like that I wouldn't be dismissing them shits....lol

Trump is doubling down on his unfavorables.

Still not voting for Hillary. With numbers this big, who even needs to show up to vote Democratic tho? She's got this in the bag (c)

...in for a rude awakening.

Actually, in the specific targeted polls Clinton is rising....Head to Head battles she's seen an increase as well.....

When it comes to specifics like favorables to Latinos, women, working class white men, and blacks, Clinton's numbers have been climbing...Trump's nose diving....The only number that is alarming for Clinton is the untrustworthy issue, which can be improved upon once this whole email scandal dries up....

There's a reason why the Bernie Or Bust heads and the GOP are praying for an indictment....The numbers for Trump have been alarming.....

the worse part is instead of it clearing her, all it does is make he support system get looked at sideways. She got Obama and Elizabeth Warren looking sus' now. She is not teflon, but we will see.

I'm still mad over Cali. I had Bernie falling short about 100 delegates and 1 million votes. He looks to have even done better than that with the provisional ballots/exit polls. This whole primary has been a farce, but I'm looking forward to this new Green Party stint.

No one cares about Wall Street transcripts except for the HARDCORE Bernie faithful....

Emails are the only real issue Clinton has to deal with. That needs to be dealt with one way or another...

Other than that, 70 plus percent (according to polls) of Bernie's followers will be voting for Clinton against Trump...The rest of the 30 percent of the BernieOrBust folks will either stay home or vote for the Independent/Libertarian candidate....

And chill with the conspiracy theories as it pertains to the primary elections...lol...Clinton took it easy on Bernie and still cleaned his clock. She should def. be respectful of the man because of his powerful message. But this wasn't a close race....At all...

Glorifying the Iraq War as a "business opportunity"? And it reframes her horrible foreign policy vote as an actual conscious deliberate decision to send Americans to war for profit. Would that not be a red flag, and is the potential for that to occur unreasonable given her track record? It should matter to more people. All she has to do is release them. She says there is nothing to hide, so why hide them? Why are you so complicit to accept that she WONT be transparent? She clearly is afraid her damaged rep would take more of a hit of people saw it. Plus CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS THE ISSUE. If we don't get money out of politics none of the other stuff matters. It is almost idiotic for the American public to allow the NRA, Medicine, Banking, and Insurance lobbies in politics while also expecting gun, finance, and health care reform. She is the poster child for money in politics, and her silence on this is beyond troubling.

The Hill
Poll: Most disapprove of Trump's Orlando response
By Jesse Byrnes


Most Americans disapprove of Donald Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla., over the weekend, and a wide majority oppose his proposed Muslim ban, according to a new poll.

Fifty-one percent disapprove of the presumptive Republican nominee's response to the massacre while just a quarter of Americans, 25 percent, approve, according to the CBS News survey released Wednesday.

The CBS poll also found that Americans largely oppose one of Trump's signature campaign proposals to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States.

More than six in 10 Americans, 62 percent, think the U.S. should not temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country, while 31 percent said the U.S. should bar them.

(To read the rest go to: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283545-poll-majority-disapprove-of-trumps-orlando-response)

Any act of violence similar to Orlando should help him as long as he keeps his mouth shut lol

>long as he keeps his mouth shut lol

>
>>long as he keeps his mouth shut lol



This^^^^

Trump can't help himself...

Now he's even pissing off HIS SUPPORTERS by saying he will meet with the NRA to talk about banning people on the terrorist/no fly list from getting guns....Now we all know that's a the logical, intelligent thing to do.....But we are dealing with a classic loose canon....Dude's unpredictable nature was a huge asset during the GOP Primaries....Now, not so much....

BTW, it's going to be interesting so see if Trump can force the NRA to make that move. Even military and law officials agree with this move...

Either way, watching the GOP has been pure comedy....

get them to agree to this...congress wont pass it...if trump gets it done...and they wouldnt do it for the President...that will prove what we been thinkin all along..they aint passing shit bcz the Pres is black...edit..and allowing people to die bcz of it..

But tough guy deal-maker trump shows everyone how to actually get shit done. This is what real leadership looks like, etc...

