Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Sanders Thread: Post you nerds!

POST REPLY
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 17 Apr 2016, 12:54
Comrade Gulper wrote:
This just in:

Bill Clinton now believes Sanders voters are super predators who would like to shoot "every third Wall Street employee".

Ah, Bill...once the hippest middle aged man on the planet (most of you don't remember 1992 firsthand), and now it's come to this. He's like a punchy Muhammad Ali in the days just before his MS diagnosis. Sad.


i think you're misreading, he didn't call sander supporters super predators according to that article.

Quote:
Days earlier, he got into a fiery exchange with Black Lives Matter protesters over a comment Hillary Clinton made in the 1990s when she called young people who commit violent crimes "super predators."


that's the only mention of super predators. the sanders supporters wanting to shoot wall street employees is new though.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3850
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 17 Apr 2016, 15:51
Cata wrote:
the sanders supporters wanting to shoot wall street employees is new though.

And probably, not a bad idea...


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 17 Apr 2016, 19:29
I meant the "super predators" comment facetiously. However, I think Bill is warming up to making that call. The old sax and shades 1992 Bill would never lose his cool to that extent...but punchy 2016 Bill just might if Hillary starts to seriously slip.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 17 Apr 2016, 21:10
Bill Clinton is and always has been an asshole. An asshole who seems maybe fun to talk and/or hang out with, but an asshole.

Also quite possibly a rapist, just, FYI. It was drowned out in the '90s right-wing "let's get Clinton" frenzy amidst Scaife-funded totally baseless "he murdered Vince Foster!" theories, and "he's a coke dealer" because Mena Airport happened to possibly (it now looks like "probably") have been used in the '80s in Iran-Contra and obviously the Governor of Arkansas is responsible for what the Vice President's office, CIA, and Pentagon are up to.

But this story in particular should probably be looked into more, it's highly believable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1396
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 17 Apr 2016, 21:28
The son of a bitch!

OK but seriously, back in the old days our sins used to be obscured by too little information and the lack of communication amongst the common man. These days however crimes are being shrouded by way too much information fueled by an over abundance of communication.

I'm not saying Clinton is a good man or anything; I do however remember you defending his wife from some FBI allegations that were brought on here earlier.

P.S. Just a side note, but I did not read the Wikipedia article neither am I anything close to an expert on current or former American presidents.
Last edited by Yeqon on 17 Apr 2016, 23:49, edited 1 time in total.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 17 Apr 2016, 22:30
My problem with the "private email server" allegations against Hillary Clinton isn't the fact that the FBI is investigating it though. My problems with it are twofold:

1) Republicans and some misguided Sanders supporters are screaming "indict!" when there's no evidence to even show a crime has been committed.

2) The investigation was started when Republicans raised a fit over her disproportionate use of a private email server, questioning whether or not she may have violated state secrecy laws in the process. The main ones that could have conceivably been violated are:

A. An executive order that bars storing classified information on a personal account. I'd be very surprised if she didn't violate this one, for the record. However, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice also used a private server for about half of their communications. I'd be shocked if all three of them also did not have some classified information on that private server. It won't lead to indictment, and it's toothless.

B. Freedom of Information Act, in potential non-disclosure when she was subpoenad during the hearings on what she didn't disclose about the killings of US diplomats in Benghazi. This was an insane witch hunt from the get-go, arguing the Obama administration covered up the fact that it was an Islamist terror attack because they love the terrorists. That the subpoena got as high as the State Department is kind of hilarious grandstanding, especially when the House Majority Whip admitted it was entirely about damaging her presidential chances. Here they are arguing there might potentially, possibly, maybe be a crime because there's some chance, so "indict!"

C. The Logan Act, which mostly restricts any negotiation with foreign powers by "unauthorized" citizens but also bars the Secretary of State from state treaty negotiations without consultation of Congress. Unfortunately, this is an act that nobody takes seriously. It was violated by the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations in negotiating NAFTA, by Ted Kennedy in his work on the Oslo II accords, George McGovern and Jesse Jackson in their respective visits to Cuba... it's routinely broken and basically irrelevant, for good and for ill.

