Or I could just vote for no one.

I may just flip a coin.

I'm predicting that Trump will quit right before the election and then we will have a Cruz/Ryan ticket to deal with.

Trump will only quit when people stop paying attention to him, and being president of the United States would guarantee that that never happens.

Unless you live in a battleground state, you don't even have to worry about your vote effecting the election.

Just vote third party and worry about the down ballot candidates.

I live in Ohio...are we still a battleground state? I know we certainly were in the last two elections.

DQL: this election is so weird, we'll all have to look at polls closer to election time to determine exactly which states will be close.

I live in a deep red state, so it's an easy decision to vote third party.

If I lived in a battleground state I'm not sure what I'd do. I have a feeling I'd still vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

Clinton supporters and surrogates have not been helping themselves with their Trump fear-mongering and condescending arguments. The DNC email leaks haven't helped either.

I had quelled my fear of Trump by rationalizing that even he gets elected, most of the congressional Repubs would not want to back his crazy ideas. Then I heard that Trump said he'd hand most of his responsibilities over to Pence.

Not cool.

Oh dear TeenerTot, I'd not heard that yet. That is indeed troubling.

"namtar
Unless you live in a battleground state, you don't even have to worry about your vote effecting the election.

Just vote third party and worry about the down ballot candidates."



This.

Hell, Sanders won my state's primary by double digits even WITH some of the more egregious voter suppression of any state in the primary so I can pretty much do whatever I want.


I've never abstained from voting before but this might be the year.

Pence is going to be the actual president if Trump wins, either the defacto one or the actual one in the likely event that Trump is impeached or otherwise forced out of office.

That way he gets all of the brand recognition and money that he got in to this race for to begin with, without any of the responsibility. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he resigned in the first 6 months, even.


It's the supreme court seats that worry me.

Basically, Trump would be Reagan 2.0 - an actor (well, TV personality in this case) playing the president while other people behind the scenes actually ran the country. Which would be terrible. But the fact is, he's got more in common with Reagan than with the various fascists he's usually compared to. Even his worst rhetoric is pretty comparable to a lot of stuff Reagan said, especially when he was governor.


Which is not to say I've got anything good to say about Trump, but can we al take a moment to remember how awful Reagan was?

Yeah, OZ, you're right. We're faced with a choice between Trump's Reagan 2.0 - in which case, we'll get a Bush Sr for VP, and that guy will be the one running the presidency - or we'll get Hillary's Bush 4.0 - in which case, knowing Hillary, she will pick a suitably Cheney-like running mate.

I think we can all agree that Reagan was better than Bush, however.

I think it's pretty fair to call Reagan a fascist. Look at what he did to trade unions. Germany might have been less militarily aggressive if they had started from the position of power that Reagan's America did. Just because we were able to let the CIA and our puppet states do the dirty work, doesn't make Reagan categorically better than Hitler.

He's better in the Genocide department, I'll certainly give him that.

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is more aggressive than Reagan's. Trump's is most likely much worse, who even knows? But I think it's fair to call anyone who supports Citizen's United, the Middle Eastern/Asian Quagmire and the TPP a fascist.

I'd just like to point out to the massive fucktards;

if your state is red, it's not going to turn blue by you throwing a hissy fit every non-perfect, non one vote difference-making election and staying home or useless protest voting. The people running the campaigns see just how stupid you are and then don't bother wasting resources on your state (money or volunteers) to actually shift it.

And you must really be sheltered, spoiled brats to think that democrats and republicans are so similar that it doesn't make a difference. Or just incredibly dumb.

The problem isn't that there's no difference between Hillary and Trump, it's that there's no difference between Hillary and Bush II.

The question is, how do we drag the Democratic party back to the left. Any ideas?

Namtar: It's not a "myth", it's basic fucking math. And stop with this whole "Well if Gore deserved to win, he should've gotten more votes!" bullshit. Where were these votes supposed to come from, exactly? Oh, that's right. Left-leaning voters who need to learn to compromise and accept a candidate who share 75% of their views over George Fucking Bush.

There are no words for how stupid Nader supporters were and are.

Whoops, wrong thread.

Still, protest voters are the dumbest people in democracy.