This would probably be a pretty big W for him

>But tough guy deal-maker trump shows everyone how to actually
>get shit done. This is what real leadership looks like,
>etc...
>
>This would probably be a pretty big W for him


I could actually envision this^^^^^^

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

>I will say he's winning this week. He struck oil with this
>Orlando attack and he is cookin.





lol....

still scared the average American won't see through this bullshit.

I bet he will kill a puppy on stage with his own hands a day before the election if the polls are close.

oh.. and there was definitely some stealing going on in Iraq but it was Iraq's money (or so they say)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

still fucked up to say Vets stole it but he did that on purpose.

GOP voters picked Trump.....It is what it is....

they won't do positive news stories in the hood, but will do features on this asshole.

Why? For ratings. Their private profit interests is weighed greater that moral decency, and they are cashing in while our Democracy suffers.

$2 billion dollars is a strong endorsement, and investment. Plus without him and all his mess Hillary doesn't look as "appealing". You need him juxtaposed to give Hillary any favorable, because at least she's not Trump.

but still gave Trump all the free air time.

shit was so obvious, i will admit tho...i underestimated the power of celebrity in America. This is prolly the same resson Reagan is seen as God by the GOP. He had that smooth ass voice....

The media (my people) are human just like anyone else...They like a "good" story...And in the beginning Trump was a GOOD story that delivered solid ratings...Fucking hilarious at times riveting.....Bringing in that money.....

But that was the GOP primary...A whole other lifetime in political life....Now that the media sees that Trump is pretty much toxic to the rest of the public and that his rallies have been getting smaller and smaller, they r on to the next "story"......

or at least not zealously supporting him.

On Fox News, Megan Kelly is always ripping on him. O'Reilly seems very lukewarm on him. The commentators they have throughout the day mainly support him as the anti-Clinton.

Only Hannity and the judge who is always yelling seem to be securely on Trump's nuts

Yep...Shit is crazy....

But really it may not be that strange.....Trump has become, for a lot of his supporters, indefensible......Most of his "media" supporters were only holding their nose and riding with him because they HATE H. Clinton AND they were desperate to see a Republican in the Oval Office....

The problem is if Trump's numbers continues to drop and Clinton continues to rise, his media backers (and political backers) will turn their back on dude quick, fast, in a hurry....

and networks are owned by corporations who want to make sure shit doesnt sideways.

With Hillary FoxNews will eat good...

with Trump you never know... he refused to attend a Fox News debate and still won. He laughed at Fox News and made them look like fools.

he is supposed to lose to Hillary though, so now the love is diminishing. He has to be the dried out turd next to Hillary to let her turdness look more shiny. It worked for the most part.

He doubles down on his rhetoric with indefensible positions and all of sudden whaddayaknow? Hillary has a double digit lead, and all it took was for her to be compared to an unfiltered DONALD TRUMP.

>he is supposed to lose to Hillary though, so now the love is
>diminishing. He has to be the dried out turd next to Hillary
>to let her turdness look more shiny. It worked for the most
>part.
>
>He doubles down on his rhetoric with indefensible positions
>and all of sudden whaddayaknow? Hillary has a double digit
>lead, and all it took was for her to be compared to an
>unfiltered DONALD TRUMP.


Nobody held a gun to the GOP base's head...They picked Trump...This is no conspiracy theory...THEY fucked up...Trump is the logical result of the brazen racism and anti-intellectusim that has fueled Republicans for well over a decade.....The media never LOVED Trump..They LOVED his ratings.....

Dems have their share of problems....But the GOP as a party can no longer be taken seriously, which is quite dangerous...Because we need a strong Republican party so the train won't go all the way off the tracks....

At the moment the GOP is a fringe political party who just named a fake billionaire/reality show star as their candidate....It is what it is....

I don't think you get to critique the candidate when they have such an insurmountable lead.

Works for Hillary, so why not Trump? His victory was even MORE margin than hers* (especially with Cali coming in as a potential Sanders win)

*insert Goose/gander reference here*

U must be reading my posts backwards...lol

I never downplayed Trump's actual votes.....

Trump won the GOP primary because THE REPUBLICAN PARTY created the atmosphere for a Trump to get elected by an angered, racist base...It's all on them....

The GOP created Cheeto Jesus.....

But like I said, it's dangerous. Because this country needs a suitable 2nd party. Can't let the Dems think its a layup every four years during a Presidential election because the other party has turned to shit....

