^ FUCK. YES.

This is it, summed up perfectly. As I said in my pms to you, SFAD, THIS is what I want to hear from the people I know and trust. Truthfully, it's a mindfuck that anyone would be able to conjure up any reason at all to disagree with this.

If you voted against H.W., or W. or McCain or Romney, I can't imagine why you'd even have to stop and think about wanting to drop Donald Trump and turn him into less than a footnote in history.

As I also said in my pms, keeping that psychopath out of office and stopping his influence may be be most important thing our generation is tasked with in our lifetime. That is, if he isn't stopped... if he DOES somehow win, we will never be able to unfuck ourselves. That's not hyperbole. Not this time. It's serious as death.

So you see the conversation isn't about how great Hillary is. It's about how terrifying this demagogue — this abomination, this sadistic fuck who represents the worst of the worst of America — is, and how completely and utterly he would bastardized the democratic republic you hold so dear. America wouldn't come back from Trump.

I think, simply put, for those of us who disagree with you, it's just not a passable argument that Hillary hasn't done enough to "inspire" you to vote. It may be perfectly reasonable from a political standpoint, but given the circumstances, it sounds a bit nutty. It's not personal -- this isn't about you and how much we like ganging up on you.** It's just (speaking for myself here) more than a little hard to grasp how you of all people would sit this one out.

** Seriously - Symbols and I have talked about the old "internet discussion gang-up" before, and it's not a good look. I promise you, nobody's high-firing anyone.

nothing touched a nerve and i wasn't butthurt neither surprised. but if none of yall can see the problem in such rhetoric and methods in a political discourse well fuck it, it was your mama job too teach y'all good manners not mine.

like i said, my intention was to shift the discussion away from continued Trump bashing instead towards a productive and positive conversation about the GOOD things people want Hillary to do, not the bad things people are afraid Trump would do..

at this stage negative politics has run ots course. that kind of rhetoric fires up the base, sure, but i think the base of each party is already pretty well engaged. now its time to engage in the "undecided" and i feel that requiress emphasizing the positive not the negative.

y'all can bash me, make fun of me, insult me, whatevers, i am a grown man i ain't worried too much about y'all trolling. BUT such rhetoric certainly isn't going to convince anyone to vote for Hillary and if you all are as motivated to defeat Trump as you all claim then its in y'all best interest to build rather than put down

nothing touched a nerve and i wasn't butthurt neither surprised. but if none of yall can see the problem in such rhetoric and methods in a political discourse well fuck it, it was your mama job too teach y'all good manners not mine.

like i said, my intention was to shift the discussion away from continued Trump bashing instead towards a productive and positive conversation about the GOOD things people want Hillary to do, not the bad things people are afraid Trump would do..

at this stage negative politics has run ots course. that kind of rhetoric fires up the base, sure, but i think the base of each party is already pretty well engaged. now its time to engage in the "undecided" and i feel that requiress emphasizing the positive not the negative.

y'all can bash me, make fun of me, insult me, whatevers, i am a grown man i ain't worried too much about y'all trolling. BUT such rhetoric certainly isn't going to convince anyone to vote for Hillary and if you all are as motivated to defeat Trump as you all claim then its in y'all best interest to build rather than put down

Sure. Hopefully the next one doesn't sell mail order stakes, or talk about sexual harassment on public radio. Hopefully the next one is at he very least an educated legal and political scholar who just happens to be a nutty overzealous republican. Because those folks are easy to beat in both the polls and the court of public opinion.

It's the jackasses who talk like pro-wrestlers that are hard to kill. They inspire faith from ... well.. people who watch pro-wrestling.

Honestly we can blame ourselves for Trump. Not, like, WE, specifically, but the nation. Trump is a reaction to white america's feelings of impotence and frustration and behind led by a black man. He's taking that resentment, that racially charged impotence, and he's promising us a "Viagra" for it, do to speak.

We brought this on. Or, rather, about ½ the country did.

But saying there will be another Trump may be a bit on the nose. Here's never been anything quite like this before, though there have been Limbaughs and Nugents and McCarthys, but none of them have been presidential finalists.

