2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

What was clearly meant was your posts against those that defend the former and criticize the latter.

Still drawing a blank.  When have I attacked people for being pro-Sanders?

[Martinus]

Keep adding to the list. Trump will need them for the round ups.

[Martinus]

The Bros are lining up.  We're currently fielding:

T. Ortiz
E. Teach
A. Clanker
M. Thyn
C. Mihali
Z. Oupa, on loan from the Expos for the primary season.

I've taken the liberty of adding Meri to the roster -- though I may be mistaken -- but I need more solid info to include M. Imus if I'm to be prudent.

It's great to have Tim, Puerto Ricans are notoriously great at the sport.

I thought Merri was a Hillary Ho, not a Bernie Bro.

[Martinus]

I see DGs ideologyhere (although certainly well intentioned) as kind of a establishment blackmail.

Republicans are terrible, so you better support us or else! Of course, that is just what the people who run the show want, since it means that they can make sure nothing actually changes.

The threat is awesome, because they get to bounce between the fucked up GOP, and the supposedly well intentioned but actually just as bought and sold Dems as the "options". And of course, nothing changes. And they get to use the excuse of "Yeah, but you let the GOPs win every once in a while!" as their excuse.

Fundamentally, I reject your claim that the Dems are making some effort at reform. They have done nothing at all, nor have even attempted to do anything, so far as I can tell.

Yeah, and it means Hillary doesn't even have to care for the dissatisfied Bernie voters since they are expected to fall in line anyway - she is already making overtures to Bush donors, for example.

I think one has to break the cycle - because if you allow this blackmail to continue, then every election cycle the bogeyman on the right will be even worse than the previous one - so it is better to get one relatively early on so things can still bounce back.

[Martinus]

So has Ank's return doubled the number of unapologetic Bernie "Bros" on the forum?  Just to take a headcount.

What counts as unapologetic?  I would certainly prefer Bernie, but will have no problem voting for Clinton in the fall given she's facing a literal fascist.

Tim, you're on the roster.  What happens post-Bernie, happens post-Bernie.

EDIT:  Though I should say: Trump may "fascistic" tendencies, he is very far from being a "literal fascist."  If the word is to have any definite meaning; it's usually the right-wing arguing that "fascist" has become a meaningless pejorative, not the left.

I think he will try to censor the media, imprison political opponents, rule by fiat, and ethnically cleanse the nation among many authoritarian crimes so I mean it in the literal sense.

Wow, you are nuts.

[Martinus]

We need a Trump Train list too:

L. Egbiter
M. Artinus
E. Anger (?)
D. Erspiess (?)
P. Hilipv (?)

[Martinus]

Let's get the Chappaqua Charlatans roster ready.  So far we have:

D. Guller
C. DeMoney
G. Arbon
V. Almy

I know there's a bunch more floating around, but those are the only that come to mind right now.

I think Hillary Hos or Clinton Cucks rolls better off the tongue.

[Capetan Mihali]

Let's get the Chappaqua Charlatans roster ready.  So far we have:

D. Guller
C. DeMoney
G. Arbon
V. Almy
A. Yi

I know there's a bunch more floating around, but those are the only that come to mind right now.

I'm in the #NeverTrump camp.  Add me.

Done.

[Capetan Mihali]

We need a Trump Train list too:

L. Egbiter
M. Artinus
E. Anger (?)
D. Erspiess (?)
P. Hilipv (?)

I'd render it

L. Biter
M. Tinus
[E. Anger]
[D. Spiess]
[Ph. V.]

for aesthetics and screen-name composition integrity, myself.

[Capetan Mihali]

What was clearly meant was your posts against those that defend the former and criticize the latter.

Still drawing a blank.  When have I attacked people for being pro-Sanders?

It seems like when it comes to elections, there are two schools of thought about the reasoning for voting or not voting for someone.  Mihali seems to subscribe to the "ultimatum" school of thought:  you better give me a candidate I like, or I will indirectly help make things worse for all of us just to show you I'm serious. 