Sooo, how does one push the Democratic party to the left without protest votes?

"The problem isn't that there's no difference between Hillary and Trump, it's that there's no difference between Hillary and Bush II."

a) that's bullshit

b) that's not what the choice is in the election

c) your reasoning is so stupid

"Sooo, how does one push the Democratic party to the left without protest votes?"

Protest votes don't do shit, they never have and they never will. The only thing they do is convince politicians that your vote isn't worth their time to pursue and they shift their attention (and policy decisions) to voters that do or -might- vote for them if given -reasonable- promises and concessions.

for example, the whiney leftist hipster vote that might be worth 1 or 2% in the general election is not worth pursuing if their agreeing to their demands means a loss of 5% or more swing/centrist voters. (this is why democrats are shifting to the right, not the left, no matter how hard you mark your protest vote)


Also Sanders is a useless politician, and even if he somehow magically won the election, he'd still be a useless president. He cannot broker deals across the isle or even on the same side of it. He demands ideological purity and 'berns' bridges with everyone that doesn't meet his litmus tests.

The reason the Democrats are moving to the right is Citizen's United. The electorate is the furthest left its ever been. If you want to complain about whiney tone, maybe you should read your own profanity-laden, blamey posts.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Democrats were moving to the right loooong before citizens united.

Okay, since Buckley v. Valeo. So how do you propose to reverse it?

Support/Elect leftist mayors, state representatives, governors, senators, congressmen.

Support/Join/Create unions.



Honestly it just boils down to 'young leftists need to be much more active in all areas of the political process', not just paying attention once every 4 years and then bitching when the whole system doesn't instantly change on demand.

>>>Basically, Trump would be Reagan 2.0 - an actor (well, TV personality in this case) playing the president while other people behind the scenes actually ran the country. Which would be terrible. But the fact is, he's got more in common with Reagan than with the various fascists he's usually compared to. Even his worst rhetoric is pretty comparable to a lot of stuff Reagan said, especially when he was governor.

No, Trump is more like Reagan 0.2. Never mind that he comes later, he's no upgrade.

I don't see how those things are mutually exclusive, especially if the current democratic leadership actively campaigns against leftists.

It allegedly campaigned against -sanders-, not the same thing as 'all leftists'.

Sanders burned all the bridges he approached at the DNC, why are you surprised they didn't like him?

If you think what they did to him was acceptable, then I think we've found the crux of our disagreement.

I asked in some other forum, but I'll ask again here: Do you think the Tea Party was useful for furthering the conservative agenda? If so, why do you believe that a similar progressive faction would not be useful to progressives? They accomplished their goals with protest votes quite well.

I don't think the tea party was useful to anyone aside from a handful of people collecting super PAC money.

Super Pac money's pretty useful when it comes to getting people elected.

Except presidents apparently, since republicans are going for 0-3 since the tea party sprang up.

Obama out-raised them with that sweet Wall Street cash.

Bernie write-in. It's like Nader, except without the gigantic gap in prospective voters.

This country deserves who it elects. Always.

You mean this country deserves who the Electoral College elects.

I'm going to write in SolRo, since he has this shit all figured out.

I promise I'll be a capricious tyrant.

After reading that piece in the New Yorker about Trump's biographer I am genuinely looking forward to his Presidency.

It's going to be like having Norton I in the actual White House.

No I take that back, it's horribly unfair to old Josh Norton. The only proper analogy I can think of for Donald Trump is Lionel's evil uncle from Brain Dead.

"EvilHomer
I think we can all agree that Reagan was better than Bush, however."


I'm not convinced of this.

"William Burns
The reason the Democrats are moving to the right is Citizen's United. The electorate is the furthest left its ever been. If you want to complain about whiney tone, maybe you should read your own profanity-laden, blamey posts."




I can honestly say I've seen more strawmanning here from the site's Clinton boosters than I did in the previous decade or so of its existence, and to be honest it was a minor but real factor in pushing me more firmly into the pro Sanders camp early on, if only because fact checking the (usually disingenuous) attacks on him on here last fall made me learn a lot more about him and realize that for the first time in my life I might have a chance to actually vote for someone who represented me.

"SolRo
Support/Elect leftist mayors, state representatives, governors, senators, congressmen.

