There aren't enough out and out libertarians in America and culturally Ron Paul simply doesn't have the charisma / gumption to have effectively challenged the liberal status quo (ref: political correctness, media bias and dishonesty, etc.), so I don't think he would have appealed to the 'disaffected masses' in the same way as Trump.Originally Posted by Lewis
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...-working-class
This is quite smart re: Trump and the working class.
Trump leading in another poll, 46-44:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/post-...ry?id=39265102
Lol at this delusional, condescending caricature of Trump supporters by an author desperately trying to rationalize the increasingly discredited and fast crumbling relevance of the secular globalist intelligentsia.
.
You realize Trump polls better with minorities than Romney, right?
I feel like I should provide a non-dickhead translation here;
'Lol at this condescending picture of Trump supporters from an author struggling with the idea that society is changing.'
Using longer words doesn't make you appear smarter.
That feel when the peasants think your casual speech is threateningly verbose.
"Now watch thisfree throwdrive!"
Bernie posted on Facebook that he's going to debate Trump in California.
Part of me thinks it's a terrible idea, part of me thinks it will be the pinnacle of American politics for at least 20 years.
The ratings for that spectacleBernie posted on Facebook that he's going to debate Trump in California.
Part of me thinks it's a terrible idea, part of me thinks it will be the pinnacle of American politics for at least 20 years.
Although honestly I'm more excited for Trump to go in dry against Crooked Hillary.
Looks like Trump chickened out.
Why would Sanders do that? You can't like the nominee if you are not, in fact, going to be the nominee and have no chance of being so. It's a bit pathetic.
TYT have put up a million dollars for charity to do the debate.
Everyone needs to go and read Trump's speech on energy policy.
Bernie is starting to look really fucking salty about losing the nomination.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...c-694626371717
Starts at 5.30.
Rachel Maddow just reported that the Sanders campaign has demanded that Governor Malloy of Connecticut and Barney Frank be removed from their positions as chairs of the Platform and Rules committees at the convention because they won’t be fair enough to Sanders. If the DNC does not give in to this demand, the Sanders campaign has announced that it will use all procedural means to grind the Convention to a halt.
The left usually lose with such grace as well. Especially when they don't particularly like their [nominal] party to begin with.
It comes back to the same point that they simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand why people vote against what they perceive as their own self-interest.
Sanders is really losing a lot of the goodwill that he'd built up by being such a fuckhead as soon as it's clear he's going to lose.
He is. I daresay it's quite an immature way to behave. It's also 'stringing people along' and making it more likely that Trump will win by polarising the Democrats further for absolutely no advantage whatsoever.
I think it's a smart thing. Means he's not attacking Hilary in the lead up to a general and looking to get genuinely left leaning people into positions of power inside the DNC. Thought the Chris Hayes segment on this was very good.
P.S. Chris Hayes, literally the only thing on 24 hour news worth watching these days.
It's still a long time to the general. I wish he'd bow out now, and I don't think he's helping anyone by continuing on.
But there's a lot of news cycles between now and the election, and Trump is going to do what he can to be the loudest in all of them. When it comes down to Hilary v Trump, the narrative will swing to the point that Sanders will likely be forgotten entirely.
I don't mind him staying in, he's as entitled to run as anyone, but he's being a brat about it. It doesn't matter who's in what positions at the convention mate, Hillary handed your ass to you. It's over.
Is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz upset?
I think he cares more about the issues he's campaigned on than the actual presidency, and just wants to keep banging the drum and sustaining the movement he's built. See also the offer to debate Trump. Given the shite thrown at him recently, the smug attitude of the party and the corporate media, not to mention the outright corruption, he might as well go fucking big.
There comes a point where it's counterproductive. Hillary's won the nomination. If you believe Trump is going to be a disaster, surely you recognise the reality of the situation and start throwing your weight behind the Democratic nominee.
All he's doing by going in is driving wedges into the Democratic base and, potentially, alienating independent voters who wonder why the fuck he's bothering and whether it's worth trusting the Democrats when this is the sort of shite they're pulling. It's not just the presidency - it's the associated Congress races and a united party is far better than this.
He's doing it to keep Dave going.
No he's not. All his fights have been ignoring Hilary completely. Saying Barney Frank made a bad bill and that the DNC chair isn't up to the job is exactly what a losing candidate should be doing. Shaping the politics of the party for years to come due to him winning multiple states on said platform. The only people who are following the DNC race at this point are Politics Nerds like ourselves who couldn't matter less. It's not going to effect the General whatsoever. Outside of the selected candidate not following important positions to those that did vote for Bernie, obvs.
He's not shaping the politics of the party. He lost and the blunt truth is he never looked like he was going to win. Even where one excluded the super delegates, he's never been ahead nor looked like being ahead. To suggest that he's gaining anything from this apart from looking bitter and refusing to accept that the ride is over is a significant misreading of the situation. There's also no guarantee whatsoever that the youth he has supposedly energised are going to remain engaged for any length of time. Such idealism soon meets its end when confronted with reality and pragmatism.
