Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

EvC isn't a court of law and in a discussion like this, tp treat Stalin and Mao as if they'd never committed their millions of murders just because they were never brought to trial, is a very strange and dangerous deception. It ought to be possible to discuss the evidence in the case of Hillary without pretending she's innocent enough to be President if she's not.

Perhaps you might have a point if anyone had treated Stalin and Mao as if they'd never committed their millions of murders just because they were never brought to trial, is a very strange and dangerous deception.But of course, so far that has never happened.You really need to try to be honest Faith instead of continuously misrepresenting what has been said.

Gosh, a whole new level of nitpicking pedantry, complete with the accusation of liar too.

Understanding, as an American, the basics of the rule of law is not nitpicking or pedantry and there was no accusation of you lying, rather a simple observation of the fact.To be a criminal (assuming you do believe in the US Constitution and Rules of Law), one must first be tried in a court of law and convicted.

It *is* a bit nitpicky today - given the point was acerbically conceded back March 30th: Message 118

quote:

---

Hillary is not a "convicted war criminal." Like Hitler, she is many, many, many tiers down from that lofty accusation, just a simple everyday, run-of-the-mill "ALLEGED war criminal."

---

This objection is about law. Not moral discourse.We can have opinions. Is Pistorius a murderer or a negligent gun user? OJ? Is Stephen Avery? Did he used to be? Does it change if the court's decision does? From a moral stance? Was the guy that mugged me a mugger or should I describe him to you as an 'alleged' mugger since he was never convicted of that crime and technically I never verified his criminal record?So either you burden discussion with insisting people in daily lives use 'alleged' or War Crimer (unlike many crimes, War Crime ends with 'crime' making the noun for the moral perpetrator difficult to grammatically create without using the natural 'criminal' setting off these 'but law says...' commentsSurely we can understand dronester's meaning and not worry about the awkwardness of language and making our lives more difficult by insisting on pedantry rather than trying to understand one another.So given we started with 'Hillary is a good candidate' or somesuch and have ended on a 2 day loop of TECHNICALLY, HITLER WAS NOT A WAR CRIMINAL. I think we might need to assess a little here.For some fresh input, here are some non-typical reasons that have been given for voting Republican:

quote:

---

My preferences this time around go: Sanders, Cruz, Clinton/Rubio (haven’t decided), then Trump WAY behind. My reason is simple. I am pretty much a single issue voter right now who is deeply concerned about government surveillance

---

quote:

---

Why would I vote for Rubio if he’s the nominee? Well mostly I’d be voting against the Dem nominee. I absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

---

quote:

---

If it comes to Hillary vs Trump I will vote Trump. I’ve voted Libertarian in the past three presidential elections but mainly because it’s just the closest to what I believe. I’m not 100% Libertarian either.

---

quote:

---

If I DO vote Trump it’s because I would rather burn this shit to the ground than elect Hillary.

---

quote:

---

I’m looking forward to a Trump presidency. When he is President, maybe people will realize the President doesn’t actually have all that much power. T

---

quote:

---

I stand with Trump because, despite what the media says, he is the most moderate Republican running.

​

Hillary isn’t an option because she is by far the biggest liar I have ever heard. Sanders promotes democratic socialism and although I would benefit from some of his plans, I don’t feel that free education and a $15 minimum wage would benefit our society

---

quote:

---

Let me make it clear: I am only voting Republican if Sanders loses the nomination.

​

My decision is based in moral reasoning, of which Hillary has crossed too many times, what with all the lying she is doing.
...
Sanders is the spark of something big. Should he lose the nomination, I would vote Republican to see that spark become a flame.

---

quote:

---

With every state and superdelegate Hillary Clinton gains, odds that I will vote Republican increases. I would vote for just about anyone over her.

---

quote:

---

So, I am a bleeding heart liberal atheist, however there is nothing that will allow me to vote for Clinton. If she is the Democratic candidate, I must vote against her.

---

quote:

---

I am very pro gun and pro capitalist. I think socialism is a failed philosophy of theft that drives everyone down to the lowest common denominator. I think Hillary Clinton is incredibly crooked and shady, and Sanders’ ideals are either unworkable, unconstitutional, or un-American.