Support/Join/Create unions.



Honestly it just boils down to 'young leftists need to be much more active in all areas of the political process', not just paying attention once every 4 years and then bitching when the whole system doesn't instantly change on demand."



So exactly what Sanders' campaign has been saying all along and what he is continuing to help work toward.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, once the tempers of the more fanatical fringe of his supporters have had time to cool down, in the long run, this is probably better than if he had made it to the general election and lost or made it t the white house and was unable to make good on his campaign promises just like every other I've lived through. Both parties have been actively marginalizing and discrediting the left for decades, and Sanders' success has done more to galvanize and legitimize that than anything in my lifetime so far. Sure things are going to splinter and become a bit balkanized without the rallying point of his campaign, but the huge boost in visibility for the left, and the number of left leaning people who were brought in to the political process is a huge thing, and even if the factions that come out of it don't necessarily agree on everything, the boost to the leftward shift on the state and local level (which is where things actually get accomplished) is going to have a major long term impact all the way up to the federal level.

>> Do you think the Tea Party was useful for furthering the conservative agenda?

If by "conservative", you mean "fascist", sure.

If so, why do you believe that a similar progressive faction would not be useful to progressives?

Well, if by "progressive", you mean "fascist", no reason.

The emails are actually no big surprise, that stuff was practically an open secret since last year. But they do prove it.


I agree it's important to back Clinton but I empathize with the people who refuse. The first time you really experience just how little the public's voice matters in the political process was upsetting enough under normal circumstances, much less the way things are since Citizens United, and the kids who make up the Bernie or Bust contingent just got a really hard lesson. I'd be pissed off, too.

Many of those kids joined the party with the sole intent of voting for Sanders, so it's not like they're traitors to their cause. And anyone who doesn't live in a swing state knows their vote is mostly symbolic, anyhow.

Even if it matters whether she has "more experience" or not (am I right in assuming you also supported McCain over Obama? Nixon over Kennedy?), the email leaks prove that she didn't learn much from her tenure as a politician. I dealt with classified information a lot in the military, and the sort of behaviors she engaged in were plainly not OK, and would have gotten any lesser mortal thrown in Leavenworth once they were caught. Either Hillary is an entrenched sociopath who believed she was above the law (and it turns out, above-the-law is precisely what she is), or she was experienced politician who, even after years on the job, had learned absolutely nothing about how to do her job properly.

Either alternative is pretty bad!

>>>(am I right in assuming you also supported McCain over Obama?

I said experience in the White House. McCain and Obama both had zero experience working in the White House. Everybody else running, including the whole Republican clown car had zero experience working in the white house.

Every new administration that I can remember just flounders during that crucial first 100 days that's supposed to be so important. This was especially true of the beginning oif Bill Clinton's It would be great to avoid the rookie mistakes for a change.

>>>Nixon over Kennedy?
I was two.

First you're talking about experience in politics, now you're suddenly restricting it to experience only in the White House. Pick your principle, please, and stick to it.

But if we're ONLY talking about experience in the White House now, then surely you'll be willing to admit that Nixon - a man who spent *eight years* in the White House, as Eisenhower's VP - was a better choice for America than JFK. (It doesn't matter how old you were; you can engage in a little thought experiment.) If you had a chance to vote in Nixon v Kennedy, then based upon your own logic, you'd vote for Nixon, right?

Fuck you if you can't read. Here is what I said:

>>I just read about the leaks, and shit, I am depressed. I still feel Clinton would make the better president, because she has more experience working in the White House than most ex-presidents.

Would I pick Nixon over Kennedy? Only if Nixon was a Democrat.

Language, please. And...

"only if he was a Democrat"

Therein lies my point. This is not about "experience" at all. The essential qualification, in your mind, is mere party affiliation; all other arguments and principles are empty tangents.

When I talk about extensive experience in the executive branch, I'm talking about Hilary Clinton, and nobody else, and no other race. It's really unusual to have a candidate who has been on the inside at the upper levels of more than one administration.

OF COURSE I don't vote for Republicans! You got a problem with that? I've only voted for one republican in a general election in my entire life, and that was someone I know personally, for Village Trustee.

