Slashdot Mirror


Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton (cnn.com)

It's official. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday endorsed former presidential rival Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee ahead of the party's July convention. Sanders said Clinton will make an outstanding president and that he is proud to stand with her. "Hillary Clinton understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty," Sanders added. CNN reports: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president," Sanders said at a joint rally here. "Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination and I congratulate her for that." The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged his support to his former rival: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States." Clinton, speaking after Sanders, declared: "We are joining forces to defeat Donald Trump!" "I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side," she said. "You know what? We are stronger together!" Full remarks of Sanders can be found on this blog post.

644 comments

  1. Lets trump TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets trump TRUMP!

    1. Re:Lets trump TRUMP! by xevioso · · Score: 0

      Go back to 1939 Germany, Fascist.

    2. Re: Lets trump TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up fascism, then come back. We live in a fascist country. Government/Corporate

    3. Re: Lets trump TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you look up fascism, instead of relying on a misattributed quote.

    4. Re:Lets trump TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being anti-Communist makes you Fascist? You know Fascism is closer to Communism than the Laissez-Faire system that the US was originally setup for right? There is nothing more American than being anti-Communist.

    5. Re: Lets trump TRUMP! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      No, we don't. Sharing some aspects of a whole doesn't make a whole.

      There is no leadership principle, there is no government coordination of industry, and as in the case of Spanish Fascism, there is no labor movement co-opted into the system. And the Nationalism aspect is definitely not focused on any one group.

      China is more a candidate for fascism than the US, especially from the corporate coordination aspect. Which makes sense, since this is where "National Socialism" and Socialism/Communism have common ground. They believe the State should take the lead, they just differ in what it looks like (Corporations vs. Communes).

    6. Re: Lets trump TRUMP! by losfromla · · Score: 2

      In our version of Fascism, the labor movement has been declawed and decimated.
      Corporations have taken control of government through the economic strong-arm method of campaign donations and lobbying.
      Would you argue that we don't have a rabid nationalist bend? How about all of the military service hero worship? The you're either with us or against us mentality? The Patriot Act?...
      There are many ways to arrive at Fascism.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    7. Re: Lets trump TRUMP! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Not saying I agree with everything that happens in the US, but I don't think fascism is accurate to what it is. It probably needs its own name.

      There's nationalism, but there is far too high of a (legal) immigrant population here for it to take on the characteristics of what you'd see in Europe. We may be rabidly American, but we're much more accepting of what an "American" is. You're seeing some of that nativist sentiment, but given the last few years of Presidential elections, we're definitely more likely to elect someone who stands for "diversity".

      As for corporatism, in fascism, the corporations don't run the government, the government runs the corporations. It's not exactly like state ownership, but the business owners are expected to remain in the good graces of the government and there is back and forth, but the State remains the prime mover.

      In 1930's Germany, for instance, the Party collected an more or less obligatory Adolf Hitler Fund which was collected as a sort of voluntary tax from corporate donors which was then used to do things like give payments to German generals directly from Hitler personally to them. To use a more modern example, it would be like if Hillary Clinton "encouraged" corporate donations to the Clinton Foundation and then used Foundation money to pay off the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other government leaders to encourage them to stay in line.

      The important thing is that this was not campaign contributions. The Nazi Party could tap their foot and put out their hand, and the owners of German businesses would pony up.

      In our case, Clinton is more likely to be owned by the corporations then the other way around. She gets money from them, but that decision is firmly theirs, and purely based on the corporation's needs, not the State's. That's not incredibly democratic, but its not fascism.

    8. Re:Lets trump TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wanted Bernie to win but if it comes down to Hillary or Donald, I'm sorry, I have to go with Donald.

      Hillary Clinton represents all that is stagnant. Both Bernie and Donald want to shake things up.

    9. Re:Lets trump TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than socialists. I'd rather see this world burn than you fucking leftists get your way. A good dose of fascism and the accompanying misery is just the medicine to teach you "people" and the retarded masses how good they had it before, and may be the only thing with the stomach to punish the boomers.

    10. Re: Lets trump TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary for prison 2016!

    11. Re: Lets trump TRUMP! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There is an element of corporatism in America. But it's not fully there.

      For near classic fascism look at China. Nominally socialist but really just authoritarian with the communist party in power.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. The DNC overlords always get their way by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Corporate Overlords want Clinton. Resistance if futile. Anyone who votes for Clinton is enabling more of the same, ad infinitum.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    1. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. I just hope that enough seats flip in Congress to prevent Republicans from obstructing Hillary for the next eight years the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.

    2. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure - but all this "principled opposition" that Sanders supposedly brought turned out to be no so principled as we thought.

      Clinton and Trump both epitomize everything that is horrible and deporable about American politics. People like to pretend that they wouldn't vote for someone just for wearing a (D) or (R), but this election is the test. Will you vote for one of the worst two candidates ever, just because of their party affiliation?

      If so, you can't complain about your choices ever again, because you put your stamp of approval on this.

    3. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DNC just lost the election IMHO.

      All hail the rise of the idiocracy.

    4. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Clinton is the most owned presidential candidate in history.

      She is not only owned by wall street firms and big corporations, she is owned by foreign powers who "donated" money to the Clinton "Foundation". And the funniest part is, she may even be owned by Vladimir Putin!

      Right now Putin and Trump are in a love-fest because Trump (having fascistic tendencies) expressed admiration for Putin. But if sometime before the election Putin does a U-turn and starts bashing Trump and says nice things about Clinton, you know something really strange is going on. Like, Russian intelligence got a full dump of the Clinton email server and found some pretty seedy stuff and want her to become president so they can blackmail her into signing treaties favorable to Russia.

    5. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      The DNC just lost the election IMHO.

      The electoral map disagree with you. Hillary needs to flip two states, probably Florida and Ohio, to win the election. Trump will have to flip over quite a few more states to come in striking distance of winning the election.

    6. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      middle ground fallacy.

    7. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by KenHansen · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just hope that enough seats flip in Congress to prevent Republicans from obstructing Hillary for the next eight years the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.

      Uh, no.

      Dems controlled House & Senate for first two years, the Dems had to pass PPACA (Obamacare) before Scott Brown was sworn in, taking Ted Kennedy's vacated senate seat.

      Then Republicans took the House and Dems controlled the Senate for 4 more years, until the republicans took control of the Senate for the last two years of Obama's second term.

    8. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by krisbrowne42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I call BS on that. In every meaningful way, on domestic policy Hillary has been among the furthest left leaning people in DC for decades. IF that's not far enough on the spectrum for your taste, that's as bad as the tea party extremists who say their way or the highway. She has fought for a progressive agenda from her first days out of college, with an incrementalist approach that has meant walking the nation further to the left year by year instead of failing by trying to force a nearly ideologically split nation beyond it's comfort. She's made missteps, but when you've been on the national stage for that long that's bound to happen, and she has grown every step of the way. The byproduct of that is that she's evolved to be the best candidate available for the seat of the president.

    9. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1, Troll

      Hillary doesn't care about passing legislation. As long as she is president, she can finally make all her enemies regret the day they crossed her. In fact it's probably better if her republican congressional foes are seen as obstructing her, as it will dull criticisms of her from the left.

    10. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      Hillary needs to flip two states, probably Florida and Ohio, to win the election. Trump will have to flip over quite a few more states to come in striking distance of winning the election.

      So you are saying Trump has Florida and Ohio, unless Hillary can flip them? Keeping states is easier than flipping them in my opinion.

    11. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Here is the map in case anyone is interested. Incidentally, a lot of those polls are out of date (some from May), and a lot can change.

      The election is starting to solidify between Trump and Clinton, and people realize you have to choose one of them; tribal instinct will kick in and they'll choose a side (I won't: I've already chosen third party). People will forget they ever supported Cruz, and find new reasons to support Trump ("oh, I realized he isn't actually Hitler, and look, he has an R, my preferred party").

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RNC can't because they can't control anything. The Republican party is a total and utter irreparable mess. You have too many clashing conservative view points and nobody in the Republican party can agree to get along. That's the problem when you have a bunch individuals only looking out for themselves instead of truly trying to work together to make this world a better place. Not that the Dems are a lot better, but overall that party tries to help their fellow man.

      Democrats, while they have their problems, behave more like adults.

      Republicans behave more like 5 year olds. Have fun fighting over your balls on the playground.

    13. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Yunzil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Corporate Overlords want Clinton.

      Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.

    14. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Informative

      Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority for about 17 weeks, from the delayed confirmation of Al Franken to the death of Ted Kennedy.

      Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks? The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    15. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying Trump has Florida and Ohio, unless Hillary can flip them? Keeping states is easier than flipping them in my opinion.

      Keep in mind that the 2016 electoral map is nearly identical to the 2012 electoral map (where Obama became the second president since Eisenhower to be reelected with a 51% majority). Florida and Ohio went Democratic in 2012. If these two states flip for Hillary, she wins the election outright. Otherwise, she will need to flip two or three other battleground states to win.

    16. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    17. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The primaries are where you vote for a person. The general election is where you vote for a party. Like it or not.

      I can not imagine walking into a polling booth and thinking, "Hmm... I'm a republican, but I don't really like Trump, so I guess I'll vote for Clinton."

      Dafuq?!?!? Yet those people are the ones who ultimately decide the outcome.

      Just like those people who vote for a third party as some kind of protest vote. All you're accomplishing is basically handing a vote to the candidate you like the least.

      I didn't care much for McCain or Romney, but I sure as hell voted for them because they were "Not Obama". This time, I don't care who is on the R ticket - could be Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Comacho himself and I'd still vote NOT-CLINTON.

    18. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      These two are indeed the worst candidates ever. I don't live in a swing state so I won't be voting for either of them, but if I did live in a swing state, I would probably vote for Hillary, and it certainly wouldn't be because of her D. It's because I think the wars Hillary will start while still horrific tragedies, will probably at least contain some strategy beyond simply being an arrogant blustering asshole. Starting dumb wars, contrary to popular opinion, is not a partisan issue.

    19. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disagree - don't want Trump, but Hillary with a strong republican congress might repeat the Bill Clinton era. Hillary with a strong democrat congress is going to railroad a lot of garbage through... the best years have traditionally been with opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    20. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tehlinux · · Score: 1

      >I'm gonna take this thing all the way to the convention

      I think he was talking about the campaign fund though...

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    21. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have missed the "behave more like adults" when they were violently no-platforming people that have different opinions.

    22. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just hope that enough seats flip in Congress to prevent Republicans from obstructing Hillary for the next eight years the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.

      I don't. I think we're safer when one party holds Congress and the other the White House. Both parties want to stomp on my civil liberties; they just want to stomp different ones. Vote for gridlock!

    23. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority for about 17 weeks, from the delayed confirmation of Al Franken to the death of Ted Kennedy.

      Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks? The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.

      HAHAHAHAHA...oh, you're serious. You've actually forgotten "You'll need to pass it to know what is in it?"

    24. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The Corporate Overlords want Clinton. Resistance if futile. Anyone who votes for Clinton is enabling more of the same, ad infinitum.

      Exactly!

    25. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years." .. In what way was Obama obstructed? What did he want that the R's blocked? They rolled over every single time. Have you not been paying attention? This is why Trump is so popular.

    26. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      I find it quite interesting comparing the UK to the US in this respect - they are quite the opposite of eachother.

      In the UK we have the Labour party (the mainstream left wing party) tearing itself apart over doctrinal and ideological disagreements (symbolised by its current leader who is fighting for his survival this evening, but running much deeper, and largely going back to the days of Tony Blair), whereas the Conservatives have had their leader, PM Cameron, resign and they have reasonably quietly and peacefully selected a new leader behind which the whole party has unified without much noticeable dissent.

    27. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(I won't: I've already chosen third party)" .. Then you have chosen to support Crooked Hillary. Plain and simple. This is only a 2 person race.

    28. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook. Enough Democrats will hold their noses and vote for her, that she will likely win. There are very few people who actually "want" her, but that is all they have for the D. The fact that Trump, who has negatives almost equal to Hillary won the GOP sweepstakes is also very interesting, especially when you look at Bernie's campaign successes.

      The fact that Bernie called Clinton "unqualified" throughout his campaign, and is now supporting her is a testament to the Party politics that both D and R people have expressed in the election this year. That alone helps two people, Trump (outsider) and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian.

      My guess is, when push comes to shove, nobody gets close to 50 % of the popular vote. If Gary Johnson gets closer to 20%, there will be a HUGE uproar as neither Trump or Clinton will get 40%. My biggest hope is that Johnson gets very close to 30%, and wrecks the idea that the president (Clinton / Trump) has any sort of mandate to do anything.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    29. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.

      Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices, because that's what the party tells us to accept.

      The question is whether a voter has principles, or whether they don't. It's simple.

    30. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Yes, they took their time so much they were voting on Christmas Eve.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    31. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you still THINK that the fundamental reason for Repubs blocking Obama is racism, you're just a lost cause.. There, FTFY.

    32. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Troll

      If you still deny that the fundamental reason for Repubs blocking Obama is racism, you're just a lost cause.

      It has nothing to do with his race...it has to do with his radical policies that he wants to enact to fundamentally change the US from what has worked well for the history of the country, into a more European socialist model with the Federal Govt in charge of all our lives....

      It is his radical policies that were blocked.

      That and his complete refusal to work with congress and try to at least come to some meaningful compromise.

      Hell, Bill Clinton faced a Republican majority...and he was able to work with them and actually get some meaningful stuff done.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary

      Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.

      You may not like Obama's policies. There are a lot of Obama's policies I don't like, but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president, and that he'd cause a huge depression, and that he'd take away all of our guns, and that he'd put people in FEMA camps for being white, he's done pretty well. Most people agree, according to his approval polls. Although, of course, it could just be people realizing that no matter what they think of Obama, he's going to be better than the next president, whoever that might be.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo..

      Another eight years of "NO NEW TAXES"??? Another eight years of buying votes with Obama-bucks (where's the money coming from)? Another eight years of getting closer to full socialism?? (DNC remember)

      Just remember to pay your fair share of taxes each year and you will be part of the status quo.

    35. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather protest vote for the the candidate I like the least than put my vote of approval on either of the major party assholes. Also, unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't matter so who the hell cares if you vote 3rd party?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    36. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Trump will start a war?

      Read Scott Adams blog about it.

      Clinton, on the other hand, has a proven history of starting wars.

    37. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you voted for Hillary you fucking moron.

    38. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Confirmation bias much? You can't seriously think what you just said is true. Do you really think it is hard to write / read more than one piece of legislation in 4+ months when you don't even have to negotiate with the opposition? Most of this shit is pre-written from years ago and previous attempts anyway. It isn't like they sit down with a blank page on day one of the 4 months.

      I am glad they didn't do more but to claim they were incapable of doing more because they did "one thing right" has to be the most insane thing I have ever heard.

      Seems like you are not only admitting the government is so incompetent it should not run ANYTHING, but you are doing so with enthusiasm. I work on thousands of pages of complex legal documents over a 4 month period, with far less resources than the government has, and my small group (3 people) manages to close many complex deals over a 4 month period. It would be even easier if I had a super majority and didn't need to negotiate any of the deal points.

    39. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, he just knew the context of the statement, something most people quoting Pelosi ignore.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    40. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Nickodeimus · · Score: 1

      In point of fact, you want the seats in congress to be filled with the party in opposition to the person who creates the agenda. Our government is designed to stop the passage of legislation so that people can be allowed to live their lives peacefully, without the interference of the government.

    41. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "(I won't: I've already chosen third party)" .. Then you have chosen to support Crooked Hillary.

      What, you think I would have preferred Trump over Hillary?
      It's more important that third parties become viable than that "the wrong lizard doesn't win," and that's why I vote third party. Better yet if parties die altogether.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    42. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks?

      A whole lot if they'd been united and competent.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    43. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      The congress has been the only thing standing in the way of letting Obama ruin us further and fundamentally change everything that made the US great to begin with.

      Yet it was the Republican Party that made Obama one of the most powerful presidents in U.S. history by not doing their jobs and abandoning the power of the purse.

      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/barack-obama-gop-most-powerful-213814

      Hell, look how much a challenge a self proclaimed Socialist did in the primaries??!?!?

      You do realize that "Socialist" is an empty label that doesn't mean anything?

    44. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "The fact that Bernie called Clinton "unqualified" throughout his campaign, and is now supporting her is a testament to the Party politics that both D and R people have expressed in the election this year."

      No. It means Clinton is unqualified but Trump is an order of magnitude less qualified than that. Seriously, anybody who can't figure that out is a straight moron.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    45. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the majority people don't have to vote for either candidate or even consider it. Most states are so heavily slanted to one party or the other that it's incredibly unlikely that their individual vote will have any influence on whether the candidate they prefer of the two wins or loses. If that's the case for you, why waste your vote choosing between the lesser of two evils when there's a different candidate that you'd actually prefer?

    46. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by faw872 · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. I just hope that enough seats flip in Congress to prevent Republicans from obstructing Hillary for the next eight years the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.

      How did republicans obstruct Obama for 8 years? Democrats had full control of congress for some of that and the president doesn't legislate anyways. He is the commander in chief and does suggest a budget, but if he doesn't sign laws, he is the one obstructing.

    47. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president,

      and i would argue that DID happen. dallas, orlando, ft hood. boston, san bernadino sure number of casulaties dont match but i just pulled 6 terroristic acts out of my ass that took place under obama. i would guess you are using 9/11 level to refer to total deaths but id argue its the fear instilled that counts not the numbers

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    48. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Our government is designed to stop the passage of legislation so that people can be allowed to live their lives peacefully, without the interference of the government.

      When the government got shut down for 16 days in October 2013, I was laid off specifically because of the government shutdown and out of work for eight months. The Republicans agreed to same budget deal that they would have gotten if the House Republicans have followed "regular order" without shutting down the government. That government action (or inaction) interfered with my life. Ironically, it got me a government IT job.

    49. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Yet it was the Republican Party that made Obama one of the most powerful presidents in U.S. history by not doing their jobs and abandoning the power of the purse.

      I agree!!

      They've been pussies as far as this is concerned, this is supposed to be one of their "checks" against presidental overreach.

      That and they for some reason, have NO CLUE how to handle the optics on it and let Obama blame congress for the govt shutdown, rather than blame the president and make it stick.

      Hell, Billy Clinton tried shutting down the Federal Govt, and then had to back off that back then.....

      You do realize that "Socialist" is an empty label that doesn't mean anything?

      Ok..then lets be a little more specific...he'd like the US to be more like something between much of Europe (even Greece) and Venezuela.....and, a basic philosophy that the larger Federal Govt should be the supreme authority of the land (wearing the states' rights even further), and that all money should flow to them because they know best how to spend the citizens' money across the country and set all social policies as well as business policies and regulations.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    50. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason they didn't put any legislation through is because they're happy with the status quo.

      American politics are so far gone that the "progressive" party is content to leave most things as they are; in comparison to the conservative party that wants to roll everything back by 60 years.

    51. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Both are 100% unqualified. Not sure how you get beyond 100% unqualified. But go ahead, and justify all you want. You're the reason we have Trump and Hillary in the first place.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    52. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How did republicans obstruct Obama for 8 years?

      Filibuster in the Senate. Foot dragging on judicial nominations. Passing legislation that appeals to the base but has poison pills that won't attract Democratic votes. Etc., etc., etc.

    53. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      if Obama became president...and that he'd take away all of our guns,

      Well, to give him credit he deserves, Obama is STILL constantly trying to ban them and would like take them away if he could (per his consistent examples and admiration of the Australian model where there was essentially weapon confiscaton)...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    54. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Sure - but all this "principled opposition" that Sanders supposedly brought turned out to be no so principled as we thought.

      No, the real problem with Sanders is age. If I could vote, that's the reason why I wouldn't pick Sanders. He otherwise has a good platform. The problem is we're voting for someone to be in office for 4 to 8 years, and given the known stresses (compare Obama's 2008 photo to now), I don't want to vote for a leader who might keel over in his first term.

      Yes, it's a bit ageist, but the rigours of governing has a tendency to be very physically demanding

    55. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just like in 2008.

    56. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did republicans obstruct Obama for 8 years?

      I think they slowed him down a little when they had to go out and buy a new rubber stamp after wearing the first one out.

      So there's that.

    57. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Passing legislation that appeals to the base but has poison pills that won't attract Democratic votes.

      Well, pretty much the SAME thing the Democrats do when they had congress and Reps had presidency?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    58. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.

      Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just cried a little bit as you forgot the years they ran Congress...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    59. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So, if she doesn't flip Ohio and Florida - who wins?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    60. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary

      Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.

      Only if you fudge the inflation numbers (which this Administration has been doing). Run the numbers with the same CPI calculations as used back in the 70s and 80s and you'll find inflation is running about 7-8%, and that puts the economy still in a recession.

      But hey, it's OK we're still running a real deficit of $1.4 trillion, annually, so it's all good!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    61. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by interiot · · Score: 1

      Corporations own Trump too. (in June, Trump got $51 million in donations, and loaned his campaign $3.8 million.... as a loan, he expects donations to pay back those loans)

      Until Citizens United is revoked, all candidates have to suck up to corporations to have a chance in elections.

    62. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      Hillary is nearly as old, she just dyes her hair.

    63. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton was a dumbass. Come on, the most powerful man in the free world with a army of SS goons at his beck and call, and a real army. An yet he couldn't even keep a simple blow job a secret?

      The smartest thing Bill did was surround himself with people smarter then him and shut the fuck up. He let them do all the work and he just played the saxaphone. Come to think about it, maybe he is smarter than he looks.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    64. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clinton is still on precarious legal ground,
      She can still be charged with failing to safeguard classified information,
      She can be charged 18 U.S. Code 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally,
      The FBI still has an RICO investigation going on The Clinton Foundation and
      There's at least two instances of perjury.

        What could Putin add that was any more damning; Clinton supporters just don't care, they either think Hillary can do no wrong or they're in the #anybodybutTrump camp.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    65. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      She also has a much more sense of entitlement and a feeling that the rules don't apply to her.

      For some reason, the FBI agrees. Rules don't apply to her, but those exact same rules do apply to everyone else and would end lesser peoples careers. I guess she should feel entitled?

    66. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      Well, pretty much the SAME thing the Democrats do when they had congress and Reps had presidency?

      The Democrats are willing to COMPROMISE. The Republicans can't COMPROMISE because that will get them voted out of office.

    67. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      If these two states flipfor Hillary, she wins the election outright. Otherwise, she will need to fliptwo or three other battleground states to win.

      If Hillary has to flip these few states, from what is she flipping them from? From her opponent, of course. And as I said, flipping is harder than keeping, IMHO. If Obama won Ohio and Florida last presidential election, why does Hillary have to flip them to her favor?

    68. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by NetNed · · Score: 2

      That's cute. You think all Hillary's votes are actual people and that no voter fraud happened. Yes, I am sure the woman who had half as many people at her rallies "legitimately" won.

    69. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... who would flipping Congress be maintaining the status quo? The choice is between pure, unadulterated evil status quo (Hillary) vs garden variety stupid evil status quo (Trump) or vote third party to shake things up.

    70. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something Tripped him up...

    71. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eight years of Hillary? I vote for a 2018 Hillary Clinton Half Dollar.

    72. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If Obama won Ohio and Florida last presidential election, why does Hillary have to flip them to her favor?

      Obama wasn't supposed to win Ohio. Karl Rove had epic meltdown when Fox News called Ohio for Obama. No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio. Once Ohio went to Obama, and Florida got called for Obama, the election was over Mitt Romney. History could repeat itself in 2016.

    73. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority...

      As a reminder, it doesn't take a supermajority to control the senate - as proof, you need look no further than the current Senate where Republicans control it without a supermajority... Same with the House. The value of a supermajority is the ability to override a Presidential veto, as I recall - it only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate.

    74. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is still running though. So..... the revolution is still on?

      http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/07/12/hold-up-is-bernie-still-running-for-potus-after-endorsing-hillary/

    75. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More legislation != better

    76. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have chosen to support Crooked Hillary. Plain and simple.

      Not plain and simple. My state was already going to support Crooked Hillary. Whether I vote Trump or 3rd party, Hillary will "win" my state. At least if I vote 3rd party, people might take notice to the fact that Trump came in third place instead of second.

    77. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      Not sure how you get beyond 100% unqualified.

      Hillary is corrupt, and a criminal, and a terrible choice. Trump has proposed arming middle eastern despots with nuclear weapons, and is pro-nuclear proliferation. That is how you go beyond 100%.

    78. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you "protest vote" for the candidate you like the least, your vote doesn't matter either except in the sense that it is killing you and those you love, slowly.

    79. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      He's only 4-5 years older than the previously oldest president. Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at inauguration.

      If the only reason you can give for not voting for him is age, fuck, I don't even care if he dies in office. At least we get a year or two that way, rather than giving up and getting none at all.

      I don't want to vote for a leader who might keel over in his first term.

      Why, exactly? You're afraid of being embarrassed? Grow up.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    80. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I'd expected, my respect for Scott Adams is further diminished...but to a vastly greater degree than I could've imagined.

      He first tries to nitpick away Trump's history of bigotry (arguing that most of it isn't technically *racist* therefore it's nothing to worry about) and then he goes into straight-up apologism on the topic of the subset of Trump's rhetoric which is unmistakably racist (and therefore not OK, unlike other forms of bigotry apparently?). He even praises Trump for using racist rhetoric, painting it as a clever tactic to be admired. Wow. Finally he plays the "colorblind" card, blames Trump's opposition for "talking about race" and trivializes dog-whistle racism in case my eyes weren't at full roll before. Does this stuff work on white American baby boomers? It doesn't work on me for sure.

      He says that Trump isn't a loose cannon in business even though he's famous for "altering the deal" with construction contractors and other smaller companies. He makes the same mistake that Trump himself does, mistaking an overwhelming advantage in economic power for "deal-making skills."

      Then I start reading his defense of Trump's proposed ban on Muslim travel and I feel like stopping, but I push on through this nonsense. This is boilerplate Islamophobic spiel that no intelligent person would take seriously. Fuck you and your Islamphobia, Scott Adams.

      Then his apologism for Trump's mysogyny and homophobia ties it all together into a grand finale: He deflects by repeating Trump's Islamophobic and anti-Mexican bigoted arguments, argues that he can't be mysogynistic because he wants women to own guns (like everyone else), but also because he hires women in his companies and insults others equally (Also like everyone else! Is doing the same for women that he does for others noteworthy or not?), and finally he implies that hiring women is at least partially fashion-driven.

      As a footnote he says that he's voting for Hillary because he's worried about his safety if he votes for Trump (uh, what?) and then notes that as a 1%er life is super-good for him right now and he's worried Trump could raise taxes on him while he's pretty sure Hillary couldn't.

      Fuck Scott Adams. I had no idea he was this much of an awful human being until now. So thanks for linking that article. I'm still a "rabid anti-Trumper" but now I hate Scott Adams too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    81. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by halivar · · Score: 2

      More importantly, you can override a filibuster. A supermajority can rule without compromise or deals with the minority.

    82. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by KenHansen · · Score: 1
    83. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by zieroh · · Score: 1

      The value of a supermajority is the ability to override a Presidential veto, as I recall - it only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate.

      Yes, but you need 60 votes to invoke cloture.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    84. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      ... racebaiting ...

      If I had an English version of the old Nethack Scroll of Genocide, I'd use it on this word. The implication here is that racial minorities are just fine with their treatment in this country until some jerk comes along and points out to them how bad they have it. Like they've got no clue whatsoever how their own lives are going, and what is responsible for it. If everyone would just keep pretending there are no problems, there will be no problems.

      Anyone who would use this word is clearly one of the people who'd blame the little kid for the Emperor having no clothes, because that damn brat pointed it out.

    85. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democrats, while they have their problems, behave more like adults."

      Could you please make this true and stop with the childish name calling then? Seriously, if I ever hear "teabagger" again I may punch the person who says it.

    86. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by zieroh · · Score: 1

      i would guess you are using 9/11 level to refer to total deaths but id argue its the fear instilled that counts not the numbers

      I'm going to go out on a limb and state that 9/11 instilled more fear in people than Dallas, Orlando, Fort Hood, Boston, and San Bernardino. Combined.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    87. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by DogDude · · Score: 1

      See, that's the thing. He hasn't made "horribly, horrible policy". He didn't start any unnecessary wars. He didn't significantly take away the rights of regular people. He didn't increase taxes on poor people. He didn't embarrass the US. So, for somebody to say that he has made "horrible, horrible" policy, says that that person is either a racist, or a moron.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    88. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a non-swing state you fucking moron. Regardless of who I vote for, the winner is already decided. At least voting 3rd party has a chance of disrupting who comes in second place.

    89. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.

      It took them so long to pass Obamacare because the legislation was so far left that even the moderate members of their own party wouldn't vote for it, and they spent weeks negotiating and offering concessions to each one of those members to assure they'd have the votes to pass it. If the Republicans had passed legislation in a similar fashion, the Left would be screaming about how corrupt and an affront to democracy the whole process was.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate

      To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring several Republican senators aboard; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7 â" when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties â" due to disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. Then, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedyâ"a longtime healthcare reform advocateâ"died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote.

    90. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

      The Democrats had to negotiate with senators in their own party.

    91. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

      as I recall - it only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate.

      If no one launches a filibuster.

    92. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by colinrichardday · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is his radical policies that were blocked.

      Like appointing Merritt Garland to the Supreme Court.

    93. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why Bill was better. When the midterms came and Ds lost, he took that as a sign to move more center. O took that as a sign to move hard left.

      One person can't be realistically expected to know everything, but if that person can surround themselves with experts in the right areas, and actually listen to them, much good could be done.

    94. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      The Democrats are willing to COMPROMISE.

      You mean, like when they rammed through Obamacare on a bunch of deliberate, knowing lies, and did so without being able to muster a single vote of support from the Republican party because their opposition knew it would be the disaster it's turned out to be? A law that the Democrats said would have to be passed before we could know what's in it? Where was their compromise on the single thing they bothered to do while they held both the executive and legislative branches? They weren't willing to compromise, created a monstrosity, and lost their control of the legislature BECAUSE they weren't willing to be reasonable on the matter. Your narrative is, as you know, false on the face of it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    95. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by quantaman · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary

      It that the only source of opposition? Absolutely not.

      But Trump, one of the most prominent birthers, just won the Republican Primary on a platform of keeping out Mexicans and Muslims.

      To think that race didn't play a major part in a lot of anti-Obama sentiment is to be in massive denial of the current state of the political right.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    96. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can Putin add you ask?!?!

      Hillary Clinton had A YEAR to scrub that server - and absolutely did. The whole FBI case was based on the emails she forgot to delete. Whatever she deleted must be so bad that even a Clinton isn't slimy enough to slither out of.

      You can be certain that Russia and China have those emails. And will use them.

    97. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      [...] a single vote of support from the Republican party [...]

      The Republicans refused to vote on the final bill because they knew the Democrats had enough votes to pass it. They did, however, co-sponsored or sponsored 200+ amendments that went into the final bill. In short, they got their goodies while pretending to oppose the bill.

    98. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.