If you want likely, serious crimes by Hillary Clinton: the cattle future trading in her Little Rock law firm days does look an awful lot like insider trading. There were also suspiciously missing billing records in the Whitewater real estate development case.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Apr 2016, 20:23
So, Bernie has shot up pretty exponentially in a few recent polls. Probably mostly thanks to increased mobilization by his team and the Clintons' stream of insane blow-ups, skewing undecideds towards him.

He's only 2 points behind in New York in "likely voters" polls, which puts him at winning distance. His average overall is still quite a ways behind though.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 18 Apr 2016, 23:52
Che Burashka wrote:
And probably, not a bad idea...


heh, yeah, i thought about saying that it wasn't an entirely untrue statement.

Richthofen wrote:
Nah, I've been out of the loop on everything for quite a few years, so just found out about it quite recently (beyond seeing people talking about it by just saying gamergate is awful, but not knowing the actual story).


well partly this is because gamergate was bizarre and partly it's because 'gamergate' to most left leaning people means 'misogynistic predators and those who, knowingly and otherwise, cover for those predators.' the whole thing was started by 4chan sociopaths who know how to stir up 'righteous' male rage and even the people who aren't sending out death threats to sarkeesian and whatnot tend to not be the kind of person i'd feel safe being in a room with.

MissStrangelove wrote:
So, Bernie has shot up pretty exponentially in a few recent polls. Probably mostly thanks to increased mobilization by his team and the Clintons' stream of insane blow-ups, skewing undecideds towards him.

He's only 2 points behind in New York in "likely voters" polls, which puts him at winning distance. His average overall is still quite a ways behind though.


really, what polls? almost everything i find puts clinton way ahead of him. of course he tends to outperform polls due to them having a bias towards polling older voters.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Apr 2016, 04:03
$hillary's whooping it up in the Big Business As Usual Apple.


That said, I'm ready to stake it all on a major upset in California. And I'm sure there's a few more PacWest and flyover states that The $hill will overlook to her peril.

Also, I really, really don't want to vote for a candidate I consider only slightly less plastic than her doppleganger at Madame Tussaud's.


ALSO - continuing with the gender norms/expression/expectation discussion, I suppose I'm bound by the rules of full disclosure to admit that, as a man, I find a merciless, graceless female hyena to be - in so many ways, some expressible, some not - a far sorrier, more regrettable, and more contemptible sight than a male. Not that I find anything redeemable in Cruz, Trump, or Slick Willie. But, by great Poseidon's beard, a bright and resourceful woman with a world of possibilities at her finger tips choosing to follow in their hoof prints and calling that "liberation"...ugh...


If that's inherently sexist, I apologize. But it is how I honestly feel.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 20 Apr 2016, 05:45
She won by 16%. The New York machine came out for her very, very heavily.

Bernie needs to either win Pennsylvania to cancel out his big loss tonight, or win California by comparable numbers to Hillary's in New York.

Also, I share your distaste for Clinton. I wouldn't say I hate her more than any equally full-of-shit male because of her gender, and sure, that probably is an internalized gender bias. But at least you've acknowledged it, and I fear the possibility of having to root for her against Trump or Cruz or whoever.

But, the candidate I viscerally loathed the most was Captain Whiny Kendoll running because "frag you I'm pretty" with his Strangelovian view on foreign policy and "I'm just not going to show up" attitude towards work. And now he might as well be on suicide watch.

In terms of visceral reactions, having given my political ones already:

Bernie - Grumpy old codger. Kind of brusque, occasionally an asshole to people just asking him questions. But usually his frustration is understandable, when you see a trend of him responding to the same things over and over. Long-term he's lovably codgerly, short-term he just comes off as a grumpy jerk.

Trump - The idea of him being President is terrifying, he's prone to whiny Cartman-esque volatile outbursts. I'm sure I'd dislike him in-person too, he has a certain sneering, mocking tone that I'm never fond of. And he acts like "saying the things nobody wants to say" and "calling people fat and ugly for no reason" are the same thing, he's like a schoolyard bully. But, actually kind of fun to watch, as like this living caricature of a Tony Soprano stereotype. He's a great entertainer, and I sort of loved his takedown of Ben Carson.