But "voting for a candidate with experience in the White House" is not a principle you adhere to. It is simply an ex post facto rationale. You have already conceded this, so please don't continue to bring up her "experience" (which, unlike Nixon's time as VP, was not actually spent as an Executive, but merely as First Lady, and then a state-secrets-losing Secretary) as if experience is a thing which matters to you.

>>>But "voting for a candidate with experience in the White House" is not a principle you adhere to. It is simply an ex post facto rationale.

Jesus Christ, Homer, who fucking cares? The primaries are over.

1. I said what I believe.
2. It's what I believe
3. Suck my dick.

Language, please.

And it is fine to have beliefs, I just hope you are willing to amend those beliefs once new information comes in. That is not too much to ask, surely?

I mean, we have a word for the kind of people who, when faced with a diversity of alternative viewpoints, yell things like "I said what I believe, it is what I believe, suck my dick".

Do you know what that word is?

Are people seriously still under the impression that the voters were responsible for the actions of Dieboldt, Jeb Bush, Fox News and a Republican Supreme Court?

Please don't perpetuate the myth that Nader cost Gore the election.

More Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than voted for Nader. Why doesn't anyone blame those voters?

Also, if Gore had just won his home state of Tennessee then Florida would have been irrelevant. Bill Clinton won Tennessee twice before, and it was Gore dropping the ball that cost him the election in 2000.

People voted for Nader because Gore and Bush were pretty much the same politically. The stupidest myth I hear is when people think that if Gore was elected there'd be no Iraq war, as if he wasn't the most hawkish candidate that election.

I genuinely hate Hillary, so yes.

Burns, those issues only came up because the election was so close. If only a couple hundred "too cool for lamestream" voters had gone with Gore instead of Nader, the Bush 2 administration never would have happened.

Someone else here mentioned it before, but there's a reason that ideologically pure, populist candidates remain 3rd party. Politics is about accumulating and spending political capital, and compromising for the former because wouldn't you know it we live in a great big country where everyone's goals don't perfectly match up all the time. The instant any 3rd party candidate focused on taking the steps to actually getting the shit they promised done, they cease being the uncompromising firebrand you fell in love with.

The mentality that supporting a major party means you're still plugged into the matrix is the voting equivalent of truthers.

You're arguing against the entire history of first past the post voting if you think 3rd parties don't hurt the candidates they most resemble.

Is everyone too young to remember Perot?

Holy shit never mind I just read your comments in the Trump email hack video.

You are in dire need of growing the hell up. Maybe some day you'll join the adults table but that is not today.


Anyone who thinks Clinton and Democrats have "shifted right of Reagan" is just looking for any excuse to be outraged at the establishment (man). I almost want Bernie to win just so I can enjoy the shitshow when they would eventually turn on him for the slightest imperfect outcome.

I think we need a constitutional amendment requiring a runoff for all election results where no candidate gets more than 50 per cent. When THAT happens, you can talk to me about third parties..

"Politics is about accumulating and spending political capital, and compromising for the former because wouldn't you know it we live in a great big country where everyone's goals don't perfectly match up all the time."

Right, so compromise and vote Trump.

Trump owes less people favours, has a better track record on workers-rights, and isn't responsible for the deaths of a half-million Libyans and Syrians. Trump's goals don't match up perfectly with your own, but he IS the better choice, and since voting for a candidate you actually agree with is evidently unreasonable and bordering on treasonous, it is therefor up to you, Mr Nominal, to take your own advice and compromise.

As the great American philosopher, Animal Mother, once said: you talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?

He's not even GOOD at shenanigans. He starts out with "this place is empty! There's nobody left in here!" when there's two people right behind him. Then he cuts to a shot showing like two hundred people.

And yeah, Clinton doesn't speak until tomorrow. This was filmed during one of the filler speeches, the ones made early in the day by minor democrats no one has ever heard of. Of course the house isn't packed. People come to the DNC to hear speeches from people named Obama, Clinton, Warren or Sanders, not to listen to some random state senator blather on about tariffs or whatever.

Also he looks very face-punchable.

"SolRo
Also he looks very face-punchable."

Great commentary. Very pertinent to the discussion. Five stars.

I thought the "Bernie-Bros" were supposed to be the violent ones. Guess not.