It's more likely to happen again if we don't absolutely humiliate him -- rotten tomatoes and all -- like Slambang said. People need to learn their lesson, and it's not enough to simply keep him out of office. We have to drain him of any influence or power at all. When this is over, and he's pushing for a TV show on E!, we need to line up and pitcket. We need to boycott his very visage. Never click on another Trump story, refuse to make him a trending topic on social media. The world needs to look at him and think, "that's failure, and we almost put failure in the White House."

Again, I really don't think you're being bashed.

Go bash yourself

severian perhaps you should go back over and read the comments again.

it's not about me, but if y'all speak that way to other people about this election y'all wont make many allies for your cause

Chelsea vs Billy Bush 2024!

:D well, evollove called him a baby with an empty bottle, and said that his vote wasn't his hymen, and suchfriends is neither a baby nor a young maiden so that's a bashing of sorts but not malicious.

insults aside they were accurate criticisms though. could they have been delivered without barbs? sure. would they have been as clear and/or hilarious without the insult? hell no. they were really good lines and had good imagery. they were illuminating and pointed at the ridiculousness of the opposing arguments.

i don't think there was anything wrong with that though. this claim of "manners" is a bit of BS, and disingenuous to boot-- suchfriends can put all the stupid memes he wants and dismiss all attempts at seriousness while thinking he's being good-mannered. i find that more infuriating that being told to go fuck myself, for example. respect is the basis of good manners, but the form that this respect takes is not universal and may cause confusion between subcultures/ social classes/ different individuals. i'd rather be told off via witticism than through dumbshittery. it's more respectable to have a smart adversary than a stupid one.

my memes are rarely personal attacks, usually they are making fun of a situation or event more so than any individual here. and sure, i am not always on my best behaviour but go back and quote every personal attack i have made against you or anyone if you believe i am in error. also i am always the first to apologize including now if my memes have honestly offended people.

but like i said, this isn't about me, i am a big boy, my feelings are not hurt. but it doesn't make what y'all say any mre effective

my applause of evollove wasn't for the insult itself but rather the accurate observation and witty delivery.

whether that will work on you or not is irrelevant-- i mean, i know nothing will be effective with you, so that's besides the point-- i applauded because it was effective for me. catharsis and good laughs.

sure but what if i represent some of the people who might vote if y'all had a positive rather than combative approach?

see y'all aren't listening to what i am trying to say. y'all wanna fight Trump, cool, but if you believe winning that fight is by electing Hillary then y'all need to focus on BUILDING for Hillary and tearing down people is the opposite.

y'all focused on me, cool, i got thick skin, but y'all instead should use it as an opportunity to practice what positive things you will say to convince some of those actual voters who so far are not committed to Hillary.

be honest and don't play games though. you're not a good test case or a model for anything. you're a theocratic monarchist. i mean-- i'm not going to canvass the neighborhood looking for theocratic monarchists who haven't decided how to cast their vote in a democratic election. if i found one it would be more like: "hello sir/madam, have you decided how you will vote in this election?" "no, sorry, i'm waiting for the return of the king.""the what?" "the king. i only believe in the divine right of kings. that descend from jesus." "okay then, thanks very much, have a good day now". then i move on to the next door.

Well yes, evollove poked... but I don't see that as bashing or hateful or anything like that. More of like a, "Dude... come on" kind of thing.

And the hymen comment was perfect. I was searching for an analogy that would work, and didn't come up with anything half as on point as "hymen." It wasn't a burn of SFAD though. Just a response to the way SFAD had chosen to present himself. Maybe it was meant to be mean, I don't know.
but I don't think it was any less appropriate than all that "DUH DUH FAIL" and "you don't get it, do I need to explain?" nonsense.

Actually come to think of it, SFAD I call bullshit on all of this "manners" stuff.

You've been deliberately condescending, rude, and you've attempted to be hilarious with insults you've tossed out that may not feel like insults to you, but definitely come across as such. It's kind of bullshit for you to call foul when a few others say some things to you that border on the insulting, but manage to succeed in being hilarious.