---

quote:

---

I am a law abiding citizen that loves firearms.

---

quote:

---

If Hillary, who is infamous for lying, cheating, committing treason, and accepting bribes wins the Democratic primary, then voting Republican is the only logical choice. At least we know how they plan to screw things up and can work to stall them. But Hillary? No, she’ll screw us up in ways we could never see coming, in ways that make what the Republicans plan to do seem like child’s play.

---

Nonreligious Questions

It's simple.She can get things done. And she has a better chance of winning in the general election.Sanders is an obscure politician whom most people had not heard of, until recently. His policy proposals are reasonable. I prefer them over Hillary's. But a president does not have the authority to carry them out. They are ideas that have to be won at the grass roots. Hillary knows how to work the grass roots. Sanders doesn't.The last time that the Democrats had a candidate like Sanders was in 1972. It was George McGovern, and he was whipped in the general election. At present, polls suggest that Sanders could win. But the Republicans have not yet aimed their big guns at him. When they do, they will say that he is a commie pinko, and they will use his own campaign speeches for that. His support will drop.By contrast, they have been attacking Hillary for 20 years, and she seems to be able to deal with their attacks.Yes, I wish there were a better candidate than Hillary. But Sanders is not such a candidate.

Hey, folks, I have a request.While the actions and history of the candidates, who’s a criminal, who’s a jerk and the like (and even what constitutes such characterizations) are quite appropriate topics in this thread, the ever on-going squabble this discussion has devolved into is not.This has gone full circle twice that I can count. Opinions have been expressed, challenged and responded. Evidence has been presented, challenged and responded. Multiple times. If you are compelled to go on yet another set of cycles then please take it to a different thread.The Wisconsin primaries are coming up Tuesday next. There is a concerted effort by a large group of Republican insiders attempting to derail the Trump juggernaut in Wisconsin and the level of success they have (or not) will be vital to the remainder of the Republican primary season and the resultant nomination. I do not want the results lost in the detritus of this level of discussion.Thus my request. Please take your fucking war crimes and your fucking dueling dictionaries and get the hell off my thread!Much appreciated.Thank you.

removed after reading AZPaul3's request. SorryEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The Republican effort to deal a blow, but hardly a knockout, to the hard-charging Trump train may be showing some signs of success.

quote:

---

A poll released Wednesday by Marquette University Law School showed Mr. Cruz leading the Republican field with 40 percent and Mr. Trump with 30 percent, a reversal from a month earlier when Mr. Trump held a 10-point lead. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio was third, with 21 percent.
.
.
.
Ed Goeas, a pollster who works for an anti-Trump super PAC that is hammering him with television ads in Wisconsin for insulting women, said married Republican women were turning against the New York businessman.

---

The Republican tone has become decidedly nasty(er) in the past few weeks with both Trump and Cruz slinging insults and accusations at each other over their wives and post-nomination support.

quote:

---

Still, Mr. Trump has many advantages in Wisconsin, including its large number of white working-class voters, a group that has flocked to him throughout the campaign, and a passionate base of supporters for whom he can do no wrong. He plans a heavy schedule of appearances through the weekend.

---

Other polls show Trump and Cruz running very close. If Trump loses Wisconsin the crux will be by how much. If he loses by 10% or more then the stop Trump movement will have gained some legs to go into New York and the northeastern states. If he wins or gets away with more than just a handful the delegates then he can continue to steamroll into Cleveland.Stay tuned. source
sourceEdited by AZPaul3, : fixed sources

I wonder what the Democrats would rather run against, Il Donald or some other candidate?

Trump himself is showing an ability to screw up cornflakes. His remarks regarding punishing women for getting an abortion did not seem to pander to any particular segment of the population; at least not in the way that some of his other off kilter positions did. His claims to be his own foreign policy advisor when he clearly knows diddly squat did not seem to work either. In both cases he has had to back off completely. In both cases the appearance is that Trump is a buffoon. And accomplishing that when your opponent is Cruz takes some doing.