But, look, Namtar, regardless of who this guy is going to vote for, he totally does look he'd be well-served by five across the eyes. I, for one, would volunteer to ring his bell. Can't we agree on anything here?

I'm just saying he looks like the kind of person that if you spent any amount of time around him, you'd have to seriously restrain yourself from punching him right in his smug face.

"I thought the "Bernie-Bros" were supposed to be the violent ones. Guess not."

Since your team was the one issuing actual death threats -- and your chickenshit leader couldn't even denounce them except in the most tepid tones while passionately defending the emotions behind them -- you remain the violent ones.

I don't think Bernie has any responsibility to apologize for 4-chan trolls. Has Hillary apologized for the antisemitism that the DNC was directly responsible for proliferating at her behest?

I told you guys to watch My Little Pony. I warned you what would happen if you didn't learn the importance of Friendship.

Ponies would never be divided like this, but you are, and while you fight amongst yourselves over the lasts scraps of your dying empire, Iron Will shall proclaim himself your king.

"SolRo
I'm just saying he looks like the kind of person that if you spent any amount of time around him, you'd have to seriously restrain yourself from punching him right in his smug face."

I hope you're just being hyperbolic, because I've never had to seriously restrain myself from physically assaulting anyone because of the way they looked or the words they spoke.

I hope you're just being over dramatic and aren't a constant threat to anyone around you who doesn't look a certain way or doesn't say the things you want to hear.

Internet tough guy-ism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

"I thought the "Bernie-Bros" were supposed to be the violent ones. Guess not."

Then I guess you're kinda dumb.

"I've never had to seriously restrain myself from physically assaulting anyone because of the way they looked or the words they spoke."

Meet more people.

Well player, Tough Guy.

I though Bernie Bros were supposed to be the bitter, angry ones.

Gmork or anyone who might agree with Gmork, maybe get some anger management therapy if you're having these kinds of hard to control impulses.

I'm not trying to be snarky or joking. It's really not normal to have to seriously restrain yourself from hurting people that pose no physical threat to you.

National Institute of Mental Health
1-888-ANXIETY (1-888-269-4389)

National Mental Health Association
1-800-969-6642

How much of a giant persecution complex do you need to have in order to take a well-worn internet joke like "this guy looks punchable" and twist it in your mind to "THIS PROVES BERNIEBROS ARE BEING STEREOTYPED OMG! [single tear] "

And yeah, technically Bernie didn't have a responsibility to condemn people sending death threats in his name. But maybe he should have anyway, because a good leader does what is right, not just what he's obligated to do. That was a test of his moral courage, a choice between doing what was right and what was self-serving. And he failed.

Clinton failed to apologize for actual, direct fear mongering done on her behest by the DNC. She hired DWS, for chrissake.

Have you not read the E-mails? This isn't internet speculation. This is a matter of public record now.

Maybe you should read them:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campai gn-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigge d-dnc-undermined-democracy/

You sound very face-punchable.

You won't think I'm so punchable when I'm punchin' yer face!

"And yeah, technically Bernie didn't have a responsibility to condemn people sending death threats in his name. But maybe he should have anyway, because a good leader does what is right, not just what he's obligated to do. That was a test of his moral courage, a choice between doing what was right and what was self-serving. And he failed."

This. Bernie had long encouraged his followers to see anyone who opposed or even criticized him not as people who honestly disagreed with him yet might still be persuaded via fact and discussion, but as tools of a corrupt and illegitimate regime. And Lord knows Bernie didn't do much to calm down rumors that elections were rigged against him. So, if you're a "revolutionary" and elections are being rigged against you, what is the next course of action? Bernie knows it: threats of violence, same as the Teabaggers who were recommending "second amendment remedies" the other year. Yet another way the Teabaggers and (some portion of) the Bernie supporters are indistinguishable. And even if most Berniebots didn't actually issue death threats, I'm seeing an awful lot of them trying to justify or downplay the death threats.

By the way, Bernie lost because minorities could see right through him. If only whites could vote he would have won handily, but since blacks and Hispanics can vote too, he lost. Anyone who claims the elections were rigged, take it up with minorities and tell them they abused their privilege of voting. Maybe threaten some of their relatives too, if you want to be classy about it.

