Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Single handedly through the works of others eh? Surely that is an oxymoron.

Progressives would argue that the reason why the Democratic Party has lost the House and the Senate is because they have become nothing other than Republican Light. They are just a less harsh version of conservatism. The Democratic Party is also a tool of the ultra rich and corporations. Tacking to the left, as Sanders has forced the party, has exposed a huge groundswell of grass roots people powered activism. Activism that can and should show up in results in the ballot box.Policies have not mad the US more conservative. Billions spent to muddy the waters, disinform and misinform the US public has made the USA more conservative.

Can? Should? But will it.I'm just wondering if the perception of that potential groundswell might, in fact, cause a groundswell among conservatives and right-leaning moderates. It doesn't matter what made the US more conservative. All that matters is that it is more conservative. And I think socialist rhetoric is likely to make it even more conservative.

It just seems obvious that in a right-leaning (understatement) nation like the US, radicalizing the left will help the right.

Clinton on Trump: "He's written a lot of books about business. They all seem to end at Chapter 11."

Why do you think a push left will move things right? Do you have any argument to support this? Statistics? Evidence?

Why is it obvious? Show some support for your argument.

Prop 8. The most liberal state in the country decided to vote in favor of prop 8 after the extreme left elements pushed for marriage equality too soon.The fact of the matter is most people are naturally conservative no matter how liberal they claim or think they are. We have to ease them into a new idea just like children.Edit.Ringo is an older lesbian in a long term relationship. I'm a partnered homo. We like to play it safe.The safest path to any social progress is one step at a time toward the right direction. I'm not saying a leap frog toward the goal will never work. I'm saying sometimes it will and sometimes it won't work. A step at a time, however, has a lot more chances of working because we are easing people toward the idea of equality. Most people are too selfish to know any better.Edited by Lammy, : No reason given.

Make all the excuses you want for Nader. He's responsible for GWB and thousands of American lives lost. Shame on him for giving us GWB and shame on him for not admitting it.And now, Bernie Sanders is walking the same path. The son of a bitch Sanders would rather see Trump in the white house than let Clinton win. By leaning too far to the left too quickly, we will end up with at least 4 years of Trump in the white house.I was enthusiastic about Sanders not too long ago. But then I saw his true colors. He is so selfish that he would rather give the white house to Trump than see Clinton win. Nader was the same.If Trump wins, I'm holding Sanders personally responsible for any/all lives lost due to Trump's thin skin.

Your argument ridiculous. We have marriage equality nationwide. Why can it not be that we have marriage equality because the conservatives pushed to far right. Why is it always the liberals that push to far. Things tend to the center. We have to push hard left to move the center back to where it was 30 years ago.

*Yawn*Another nave person romanticizing the "good old days".30 years ago, my partner and I could have gotten arrested and jailed in some states because of the various sodomy laws. 30 years ago, police regularly raided lgbt clubs and beat the hell out of us. 30 years ago, the military were still conducting witch hunts to flush out the homos. We have marriage equality nationwide now because of the US supreme court ruling. Most people are still against marriage equality. Personally, I don't think it's time for it yet. Rushing into these things tend to backfire... like how rushing into marriage equality in California resulted in a popular vote for prop 8.

If you can't stop being an ass quit responding. This is a debate forum. If other's arguments bore you; leave.I never said a thing about the good old days. Nice strawman. I stated that in the last 30 years the american political system has become more conservative. Ronald Reagan, as conservative as he was, would not be electable in the GOP. Your comments on how homosexuals were treated 30 years ago has no bearing on this conversation. The progressives of 100 years ago were extremely conservative relative to progressives of today. As history passes conservative and liberal are on a continuum. To compare historical periods on this is extremely difficult.We have a US Supreme Court ruling because people were calling for states to have to follow the Constitution. The Court agreed. If things like the movement in MA, and CA never happened then the court case never would have happened. You use CA as an example claiming it causes blowback. Didn't happen in MA. In MN there was an attempt to outlaw gay marriage. It failed and the next year the legislature passed marriage equality. Changing Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage | Pew Research Center Good thing what you think has no bearing on reality and the rest of the gay community does not have to wait for people like you to act in order to get the rights they deserve. Which only passed because of the millions of Mormon and right wing dollars that were used to support it. We know people are swayed by millions of dollars of advertising.Your argument is not only baseless but insulting to progressives and anyone that isn't a rich, straight white male.I am constantly amazed by people that are members of a marginal community that fall for the conservative line. Then again a lot I find online are just trolls.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Donald Trump Hints He May Fund Race Himself, headlines an article in today's New York Times.

quote:

---

And at the hub of his national campaign in Trump Tower in Manhattan, Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has cloistered himself with a tiny group of relatives and longtime business associates, relying on a staff of about six dozen people to win over an electorate of more than 120 million.

---

Though many are rarely mentioned in the press, we know a number of members of the Trump inner circle and can begin guessing who might become members of the Trump staff and cabinet. Ivanka Trump might become Chief of Staff, Donald Trump Jr. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Eric Trump Secretary of the Interior, Michael Cohen Attorney General, Paul Manafort Secretary of Commerce, and Hope Hicks Press Secretary. Who are the other members of this tiny group? Fun fact that doesn't matter but that I'm surprised I didn't already know: Ivanka converted to Judaism in 2009 and took the name Yael before marrying.

quote:

---

Having swept through the primaries and caucuses with a skeletal campaign staff and a budget funded largely out of his bank account...

---

Money buys elections, but I don't believe Trump's money played much of a role in the Republican primaries. Trump being Trump was more than sufficient given the other candidates.

quote:

---

The situation has grown so dire for Mr. Trump that on Tuesday, he suggested that he might tap his personal fortune to keep the campaign afloat.
...
But he has mused publicly in recent days about funding the race himself, and on Tuesday opened the door wider to that possibility.

​

Continue reading the main story
If need be, there could be unlimited ‘cash on hand’ as I would put up my own money, as I have already done through the primaries, spending over $50 million, he said.

---

It should not be legal for billionaires to throw their money at election campaigns, not their own or anyone's. Money is not speech, the Supreme Court notwithstanding. We need campaign finance reform.

quote:

---

Mr. Trump is to be feted at two fund-raisers in Manhattan this week, organized by Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets, with one event featuring Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. But the ticket price for that event is only $500, a paltry sum for a presidential campaign,...

---

Anyone for whom $500 is a paltry sum should not be permitted to give more than $500.

quote:

---

Charles Spies, a Republican election lawyer who advised the super PAC that supported Jeb Bush, said Mr. Trump would have to put in an enormous amount of his own money to jump-start his campaign and win over big donors. He suggested an appropriate figure would be $100 million to $200 million.

---

This definitely should not be legal.

quote:

---

For donors to invest in his campaign, he’s got to show that he’s investing in it also, Mr. Spies said. He’s got to have $500 million to run a bare-bones campaign, and that would mean getting outspent by Hillary Clinton and her allies, between two and three to one.

---

So a presidential candidate should expect to spend between $1-1.5 billion. Wouldn't it be nice if presidential campaigns had so little money that they could only afford to run a few ads on late-night TV?

quote:

---

Mr. Trump’s knack for commanding news media attention, however, is no substitute for a campaign organization.

---

That's reassuring, but is it true? Trump's money wasn't a factor in the primaries.--Percy

Thankfully, that was not an opinion shared by the people who founded the United States of American back in the late 1700's.Martin Luther King, Jr. could have played it safe. African Americans could still be suffering from some form of segregation, but at least they wouldn't have been clubbed by policemen, right?

I'm asking why you think it wouldn't.