If Clinton wins, four years of conservativism. If Trump wins,

[untitled]

four years of right wing rule. Nothing to look forward to.

[Golfboy]

Irony is lost on the stupid. Oscar Wilde

[untitled]

Irony is lost on the stupid. Oscar Wilde

 

 

Nothing you say makes sense.

[BeAChooser]

"If Clinton wins, four years of conservativism."

 

By all means, prove you're an idiot.

[eclectic skeptic]

Irony is lost on the stupid. Oscar Wilde

There's a sucker born every minute.

 

PTBarnum

 

And there's no greater sucker than you the way you suck up Brietbart's conspiracy theories.

[Golfboy]

There's a sucker born every minute.

 

PTBarnum

 

And there's no greater sucker than you the way you suck up Brietbart's conspiracy theories.

So you agree with the OP/Thread Title that Clinton will be good for Conservatives, and bad for you.

All you do is attack me. You can't even think. It's live pavlov's dog.

Living rent free in ES head - sure is a lot of elbow room in here.

 

This is why ES will always be my bitch.

[eclectic skeptic]

So you agree with the OP/Thread Title that Clinton will be good for Conservatives, and bad for you.

All you do is attack me. You can't even think. It's live pavlov's dog.

Living rent free in ES head - sure is a lot of elbow room in here.

 

This is why ES will always be my bitch.

Did I say I agreed with the OP?

All you know how to do is lie.

You're a one trick pony.

 

I see you don't like me telling the truth about you being joined at the hip with Breitbart. Lol

 

I always knew that site was slime but I just recently found out how bad it really is once Bannon's record was exposed. No wonder you always use it.

[sole result]

 

 

Nothing you say makes sense.

Hillary will be conserving global progressivism and doing everything in her added elected power to make sure nobody can say anything against her character and title without the rule of law coming down on them like Hell's fury.

 

not to mention the entertainment media tearing them apart as well.

[Golfboy]

Did I say I agreed with the OP?

All you know how to do is lie.

You're a one trick pony.

 

I see you don't like me telling the truth about you being joined at the hip with Breitbart. Lol

 

I always knew that site was slime but I just recently found out how bad it really is once Bannon's record was exposed. No wonder you always use it.

You truly are a dumb fuck, aren't you?

Rent free in ES head.

[eclectic skeptic]

You truly are a dumb fuck, aren't you?

Rent free in ES head.

 

Coming from my little puppy that follows me around from thread to thread... That's a hoot.

 

 

PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

" I've never tried to defend Trump

because I'm not a supporter."

[ScottMon]

Irony is lost on the stupid. Oscar Wilde

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

 

[sole result]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

 

Is that kind of like, "those that understand don't tell, and those that don't know speak about everything they believe true."

[eclectic skeptic]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

 

Explains goofy's supreme overconfidence.

[ScottMon]

Is that kind of like, "those that understand don't tell, and those that don't know speak about everything they believe true."

Sort of. I take it to mean that doubt and skepticism are more prudent than blind faith.

[fishhead]

What could be more conservative than taking away our guns?

[benson13]

we can't afford another republican Depression

[BeAChooser]

I take it to mean that doubt and skepticism are more prudent than blind faith.

 

 

What could be a greater example of blind faith than the devotion that Hillary's followers have for her and the DemocRAT"ic" Party?

[merrill]

four years of right wing rule. Nothing to look forward to.

 

 

Clintonism screwed the Democrats: How Bill, Hillary and the Democratic Leadership Council gutted progressivism

 

 

Hillary Clinton today promotes herself as a “reformer with results,” and she’s relied on a widespread impression that she and Bernie Sanders aren’t really that far apart on major issues. After the last round of primaries in the Northeast, she expressed it again:

“Because whether you support Senator Sanders or you support me, there’s much more that unites us than divides us. We all agree that wages are too low and inequality is too high, that Wall Street can never again be allowed to threaten Main Street, and we should expand Social Security, not cut or privatize it. We Democrats agree that college should be affordable to all, and student debt shouldn’t hold anyone back.”

Of course, it’s not just Democrats. The points she touched on have broad popular support, despite elite hostility, or at best neglect, which is a large part of why Sanders went from 3% support in the polls to near parity in some April polls [FOX, NBC/WSJ, IPSOS/REUTERS].