What things will she get done with this power, though? I mean, really its the only pragmatic argument I've seen I can really understand. What makes you think Bernie won't be able to specifically, if you don't mind? So...a politician. I'd never seen or heard anyone talk much of anybody but Trump and Clinton before they started their run. Of course, I assume the American media has shown this picture like a billion times right?

quote:

---

While a student he was an active civil rights protest organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. After settling in Vermont in 1968, Sanders ran unsuccessful third-party campaigns for governor and U.S. senator in the early to mid-1970s. As an independent, he was elected mayor of BurlingtonVermont's most populous cityin 1981, where he was reelected three times. In 1990 he was elected to represent Vermont's at-large congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1991 Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He served as a congressman for 16 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012, he was reelected with 71% of the popular vote.

---

quote:

---

In January 1962, Sanders led a rally at the University of Chicago administration building to protest university president George Wells Beadle's segregated campus housing policy. "We feel it is an intolerable situation when Negro and white students of the university cannot live together in university-owned apartments," Sanders said at the protest. Sanders and 32 other students then entered the building and camped outside the president's office, performing the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history.[35][36] After weeks of sit-ins, Beadle and the university formed a commission to investigate discrimination.[37] Sanders once spent a day putting up fliers protesting against police brutality, only to eventually notice that a Chicago police car was shadowing him and taking them all down.[38]

​

Sanders attended the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech.[16][38][39] That summer, he was convicted of resisting arrest during a demonstration against segregation in Chicago's public schools and was fined $25.[31][40]

​

In addition to his civil rights activism during the 1960s and 1970s,[41] Sanders was active in several peace and antiwar movements. He was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union while attending the University of Chicago. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old to be drafted.

---

quote:

---

Sanders castigated the pro-development incumbent as an ally of prominent shopping center developer Antonio Pomerleau, while Paquette warned of ruin for Burlington if Sanders was elected.[57] The Sanders campaign was bolstered by a wave of optimistic volunteers as well as by a series of endorsements from university professors, social welfare agencies, and the police union.[58] The final result came as a shock to the local political establishment, with the maverick Sanders winning by just 10 votes

---

wiki Over $2,700 a plate Clinton? Clinton, Yale Law School, Law Partner, board of directors at Wal-Mart, First Lady, Senator. This is the path of a grass roots expert? The woman that got defeated by Obama, at the grass root level? Am I missing something obvious here? By the same peculiar logic of temporal imagination Hillary and Obama have never had a chance either. I think there is a spectre of McGovenism haunting America.... Sure, but guns will be firing in all directions. Though the Democrats have recently been poor shooters... I think 'voted for Iraq' is going to be bigger gun to fire than 'is a commie' in 2016. Republicans won't make it direct of course (though Trump will and has already - if its him). The Republicans are going to go after Democrats on issues of conscience and so on, and probably pay to have it done in an apparent liberal voice. I think Sanders beats Obama to be honest. And Obama beats Hillary.But I guess I get it. I guess it's time for America to prepare to shift the Overton window over to the right again. Next year Republicans will find some actual Neo-Nazis to the primaries, maybe they can convince the Dems to vote for Dem. Candidate: Trump

I doubt that.

He has not just looked but been the buffoon ever since he announced his candidacy. The big problem is every time he says something considered sticking his foot in his mouth the Trumpettes cheer even louder. For all his trying he can't seem to say anything stupid enough or asinine enough to quell this significant rising hoard of the american right.Cruz is just a thoroughly discredited, despised, bible-thumping asshole. Not nearly the entertainment value of Trump but just as dangerous with his own rising body of inane rightwingnuts.We knew large segments of the american body politic were disgruntled and sore as hell but I don't think we realized just how sick in the head we had become.There has got to be an antidote out there in the stormy waters of this political sea. Certainly the great tide of centrism will arise out of the middle to wash the stupid away. Won't it?Won't it?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Il Duce was considered an easily controlled buffoon.Hitler was considered an easily controlled buffoon.Franois Duvalier was considered an easily controlled buffoon but a good doctor.Manuel Antonio Noriega was considered an easily controlled buffoon.Joseph-Desir Mobutu was considered an easily controlled buffoon.