I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought:  if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent.  It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.

Is there a clearly better choice?  Yes, of course.  People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.

[jimmy olsen]

So has Ank's return doubled the number of unapologetic Bernie "Bros" on the forum?  Just to take a headcount.

What counts as unapologetic?  I would certainly prefer Bernie, but will have no problem voting for Clinton in the fall given she's facing a literal fascist.

Tim, you're on the roster.  What happens post-Bernie, happens post-Bernie.

EDIT:  Though I should say: Trump may "fascistic" tendencies, he is very far from being a "literal fascist."  If the word is to have any definite meaning; it's usually the right-wing arguing that "fascist" has become a meaningless pejorative, not the left.

I think he will try to censor the media, imprison political opponents, rule by fiat, and ethnically cleanse the nation among many authoritarian crimes so I mean it in the literal sense.

Wow, you are nuts.

Just taking the man at his word.

[Martinus]

Where exactly has Trump ever said anything about imprisoning political opponents or ethnically cleansing the nation? 

[frunk]

The Dems have been in power for 16 of the last 24 years, including the last 8, and have done NOTHING.

I'm not sure this is true.  In order for there to be meaningful steps taken to curb corruption it will require changes in the laws.  Far too much of it is perfectly legal, which means the executive can do relatively little about it.  Until Congress decides to tackle it the president isn't in a position to fight corruption effectively.

[jimmy olsen]

Where exactly has Trump ever said anything about imprisoning political opponents or ethnically cleansing the nation? 

The cardinal promise of Trump's campaign, is deportation of 11 million people. It is the centerpiece of every speech he makes and the reason he won the nomination. He will absolutely attempt to carry this out if elected and it is something he can not hope to do without shredding the constitution and flagrantly violating the rule of law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration.html?_r=0

"I can't even begin to picture how we would deport 11 million people in a few years where we don't have a police state, where the police can't break down your door at will and take you away without a warrant," said Michael Chertoff, who led a significant increase in immigration enforcement as the secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush.

Finding those immigrants would be difficult, experts said. Police officers across the country would need to ask people for proof of residency or citizenship during traffic stops and street encounters. The Border Patrol would need highway checkpoints across the Southwest and near the Canadian border. To avoid racial profiling, any American could expect to be stopped and asked for papers.

Literally laughed out loud at the idea that Trump's gestapo would make even a token effort to avoid racial profiling. Anyone with a Hispanic last name will be at risk.

This would necessitate the construction of concentration camps.

To prevent flight after arrest, the authorities would have to detain most immigrants awaiting deportation. Existing facilities, with about 34,000 beds, would have to be expanded to hold at least 300,000, Mr. Sandweg estimated, perhaps with tens of thousands of people in detention camps, similar to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Most deportations must be approved by judges. But backlogs in the 57 immigration courts are already severe, with waits as long as two years for a first hearing. The federal government would have to open dozens of emergency courts and hire hundreds of judges, shortcutting the painstaking selection process.

...

By any tally, the costs would be enormous. The American Action Forum, a conservative-leaning research group, calculated the federal outlay to be at least $400 billion, and then only if the deportations were stretched over 20 years.

But the proposals' main flaw, former officials said, is that they are unrealistic. "Unless you suspend the Constitution and instruct the police to behave as if we live in North Korea," Mr. Chertoff said, "it ain't happening."

Beyond that he has threatened to use torture, insisting the generals will obey his orders. He has threatened the speaker of the house in very unsubtle fashion and promised a crack down on the media.

[Barrister]

Let's get the Chappaqua Charlatans roster ready.  So far we have:

D. Guller
C. DeMoney
G. Arbon
V. Almy

I know there's a bunch more floating around, but those are the only that come to mind right now.

I'm in the #NeverTrump camp.  Add me.

Me too.

#NeverTrump