What a losing candidate should be doing is gracefully bowing out having, you know, lost. Sticking the boot into your own party (well, they weren't his party until a year or two ago) and then presumably needing to turn around in four or five months and campaign for everybody else to trust that party? That's going to be a difficult thing to do, because he's going to look like someone who can't make his mind up.
You're such a nark.
It must be difficult to see another supposed socialist be roundly rejected by the electorate. It might help if they actually did some self-reflection instead of SEETHING over it and trying to pretend they're CHANGING THE PARTY.
Nobody cares. If they did, they wouldn't keep losing heavily.
Surely everyone recognizes that Bernie is still in it because Hillary is liable to get indicted...then he will be poised to pick up the pieces
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c91_story.html
From a totally pragmatic standpoint, you're just wrong. He is literally helping to shape to party platform. If he dropped out he wouldn't be doing that.
You're literally just wrong. It's as simple as that.
I pointed out practical things he's doing to shape the party in the future. You just spouted bollocks for twice as long while saying half as much which can basically be summed up as 'BECAUSE NARRATIVE'.
The results aren't bearing out this "roundly rejected" or "losing heavily" stuff. The seethe is all yours.
He is, to be fair, 300 elected delegates or so behind Clinton. It's not a close race.
Out of 4.051 delegates. That is less than a 10% difference. Total blowout isn't it?
To suggest that he should shut up because he has been 'roundly rejected' when he has won 46% of the pledged delegates so far is fucking stupid.
'Losing heavily'
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...n-georgia.html-50% of Trump fans think Hillary Clinton had some involvement in the death of Vince Foster, to only 13% who think she didn't and 37% who aren't sure one way or another. This is another example of the cult like aspect of Trump's following. He says something and his voters get on board with it for the most part. We saw a similar dynamic with his claims about Arabs in New Jersey cheering on 9/11.
-Georgia removed the Confederate flag from its state flag in 2001, but Trump fans in the state want it back. 52% want it reincorporated back into the Georgia flag, compared to only 29% who would be opposed to doing such a thing. By contrast voters with an unfavorable view of Trump oppose, 14/76, putting the Confederate flag back into the state flag.
-Trump fans are pretty ambivalent on whether they even think it's a good thing that the North won the Civil War. Only 37% say that they're glad the North won, compared to 31% who wish the South had won, and 32% who aren't sure one way or another.
-Finally we find that Trump fans support his practice of calling Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas,' 50-31. Among voters who have a negative opinion of Trump, 86% think it's inappropriate to call Warren by that moniker to only 10% who find it acceptable.
31% wishing the South had won.
This is it. Nor has it ever been close. He has never looked like winning, and has been nothing more than a spoiler. Fair play to him, but the race is over. The Democrats aren't going to lurch to the left, and you're not going to have swarms of people who wouldn't vote Democrat move to the party. Clinton's supporters who suggested after the primaries in 2008 that they'd never vote for Obama then went and did so. In much the same way, most of his supporters will end up voting for the Democratic candidate or not voting at all.
If you lads want to convince yourself that 75 year old Bernie Sanders getting a respectable second in a two and a quarter horse race is evidence of some great imminent change in Democratic politics, then crack on. You'll be in for a disappointment when Clinton and the rest of the Democratic representatives in Congress get on exactly as they would have if Sanders hadn't bothered.
And who said that exactly?
Welcome to the South.
'Dixie Land' is a fucking corker of a song, so I kind of wish the south had won so I could listen to that for Olympic gold medallists in wood cutting and hog baiting.
Its like reading an echo chamber.And who said that exactly?
My favorite version:
Goose bumps every time. Makes me want to move to the Deep South, work as a big-shot local lawyer, live in a neo-classical mansion with large Greek columns in the front, marry a blonde sorority girl wife from a tier 2.5 state school, and have the entirety of my social life revolve around football tailgates.
Glass houses.
You might need to look up what it means, mind.
New high energy poll has Trump within 4 against Hillary in deep blue New Jersey (Romney lost by 18):
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-jersey-223724
Hilary's reached the magic figure then, but Bernie's going to run for the duration just for the lols. There's a Reuters poll out today that has her ahead of Trump by 10.
The other interesting thing the past few days has been how many high profile Republicans have turned on Trump after his comment about that judge. He's since gone on to suggest Muslim and female judges would probably discriminate against him as well.
Slate had a decent piece on the latter:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...el_attack.html
I mean he's right. The judge has ties to radical pro-immigrant groups who have spoken exhaustively against Trump, he's only human, he will almost undoubtedly by biased against him. Despite the faux outrage coming from the center-left mainstream media (which some RINOs still mistakenly believe to be relevant), nobody cares or buys that what he's said is at all contentious.Hilary's reached the magic figure then, but Bernie's going to run for the duration just for the lols. There's a Reuters poll out today that has her ahead of Trump by 10.
The other interesting thing the past few days has been how many high profile Republicans have turned on Trump after his comment about that judge. He's since gone on to suggest Muslim and female judges would probably discriminate against him as well.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...607-story.html
I was intrigued what part of this article would uphold merts arguments about this radical pro-immigrant group who has spoken exhaustively against Trump.
I found this
Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump's aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers' association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization.
You've gone from being an asshole to an infowars level conspiratard. Well done.
Reply With Quote