As for Clinton, Her/Obeezy/Warren/Joey B are chilling.....They looking at Trump like, "carry on....."

Bernie will join the team......And then the hardcore BernieOrBust folks will call him a sellout too....It's the circle of life!!!!!!!!!!!

How much crow do you need to eat before you overdose?
Denny, a lil help???

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-is-about-to-clean-donald-trump-s-clock.html



here is the thing, we've always wondered what a Trump terrorist attack bump looks like. We will know what that looks like by next week. If the numbers hold steady, then those are the numbers (barring a Clinton Indictment).



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

shit aint no puzzle..

https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-rally-in-greensboro-anger-in-here-is-palpa

trump aint winning shit in this country.....the cracka ass cracka primary win dont count....i stand firm by that...

we saw it somewhat with Limbaugh when Obama first got elected, when they were all scared to stand up to him, but this is next level now

Watching these guys jump through hoops every other day to denounce some shit he said, while still trying not to wind up in his cross-hairs is pretty fascinating

Chris Christie was always a shit governor, but he was also always seen as this no-nonsense, speak his mind. Bluto type, and Trump has publicly turned him into his bitchboy.

You know it's bad when the idea of a Republican with balls is Lindsey Graham

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

into a "Presidential" candidate that knows how to debate at a higher level then a ten year old.

“I am getting I-told-you-so delivered to my house by the truckload every day,” Rick Wilson, the Florida Republican consultant who has vocally opposed Trump from the beginning, told me. “I am eating up the I-told-you-so like a fat kid eats cake.”

Wilson had little patience for the idea that Trump might still turn it around. “He’s 70 years old. He’s a narcissistic sociopath. He’s not going to change,” he said. “There is no better version of Donald Trump, no mindful, serious, presidential version, only the reality-TV, con-man, pro-wrestling dipshit Donald Trump.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trump-at-a-crossroads/486743/

Even the nazi news...err national review wants a piece:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436686/donald-trump-general-election-pivot-myth

Denny already waved the white flag on Trump.

for me, its always been about my fear of first time idiot voters and Hillary having the last name of Clinton.

From jump i thought Trump worked for Hillary and i still think so given how fucking hard he is trying at saying dumb shit the last week.

I'm still a Hillary hater so i will say this: The media finally exposing Trump isnt shocking to me. A huge win by Hillary wont be shocking but... BUT i think anyone waving pom poms for Hillary will be in for a rude awakening. You dont win this easily unless its by design. The fuckery, scandals and gridlock is going to be thru the roof these next 4 years.

Then she could possibly have two years to try and get some shit done. Then the republicans will win at midterms and it will be over.

I also think she should really get Elizabeth Warren on the ticket. At first I thought a two woman ticket was crazy, now I think it's her best option.

I also think your Hillary Hate is conservative talking points going mainstream after 20 years but I ain't mad at ya (c) Tupac.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

i would be shocked if the dems are even trying to contest in enough districts to give them a majority in the house.

they probably can('t) overturn the house.

thats why her VETO power is just as important.

the GOP will try to ram down more bs legislation and without an veto proof House, it will be more stalemate.

Stalemate is good if it means keeping legislation damaging to the progressive agenda from become law.

Plus the Superior Court nomination possibilities of the next President will determine the national agenda for the next generation.

i dont trust her, you shouldnt trust her either.

The supreme court pick is the only bright spot for a Hillary win.

I dont expect anything else out of her presidency besides being the first woman to win the WH.

4 years of gridlock and scandals

http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-adams-donald-trump-is-a-clown-genius-2015-8

he thinks it will be a landslide for Trump in Nov. but i don't see how Trump can get around the numbers against him.

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/08/no_joke_dilbert_creator_scott_adams_just_loves_donald_trump_so_why_cant_he_just_admit_it/

he's just exploiting the same marks that trump is...establishing a secondary market.

it's not more than that at all.

it's not worth the bullshit that comes with exploiting the marks. He's doing all that because he likes Trump.

appreciation of bullshit and hucksterism is a big piece of this puzzle

which is not at all related to political genius or agreeing with trump. he might as well be fawning over the kardashians.

Trump is not doing this over two decades and Scott over five years because they love marks.

scott's been doing this for over 2 decades too. they both love marks because they love making money.

both Scott and Trump are doing more than "just taking advantage of an opportunity" when the opportunity last over 20 years.