But Clinton is a skilled politician, so she’s artfully re-aligned herself to blur their differences, with overwhelming support from the elite punditocracy. When the dark side of the Clinton record from 1990s is raised—NAFTA, Defense Of Marriage Act, “welfare reform,” mass incarceration, Wall Street deregulation, etc.—two defenses come readily to mind: “Hillary didn’t do it!/Bill was president” and “times change/you’re forgetting what it was like.”

These are both effective narratives in the establishment echo chamber, which is designed and intended for horse-race politics at the expense of political understanding (as well as factual accuracy).

But Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be here today if she hadn’t been aligned with those policies—and with helping to create the environment in which they came to pass. Even before entering the White House with her husband, who had promised voters “two for the price of one” during the 1992 campaign, the pair had cast their lot in with those who moved the party to the right, most notably when Bill Clinton became head of the DLC—the Democratic Leadership Council, or as Jesse Jackson called it, “Democrats for the Leisure Class.”

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/30/clintonism_screwed_the_democrats_how_bill_hillary_and_the_democratic_leadership_council_gutted_progressivism/

[merrill]

"If his wildly successful campaign has told us anything, it's that Democratic voters are sick and tired of the DLC-Clintonites running the show.

The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists.

They want to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s.

They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive."

The DNC Junta Is Continuing the Democratic Leadership Council Coup

 

National polls don't really matter; what matters is momentum, and if Bernie can win Iowa and New Hampshire, he would suck up pretty much all of the momentum.

Now, considering the fact that Bernie Sanders does better than Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical matchup with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, you'd think that the establishment Democrats would be thrilled with these developments.

You'd think that the people who talk so much about "electability" and how important it is would be overjoyed that Bernie Sanders, a popular and electable candidate, is moving towards the Democratic nomination.

Apparently not.

Instead of celebrating the rise of a new star, establishment Democrats are freaking out about the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Case in point: former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who on MSNBC agreed with Joe Scarborough that establishment Dems could recruit John Kerry or Joe Biden to run if Bernie sweeps both early primary states.

Pretty weird, right?

Here Bernie Sanders is inspiring millions of young people to get involved in politics, and establishment Democrats think it might be a good idea to draft two guys who've already lost presidential races.

Go figure.

But here's the thing: Establishment Democrats aren't stupid - they should be scared of Bernie Sanders.

And that's because he represents a direct threat to the centrists who have ruled the Democratic Party for the past few decades.

Although he's not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades.

A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved "too far to the left" during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were "to expand the party's base and appeal to moderates and liberals."

That obviously sounds nice in theory, but in practice it meant the destruction of the thing that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party for most of the 20th century: the progressive values of the New Deal and FDR.

Under From's leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons.

Instead of talking about ways to make the US a more just and equal society, Democrats now talked about things like "welfare reform," so-called "free trade" and so-called "school choice," which were really just corporate plans to privatize the commons.

The final victory in the DLC's takeover of the Democratic Party came when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992.

Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLC's ideas were the basis for most of his policies.

Over the next 20 years, the DLC consolidated its stranglehold over the Democratic Party.

And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters still control the Democratic establishment, especially Hillary Clinton - Bill Clinton's wife.

Which brings us back to Bernie Sanders.

If his wildly successful campaign has told us anything, it's that Democratic voters are sick and tired of the DLC-Clintonites running the show.

The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists.

They want to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s.

They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive.

And so, they're siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election.

As I said earlier, establishment Democrats should be scared.

 

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34370-the-dnc-junta-is-continuing-the-democratic-leadership-council-coup

[merrill]

we can't afford another republican Depression

 

 

 

End the unfair rules disallowing 3rd parties from the Presidential Debates

 

This petition was created in order to eliminate the unfair requirements where a Presidential candidate must have a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in an election and the requirement that the candidate receive 15 percent of the national electorate to participate in the United States Presidential Debates. Republican and Democratic Presidential Candidates become household words because obscene amounts of money funded by Super PACS, millionaires and anonymous corporations pay for the lion's share of their advertising.

 

 

Since third party candidates like the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, the Green Party’s Jill Stein, and the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle don't have the monetary resources to buy this overwhelming amount of advertising, then as long as these rules are in effect these candidates will never have a chance to be heard alongside Democrat and Republican candidates. By signing this petition we hope to bring this injustice to the forefront and begin a dialogue where the rules can be adjusted to accommodate viable third party Presidential Candidates.

 

https://www.change.org/p/the-commission-on-presidential-debates-end-the-unfair-rules-disallowing-3rd-parties-from-the-presidential-debates