I honestly do not want your feelings to be hurt here. Really. And I tried to mend things over PM. But for some reason this is still going on, and I think you need to be at least open to the fact that the responses you're getting from others are pretty much proportional to the things you're saying.

Alright, sorry to poop on your philosophical party here with some actual goddamn numbers, but I just wanted to mention that this Democratic attempt to flip Arizona is a coin toss at best — carpetbomb Florida with your message instead and that's it, no Four Horsemen:



Look what happens when you give Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania to HRC and ALL the other mentioned states to Drumpf:

are you done or should we continue? i don't play games if in twelve years you ain't learned that you never will.
i mean really, if you are going to mock my religion because you disagree with my politics the only one playing games here is you. are you winning? does it fulfill you at the core of your being?

come on dude, i'm not mocking anything. i'm just stating facts. you don't believe in the democratic process and you want a just, wise king. am i lying when i say this? if i am, please say so instead of feigning outrage and avoiding the issue. (feigning outrage to avoid the issue is playing games, btw)

yes, you are. indeed i don't recall mentioning Jesus or theocracy ONCE across this entire thread.
just stop. grow up. i have addressed the issue more than anyone, y'all just don't like the way i addressed it.

im not outraged at all, your or anyone's trolling doesn't have that power over me.BUT i also am not a bitch, am not bitch made, neither was raised by a bitch, so if y'all wanna talk some shit know this, i won't back down or be intimidated in any way.

i ain't intimidated by your knife of gun either so and what

what the fuck are you talking about knives and guns and bitches and nonsense? more outrage. see? games.

let's take religion out of the question, and just kindly reply: are you a monarchist or no?

just facts

i am a monarchist
[ ] true. [ ]false

(a) you brought Jesus into this
(b) even if i support monarchy did i mention it anywhere in this discussion over the past year?
you're deflecting and yes, playing games because you would rather try and discredit me than address the issues i raised directly.

whateverz.

so you're a monarchist then?

okay great thanks.

and what bearing does that have on my point i made about y'all needing to focus on positives about Hillary instead of negatives about Trump?

Well at least the Veep got it right: Tim Kaine in Orlando: 'Florida is checkmate'

that you're not a test case for convincing anyone that would vote, of course!

i said that already

okay i gotta go floss. can't floss and type. good night.

but that is the thing, i never said that you have to convince me so much as the way y'all were posting certainly wouldn't.

this is my last time wasting my breath

it would be more effective in general to post positives about Hillary instead of negatives about Trump.

i have no personal beef with Hillary i am not the NeverHillary people, and i would have appreciated discussing such but instead y'all wanted to call me lazy, stupid, a baby, and a pussy simply for sharing my honest perspective.

and yet I AM the one supposedly playing games?

ah, clean teeth are nice. that was a sweet meal. anyway, here i am back to ruin my digestion


that's impossible to assess-- you would never vote for a presidential candidate anyway so it's a moot argument.


ah ha ha ha-- if only!


as someone who will never be convinced, because you're against the whole institution of democratic elections anyway--how do you know, and who do you speak for? this is just hot air.


well, you call her overlord hillary and throw jabs. and your perspective wasn't honest-- you're a monarchist pretending that you want to be convinced to vote, whereas you're not gonna vote no matter what. so it's not an honest perspective--it's a fake one--an act.


of course you are, and this is obvious to everyone at this point. because if you were honest you'd argue monarchy vs democracy instead of playing "earn my vote" with people who argue tirelessly against your false representations, to no end-- and you drive them bananas with your deceptions, and when they lose patience you play the victim and ask people to have good manners.

hail the emperor trollius maximus!

why would i argue something that is not going to happen? and besides, i have discussed monarchy in the past and elsewhere, people like you were equally flippant and scoffing then, so why expose myself to that again?

whether i am voting or not i still have a brain and still am able to have a discussion about the election.

i didn't have any way or right to vote in Brexit, neither did you, are you saying we aren't allowed to have an opinion about it?