      Only if you're at least in the top 5%. For everyone else, living paycheck-to-paycheck, the bills are getting higher and the paycheck isn't getting any bigger. And there are less people working, and more underemployed than since the Carter recession. They keep faking the unemployment numbers, too. Somehow it goes down even though there are less new jobs than there are people entering the workforce. They don't count all the people that have exhausted their unemployment benefits and/or have given up and gone to work for Uber.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    99. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      he has bombed more counties than bush did..... thats just one of your points

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    100. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by westlake · · Score: 0

      Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.

      Trump won in the Republican primaries despite the opposition of the GOP establishment. Sanders lost in the Democratic primaries because the geek couldn't deliver the votes.

      The "corporate overlords" as the geek describes them have been standing up for a open and humane secular order that is distinctly different from the toxic nationalism that defines Donald Trump and the theism of the religious right that dominates the GOP.

    101. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you seem to have missed the term "illegal" and it isnt mexicans its all non americans. This is half the problem when people misrepresent the actual argument, its hard to have a civil disccusion about anything

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    102. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens United, that sounds like a good thing!

    103. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your way of seeing it. The other way is that everyone in the Converservative party has been running away until there was only one reasonable choice left who even WANTED the job. The job of doing something she doesn't even believe in. Whether that actually means the differences are resolved we'll see once they actually start negotiating.
      Then again, apart from the "everyone running away" part I guess that it's rather Labour that's qualifies for the "behaving like 5 year olds" of the OP, so maybe I am just nitpicking your comparison.

    104. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your argument would be bullshit, as those were individual uncoordinated actions by a few deranged persons with no connection with each other while 9/11 was dozens of people working together to achieve a unified result.

      Frankly, short of a complete police state, I'm not sure how these people would be prevented. They get a gun. They start shooting. What do you want to do?

    105. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sure number of casulaties dont match but

      Maybe you don't remember what happened after 9/11. The economy crashed. Two wars were started. Air travel was halted.

      None of the events in the past eight years even come close to that sort of effect on us as a nation. I mean, we're talking about jetliners being flown in skyscrapers and the Pentagon, for chrissake. Are you so mental over a black president that you don't see the vast difference?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    106. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, to give him credit he deserves, Obama is STILL constantly trying to ban them and would like take them away if he could

      You know that's not true. Nobody wants to take your gun away from you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    107. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "(I won't: I've already chosen third party)" .. Then you have chosen to support Crooked Hillary. Plain and simple. This is only a 2 person race.

      Unless he lives in a swing state (most people don't) then a vote for either Hillary or Donald is "wasted". In the short run, it is a race between 2 people. In the long run, it is about ideas, and a vote for a third party is more likely to bring new ideas into the Overton Window.

    108. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      But hey, it's OK we're still running a real deficit of $1.4 trillion, annually

      Nah.

      http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/1...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    109. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Only if you're at least in the top 5%. For everyone else, living paycheck-to-paycheck, the bills are getting higher and the paycheck isn't getting any bigger.

      Now you're talking about a trend that's been going on for 30 years, since Ronald Reagan.

      Trickle down is gonna trickle down, and we're all trickling down.

      But the economy is still growing and still not in a recession.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    110. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      See, that's the thing. He hasn't made "horribly, horrible policy". He didn't start any unnecessary wars. He didn't significantly take away the rights of regular people. He didn't increase taxes on poor people. He didn't embarrass the US. So, for somebody to say that he has made "horrible, horrible" policy, says that that person is either a racist, or a moron.

      Glad you like everything he's done. I don't, and it doesn't matter what his heritage is. He's been the most divisive president in a generation. First president to kill US citizens by executive fiat, without trial. Guantanamo still open, despite promises. "You can take that to the bank!" he said, about leaving Iraq, which is a worse mess than ever. NEW, yes, UNNECESSARY wars in Libya, Syria, and Egypt. The EPA shutting down farmers because of dirt. Massive new land grabs in the western states. The FDA now completely beholden to the pharmaceutical companies (what a MESS Obamacare has created - single payer would have been better, but you gotta pay back all those political supporters in the health care industry). Illegal immigrants released from jail back to the streets to commit more crimes because ICE refuses to take custody of them. Running guns for Mexican gangs and drug cartels.

      He actually took away the land rights of a LOT of regular people (oh, I guess that's not "significant' enough), and, yes, he did increase taxes on poor people - tobacco taxes for one, anyone that can't afford health care gets taxed (yes, they are poor), and there are lots of tax increases for the elderly (such as cuts to Part D coverage), and lower (some years NO) COLA increases in SS benefits. I guess now that the rich are doing so much better under Obama than anyone else, it's okay to squeeze more taxes out of the middle class instead, because he's certainly done plenty of that. Much of it has been increased regulation - which has increased costs of compliance by 13%. All that gets covered by higher costs to the poor and the middle class.

      If you don't think Obama has embarrassed the US, you might want to ask some folks in the Middle East or Asia. It's not embarrassing to you that a ragtag band of religious fanatics has taken over so much territory using weapons the US left there???

      You can call me names all you want, but my opinion of Obama is not informed by race, but it is informed by actions.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    111. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

    112. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      Once Ohio went to Obama, and Florida got called for Obama, the election was over Mitt Romney. History could repeat itself in 2016.

      Not likely. Mitt Romney isn't even running in 2016.

    113. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      The Republicans refused to vote on the final bill because they knew the Democrats had enough votes to pass it.

      They didn't refuse to vote on it. Stop lying. They voted AGAINST it, for all of the reasons they articulated despite Reid's and Pelosi's every attempt to obfuscate and hide the nature of the bill, and Obama's choice to repeatedly lie about its content and consequences. The Republicans were, across the board, aware of what a disaster it would be, just as it has turned out. They had plenty of suggestions about things that would hugely mitigate that disaster, but Pelosi and Reid kept those pieces of the bill, and even simply kept Republican lawmakers from even participating in the closed-door sessions drafting the bill they then said we'd have to pass before we could see. The Republicans didn't "get their goodies," they had to vote 100% against the bill because the only goodies that would have made a lick of difference were completely ruled out by Obama and Pelosi as off limits: shopping for insurance across state lines, dealing with tort reform, etc.

      Your whole "they chose not to vote on it" is just fabricated out of thin air. Why BS about something so demonstrably false? They (the Democrats) had enough trouble even getting all of their own party to vote in favor of the bill, as many of the more intellectual honest in their own camp expressed prescient and accurate misgivings about the wreckage it would cause.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    114. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Corporate Overlords want Clinton.

      Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.

      She got more votes from the people because The Corporate Overlords willed it so.

    115. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Only if you're at least in the top 5%. For everyone else, living paycheck-to-paycheck, the bills are getting higher and the paycheck isn't getting any bigger.

      Now you're talking about a trend that's been going on for 30 years, since Ronald Reagan.

      Trickle down is gonna trickle down, and we're all trickling down.

      But the economy is still growing and still not in a recession.

      Two things have happened since Obama took office: He did nothing to reverse that trend, in fact it has accelerated (and that according to the New York Times). The other thing that happened is further tweaks to the "official" economic numbers - they are hiding a lot of inflation. If you calculate it the same way they did in the past, the GDP would have grown even slower or shrank in some quarters.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    116. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Just like those people who vote for a third party as some kind of protest vote. All you're accomplishing is basically handing a vote to the candidate you like the least."

      You're confused, and just plain wrong, which is typical of ACs. It's when you don't vote for the person you like most, that you're throwing away a vote.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    117. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Half the people on my FB feed seem to want too :P

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    118. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primaries are where you vote for a person. The general election is where you vote for a party.

      Can't think of any nations where you vote for a party, not a person.

      This time, I don't care who is on the R ticket - could be Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Comacho himself and I'd still vote NOT-CLINTON.

      Ah, see, you just contradicted yourself. You don't want to vote for a party, you want to vote anti-person.
      The problem is, Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate, and that means Trump in this case.

    119. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Bill was highly charasmatic. Hillary lacks charisma.

      Bill did seem to have mostly aweful choices in mistresses though.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    120. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by wolfemi1 · · Score: 1

      Only if you fudge the inflation numbers (which this Administration has been doing). Run the numbers with the same CPI calculations as used back in the 70s and 80s and you'll find inflation is running about 7-8%, and that puts the economy still in a recession.

      Sorry, but Shadowstats is pure bunk. They're not using the old CPI calculations, they're taking the modern ones and just adding a few percent because they feel like it.

    121. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know his policies are radical? It's because he's supporting them, naturally. We've quite literally seen him suggest someone that Republicans were praising as a consensus choice, or to back a policy that they themselves had been pushing, only for it to suddenly be labeled radical/socialist/whatever.

    122. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A law that the Democrats said would have to be passed before we could know what's in it?

      Still trying to make people believe that lie? Six years, it hasn't gotten the traction you want, all it does is discredit you as you reveal your lack of honesty by trying to take something out of context.

      Where was their compromise on the single thing they bothered to do while they held both the executive and legislative branches? They weren't willing to compromise, created a monstrosity, and lost their control of the legislature BECAUSE they weren't willing to be reasonable on the matter.

      All over the place, as Chuck Grassley well knows. It's also why instead of real change, we got dozens of useless repeal votes, but no counter proposal. Because there is nothing else for them, nowhere to go. They got into office on a tide of stirring up the public, but they can't afford to deliver.

      Your narrative is, as you know, false on the face of it.

      And why should we believe your concocted story? You can't even come up with honest criticisms but have to rely on your own lies.

    123. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then perhaps those laws weren't obviously what the party wanted?

    124. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CORRECT THE RECORD!

    125. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      While not the GP I live in a state that hasn't gone R in over 40 years for president. So given that if you aren't voting democrat in my state you are wasting your vote. So why not waste it on a candidate I believe in instead of some orange colored turd.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    126. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      She's basically going to win because the 47-49% or so who turned out for Mitt aren't all going to turn out for Trump, and there won't be enough new "Trump independents" to make up for it.

      Half the Republican party can't stand the guy and the other part is trying to derive short term advantage from him. That is not a recipe for a Trump victory.

      The only surprise is if the Bernie independents decide that they hate the status quo more than they hate Republicans. But I don't see that happening. There are some die hards, but I expect most of them will all fall in line. I've already seen it happening with the people I know who supported Sanders. They know that a Trump victory isn't a victory for them.

      That said... Hillary winning is just postponing the inevitable. Its less important who wins this year, because I already pretty much know who is winning. It's important what happens to those people who voted for Trump. Politically, they came out of nowhere, but of course, they've been here all along. More status quo antics from Hillary and the rest of the crew inside the Beltway and they may feel increasingly emboldened to not just go back the shadows.

      Hillary is the most qualified of the two contenders, but that's me damning with faint praise. The Democratic Party platform is just as much of a shitshow as the Republican one, it's just more big tent about it. Personally, I'm looking for who to make my first third party vote for in November.

    127. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Still trying to make people believe that lie?

      I know it's embarrassing to you when the head of the Democrat party, in her role as the Speaker Of The House and the person who is completely in charge of the legislative agenda surrounding the bill in question gets up at her podium in an official press event and says that to you and me and everyone else on video ... I know you find that awkward. And I understand that your instinctive liberal reaction is to wish the facts away so that you can pretend the person in charge of the congressional process of writing and handling that bill didn't actually say those words and cheerfully in many other settings convey the same sentiment. I know you wish that hadn't happened. But lazily attacking the person who reminds you of that, doesn't that ever get to you? Don't you ever wince when you try that craven bit of juvenile ad hominen in an effort to alter reality?

      And why should we believe your concocted story?

      I know, you want us all to believe that you consider the Congressional Record to be a concoction. The question is, who do you think is so dumb that they'll fall for your lazy attempt to distract? The bill in question was a disaster from conception to execution. The principal players involved in ramming it through knew that, lied about it repeatedly, and are well aware of the damage it would do and has done. Just like you. You will now once again try to tap-dance around the actual facts on the ground, and try some more childish foot-stomping. Carry on!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    128. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by quantaman · · Score: 1

      you seem to have missed the term "illegal" and it isnt mexicans its all non americans. This is half the problem when people misrepresent the actual argument, its hard to have a civil disccusion about anything

      For sure his policies are directed at illegal Mexicans, but it's hard to miss the us-vs them racial component, especially since Trump himself does so much to reinforce that narrative.

      For instance no one forced him to attack a born-in-the-US judge on the basis of his Mexican ethnicity, in fact people begged him to stop, yet Trump still did that repeatedly.

      Nor has he done much to repudiate avowed racists who back him, or even bothered to check that the people he re-tweets aren't obvious white supremacists.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    129. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They didn't refuse to vote on it.

      I stand corrected for using the wrong word.

      Stop lying.

      I'm a liar because I used the wrong word by mistake? Grow up.

      Why BS about something so demonstrably false?

      And educate yourself.

      That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/07/this_is_what_bipartisanship_looks_like.html

    130. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I /hate/ this argument.

      The election is not a game where you root for one of two sides and you "lose" if the other side wins. It is one of the few opportunities where "The People" get to give their say on which sort of government they want. By voting for a candidate, you say, "this person represents my interests best, he is the one I want to lead the government for the next 2 (representatives)/ 4 (president) / six (senator) years.

      Even if the person you support does not win, your are still expressing your opinion on which things you want the government to support. The other candidates /will/ take notice of these opinions if it threatens their own chance of victory. If a significant percentage of people vote for the third-party candidate who promised to ban H1Bs, you can be that the major candidates will take that up as their rallying cry too (especially the one most threatened by that third-party candidate). It might not happen overnight, or even during the next election cycle, but if enough votes are at risk, the other candidates will modify their own platforms rather than lose the election.

      Yes, it's probably true that ultimately only a Democrat or a Republican will get into office; historically and mathematically, the odds are in their favor. However, that's no reason to throw away one of your few opportunities to control your own government. Vote for the candidate who best reflects your own beliefs - whether he (or she) is a member of the two major parties or represents a third party. Yes, by doing so the "wrong guy" might get into office this year but honestly, that isn't as horrible as is often suggested (if the Republicans win this election, they aren't going to ship all homosexuals off to Gitmo, nuke Iran and forcibly return women to the kitchens; similarly, if the Democrats win, they aren't going to take away our guns, make us all take gay lovers and declare universal socialism).

      The only ones who benefit from the idea that "voting for a third party is a waste" are the major political parties, who would prefer to maintain the status quo.

      It's also important to remember that change takes time, especially since our political system is designed to be inefficient (and we should be grateful for that; you should be scared whenever government makes fast and sweeping changes. It will either be poorly thought out policy that will have a lot of negative repercussions or policy designed to benefit a very few). Just because "your side" doesn't "win" this round doesn't mean you should give up on them and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent you as well. If you - and enough other people - believe in something, your voice will eventually be heard.

      So if the other guy stands for what you believe in better than the Democrats or Republicans, vote third party, even if you feel that by doing so you might be helping Clinton or Trump lose because they don't have your vote. It's the only real way you have to get the politicians to notice you.

    131. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The only thing that struck me about Rove's meltdown is that it was indicative of the Republican establishment's inability to see reality. Rove should have been smarter than that, but he was truly caught off guard. A victim of the calcification of attitudes in the Republican establishment.

      I knew Mitt didn't have a chance from the start. He had almost half the vote, which may have seemed like he had a chance to the unwary, but once he picked up his constituency, that extra 2-3% might as well have been the Grand Canyon, because there was no way he was going to bridge that divide. He just wasn't that kind of candidate. He had what it took to make a decent Republican presidential candidate, but the rank and file Republicans do not represent the majority of Presidential voters any more. They need someone who can bring in new voters.

      And nothing proves that more than Trump, who *did* bring in new voters, but in the most horrible possible way.

    132. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by NotARealUser · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree.

      However, in this special environment, I would say that if Trump had a republican congress, he still would not be able to advance his agenda really fast either. With all the "never trump" Republicans, any serious legislation will need to probably get support from both sides of the aisle before getting passed to the president's desk. If Sanders were running still and he had a Democrat majority, it would be mildly similar. Having non-establishment presidents (which rarely happens) messes with your theory. But otherwise, I think it is a pretty good observation that having opposing parties keeps power hungry politicians on both sides at bay.

    133. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      As opposed to Trump, who owes $100M to a German bank fighting with US regulators.

      I am not a Hillary fan and don't plan to vote for her. I'm saying this from a "these both suck, that's really the best you've got?" position: you're deluding yourself if you think she's "owned" more than Trump.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    134. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ninjagin · · Score: 1

      Funny, that "ramming" took 18 months, and I recall the GOP whinging about fictitious "death panels", "job-killing (didn't happen), "deficit exploding" (actually reduced the deficit) all along the way and for dozens of months afterwards... no constructive GOP contributions, no new or different ideas to add except "no change, not now, not ever" from the GOP. The PPACA was a total concession from the start to the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Inst, as an alternative to universal gov't health care. Obama stood back and let it happen and constantly invited GOP voices to the conversation. It's still a private health care system, but with some guard rails, some negotiated rules of cost and fair play and some requirements for infrastructure improvements. To this very day, the only GOP proposal has been to repeal the whole thing and no proposals have been made to address the problems the PPACA was passed to address. It's not perfect, by any means. My state has some real problems with making it work, but it can be improved, and it probably will be.

      Pedantically, you cite Pelosi who said that "we have to pass the [health care bill] so that you can find out what's in it", and it's a great quote. Pelosi was trying to say that people needed to see it in action and how it worked in order to understand what it does in a practical sense. The neat thing about what people say and write is that we can each interpret the remarks from our own point of view. You certainly took what best fit your worldview, but Pelosi did a good job of clarifying her remark, so I'll take her words for what it meant, thanks.

      --
      .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
    135. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You are right, they did not have time to cram through legislation.

      I'd have to disagree with you that this means anything at all about the quality of what they were failing to push through. It is quite simply just as likely that they were caught in intra-party squabbling and just general political bullshit as any sort of quality control.

      You might like the Democratic party's platform more than the other side, but their politicians are just as much of a bunch of hacks as the Republicans are. They're just pushing things you want, so you aren't as critical. They're not idiots, but they're all captive to the current system. Every single one of them.

    136. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that obstruction of issues in congress and the senate is the whole point of having a congress and a senate. If we didn't want some obstruction we would just have a dictatorship. Those people "obstructing" are elected officials put their to vote how the constituent population believes is right. Now of course that's a little ideological but that doesn't change the fact that if there is an obstruction it means that the people are also split and we aren't supposed to change all willy nilly based on some emotion. This works both ways. For instance if for some God awful reason Trump gets elected, I hope there is enough pushback in congress to block almost everything he has brought up. I also hope the same for Hillary. But to talk about obstruction like its a bad thing is just wrong. I don't want a Government that gets to just change their mind on a whim based of the issues at the current moment. I prefer a slow moving calculated rational thought out process.

    137. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The precise reason not to vote for Sanders in the general election is that he is not going to be a candidate

      I did vote for Sanders in the Primary, and I will continue to support his agenda by voting for Hillary in the General

      All this hot ait and propaganda being blown about regarding Hillary is just another pack of right wing lies

    138. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do this job by doing what? The same political machines that got them this far will propel one of them to the presidency in the national election. Your one vote in one state that most likely is already going towards one candidate or the other isn't going to make a lick of difference, just like it always has been. Enjoy your call to serve jury duty.

    139. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trump won on a platform of keeping out illegal immigrants, not Mexicans in general. Also, neither Mexican nor Muslim is a race. I don't say this to excuse his bigotry, because it is bad, but if you keep using the term incorrectly, it loses its meaning.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    140. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly the same thing.

      And you're an asshole.

    141. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      "Socialist" isn't an empty label if someone uses it properly. Bernie didn't, but his use of it did still mean something.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    142. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Not sure how you get beyond 100% unqualified. Hillary is corrupt, and a criminal, and a terrible choice. Trump has proposed arming middle eastern despots with nuclear weapons, and is pro-nuclear proliferation. That is how you go beyond 100%.

      What he actually said (and is oft-misquoted the way you did, here), is that Japan, South Korea, etc., should pony up for their own defense, which the US is now taking care of. He often makes the mistake of answering hypothetical questions (something career politicians know you NEVER do), about what to do if they didn't want to pay, should they have their own military? Their own nuclear arsenal too? Sure. Every country has the right to defend themselves.

      Hypothetically. But he's right. If you're going to reduce military spending, you either get the countries you're providing defense for to help pay the bill, or you leave and let them take care of themselves.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    143. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by jcr · · Score: 1

      But the Obamacare legislation was the epitome of "unread garbage". Don't you remember Pelosi's idiotic statement that "we have to pass it to see what's in it"?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    144. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      He has already forgiven that loan.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    145. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      They weren't willing to compromise on gun control. The Republicans proposed a bill that was pretty much identical to the Democrat's, except it included provisions for challenging your placement on the no-fly/no-gun list. You know, getting closer to that pesky "due process" thing (that both parties ignore when it's convenient).

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    146. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by jcr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession.

      He's the president who's impeded recovery more than anyone since Roosevelt.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    147. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Plenty of European countries have elections where you vote for a party and the party decides who it's putting in - although they do generally tell people ahead of time who that will be, it's not always legally binding.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    148. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton and Trump both epitomize everything that is horrible and deporable about American politics.

      But they're uniquely different.

      Clinton engages in shadowy behind-the-scenes maneuverings that create the appearance of corruption (and I emphasize appearance, because no legal case has ever been brought). And, interestingly, when Clinton is suspected of lying, it usually pertains to lying about herself and her own activities.

      Trump is vastly different. In contrast to Hillary, he tends to lie about other people, and the actions of others, and those lies are easily exposed by even a casual investigation.

      It is not logical to assume equivalence between these two very different styles of lying.

      Some people perceive Clinton's clandestine-appearing style as being the far worse style.

      Other people perceive Trump's aggressive dismissal of objective truths as being the far worse style.

      And some other people (like you) might claim that both of their styles are equally bad.

      But all these assessments of relative "badness" are based purely on personal opinion, and in are in no way supported by any logic or facts.

      A reasonable person may legitimately have a strong preference for one over the other, based on which style is more personally offensive to them.

    149. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The FBI director detailing several crimes Hillary has committed and then recommending that no charges be filed should tell you that the fix is in. She won't be charged with anything so long as the current FBI director, Attorney General, and president are in place.

    150. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The precise reason not to vote for Sanders in the general election is that he is not going to be a candidate

      Well yes, now, but GP seemed to be referring to a hypothetical runoff between Trump and Sanders.

      Also a bit curious about the "if I could vote" comment from a 30k UID user. Convicted felon, or non-U.S. citizen?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    151. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      "But if sometime before the election Putin does a U-turn and starts bashing Trump..."

      I can hear Trump's response in my head already: "Putin, he's just a terrible person."

    152. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, I think that people *believe* that they don't want guns taken away from people. In reality, I think the gun rights people are actually seeing more clearly.

      The problem people are upset about is the possibility of mass murders via these weapons. There's really no way to stop such things without the confiscation of as many weapons as possible. That level of confiscation would almost certainly go beyond any sort decrease of ownership that reasonable background checks would cause.

      Consider that most of the people who have obtained weapons for mass murders have done so legally, and most would still be able to have done so legally even after enhanced background checks.

      And we can see from the latest idea of removing people from gun ownership by being on a list which they were added to with no judicial due process, that no one really seems to care that this would void actually two different constitutional principles, the second amendment AND due process.

      As long as mass murders like this are being televised and made a consistent rallying cry for those who oppose the current state of gun ownership, there is only one place this can go.

      Seriously, there's nothing about an AR-15 that is more lethal than a semi-auto handgun in the close quarters that many of these shootings have taken place in, like the club in Orlando. The Dallas shootings were admittedly one exception because the shooter was a sniper where rifle range would have been needed for more ranged accuracy, but in that nightclub or in the movie theatre, I'd rather have someone try to point an AR-15 at me than a handgun. The AR takes longer to swing around, and fires a smaller caliber round at a higher velocity. So the bullet would do less damage, and has a much higher chance of exiting cleanly.

      Incidentally, this is because military style weapons are actually regulated by convention to be "humane" and to not intentionally cause wound effects that are more than necessary to disable the opposition. They're not "safe" of course, but they are more likely to put a hole straight through you, which is much better than having it lodge inside you or tumble around and wreck internal organs.

      Yet, we're focused on "assault-type" weapons as the problem.

      I think we need to make a decision. The Second Amendment isn't about home self-defense or target shooting. It is about remaining armed to potentially resist invasions, both of foreigners and our own government. That means that the 2nd Amendment permits a dangerous situation to exist knowingly. In the end, you either support that, or you don't. And perhaps you don't. Fair enough. I'm not totally convinced that we all need to be armed either. But let's not for a second believe that, despite the best of intentions, the focus on mass shootings is going to lead us somewhere other than the end of the right to keep and bear arms.

    153. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the government got shut down for 16 days in October 2013, I was laid off specifically because of the government shutdown and out of work for eight months.

      No, you were laid off due to a hissy fit, where the people given pink slips were given them unnecessarily to cause pain and put political pressure on the opposition.

      You can be damn sure that if the choice is between shutting down a war vs. shutting down a national park, the it's the park getting the axe.

    154. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I think you're misrepresenting what Adams is saying. He never says, for instance, that Trump's bigotry is nothing to worry about, just that it isn't racism - which is, technically, true. It's also possibly true that Trump's bigotry is, at this point, a smart political move - that doesn't mean it's okay, just that it may end up benefiting Trump in the long run. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that your opponent made a smart move, even if you found it distasteful or offensive.

      I completely agree that his justification for Trump's anti-Muslim bigotry is weak.

      As for the women/LGBT issue - women are often treated very poorly in Islamic countries. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying that, and any real feminist should be fighting for women's rights all around the world instead of refusing to condemn their treatment for fear of appearing "Islamophobic".

      If you think "before it was fashionable" has anything to do with hiring women for fashion, you have exceptionally poor reading comprehension. Adams says Trump did it before other people wanted to do it because it was popular (before it was fashionable/popular).

      Trump's insults towards women are pretty much on the same level as those he levels against men - he uses different terms, of course, because he wants it to have an effect. If you insult men and women equally, I'd argue that you're maybe a misanthropist, but not a misogynist. Both are bad things for the POTUS to be, of course, and I won't be voting for Trump. But I also don't like it when people misrepresent someone's argument.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    155. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Current (as of July 12, 2016) the national debt is $19.37 trillion. On October 1, 2015, it was $18.15 trillion. So that's an increase of $1.22 trillion in 9.5 months. That'll probably reach around $1.4 trillion. Oh, yeah, it's not the "on budget" deficit that's bandied about in the media, but it's the REAL deficit - it's spending above revenues. That which adds debt.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    156. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      By this logic there's no problem with North Korea getting nukes. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and nukes is a pretty damn good line. Ideally NO ONE should have nukes. Being OK with any country getting them, ally or foe, shows a lack of understanding about these weapons and think they are just big bombs. Saying Japan or South Korea should grow their military so we don't budget for their defense is an understandable argument and a case can be made for it, though increased world militarization might lead to another world war so I personally don't agree with that stance, but a case can be made for it. But nukes are far too dangerous to allow them to proliferate.

    157. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      That's cute. You think all Hillary's votes are actual people and that no voter fraud happened. Yes, I am sure the woman who had half as many people at her rallies "legitimately" won.

      Wait a minute. The democrats and democrat-leaning activists have declared that voter fraud essentially doesn't exist (i.e., is too low to have any impact on anything), therefore Republican efforts to tamp down on voter fraud for the pat 8 years were really aimed at minority voter suppression.

      So which is it, Bernie supporters? Does voter fraud not exist, or are there legitimate reasons to demand more rigorous documentation from voters at the polls?

      Whatever the truth is, it cannot be both.

    158. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Kurrelgyre · · Score: 1

      No one needed to block that. He wanted to nominate *Merrick* Garland. Merritt Garland sounds like a stage name.

    159. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > O took that as a sign to move hard left.

      You think Obama is "hard left"??

    160. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Baki · · Score: 1

      So you believe that Putin believes, he can convince the US population to vote for a particular candidate? I think you underestimate Putin in that case.

    161. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      He did nothing to reverse that trend

      Why do you think a president could reverse that trend? Why do you think a president with a congress that won't even give his judge appointments a hearing could possibly reverse that trend?

      What executive powers does he have to reverse the trend of trickle-down economics? There were about three months during his first term (after Norm Coleman finally abandoned his effort to block Al Franken from becoming senator from Minnesota, and before Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy) when Obama had a big enough majority to even get legislation debated in congress. Now he chose to use those three months for his failed health care law (which I believe will eventually be seen as a step to single payer). We might agree that he'd have been better served by focusing on income inequality during that time instead of health care.

      The other thing that happened is further tweaks to the "official" economic numbers - they are hiding a lot of inflation. If you calculate it the same way they did in the past, the GDP would have grown even slower or shrank in some quarters.

      The notion of using a "basket" of goods to make up the CPI (which is what you're talking about when you say "tweaking the numbers") began under Reagan. The formula is the same, but the items chosen for the basket change. For example, if the price of chicken goes up, they put in pork. Certain items like health care and education don't even get counted. It's been this way for 30 years. Even if you correct for these "tweaks" (and if you correct for these tweaks during previous presidents), you still get the longest period of sustained economic and job growth).

      And if you bring up "employment participation rates" to me, I'll be glad to give you the tutorial on why that is a completely bogus number that has zero bearing on the health of an economy. I'll have time later for that, if you want.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    162. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      He's the president who's impeded recovery more than anyone since Roosevelt.

      You know, it's interesting how the notion, pushed by right-wing and neoliberal websites and think thanks, that FDR impeded the recovery from the Great Depression, didn't really start until all the people who were alive during the Great Depression were safely dead and couldn't laugh in their faces.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    163. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Seems like a pretty solid methodology to me. Even Time Magazine, no conservative outlet, notes that the official CPI is quite a bit lower than other oft-used measures of inflation, and that the CPI calculation has been tweaked consistently for the last several decades.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    164. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by transami · · Score: 1

      So far left she's come round the other side.

      --
      :T:R:A:N:S:
    165. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Now go see how that national debt is calculated. You might be surprised.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    166. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      "If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period."

      Death panels were never a literal thing. The government did have panels whose goal was to decide on what adequate levels of care would be for various illnesses. That would have tied into single payer if that had made it into law. It wasn't a death panel that would decide on each individual's future, but the decisions they made would certainly be form of deciding who lives and who dies. Remember Obama on the campaign trail stating that maybe the lady asking the question would get a pain pill to live with a condition rather than surgery to resolve it. That already existed to some extent with private insurers, but at least with them you could go with a different insurer or just pay out of pocket. You can't easily choose a new government.

      We also don't know the full effect of the Affordable Healthcare Act. The dems have postponed many of the provisions time and time again because they would make it too difficult for dem candidates to win elections. That alone is quite damning. Next year is going to be eye opening. There are very large employers that are switching to disaster plans with health savings accounts which is great for young and healthy people but will be disastrous for people with preexisting conditions. Health funds work if you pay in when your healthy. If you're older and requiring continuing care your income is effectively cut by whatever the max annual out of pocket is for the disaster plan. This is all perfectly legal and it's disgraceful. The whole point was to improve our access to health care.

    167. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      What, like Obama's red line against Syria using chemical weapons? It's all pandering.

    168. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bump your head or something ? No one wants Hillary, not Bill, not Sanders, not even most of Hillary's supporters, who are mostly voting for the lessor of two evils.