>scott's been doing this for over 2 decades too. they both
>love marks because they love making money.

they're both successful because they have no compunctions about picking up and discarding opportunities. they simply don't care about being wrong.

just because they been doing it for so long doesn't change their nature.

they both also carry that good privilege....delusions of grandeur and lack of comprehension about the safety nets that have helped them avoid disaster even when they've faced failure.

>they're both successful because they have no compunctions
>about picking up and discarding opportunities. they simply
>don't care about being wrong.

Trump is successful because he is white and born rich Scott is successful because he is white and has a little talent. If they didn't care about being wrong and they discard opportunities the same way they pick them up, both of them would have pissed off the crowd they are trying to make money off now. It's more money and opportunity going against that crowd then it is working with them.

>just because they been doing it for so long doesn't change
>their nature.

Why take the smaller opportunity and money ?

>they both also carry that good privilege....delusions of
>grandeur and lack of comprehension about the safety nets that
>have helped them avoid disaster even when they've faced
>failure.

Yeah that's where the success comes from.

Only one of them took the nation by complete surprise to win the GOP nomination from out of nowhere.

I don't even know what to say.

I guess the author of the 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' is a Hitler supporter too? lol

Your are stupid enough to believe "minorities who Trump insulted will turn around and vote for him because of the Rob Ford strategy where he hands out money.

>I don't even know what to say.

Say you have a double standard for the white addicts you cape for anytime someone questions the way they are treated.

>
>I guess the author of the 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'
>is a Hitler supporter too? lol

No the author is not a supporter but I bet Hitler rise was due to the Rob Ford of his time that he copied. Just an observation.

His campaign proved every single mainstream political pundit wrong.

It's pretty hard to contextualize just how incredible his nomination has been. You can read okp threads here from the beginning of this campaign. If that kind of accomplishment doesn't constitute a 'political mastermind' I don't know what does. Any denial of his political talent is a SERIOUS shift in goal posts from 7 months ago.

>His campaign proved every single mainstream political pundit
>wrong.


It only proved that the GOP base is scared and racist.....

The mainstream political pundit machine got it wrong because they never bargained that the GOP primary voters would be , for lack of a better term, this stupid.

I (and others) told u what would happen once we got out of the "nutty" primary. Trump's xenophobic, racist, bullying message was catnip for a Conservative base given a steady diet of "Obama is a muslim" conspiracy theories and WE WILL STOP THE DEMS FROM ENACTING OBAMACARE because its evil, etc, etc (which they didn't).

But in a general election u need waaaaaaaay more than 14 million voters....None of this is particularly shocking....Only thing that surprises me is that the GOP, for years viewed as the "adult" party has become a an unmitigated joke...

Murph....don't make me reference previous posts. lol

Not really
most elections are decided by less than 5M ppl
Obama's 1st run he won by like 10M
In 84 Reagan won by like 17M
but the others were under 5M

last two cycles Repubs had 60M votes
If repubs can get that number of to 65M
dems got trouble...
Of course those extra 5M need to be strategically placed and can't be spread across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia
They need them votes in FLORIDA

He knew the GOP base was angry and prefer racist, crazy talk instead of boring policy talk.

Also look at Palin's rise and how they loved Clint Eastwoods dumb ass empty chair speech. GOP voters are dumb as shit... so he played dumb.

That isnt genius to me.

Trump knows how TV works and how GOP voters think....or dont think. His biggest problem is half the GOP hates him and they have deeeep pockets. If they arent on board i dont see how he wins. Hell, i dont think he even wants to win.

control though.

Proving Pundits wrong. All his accomplishments speak more to the state of the republican party than his political genius.

His success has been the equivalent of the Deez Nuts write in campaign.

Trump wasn't calculating, he was being himself and it struck a nerve with the crude racist wing of the republican party.


>His campaign proved every single mainstream political pundit
>wrong.
>
>It's pretty hard to contextualize just how incredible his
>nomination has been. You can read okp threads here from the
>beginning of this campaign. If that kind of accomplishment
>doesn't constitute a 'political mastermind' I don't know what
>does. Any denial of his political talent is a SERIOUS shift
>in goal posts from 7 months ago.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>His success has been the equivalent of the Deez Nuts write in
>campaign.