see reality is you think you can silence ny voice because it is in dissent, but you can't hence why you would rather play games and deflect rather than address my posts head on. you STILL haven't posted anything positive about Overlord Hillary, you did know there are lurkers here right? what if you posted something positive that people other than me also didn't know and could help them.

remember, I'm not voting but i shared that Frontline with stuff you never knew about Hillary and Trump and you seemed to appreciate it. just because i am not voting doesn't make me a troll and doesn't mean i can't also be informed

nobody is silencing your voice. evidently. you just go on and on with it.

all i did was laugh because evollove told you to stop treating your vote like it was your hymen

even if it doesn't apply because as a monarchist you dont vote as a matter of principle.

but yes it was an accurate and funny criticism of your position. even though your position was not sincere.

and thanks for the frontline stuff, but that has nothing to do with the rest.

and yeah i find monarchy as a form of government to be wholly absurd in this day and age but that has nothing to do with you in particular. i mean some people have kings as national symbols but a king who actually rules a nation these days we call a dictator. having lived under a dictatorship, i repudiate them in principle.

Oi with the "you still haven't done what I asked you to do" stuff. Just dial it down. You want to steer the discussion to Hillary and you're mad that the discussion is about your vocal and stubborn insistence on not voting.

Why would anyone bother to respond to your demand that we give you good reasons to vote for Hillary? You will not vote, and as a public school civics teacher you know everything you need to know about how the democratic platform supports education, higher teacher salaries, accessible education... in fact demonrail already gave you the answer you wanted (good reasons to vote HRC), and you're still asking for it! After thanking him for giving it to you! And ... like... WHY?! If you're not going to vote what's with your unyielding insistence that we all waste our time convincing you to?!

And nobody wants to silence your voice. I really think you have lost sight of what happened here. Namely, that you made a big to-do about how not voting was your thing, and said a bunch of things that people then reacted to in ways you didn't like. This "give me a reason" stuff is just a red herring. Intentional or otherwise.

I think everyone would chill if you just stopped hammering away at this honesty.
You keep insisting that you're not hurt, but I think that's a front. You're clearly emotionally invested in this and feeling very much like a victim. So, take a freakin breather man! Do something else with your Sunday.

Nobody hates you. It's just that this is getting goddamn insufferable.

from Electoral Vote.com

GOP strategist and pollster Frank Luntz appeared on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, and opined that Donald Trump was probably (but not definitely) going to lose the election. Luntz lamented the lost opportunity, declaring that victory in 2016 should have been a "slam dunk" for the Republican Party.

Any Republican who hears this kind of assessment from a veteran GOP operative, whether Luntz, or Karl Rove, or Mary Matalin, or any other, should be very concerned. At the moment, there are no "slam dunks" for the GOP when it comes to the White House. As we have pointed out many times, the Party begins an election cycle up against a blue wall of 242 electoral votes from states that have gone Democratic six straight times (soon to be seven). Other states (Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada) are moving toward the Democratic column, and they are not being offset by equivalent states moving toward the Republican column. If Hillary Clinton wins, the GOP will have taken the popular vote just once since George H.W. Bush was elected in 1988, and that occasion (2004) was by only a small margin. If Party leaders convince themselves that 2016 was just bad luck, they are overlooking serious demographic problems that are not just going to go away.

He's right! It should have been a GOP year. Historically speaking, after two terms of Democrat, there has almost always been a GOP bounce back. A year and a half ago, I was thinking we'll be lucky to get a moderate republican. But I thought if any politician in the world can beat the odds, land this seat and keep the lid on the pot, it's Hillary Clinton.

It's not over yet of course. Hillary will have to beat historical precedent and make history in earnest. And those electoral projections are still far closer than they should be, so I'm not about to start sleeping well at night. But I'm not sure anyone else would have much of a chance at all.

With Obama, a certain expectation of progress was established, and it's my hope that old whit guys have a harder time vying for office from this point forward. Within 25 years, people will want to see an openly gay president, and maybe they'll even get one in a century. But minorities are fired up now, and that spells bad news for the GOP in the years to come.