      Make a statement instead of bleating like sheep, Vote for Pedro

    169. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by BlckAdder · · Score: 1

      #FeelTheJohnson

    170. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Exactly, the Hillary supporters don't care, the current DOJ don't care; Putin has no play. If Trump gets elected and the EPA, IRS and DOJ all get "Nuc'ed from orbit, it's the only way to be sure", Putin still has no play because what going to happen will happen anyway.

      Putin hates Clinton, Putin really hates Obama, he might get some personal pleasure kicking the two of them in the balls, but he really doesn't have a play. Other than that he's just blowing smoke up their asses.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    171. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and finally he implies that hiring women is at least partially fashion-driven

      Ten years ago, I would have taken this to mean that he was a misogynist idiot. Today, it merely means that he is at least moderately insightful; anti-male discriminatory hiring practices are that fashionable.

    172. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you watch a lot of Clinton News Network or maybe you have some reading comprehension issues, possibly both.

    173. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      Historically, tyranny is usually not far behind confiscation of arms.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    174. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Yea, yea, it's not his fault, he's blocked, he can't do anything about it (but look at how great the economy is! - wait - which is it?) bla bla.

      And if you bring up "employment participation rates" to me, I'll be glad to give you the tutorial on why that is a completely bogus number that has zero bearing on the health of an economy. I'll have time later for that, if you want.

      We were talking about how the people are doing, and that's bad, no matter what statistics you have on how great it is all the money moving around. It's all in the hands of the very few (the very fewer under Obama).

      Claiming that Obama's policies had nothing to do with the accelerated income inequality is simply denial. More power and control concentrated in Washington (the direction we've been going) means less money and more suffering outside of Washington and the connected elites. I realize you're a rabid supporter of centralized, strong government control, but it's not working, and your president is responsible for some of that.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    175. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      North Korea does have nukes. They haven't used them on anyone else.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    176. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should I be celebrating that we're only going an additional half trillion dollars into debt every year now? Politicians use the term deficit because it sounds like debt and confuses people.

    177. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Claiming that Obama's policies had nothing to do with the accelerated income inequality is simply denial.

      Give us the top three Obama policies that have led to accelerated income inequality. I'll even help you out by giving you the first one:

      1) The Obama Justice Department didn't bring criminal prosecutions against the bankers whose behavior caused the worldwide economic collapse of 2008 (before Obama was president, by the way).

      OK, now you go...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    178. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie Sanders is a massive hypocrite and slave.

      His entire platform was built on opposing the political elite, and he endorses Hillary Clinton?

      American politics is a joke because we Americans are dumb, apathetic, indifferent voters. How we got there is another post altogether.

    179. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Should I be celebrating that we're only going an additional half trillion dollars into debt every year now?

      When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.

      If you found a drug that could cure 3/4 of cancers, you would call that a success, wouldn't you? You still wouldn't celebrate the remaining 1/4 of cancer cases, but you would doubtless say we were moving in the right direction, and you'd almost certainly win a Nobel.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    180. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has too many allies whose careers would crumble if this were to happen. Id love to see the Clinton's go down, but its not happening. America is too full of shit for it to happen.

      The day a real national politician (not some local state chump) gets in real, pound me in the ass prison, Ill dance an irish jig.

      Ted Kennedy - Chappaquiddick
      Watergate
      Eliot Spitzer
      Lewinsky
      Iran Contra

      etc etc

      no real politician ever does real jail time because they own the crooked ass system

    181. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by jcr · · Score: 1

      Your smug ignorance is depressing.

      Watch and learn.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    182. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half as many? Was it even 1/10th? She struggled to fill school gymnasiums.

    183. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Which is one reasonable cause for having the Second Amendment.

      Personally, I tend towards maintaining gun rights because it *is* in the Constitution, and because I think there is something to be said for a population than can defend itself should it need to do so and choose to do so.

      However, I am not totally convinced that the improvements in weaponry are not going to eventually cause the breakdown of law and order in certain cases.

      A government should be afraid of its people, but it shouldn't be powerless against individuals who do need its protection. There has to be a balance somewhere. I almost think we may want to return to the idea of a larger community militia supporting the police instead of increasing militarization of the police force. Then you have your people bearing arms and being trained in their use, and you don't need to worry as much about the cops driving tanks through your front door.

      One way or another, I think we may need to make a decision to either accept the chance of these shootings, which are not exactly the largest killer of people in the US, by far, or we have to somehow re-think what modern weaponry means for how we balance the power of the government against that of the people.

      What should not keep happening is a false discussion about the role of weapons. We need to understand that they are not harmless, there is a danger to them, but there are reasons for maintaining such a situation which may make it necessary to accept the danger.

    184. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everytime I think people are brain-dead stupid, I read these pollyanna type comments and wonder if you are legitimately not a critical thinker, or if you are just wanting your candidate to win so bad you post this bullshit

    185. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What, are you saying we do NOT owe that money, it's not committed expenditures? I know if we used a GAAP approach we'd be over $120 trillion, but assuming we slough off future SS payments to those not currently collecting, we still need about $19.4 trillion today.

      Of the $19.4 trillion, what do you claim we do not owe?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    186. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's embarrassing to you when the head of the Democrat party, in her role as the Speaker Of The House and the person who is completely in charge of the legislative agenda surrounding the bill in question gets up at her podium in an official press event and says that to you and me and everyone else on video ... I know you find that awkward.

      Find what awkward? Your continuing decision to lie about it?

      No, nor more than I do the lies about Shirley Sherrod.

      Nothing awkward for me. It's curious that you bother, but not awkward for me.

      Why would you think that? Are you somehow confused about what words mean, or do you just have no understanding of people's actual feelings?

      If anything, every time somebody brings it up, I know it means they have nothing of substance to actually say.

      I suppose I might feel chagrin though, that instead of healthy discussion and debate, we get lies.

      And I understand that your instinctive liberal reaction is to wish the facts away so that you can pretend the person in charge of the congressional process of writing and handling that bill didn't actually say those words and cheerfully in many other settings convey the same sentiment. I know you wish that hadn't happened. But lazily attacking the person who reminds you of that, doesn't that ever get to you? Don't you ever wince when you try that craven bit of juvenile ad hominen in an effort to alter reality?

      You're expecting me to put much effort into it, when it's been a debunked story known for years?

      You might as well expect me to care about Romney's claim about an "act of terror" in the presidential debates.

      But seriously, you've got nothing but ad hominem, that's why you can't defend your own words or ideas, but have to offer lies.

      I know, you want us all to believe that you consider the Congressional Record to be a concoction.

      Oh, you want to know who edited the Congressional Record? But I guess if you don't intend to make factual statements, you wouldn't want them to be kept.

      The question is, who do you think is so dumb that they'll fall for your lazy attempt to distract? The bill in question was a disaster from conception to execution. The principal players involved in ramming it through knew that, lied about it repeatedly, and are well aware of the damage it would do and has done. Just like you. You will now once again try to tap-dance around the actual facts on the ground, and try some more childish foot-stomping. Carry on!

      You're the one not talking about an actual bill, or offering a countering proposal, but spending a considerable amount of effort to belabor us with nothing more than an empty, long-discredited, shameful attempt at castigating Nancy Pelosi for a speech that you so desperately need to take out of context.

      Unfortunately for you, the real speech can be read, go ahead, take your time:

      Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech this morning at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo). This year marks the 75th anniversary of the organization. Below are the Speaker’s remarks:

      “Thank you, President Valerie Brown [of Sonoma County, Calif.] Don’t we all take pride in Valerie Brown recently being named County Official of the Year for her advocacy on behalf of all of America’s counties? Thank you, Valerie. Her

    187. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were any more full of shit your head would simply explode.

    188. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by MauriceV · · Score: 1

      This is backward.

      Obamacare is a conservative plan:http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/239725-romneycareobamacarenixoncaredolecare.

      The plan you're thinking of was the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    189. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What, like Obama's Nuclear Bomb deal with Iran? Its all political theater

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    190. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by bertramwooster · · Score: 1
      I am not a fan of Hillary, but pretending that she is as bad as Donald Trump is just insane. Bernie Sanders is trying to influence the party platform and trying to prevent the disaster that would be Trump. I don't think that is unprincipled. If you think that is, the rest of the house and senate are crooked as hell.

      The US system doesn't have the possibility of coalition governments and you can't really do a protest vote unless you want to risk Trump. Maybe one decides to bide the time until the next election or move to a different front in the senate / house races.

    191. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt the Republican dildos in Congress will give Hillary an easier time than they have been giving Obama. I predict 4 years of endless investigation and scandals, and a (more) horrible campaign in 4 years.

    192. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      This is certainly a good election to vote Libertarian as well. They are polling in the double digits. Personally, I feel that seeing a third party rise to be a major party is more important than choosing between two obvious tyrants.

      And this time, the Libertarians have 2 popular two-term governors on the ticket. Both with more experience actually governing than either Trump or Hillary. And both are far more likely to leave you the hell alone.

    193. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the reams of evidence, the arrests of superdelegates in states she "won" for voter fraud, the hundreds of millions of voters who never got to cast a ballot because they were mysteriously purged from the voter rolls, almost all between the ages of 17-45 and registering for the first time. If this had happened in literally any other country, the UN would have swept in and discarded the obviously phony election results.

    194. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period."

      Are you suggesting that Obama should have forced insurance companies to continue to offer plans to customers forever?

      Strong words that. I don't think that was ever in the cards though.

      Personally, I do wish he'd set about destroying existing plans, but that'd have been impossible to achieve anyway.

      And I wouldn't expect doctors to stay in business forever either.

      Death panels were never a literal thing.

      Oh, but it's such an evocative turn of phrase, that's why people used it. Except it was more about emotional reaction than reasoned analysis.

      The government did have panels whose goal was to decide on what adequate levels of care would be for various illnesses. That would have tied into single payer if that had made it into law. It wasn't a death panel that would decide on each individual's future, but the decisions they made would certainly be form of deciding who lives and who dies.

      Decisions already made every day. Where to build hospitals. Where to have ambulances. What medicine is prescribed, what medicine is researched. What surgeon goes where, and who does what!

      This reality does not go away.

      But hey, consider thallidomide. It's availability in the US was blocked as its effectiveness wasn't demonstrated. We dodge a bullet there!

      Remember Obama on the campaign trail stating that maybe the lady asking the question would get a pain pill to live with a condition rather than surgery to resolve it. That already existed to some extent with private insurers, but at least with them you could go with a different insurer or just pay out of pocket.
      You can't easily choose a new government.

      Oh no, and Obama was going to BAN, BAN, private medical care, right? Or people magically have the money to pay for care? Or like arguing with companies isn't already a problem?

      We also don't know the full effect of the Affordable Healthcare Act. The dems have postponed many of the provisions time and time again because they would make it too difficult for dem candidates to win elections. That alone is quite damning.

      Only if you want it to be. Which, admittedly, Republicans do. It's why they even pursued their Quixotic attempt to ban subsidies on federally operated exchanges.

      Next year is going to be eye opening. There are very large employers that are switching to disaster plans with health savings accounts which is great for young and healthy people but will be disastrous for people with preexisting conditions. Health funds work if you pay in when your healthy. If you're older and requiring continuing care your income is effectively cut by whatever the max annual out of pocket is for the disaster plan. This is all perfectly legal and it's disgraceful.

      Health savings accounts are a major favorite of the GOP, if you want something else, try another group.

      The whole point was to improve our access to health care.

      No, it wasn't. If it was, we'd get a public health system. We'd have gotten more spending on training doctors or some effort to do better. We didn't. We got a management of the health insurance industry, not so much the healthcare system.

      I don't blame you, it was misleading, but I wasn't in charge of the messaging, so don't bother me about it. I've been bitter about it pandering to the centrists and right-wing and avoiding rocking the boat since it was passed.

      I'd have sunk it, and put up a whole new one.

    195. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if the US isn't making anyone making less than $300k a year into literal slaves and actively murdering non-white people, we're teetering on the brink of being surpassed by those socialist countries! Oh wait, they have already surpassed the US in every metric except GDP. Even most worthwhile medical and scientific research comes from socialist countries now.

      I realize you don't understand your folly. I just wish you didn't embrace being willfully retarded and averse to reality so readily.

    196. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, consider massive bailouts of major banks and wars in the middle east as core left wing values.

      Do you have any connection whatsoever to the real world?

    197. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Obamacare is a conservative plan

      Umm, no: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

      Aside from the fact the Republican legislation you're referring to was from 1993 , it didn't even have a majority of Republicans behind it. And there remain differences between it and ACA in its current form. But 1993...really? You're trying to use 23 year old legislation as a barometer for current day conservatism? Do you want to look up Democrat stances from the early 90s? They backed wealthy tax cuts back then, and supported defense spending: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

    198. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      2.) Not clamping down enough on abuse of H1B visas when plenty of Americans were qualified for those jobs.

      3.) Not doing anything to stop rabid outsourcing of both white and blue collar jobs to third world shitholes with no employee protections or decent standard of living. And when those countries start benefiting and wanting a bigger piece of the pie, they pack up and find another shithole.

      The lower-middle and middle class cannot survive as a "services" economy or one based on Imaginary Property holdings. I shouldn't be stuck in a tail-spin race to the bottom with $10/hr Indians on another continent. While this isn't directly because of his policies he should have worked toward fixing these issues. Globalization is destructive. It makes a few at the top richer but screws people with marketable job skills in various trades the most.

      I shouldn't be punished and driven toward minimum wage because I chose an ethical tech career over becoming a sleazy MBA.

    199. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by kqs · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.

      Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices

      So Hillary is one of "the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable"? Citation needed.

      She has been under investigation almost continuously for more than 20 years by both legal authorities and very rich political opponents. During that time, the only thing which has been proven is that she sucks at email security. If she had done anything serious, SOMEONE would have sold out and given proof.

      I hear this sort of thing alot. People claim "I don't listen to the media! I'm too smart!" and then repeat Fox News talking points as if they were true. I don't know why people do this, but they do.

    200. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by kqs · · Score: 1

      Huh; her voting record doesn't show any particular desire to help wall street or big corporations. Much of our government is pro-corporate, and Hillary has tended to be far less helpful to corporations than, say, anyone with an R after their name. She's not anti-corporate like Warren and Sanders, but she's a hell of a lot closer to them than most of the current government.

      I'm curious why you claim that she is controlled by donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been looked at by lots of people; their finances are fairly public. They bring in lots of money and give that money to lots of local charities who are doing good work. They don't seem to be corrupt and they have far lower administrative overhead than most other foundations their size.

      And you really think that Putin has got something on her that one of the US oil billionaires hasn't already bought? That seems unlikely.

    201. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Corporate Overlords want Clinton.

      I see that you know nothing about the Democratic Party, yet think you do.
      Next time, RTFM.

    202. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by kqs · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook.

      She has been under continuous investigation for over 20 years, by both legal authorities and by many billionaire political opponents (Scaife, Murdoch, the Kochs, and more). These investigators have pumped insane amounts of money, people, and political pressure into finding some way to indict her or her husband. And so far, they have proven that Bill gets blowjobs from other women, and that Hillary has no clue how to do secure email. Wow!

      So sure, I realize that many people think that "she is a total and complete crook". Many people also believe that vaccines cause autism, that GMOs are unhealthy, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. People are gullible. Sounds like you are too. Unless you have some amazing proof that nobody else does?

      It turns out that many people like facts rather than bombastic hearsay. And many people seem quite happy with Hillary. Coincidence?

    203. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by kqs · · Score: 1

      A whole lot if they'd been united and competent.

      "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." --Will Rogers

    204. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by kqs · · Score: 1

      Or puts an anonymous hold on legislation. Or uses any of the many blocking tactics that the Senate rules allow.

    205. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton and Trump both epitomize everything that is horrible and deporable about American politics.

      You are only half right, therefore totally incorrect.

      Clinton is the system.

      Trump is a hand grenade being lobbed into the heart of the Republican party by its own constituents.

      He does not intend it, but Trump represents that the politics, the handled media, and thought police can be beaten or used against themselves.

      At least to a point.

    206. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the legislation was so far left

      So far left that it's further right than pretty much anything any other modern democracy has.

    207. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by wwalker · · Score: 1

      If a single 21-year old can write an operating system kernel from scratch in about 5 months (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel), surely a group of 100 experienced senators should be able to accomplish, well, about 100 times more. Right?

    208. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      No it isn't simple. The formation of political parties, how they gain influence, how members achieve seniority; these things take decades. The causes are deeply rooted in history, some of it going back over a century or more.

      Voting is not an idealistic, philosophical choice. It's game theory. You only get a few options, and you have to choose from among those that is most likely to be the best possible outcome is for you and your interests.

      "The most corrupt and reprehensible people"? Oh my sweet summer child... The reason there won't be an uprising is because things aren't bad enough to warrant it. This isn't Russia in 1917, or France in 1789. This isn't even as bad as the US in 1968, when 17,000 US soldiers had been killed in Vietnam, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated within 2 months of each other, and there were riots all over the country. The average person has enough sense to realize it's not that bad, and so should you.

      As my Irish grandmother would say: I hope you always have as good.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    209. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can not imagine walking into a polling booth and thinking, "Hmm... I'm a republican, but I don't really like Trump, so I guess I'll vote for Clinton."

      Dafuq?!?!? Yet those people are the ones who ultimately decide the outcome.

      Just like those people who vote for a third party as some kind of protest vote. All you're accomplishing is basically handing a vote to the candidate you like the least.

      You realize that these things are just symptoms of the utterly broken election system in the US. People keep talking about primaries, for example. What primaries? Just because you call the system the two main parties use to game the system "primary elections" doesn't mean that they're actually primary elections. Real primary elections would be the first round of a multi-pass election that would include _all_ candidates in the election running against each other at once.

    210. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That boast would be a lot more convincing if so many were not deliberately excluded from voting.

    211. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      3.) Not doing anything to stop rabid outsourcing of both white and blue collar jobs to third world shitholes with no employee protections or decent standard of living. And when those countries start benefiting and wanting a bigger piece of the pie, they pack up and find another shithole.

      Try to be more specific. What can the president do, using only executive powers (remember, congress wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire) to "stop rabid outsourcing"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    212. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Watch and learn. [youtube.com]

      Look, jcr. You know I love you like a brother, but you've got to stop getting your history from grainy YouTube videos of neoliberal Austrian school economists.

      As I've said, the only people who think FDR made the Depression worse are people who were born many decades after the Great Depression was over and probably were reading Ayn Rand in their freshman year instead of asking their grandparents what was really going on during that time.

      If you have to resort to YouTube alt-history Ayn Rand fan-fiction, there's something wrong with your argument.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    213. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      but assuming we slough off future SS payments to those not currently collecting

      Social Security isn't part of the deficit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    214. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by JoshWurzel · · Score: 1

      Will you vote for one of the worst two candidates ever, just because of their party affiliation?

      That would be silly. I'm going to vote for one of the worst two candidates ever just because of the other candidate's party affiliation! :-)

    215. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that a candidate is on precarious legal ground when the District Attorney determines there is not enough evidence to prosecute, you have moved on from paying attention to the world, to just deciding it exists the way you want it to exist.

    216. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie was just joining in on some unsubstantiated mud throwing. Anyone who was Secretary of State (previously the job was called Secretary of War) is likely qualified to be President, regardless of administration or political party.

      A little mud throwing and pandering to the people that just might elect you is understandable, even if it is one of those things politicians do even when we wish they wouldn't.

    217. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      From Hero to Zero, it's the internet and the meme already is Sanders the Sellout, done and finished.

      Really dumb political move that gained Clinton precisely zip beyond destroying Sander's ability to campaign for progressives in the Congress and Senate (the real goal in making a fool of Sanders). In fact Clinton is better distancing herself from Sanders as fast as possible. Clinton is hated enough without carrying around the baggage of Bernie the Betrayer.

      Politics is a mean game and Bernie was seriously stupid to not go neutral and focus on the liberal progressives in the Senate and Congress. Now his endorsement is more negative than positive as Sanders is everyone's enemy now, both the establishment and all those people fighting the establishment, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

      Smart political move, those idiots missed, too wrapped up in their own bullshit and greed. is that Sanders could have remained neutral on Clinton whilst actively opposing Trump, now the silly old incontinent fool can do nothing for no one, just retire and cash royalty cheques for the book the establishment will be sure publish for him.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    218. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      No, Obama and Hillary took what Bush started and destabilized the Muslim world to the point that it's causing a refugee crisis which has the potential to take down Europe. Not to mention using drones more than Bush, and locking up more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.

      But you're right, it has to be racism...

      You're an easily led buffoon.

    219. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    220. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      And a strategy of voting for the lesser evil* isn't slowly killing us?

      * The lesser evil of a particular eleciton, the level of lesser evil continues to grow with each eleciton

    221. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a killer, a rapist, and a horrible person. Oh wait, I didn't substantiate any of my accusations with facts, and you've never been tried, and haven't even had your day in court. Odds are you'll never get your day in court, because there is not enough evidence against you to get a District Attorney to prosecute you, and even if a DA tried, their opinion is that they shouldn't because they likely wouldn't win the case.

      See a parallel there?

    222. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are democratic; which, by definition, means that they work together, but are anything but united.

      The Republicans, on the other hand were being threatened to not be nominated for reelection by their own party if they stepped out of line. In this manner, the Republicans were very united, but when they are all united, you need not all be competent, as most of the group only serves to say "me too."

      In short, your commentary is just personal attack on a bunch of politicians you likely know little about.

    223. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      If "you can keep your plan" wasn't in the cards, than the President shouldn't have said it. This was a major selling point of the whole debacle, which he emphasized by ending it with "period". The legislation was so lengthy and so difficult to understand that people latched onto this as a major selling point and it failed to deliver, spectacularly so. Then he lied about it. "What I actually said was..", but we can all go to the many videos where he said it.

      Yea, fine "death panel" is evocative. But that is what these panels were. It was a decision on how care was to be rationed for certain illnesses given a set of variables. That's a danger with single payer. If a hospital is built far away, that's not the same thing. You can move closer to it if you want. Single payer takes away your options.

      Obama wasn't going to ban private insurance, he wouldn't have to. Single payer could undercut them using the taxpayer's own money and wait them out. That's why the GOP was against it. It was obvious. The feds wanted to take complete control. That is not the role of the federal government. You need consent of the governed and it was not there. A change that massive should require amending the Constitution and it should never be forced on us by a single party. The whole way this made it into law was disgusting, as was the gyrations the supreme court had to make to legitimize it. A part of our representative democracy died when this became law.

      Subsidies? It's called corporate welfare. I thought you lefties were against it? The legislation was supposed to lower the cost of insurance, which hasn't materialized for most except for those getting subsidies. But subsidies don't lower the cost, it passes it on to someone else. I remember the White House press corp laughing at the press secretary when he said the whole thing would be revenue neutral. Even the press wasn't buying it.

      If you want a public health system, move to Canada or the UK. We had the best system in the world, the best doctors, the best hospitals. A competitive system is far superior to a government run bureaucratic mess. As evil as people say the insurers are, I don't see it. Under what we had before, I could get the care and medicine needed to remain a functional member of the workforce. Now, I'm being pressured to make choices that would knock me out of the work force. Part of that being that a disaster plan and an empty health savings account won't accommodate the needs of people like me. I've paid into insurance for decades and now that I need it, the Democrats have ruined it. This was a free country where we were empowered to make our own choices, good or bad.

    224. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Oh and about Obama having high approval? In the latest Quinnipiac poll he's considered the worst of all Presidents post WW II.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    225. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Should I be celebrating that we're only going an additional half trillion dollars into debt every year now?

      When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.

      BS. Back that claim up. The actual facts show the current real deficit is nearly as high as its ever been. Equal to that when President Obama was sworn in - larger than any deficit pre-Obama, actually...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    226. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The FBI still has an RICO investigation going on The Clinton Foundation

      That's made up from whole cloth - i just spent about 10 minutes trying to track it down with google and none of the 'coverage' of the story was remotely credible. Thanks for wasting my time.

      Its totally off the wall batshit claims like that which convince me that none of the rest of criticism of clinton is anything more than a willful misreading of the facts. In particular a lot of reading things into Comey's statements that are simply not there and if they were there would have been said clearly and unambiguously.

    227. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not only is it part of the deficit [factcheck.org], it's the biggest part of our debt [factcheck.org].

      You were on to something with the first part. Yes, starting in 2014, Social Security shortfall has been made up out of the general fund, to the tune of about $75billion/year.

      However, the second part of your statement that "it's the biggest part of our debt", indicates that you just didn't read your own link. What that article on factcheck.org actually says is this:

      Q: Who are the holders of U.S. debt?
      A: The biggest are the Social Security trust funds (16 percent), the Federal Reserve banks (12 percent), China (8 percent), Japan (7 percent) and mutual funds including money-market funds (6 percent).

      Those aren't the people who are borrowing the money, those are the people who are LENDING THE MONEY. That's what it means to "hold debt".

      So, if you do a little arithmetic, if congress was simply to pay back the money that they borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, it would add up to over $2 TRILLION, which would be enough to keep it solvent pretty much for the next 100 years or so.

      In summary, not only has Social Security not added any net amount to the debt, but it basically lent the government enough money to pay for George W. Bush's two disastrous wars.

      You gotta read these things before you post them.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    228. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the radical policies like small business incentives back when the economy was going down? Oh wait, the Republicans blocked that.

      I'm still looking for these radical bills he's allowed to become laws. Perhaps you could point me to them

      The truth is that politics is not about radical acts these days (thank goodness!) but hey, with Trump, you probably will mange to get that radicalism you fear has taken over DC

    229. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by arthurh3535 · · Score: 1

      Not sure how you get beyond 100% unqualified.

      Hillary is corrupt, and a criminal, and a terrible choice. Trump has proposed arming middle eastern despots with nuclear weapons, and is pro-nuclear proliferation. That is how you go beyond 100%.

      And amazingly (really!) not a single shred of evidence, not even a single indictment. Yet somehow she's the criminal, while the Rump is basically a businessman mafioso.

      --
      No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    230. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by arthurh3535 · · Score: 1

      Yup, she did, because rallies aren't elections. Bernie paid a lot of money to make sure he had tons of people at his rallies. But they didn't show up to vote.

      --
      No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    231. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of otherwise sane person assumes a politician at that level would say something so obviously idiotic? It doesn't pass the laugh test. Joke's on all those gullible people who lapped it up because they so wanted it to be true that they didn't stop to wonder why in the world would anyone say it?

    232. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oh and about Obama having high approval? In the latest Quinnipiac poll [usatoday.com] he's considered the worst of all Presidents post WW II.

      Yeah, by about a third of the people, probably those about to vote for Donald Trump. Oh wait...not only is that not the "latest Quinnipiac poll", but it's from fucking 2014.

      I'm really starting to notice that you don't bother to look at any of the things you post. Here is the actual latest polling, which has him at a higher approval rating than Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II at the same period in their presidency.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    233. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      BS. Back that claim up.

      This is from the site you provided yourself:

      https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

      Subtract the previous year from the year before to get the amount the debt is increasing. You'll see it's in line with my claims.

      You'll also see that the year the debt increased the most was the year of George W. Bush's last budget. The budget deficit has been dropping under Obama. No matter how you do the math.

      Further, when you look at the total debt as a percentage of GDP, you'll see that's dropping, too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    234. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judge your actions by outcomes, not desires. Your vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win is a desire. You will still be responsible for the outcome. Better to vote against the worse R/D candidate. That's how democracy wins - by keep the worst people out of power.

    235. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

      If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.

      So Hillary is one of "the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable"? Citation needed.

      She has been under investigation almost continuously for more than 20 years by both legal authorities and very rich political opponents. During that time, the only thing which has been proven is that she sucks at email security. If she had done anything serious, SOMEONE would have sold out and given proof.

      She doesn't do much obviously illegal (the email security breaches would have gotten anyone else fired or in jail), she helps out her friends, and knows more dirt on people than J Edgar Hoover. Why would anyone sell her out? This doesn't mean she is an ethical person and the sheer volume of suspicious activities specifically involving her and not other people in similar positions, say, Condoleezza Rice or almost everyone else I can think of actually, should raise some suspicions. There is simply a tremendous volume of things to overlook. One of my favorites is the security trader who donated at least a million and got appointed to the ISAB. Nobody knew why he was there and he resigned as soon as reporters started asking questions.

      I looked up the definition of "evil" on M-W and found two definitions. The two candidates seem to be particularly well suited to the roles.
      a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
      b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

    236. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It turns out that many people like facts rather than bombastic hearsay. And many people seem quite happy with Hillary. Coincidence?

      Tell you what, Mr. "Fact-Based" decision-maker, take FBI Director Comey's report, globally replace every mention of Hillary Clinton's name with another, then rip off the conclusion at the bottom and ask a federal prosecutor to read those "facts" and decide if she is guilty or not. Comey invented an "intent" requirement that isn't in the law, then he decided that since he didn't think any prosecutor would choose to take the case to court, that meant she was not guilty of a crime.

      The same facts with any other name would result in a recommendation to bring criminal charges.

      Her "innocence" is predicated on the understanding that she lacks the "sophistication" to identify classified material - a skill that secretaries in the State department have to master to keep their jobs.

    237. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.

      You can't be serious - Rep. Conyers admitted he never even read the bill - which is bad enough but he was the SPONSOR (AKA person responsible for submitting the bill for consideration) of the bill!

      No, they didn't push "through more pre-written, un-read garbage"... They took 2,500 finely-crafted pages of un-read garbage, accepted exactly ZERO ammendments or changes to it, then immediately after passing the bill into law set about the task of correcting it. They failed to include a severability clause, for example, which under any other Supreme Court would have made the bill "all-or-nothing" - if any part was unconstitutional, the whole bill would be unconstitutional.

      PPACA was poorly-drafted crap. the Dems knew it, the Republicans knew it (because they read it), and the American People got sold a bill of goods (If you lke your doctor youcan keep him, every family will save $2,500/yr, etc.)...

    238. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. If HTC gets Ohio and Florida, the other 10 or so battleground states are irrelevant; she wins, game over.

      If DT wins them both, the battleground states become relevant, but he'll still have to win a majority of those, too.

    239. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by jcr · · Score: 1

      If you believe that Dr. Woods made any factual errors in that presentation, please point them out. You can't just sneer the facts away.

      the only people who think FDR made the Depression worse are people who were born many decades after the Great Depression was over

      Nope. There were any number of his contemporaries who could see that FDR's economic policies were insane. His own secretary of the treasury, Henry Morgenthau, to name one.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    240. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swallow your smug and think. She wins if she gets them, period. No other swing states matter, because the college votes are there already. If he gets them he doesn't lose, but still needs to win OTHER states to win.

      In other words, Trump loses instantly if Hillary wins those two states.

    241. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's your president, too. I think it's impossibly sad that we've lost sight of that. Why is it so vital that we all try to stymie a leader that wins instead of trying our best to make the things they propose work better?

      We're all on the same team, whether or not you're too angry to see it.

    242. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do so many people believe Obama has been some sort of EO gatling gun? He's used less than Bush 2, in fact, less than the last 3 presidents. Look it up. We've had presidents issue THOUSANDS of EOs, Obama looks absolutely tame by comparison.