What the fuck makes you think I go to 4Chan? Mostly, I'm talking aboiut Twitter.

And what makes you think that I'm blaming Bernie for his asshole followers? We were talking about why a Tea Party of the Left would be fucking horrible. I don't think Bernie intended anything like that, but I think it's a danger.

Seriously, let me be clear about something, I fucking love Bernie, I love what he's accomplished, and I want to see something come of that. If he can somehow deliiver his voters to Hillary, HILLARY WILL OWE HIM, and if she doesn't give him an important spot in her administration, I promise you that I will sign petitions and send letters about my disapproval..

Bernie has done something way more important than one Trump has done. Trump has been the beneficiary of the fact that no matter how much the GOP grunted and strained, it couldn't come up with one serious candidate, and I really think the influence of the Tea Party is a big reason for that. This year, Hulk Hogan or Chuck Norris could have been the Republican Nominee if he chose to run. Bernie Sanders actually gave a voice to the voiceless, the real left has been invisible to the political mainstream. I don't happen to think he'd make a better president, because the corproate medioa has hoodwinked me into thinking that Hillary Clinton isn't some kind of James Bond Supervillain. But like I keep saying, if Bernie had won, I would have been all in for Bernie.

How do you know so much about Boxxy if you don't go on 4chan?

Only if you live in a swing state. Most Americans can vote for whomever they want, knowing their vote means nothing! Jill Stein 2016, biiiitch!

States do actually change, when a side actually puts some effort into it. That's about the only thing you can give the tea party credit for, they followed through on getting their racist, xenophobic, corporate feudalist representatives elected.

On the other hand, the William Burns' of America just give up and go cry in a corner if they lose one primary.

So the Tea Party strategy does work, but we shouldn't try the same strategy on our side. Also, filibusterer abuse works, but we shouldn't try that either. Should we try anything that works, or just keep electing sellout conservatives?

You never tried electing lower level politicians.

You never organized to pressure current politicians to shift to the left.

You never tried to form a political movement independent from one demagogue.

You demanded the presidency and threw a hissy fit then gave up when you didn't get it, just like in 2000.

All you really did is rally around sanders' diatribe and followed him around. Now that he's going back to obscurity, you're doing the same.

Can we expect you to be recover and be ready to vote again in 2032?

That's a lot of weird, inaccurate assumptions.

"Also, filibusterer abuse works, but we shouldn't try that either."

Filibuster abuse works to block legislation but not do anything constructive. The only thing it does is allow a minority party to break government. So no, we shouldn't try that either. Again, just a reminder, we got the New Deal because Republicans didn't abuse the filibuster, so stop making like filibuster-abuse is the gold standard just because the worst Senators we've ever had do it.

"Should we try anything that works, or just keep electing sellout conservatives?"

Who exactly ISN'T a "sellout conservative" in your mind? Because the actual solution for adults is to vote enough Democrats into office to take back both chambers (plus fix the filibuster), but I don't know that you'll accept that as a workable solution.

Hey Mr Bort, what are your thoughts on the Clinton's friend, Fethullah Gulen?

Do you think Hillary will mention him during her upcoming speeches? Will he ask his followers to please maybe vote Democrat, too? And if the Democratic Party were to ever achieve Total Power over the state, ushering in a golden age of single-party rule (we can only hope!), do you think that the Party of Douglas will finally decide to stop fomenting wars and destabilizing insufficiently-obedient Middle Eastern countries? Maybe the Dems only do that kind of stuff because alternative political parties stubbornly refuse to stop existing.

>>That's a lot of weird, inaccurate assumptions.

The hissy fit part seems to be pretty accurate.

@solro

Jill's got a better platform and Clinton doesn't deserve my vote. If the Democrats won't count our votes, they shouldn't count on our votes.

You're not actually implying that trump is any less corrupt than his republican adversaries, are you?

Also 'economic problems that have existed for over 40 years are completely the fault of Obama and Clinton'

You're a cartoon.

So, you aren't concerned about the gladiatorial arenas thing because you know that you probably won't be one of the people fed to the lions and who is it that you were saying doesn't care about other people? Obama?