They're neck and neck again in the popular vote, which is very unsettling. How can this be exactly? Like... really... given the past 2 weeks, how in the HELL has Trump's appeal with the populace increased?

Electoral numbers still very much in HRC's favor, but the people at the polls are freaking me out.

Let the Repos in Utah go for Johnson!
I loathe Gary Johnson... he's barely even a libertarian, not that I have any love for Libs. But now would be a great time for a Johnson surge in the Bible Belt. Let him have his moment, earn the party's funding for 2020, and have a hand in castrating Trump while he's at it.

And yet Johnson's numbers are down, and have been slipping since last month.

I don't even know what's happening.

uh? i've seen this morning news of hillary's numbers reaching 50%

of course complacency is not a good thing (vote early/ vote often lolol)

but verify your sources

FiveThirtEight had the popular vote at something like 49 and 43. Even 50/40 is terrifying considering.

Just one site, for that half hour. Saw a few headlines about it too, but they were greatly exaggerated, using phrases like "Dead heat." Oi.

oh, i see what you're saying. yes. i mean-- 40% of the country voting for an unstable egomaniac is too much however you cut it

thing about polls is that they're probabilities not certainties and yes that aspect is a spooky one. people get too complacent and BLAM.

here's a nice article on electoral stats and probability that explains how 538 accounts for unlikely outcomes with "fat tailed" distributions, plus other fun stuff

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...hers-on-trump/

is everyone here voting early? avoid lines and suprises on election day

oh, found this on today's paper which explains to me why, besides the working class populism, trump's base is holding steady as such high percentage in spite of his madness. it's an opinion piece about the relation between the republican party and right-wing media.

here's a key section that illustrates what the republican base thinks are "facts"

Seven in 10 Republicans either doubt or completely disbelieve that President Obama was born in the United States. Six in 10 think he’s a secret Muslim. Half believe global warming is possibly or definitely a myth concocted by scientists.

Among just Trump voters, 7 in 10 believe government economic data are fabricated. Half don’t trust that votes will be counted accurately in the November election.


and later, the conclusion:

In other words, Trump is not some black swan, whose unique cocktail of charisma, telegenicism and political fluidity landed him the nomination. His nomination is the product of years of race-baiting, conspiracy-theorizing, expert-delegitimizing right-wing media nonsense, which Republican politicians aided and abetted because it seemed politically expedient at the time. They helped the alt-right create the alternate reality that made a Trump nomination inevitable.


the whole bit is here, and the intent is more prescriptive than analytical, but regardless of the viability of the prescription, the diagnosis for the prescription seems (to me) to be the correct one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.77b6b201c1f6

I think this is completely on point. Again, someone found a more articulate, clever and refined way of saying something I was trying to find words for earlier. That being that Trump (or some version of Trump) has been building up in the vas deferens of right-wing America for YEARS. 9-11, Obama's election and re-election, the blossoming of the Tea Party and neo-liberalism... it's all been action and reaction. Rcial "tensions" have morphed back into covert and overt racism and sexism among the voters.

Something or someone like Trump has been growing and gaining power for a long time. And the seed has been planted now. It's anyone's guess as to how HRC will handle the fallout -- the very probable rioting in the streets -- that happens if Trump isn't elected. His children are out there now.

Well, Fox News just turned 20. I remember how insane it was to see their shit on the TV screen when they first came out. Now they're "mainstream."

And yes if you recall the rise of the Tea Party there'd be people with rifles slung on their shoulders at these demonstrations.

I've mentioned before I live in an open carry state, but I do not support open carry in urban places because it's likely to be seen as a provocation rather than a practical thing. In other words, when you're herding cattle on the range open carry is fine, but when you're visibly holstered in a Starbucks you're just an asshole trying to scare people.

So, with this in mind, I don't know about riots, but expect at least more people marching down the streets armed to the teeth like the Black Panthers used to do when Governor Reagan was in favor of gun control.

More Waco or Cliven Bundy scenarios will likely happen for various wackadoodle reasons if/when Hillary wins. Either way, the rabid dog is off the leash.