    243. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Look at the current year - Oct 1 2015 to today. It's over $1.2 trillion and counting. And the last Bush budget? That was FY2007. Nothing was passed after that - per Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (who ran Congress).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    244. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Cool so the Social Security trust fund bonds aren't a debt? The Federal Government doesn't have to pay that back? Really? Sorry - it's a debt. And the links I posted said as much. You've posted nothing but saying "well if we pay it back then it's no longer a debt"... And? it's a debt until then. That's the fact.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    245. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And the last Bush budget? That was FY2007.

      You don't know how fiscal years work.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    246. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Cool so the Social Security trust fund bonds aren't a debt? The Federal Government doesn't have to pay that back?

      Of course it's a debt. We have a fiat currency, so everything is a debt. The crumpled bills in your pocket are a debt.

      The points are, that Social Security did not cause the debt. Your statement that Social Security represents the biggest part of the debt was a falsehood. You don't know the difference between being in debt and holding a debt. That the debt that the Social Security trust fund (yes, it exists) holds is in Treasury obligations, which are the most secure instruments in the world. If you had a million dollars in Treasury bills, you would consider yourself a millionaire. Well, Social Security has over three trillion dollars worth of them.

      Social Security is the most successful program the US government has ever had. There was no American middle class until Social Security existed. There was just the rich, a merchant class and workers who mostly died in poverty. And if you're worried about the rising costs of Social Security, there's an easy fix: remove the payroll tax cap. Make high-income earners pay the same percentage on the same percentage of their income to Social Security. That crates a surplus in the fund, forever.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    247. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Posting Forbes links on Slashdot should get you an immediate -1 mod...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    248. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      FY2008 was never signed, it was submitted but that was it. FY2009 was signed by President Obama. Thus FY2007 was the last Bush signed budget. You don't know of what you speak.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    249. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So, your answer is "nuh uh". Sorry - Social Security due is a debt. That's the point. You want to talk about what caused the debt? That's a completely different discussions. The largest debt we owe is for Social Security. Flat out - and I've referenced that. Would LOVE to see you provide a reference that states otherwise.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    250. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Again, if she doesn't flip Ohio and Florida - who wins? Because it's not looking good for Hillary! in those States...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    251. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You know that's not true. Nobody wants to take your gun away from you.

      I do actually firmly believe, that if Obama had his way and could do it legally with the stroke of a pen, he would disarm the general public immediately.

      Yes, I do believe that from listening to his rhetoric, both current and in earlier years in his writings, etc...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    252. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish people would stop trying to vote in elections as if they are playing some sort of prisoner's dilemma and just vote for who they agree with. This type of thinking limits your choices, and reinforces the artificial two party us versus them divide.

    253. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by kqs · · Score: 1

      The head of the FBI, who is a republican and hates Clinton, said that they would never charge someone who did what she did (handled classified material poorly but with no attempt to leak it). Good thing that you know the law better than lawyers and law enforcement officials, though.

      You ask "Why would anyone sell her out" to powerful billionaires and a party that controls about 50% of the government? That question answers itself.

      I think that the rest of your evidence is "she helps out her friends", which is proof she is as evil as Satan and Genghis Khan.

      I'll never claim that Clinton is a candidate for sainthood, but she seems fine. She's certainly a power-broker, but no more than other politicians. She doesn't spew hatred like her opponent; on policy matters she sticks close to facts and has proposals with numbers which actually add up. She'll compromise where Sanders wouldn't, which sucks if you're a purist but means that she'll get a lot more left-friendly legislation passed than he would.

      I like your second definition: "arising from actual OR IMPUTED bad character or conduct". So you're going with the "I don't like her so therefore she is EVIL EVIL EVIL" method. Which is fine, I just ask that you admit it. You're right though that "evil" is a better term than "corrupt" or "reprehensible"; the latter two can be disputed with evidence while "evil" is "that which I dislike, so there".

    254. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I do actually firmly believe, that if Obama had his way and could do it legally with the stroke of a pen, he would disarm the general public immediately.

      He's been President going on eight years. What was the #1 thing Obama has done to take your guns away?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    255. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      FY2008 was never signed [wikipedia.org], it was submitted but that was it.

      It was Bush that submitted it, so it was his budget.

      There was no budget at all signed for several years of Obama's presidency. Does that mean that there was no deficit those years or that Obama isn't responsible for it?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    256. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      single shred of evidence

      If you mean ignoring all the evidence against her, simply because the corrupt Justice Department didn't actually indict her for breaking the law. Here is the "no evidence" you're asking for ...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    257. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The Democratic Party platform is just as much of a shitshow as the Republican one, it's just more big tent about it.

      That's top shelf, thanks!.

    258. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm writing in a vote for Crooked Cheney.

    259. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends if the status quo is a rapid decline in morals, freedom, economy etc.

      I think change is necessary to avoid the cliff dead ahead.

    260. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      rofl

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    261. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Rofl.
      The ignorance is strong with this one.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    262. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      I love this argument.

      The most qualified person in years, with the best fact checking record of any candidate, with no major skeletons in the closet (beyond 100% manufactured unsubstantiated garbage) runs for president.....against Trump who is the complete polar opposite in each of those categories...

      and we're supposed to believe she's the "crooked" one.

      that is how delusional American politics have become.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    263. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      cause mass shootings never happened before the black guy got into the white house?
      shutup idiot.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    264. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      which part is racebaiting scumbaggery?
      the part where he ended the recession?
      the part where he began winding down one of the longest periods of warfare we've known?
      or maybe the part where we've had the longest period of sustained economic growth...basically ever?
      I could go on.

      the point is you are posting 100% delusional garbage.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    265. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      again you get proven wrong yet AGAIN.
      ever get tired of your BS being pointed out?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    266. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      because what bush did wasn't destabilizing in the least...

      the only thing you said that isn't more delusional BS is the bit of about whistleblowers.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    267. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but it will look like this:

      Clinton + Trump combined: 98%
      Johnson: 1%

    268. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't call her unqualified "throughout his campaign". He called her unqualified after he heard some misreport that she had called him unqualified in the first place. This took place around April 7th or so according to every single Google result on it.

    269. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yes, but you're ignorant, so who cares what your opinion on the subject is?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    270. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, "so far left" even though it's way to the right of pretty much any system in the rest of the world.

      But that's what unlimited money in politics gives you. Right-wing hard-line corporate welfare.

    271. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      must be that new English, where "constantly trying" has the same meaning as "has introduced 0 proposals or policies to do so".

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    272. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Both are 100% unqualified

      Cause no one has ever become president after being a state legislator, senator, or secretary of state before, let alone all of those things....

      what's it like to be so deluded?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    273. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "you can keep your plan" wasn't in the cards, than the President shouldn't have said it.

      Insofar as the government wasn't forcing people to abandon their existing relationships with their insurance companies, it was.

      But good luck getting that idea into a soundbite.

      (And why people were so obsessed with that, I don't know. They've been locked into that idea forever, even if the reality isn't the best.)

      This was a major selling point of the whole debacle, which he emphasized by ending it with "period".

      Yeah, and yet that's not a promise ANYBODY could make without handcuffing insurance companies to offer plans in perpetuity.

      Doable, but not what they intended to do anyway.

      The legislation was so lengthy and so difficult to understand that people latched onto this as a major selling point and it failed to deliver, spectacularly so.

      Of course people latch onto tiny things and get freaked, yet fail to see the big picture. Which is back to why they tried to come up with a soundbite.

      It was dumb, but what do you want me to do about it? Feel sad?

      Then he lied about it. "What I actually said was..", but we can all go to the many videos where he said it.

      Ok, it seems to me your problem is Obama-oriented.

      Meh, I don't give a crap, I didn't advise him on it. I'd have told him to parse his words better, but again, not given the chance to give advise.

      I would suggest you get over this notion though, it just makes you look bitter.

      Yea, fine "death panel" is evocative. But that is what these panels were. It was a decision on how care was to be rationed for certain illnesses given a set of variables. That's a danger with single payer. If a hospital is built far away, that's not the same thing. You can move closer to it if you want. Single payer takes away your options.

      Nope, the whole "death panel" is simply a phrase to get people to react, when the fact is, allocation of resources is already practiced and evident, and this process didn't especially change that anyway. That's why I have so much disdain for that part of the discussion, they chose to freak people out with it.

      Now I might believe criticisms if they stuck to a neutral name, but nope, they chose the emotional reaction caused by "death panel" so people would think that their lives would somehow suddenly be on the line. Except they're already on the line. Medical resources are already distributed according to expected patterns, and fret all you want over "single payer" you can't prove it would cause more or less deaths without a considerable amount of analysis and examination.

      Which was never done. And given that the PPACA wasn't changing the delivery of care, it's a moot point.

      Obama wasn't going to ban private insurance, he wouldn't have to. Single payer could undercut them using the taxpayer's own money and wait them out. That's why the GOP was against it. It was obvious.

      Nope, they were against it because it would have eliminated the waste and inefficiency in the current system, bring costs down, and reduced expenses for Americans, which would have hurt their bottom line. That'd have been bad for them.

      Not bad for Americans, but bad for them.

      The feds wanted to take complete control. That is not the role of the federal government. You need consent of the governed and it was not there. A change that massive should require amending the Constitution and it should never be forced on us by a single party.

      If you want to hold a Constitutional Convention, I'm up for it. But that never had a chance to happen, can't even get the House to apportion itself properly.

      Which is offensive all the more. We have a nasty festering boil, but no fix or resolution is possible because of adamant and intractable opposition.

      An

    274. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well it sure seems to be working better for them. And over there, they have a bunch of different political parties, not just two, so it's more feasible for that system to work.

    275. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." -Will Rogers

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    276. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure I do. Do you remember the context in which she said it, and what she meant?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    277. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For some reason, people keep repeating this nonsense. The FBI said that cases like hers were normally resolved with administrative sanctions, up to and including people being fired and never getting a security clearance ever again. These can't be applied because Clinton is not a government employee and doesn't have a clearance, I believe. The careers of politicians run by different rules: they can shake off things that would ruin other people's careers, but their careers can be ended by the voters at any election.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    278. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For Western Europe, Bernie would be more or less centrist, and Hillary's to the right of him. Are you calling Western Europe right-wing?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    279. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As a former Bernie supporter, individual voter fraud is not serious, but Republican attempts to disenfranchise minorities by making it hard to vote are. Hillary won the campaign fair and square, although Bernie attracted more enthusiastic supporters, hence the success of his rallies.

      Hillary would have won without superdelegates, but superdelegates serve an important role in the nominating process. My first election was 1972, when the Democrats were in the same sort of ideological mess the Republicans have been in (although for a much shorter period of time). I watched McGovern get hammered. If there had been superdelegates then, they would have made it harder for McGovern to get the nomination, and the election might not have been so painful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    280. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it was Clinton himself that said it was about blowjobs - SO NO ONE WOULD REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS REALLY ABOUT.

      count yourself among the gullible.

      Eventually they got around to taking away his law license and some other settlement stuff - which he sort of illegally used umbrella insurance policies to cover it but by then no one followed the case which has pretty much been their pattern - deny, blame the attacker, blame it on something else, admit part, stall, stall, stall

    281. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they took over student loans - making it part of the health care law so things might balance.

    282. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The discerning among you may notice that while Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, he hasn't shut down his campaign or withdrawn from the race yet.
      The above is part of the reason why.

      Hurry up, wikileaks!

    283. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      I'm not a republican, first off. Second, I point at the dems because this legislation was passed by the dems exclusively. Understand that. This only looks partisan because the dems had a hard time getting enough of their own people to vote for it, let alone anyone else.

      "Why? Are you so adamantly opposed that you dictate to others that they must leave the country at your behest, rather than let them advocate their own interests?"

      You clearly don't understand the role of government in the US. The Constitution defines a limited set of powers that the federal government has and leaves everything else to state and local governments. There is no power to regulate health insurance, to operate an exchange, or to punish people for not having health insurance. The feds exploited the right to levy an income tax, perverting it into a punishment for not having health insurance. The supreme court made a mockery of our laws by letting that happen. This is how our federal government bypasses all the restrictions it's supposed to be limited by. The take from the taxpayers and the states, and then only give some of it back if we capitulate. It's evil and corrupt.

      I know that HSAs predate the AHA. It just amazes me that we were sold a monstrous piece of legislation that was supposed to improve access to health care and for so many that already had great coverage, they're now seeing their access disappear. Hopefully you're healthy and you don't have to experience it yourself, because it's a nightmare. It's a cruel thing to be managing your health and then have that ripped away by laws that were meant to make things better.

      "Maybe instead of a corrupt oligarchy where citizens are deceived and mistreated by a bunch of con artists, we have a well-designed health care system that delivers care rather than wasting money on landscaping and lobby fountains."

      Corporations and government are indistinguishable on this point, other than the exception I mentioned earlier.. you can choose to do business with other companies, you can't choose a new government.

      "they've been deficient in providing alternatives"

      Because that's not the role of government! Health care is between me and my doctor, and my insurer if I choose to have have one. Or at least that's how it should be. I'm not even required to have auto insurance, and that can potentially impact others. Do you not realize how this can be abused? Someone like Trump could mandate that all Americans must have a firearm. The supreme court has already allowed the use of income tax as a penalty, and has already allowed the feds to force us to buy things that we may not want. With most politicians owned by corporations, that's going to be abused eventually.

    284. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Apparently you missed where I showed I was, in fact, correct. Check out the actual debt to the penny since October 1, 2015 and learn for yourself. You can apologize afterwards - if you have enough integrity, that is.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    285. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a republican, first off.

      You sure? Then how about you stop ripping all of their tired and empty complaints out of their playbook?

      Because you sure aren't sounding like somebody with a legitimate and well-articulated platform that stands on its own, but quite a lot of "Oh that terrible Obama" which comes out of the GOP of today.

      Maybe you should look at how you look. I don't buy for a second that you're an actual independent, or even thinking much about this.

      Second, I point at the dems because this legislation was passed by the dems exclusively. Understand that. This only looks partisan because the dems had a hard time getting enough of their own people to vote for it, let alone anyone else.

      Nope, it looks partisan because the Republicans knew they could make Democrats take all the heat for it, and leave them free to make tired and empty complaints, rather than participate openly in the process, even though they got practically everything they wanted(and made lots of the sausage behind the scenes), which in turn leaves them in a deadly trap of being unable to do anything grossly different.

      It's not exactly a productive gambit. Eventually people will notice that the GOP isn't offering them anything different.

      "Why? Are you so adamantly opposed that you dictate to others that they must leave the country at your behest, rather than let them advocate their own interests?"

      You clearly don't understand the role of government in the US.

      You clearly don't understand the offensiveness of your comment regarding leaving the country, let alone wish to retract it. Look, it's a hateful sentiment, and you should refrain from doing it.

      It's impolite, and rude, a way to dismiss others, rather than address their concerns. So stop. It's not helpful. It doesn't advance your argument, it makes you look like a chump.

      Just take the temptation to say something like that, and stifle it.

      The Constitution defines a limited set of powers that the federal government has and leaves everything else to state and local governments. There is no power to regulate health insurance, to operate an exchange, or to punish people for not having health insurance.

      Actually, you're wrong on the first, second, and ultimately, the third. You see, health insurance is readily defined as Interstate commerce, and as such, facilitating and managing it is entirely within Congressional purview. People cross state lines for health care, people work across state lines, people move from state to state. It's a national problem, for a national government.

      It's a rather obvious parameter. Especially since states saw fit to do what? Oh yeah, regulate the industry and prevent out-of-state companies from operating within them. Now Congress can let that happen, or Congress can deal with it.

      But whatever, you want to bitch and moan about it not being specifically enumerated, how about we have discussion on the Constitution and how it needs to be revised? Oh wait, we can't do that. Then you'd actually have to handle a discussion on its own merits.

      See, that's the whole point of this "It's not Constitutional" bickering, it's to avoid the discussion, not to foster it. I'd respect a genuine attempt at a Constitutional convention. I don't respect how it is used to silence debate.

      The feds exploited the right to levy an income tax, perverting it into a punishment for not having health insurance. The supreme court made a mockery of our laws by letting that happen.

      John Roberts made that mockery, blame him for his own desire to make a tortured reasoning to justify it. Whatever, I didn't vote for him. It's like Kennedy's marriage opinion. Whatever dude, go ahead and wax eloquent, but damn, not my thinking, so don't hold me responsible. I told you this already though. Stop bothering me about it. I don't care

    286. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure past experience will be predictive here. Republicans and Democrats weren't nearly as antagonistic in the Clinton era as they are today. It was certainly heading in that direction then - impeachment was a sign of things to come - but still.

    287. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by colinwb · · Score: 1

      "If you want a public health system, move to Canada or the UK. We had the best system in the world, the best doctors, the best hospitals. A competitive system is far superior to a government run bureaucratic mess."

      health-care-spending-compared
      Do you think that by spending about 40% per capita more on health care than any other country in the world the USA has health care which is on average significantly better than the health care in, for example, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Canada, let alone 40% better?

      A true story: many years ago I visited an English friend who at the time was working in Vienna. In a conversation with her Canadian husband, for some reason (I forget the context) I praised the UK National Health Service (NHS). He - quite rightly - pointed out that I had no knowledge whatsoever of any other system, and suggested that the Canadian system might be better than the NHS.

      Since then I've been even more cautious about pontificating about things for which I have insufficient knowledge. So it's possible that for the average person (not the super rich) health care in the USA is better than in - for example - the countries I listed. But I'm doubtful that USA citizens are getting better value for total health care spending than in those countries.

      Note: the Kings Fund is an independent organisation dedicated to research to improve UK health care, and I trust it not to have views contaminated by left or right prejudices for or against public or private health care provision. So the statistics on per capita health care spending are probably reasonably accurate. And the following link provides confirmation:
      wikipedia

    288. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Destabilizing the middle east is what he did right.

      The hog fuckers are now fighting each other. Yeah Bush, great job.

      Bonus. Europe now has economic refugees in almost the numbers America sees. We don't have to hear their idiotic opinions about Mexican and central American illegals as much as they are starting to understand.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    289. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That is what's known as an 'accounting trick'. It's bullshit and you know it. It's bullshit when the English take their pension obligations 'off book' and it's bullshit when the Americans take the SS debt 'off book'.

      The bonds in the SS trust fund are certainly part of the national debt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    290. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      SS trust fund has bonds as an asset.

      The treasury has those very same bonds as a liability. 16% is the single largest number. You undermine your own position.

      You _aren't_ stupid enough to believe your own argument. Why are you in parrot mode today?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    291. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You accidently hit on the key point.

      US bonds have historically been good investments, because we _didn't_ 'default' by printing money.

      That is going to change in the next 20 years, unless another currency goes 'pop' first and we are saved by capital flight. My money is on the Euro crashing and saving our ass.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    292. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Any other lawyer would have been disbarred for whitewater.

      She was on both sides of the case. As a lawyer for the state and as a real estate investor involved in a scam.

      Somehow she got away with it, Chelsea's dad died in jail before he could testify against her.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    293. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sanders will cost Hillary Florida. Now she is supported by the same man who supports Fidel.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    294. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Centrist politicians in Europe went to the USSR for their honeymoon and support Castro?

      You're fucking nuts. Those are leftists even in Greece.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    295. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't understand American elections. For those in 'safe states' any vote other than for the one you like best is stupid.

      Your POV might make sense in swing states.

      If you live in a 'safe state' and vote D or R you are part of the problem.

      If you live in a 'swing state' the move is to find a Green/Libertarian buddy. Knowing you're not changing the final vote.

      Why? So the media can stop pretending there are only two parties. So the third parties get on debate stages and get federal election funds.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    296. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It has downsides. Minority parties become kingmakers in coalitions. Coalitions that break up regularly as they don't really agree on anything more than keeping someone else out of power.

      I'm not seeing how it's working better for them. Europe is a mess, even after 70 years of having America pay for it's defense.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    297. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Key quote in that article:

      because some of the debt may be tied to him personally.

      In other words motherjones pretends to not understand corporate finance to bash Trump. SOP.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    298. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nukes saved the world.

      Only an idiot thinks Stalin would have stopped absent nukes.

      Oppenheimer, Graves and company should have gotten a Nobel peace prize.

      Nukes will force Pakistan and India to grow up.

      If Iran gets nukes, the counterbalancing Saudi nukes will force them to end their geopolitical childhood as well.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    299. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      A conservative plan applied to the national level is not necessarily a conservative plan any longer.
      Conservatives truly believe that there are decisions that individual states are able to make that the federal government ought to have no part of.

    300. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Destabilizing the middle east is what he did right.

      The hog fuckers are now fighting each other. Yeah Bush, great job.

      It took down a bunch of asshole dictators who, even though they were assholes, knew that if they actively supported terrorists knew their ass would be grass.

      Hosni Mubarak? Persecuted his political enemies, but he also did a great job at suppressing Islamic Fundamentalism in Egypt. (Though I still miss Sadat..)
      Saddam Hussein? People seem to love to say he supported terrorism, but the terrorism threat from Iraq today is FAR greater than it ever was during his reign.
      Muammar Gaddafi? After 9/11 he read the way the political winds were blowing and made damned sure that Libya wouldn't provide a tempting target for a vengeful west.
      Bashar al-Assad? Total asshole, let's be honest, but he seemed like the only person capable of containing the crazies in his country. Without his strength to crush ISIS the way it needs to be crushed, now it has the strength to attack the West, repeatedly.

      What other countries there have given us grief? Afghanistan, a place no strong ruler has been able to pacify since Zahir Shah, Pakistan (though their troubles are mild compared to the others on this list), and Saudi Arabia, the weird outlier in all of this, the one place with a stable regime that seems friendly to the US while actively globally promoting a harsh fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that lies at the heart of most of this turmoil.

    301. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They always had the strength to attack the west.

      Now they are busy fighting each other, though they still have the strength to attack the west, the distraction is a help.

      Saddam definitely supported terrorism. Hezbollah terrorism, nobody denies it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    302. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      SS trust fund has bonds as an asset.

      But Social Security has the benefit (get it?) of having a dedicated source of income, the payroll taxes.

      As I've said, if you had a million dollars in treasury bonds as an asset, you'd be a millionaire. Social Security has over 3 TRILLION dollars in treasury bonds as an asset. It's not the fault of that program that the government has been raiding it. It doesn't mean the program isn't sound, it means our leaders haven't been sound.

      And even with those $3trillion in bonds, Social Security is taking less from the general fund to pay its full benefits than the amount we give oil companies as subsidies in one year. If you just remove the payroll tax cap and have everyone pay the same percentage of their income in payroll taxes that you and I pay, the system will stay sound for a century.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    303. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That is going to change in the next 20 years

      No, brother, it's not going to happen in the next 20 years. Over the past 8 years, the strength of the dollar and it's desirability as a reserve currency has only gone up. The percentage of GDP that we have as a national debt is actually quite reasonable, and we're paying zero interest on that debt to boot.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    304. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      "Then figure out a way to present yourself in a respectable manner."

      Go fuck yourself.

      How's that?

      You haven't bothered to address my points directly, instead you complain about the GOP or dismiss things out of hand. Your point about interstate commerce is probably the only halfway legit point you made, except that it's logically flawed. In our mobile society, that would make everything the domain of the feds. If I see a doctor in my state using a plan that's only offered in my state, there's no federal interest, and thus interstate commerce cannot apply.

      "Having some form of [auto] insurance, or an alternative, is mandated across the civilized world."

      Not in New Hampshire, the last state that still tries to let its residents live free. Our state trusts that its residents will behave responsibly. It works.

      "If you wanted that, you should have called your Congressman and told them to train another few thousand doctors and nurses."

      Congressman don't typically teach medicine.

      "What, you think I believe for a second that if Trump wanted to do something, that he'd let a mere technicality like the Constitution stop him?"

      You're confusing the two parties. Obama tried to do things with executive orders that the courts struck down. They even cited his own speeches where he had said such orders wouldn't be legal.

      "Give us a plan."

      Repeal.

      "Look, you can blather on and on about this threat to your liberty all you want, it'll just be tiresome."

      Yes, the Constitution is a real problem, isn't it?

      "That's untrue, in fact, being able to effect a new government is part of why we have elections and revolutions."

      Right.. a violent revolt is just like changing insurers. You should download the updates to your talking points. Or not, I don't really care.

    305. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      Dems controlled House & Senate for first two years

      People like to say that, and it is technically true. But technically true did not amount to complete freedom to pass any liberal law they wanted. Ever heard the term blue dog democrat? Or just one guy named Joe Lieberman?

      That blue dogs and lieberman are why single payer healthcare wasn't even on the table to begin with.

    306. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How on earth is Europe "a mess", aside from the current refugee crisis?

      They have universal healthcare in many countries (and an excellent public/private system in others like Germany), they have strong consumer protection laws (2-year warranties standard), free college tuition in some nations (Germany, Finland I think), excellent food, much better public health than we have (they don't have over 50% of the population obese like we do), their governments aren't nearly as corporate-controlled as ours is, they don't have problems with police brutality, and they have the highest standards of living in the world (esp. Switzerland and Sweden). They even have far better banking than we do (chip&pin cards for ages, easy and free bank transfers).

      Even the Eastern European nations are advancing at a very fast rate, considering they were behind the Iron Curtain just 25 years ago.

      Where did you get the utterly insane idea that "Europe is a mess"? Some right-wing propaganda site?

    307. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Bu-bu-bu-but Bush did it first!

      What a weakass response. I thought Democrats hated Bush? Now they want to emulate him?

      What a bunch of hypocrites.

    308. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with a honeymoon in foreign country, and tourism doesn't seem to be deterred by despotic governments. There's some interesting stuff to see in the former Soviet Union.

      I don't think it's worthwhile to try to categorize someone on the basis of one view that doesn't affect their policies much. If you went to the Sanders campaign page and looked at what he wanted to do, it's pretty much standard for Western Europe. You have to better than that to be a leftist there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    309. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Everybody owns Euro printing presses. Their baby boom retirement is no more funded than the USA's (in general, Norway is one exception, England is the worst, they just took pensions 'off book' and said 'done'). Every economy except Germany is in the shitter. Even Germany's education system is failing on the bottom 25% (just like most countries always have).

      Have you been to Europe?

      I'm the first person in my family born in the USA. Germany is now graduating native german students out of highschool that can't multiply. Think about what used to make Germany a good place to do business, sure the people are expensive, but at least they are educated, not anymore.

      Easiest way to see which places are a mess. Immigration flows. People vote with their feet.

      Also note the 'refugee crisis' is a flow roughly equal to what the USA has been absorbing yearly for 30 years. At least we don't need to listen to their self righteous blather about beeners anymore.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    310. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Praise for Castro?

      Going to the USSR while it was the USSR? Do you know how insanely poor a value the USSR was? The official exchange rates back then were a terrible joke.

      Sanders isn't just a leftist, he is a crypto-communist. They always lie to get power, nobody would let them be dog catcher if they told the truth.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    311. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Jesus tap dancing christ, you are playing stupid. Payroll taxes don't cover SS outlays, haven't for years and won't again cover the costs for decades.

      Granting the blame lies with all politicians back to FDR (with a particular large dose of blame on him). Doesn't change the FACT it's the single biggest holder of US debt and is certain to be paid back by printing money.

      Spare me the oil company subsidies lies. We've already beat that to _death_. Big fat lies everywhere. Gas taxes being used to pay for roads are counted as subsidies, regular business expense deductions are counted as subsidies etc etc. No credibility left there, sorry.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    312. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Payroll taxes don't cover SS outlays, haven't for years and won't again cover the costs for decades.

      Payroll taxes cover all but about $80 billion of the nearly $1trillion that is paid toward all SS (OASI and disability) benefits.

      If you just eliminate the cap on payroll taxes so that everybody pays the same percentage, it would eliminate the shortfall and even allow for a much-needed increase in benefits.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    313. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL...there's an old saying in banking: if you own the bank $100, you have a problem; if you owe the bank $100M, the bank has a problem.

    314. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like you're describing things that are no worse than, and generally better than, what we've been dealing with here in the US for quite some time, and we're still surviving and still have a much higher standard of living than most countries on the planet (except the western European ones and probably Japan). People have been telling me for over a decade now that the US is going to turn into something out of a zombie apocalypse movie "any day now". There's big problems to be sure, but there's no hyperinflation, and there's been big problems for decades; have you forgotten how turbulent the 60s were? Or how much crime there was in the 70s?

      I don't get your comment about "printing presses" (also, Switzerland, Norway, UK, Denmark, and Sweden don't use Euros). We have upcoming problems with Social Security too. Our economy is doing pretty good for highly-paid professionals and great for the 0.1%, and shitty for everyone else. Our education system has been failing the bottom 25% and graduating functionally illiterate people and people who can't multiply for literally decades now; my mom complained about this when I was a kid. Heck, we even graduate them from college if they can throw a football, and again, we've been doing that probably for my whole lifetime. And we've had immigration issues and controversies for at least 150 years now.

      Probably every country is a "mess" in one way or another. It's all relative. The question is: which ones are doing the best? AFAICT, western European nations are generally doing the best, and quality-of-life surveys back this up. Switzerland and Sweden and Norway consistently lead in these metrics (note that 2 of those are not EU members, and the 3rd still has its own currency), and Finland is also doing extremely well, which is remarkable considering where it was 25+ years ago during the cold war. There is no perfect country. But in many ways, European countries are doing better than the US.

    315. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself.

      How's that?

      Pretty poor, actually. But you know that, don't you? Maybe you should rethink your presentation a bit more. I mean really, do you not know you sound like a Republican mouthpiece? That makes your protest that you're not such, but an alleged independent, seem more than a little dishonest to me.

      That you refuse to articulate a meaningful presentation of an alternative is also a problem.

      You really should work on putting more thought into what you're doing.

      You haven't bothered to address my points directly, instead you complain about the GOP or dismiss things out of hand.

      I consider most of your points to be irrelevant, meaningless, or outright silly. What, do you want me to take you seriously when I consider your position to be silly and empty gripes that aren't important to me, or reflective of my position or references? Really, do you not remember you complaining about Obama making a promise about keeping your plan?

      My problem was that it was all about political pandering, and it's not like you were going to suggest he force insurance companies to keep plans up forever, so what was your real problem with it? Just pulling it out of the Republican playbook for some reason? Why not pull the one where they distorted Nancy Pelosi's words about seeing what was in it? I don't give a crap about it. I'd have told him to make no such statement, I'd tell him to do the opposite. Especially since so many of those plans were outright wasteful frauds.

      Or perhaps you want to belabor me more about John Roberts's poorly written opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius? Why? I've already told you that I don't respect his tortured reasoning. But that's his problem, not mine. Same with Obergefell v. Hodges and Kennedy's opinion. Didn't write it, don't expect me to defend it.

      What exactly do you want me to address? I know what I want you to address. Your lack of a presentation that doesn't come right out of the GOP's bickering playground, and your failure to express a rationale plan to deal with health insurance in this country.

      Your point about interstate commerce is probably the only halfway legit point you made, except that it's logically flawed. In our mobile society, that would make everything the domain of the feds.

      You mean the existing legal debate that has continued through modern jurisprudence remains an issue? Who knew!

      Is it a problem?

