Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

No. You don't know what my view is of alternative media, nor do you have any reason to presume anything other than merely calling something alternative does not carry any persuasive weight.My question is why an appeal to unnamed "alternative media" that is at best "mostly american" is a persuasive argument. "Alternet" and 2600 magazine are examples of "alternative" media. Would you find cites to those sources as any kind of persuasive support on politics.Citing a source as credible because of its popularity makes a bad argument. Citing sources merely because they disagree with such sources is no argument at all. I understand that you have an opinion, but with arguments like this, you couldn't persuade a drunkard to follow you to a keg of beer.

I have concluded that citing your sources would subject you to rebuttal and ridicule and that you therefore are choosing to keep them to yourself. I have no problem with you keeping unflattering information about yourself close to the vest.I largely agree with you about how Trump is being treated, and I can find my justification for doing so among the news received from conventional sources. I don't really care about the opinions of those sources, nor do I need to cite their editorial comments on such matters.On the other hand, you attempted to raise an issue based on the opinion of some unnamed pundit and accused a person who had a contrary opinion of being a paid stooge. That much is on the record.

In what universe is that a persuasive argument? As far as news stories are concerned, I don't trust anyone's opinion about what is right or wrong. I can form my own opinion given the facts. What I am questioning is your citing of an opinion from an unknown alternative source for for which the only offering concerning credibility is that it is not mainstream and is "mostly american".In other words, this is about your post and not about me.

I watched Ted Cruz give some pre-primary remarks where he attempted to lower expectations prior to the voting in New York. He indicated that anything less than an above 50 percent performance (in a three candidate field) by Trump would be considered a loss. The 60 point blow out surely marked a complete washing out for Ted who finished last. I am expecting that Ted will spin the rejection of his valued by NYers as some kind of validation.I fully expect a brokered Republican convention at this point.On the democratic front, Sander's inability to win in states like NY while stomping Hilary in places like Alaska and Wisconsin continued. If turns out that you can actually win a nomination in the way Sanders success reflects, and also the way Trump is proceeding, we should be extremely concerned. Sanders must find a way to do better more universally.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.I don't know why people find the concept so hard to grasp, but a bad argument is a bad argument and being right does not validate a bad argument. Anyone can use an argument that includes division by zero to establish that 2 equals 2. The problem is that such arguments can also be used to prove that 1 equals 2.In this case you are writing posts in an environment were many people disagree. So asking about your sources is a valid request, particular regarding matters of opinion and evaluation, such as 'are the republican rules fair or fascist?'

I assume you mean a false dichotomy. I did not present an analogy.What you say is in principle correct, and I am not arguing here whether the GOP rules are 'right'. I have an opinion about that, but I am not defending that opinion for Big Al. The question was just an example of an inquiry whose answer might be strongly influenced by opinion. The exact question does not matter and one might have the opinion that the GOP rules are unfair because they are fascist even if the rules are perfectly legitimate and are applied in an even handed manner. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Trump is famous for being a mogul who started on his way with a huge helping hand from his parentsw. Without his money, there would be no Trump. I cannot stand Trump. I don't want him anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania DC But is his campaign really the primary issue at which campaign finance reform efforts such as overturned in Citizens United were targeted? If Trump is spending his own money, then it is pretty hard to make the claim that there is outside corporate influence over his campaign. We know that he is not being bought by Big Oil, Big Pharma etc.Citizen's United is bad law, but I understand the constitutional issues at stake that underlie the reluctance to limit participation in campaigns by money. But trying to limit candidates use of their own money on their campaigns is a far more troublesome idea, constitutionally. I wonder what form you think regulation in this area should take, but I know better than to ask for a proposal after you did not offer one.Lawyers often say that bad circumstances lead to the making of bad law. Trumps don't spring up every day, and I am fairly confident in the GOP's ability to take care of their own ship. I'd be interested in hearing what a legislative attempt to derail Trump or other 'Hitlers' from trying to seek office, but I some means of going about that are worse than the problem.

I don't like the idea either. But I might like some of the possible fixes even less. I cannot comment on a proposal that you haven't made. Do you have a proposal? I think the principle, when your own money is involved is much more fundamental than that. The issue is wrapped up in the 1st amendment in ways that are quite distinct from the principles in Citizen's United. When a candidate is attempting to get his own message out using his own resources, then limits directly dictate speech of the talking and written kind and not the fungible kind. After all, a candidate is just a citizen participating directly in the political process. Just what kind of limits should there be on that candidates actual speech? Would a solution be to make campaign advertising cheap or free? Can we do that without taking away someone else's property.By contrast, Citizens United is about people speaking political through the influence bought with their own money about the candidates. Related, yes, but distinct in a fundamental way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Alternative media.

Yet more supposed facts that you cannot back up. Oh, well that settles it. You and your millions of claimed conversations with black people have your finger on the pulse of the NY black community as a bunch of superstitious idiots.

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nobody including you. You have no basis for making statements about what half of any population thinks without some reason. Your posts are full of these kinds of assertion. I pulled out the easiest point to assail, but others have found the same lack of basis in many of the things you post. The book is full of garbage. However what I actually called a superstitious would be a belief by half of the black people in NY that they are targeted for genocide.

Yes, that is true, and legal. But it still stinks given that there is an illusion to the contrary. But you correctly state reality. No argument there.I don't think Trump is being naive though. I think he is posturing. He understands that there is an appearance of impropriety here that some of the electorate will buy into. Some folks will rally behind Trump if it appears that the establishment is screwing him over. He may actually be able to wring out some concessions for the GOP as well. Instead of calling it naive, I see it as akin to an NBA coach whining about not missed calls after a game. No, the whining won't change the game outcome, but it may influence how future games get called.

That's right. Southern states are a Democratic party plot designed to keep Sanders from winning the primary. Because southern states don't count despite the fact that southern democrtatic voters represent a diverse cross section of the population that is generally not found in the states Bernie has tended to win. Let's count up victories in Alaska and Wyoming and claim that those wins mean more than victories in Georgia or North Carolina.I know we like to think that southern states are just redneck red states, but the population that gives southern states that reputation is not the population that Sanders and Clinton are appealing to and competing for in southern states. Or for that matter even in states like New York, Pennsylvania, or Delaware.I like Bernie, and I appreciate that he has not gotten a fair shake from the Democratic party. But some arguments should not be used by creationists or anyone else.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

After the last round of primaries, Cruz has reason to be desperate. He is hanging on by the skin of his kasich.Trump has a real chance to close things out above 1237 even in a three candidate field. Why is Kasich even running except to prevent an easy Trump win. I notice that even Bernie, who still has a cognizable chance to win is now having to fire staff and cut costs. Whose money is Kasich spending?