Clinton - Annoyingly artificial, she seems immensely backstabby and fake. I actually like her better when she's backed into a corner and goes full-Nixon, she seems much more human. From the (largely-negative) biographies I've read, she seems somewhat boring in her college years, but very human and easy to like. Somewhere along the way Walter White became Heisenberg.

Cruz - Slimy. He comes off as the most immensely two-faced, self-serving guy in politics since... Mitt Romney, and while that's not long ago, that's a high bar to set. Also something about him severely gives me the creeps, he's like the guy in the back of the mailroom with a stash of kiddy porn who keeps women as lampshades and one day snaps and shoots up his workplace. I don't know, I would not be surprised to find him in a raincoat dancing to Hip to be Square one of these days. Also, his whole "Roman Senator" demeanor comes across as deeply pompous.

Kasich - Superficially some boring "stereotypical dad"-like doofus who could easily be played by Tom Hanks or Bill Murray or similar. Actually a tremendously condescending asshole. His response to 20-somethings asking him about the national debt is "what else do you worry about, kid?" He once talked down to a girl just asking him a question at a townhall because she looked like she was a "sorority type." He hates young people who happen to be interested in politics. For god knows what reason. Even his "I'm the only sane man in this race" campaign smacks of abject smug self-righteousness. And his laugh is annoying. I'm sorry to say he's the best Republican candidate, on a visceral level I hate this man.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 20 Apr 2016, 06:58, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Apr 2016, 06:56
Bernie is basically Jerry Stiller, with an undercurrent of Don Rickles that emerges every once in a while. He's the Grandpa that dreams big and means well, even if a lot of it ends in, "Oi, Barbra, it was me inside the whale for 40 days! Why me, Lord?"

Cruz is indeed slimy. His mask comes off at night and it's just oozing goo with a straw for a mouth, sucking the brain matter out of sacrificial Republican voters.

Trump is everything FDR would have been if he had never contracted polio in his middle years and suddenly developed a sense for the suffering of the "little people."

I used to really like Bill Clinton in the 90's and even well beyond. Not because I saw him as anything more than a playboy made good but because his competition was Bush 41, Bob Dole, and the occasional hiccup from Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson. Now that far superior candidates have emerged, he looks ready to join John Edwards in the rapidly gathering shadows of decently veiled obscurity.

Upon further reflection, Kasich does seem like the classic silver spoon, country club aristocrat whose royally entitled displeasure is roused when the riff raff from beyond the security perimeter start acting uppity.

Hillary just makes me gag. That snooty sneer of hers, that fake laugh, and the fact that - as Miss Strangelove pointed out - she only seems genuine when she goes Full Nixon. I hate her most of all because, before Obama and now Sanders, she was the candidate I felt like I had some justification in resting some cautious optimism in. The last decade has proven me wrong in a way that no Republican witch hunt ever could.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 20 Apr 2016, 08:20
If she ends up the nominee, I'll end up supporting her nationally. Because at least she doesn't have a goose-steppy movement and the smell of sulfur about her. The system will produce shitty people like her no matter what, until you at least get money out of the election cycle. And if it's a wide-ranging reform, the bourgeoisie will fight tooth and nail to stop that. Neither Clinton nor Trump has any proposals for remotely far-ranging reform in that area, but at least Clinton doesn't pull people away from the issue and into a mindless cult of personality with Trump's "I can't be bought!" BS. Instead she offers up milquetoast band-aids, which nobody pretends are anything but milquetoast band-aids.

Also, there were some suspicious "coincidental" last-minute purges in Brooklyn, Bernie's home borough. You might see a lawsuit over this.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 20 Apr 2016, 09:18
Why MissStrangeLove?