      Maybe so, but I didn't create the Constitution back in the late 1700s, nor am I responsible for the Feds referring to that clause for a variety of purposes, such as the FLSA, or the Civil Rights Act, or decisions like Swift v. United States or Wickard v. Filburn, or United States v. Lopez.

      And like I said, I'm open to a Constitution Convention. That would be an acceptable means for me to handle it. If it were actually effected.

      So far, that's not been done, or perhaps I missed the invite?

      If I see a doctor in my state using a plan that's only offered in my state, there's no federal interest, and thus interstate commerce cannot apply.

      See, that's where you're getting the wrong idea, they don't have to regulate you, they could easily regulate your state. Because unfortunately for you, you couldn't buy an out-of-state plan, since your state prohibited it. Not to mention your doctor had to be licensed by your state, or he couldn't perform any medical actions. Thus federal interest is back in. For the state.

      Then, of course, you have the EMTALA issue. If your doctor took Medicare, oops, now the Feds can set conditions on that.

      And they could, of course, have made bankruptcies an option for regulating it, given that so many bankruptcies were declared for medical expenses.

      But again, not consulted in writing the law, so don't bother me about its particulars, I'd not have accepted the proposal in the first place, I think it was

    316. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is Dallas like 9 11?

      Because the prep was black? It was not classic terrorism. If you want to use mass murder as the yardstick, then include Aurora, Sandy Hook and the temple in Oak Creek. The last most closely matches Dallas as it was a hate crime involving a deranged shooter. I wonder if that slipped your mind because it was a white guy shooting minorities.

    317. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 acts? You named 5.
      Your math is as faulty as your logic.

    318. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why I voted for Nadler in 2000.

    319. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I went to the USSR once as a tourist. There's a lot of neat stuff there. It may not have been a good value (although the exchange rate with ordinary people, as opposed to people I thought likely in law enforcement, was pretty near the official one). (I remember the guy in the car with a US flag on the antenna, wearing a sweater with a red, white, and blue pattern, offering rubles really cheap. I think that if I'd taken him up on it it would have been my last day in the Soviet Union.)

      There are favorable things to be said about Castro, depending on who you're comparing him with. Batista was no prize either.

      You seem to be determine to categorize until it gets the result you like. I've seen no indication that Sanders is a communist, and he's running as a Democratic Socialist, so he's not hiding his politics. It's not true that anyone who's left enough to be centrist in many other democracies is a liar.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    320. Re:The DNC overlords always get their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted for Perlot.

    321. Re: The DNC overlords always get their way by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      All it takes is one country to decide that it is worth the risk and the world is over. That's insane. Nukes don't threaten a single country. They threaten all countries and are a force that should never be used. Owning nukes would force countries to grow up? Why? Does giving a kid a gun make the kid grow up or make the kid think he's invincible and get people hurt? If the US having nukes doesn't discourage other countries from attacking us or our citizens why would them suddenly having nukes discourage them? If every country in the world starts building nuclear arsenals it puts us (all humans) into a more precarious position. Escalating tension does not lead to peace. If you think nukes make people able to negotiate from a position of strength it would be at best the position of a bully. I don't consider that a good position. (And it is the position of the United States often and I don't think that is good either.)

      That said. I'm against nuclear proliferation, but I'm not really for complete nuclear disarmament. Decreasing the world's stockpile would probably be good and I'm glad that research into making more powerful bombs has pretty much stopped, but I can agree that nukes have had a great impact on countries willingness to go to war for the countries that have nukes currently.

  3. how is this tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or stuff that matters?

    What's next, dribble about who the AARP is endorsing for president? Why stop there... let's discuss what sports figures Nike is endorsing.

    1. Re:how is this tech news? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 0

      One reason, there are others: Hillary, being utterly pwnt by Wall Street, will not be fixing the H-1B issue and hasn't chosen to make it part of her platform. Just a lot of blabber where she pretends to be stupid because she's paid to be stupid.

    2. Re:how is this tech news? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      How is this even news? Was there anyone paying attention who doubted this would happen?

      Thieves of a feather flock together.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:how is this tech news? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What's next, dribble about who the AARP is endorsing for president? Why stop there... let's discuss what sports figures Nike is endorsing.

      We needed a break from articles about Elon Musk and self-driving cars, which are totally just around the corner.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:how is this tech news? by Whatanut · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have missed the fact that the old slogan has been missing from this site for quite some time...

      --

      yvan eht nioj
    5. Re:how is this tech news? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      It's in the front page title though.

  4. Sigh. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry, I know you hate people who put content in the subject, and I know we're looking for insightful commentary here, but... that's just all I've got at this point.

  5. Gary Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I cannot vote for the R and D candidates.

    1. Re:Gary Johnson by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      Or Jill Stein depending on how you think things should go.

    2. Re:Gary Johnson by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You mean towards tyranny and bigger government? Sorry, we already have that in the R and D candidates.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  6. Still not voting for her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still not voting for her.... nor Trump.

    It's Stein or Johnson for me... Leaning toward Johnson right now.

    1. Re:Still not voting for her by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      It's Stein or Johnson for me... Leaning toward Johnson right now.

      Did you know there are polls that show Johnson leading Trump in at least one state?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Still not voting for her by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which state?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Still not voting for her by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Which state?

      It was on the latest 538 swing-state poll of polls, with third-party candidates added in (not generically, but specifically) There was one state where Johnson had like 22% and Trump had 21%. I wish I could find it now. The 538 site has so many polls it's impossible to find anything. I want to say it was Utah. If I find it later, I'll post it here. The only reason I noticed it was that one of the data nerds on Twitter saw it and pointed it out.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Still not voting for her by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This seems to have a complete list of polls, but the highest number for Johnson there is 12%.

    5. Re:Still not voting for her by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It was a state by state poll. I wish I could find it now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Tabby vs Calico by thoromyr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Translated:

    "Bernie says he will gladly accept whatever bones Queen Hillary tosses him in return for not being sent to gitmo following her coronation."

    "Hillary says she is glad Bernie came to his senses because she was beginning to think she'd have to have him put down for being a rabid dog."

    Not that this should surprise anyone. While the imminent blood bath is sure to provide some moments of dark humor, sadly we will be voting on which candidate will continue the rise in executive power.

    National elections, where the populace of mice decide whether they would prefer to be eaten by a tabby or a calico.

  8. Rubbing my hands together.. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

    I'm so excited for the reasoned and intelligent discussion that will now proceed.

    In 3...2...

    1. Re:Rubbing my hands together.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm so excited for the reasoned and intelligent discussion that will now proceed.

      Screw you, you stinking SJW fascist! Why don't you go play Pokemon Go with Hitler?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: Rubbing my hands together.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooooosh!

    3. Re: Rubbing my hands together.. by halivar · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure you're the one who just whooshed.

    4. Re:Rubbing my hands together.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler has a smartphone?

    5. Re:Rubbing my hands together.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      His brain was downloaded onto an grey alien computer in Argentina in the 60s. It's now running on an iPhone.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  9. Dont ever use the subject line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject.

    works for apk.....

  10. So thank you Donald Trump? by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States." Clinton, speaking after Sanders, declared: "We are joining forces to defeat Donald Trump!"

    If not for Trump, Sanders would still be opposing Hillary?

    1. Re:So thank you Donald Trump? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I would hope so.

    2. Re:So thank you Donald Trump? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine he'd be sitting it out, declining to endorse or oppose Clinton given whomever the Republicans would have nominated, it would almost certainly have been someone further from Sander's goals than Clinton. To the best of my knowledge, Sanders has never campaigned against the eventual Democratic nominee during his time in politics.

      Trump is particularly bad, and Clinton was willing to allow the conference agenda to include some sops to Sander and his supporters for the eventual Democratic platform, so Sanders isn't sitting it out.


        • Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

          So there
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  11. For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

    I've got some cousins who are pretty hard core Sanders supporters who believe all the nut job stuff going around in the supporters' circle for Sanders. For example, did you know that Sanders apparently won California and possibly almost every other state yet was denied victory by cheating conspirators aligned with Clinton who simply threw out votes for Sanders? Yeah, me either. But my cousins buy this one hook, line and sinker. Another thing going around among his supporters is the idea that nothing will ever change if they vote for Clinton or Trump so to make a point a large number of them are threatening to sit out the election. Of course if this happens, it may just simply make Trump the president as despite some vocal anti-Trump stands by various people, the reality is that Republican voters are going to suck it up and vote for him in the fall no matter what. If enough Sanders supporters refuse to vote, it could be very bad for Clinton. We'll see if this endorsement does anything to stop his supporters from sitting out the November election.

    1. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      So some Sander supporters believe in conspiracies? So what? Some Clinton supporters believe she is not corrupt at all and that all the negative attitudes about her are only a result of right wing propaganda. That doesn't mean all Clinton supporters are this naive. Plenty of Clinton supporters realize exactly how bad she is, but think we need a powerful, vindictive, morally corrupt Washington insider to lead the fight against the republicans, employing unafraid to use whatever dirty tricks are most apt at any given time.

      Also, I don't think your assessment of republicans definitely standing behind trump is accurate. We've had many establishment republicans claiming that they can not support trump. Some have backpeddled since he has won the nomination, but some have indicated they may even vote for Hillary. Hillary has actually very popular among the democratic establishment. There are no establishment democrats saying they won't vote for her. The Bernie supporters were people who didn't vote in previous elections (and apparently didn't even really vote in this one). Them sitting out, is not costing the democrats any votes, because they didn't have those votes to begin with.

      Even if Bernie supporters sit this one out, it will probably be a landslide for Hillary.

    2. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      There is no guarantee that the evangelical vote will turn out for the Republicans. They've sat home before when they didn't like the candidate and Trump couldn't be less appealing to them. The Anti-Trump movement started in the evangelical camp.

    3. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is the case in the past, I think this time it will be different. Why? Because of the Supreme Court vacancy. I think they show up in droves as long as Trump promises an anti-abortion court nominee. That is what scares me.

    4. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might help to look at the evidence. Sanders did close the gap in California down to less than 1%, and delegates still haven't been awarded for the state yet. There are still open lawsuits filed by millions of people who couldn't vote in many states. Official DNC papers were leaked detailing how they would prop up Hillary over every other primary candidate. He has also flipped several other states in later ballots, and is currently within 200 delegates of Clinton. The DNC has resorted to what the US legal system would define as terrorism in order to obtain his endorsement.

      Don't forget that four Clinton superdelegates are currently behind bars for voter fraud in states she won by very slim margins. I guess that was just an accident.

    5. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I agree that Hillary will probably win, possibly even in a landslide, however I disagree about this not costing Democrats any votes.

      Back in 2008, Obama was swept into office largely because of the youth vote. Obama energized young voters with his "hope and change" rhetoric, empty as it was, and got them to the polls in record numbers. It was really a stark change from the 2000 and 2004 elections where Bush was elected over a couple of rather wooden and uninspiring candidates.

      This election was similar with Bernie carrying the youth vote, except this time the youth were smarter: they learned from what happened with Obama, that electing someone with great speeches doesn't work out that well when they don't actually have a background that matches their promises. So when Bernie popped up with not only rhetoric they wanted to hear (single-payer healthcare, addressing income inequality, all stuff the mainstream Dems like Hillary don't care about), but a *very* long track record of championing such issues in Congress, they latched onto him like their more naÃve predecessors did with Obama 8 years before.

      But now, instead of getting the under-30 crowd to actually register to vote like Obama did in 2008, Hillary has completely turned them off, so most likely they'll just stay at home. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll all vote Green or something and we can bust apart this broken 2-party system, but I doubt it. (Not that the Greens don't have their issues, but the fundamental problem is the 2-party system, the party's platform can be changed, and it could morph into a nice moderate-left non-corporate-owned party which is exactly what we need, since the Democratic Party is now the moderate-right corporate-owned party.)

      As for establishment Republicans, Jeb Bush has already said he will not vote for either Hillary or Trump. Things could get really interesting depending on how establishment Republican voters vote. I guess it's too late to get an establishment Republican on the ticket as an independent.

      But yeah, I have a hard time seeing Hillary losing this one now, but I think the turnout numbers will be terrible.

    6. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Trump says the system is rigged, all the die hard progressive/democrats scream how those nasty rethugnicans and faux news lie, lie, lie about everything.

      When Bernie Sanders says he is against Wall Street and the Establishment everyone cheered and says he speaks the TRUTH! And then he supports the worst of the worst 1% politician who got rich at the public trough.

      All I can say is You can't make this shit up folks

    7. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...we need a powerful, vindictive, morally corrupt Washington insider to lead the fight against the republicans...

      Best endorsement I have ever read.

    8. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The R's bible thumpers are just like the D's commies.

      The _dumbest_ part of the electorate. They won't turn out unless they see 'one of them' bleating the correct BS on the ticket.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      But now, instead of getting the under-30 crowd to actually register to vote like Obama did in 2008, Hillary has completely turned them off, so most likely they'll just stay at home.

      As it turns out the only candidate less likeable than Hillary is Trump. One might expect a large share of Republicans that hate Trump to stay home and cancel out the large share of democrats that stay home, but in fact that data shows that historically the potential of a really hated candidate winning actually draws more turnout than the potential for a really beloved candidate winning. The lowest turnouts are when both candidates are liked, and the highest are when both candidates are hated.

      I expect the highest turnout in recent history. That can be really good or really bad.

    10. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I can already tell you that it's going to be really bad. Really, really bad. There's only two candidates highly likely to win, and they're both absolutely horrible, so there's almost no way for it to *not* turn out really, really bad.

      I am skeptical of your claim about the highest turnout in history, however. I guess we'll see. We haven't had candidates this horrible in a long time (probably since 1968, which is before I was alive), and we didn't have the internet back then with all the polarization and extremism that's created, so I'm not so sure you can look for historical parallels like that. I am hoping, however, that other parties will get a much higher portion of the vote than they did in the past.

    11. Re:For Clinton's sake I hope this helps by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I can already tell you that it's going to be really bad. Really, really bad. There's only two candidates highly likely to win, and they're both absolutely horrible, so there's almost no way for it to *not* turn out really, really bad.

      I just meant that in general high turnout can be really good or really bad, depending on what the masses decide. I agree that this year there is no possible good outcome. Although maybe preventing ww3 can be considered relatively good.

      We haven't had candidates this horrible in a long time (probably since 1968, which is before I was alive)

      No, but we've had candidates that were more disliked than liked and higher turnout seems to correlate positively with dislike of candidates. Maybe it's not a line, and id candidates are *really* disliked the turnout goes down again, we will see.

      and we didn't have the internet back then with all the polarization and extremism that's created, so I'm not so sure you can look for historical parallels like that.

      Sure I can look for them, but we'll see if they are actually parallel in a few months.

      I am hoping, however, that other parties will get a much higher portion of the vote than they did in the past.

      Gary Johnson is poling at 8% of the popular vote right now. This is shaping up to be the best year for 3rd+ parties yet. If any get to 15% They are included in the debates (unless they change the rules, which they probably will).

  12. Bernie is the only one feeling the bern now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knew Bern would eventually cave in to Clinton. The DNC wanted Clinton and Bernie never stood a chance. Even though I didn't agree on everything with him I would have preferred him over Clinton.

    1. Re:Bernie is the only one feeling the bern now. by tehlinux · · Score: 1

      Dude couldn't even stand up to Clinton or the DNC, Putin would've eaten him alive!

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  13. Can i still write in Bernie? by liothen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is like the Bush v. Gore but I am not sure which is the lesser of two evils now :(

    1. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm voting trump instead, if only to avoid being called a misogynist for disagreeing with any policy(no matter how insanely conservative) Clinton puts out.

    2. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors (i.e. some). And even if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have invaded the wrong country.

      I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).

    3. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not in the race anymore sorry about that. Might as well write in the Easter Bunny.

    4. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors

      Let's assume that under Gore 9/11 still would have happened. The biggest problem in Bush's response was the horrible incompetence he showed. Part of that was his advisors fault (both their poor ideas and their arrogance), and after four years, with more experience, Bush did improve, but Gore already had quite a bit of experience in 2001, and it's unlikely he would have tried to colonize two countries as a result.

      I'll give you an example that clearly shows Bush's incompetence. After 9/11, basically every country in the world supported America, and there was a lot of good will. Within a month, Bush had turned that around and nearly every country in the world was protesting the actions of America, even some of our strong allies. He failed to build on the good will, and turned it into opposition.

      For a comparison, consider the actions of Bush Senior in Iraq.......the middle east was horribly divided, yet with careful diplomacy he managed to get every country in the region to accept if not actively aid in the Iraq invasion. The exact opposite of his son.

      Now, arguably Gore might not have been as good as Bush Senior, but if you look at presidential skill as a bell curve, then Bush Junior was clearly two standard deviations below the average, and it's unlikely that Gore would have also been that bad.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I agree that I think Gore probably would have been better. But we will never know for sure. What I am saying is that it is very possible that a Gore presidency could have been worse. I won't go too far deep into it, but look up the "three mile island effect". It's basically impossible to predict accurately 8 years into the future (i.e. predicting what would have happened in a Gore presidency starting in 2000).

    6. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Nixon v. McGovern, but point taken.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that it is very possible that a Gore presidency could have been worse. I won't go too far deep into it, but look up the "three mile island effect". It's basically impossible to predict accurately 8 years into the future

      Anything is possible, but that's going too far.
      We can look at the skills and aptitudes that each candidate has, and reason about who would be better suited to handle a given situation. In this case, it's hands-down in favor of Gore.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's "hands down gore". I don't think we really know anything about how Gore would have handled anything. All we know is that Bush is a fuck up, so anyone better than a fuck up would have been better than Bush. Was Gore better than a fuck up? Who knows. If I could do everything over with Gore instead of Bush would I do it? Sure. I think that's a good bet, but I would be hopeful rather than confident that things would turn out better.

      It could have very well been the case that Gore is just another legislator whose experience collecting a paycheck doesn't translate into leadership. I don't think he would have invaded Iraq, but "Invading Iraq vs. not invading Iraq" are not the only two possibilities.

      I view it as rolling the dice. We rolled a 4 sided die by electing Bush and rolled a 1. Would we have rolled higher by picking a 6 sided die and electing gore? We can't know, but I would have taken those odds. Picking a 6 sided die is always better than picking a 4 sided die, even if you roll a 1 on the 6 sided die. What I am saying is that I would have picked gore, but we could have still rolled a 1 with a pretty reasonable probability (e.g. 1 in 6)

    9. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush's failure was in *not* colonizing them, and instead believing that backwards evil people would accept a parliamentary government.

    10. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think we really know anything about how Gore would have handled anything.

      You might want to take a step back and think your opinion through a little more. You've left the path of rationality a bit. We can definitely get an idea of how different people would handle different situations.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense.

      He might have started some wars in the way that Obama did Libya, some bombing and maybe some special forces but nothing major.

      Iraq was a determined project by Bush and the neo-conservatives that surrounded him. That does not happen with a Democratic president.

      Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president?

      Very dubious, and even if 9/11 was a consequence of Bush's incompetence it's hard to reliably prevent one-off events.

      I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).

      I think this underestimates just how awful a thing the Iraq war was.

      We're looking at at least 250k deaths.

      Trillions of dollars.

      A huge radicalizing factor for Arab Muslims.

      The rise of ISIS, the refugee crisis in the EU.

      Hell, even Brexit is ultimately a consequence of the Iraq war (though the refugee crisis).

      And this wasn't even unexpected, the foreign services of both the US and Britain knew that the Iraq war would be pretty much as bad as it was, but the Bush administration was so deadset on going forward they didn't even plan for the event that the experts were right.

      To all those who think a Trump Presidency isn't a big deal, just look at how badly Bush screwed the world up, and he was a more or less typical politician who was perceived as a not quite as smart but otherwise really nice regular guy.

      Trump is in the midst of a presidential campaign and he can't be bothered to act like he's taking the job seriously or turn down the extremism. If the system couldn't keep Bush from being such an epic disaster then why do they think it can constrain Trump?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was...

      Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors (i.e. some). And even if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have invaded the wrong country.

      I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).

      This is par for the course. You feel about things, you do not think about them.
      Now from a risk management perspective Gore was a much safer bet.
      1. Odds are that Gore would not have ignored Clinton's exit letter about OBL.
      2. Odds are that Gore would not have pulled an FDR (Ignored intelligence because he wanted a war and thus got America attacked)
      3. Odds are if 9/11 happened that Gore would not have attacked the wrong country just to impress daddy.
      4. Odds are that if Gore, somehow attacked the wrong country (doesn't much care about the oil), he would not have told the Iraqi army "You are now unemployed, with no career future, take your guns and go home and do not do anything bad" and thus there would not be an ISIS problem, not to mention perpetual strife and body count of the scale we have it in that area to this day. George's bodies will pile up for decades. He may beat Pol Pot by the time stability returns to the area.

      Odds are that Gore would have done EVERYTHING better as he is simply a WAY smarter and ethical man.

      You are emotionally invested in your decision to elect someone you were warned about, who screwed up in an insane way. Everything people bring it up you emotionally double down again. Facts will never be able to beat your feelings.

      If it helps, odds are that things would have been much better if Jeb Bush got elected instead of George 2. I doubt he would have made the same mistakes as he to is a much smarter man.

    13. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 2

      Part of that was his advisors fault (both their poor ideas and their arrogance)...

      All part of The Plan:

      The Project For The New American Century

    14. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was both a bad plan, and also poorly implemented.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't think we really know anything about how Gore would have handled anything.

      We can definitely get an idea of how different people would handle different situations.

      Yeah. Having an idea of how someone might handle something is different than knowing how they would have handled something.

      I think I am firmly planted in reality. I have some idea Gore would have been better. I don't know that he would have been better.

    16. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      He might have started some wars in the way that Obama did Libya, some bombing and maybe some special forces but nothing major.
      Iraq was a determined project by Bush and the neo-conservatives that surrounded him. That does not happen with a Democratic president.

      I think you have a very short sighted view of history. Republicans being the warmongers of the 2 major parties is a new development with the neoconservative movement. That hasn't always been the case, and could easily change with one warmonger democrat president or a pacifist republican president.

      In fact, Bush actually campaigned on a platform of "no nation building". You can look back in retrospect and call bullshit on that platform, but what you can't do is know that Gore wouldn't make some horrible foreignn policy mistakes equivalent to the Iraq war after a 9/11 type attack.

      I think this underestimates just how awful a thing the Iraq war was. We're looking at at least 250k deaths. Trillions of dollars. A huge radicalizing factor for Arab Muslims. The rise of ISIS, the refugee crisis in the EU. Hell, even Brexit is ultimately a consequence of the Iraq war (though the refugee crisis).

      No I think you are underestimating how potentially terrible a war that a Gore presidency might have started.

      And this wasn't even unexpected, the foreign services of both the US and Britain knew that the Iraq war would be pretty much as bad as it was, but the Bush administration was so deadset on going forward they didn't even plan for the event that the experts were right.

      Yeah. it was a giant disaster. I don't see any reason to assume that giant disasters can't happen during Democrat regimes. Maybe they are less likely. Maybe not.

      To all those who think a Trump Presidency isn't a big deal, just look at how badly Bush screwed the world up, and he was a more or less typical politician who was perceived as a not quite as smart but otherwise really nice regular guy.

      I don't know why we would associate Trump with the Iraq war. At least he actually claims (now) that it was a giant disaster. The only thing linking Trump to the Iraq war is that he's a republican. But Trump isn't really a republican. He could have just as easily been a democrat, if he decided that was better for his chances.

      Trump is in the midst of a presidential campaign and he can't be bothered to act like he's taking the job seriously or turn down the extremism. If the system couldn't keep Bush from being such an epic disaster then why do they think it can constrain Trump?

      I don't. I just don't see what any of this has to do with democrats vs. republicans. Trump is a disaster regardless of his party. Bush turned out to be a disaster. And we never really got the opportunity to know what a Gore presidency would have been like.

    17. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know that he would have been better

      You don't know you exist.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      He might have started some wars in the way that Obama did Libya, some bombing and maybe some special forces but nothing major.

      Iraq was a determined project by Bush and the neo-conservatives that surrounded him. That does not happen with a Democratic president.

      I think you have a very short sighted view of history. Republicans being the warmongers of the 2 major parties is a new development with the neoconservative movement. That hasn't always been the case, and could easily change with one warmonger democrat president or a pacifist republican president.

      In fact, Bush actually campaigned on a platform of "no nation building". You can look back in retrospect and call bullshit on that platform, but what you can't do is know that Gore wouldn't make some horrible foreignn policy mistakes equivalent to the Iraq war after a 9/11 type attack.

      Bush campaigned as a common sense regular-guy, ignoring experts and following his gut is exactly what lead to the Iraq war.

      Trump is basically tripling down on the ignore-experts follow-your-instinct philosophy.

      I don't know why we would associate Trump with the Iraq war. At least he actually claims (now) that it was a giant disaster. The only thing linking Trump to the Iraq war is that he's a republican. But Trump isn't really a republican. He could have just as easily been a democrat, if he decided that was better for his chances.

      Trump supported Iraq, has been much more hawkish on Libya and Syria, and his foreign policy framework consists of using US power to push other countries around. Assuming he'd be more likely to get in a bad war is a very good bet.

      I don't. I just don't see what any of this has to do with democrats vs. republicans. Trump is a disaster regardless of his party. Bush turned out to be a disaster. And we never really got the opportunity to know what a Gore presidency would have been like.

      I'm not saying it has to do with D vs R, I'm saying it has to do with seeing the scale of damage a bad president (Bush) did, and realizing the epic damage Trump could do.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    19. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Actually I do. Descartes proved that. What I don't know is whether you or Descartes exist.

    20. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Descartes proved that.

      He made an argument about it, not a proof.

      Since you are having trouble distinguishing the difference between a proof and an argument, that is just further evidence you're off your groove today. Take a rest.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Bush campaigned as a common sense regular-guy, ignoring experts and following his gut is exactly what lead to the Iraq war.

      Even if we assume that following his gut is what lead to the Iraq War, following your gut is not the only way you can end up in a terrible war. JFK was a democrat who wasn't an idiot who never listened to experts, how did we end up in vietnam?

      Trump is basically tripling down on the ignore-experts follow-your-instinct philosophy.

      I actually think they are quite different. I think trump follows his gut because he knows he is right about a lot of things. He is right that a lot people are racist, a lot of people don't care about the truth, and that a lot of people hate polished politicians. In this respect he is absolutely more right than the "experts" who said that he had no chance of winning the republican nomination .

      Trump supported Iraq, has been much more hawkish on Libya and Syria, and his foreign policy framework consists of using US power to push other countries around. Assuming he'd be more likely to get in a bad war is a very good bet.

      Trump did not support the Iraq war. In an interview in 2002, when asked if he supported the war answered "I guess so". While it is not true that he predicted the war would be bad (as he claims), it is well documented that trump opposed the war as far back as 2004.

      I think he is certainly likely to get into a war, but I don't think it is fair to associate him with that particular war. And this is for a man that routinely takes both sides of every issue and is basically a compulsive liar. There is so much to legitimately criticize him for, there is no need to invent things.

      I'm not saying it has to do with D vs R, I'm saying it has to do with seeing the scale of damage a bad president (Bush) did, and realizing the epic damage Trump could do.

      Yes bad presidents can get us into bad wars. What I am saying is that even having a good president (much less a democrat president) is *far* from a guarantee of not getting into a bad war. And we don't even know if Gore would have been a good president. I don't think there is any good evidence for that. All I can confidently say about Gore is that he would have been a democrat president, which isn't saying much.

    22. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      He made an argument about it, not a proof.

      Since you are having trouble distinguishing the difference between a proof and an argument, that is just further evidence you're off your groove today. Take a rest.

      It is pretty clear to me that you aren't aware of what "proof" is beyond the folk sense of that word.

    23. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Gotta agree.

    24. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Bush campaigned as a common sense regular-guy, ignoring experts and following his gut is exactly what lead to the Iraq war.

      Even if we assume that following his gut is what lead to the Iraq War, following your gut is not the only way you can end up in a terrible war. JFK was a democrat who wasn't an idiot who never listened to experts, how did we end up in vietnam?

      There were many good arguments for going into Vietnam, they were wrong in retrospect but it wasn't obvious.

      The experts knew exactly what would happen in Iraq.

      I actually think they are quite different. I think trump follows his gut because he knows he is right about a lot of things. He is right that a lot people are racist, a lot of people don't care about the truth, and that a lot of people hate polished politicians.

      Trump is also outrageously wrong about a lot of things, it's just hard to hell whether he's deliberately lying or whether he's just wrong.

      In this respect he is absolutely more right than the "experts" who said that he had no chance of winning the republican nomination .

      People around Trump say he didn't expect to win either, he was supposedly banking on a respectable showing in a few primary and was caught off guard when he started winning.

      Trump did not support the Iraq war. In an interview in 2002, when asked if he supported the war answered "I guess so". While it is not true that he predicted the war would be bad (as he claims), it is well documented that trump opposed the war as far back as 2004.

      He didn't strongly support it and he turned relatively quickly but he did support it.

      I think he is certainly likely to get into a war, but I don't think it is fair to associate him with that particular war. And this is for a man that routinely takes both sides of every issue and is basically a compulsive liar. There is so much to legitimately criticize him for, there is no need to invent things.

      I'm happy to admit the nuance in his soft support and relatively early change, but I think it's valid to say he supported it.

      I'm not saying it has to do with D vs R, I'm saying it has to do with seeing the scale of damage a bad president (Bush) did, and realizing the epic damage Trump could do.

      Yes bad presidents can get us into bad wars. What I am saying is that even having a good president (much less a democrat president) is *far* from a guarantee of not getting into a bad war. And we don't even know if Gore would have been a good president. I don't think there is any good evidence for that. All I can confidently say about Gore is that he would have been a democrat president, which isn't saying much.

      That's basically the same argument that saying that since wearing a seatbelt could potentially trap you in a burning car then wearing a seatbelt might be just as dangerous as not wearing one.

      We can't run an alternate history but we've seen the consequences of an ignorant president when Bush walked into an easily avoidable catastrophe.

      It's possible that Trump won't be bad, or even that Clinton could be worse, but that's a terribly poor gamble.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    25. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by quax · · Score: 1

      Richard Clarke made pretty clear that while the Clinton administration had been focused on the threat that Bin Laden posed, the newly incoming administration had a very different mindset, and did not take these non-state actors serious.

      This was also reflected in their response, they were convinced that a state must have lend Bin Laden a hand, and Iraq "felt" right.

      Gore would have in all likelihood continued with Clarke in the counter-terror driver seat, and this could have very well meant that 9/11 would have never happened.

    26. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gore knew more about terrorism than most politicians, as well as the internet. He would have be THE ideal person to lead us through 911 and the help get the government out of the geocities phase of the Information Age .

      He is much smarter than Bush, he knows more about terrorism and foreign affairs, climate, internet, more or less everything.

      The downside is that the GOP would, without question, have blamed 911 on liberals and they would not care one tiny bit how true that is. Liberals don't typically blame Bush for 911, but they certainly could and it would certainly help them because it's a strong attack and a moment most voters remember. Republicans would have no shame in blaming liberals. They called liberals traitors for voting against the war and patriot act.

      They called liberals terrorist sympathizers just for not wanting to rush into war or give up our rights.