For anyone who might read this and actually care, here is a breakdown on the differences between Trump's and Hillary's economic plans:

http://fortune.com/2016/06/28/trump-clinton-economic-compariso ns/

Solro -

To be fair, I think Trump is greedy and manipulative, but I don't think he has the years of experienced entrenched in DC where they fuck us all over for a living. Raping peasants up the ass? It must be 11AM, followed up soon by a power lunch! Whereas Trump rapes peasants on say a bimonthly basis. I don't think he's as corrupt as the Bush family, who have no patriotic love for their country and protected the Bin Ladin family as a first reaction to the worst attack on our country since Pearl Harbor. That takes a special level of corruption. I'm sorry if twenty goddamn years isn't enough time to fix the fucking economy for these motherfuckers. God, if only we could give them just 8 more years of peasant assfucking...oh wait, that's on its way!

Also, you calling me a cartoon is the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard. Your own cartoon series of JewBusters and the Magic Cossacks is in its seventh season now.

Ragamuffin -

When in Rome, just go to the gladiatorial events. Every once in a while someone will make a rush for the emperor.

And Republicans freed the slaves!

How do the Anti-Masonics figure into it?

I adore the irony of "Hamilton" as privileged Democrat anthem show.

You ARE the establishment, grandpa. You've been the establishment for decades now, and it's not been working out so well for any of us, has it?

You ARE the establishment, grandpa. You've been the establishment for decades now, and it's not been working out so well for any of us, has it?

Are you serious? It hasn't worked out for ANY of us? I'm not rich at all, I can't afford a car or a new computer, but compared to most ordinary people in most periods of history, I think I've got it really good. I make my own art videos, I watch netflix, I take care of my disabled friend, which makes me feel useful, I make a dynamite gazpacho, and I recently discovered A&W's Papa Burger, which is fucking incredible, especially with a little salt. Every now and then, I watch a 3D movie. I've seen some great movies this year.

I recently discovered that one of my older videos got a quarter of a million views. I don't know why, it's not very good.

But this is off the point anyway. I'm not really defending the current establishment. I'm saying BE THE ESTABLISHMENT, and go ahead and do it better. I don't doubt that you could, and you certainly deserve a chance.

Millions of dead Arabs, your smartphone is spying on you, and the next three generations of humanity have already been sold off as debt-slaves to the banking oligarchy. But hey, you just tip the ol' hat to George Dubya, and say "no biggee, Bush-bro! I got to watch a superhero movie last month!"

Forgive me if I don't see "civil war in Europe" as a reasonable trade-off for "John sometimes gets to stuff his face with burgers".

I'm sorry I didn't realize we were talking about the rest of the world, but this "trade-off" business isn't implied in what I said. It all your bullshit, and it's got nothing to do with me. You said things had worked out badly for everybody, and I said "not everybody"

I said, and I quote:

"it's not been working out so well for any of us, has it?"

I didn't say it necessarily worked out BADLY - at least, not so long as we define "badly" relative to the kind of horror Hillary has rained down upon the rest of the world. But no, it hasn't turned out so well. By your own admission, all you've really gained since Reagan got in the White House and the Bush/Clinton Crime Families triggered this New American Era of endless war and creeping domestic fascism, is decadence. You are comfortable, but I submit that you are also diseased; there are burgers in your mouth, but no virtue in your soul.

(the good news is, it doesn't have to be like this. You are smart enough and tech-savvy enough to break out of your conditioning, John. Fight the inertia! Come to the Light!)

Could you define "fascist", please?

A tea bagger likes to talk about "the liberal media". A particularly obnoxious Bernie Baby likes to talk about "the corporate media". They're both talking about the same media, and they both mean the same thing. It's their way of dismissing the rest of the world, their all-purpose intellectual don't-get--out-of-jail free card. It's the go-to explanation of why everybody else in the world is wrong. I suppose this isn't the actual definition of fascism. It's more like the definition of a cult.

Define "fascist", please.

Also, does a nominally-private industry that works in close collusion with the state, such as the liberal-corporate media, factor into your definition of fascism at all? Why or why not?

To whom are you speaking, and about what? I have to ask, because you are not replying to any clearly-specified post.

Also, please define "fascism".