Bam.....!

>Trump wasn't calculating, he was being himself and it struck a
>nerve with the crude racist wing of the republican party.
>
>

Everyone who knows him says he's playing a character and he's even changed a lot since being in the public eye. This is intentional. He's playing up for the crazies.

he was playing a character over 20 years ago when he wasn't running for President, but was still making racist comments ?


>>Trump wasn't calculating, he was being himself and it struck
>a
>>nerve with the crude racist wing of the republican party.
>>
>>
>
>Everyone who knows him says he's playing a character and he's
>even changed a lot since being in the public eye. This is
>intentional. He's playing up for the crazies.

The level of conversation in these posts has taken a nosedive.

I'm only gonna say this one more time. Analyzing the way that Hitler used propaganda, persuasive powers and media to implement evil plans is NOT an advocacy of his agenda. In the same way....saying that Trump's use of media and persuasiveness and propaganda has been effective is not tantamount to advocating his agenda. That you can't differentiate between these things is, quite frankly, hilarious.

and avoiding the pathetic argument you made when you said

"Trump is pretending to be racist"

"there is no trace of any anti-hispanic sentiments in his past"

"he was a prominent, out-spoken, media-focused public figure for 30 years before he ran for president. Overnight....he switches from someone who barely EVER said anything about race to someone who ONLY talks about race."

" Compare the Trump public persona in 1995 to current day. They are two completely different people. He's a blank slate."

"And in 1973, he discriminated against people of color in his real estate business because of money. If he could profit by dealing with POC...he would've done so."

all of that.

>The level of conversation in these posts has taken a
>nosedive.

You really raised the conversation with the advocacy vs support straw man, and the quotes above.

>I'm only gonna say this one more time. Analyzing the way that
>Hitler used propaganda, persuasive powers and media to
>implement evil plans is NOT an advocacy of his agenda. In the
>same way....saying that Trump's use of media and
>persuasiveness and propaganda has been effective is not
>tantamount to advocating his agenda. That you can't
>differentiate between these things is, quite frankly,
>hilarious.
>

LOL more of the same, this transparent attempt to shift the focus of the conversation by you would look better if didnt spend all that time in previous threads talking about Trump using the Rob Ford plan, and handing the election to Trump every time something happens no matter what it is.

that's all this is
so they'd rather say his racism is a 'character' he is playing
and not the fact that he is a known racist (him and his father)
that the stupidity of his campaign is 'evidence of political mastermind, even genius'
or 'you people will eat crow when its thanksgiving and president trump'
this all makes them feel better about carping for drumpf
i mean.. its pretty obvious.

.

n/m

Why in the world do you think I want Trump to win or support him? Because I have identified what he's doing as being 'effective'? It's a quantifiable fact that it's been effective. He won the nomination lol.

We had a pretty good dialogue going on this board for months. What happened? Sadface.

Take the wall for instance. The belief I have (which is admittedly debateable) is that Trump has no intention of building a wall. I mean...he said as much off the record to a New York Times reporter. Lurkmode thinks this is me saying 'Y'know, Trump's not really a bad guy....he won't build a wall and he's not really racist'. Frankly, you have to be stupid to make that conclusion but I digress. My point is that he is saying what he thinks people want to hear.....so his rants are less an expression of his viewpoint but moreso what he perceives as being most likely to be conduscive with success. Which is incredibly dangerous. MORE dangerous than someone like David Duke.

Somehow...this is construed as an advocacy for Trump. Which is as stupid as that Saloon article about Adams. Saying Trump is 'effective' is not the same as saying 'I agree with Trump'. I vehemently DISAGREE with everything Trump says. And I was in a very small minority in taking him seriously from the get-go. He scares the shit outta me because I think he's capable of doing it.

political mastermind genius.

>Why in the world do you think I want Trump to win or support
>him? Because I have identified what he's doing as being
>'effective'? It's a quantifiable fact that it's been
>effective. He won the nomination lol.

Why in the wold would you defend and make excuses for someone who is a racist no matter how much they are using that racism to get elected. That does not make Trump a "blank slate"

>We had a pretty good dialogue going on this board for months.
>What happened? Sadface.

You had an ass backwards dialogue from the beginning.