      Where we all you people then? Playing with legos and pokeman perhaps? It would be nice if you'd start listening more and voting more. You're youth is not an actual advantage at non physical tasks.. like understanding politics.

    27. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Clarke made pretty clear that while the Clinton administration had been focused on the threat that Bin Laden posed, the newly incoming administration had a very different mindset, and did not take these non-state actors serious.

      This was also reflected in their response, they were convinced that a state must have lend Bin Laden a hand, and Iraq "felt" right.

      Gore would have in all likelihood continued with Clarke in the counter-terror driver seat, and this could have very well meant that 9/11 would have never happened.

      A state had lent him a hand - Afghanistan. The US invaded Afghanistan shortly after, with broad support.

      Iraq was a completely different issue, where Bush lied about WMD in order to make up a reason to go to war.

    28. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There were many good arguments for going into Vietnam, they were wrong in retrospect but it wasn't obvious. The experts knew exactly what would happen in Iraq.

      There is no way this is true because there are an infinite number of things that could have happened in Iraq depending on how it was executed. Maybe experts could have known what would probably happen if they knew exactly how Bush would have executed the war, but there was know way to know that he was even going to be in a war much less how it would be executed before he was even elected.

      Trump is also outrageously wrong about a lot of things, it's just hard to hell whether he's deliberately lying or whether he's just wrong.

      There is a big difference between those, and a third option that he just doesn't give a shit about being factually right or wrong.

      People around Trump say he didn't expect to win either, he was supposedly banking on a respectable showing in a few primary and was caught off guard when he started winning.

      That may be so, but he knew exactly what to do to give himself a pretty good shot. Whether he actually thought he would win or not is not actually relevant. He thought he had a good enough chance to try, and he was right.

      He didn't strongly support it and he turned relatively quickly but he did support it.

      I still maintain that it is intellectually dishonest to characterize Donald Trump as having supported the Iraq War, just for one qualified non-committal comment he made as a private citizen. As I said, there are *so* many issues where Trump can be legitimately criticized. Criticizing him for supporting the Iraq War trivializes other valid criticisms.

      That's basically the same argument that saying that since wearing a seatbelt could potentially trap you in a burning car then wearing a seatbelt might be just as dangerous as not wearing one.

      Yeah. it *might* be. It isn't in most cases, but it is false to say that wearing a seatbelt is safer than not wearing one in *every* situation. Furthermore I wouldn't equate electing Gore to wearing a seatbelt. I would equate it to playing Russian roulette with 1 bullet in the gun rather than 3. Yeah playing with 1 is much better odds than 3, but there is a very good probability of ending up dead in both.

      We can't run an alternate history but we've seen the consequences of an ignorant president when Bush walked into an easily avoidable catastrophe.

      No we can't, and I don't disagree that the Iraq war could have been easily avoided. Most of the wars we get into are avoidable.

      It's possible that Trump won't be bad, or even that Clinton could be worse, but that's a terribly poor gamble.

      I agree. But I wouldn't be shocked if you could look into a crystal ball and it turns out Clinton presidency was worse than a Trump presidency. I don;t think it's a million to one. I think it's like three to one.

    29. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by quax · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan was hardly a functioning state under the Taliban rule.

      The Bush administration tried very hard to tie Bin Ladin to Iraq. They just couldn't make it stick so they ran with the WMD lie.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    30. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You're arguing semantics. Gore ran on, among other things, tax cuts[1] and increased military spending[2]. He supported the Afghanistan War AND the Iraq War[3,4]. He chose Joe Lieberman as VP, who is quite possibly the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate in the past 40 years[5], who vehemently supported the Iraq War -- so much so that he endorsed John McCain in 2008, supports the death penalty, introduced a bill to strip US persons of their citizenship without due process, supports censorship in entertainment, games, and online. Joe Lieberman is basically George Bush with a stronger grasp of the English language.
      Back to Gore: He was aggressively free-trade[6], he wanted to keep medical marijuana illegal and double down on the War on Drugs[7], and he supported a "tough on crime" policy that included expanding the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, and segregated schools for youth offenders[8]. He supported extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)[9] and pushed heavily for backdoors to encryption[10] while VP.

      So yes, the GP is exactly right when he says we can't be sure Gore would have been better, and that even if he had done better on some issues, he may have been far worse on others, and thus worse overall.

      1 http://www.4president.us/issue...
      2 http://cjonline.com/stories/08...
      3 https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
      4 http://www.science20.com/news_...
      5 http://rightweb.irc-online.org...
      6 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
      7 http://www.november.org/razorw...
      8 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
      9 https://seekerblog.com/2007/09...
      10 http://content.time.com/time/n...

    31. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      At least your argument there is based in facts, instead of abstractly saying "all things are unknowable" like that other guy. So good job.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There was never anything linking Iraq to 9/11. The invasion was purely out of revenge. Jr. believed that Daddy lost a second term because Daddy didn't invade Iraq the first Desert Storm. And Jr. blamed Saddam. And killing millions of innocent Iraquis and some Americans for petty revenge was great for the polls. He was doing *something*, even if the wrong something.

    33. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      how did we end up in vietnam?

      Eisenhower sent in troops to cancel the democratic elections in Vietnam because there was a fear that democracy would let the people choose communism, so the US installed a US-friendly dictator of Vietnam, then started killing pro-democracy "insurgents" from the North.

      First American troops on the ground (yes, as "advisors")? Eisenhower. First American death? Eisenhower. Cancelled democratic elections leading to a civil war? Eisenhower.

      But blame Kennedy. That fits your narrative of lies. Feel free to point out any factual errors.

      It's hard to take your "could have" seriously when you can't even get documented facts right.

      Vietnam only ended because Nixon was being impeached. Everyone knew we needed out of Vietnam, but nobody ever wanted to go down in history as the First American President to Lose a War. When Nixon committed a few felonies in a coverup of vote fraud, he knew that the Vietnam thing wouldn't be the primary memory of him, and so he did what he could have (And should have) done years before, and declared the loss, and started the path to demilitarization, so that he bore the blame, and Ford could complete the withdrawal. Carter was elected as a "clean" president to contrast with Nixon and the bitter taste some had for the first (And only, so far) non-elected President. Prior to Ford, everyone who served as president had won an election for President or Vice President. Ford was the first non-elected person to hold that office, and it counted against him.

      The reaction to the presidents that came before is one reason Trump is so popular. The angry racists have 8 years of pent-up rage over having a Black president, so the best person to follow that (for some people with narrow minds) is the most racist person to run for president since Strom Thurmond.

    34. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by JRV31 · · Score: 1

      What smells better? Dog shit or cat shit.

    35. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There was however plenty linking Iraq to Hezbollah.

      Iraq was invaded in large part because Saddam bluffed and blustered.

      I admit: I think the Sunni/Shia war heating back up was planned and is a _great_ outcome. Obviously Bush couldn't have said that, or it wouldn't have worked.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The only thing keeping peace in Iraq was Saddam prior to the war.

      The Sunni/Shia was entirely foreseeable. But was also _desirable_ from America's POV. They just couldn't say it or our Allies in the middle east would not have gone along.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    37. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Vietnam was a pawn battle in the cold war.

      The west won the cold war in the end. It wasn't entirely futile.

      If we had won in Vietnam, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge would never have happened.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If we had won in Vietnam, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge would never have happened.

      If we had never invaded Vietnam, then it may not have happened either.

    39. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hzbollah was unrelated to 9/11, which was one of the reasons actually given.WMDs and 9/11 were the reasons given. Both were known to be false. WMDs was a planned reason to invade. Bush had wanted it for a long time, and Cheney knew it would make his friends at Halliburton billionaires, so there was no reason to stop the pointless war.

      The lesson from Vietnam should have been, never enter if you don't have a plan to leave. But we try to never learn from our mistakes, better to claim we never made them.

    40. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      First American troops on the ground (yes, as "advisors")? Eisenhower. First American death? Eisenhower. Cancelled democratic elections leading to a civil war? Eisenhower.

      None of those things required us to turn the situation in vietnam into a war with the US. And furthermore if you read my post, you would see that I was not even assigning blame. In fact I was doing almost the opposite (i.e. saying bad things can happen even if you don't fuck up).

      Maybe next time before you through out the "narrative of lies" bullshit, try actually reading what is said first.

    41. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The only thing keeping peace in Iraq was Saddam prior to the war.

      So obviously if you intend to remove Saddam, you need to replace him with another source of order (I wouldn't call what he maintained "peace").

      And in fact Bush tried to replace Saddam with a new Iraqi leader, it just was not a very good attempt. Clearly the Bush administration was overconfident in their abilities or underestimated the problem.

      I think in retrospect the way the war turned out was a pretty likely outcome given how the war was executed, but it's not as if it's impossible to execute a war like this properly. Bush made a bunch of mistakes. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that fixing some set of those mistakes and turning them into good decisions could have led to a much better outcome and maybe even an outcome that would have been better than not having the war at all.

      My point is that the experts couldn't have known how bad Bush was going to fuck this up, because they didn't know what he was going to do before he did it. We didn't have experts criticizing the plan to disband the Iraqi Army before Bush did it, because none of the experts (outside Bush's circle) knew he was going to do that.

      When you have an unknown player batting for the first time, you don't know if he is going to strike out, or hit a home run, or something in between. If you have seen him bat 100 times (and he has struck out 100 times), you still don't know what he is going to do, but you have a much better idea.

      Once you know Bush is a shitty batter, it's safe to predict he will strike out. But predicting who is a shitty batter is not easy. Maybe Bush is an idiot, but idiots can still happen to surround themselves with competent people.

    42. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only thing keeping peace in Iraq was Saddam prior to the war.

      Peace within Iraq maybe, but his protracted war with Iran disqualifies him as "peacekeeper."

    43. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I didn't say *all* things are unknowable. We know lots of things. I am saying we don't know what would have happened in a hypothetical Gore presidency. I don't even know why this is controversial.

    44. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's knowable within the 95% confidence level.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other. It's a 1000 year old war, so it's unlikely to stop soon.

      That is good. We want them fighting each other, it keeps them distracted and broke.

      Bush played 'the idiot', while the Iraqis and Iranians did exactly what they were expected to. The war ties up Saudi funding as well.

      It's all great.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    46. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That war is exactly where we want to get back to.

      Iraq and Iran fighting it out until they are both exhausted. What's not to love?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    47. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Restart the Sunni/Shia war then leave them fighting was always the plan IMHO.

      Of course nobody could say that. Not even Muslims would fall for it if you told them what you were doing.

      Obama is doing a bad job of maintaining the stalemate. We don't want the shia to actually win. It's time to cut military aid to Iraq.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    48. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      NO it's not, because there is no way to calculate or verify that confidence level. World events are pretty much the definition of a chaotic system (i.e. they are unpredictable over a span of 4 or 8 years).

    49. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other. It's a 1000 year old war, so it's unlikely to stop soon.

      It's a 1000 year old war that can apparently be suspended by a brutal dictator.So maybe the game isn't stopping it, but just temporarily suspending it, which is shown to be possible.

      Bush played 'the idiot', while the Iraqis and Iranians did exactly what they were expected to.

      And it's pretty easy to say they did exactly what they were supposed to do, 13 years after they did it, because now "what they did" has become solidified as history and what was meant to happen. As if nothing unexpected ever happens and has a ripple effect changing all future predicted decisions.

    50. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      World events are pretty much the definition of a chaotic system

      Oh, I see why you are confused. You are looking at the events that happen to a president, which of course is hard to predict.

      You should be looking at the skillset of the person, which is much more measurable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    51. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bush's cabinet was made up of the same people that managed the Iran/Iraq war under Reagan.

      If you think they never thought of stalemating Sunni/Shia, you are deluded. Of course they couldn't talk openly about such plans, then or now.

      Why would we want to stop it? When two of your enemies are fighting the last thing you want to do is stop it. You help whoever is losing just enough to restore balance. If you can't stomach helping one side, when 'your'* side starts to close in on the win, cut their support.

      * the side you picked, obviously neither side is your ally.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    52. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I'm not confused at all. 1. Bad stuff can happen to people who make good decisions (because a lot of stuff that happens is unpredictable). 2. You don't know what the skillset of a person is before you measure them. Gore was never measured.

      And I think you are the one who is confused. I never claimed Bush was anything but terrible. We don't *know* who will be terrible before they show us. We can maybe have educated guesses that Bush, Trump, etc will be terrible, but that isn;t the same as knowing. We also don't know that Gore would not have been terrible. He had no leadership experience. He had experience winning elections and collecting a paycheck as a legislator.

    53. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think you are projecting positions on to me that I never claimed to have. It seems like there is a particular position you want to attack. I suggest you find someone that actually has that position.

    54. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're not defending: 'Bush and co were a morons, look at the mess'?

      All I'm saying is that this is right at the top of their playbook. Your hate is blinding you to the possibility that this isn't the calamity 'they' say it is.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    55. Re:Can i still write in Bernie? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You're not defending: 'Bush and co were a morons, look at the mess'?

      I am not defending it. I happen to think it's a fucking disaster, but that was not the point of my argument. The point of my argument was that we don't know a Gore presidency would have been better than the mess (if you believe it to be such) we got.

      And no my hate is not blinding me to anything, because I don't hate Bush, I just think he's an idiot.

  14. Not news and not Geek by almostadnsguy · · Score: 1

    There is now "News" here and it's not anything real geeks want to hear or know about. This presidential race is a Douche Vs. A Turnd Sandwich. Both candidates are almost equally awful and devoid of any real understanding of any of the issues that face real people.

  15. Duh by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why bother reporting this? It's not even news. We've known all along that he'd get pressured into it.

    I'm sure he just loves endorsing the one who pulled so many dirty tricks against his campaign...

    I'm not voting for her or Trump. I'd rather write in my dog.

    1. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was allowed to vote, then I'd really consider voting for your dog.
      Trump is completely unacceptable, but Clinton ain't much better...

    2. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dog?! Hey, that's actually a great idea!
      I was going to write in a cabbage, but hey!

    3. Re:Duh by quax · · Score: 1

      You must hold Bernie in very low regard if you think he can be pressured that easily.

      He has been an independent for most of his life and he could easily go back to being one. He is also at the end of his political career, he really doesn't have to give a damn.

      But fortunately he gives a damn, and then some, for his country.

    4. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hillary didn't pull dirty tricks. That's all lies that idiots who believe everything they are told fall for.

      She wont the fucking votes state by state right in front of your faces. Are you kidding. Even if she had won a couple less states, she blew Bernie out in plenty of states. Bernie has no name recognition. You can't expect to just drop into the Presidential campaign against a Clinton and easily win.

      Being an old white guy didn't help. Bernie won a lot of very white states and the fact he did well on caucuses in no realistic way can be interpreted to mean more people like him. Caucuses are a bad way to elect and to a largre degreee they annoy people into not wanting to participate. In a normal primary, Bernie would have done worse in those states.

      Camping the causes is kind of a dirty trick. Promising people stuff the Obama and Hillary and all the main Dems have said they wanted for decades, as if you're promising something new.. it's dishonest.

      Bernie pretended that his Single Payer vision was magically so much better than Hillary's Public Option. From the perspective of most people.. that's just not true. They just want 'healthcare for all'. They don't care how you fund it. Hillary said the WHOLE time she wanted open medicaid or a public option. You were just talking over her and making up BS.

      Now it's a victory for Sanders supporters that Hillary has the same stance she had the whole time? Are you guys really that clueless? WTF

      We are talking about two people with 93% the same voting record. You have to be pretty stupid to love Bernie and hate Hillary or even to really refuse to vote for Hillary, as if she is really significantly different than Bernie. She absolutely is not. It's your immature understanding of politics and your naive desire to create a narrative that fits your emotional state that makes you think these things.

      You guys are mostly taking old GOP propaganda that was 90% false back then and just re-wording it. You're insistence that the email scandal was anything real just shows how out of touch with reality you are. You are siding with the GOP out of hate and ignorance, not out of anything real. Crime requires intent in most cases. hrc22@clintonemail.com is pretty far from a secret clandestine email account.

      If she was doing this to misapproptiate classified info or cover things up, why would she use her own name and initials? Why would she even use email? She had a private IT guy, he could have easily told or shown her how to communicate VASTLY more secure then email and with near zero chance of leaving a record.

      Email inherently leaves a message to every person you send. It's right up there with plain text smoke signals as far as security goes. There is just not legit argument here other than Hillary is kind of a badass and does what she wants.

      Did anyone read the report? Hillary's private sever turned out to be far more secure than the State Department server, which was compromised, potentially for years. She, maybe accidentally or maybe on purpose, secured her emails from hackers better than the government servers.

      If you really want to argue about it.. she can just say.. look the State Department servers were hacked. I had a weird feeling even though they said it was secure, so I made an executive call AND I WAS RIGHT. Suck it America. Of course 90% of you will not read the report and will just form your opinion based on links titles and other clickbait BS.

    5. Re:Duh by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > Hillary didn't pull dirty tricks. That's all lies that idiots who believe everything they are told fall for.

      So you mean the DNC didn't give her access to Sanders' campaign info while cutting him off from the system?

      Oh... right, let's just forget about that.

    6. Re:Duh by vandamme · · Score: 1

      What's your dog's name? He's got two votes so far.

    7. Re:Duh by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure we have at least 3 votes by now. I bet I could get more if I uploaded some cute pics to Imgur.

      Vote for Sunny, 2016.

  16. If I were him by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I would too if I were him.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:If I were him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the money Clinton pays, I would too.

    2. Re:If I were him by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Now if Hillary loses, and tries to blame sanders for fracturing the party, he can say he endorsed her and she still lost an election to the least popular candidate in history.

  17. Gary Johnson it is, then by blockhouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.

    Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.

    1. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a fan of Bernie and now a fan of Johnson, then you should not be voting. Like wise if you were a Ron Paul supporter and now a Bernie Sanders supporter you should not be voting.

      Why?

      Because you're too much of a moron to be voting. You don't understand the issues these people/parties support. They're the complete polar opposites of the political spectrum box.

    2. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! I love that slogan. Rock on

    3. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      So you're effectively voting for Trump then? Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?

    4. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, isn't a vote for Gary Johnson only half a vote for Donald Trump or half a vote for Hillary Clinton, on net as compared to voting for either Clinton or Trump respectively?

    5. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is actually a lot of common ground between Bernie and Gary. The only thing that is radically different is their economic policy. If stopping the international war machine and increasing personal freedom matters more to you than how high the minimum wage is, it makes perfect sense to switch from Bernie to Gary. Gary is the only horse in this race that is running on a peace platform.

    6. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "You don't understand the issues these people/parties support. They're the complete polar opposites of the political spectrum box."

      There is a reason why people are attracted to "opposites".

      A social Democrat wants to empower people through social programs.
      A Libertarian wants to empower people through freedom from government.

      Republicans want to empower corporations and promote "conservative values"
      Democrats wants to empower corporations and promote "progressive values"
      Donald wants to empower Donald.

    7. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't understand the issues these people/parties support. They're the complete polar opposites of the political spectrum box.

      Maybe... Just maybe there are other reasons to vote for someone other than political platforms... Like integrity and honesty. Say what you want about Ron Paul he was honest and consistent in the decades he was in congress as was Sanders. They both were independents for much of their political careers and joined the major party because our system favors 2 parties. They wanted to change things from the inside and because of that there was an aurora of optimism around their camps.

      The only thing I trust Clinton to do is be a dishonest politics-as-usual hack that epitomizes Machiavellian government. At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.

      You are the dumb-ass that thinks a professional liar is good so long as you agree with the lie they speak. Why don't you drink more kool-aid? Your cup is empty.

    8. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're effectively voting for Trump then? Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?

      The tired old "lesser evil" argument that we've heard every few years this century so far. Sounds like the same former friend who seriously thought that somehow Romney was going to snap his fingers and force women back into the kitchen.

      What's more important is to send a message to the establishment on both sides. Not voting just shows that you're lazy and don't care, and as such they won't care about your opinion at all. Voting for a third party gets their attention when it gets even a few percent as history shows that the establishments do get worried and start adjusting their ways when an third option starts gaining traction.

    9. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.

      Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.

      heh "Feeling the Johnson" just doesn't quite convey the effect one wants... perhaps that was your point.

    10. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?

      Why would I care what Sanders thinks after his endorsement undermines one (or many) of the reasons I was voting for him? Well, at least a liar said she would adopt his positions that I may or may not agree on. There are many positions Sanders took that I disagreed with, why would I care that Clinton is adopting those positions? For example, free college.

      So you're effectively voting for Trump then?

      Never heard of a protest vote have you? One reason to vote for Trump during the primaries was to protest the GOP treatment of Ron Paul last election when they changed the rules to ignore his delegates. That rule change came back to haunt the GOP when Trump became the only person to be able win the nomination according to the rule change (win majority in X number of state).

      If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump.

    11. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      So long as your Johnson isn't feeling the Bern. Go see a doctor if it does.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is of course utterly unacceptable

      Says you, scrot.

    13. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Ron Paul had any honest or integrity he'd not be a GOP stooge. He exists to convince people like you to vote R, and you do reliably every time. Suckers, tools, idiots. Take your pick of insults they all apply.

    14. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only way to "effectively" vote for Trump is to actually vote for Trump. "A vote for X is a vote for Y" is a lie perpetuated by the corrupt and bought into by the foolish.

    15. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Trump is of course utterly unacceptable,

      On what basis? His "America First" platform should help Americans.

    16. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.

      So do you think that Bernie is corrupt for endorsing Hillary then?

      Or it is possible that you've massively misjudged the "criminality" of Hillary's actions and the reasons that she got so many endorsements and votes?

      Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.

      Whom you know won't possibly win, so you're basically giving a half-vote to Trump.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    17. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.

      The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?

      You are the dumb-ass that thinks a professional liar is good so long as you agree with the lie they speak. Why don't you drink more kool-aid? Your cup is empty.

      And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump! Do you realize how much power the president has? He hasn't finished the campaign and he's already threatening to put Amazon under anti-trust investigation because he didn't like the Washington Post's coverage. He's literally threatening to set law enforcement after media organizations for negative coverage!!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    18. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      "Convincing people like me to vote for R reliably every time" when I gave a defense of voting for Sanders who is D? You are a special kind of stupid.

    19. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Don't feel the Burn, feel your Johnson!

    20. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump! Do you realize how much power the president has? He hasn't finished the campaign and he's already threatening to put Amazon under anti-trust investigation because he didn't like the Washington Post's coverage. He's literally threatening to set law enforcement after media organizations for negative coverage!!

      *looks at how little Obama accomplished even with all of his executive orders*

      Yeah, so much power indeed.

    21. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 0

      So do you think that Bernie is corrupt for endorsing Hillary then?

      Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above.

      Or it is possible that you've massively misjudged the "criminality" of Hillary's actions and the reasons that she got so many endorsements and votes?

      Yes, because we all know how sweet and innocent Clinton is. Everything is a right wing conspiracy against her. Obviously, "should have known better" and "extremely careless" is something I want to promote, amirite? What is "is" anyway?

      Whom you know won't possibly win, so you're basically giving a half-vote to Trump.

      Have you ever heard of a protest vote? Voting for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse is not giving "half-vote" to Trump you disingenuous busy-body. Your partisan apologetics are why 3rd parties are a joke in the US.

      But you're right, I should just shut up the fuck up and vote the way you say because you know better! You are the reason why we end up with the two shittiest candidates in US history because god forbid people actually vote on principle instead of listening to know-it-all-busy-bodies like you.

    22. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're effectively voting for Trump then? Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?

      Respectfully, fuck off. People should know they are allowed to vote however they want. Quite frankly, I admire this decision and intend to follow this reasoning myself. The Republicrats have everyone convinced that there are only two choices in politics and I don't intend to swallow that for any reason. Anyone with a D or an R next to their name can suck my dick. I don't want to be in your little club and I certainly don't want to be told by you assholes to choose between the turd sandwich or the giant douche.

    23. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this different than Hillary, who literally ropes off journalists, and threatens them if they ask questions she doesn't like? Who would head the same Democratic bureaucracy that illegally tapped phone lines to listen in on journalists, and tried to ban the one unfriendly news source from being allowed into the White House?
      The IRS was set in harass conservative groups, and directly Lerner admitted it, as did multiple IG reports.
      Companies like Gibson Guitars were raided at gunpoint and dragged into court on the flimsy premise of violating a different nation's laws even when the other nation said they weren't - but only after they spoke out again Democratic polices.

      Trump threatens to put one of the largest and most monopolistic companies under investigation.
      Hillary has ALREADY PROVEN that she is a criminal, and Law Enforcement has gathered all the evidence to prove it - but she is "too big to jail" and get's a free pass for crimes than normal people are going to jail for at this exact moment.

      I'd prefer a loudmouth over an actual criminal that uses political connects to get charges squashed. There is no way Trump could be a worse president than Hillary - he's an idiot, but she is smart AND evil AND works well with the bureaucracy. I pity the poor normal Americans if she wins, because they will be fucked harder than the Gimp ever was.

    24. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      According to PolitiFact, Clinton is far more trustworthy than Trump.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I don't live in a swing state. Me voting third party is not "effectively" voting for either major candidate; it's voting third party.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    26. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So do you think that Bernie is corrupt for endorsing Hillary then?

      Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above.

      He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.

      Similarly it's not dishonest.

      And he wasn't paid off except to the extent that his endorsement was in return for embracing some more of his policies.

      Or it is possible that you've massively misjudged the "criminality" of Hillary's actions and the reasons that she got so many endorsements and votes?

      Yes, because we all know how sweet and innocent Clinton is. Everything is a right wing conspiracy against her. Obviously, "should have known better" and "extremely careless" is something I want to promote, amirite? What is "is" anyway?

      The emails were a huge screwup, no question.

      But you don't get perfect candidates.

      Whom you know won't possibly win, so you're basically giving a half-vote to Trump.

      Have you ever heard of a protest vote? Voting for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse is not giving "half-vote" to Trump you disingenuous busy-body. Your partisan apologetics are why 3rd parties are a joke in the US.

      But you're right, I should just shut up the fuck up and vote the way you say because you know better! You are the reason why we end up with the two shittiest candidates in US history because god forbid people actually vote on principle instead of listening to know-it-all-busy-bodies like you.

      Yes I know what a protest vote is, it's a claim that both candidates are more-or-less equally bad so you can't in good conscience pick either.

      But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.

      I mean protest voting for Nader in Florida gave you Bush over Gore. And that led to the Iraq war and at least a quarter-million needless deaths. You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter. If Trump wins and you threw your vote away saying "It was a protest vote!" doesn't let you dodge responsibility.

      You wanted to protest against Clinton so you voted for Sanders. That was your protest vote, not only did everyone hear but you actually changed both the party platform and Clinton's platform. That's a pretty damn effective protest.

      But you didn't win everything you wanted, too bad, welcome to reality. Now it's time to do what's necessary and not play Russian roulette with a Trump presidency because Hillary offends your sensibilities.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    27. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      At least Trump is hated by Congress so hopefully nothing would get done.

      The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?

      Congress that is made up of both Republicans and Democrats hate Trump. It won't be one party trying to stop people voting how they see fit. It will be the Legislative branch against the Executive branch. Literally nothing wrong with two branches of government in disagreement.

      And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump! Do you realize how much power the president has? !

      Maybe if Congress hates the president so much they would actually limit the power of the Executive. Imagine that. That won't happen with Clinton. Yes, I know how much power the president has and aside from a few things like foreign relations, federal bureaucracies, etc. he has to follow the law the legislative passes. Perhaps, it speaks more about the laws the executive enforces than it does who enforces them.

      Where did I say I wanted a Trump president? The closest I have said in a different post was: "If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump." Name a better wrench than Trump.

    28. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I could probably agree with that but at that point it seems like we are talking about shades of grey as opposed to black versus white. Both are dishonest to their own ends. And to be fair, Clinton has more experience with political speeches and such. She is probably better at avoiding outright false claims and uses specific words to avoid untrustworthy claims. This isn't a fault of Clinton per say because all politicians do it and I think even Trump is trying to do better at it.

    29. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by quantaman · · Score: 2

      The same congress controlled by Republicans who so effectively united to prevent him from getting the nomination, and even once he did, never walked back their criticisms of him at all?

      Congress that is made up of both Republicans and Democrats hate Trump. It won't be one party trying to stop people voting how they see fit. It will be the Legislative branch against the Executive branch. Literally nothing wrong with two branches of government in disagreement.

      If Trump wins it will probably be a Republican legislative branch. And as I just pointed out Republicans haven't exactly demonstrated an ability to keep demagogues in check, they couldn't even stop Cruz from walking them into a Federal shutdown and almost default that no one except Cruz wanted.

      Counting on Republicans to constrain Trump is like expecting a frat house to make an alcoholic go sober.

      Maybe if Congress hates the president so much they would actually limit the power of the Executive. Imagine that. That won't happen with Clinton.

      I'd put a lot more money on a Republican congress constraining a Clinton executive than a Trump executive.

      Yes, I know how much power the president has and aside from a few things like foreign relations, federal bureaucracies, etc. he has to follow the law the legislative passes. Perhaps, it speaks more about the laws the executive enforces than it does who enforces them.

      He just has control of a vast bureaucracy, law enforcement agencies, and the military. What damage could he possibly do?

      Where did I say I wanted a Trump president? The closest I have said in a different post was: "If I want to throw a wrench in the political system with my vote, name a better wrench than Trump." Name a better wrench than Trump.

      Sanders? Or since he didn't win maybe just hit yourself a few times with an actual wrench? It will be very unpleasant, but far less harmful than Trump.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    30. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 0

      He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.

      Similarly it's not dishonest.

      I guess it depends on why someone would initially support Sanders in the first place doesn't it? If you disagree with a lot of Sanders positions then it doesn't matter what platform position Clinton adopts. I disagree with Sanders on many things including "vastly better than Trump". Shit is shit regardless of the nuttiness. Only one piece of shit has an unknown to it.

      it's a claim that both candidates are more-or-less equally bad so you can't in good conscience pick either.

      There are many different reasons for protest vote everyone can have a different one.

      But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.

      It is pretty obvious you think she's great. I don't. I don't think Trump is "vastly worse". "could" is a weasel word. There can always be horrific consequences.

      You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter

      WTF? I am the one arguing that a protest vote is not a "half-vote" for Trump, like you. I am not trying to undermine someones vote of principle with scare mongering defeatism. I am literally arguing for more opinions in the body politic by advocating for a 3rd party vote to try and break the duopoly we see with R/D. And you want to say I don't get an excuse of ignorance? You can keep your partisanship bullshit and I will keep my principled vote.

      That was your protest vote, not only did everyone hear but you actually changed both the party platform and Clinton's platform. That's a pretty damn effective protest.

      Don't patronize me. The election isn't over and no ones vote has been counted. I don't care about pandering to get votes. I disagreed with a lot of Sanders platform so why would I care if Clinton adopt them?

      Now it's time to do what's necessary and not play Russian roulette with a Trump presidency because Hillary offends your sensibilities.

      What is necessary? For the good of The Party, right? I find it pretty funny you say "offends your sensibilities". Maybe all that moral signaling and faux outrage we see from the left has finally caught up to itself. Nothing more offended than the Left.

      As far as the "Russian roulette", we have had bad presidents before and survived. We will have another bad president in the future and survive. Trump brings unknown. If that's what makes you afraid then fine but don't be patronizing or disingenuous just because you are a partisan apologist afraid of something different.