I know Trump is a braggadocios douche, but at least he hasn't killed anyone. Clinton was the biggest proponent of the Libyan intervention in the Obama administration, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and the virtual disintegration of the country. She was the biggest proponent of US assistance for Turkish, Saudi and Qatari machinations to take down Assad when he refused to accede 'the winds of change' (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood) taking over his country and turning it into an Islamist hellhole. She's tapped Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, the latter one of the key instigators of the Ukraine crisis, for her foreign policy team. Everywhere she goes, outside America, she has brought death and destruction.

What has Trump done that is comparable? He's ripped off dozens of investors, and hundreds/thousands of people with his business schemes, he's been a public jerk to women, and said some nasty things about immigrants. But when it comes to foreign policy, he has this 'America First' doctrine which doesn't want to start new wars, wants to end US reliance on the Gulf states, doesn't want to send ground troops or establish no-fly zones in Syria, and heck even wants to defund NATO.

Some Russian analyst commenting on the election recently said to the effect that 'Clinton wants to lecture Russia, Trump just wants to do business', and that's exactly right: Trump wants to do business with the rest of the world, on America's terms, to be sure, while Clinton, like her husband, wants to continue to pursue the new world order which threatens to annihilate anyone who doesn't join or submit. Clinton is a neocon/liberal interventionist hawk through and through, far more so than Obama (who was just inexperienced, and ended up getting manipulated) and in half a year's time she may come to preside over the most powerful military and political machine in the world.

Personally, I'd take the devil I don't know in this case. It can't be for no reason that neocons are so afraid of Trump that some have even proposed a real-life Seven Days in May-style scenario using a real life general (James Mattis) to take him down.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 20 Apr 2016, 09:42
I've never heard of this coup scenario, for the record.

I will not support Trump because what he represents is a right-wing, nativist, petit-bourgeois populist movement around an authoritarian strongman, with a consistent record of violence against protestors. This movement is in every sense incipiently fascist.

Despite admirable overtures on our bases in Germany and the Pacific (coupled, for the record, with "nuclearize South Korea and Japan"), he is also likely to be mostly business as usual in foreign policy. You can bring up Kagan and Nuland for Clinton. John Bolton (a neocon; broken with most of his former allies, who back Cruz) is a Trump advisor, and Richard Haas and Newt Gingrich are informal ones as well. If you want to use the Pat Buchanan/Alex Jones scarephrase "new world order," I'm not sure who's that more than the President of the Council on Foreign Relations (Haas).

His chief political strategist is Roger Stone, protege of the Roy Cohn machine in New York. You may know Cohn as Joe McCarthy's little sidekick, later political boss of the New York GOP mostly through blackmail. Until he died of AIDS. Stone, for the record, has threatened violence against GOP delegates if Trump does not get the nomination at the convention, because apparently the Donald can't abide by the GOP's rules they laid out before he entered the race. As an advisor to New York Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Stone also was a driving force behind taking down Governor Eliot Spitzer, one of the few politicians to try for substantive reform of Wall Street, specifically in the field of hard crackdowns on securities fraud. With a long record of white-collar crime busts and his already having been touted as a vice presidential contender in 2004, it's probably not coincidental his callgirl records were leaked within months of his election.

I also see no evidence that Trump would not have entered Libya if he felt the calculus was right considering his stated stance on Iraq, "eh we probably shouldn't have gone in but now that we're there let's loot the place." At best his position is old-fashioned Eisenhower/Nixon/Bush 41 Whig imperialism, which is literally the same as the Clinton/Obama foreign policy. Bill Clinton did nothing Nixon or Bush 41 would not have done. Bush 43's administration only differed in swallowing the "democratize the world" kool-aid and being hilariously trolled by an Iranian agent named Ahmed Chalabi.

Hell, over the course of the campaign season Trump's said we should use "tactical nukes" against ISIS, like another Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't going to cause blowback that'll make ISIS look like the Mickey Mouse Club. He additionally opposes the Iran deal, which Clinton supports; ending this would reopen the debate on Iran's nuclear program and thus the argument for war with Iran, by removing the inspection regime. He is in no sense even a principled neo-Lindberghist isolationist ala Ron Paul. He is a rank unideological opportunist.