>Take the wall for instance. The belief I have (which is
>admittedly debateable) is that Trump has no intention of
>building a wall. I mean...he said as much off the record to a
>New York Times reporter. Lurkmode thinks this is me saying
>'Y'know, Trump's not really a bad guy....he won't build a wall
>and he's not really racist'. Frankly, you have to be stupid
>to make that conclusion but I digress. My point is that he is
>saying what he thinks people want to hear.....so his rants are
>less an expression of his viewpoint but moreso what he
>perceives as being most likely to be conduscive with success.
>Which is incredibly dangerous. MORE dangerous than someone
>like David Duke.

I said nothing about you giving Trump a pass because of the wall, why lie when your words are in this thread and I can pull them up. What I said over and over is you believe Trump can get the minority vote that he insulted by handing out shiny things or money,because Rob Ford did it.

>Somehow...this is construed as an advocacy for Trump. Which
>is as stupid as that Saloon article about Adams. Saying Trump
>is 'effective' is not the same as saying 'I agree with Trump'.
> I vehemently DISAGREE with everything Trump says. And I was
>in a very small minority in taking him seriously from the
>get-go. He scares the shit outta me because I think he's
>capable of doing it.
>

You made up this advocacy argument to avoid the real questions that you keep running from because you can't answer them. Overtime you avoid answering regardless of the excuse or lie you use to avoid them it proves you have no credibility on anything political and none of your comments can be taken seriously. Your Bernie support is lip service just like Scotts Hillary support.

Nah....Denny was never on it like that.....His whole thing was using history as his guide....He often times made the connection between late Toronto mayor Rob Ford and the rise of Trump. And in a sense his instincts were correct....Ford's outright racist tone and doing-too-much behavior was a template for Trump's take over of the GOP...

I think the stumbling block with Denny on Trump....The political dynamics in the US have always been more partisan and extreme than Canada.

But I don't think Denny WANTED Trump to win....That was never his angle....

>
>Nah....Denny was never on it like that.....His whole thing was
>using history as his guide....He often times made the
>connection between late Toronto mayor Rob Ford and the rise of
>Trump. And in a sense his instincts were correct....Ford's
>outright racist tone and doing-too-much behavior was a
>template for Trump's take over of the GOP...

When Denny makes comments like this

"Trump is pretending to be racist"

"there is no trace of any anti-hispanic sentiments in his past"

"he was a prominent, out-spoken, media-focused public figure for 30 years before he ran for president. Overnight....he switches from someone who barely EVER said anything about race to someone who ONLY talks about race."

" Compare the Trump public persona in 1995 to current day. They are two completely different people. He's a blank slate."

"And in 1973, he discriminated against people of color in his real estate business because of money. If he could profit by dealing with POC...he would've done so."

he is not using history as a guide. His instincts are not correct, he is stating the obvious. Trump is running on racism just like Nixon with the Southern Strategy, Goldwater, Reagan and Bush. How is trump taking over the GOP when they are running from him ?


>I think the stumbling block with Denny on Trump....The
>political dynamics in the US have always been more partisan
>and extreme than Canada.
>
>But I don't think Denny WANTED Trump to win....That was never
>his angle....

Why is he giving trump a pass ? The quotes above say it.

These two are so diametrically opposed that there should be no fence riding

this is worse than obama-romney

I guess those Republicans that hate Trump more than they love HRC are the ones, huh?

you can actually add the people that voted in 2012 and in the 2014 midterms together and not quite make it to 100% of the people that could have voted in either election.

at this point, "on the fence" is more likely to mean "i may not vote" than "i'm not sure who i'm going to pick."

and many of those people who will vote this year still aren't enthusiastic about their choices.

diametrically opposed is putting it pretty strongly. they have a lot in common. and they both fail to address, or address incorrectly, lots of issues that matter to people.

i know i vastly prefer one candidate, but it's not shocking that other people don't feel that way.

It's THAT different

At least Obama and Romney were "close" on some issues

But these two???

how specifically i disagree with that statement would depend on how deep you want to take the analogy.

but also, if people were voting between the panthers and the klan, a lot of people would sit that one out or seek a third option.

>how specifically i disagree with that statement would depend
>on how deep you want to take the analogy.


1. Minimum Wage
2. Gun Control
3. Abortion
4. Programs for the underserved
5. What to do with illegal immigrants already here?
6. MUSLIMS!!!