    31. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      lol, you sound like a right-wing partisan hack I have had similar conversations about in previous elections. Congrats, I guess.

      I think Trump would be a lame duck for 4 years.

      What damage could he possibly do?

      The same damage as the one who "should have known better" and was "extremely careless". But I got an Idea, lets promote someone who makes poor judgement decisions, lies about that judgement, and brushes off criticism of that judgement as a right-wing conspiracy. You are comparing shit with shit. Not a compelling position to be on.

    32. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Shades of grey... Trump's pants are on fire and a lot of the lies he repeats are nasty and vicious, designed to stir up people's feelings about immigrants and other hot button topics. Clinton rarely tells outright porkies.

      The other thing about Trump is that it's really obvious he hasn't got a proper plan for being president. Look at how certain questions catch him out, like the one on punishing women who get abortions. He seems to think he can just wing it with "common sense" or something, but most topics are more complex than that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you're effectively voting for Trump then?

      No, he's voting for the candidate he feels best represents his views. Which is precisely what we should all do, no matter which candidate that is.

      Despite the fact that Bernie said we should do everything we can to stop him?

      Ummm... why would Bernie's opinion be some kind of deciding factor? That's just nonsense.

    34. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Clinton rarely tells outright porkies.

      Is that because Clinton is honest or because she is better at telling half truths? I wouldn't give Clinton the credit of "being more trustworthy" than Trump simply because she is a good wordsmith.

      really obvious he hasn't got a proper plan for being president

      And? The whole point is that he is a wrench in the political worlds cogs. We know Clinton will be Obama 2.0 business as usual nothing changed except stronger ties for corporate and government relationships.

      He seems to think he can just wing it with "common sense" or something, but most topics are more complex than that.

      Yea, he is trying to walk that line of populist that uses regular peoples everyday language. He is unscripted and people make many gaffes while unscripted. It's the whole package of "not a politician reading from a teleprompter" he is trying to appeal to. Not saying he is good at it but that is what he seems to try to do.

      but most topics are more complex than that.

      Of course, and nuance is the death of simple conversation. He wants to keep it simple because that is what populists do.

    35. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by quantaman · · Score: 2

      He's not hypocritical, Sanders has been very consistent that Hillary is vastly better than Trump and they share a lot of important policy objectives.

      Similarly it's not dishonest.

      I guess it depends on why someone would initially support Sanders in the first place doesn't it? If you disagree with a lot of Sanders positions then it doesn't matter what platform position Clinton adopts. I disagree with Sanders on many things including "vastly better than Trump". Shit is shit regardless of the nuttiness. Only one piece of shit has an unknown to it.

      So then you don't think Sanders is "hypocritical, dishonest, or paid-off".

      There are many different reasons for protest vote everyone can have a different one.

      And if it's a bad one I can criticize it.

      But whatever you think of Clinton (I actually think she's be great) Trump is VASTLY worse and could have horrific consequences if he got in.

      It is pretty obvious you think she's great. I don't. I don't think Trump is "vastly worse". "could" is a weasel word. There can always be horrific consequences.

      How is me not pretending to have a crystal ball a weasel word? What non-weasely word would you prefer?

      You don't get the excuse of ignorance that your protest vote doesn't matter

      WTF? I am the one arguing that a protest vote is not a "half-vote" for Trump, like you.

      Outside of very specific circumstances in a national US election voting 3rd party is effectively a half-vote for each party.

      I am not trying to undermine someones vote of principle with scare mongering defeatism. I am literally arguing for more opinions in the body politic by advocating for a 3rd party vote to try and break the duopoly we see with R/D. And you want to say I don't get an excuse of ignorance? You can keep your partisanship bullshit and I will keep my principled vote.

      I'm saying there is a massive potential cost to exercising your principle in this way. And if Trump wins because of your decision I believe that makes you accountable.

      What is necessary? For the good of The Party, right?

      For the good of the planet. Don't imagine I'm some hyper-partisan, I'm a Canadian who has voted for 4 different parties in national elections. I though Romney would have been a decent President, though not as good as Obama, and the Republican legislators really freaked me out.

      As far as the "Russian roulette", we have had bad presidents before and survived. We will have another bad president in the future and survive. Trump brings unknown. If that's what makes you afraid then fine but don't be patronizing or disingenuous just because you are a partisan apologist afraid of something different.

      Sanders was unknown.

      Trump is unknown only in the sense of how many of his terrible ideas and habits he'll bring to office.

      How far will he go in his battle against media outlets he doesn't like? How successful will he be?

      Will he do mass deportations of illegal Mexican immigrants and Muslims?

      Will he carry out executions of terrorist's families?

      How many of the conspiracy nuts will he drag with him into the White House?

      The only possible "good" outcome I can see is that the political system will unite against him and basically have a reformation of some kind. But that's a bit like drinking sewer water to give yourself an awesome immune system.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    36. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by kqs · · Score: 2

      Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination

      The democratic party isn't organized enough to fix a pie-eating contest, much less 50+ primaries.

      The primary results were generally very close to the pre-primary polls. The polls were done by many different groups.

      I can see that you don't like the results of the primaries, but blaming it on corruption says much more about you than anything else.

    37. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      So then you don't think Sanders is "hypocritical, dishonest, or paid-off".

      To quote myself: "Definitely lost my support and respect. This endorsement makes Sanders come across as a hypocrite, liar, paid off, or all the above."

      How is me not pretending to have a crystal ball a weasel word? What non-weasely word would you prefer?

      Because all you need to do is add the word "not" and the meaning does not change. Clinton could have horrific consequences. Or Clinton could not have horrific consequences. It is the same meaningless diatribe whose meaning does not change.

      Outside of very specific circumstances in a national US election voting 3rd party is effectively a half-vote for each party.

      Care to back that up? Because last I checked one vote = 1 vote.

      potential cost to exercising your principle in this way

      And? There is potential for anything. There is a cost in blood for the rights we enjoy. How does it feel to argue against principles? I feel pity for you.

      And if Trump wins because of your decision I believe that makes you accountable.

      And? Trump > Clinton. Accountable in what way? Do I need to pay reparations to your feelings? Does that mean you are accountable for Clinton when she uses her known poor judgement?

      Don't imagine I'm some hyper-partisan,

      could have fooled me.

      Sanders was unknown.

      Too bad democrats rejected him. He was more appealing across the aisle as opposed to "doing what is necessary" for the good of The Party.

      Trump is unknown only in the sense of how many of his terrible ideas and habits he'll bring to office.

      And there is nothing wrong with the status-quo. Right? Actually, you don't know what ideas and habits he will bring if elected. That is the whole point. He is a complete unknown with no political history. All you can do is say "look at what he said on twitter, that's bad.". Clinton is different, you know exactly what you are getting and forgive me if I don't like poor judgment with "should have known better" excuses in a Machiavellian twist.

      The only possible "good" outcome I can see is that the political system will unite against him and basically have a reformation of some kind. But that's a bit like drinking sewer water to give yourself an awesome immune system.

      "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

    38. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by quantaman · · Score: 1

      lol, you sound like a right-wing partisan hack I have had similar conversations about in previous elections. Congrats, I guess.

      Only superficially. Their worries about Obama were based in fantasy, my Trump fears are well justified by his comments and behaviour.

      What damage could he possibly do?

      The same damage as the one who "should have known better" and was "extremely careless". But I got an Idea, lets promote someone who makes poor judgement decisions, lies about that judgement, and brushes off criticism of that judgement as a right-wing conspiracy. You are comparing shit with shit. Not a compelling position to be on.

      Clinton messed up with her emails, big friggin deal.

      Yes it was a screw up, it was a serious screw up, but she's not even in the same ballpark as concerns about Trump.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    39. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Only superficially. Their worries about Obama were based in fantasy, my Trump fears are well justified by his comments and behaviour.

      lol, right, Your reason for partisanship is TOTALLY different than the other partisans.

      Clinton messed up with her emails, big friggin deal.

      Well glad we have two sets of laws for us common plebs. Her Majesty Clinton can do no wrong.

      , but she's not even in the same ballpark as concerns about Trump

      What laws did Trump break?

    40. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by quantaman · · Score: 1

      How is me not pretending to have a crystal ball a weasel word? What non-weasely word would you prefer?

      Because all you need to do is add the word "not" and the meaning does not change. Clinton could have horrific consequences. Or Clinton could not have horrific consequences. It is the same meaningless diatribe whose meaning does not change.

      Saying Trump could have horrific consequences implies that I think Trump significantly raises the probability of horrific consequences, that's not weasel words that's just communication.

      Weasel words are an attempt to mislead. "Some people say Trump eats babies." Is weasel words. I don't believe Trump eats babies, I don't want to take credit for making the claim that Trump eats babies, but I'm trying to leave you with the impression that Trump eats babies.

      potential cost to exercising your principle in this way

      And? There is potential for anything. There is a cost in blood for the rights we enjoy.

      I let people off the hook for reasonably unforseen outcomes, not really obvious outcomes.

      How does it feel to argue against principles? I feel pity for you.

      What makes you think I'm not arguing on principle? My principle is that people should be aware of the consequences of their actions and take reasonable responsibility for them.

      And? Trump > Clinton. Accountable in what way? Do I need to pay reparations to your feelings?

      Accountability doesn't mean reparations, it means accepting that your actions have consequences, even if those are only moral consequences.

      Does that mean you are accountable for Clinton when she uses her known poor judgement?

      I don't think she has "known poor judgement" outside of some specific areas, but I'm perfectly willing to own the consequences of Clinton's presidency just as I owned the positive, and negative, consequences of Obama's.

      Don't imagine I'm some hyper-partisan,

      could have fooled me.

      I believe that was your own doing. For all your complaints about being patronizing not everyone supports a mainstream candidate out of pure partisanship, some actually think they're the best option.

      Sanders was unknown.

      Too bad democrats rejected him. He was more appealing across the aisle as opposed to "doing what is necessary" for the good of The Party.

      Sander's was fine but had his own issues, if I was an American I would have voted Clinton.

      And there is nothing wrong with the status-quo. Right?

      Absolutely not, there are huge problems. Some Clinton may make better, some she'll make worse. But that doesn't mean you should burn down the system instead.

      Actually, you don't know what ideas and habits he will bring if elected. That is the whole point. He is a complete unknown with no political history.

      Except every signal he gives off is either bad or ambiguous.

      Even if all you carry out is corruption he's the guy who made his money though sweetheart deals with politicians and who brags about buying people with campaign contributions. He's had actual mob ties!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    41. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "political spectrum box" would that be? Red vs Blue? Left vs Right? Conservative vs Liberal? Establishment vs Functional Democracy?

      There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your political spectrum. You are being taken for a fool if you believe these two men are on opposite sides.

    42. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this conversation you are having and what comes across most clearly is that penandpaper is projecting his own failings on to you. Practically every accusation you of is really a revelation about his own nature. Its like a version of "takes one to know one" except its more like "everyone else is just as inauthentic as I am." Beware of wasting your time with people like that, they aren't seeking truth or an improved understanding, they seek acknowledgement and recognition of their personal value.

    43. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> But you don't get perfect candidates.
      Obama?

    44. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie is 93% the same as Hillary. You people are trolls, liars or fools and perhaps i should not use the world OR.

      Trump is far from acceptable. You're a spoiled little brat if you think the role of President doesn't matter and can't do epic damage to your country. Keep acting like nothing matters and you will get a very real wake up call eventually.

      The Dems are doing great. Obama took the Dow from 8000 to 18000. That's easily the best anyone has ever done, which normally would be considered at least acceptable, if not good. For conservative though. .it's a disaster.

      Do you really think the history books will be able to ignore that much fact? All the econmic stats over the last 8 years have gone up. How do you really expect that argument to work? You're just going to speed up the complete alienation of the GOP from all young demographics.

      If you think that hurts Democrats feelings, you are very confused as to how this is all going to work out. I still can't believe Dems got so luck as to be handed Donald Trump as the GOP candidate. After 8 years of telling us Obama is the black muslim kenyan antichrist, you'd think the entire conservative movement as a whole could come up with some better candidates than Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Marko (sounds like a mexican communist) Rubio... and your king Donald Trump.

      8 years of saying Obama is the worst thing this country has every seen and the best all that outrage and billion in corporate funding could get was this lineup of loser? I was a registered republican year ago when they pretended they were going to push for a balanced budget. Then the internet came out and I could look up spending stats.. well guess what. The GOP and Reagan put is into debt worse than any Democrat had. Cater and Clinton both wound up running near surpluses compared to TRILLIONS in debt from Reagan, Bush and Bush

      The GOP is really in a lot more trouble that it realizes. Young people more or less hate the party and have for a couple years now. It's not looking like a momentary trend anymore. If Dems organized like the RNC, they would destroy the GOP in elections. Once the GOP loses a few more milions in Demographics they will more or less all a sudden become a minority party.

      They really are a minority party already, but they are so well funded and organized they are very effective even with a minority of the public on their side. But, they are handing on by a thread and when that's gone, it's all over. They will have no national level power. It's happened to the Republicans before in the 20s and it took all the way until 1980 for them to recover. Some would blame Jimmy Carter for allowing the Republican Revolution as they called it in the 80s.

      The truth is Reagan was charming and skilled on camera compared to a normal politicians who hadn't been an actor most of their life. Reagan won based mostly on superficial reasons and big promises. He looked better, talked better and Carter was in a very bad position after the oil embargo, which honestly was well out of his control, but that's how the cookie crumbles I suppose.

      Carter was much smarter and he was right that we should get off foreign oil back then. Instead the GOP led us right back to the Middle East and endless wars. I'm all for getting the oil while it's cheap and exploiting that while we can... I enjoy building my country opportunistically in a global market.

      The problem is that the wars and social instability are not being properly accounted for in the costs of cheap oil. We have given nations like Saudi Arabia more influence over our country with our Drill, baby Drill attitude. It's not oil that we should like, it's keeping resources and workers close to home. Oil is just a commodities, it doesn't care about America. Having loyalty to oil and oil companies is just weird and it's not a conservative value. Conservative really should not be fans of big business. You can't realistically have small government coupled with big business unless you just want to fast track cor

    45. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul doesn't; appear any more honest than Hillary. Bernie may have the most honest position, bit naive.

      Paul's positions are arrogant and unfounded. He has no economics degree. Ron Paul told us the bailout would cause hyperinflation and bring about the Great Depression 2.

      He also failed to properly manage his own periodical publication, allowing some racist content and then attemping to pass the back as if he was not the ultimate authority on what got printed.

      Not taking accountability and attempting to instigate fear in people during an economic crash in order to get them to side with you. That's not honestly or good leadership. That's sociopathic behavior or normal politician stuff.

      Congress is not one thing. It doesn't agree on stuff so you can't just magically make it. You can't throw everyone out of congress and then elect people who will get along. They are state representative, you cannot control who each state puts up.

      Hillary is not dishonest to any real degree. That's all just media BS that people believe because they are too lazy to do any research for themselves.

      The people who say Hillary is a crooked liar are clearly far more dishonest than she is, so why take them seriously?

    46. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by houghi · · Score: 1

      Going Godwin here. Hitler was honest. He even wrote a book what he wanted to do. He was also elected.

      Sag jetzt spaeter nich "Wir haben es nicht gewusst." (Don't say later "We didn't know".)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    47. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And you're the dumb-ass who wants to hand the Presidency to Trump!

      I think, you are mistaken.He wants to hand the Presidency to Gary Johnson!

    48. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      not everyone supports a mainstream candidate out of pure partisanship, some actually think they're the best option.

      Sure. I disagree. I think when you are given two bad choices people will rationalize why their lizard is better but of course there is the exception. To be honest, I don't think all the doom and gloom we hear on either side will come to fruition if their lizard isn't elected. Like I have said before, we have had bad presidents before, one more will not be the end of the world. Go figure, I am an optimist.

    49. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      lol, oh the cowards. What accusations? What is my nature? How am I inauthentic for having a different opinion?

      This conversation started because I defended my position for supporting Ron Paul the libertarian and Sanders the socialist. Not because I am a libertarian or a socialist or a libertarian socialist (top kek) but because I was giving a vote for honesty and integrity and support for 3rd party positions because I don't like a duopoly of power. Yeah, I am such a terrible human being.

    50. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      No, he's effectively voting for Johnson. He's voting against Trump (and Clinton and Stein and some others). Can't you read?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    51. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone just gave you Slashdot Gold.

    52. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would, of course, be the same republican congress who has passed more legislation (signed by Obama) and gotten more done than the previous two.

      Google it instead of believing the propaganda.

    53. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. If you wish to complain about the game theory behind elections, push your local and national legislatures to change them, not punish people for voting their conscience. That just makes you evil.

    54. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There has never been a state decided by a single vote, for his vote counts 100% for the candidate that wins his state, no matter who he casts it for. So the only rational response is to vote one's conscience.

    55. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson

      (Impression of Darrell Hammond doing impression of Sean Connery) I'm sure you're feeling the Johnson, Trebek

      HA!

    56. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      This is a really bad time to protest vote. There is one vacant supreme court nomination, and possible 2-3 more up within 4-8 years.

      That means if you get someone like Trump in office, the supreme court might be extremely far right wing conservative for the next 30-50 years.... Trump already released lists of judges he thinks might be good, and it is horrifying.

    57. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      No, he's voting for the candidate he feels best represents his views. Which is precisely what we should all do, no matter which candidate that is.

      That is a nice ideal, but it is really a bad idea when 2-3 supreme court seats might be available in 4 years (one right now of course). Wait until scotus gets restocked with younger judges, then protest vote all you want.

    58. Re:Gary Johnson it is, then by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      A bad time for a protest vote? Is there an election when important matters aren't decided on? Of all the disenfranchised or angry voters out there, how many didn't protest vote to make sure the right lizard gets in? How many elections did they do this? When is the right election? Sorry, that sounds like a very weak excuse for someone that doesn't have conviction to stand up for their principles.

      Your contention would extend to Clinton as well. IMO, Trump > Clinton. If only for the fact that he is an unknown.

      He got his nominations from conservative groups. Not "extremely far right wing conservatives". Unless you're a bleeding heart this was expected from any GOP candidate. Would you expect something different from Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, or any other GOP candidate if nominated? Cruz maybe because he is that "extremely far right wing".

  18. Wakeup Call for Millennials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ought to be a huge wakeup call for low-information millennials. Bernie was never for you. He's just another party politician like the rest of them. Unprincipled, undedicated, and completely lacking in character and integrity, just like his buddy Hillary Clinton.

    Have fun staying home on election day.

    1. Re:Wakeup Call for Millennials by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      I'm going to guess this is a move to be on a short list for VP. Bernie might not even be on the list, but mending fences may give him some influence in the VP process. Perhaps Bernie did this to get Al Franken on Hillary's short veep list?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. I felt a great disturbance in the force... by MetricT · · Score: 1

    ...as if millions of progressives suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

    1. Re:I felt a great disturbance in the force... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't understand that progressive politicians and philosophers are all for maximized government power. Most of them are so bent that they think corruption is justified rewards.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:I felt a great disturbance in the force... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Western Europe is full of countries which are far more progressive than ours, but somehow they manage to not elect obviously highly corrupt people like Hillary. They also have nice things like universal healthcare and free college tuition.

      It's only countries with crappy cultures where corruption is a huge problem, because regular people in those countries happily defend corruption and vote for corrupt people.

    3. Re:I felt a great disturbance in the force... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You know what countries with free college tuition also have?

      Strict academic standards for admission. Sanders supporters would be working apprenticeships in Germany, not 'going to college' and partying their asses off.

      Nations with academic standards for admission would see zero students in 'gender/black/queer studies' programs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  20. Whoever wins we lose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This election has some of the worst prospects for the average voter since Nixon v. Humphrey

  21. When Hilary is pwned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hilary is owned by the same people who are outsourcing our jobs. My question is if Bernie was bought or threatened.

  22. Re:Hillary's cat's paw comes home to mommy by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    flipped them into supporting a warmongering, corporatist, Wall Street shill.

    Um, no.

  23. Re:Hillary's cat's paw comes home to mommy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    source on #1?

  24. Re:Hillary's cat's paw comes home to mommy by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    1) He gets to keep the left-over money, and since he'll likely be retiring soon he won't even have to hide it in his wife's name like he does the rest of his assets.

    I thought there were strict limits on what campaign contributions could be spent on. Do you have any information to the contrary that would corroborate your claim?

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  25. read the polls by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Informative

    The most accurate polling analysis in the two most recent presidential cycles has been done by http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... They carefully look at all polls on a state by state basis and then build a national electoral model based on that data. It's updated every few days as new polls come out. Right now, Hillary is winning the electoral college by 338 to 199 with 1 vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Of course things can change, but that's a pretty big lead for this point in the race.

    And note that Bernie did not walk away empty handed. He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Said increasingly nervous man for the 1000th time this year.

    2. Re:read the polls by Nickodeimus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Define: "The most accurate polling analysis..." Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Keep in mind that the main stream media has been providing slanted poll results in abundance because those poll results meet their agenda. There have been polls that were published where out of 1000 people there were no independents polled, and the republicans were at a 35% representation. I can't understand how anyone would think this is a valid poll. Try asking 333 (or 3333, etc.) of each and see what the results are. My guess is that it will be a lot closer to a tie than what your MOST ACCURATE POLLING ANALYSIS website indicates. My point is that an analysis of polls is not going to give the answer to this when the polls are inherently slanted to begin with.

    3. Re:read the polls by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Hey, "Unskewed" polls and Karl Rove's meltdown on election night were two of my favourite things from 2012, so if we're doing a sequel this year, imma get some popcorn.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:read the polls by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.

      Considering how many times she's changed her position on just about everything, he's only succeeded in getting her to talk about supporting those positions until she decides not to in a few months. I didn't agree with him on some of his positions, but I knew where he stood on them. Sanders had the integrity that suggested he would hold to his word. The only integrity Hillary would know is an LLC by that name that's contributed to her campaign.

    5. Re:read the polls by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or just bet on the candidate with CIA ties. It's been sure money since '80.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care

      Hillary has obviously always wanted universal health care but had tempered her position because she's smart enough to realize that, like free college, it has absolutely no chance of passing.

    7. Re:read the polls by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      As everyone on the democratic side has been saying for a year now, it's all about the electoral college math.

      To win all the democratic nominee has to do is take every state the Dem's have won for the last 12 presidential elections and pick up either Ohio or Florida and they're guaranteed to win. The election math is against Republicans and they have to be very careful if they want to win the whitehouse.

      The only way the democrats can lose is to alienate the Latino vote, Bush won enough of that vote to win, Trump has no chance at all. In fact he'll get the lowest Latino votes a Republican president has ever received. The Republicans might have been able to win with Cruz or Rubio to draw the Latino vote, but that's not going to happen now. This is the Democrats election to lose as that's the only way the Republicans could win at this point.

    8. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that explains Bill Clinton winning in 92'... oh, wait... strike that.

    9. Re:read the polls by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Define: "The most accurate polling analysis..."

      In 2008, Nate correctly predicted the outcome in 49 of 50 states. In 2012, he correctly predicted the outcome in 50 of 50.

      Keep in mind that the main stream media has been providing slanted poll results in abundance because those poll results meet their agenda.

      Slanted polls are still useful. As long as they slant consistently in the same direction, you just need to apply a deskewing factor. You can get good results by aggregating a lot of individually bad polls.

      Try asking 333 (or 3333, etc.) of each and see what the results are.

      1. The electorate is not 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 Independent, so your poll would not be representative.
      2. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are not equally likely to agree to participate in your poll. R's and I's are more likely to refuse.
      3. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are not equally likely to actually vote, so your poll would need to account for that.
      4. Not all Democrats (or Republicans or Independents) vote the same. For instance, younger people, regardless of party registration, vote differently than older voters. Black Democrats vote more consistently partisan than white Democrats, but have lower turnout, etc. So it is not sufficient to have the right fraction of Democrats, but it also matters who they are.

    10. Re:read the polls by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

      The Democrats only won DC and Minnesota in 1984, and only DC and Massachusetts in 1972. They're going to have to do much better than that.

    11. Re:read the polls by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Amazing to me people still think Nate Silver is any good. Hell, even a parody account is more accurate.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    12. Re:read the polls by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Troll

      The only way the democrats can lose is to alienate the Latino vote, Bush won enough of that vote to win, Trump has no chance at all. In fact he'll get the lowest Latino votes a Republican president has ever received.

      No, sorry, they still don't allow undocumented immigrants to vote.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    13. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The same Nate the said Trump would lose the last 7 primaries, guaranteed?
      I'd say he is accurate! If his recent accuracy is anything to go buy, Trump will easily win.

    14. Re:read the polls by ProfBooty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Democratic enthusiasm is pretty low, whereas there was record turnout for the republican primary.

      That certainly works in Trump's favour. Hispanic turnout is relatively low historically, and Obama got 71% of the latino vote the last time around.

      Trump is doing better than any recent GOP politican with black voters getting around 15%, compared to Romneys 6%.

      If Romney had gotten 5% more of the white vote he would have won. Of course down the line with different demographics, Republicans will have a harder time.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    15. Re:read the polls by duckintheface · · Score: 1

      alvinrod, Actually I agree with you. HIllary can't be trusted to keep her word. But Bernie has forced these commitments in a very public, high profile way. And he isn't going to just go away. He will be on TV constantly reminding voters of Hillary's promises. And he will be organizing inside the Democratic Party and perhaps in a new American Social Democratic Party. The more Bernie gets his nose under the tent, the more constrained Hillary will be.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    16. Re:read the polls by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hillary has obviously always wanted universal health care

      Then she shouldn't have worked so hard to impeach Nixon.

    17. Re:read the polls by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dunno... Trump actually polls pretty well with some of the Latino population who can legally vote here. He actually got more Hispanic votes in the GOP primaries than Cruz or Rubio.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    18. Re:read the polls by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Inside the Democratic Party? He's barely a member himself. He only registered as a democrat in 2015 so he could run on the ticket. The 30 years before that he was an independent.

      And I highly doubt he's going to try and fracture the Democrats by forming a new party. I mean, that's turned out SO WELL for the GOP and the TEA partiers.

      I've little doubt that once Hilary gets into power, she'll simply ignore him. Hell, now that she has his endorsement, and the primaries are all but over, it's the traditional time to flip your party the bird and move yourself on over to the moderate center to appeal to the swing voters.

      What I want to know is what does a political mover and shaker do once they reach the top? When there's no longer anyone you have to kiss up to.

    19. Re:read the polls by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      While you are completely correct, it is also worth mentioning that more recently they failed to predict Trump's victory. Here is his apology after that happened. So he's demonstrably been unable to understand the Trump trend in the past.

      My point isn't that he's bad, he's really good. It's that you shouldn't blindly follow what he says: do your own analysis.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:read the polls by PeteJanda · · Score: 1

      She's indeed smart enough to have realized that. But wouldn't it have been so much better had the reason been her realization that giving away free sht is simply bad policy?

    21. Re:read the polls by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Except that it isn't free sht is it? It is called an investment in society and your own country's economy. Meanwhile I am sure you are all for tax rebates and giveaways to the same corporations that are shipping out our jobs and bringing in HB-1 workers. *Newflash*, consumers are the job creators, not rich corporatists. Ask any business owner what is required for a successful business, the number 1 thing is customers. If your policies are aimed at destroying the livelihoods of your consumer groups guess where your economy is going to end up?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    22. Re:read the polls by PeteJanda · · Score: 1

      I feel like this is a seance with Hugo Chavez's ghost. Check out current conditions in Venezuela to see how "investments in society" are panning out. We have decades of empirical evidence proving that promises of free sht always, always, always end up in tears. And yet there are always people who crawl out of the woodwork claiming "We know how to do it right this time!" and "Don't you want to live in a civil society?" etc., etc., etc. Never underestimate the power of sloth within populations and the insatiable appetite for the proverbial free lunch.

    23. Re:read the polls by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Trump cannot win the election if he doesn't win ~35% of the Latino vote. This is an absolute mathematical certainty. The only reason Bush beat Gore was because he was able to score iirc 31% of the Latino vote. Because of the changing demographics of the US electorate the percentage of Latino voters the GOP needs increases with each presidential election. During the 12 years Obama has been president that's increased more than 5%. It increased 3-4% during Bush and a smaller percentage during Clinton. This is going to accelerate with each election because Latino's make up an ever increasing portion of the electorate.

      This is why Trumps narrative to attack Latino's while appealing to white voters is so fucking short sighted. He's basically guaranteeing he cannot win and at the same time doing potentially decades of damage to the Republican chances by alienating the fastest growing demographic in the US.

      Here's something to scare you, in two more elections the GOP will lose Texas if they can't get Hispanic voters. As by 2024 the registered voters in Texas will be 40% Latino. Once Texas falls to the Democrats the republicans will never hold the whitehouse again while you are alive as they will have the electoral college votes without even campaigning.

    24. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... all hail Norsefire.

    25. Re:read the polls by superwiz · · Score: 2

      I've said it before and I'll say it again. Polls don't matter, but direction of the polls matter. Mostly because we don't have a collective mind. And information propagation takes time to take hold in public's mind. As information disseminates polls follow the knowledge which this information spreads. So polls at any one point in time don't tell much. But polls directions do.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    26. Re:read the polls by jcr · · Score: 1

      I remember the polls that said Jimmy Carter was going to squeak past Ronald Reagan.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    27. Re:read the polls by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.

      Uh, no he hasn't. He wanted free public college/university for all, she is suggesting means-testing for this benefit. He wanted Medicare for all, i.e. single-payer universal healthcare, she is suggesting a "public option". He moved her slightly toward his positions. Very slightly - just enough to try to appease his supporters.

    28. Re:read the polls by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      And note that Bernie did not walk away empty handed. He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.

      That's a pretty huge assumption. He forced her to change her rhetoric, but that's miles away from actually changing her position.

    29. Re:read the polls by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Trump? I didn't know you were on /.
      There is no such evidence, though neocons like you will no doubt pay think tanks to fabricate it for them. So, you don't like free roads, free primary public education, free research money for large pharmaceutical companies, free money for huge agrochemical companies? Heartless entitled SOBs who think that having been born privileged makes them a better person than someone born into misery have an extremely skewed view of reality (yeah I'm talking to you tRump).
      OTOH, What's wrong with a little or even a lot of sloth? What do you think is supposed to happen when efficiency increases by 300% and that efficiency is not shared with workers? Yeah, extreme wealth accumulation at the top and nothing at the bottom. Chavez was great for his people and much loved, so much so that a US sponsored coup with astroturfers leading the way had to be reversed due to popular outcry. So, yeah.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    30. Re: read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is not attacking Latinos. He's attacking a system which allows illegals to migrate unchecked, a significant difference. I work in a construction related trade. You aught to hear the shit a lot of 2nd, 3rd plus generation Mexican immigrants say about new arrivals.

    31. Re:read the polls by poached · · Score: 1

      So much this. HRC doesn't care about the law, much less a piece of document that has no legal status whatsoever. Is there a law about secure communication while holding a public office? Yes, and she broke that law. Is there a law saying the candidates must follow through with their party's platform agenda? No. She can't even be bothered with following laws in the public office, what makes anyone believe that she will actually follow through with that promise once in office?