Most fundamentally, the man is unpredictable. Clinton is predictable. She is predictably corrupt. Trump cannot be trusted on literally anything he says, because he has about five different positions on anything on any given day. You can't plan against what a madman does. That's the basis of the madman theory, that's why it's worked so well for creeps like Kissinger. All you can do is try to avoid said madman, isolating America from any allies it might have formerly had.

So. A completely unpredictable guy leading an incipiently fascist movement, with a combination of run-of-the-mill status quo hacks and really shady political fixers as his advisors and a Goldwaterian love of the "tactical nuke" option. All readily documentable through even a cursory search. Yeah. Even if Clinton is a lesbian witch who killed Vince Foster and eats aborted fetuses to summon forth Lucifer so he can take our guns and implement UN Agenda 21, she's better than that.

She is a totally predictable woman leading a totally predictable boring movement, with purely run-of-the-mill status quo hack advisors and probably a few shady political fixers as well sans the McCarthyite baggage, who was more hawkish than Obama on Syria but at least supports neither tearing up the Iran deal nor "tactically" nuking the Middle East.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 21 Apr 2016, 06:42, edited 3 times in total.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 20 Apr 2016, 13:50
clinton clearly gets criticized in a way that's sexist, including the tendency for people to dismiss her because of her perceived personality more frequently, but that would apply to literally any woman that runs for president, including michele bachmann etc. or how people tried to discredit palin as a vice president by making out to be a bad mother. these attitudes absolutely need to be combatted in the political process.

this sn't a symbolic position we're talking about however, so we have to look at what people would do if elected. there's a reason why sanders leads with women under 40 and why many of the men who criticize clinton on policy rather than personality encourage people to vote for jill stein if clinton loses. policy matters.

clinton would probably be a bit better than trump or cruz in terms of foreign policy but that speaks more to how horrible her opponents are this year. i don't see a significant difference between her and george bush except in branding, but there's a difference between her and cruz or trump. not that i can bring myself to vote for someone that hawkish regardless.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Apr 2016, 14:08
Sarah Palin clearly IS a bad mother, though, which naturally begs the question of how she can run a state when she can't even run her own household. Of course, this question was answered when she became the first Half-Governor of Alaska.

Now, if Sarah had the bona fides to back up her philandering a la Warren G. Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, or Bill Clinton, she'd be a decent President but still a crappy person. On balance, I'd accept it. But she doesn't. So what we're left with is a bad mother who is certifiably batshit crazy into the bargain. She has no more chance of ever seeing elected office again than Ted Nugent does of seeing another gold album.

Hillary, on the other hand, is both a demonstrably crappy and corrupt person and a potential middling-to-rather-awful President. I agree with Cata and Miss Strangelove that, unless she's secretly possessed by the Dark Side of the Force, she won't be as hideous a deal breaker for world diplomacy as Trump or Cruz. But she will represent, at best, 4 years' more of paralyzing gridlock that may well see the rot set in beyond all hope of repair in our lifetimes.

Yeqon wrote:
Who is the bastard that claims Poles are stupid? I've got a bit of Polish in me, and I scored 144 the last time I took the test. So kiss my ass bitches! #thug-life

According to Ancestry dot com, I've got genetic markers in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, an indeterminate swath of what used to be Czech and Yugo, Bulgaria, and Greece! So, it wasn't me that made fun of the Poles!
Last edited by Comrade Gulper on 20 Apr 2016, 14:27, edited 2 times in total.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 20 Apr 2016, 14:16
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Sarah Palin clearly IS a bad mother, though, which naturally begs the question of how she can run a state when she can't even run her own household.


it really doesn't. sure i'm glad she's not my mother, but they're two totally different skillsets and there's no reason other than sexism to focus on the former in the context of a presidential race other than sexism. it's significant because she was a goldmine of bad policy to criticize but a noticeable amount of people reached for her mothering skills instead.

that just doesn't happen when the candidate is a man. like trump has implied he's sexually attracted to his daughter, but i've never heard anyone express that as a reason not to vote for him.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Apr 2016, 14:27
Cata wrote:
it's significant because she was a goldmine of bad policy to criticize but a noticeable amount of people reached for her mothering skills instead.