      Also, does anyone think the Clintons are real-life Underwoods? Both couples are southern democrats drunk with power. Both wives that have been more than just first-ladies. Yes, I know House of Cards was originally a British series.

    32. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She hasn't changed her position on classified emails. And the evidence seems to be supporting it more so every day.

      We are now down to three classified emails, with about 100 that possibly should be retroactively classified. Yet, even these last three might not be classified. Below are summaries from an interview with Comey

      Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.

      This indicates that the emails were not properly marked as classified

      Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying the department didn’t have “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”

      Which means that two of the improperly marked emails were likely not even classified, and were not properly marked as classified to boot

      Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error.

      Which means the person who's been leaking out the juicy details didn't have a clear chain of custody of the details from the source, meaning he's been reporting what he believes others believe without consulting the others. We have a word for this, the kind words are "wishful thinking" and the scornful words are "making it up as you go along" and the harsh words are "dirty fucking liar caught in his own web"

      No wonder the DA won't pursue. It's down to 3 emails two which contain improper markings and don't contain classified information, and one which might contain classified information (I'm not trusting another word Comey says until it is corroborated by better sources) but was also mismarked.

      In short, Hillary likely was correct in saying that none of the emails on her server contained classified markings.

      And that person who stated they removed markings on emails to send to Hillary? Guess what, now that they might have to swear with perjury as a possible side-effect, they aren't capable of remembering the details, even after being threatened with (probably a weak threat) obstruction of justice.

    33. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing positions, especially when you don't get votes, is exactly what candidates are supposed to do. How else are you going to get a competent and flexible candidate? Or do you want someone who ignores what the people want as President of a democracy?

    34. Re: read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a fucking moron. Just fyi.

    35. Re: read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people I know who openly support Trump around here are Hispanics.

    36. Re: read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yeah, like, police? Fire departments? Roads, power lines, signage, gas lines, and on and on and on?

      Yeah, those lazy fucks should pay for their access.

      Infrastructure (which healthcare and education absolutely are, unless police and fire are NOT) is vital, and had nothing to do with charity or sloth. Either you stop bankrupting sick people by subsidizing, or you force companies to pay higher wages and hope the "slothful" apply those increases to healthcare.

      Gee, which of these 3 options (ignore, subsidize, force higher wages) will be most successful?

      Your analogy to Venezuela is ridiculous. The situations are not the same, and you know it.

    37. Re:read the polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like this is a seance with Hugo Chavez's ghost. Check out current conditions in Venezuela to see how "investments in society" are panning out. We have decades of empirical evidence proving that promises of free sht always, always, always end up in tears. And yet there are always people who crawl out of the woodwork claiming "We know how to do it right this time!" and "Don't you want to live in a civil society?" etc., etc., etc. Never underestimate the power of sloth within populations and the insatiable appetite for the proverbial free lunch.

      You could also check out Scandinavia, which would ruin your point... they seem to be working pretty well.

      FWIW, universal health care seems to work better than the US system. The US is in a league of its own when looking at health care as part of GDP - despite many not having care, and the US in general not doing too well on health indicators. US is the only developed country without universal health care, and health just seems to be differing too much from a perfect market.

      There are many reasons for this:

      • There are many monopolies (nationwide - patents, local - ambulances aren't going to drive around looking for the best price)
      • Patients aren't rational - proof: alternative medicine
      • For the point above: The price you would set on your own life is rather high...
      • The incentives are bad - the best way for insurers to earn money, is to avoid customers becoming ill. You might think that would lead to a lot of focus on prevention, but instead the best way is to avoid having customers that are sick or get rid of customers that have become sick.
      • Because every level is profit driven, the more a doctor or hospital can get away with doing, the better.
      • Because the US is very sue happy, it's better to do too much just in case. Unless you're doing something stupid, noone will sue you for doing too much
    38. Re:read the polls by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Much as I despite Bloom County I remember the depictions of her husband as a waffle. I imagine those will return. I think Hilary is smart enough to realize that ovaries aren't enough to sustain support over the next 4 or 8 years, and that she needs to make lasting and real shifts to the left in at least several areas. The unexpectedly strong support for Bernie would seem to have been a bit of a wake-up call. That said, Gore as a running mate would help her immensely, but will not happen. I imagine she asked and Al told her GFY, given how Bill's actions contributed to the presidency being stolen from him.

    39. Re:read the polls by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Understand that Hillary has been advertising. Trump hasn't. Once he starts, I think she'll nose dive, or buoy up even more.

    40. Re:read the polls by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The Republicans will hang Bernie around Hillarys neck in Florida.

      His quotes about 'supporting Castro' will cost the Democrats any chance there.

      Hillary in fact HAS to run away from the commie. He has too long a history. The republicans let him get away with claiming 'democratic socialist' during the primaries. Same as the Ds would have let David Duke get away with calling himself a 'Mainstream conservative'. That will all change in the general.

      He went to the USSR for his honeymoon for fucks sake.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    41. Re:read the polls by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In practice; yes they do. And when they get caught, it's treated as no big deal.

      The Ds are also still voting the graveyard, nothing changes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    42. Re:read the polls by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Have you ever talked to a legal hispanic about wetbacks? It's where I learned the term.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  26. Same shit, different pot by TheDarkener · · Score: 0

    When are the people of the United States going to stop grasping so tightly the idea that a new president is going to change the course that everyone is on? I am sick and tired of people rooting for a president like they do a fucking football team. 'GO HILLARY!' 'WE MUST DEFEAT TRUMP!' Like any one person, even the supposed "leader", will somehow make the necessary change to purge the bowels of a rotten political and federal government system.

    "WE THE PEOPLE" must make the change. I don't mean voting (though it doesn't hurt), I mean CHANGE. The people of the United States must remember that it is they themselves that are the superpower, not the few that hold the keys to the kingdom. The people must organize and steer their ship in the direction of positive change, of prosperity, of justice and freedom. Only then will USA again be chanted across the world instead of cursed.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  27. political sausage stuffing at its finest! by nimbius · · Score: 1

    some are outraged that Sanders has decided to endorse her, but it bears remembering: Al gore once campaigned on the open rejection of the policy that US GDP will increase by 30% in the wake of americas addiction to overconsumption of carbon-heavy resources. A few months later, once appointed to the winning candidates office, he approved a massive trade agreement with china.

    I suspect sanders sees the writing on the walls. Its not relevant anymore what elected leaders are told to do by the gilded elite. Massive routine civil unrest in the past 4 years from occupy to blm, combined with unsustainable levels of incarceration and blanket surveillance have galvanised most public opinion ubiquitously against the elite. It frankly doesnt matter what Hillary does, from nationalized healthcare to free college she faces no repercussion from a ruling corporate class that have no other party to turn to.

    However if you dont like the party or the candidate, the largest act of protest you can engage in is failure to spend and buy. After 9/11 George Bush didnt tell us to brainstorm more effective foreign policy, or invest in alternative energy, he told us to go out to the malls and shop.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  28. Sanders sold out by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    Sanders was an outsider taking on the elites and the political establishment. Hillary is the establishment, she is the perennial insider candidate. It will be interesting to see how many of Sanders supporters stay true to their ideals and refuse to vote for the women they spent months campaigning against. /do Bernie Sanders fans care about corruption?

    1. Re:Sanders sold out by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Sanders was an outsider taking on the elites and the political establishment.

      I told my friends on FB that were supporting him back in May that he would eventually sell out & endorse her. They were still delusional that he could win and said "no way!"

      Hillary is the establishment, she is the perennial insider candidate. It will be interesting to see how many of Sanders supporters stay true to their ideals and refuse to vote for the women they spent months campaigning against. /do Bernie Sanders fans care about corruption?

      Most of them will likely be climbing over each other to vote for her.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Sanders sold out by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What are those FB friends saying now? Not what you think they'll do, what are they saying now that your prophecy came true?

  29. Ma Theresa's joined the mob... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Ma Theresa's joined the mob, and happy with her full time job. Do, do, diddy-do-do, Do, do, diddy-do-do, doooo....

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  30. Does he have any supporters left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After being so unpleasant for so long.

    1. Re: Does he have any supporters left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why none of his peers supported his bid for president. He has always been so hateful to be around.

  31. Re:Hillary's cat's paw comes home to mommy by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    I don't think he flipped anybody. I think Hillary would look like a much better option right now if Bernie never existed. Bernie did more damage to the democratic party than anyone else, it just wasn't quite enough to stop the nomination of Hillary, and now it would be time to damage the republicans if they weren't already dying in a dumpster.

  32. Re:Hillary's cat's paw comes home to mommy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the leftover campaign contributions go to the DNC. I wonder how many Bernie bros know their donations will be funding Hillary's campaign!

  33. Why you can't trust any career politicians by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> Sanders said Clinton will make an outstanding president

    Which is a whole lot different to what he was saying last week.

  34. Re:I PREDICTED THIS STORY YESTERDAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody knows if you -1 a comment it gets more scrutiny. This comment was immediately modded to -1.

    Watch for the -1's folks. It is what they want to hide.

  35. Yay, hypocrisy. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What happened to "she's not fit" for the office? In the time since he said that about her, she's been shown to have been either wildly incompetent or ever more deceitful in her relationship with both her job and her supporters. What's she got on you, Bernie?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      He wants an office, probably.

    2. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?

      She was cleared from indictment in the emails case. Note that this endorsement came shortly after that announcement.
      That was Sanders' last chance for the nomination. At this point, an endorsement is just saying "I like her better than Trump" which is not an unreasonable position for Sanders to hold, and is not inconsistent with "She's not fit."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's she got on you, Bernie?

      A lying racist orange?

    4. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?

      Yes, its almost as if he was just saying stuff he didn't really believe about an opponent to get himself elected, when the only real difference he had with her was political. Like he's a politician or something.

    5. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The many things that the State Department's Inspector General and the FBI have pointed out were wrong about her avoiding public scrutiny of her official documents, regardless of the FBI director's conclusion that he would not expect a federal prosecutor working for Obama/Lynch to be certain they could convict on the more obviously criminal elements of that, have nothing to do with why Sanders called her unfit for office. He had his own reasons for that. As you well know.

      The FBI didn't "clear" her of wrong doing, they simply chose not to suggest an indictment - even as they pointed out her long series of lies and carelessness throughout the entire thing - both as she (to be generous) skirted her responsibilities while Secretary, and while under oath later as she provided false answers about her conduct before congress. If anything, Sanders was hesitant to discuss her obvious lies about her time as SoS while the facts were still being discovered. The FBI just described the facts, which include direct, blow-by-blow refutations of her many direct, purposeful lies on the subject. But they weren't looking into whether or not she perjured herself, they were looking into whether or not there were things like classified material rattling around on her personal mail computer at her house. Which it turns out there was, and many other things she lied about.

      So, Sanders' previous observation about her unfitness for office (which was all about her posture on voting for the war, her beholdeness to large financial industry campaign supporters, and her personally enriching her family from millions of dollars of foreign government donations to her family business while those countries had business before her as SoS), would only change if:

      1) He never meant it in the first place, which makes him a liar. Or,

      2) He suddenly thinks those things didn't happen. But he's not that confused, since of course they DID happen. Or,

      3) These things were never really all that important to him, which makes him a hypocrite, and his assessment about her unfitness for office was him being a dishonest blowhard on the subject, and he actually likes her values, her decision to go to war in Iraq, and the way she raises money for campaigns and has become personally very wealthy. Which would make almost all of his speeches lies.

      He didn't say, "I like her better than Trump," and he hasn't said, "I like her despite the fact we all know she's a corrupt liar." This is just him angling for more air time for his socialist agenda, that's all. He's willing to look hypocritical or even deceitful in exchange for that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      ok, here's the transcript of his speech.

      He didn't say, "I like her better than Trump,"

      He definitely said that, his entire speech is about comparing her to Trump and explaining why her positions match his. It's almost entirely based on the viewpoints held, not whether she is competent or not. He said, "there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate." Which of course can be true even if you think she is unfit to hold office.

      So, Sanders' previous observation about her unfitness for office.......He never meant it in the first place, which makes him a liar.

      ok, at the end of his speech, he says, "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today." Which definitely makes him seem like a liar when he said she was unfit (or he is lying now).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's easy. She has Trump as an opponent. The contrast makes her look much more fit in his eyes I am sure.

    8. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      What happened to "she's not fit" for the office? In the time since he said that about her, she's been shown to have been either wildly incompetent or ever more deceitful in her relationship with both her job and her supporters. What's she got on you, Bernie?

      It may sting, but you have to consider the possibility that Sanders is just as much of career politician as Clinton. They have, after all, been involved in politics for the same amount of time.

    9. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, he's level-headed and pragmatic enough to understand that for whatever Clinton's faults; genuine, imagined, or made up from whole cloth by the republicans:

      1) Trump would be incomparably and catastrophically worse.
      2) He's not going to be the Democratic party nominee.
      3) We live in the real world, and not some Fantasyland where a third-party or write-in candidacy would be viable.

      Clinton wasn't my first choice either. But I'm not going to sit at home pouting in November, content to let the country burn, because the majority of the Democratic party didn't also want Sanders to be the candidate. Apparently, Sanders agrees with that sentiment.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    10. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?

      He didn't recant on that. The well crafted page implies it's the lesser of two evils.

      What's she got on you, Bernie?

      The nomination for the Democratic National Committee?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      She probably said she wanted to be friends and you know what happens to her friends. He said "I'm good, I'll endorse you."

    12. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'd rather let the country burn. We're never going to get a better voting system if we keep playing along like this. Maybe if we elect Trump things will get so bad they'll finally have a constitutional convention and write a big amendment which fixes this stuff.

    13. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      they simply chose not to suggest an indictment

      If you can't tell the difference between "didn't suggest an indictment" and "recommended against an indictment", then you are an idiot.

    14. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Which definitely makes him seem like a liar when he said she was unfit (or he is lying now).

      Or he changed his mind. Why are people not allowed to change their minds?

    15. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because people vote based on what thy say. Imagine you voted for someone to do something, then they changed their mind and did the opposite. The more common scenario was that they were lying (see for example: Mitt Romney on abortion, Obama on gay marriage, Arlen Specter on party).
      People are allowed to change their minds, but politicians should have a good reason why, which Sanders did not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So voting for him is dependent on his platform of "hating hillary"? He can still work towards his other parts of his platform without changing that. And, so far, nobody has "voted" for him. Only delegates can do that, and they haven't voted yet.

    17. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He was lying.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So changing your mind is "lying".

    19. Re:Yay, hypocrisy. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He was lying, he didn't change his mind. If h changes his mind that quickly in such a short period of time about someone who he's known for decades, then he's a complete moron, and that's worse than lying.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  36. Re:I PREDICTED THIS STORY YESTERDAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now expect the front page of Slashdot to fill with a full page of extra-long-summary new stories.

  37. irrational_design endorses Bernie Sanders by irrational_design · · Score: 0

    It's official. Slashdot commentator irrational_design on Tuesday endorsed U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders as the write-in presidential nominee ahead of the Democrat's July convention. irrational_design said Sanders will make an outstanding president and that he is proud to stand with him. "Bernie Sanders understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty," irrational_design added.

  38. From unqualified to endorsement by entropy01 · · Score: 1

    Bernie Quotes: “I don’t think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street. I don’t think you are qualified if you voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think she is qualified,” Sanders said in April. During the primary, Sanders described Clinton’s policy positions and rhetoric variously as “nonsense,” “horrific,” “unfair,” “nasty,” “disastrous,” and “obscene.” “Secretary Clinton owes us an apology,” Sanders told a Wisconsin crowd in April. http://freebeacon.com/politics... So now he's going to endorse someone who he knows is an unqualified liar? What does that say about Bernie? It says that he's the same as every other politician and you fell for it. Vote for our liar because they're better than the other liar.

    1. Re:From unqualified to endorsement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now he's going to endorse someone who he knows is an unqualified liar? What does that say about Bernie?
      It says that he's the same as every other politician and you fell for it. Vote for our liar because they're better than the other liar.

      Some lies are worse than others. For example:

      No honey, you don't look fat in those pants.
      vs.
      No honey, I didn't murder my previous wife for the insurance money.

    2. Re:From unqualified to endorsement by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      How about 'I am a democratic socialist' when he openly supported Castro and went to the god damn USSR for his honeymoon?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  39. So Long, Bernie! We Hardly Knew Ye by macs4all · · Score: 1

    I was hoping against hope that Bernie would leverage last-week's bullshit non-indictment of Hillary into one last push for his Campaign before the Convention.

    But noooooo! Bernie has proven that he is nothing more than (yet another) spineless politician who is more than willing to "Go along to get along."

    Sorry, Bernie. You blew it.

  40. I don't come to SD for this kind of news by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

    Yeah I get it, it has influence even on the lives of techies, but I can get this sort of new from ANY site, that's not what I come here for. Lay off the general political news please editors, unless you can draw a clear singular tech connection. Kthanks

    1. Re:I don't come to SD for this kind of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro tip: you don't have to read every posting here. It's really ok, nobody will mind.

    2. Re:I don't come to SD for this kind of news by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Unless you came here for the commentary from fellow techies, you might be the type that only reads Playboy for the articles.

    3. Re:I don't come to SD for this kind of news by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 1

      The way I see it is this: for any big political thing, there are two ways that the comments can appear on Slashdot. 1. In all of the stories, apropos of nothing, derailing tech conversations, and generally disrupting the overall enjoyment of the site. 2. In a thread dedicated to the topic, which people can avoid if they want.

      Now this doesn't always work, and when the population is sufficiently worked up about something political it's going to bubble up everywhere else. But I think these articles are like flypaper for political commentary; either you get most of your flies stuck to one ugly strip, or they appear randomly everywhere -- you aren't going to be able to get rid of the flies entirely, and personally I would rather they were on the one article.

  41. SUCKERS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to #FeelTheJohnson

  42. Bernie for VP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thoughts?

    1. Re:Bernie for VP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meh. A cake with shit in it is still a shitty cake even if I like the cake part.

  43. Easy choice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was "Join Hillary Clinton" or "Join Vince Foster".

  44. Re:Farewell message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got jewed. Check out the dailystormer for independent news.

  45. It really is time to turn to Him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you all see? We are being taken for a ride of biblical proportions. These two sworn enemies have now taken up refuge in each other, united for their common nefarious purposes. This is the hallmark of deceit and betrayal worthy of Judas.

    When Jesus knew His end was near, He communicated one more commandment to the people, and that was to love each other as they loved Him. We're supposed to be lifting each other up, not putting each other down. We're supposed to help people out of poverty, despair, and hopelessness, and into His light.

    I saw a beautiful sight today in the news when protesters who started out in opposition took each other in God's embrace and put aside their differences. Even if just for that moment, His light shone upon the Earth and there was peace.

    We need to reach out to each other with His word and instead of condemnation, exchange hope. We need to talk to each other about how we can walk together along the path He has laid out for us instead of shouting bitterness. We need to cleanse ourselves of these sinners but also pray for their salvation.

    In His name I pray for everyone.

    1. Re:It really is time to turn to Him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point of order. If you are referring to John, the commandment was to THE DISCIPLES to love each other as He loved them, not as they loved Him.

  46. Re:Hillary's cat's paw comes home to mommy by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Glad you added the last line, when you say

    a warmongering, corporatist, Wall Street shill.

    without a qualifier, it's hard to tell who your talking about.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  47. Credit where credit due by DougDot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our country's two-party system gave us the following two choices to be the next President of the United States: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
    Does anybody else see a problem here?

    But credit where credit due: the 350 or so million dumbed-down 'Murikuns will get one of them come November 8. And they will have earned the right.

    1. Re:Credit where credit due by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Its the fault of voters.
      Very few Americans actually vote for the candidate with the policies they most agree with.
      They either habitually always vote for the same party regardless of candidate or their policies, or just vote for the candidate most likely to win against the candidate/party they most dont want.

      The inevitable outcome of decades of negative voting instead of positive voting is that at some point (i.e. now) we're going to reach the bottom. What we are seeing now is a direct result of decades of voters following a negative voting process: A president being chosen from for one of the two most completely and inherently unsuitable candidates to be president in the entire USA.

    2. Re:Credit where credit due by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that this time around we had two insurgent candidates that overwhelmed expectations. The DNC propaganda machine and elites had to work overtime to keep Clinton afloat, and Trump took the spot despite hostile opposition by the party leadership. Seems to me the winds of change are blowing, and if anything good comes from Clinton vrs. Trump, it'll be the very strong argument against the first-past-the-post system of elections.

    3. Re:Credit where credit due by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're as bad as the rest. RIGHTS ARE NOT EARNED!

  48. They didn't get their way when Obama won by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    And I think you misspelled "Sheldon Aldeson". He and the billionaires get to vet the candidates. Yeah, it sucks. But you don't change something like that overnight. Hilary is a compromise between the working class and the 1%. Vote left. Keep voting for the most left leaning candidate who's viable. It took 40 years to get us into this mess, you won't fix it overnight.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They didn't get their way when Obama won by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 0

      The major issue for me now is that if Clinton gets back in the WH, after all the crap she has pulled, the DNC will say to themselves “we can do anything we want, as long as the Republican is a big bogeyman”. Don’t get me started on her and Bill killing Glass-Steagall and helping set up the 2008 crash.

      I realize many Democrats will hold their nose and vote for Clinton, but I just can’t. It feels like rewarding them for egregiously bad behavior. Then if Clinton starts the cold war back up with Russia as a way to justify the 1 trillion dollar nuclear arsenal upgrade, and starts a bunch of new regime change wars, I would feel like I helped enable that by voting for her. So I am voting my conscience and going with Jill Stein. At least then I won’t feel like I enabled more Clinton disasters. If Trump wins, that is the DNC’s fault, not mine.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  49. Thank gawd America isn't a two party nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are other choices out there. Honest.

  50. Sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He sounds like a bitter old man who lost his one shot. How long it took to endorse her confirms it.

  51. I voted for Bernie in the Democrat primary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was obvious from the beginning that he didn't want to win the Primary, or the presidency. Anyone who was paying attention could see that. I voted for him to send a message to the DNC that I would not support Hillary in the general election, and I had faith my fellow malcontents could handle the GOP primary without my assistance.

    I voted for Gary Johnson in 2008 at Ron Paul's direction, Barrack Obama in 2012(entirely out of spite against the GOP's coronation of Mitt Romney), and I'll be voting for Donald Trump in 2016 out of spite for the rigged Democrat primary(courtesy of Debbie Wasserman Schultz), and also as payback to the GOP for the rigged 2012 primary nomination of Mitt Romney.

    Watching the GOP and DNC self-destruct giving birth to a new age of populist anti-candidate carnival barkers is the greatest gift I can give to the ruling class. I only pray that Donald Trump can secure the necessary votes in the 5-6 swing states to win the electoral college, as my contribution to the popular vote will ultimately prove irrelevant.

    Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign reminds me of the movie Zoolander 2(when the 2x "has-been" male models from the 1990s are on-stage wearing Dr. Seuss "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" outfits.).

    The unfortunate reality is, although Donald Trump has secured the vote of uninformed blue-collar whites, Hillary Clinton has secured 2x very important key demographics: elderly women, and uninformed minorities.

    Many educated and affluent minority voters are leaning towards Donald Trump simply because his tax policies are consistent with their financial interests, and because they don't feel any particular solidarity with the unwashed masses described by Mitt Romney as "the 47%".

    The key question is: what percent of likely voters in the swing states fall in to these demographics?

    Voters who don't matter:
    -The #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary voters who are planning on voting for a third party candidate effectively cancel each other out.
    -The #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary voters who are planning on spite-voting for the other party effectively cancel each other out.

    Hillary Clinton is still pandering to the demographics she has already got in the bag. ->She wants to energize her base to maximize voter turnout.
    Donald Trump is doing the opposite and romancing liberals. ->He seems to be trying to pick up #NeverHillary voters.

    Donald Trump could effectively swear an allegiance to Charles Manson on-stage and I would still vote for him. For the most part: the same goes for Hillary Clinton and the old-ladies who caucused for her.

    Of the two candidates: I think Hillary has a much more stressful several months ahead of her. Aloof dismissal isn't going to work on Donald Trump, and he's saving his best ammunition/bribery skeletons for much closer to election day. Once the presidential debates start, Donald Trump is going to have a small army of NAACP and Black Caucus endorsements lined up, while he can abuse Hillary Clinton with her record on the Clinton Crime bill and Bill Clinton accusers to demoralize her feminist and minority supports to the point of voting green party or staying home on election day.

    Meanwhile:
    -Donald Trump's perception as a "loose-canon" can be managed with Ivanka's help, and a cabinet line-up/SCOTUS appointments which scream "pragmatic decision-maker".
    -Donald Trump's completely enigmatic political beliefs allow him to shore up his position in the swing states by pandering to whatever interest group is most valuable to him at the end of October, before Hillary Clinton can prepare a successful counter-attack and pivot her stance to dilute the message.

    November 2016 is going to be an amazing spectacle. I can hardly wait! No matter what the outcome: the DNC and GOP go home crying. It's going to be fantastic!

  52. Was Linux Used for This? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Otherwise, so what?

    1. Re:Was Linux Used for This? by suupaabaka · · Score: 1

      Considering the amount of interest and the number of comments this submission is getting, I'm guessing it's news that nerds care about.

      Anecdotal evidence: I'm a nerd, and this matters to me.

    2. Re:Was Linux Used for This? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The issue is not the endorsing of political candidates on a technology blog site. The real issue is, "how is America moving forward on technical issues and ignoring its own technical capabilities."

  53. Mixed reaction by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    I have a mixed reaction to this. On the one hand, while I didn't like a lot of his economic policies, I thought Bernie at least had integrity and meant well. Also, there was a pretty good chance he wouldn't have been able to do most of the stuff I didn't like, since it would have required a lot of Congressional cooperation. On the other hand, he already wasn't going to win (unless the DNC threw Hillary under the bus, and that wouldn't have happened), and it will be amusing, at least, to see some of his more rabid fans freak out.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  54. This is depressing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for Bernie's political revolution.

  55. Please... by transami · · Score: 1

    Vote for Johnson. Even if you think he can't win (so why bother) if he gets just 15% of the vote the Libertarian Party will earn the right of equal footing with the Democrat and Republican parties.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  56. the most amazing part of it being on slashdot by superwiz · · Score: 1

    is that the summary didn't have the tag "democrats"... at least the last time i checked. it had a tag donaldtrump, clintons, politics, but not democrats. Given how anything every involving a Republican gets a "republicans" tag right away, this is quite a fit. The fact that he endorsed her right after FBI stated that she clearly and knowingly lied to Congress is quite something, too. I don't think many Bernie supporters expected him to do that under such circumstances.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  57. Would your wife stay faithful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Queen stayed by her man thru thick and thin. You your wife do the same?

  58. Vote Green! by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    Alas the Green Party is only on the ballot in 26 states, but I'm still going to Vote Green as a signal of my displeasure with the Republicrats.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  59. You expected different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bernie and his beatnik supporters are nothing but big cunts.

  60. You were repeatedly warned it was FAKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many of us pointed out that the Democrats rigged their 2016 primary back in the summer of 2015. It was part of the deal that ushered-in Obama that the DNC put itself into Hillary's hands and would serve her when it became "her turn". That check was cashed last summer when the rules for 2016 were set, including things like the setup of Democrat debates that would only occur on days/channels/times when nobody would watch them. All the non-Hillary candidates were put on-notice that they would not get funding through traditional Democrat funding streams, and Democrats who made any attack on Hillary that might politically wound her were warned there would be consequences.

    Bernie never even tried to win; THAT is why he refused to attack her on her completely dishonest and illegal e-mail situation which was her weak spot and which exposed her complete lack of honesty and her life-long refusal to live by the laws that apply to everybody else. The weak point any actual candidate would have poked to weaken such an opponent was dismissed by Bernie in the very first faux-debate.

    Even though Bernie had no intention of winning, he kept conning his liberal followers to believe in his supposed cause and send-in their money. Many fell for it even though they were repeatedly warned. The guy even kept denying he was pretending - while he kept refusing to actually land any damaging blow on Hillary.

    WHY?

    Hillary is possibly the most corrupt candidate the Democrats have supported in at least a century. She became rich pocketing money from Wall Street bankers as "speaking fees", sometimes wile also drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers as SecState. Nobody in the history of planet Earth has taken more from those Wall St firms. She's no great orator, so it's not like they wanted to hear her soaring rhetoric or her dulcet tones; It must therefore be the content of her speeches that were worth tens of thousands of dollars per minute. You'll never know, because she will not release the transcripts. This all leads to a big problem: Young and liberal voters who dislike Wall Street would normally and rightfully not support her. The solution is to get somebody else to work-up the base of the party and energize them for a year leading-up to the party convention and then put his blessing onto Hillary and hand the dupes over to her for support in the November general election. Bernie was a critical component of the scam, the energizer of the liberal base. George Soros, the former NAZI collaborator and super-funder of many left-leaning entities in Europe and the US, is also funding Black Lives Matter for a similar reason: to energize the black vote and keep them agitated for November. Without young liberals and blacks Hillary goes down and Wall Street loses big on its investment.

  61. Which is why Johnson is going nowhwere. by westlake · · Score: 1

    My biggest hope is that Johnson gets very close to 30%, and wrecks the idea that the president (Clinton / Trump) has any sort of mandate to do anything.

    Not going to happen.

    People may be particularly afraid of supporting a potential spoiler. It may mean voting for someone they're not crazy about, but a voter who really hates the other party would be more likely to do that, if it means stopping the other team from winning.

    Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?

  62. Bernie's playing a smart game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bernie is better off not being part of a Clinton administration. After the election he can attack President Clinton if she doesn't deliver on policy. Meanwhile he can campaign for Clinton from now until the election, selling his policies to the voters, and setting the agenda for the Democratic party. He can raise money and help get progressive down-ticket candidates elected. Clinton has not addressed a lot of the progressive issues, and Bernie is filling that vacuum with policies which most of the party can get on board with. This gives cover for state and local Democratic party members to push the party to move to the left on many issues, and defy Clinton on issues like TPP.

  63. And here was me having a moment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And thinking he should have endorsed Trump. After all, which psycho-muppet should one endorse? Clinton or the "fun" choice, Trump?

  64. You give straw man conditions. Bully Pulpit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The president can call out all companies abusing H1-B (and tax laws, etc.) in a public statement.

    Hey, Americans - don't patronize these companies. They are traitors.

    Of course no president would actually do that as she would be assassinated. But it could very well work. Just the threat of populist economic uprising could work (see FDR)

  65. Re:You give straw man conditions. Bully Pulpit. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    You think multinational corporations are going to be swayed by somebody hollering at them?

    Hey, Americans - don't patronize these companies. They are traitors.

    Now you make a good point.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  66. I mean protest voting for Nader in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a fucking ignorant tool - Gore would've lost Florida regardless. And the courts were the responsible crowd for handing the election to Bush, not some amorphous bunch of Nader voters.

  67. Wuss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wuss! Hillary has conned you, too?! SHE should concede to BERNIE! Bernie is the candidate with concrete, workable plans for bettering all lives!

  68. Vote for Hillary, and you get a dog TaDumpadump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And given that she's for gun control...a dog that won't hunt!

    I'll be here all night folks, try the veal, it's GREAT!