I hear you, and I agree that she shouldn't be especially singled out for criticism using this scenario as a main point of attack. However, Bill Clinton received a holy roasting from the hypocritical "family values" Republican brigade, many of whom are now sharing eternal infamy with the likes of Larry Craig. It's a sign of extreme desperation, as well as inherent degeneration of the political process, when such a line of offense is resorted to in lieu of the real issues.

And, yes, I see how this line of attack on Palin can be interpreted as sexist, and I'm sure it is just that for many people, no matter how well they rationalize it to themselves or whitewash it in public. I'm willing to admit I myself may be guilty of such reasoning at times, although I am trying to make the effort to short circuit such easy conclusions when possible. But I don't think the universal distrust of Palin, or the widespread dislike of Hillary, comes down to mere sexism.

For example, there are Republican conservatives who represent the pure mercantile heart of darkness and war of dog against dog of the capitalist ideology who I am very willing to believe hate Obama for reasons other than his race. Of course, race has almost everything to do with the strategy they willingly go along with to gridlock him.

Quote:
that just doesn't happen when the candidate is a man. like trump has implied he's sexually attracted to his daughter, but i've never heard anyone express that as a reason not to vote for him.

If Trump's history of philandering and other deviant behavior comes back via a Cosby sized revelation, we'll hear about this again. And again. And again. With six months left until the convention, you can bet there are diggers digging.

Update. Robert Reich has this to say on Facebook:

Robert Reich wrote:
As I predicted, the mainstream media this morning are saying the race is essentially over. But so far, no article I’ve read about yesterday’s New York primary mentions that independents weren’t allowed to vote in it. Yet 42 percent of American voters are now independent, and only 29 percent are registered Democrats (26 percent are registered Republicans), and we can assume a similar distribution in New York. A significant portion of Bernie’s supporters across the nation are independent – for the obvious reason that Bernie’s candidacy takes on the establishment. In addition, most young voters are independent. Independents gave Bernie huge victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington, for example. And independents obviously will play a large role in any presidential election.

The inclusion of superdelegates and exclusion of independents from many Democratic primaries makes the Democratic Party far less democratic than many assumed. This is the prerogative of the Party, of course. But the mainstream media have a responsibility to let people know all this, for the purpose of assessing the significance of a given primary outcome.

What do you think?
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 20 Apr 2016, 19:38
If Trump is the nominee or runs third party, my guess is he gets indicted before it even reaches the ballot. The Trump University hearings are this summer. The scandal looks severely fishy, it appears like blatant fraud to just about anyone. The only question is whether or not it's AmWay-like "just barely legal" fraud.

Of course, then he'll be represented as a persecuted martyr by his cult of personality, and his movement will go in even scarier directions. Will we see My Struggle: A Donald Trump Story?
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 20 Apr 2016, 20:13, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Apr 2016, 20:07
Hillary's email fiasco is being probed by the FBI at the same time that the Benghazi business comes to a head. If Hillary wins the ultimate office, you can expect both to either disappear in a heartbeat or explode in a cannibalistic piranha frenzy that will make Watergate look like Boss Hogg trying to frame the Duke boys for moonshinin'.

Meanwhile, I wonder if the Trump University flap really has legs, or if some sex scandal will rear its ugly head? He did host "The Apprentice" all those years. If there's a chance for the media to Cosby his ass, it's got to come soon. Unless, again, it explodes while he's in office, in which case, hello "Real Housewives of Pennsylvania Ave."

Trump's one saving grace is that he's too old to build a long term career a la Mussolini or Franco. And his children appear to be a colorless bunch of time serving empty suits. I don't really see anyone emerging out of the swamp to claim the "mantle of Trump." He's too much of a one off, even if all of the ingredients are painfully common and obvious.

As for a third party...well, we kind of already have four parties. The old boy network Republicans, the "Don't it make our brown shirts blue" Teabag brigade, the Business As Usual Hillarycrats, and the progressive wing represented by Sanders.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.