The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Flagg]

Who do you think will be giving him money if he's nominated and goes to the general election as the Denocratic Candidate, dumbass? The big party donors! Christ.

Its TBD whether Bernie will accept corporate money if he manages to get the nomination ( I doubt it). Also whether he will accept money directly from the DNC (more likely).

But general election funding is not the reason he was talking about "exposure and money." It's specifically about getting him to where he is now. Nobody would even be talking about him now if he ran as an independent. His candidacy would not even be relevant until the general election as an independent, and if he did make a splash he would likely just hand the election to the GOP.

This really should be a no brainer.

So far the only "no-brainer" is the vacuum between your ears. If he gets the Democratic nomination (may Hillary Clinton rest in peace) and he doesnt use all the money at his disposal, he might as well have Ralph Nader'd and split enough of the Dumb Liberal Vote to give the election to "Il Douche". To paraphrase 'Boardwalk Empire' "You can't be half a whore."

[Raw Shark]

To paraphrase 'Boardwalk Empire' "You can't be half a whore."

Tell that to the quadruple-amputee who hustles around Colfax and Quebec.

But seriously, I don't get why you're so worked up over this. I can see why someone might find it a little disingenuous due to the timing, but why the foaming at the mouth? I was a registered Green for years (Jello* in 2000!), and still mostly support their goals, but I switched to being a Democrat for the same reason Sanders did: So I could make an actual difference in the primaries, and I can assure you that I've never taken a dime for putting out despite a couple of mighty fine offers. I just chose to join a party that can get shit done and try to drag it to the left from within, and if a candidate succeeds in that, against all odds including the superdelegates, then they are by definition promising what that party's electorate currently wants to see happen. What would you rather see enacted if they are opposed? The will of the current party elite, or the will of the people? If the latter, then let's bring in some new blood and change the party elite.

* Jello Biafra endorses Sanders, by the way. There's always room for Jello.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders wins Hawaii with 71% of vote with 88 percent of precincts reporting.

Hawaii News Now

"OH WHAT A DAY! WHAT A LOVELY DAY!"



Interested to see weather anyone in the news will bother to mention that Sanders just one a massively non-white state by a Hillary Clinton in the South style margin.

[Gaidin]

Not when they've been expecting it for at least a week or two.

Make some news and maybe.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/open-carry-t ... convention

A petition for the open carry of firearms at the Republican National Convention has amassed over 32,000 signatures as of Sunday morning.

The convention is scheduled to take place in Cleveland from July 18 to 21 at the Quicken Loans Arena, which bans all weapons on property. While Ohio allows open-carry, the venue’s ban is permitted by state law.

The petition’s author, known as N A, finds fault with the policy, calling it “a direct affront to the Second Amendment.” Pointing to an article that ranks Cleveland among the United States’ most dangerous cities and mentioning “the possibility of an ISIS terrorist attack,” the author said the Republican National Committee and the Quicken Loans Arena are putting people at risk.

“Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life,” the petition reads. “All three remaining Republican candidates have spoken out on the issue and are unified in their opposition to Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s “gun-free zones.’”

The author then called on the Quicken Loans Arena, the National Rifle Association, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the Republican National Committee and the GOP presidential contenders to act.

None of the individuals named in the petition immediately responded to a request for comment from NBC News.

On the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump declined to discuss the petition at length.

“I have not seen the petition,” Trump said on ABC. “I want to see what it says. I want to read the fine print. I have to see what it says. I’m a very, very strong person for Second Amendment. I think very few people are stronger. And I have to see the petition.”

When host Jonathan Karl asked Trump to put the specific petition aside and delineate more broadly about the notion of delegates carrying firearms at the convention, Trump refused to consider the prospect.

“I don’t want to forget the petition,” Trump told Karl. “It’s the first I hear about it — of it, and frankly, you know, nobody is stronger on the Second Amendment than me. But I would like to take a look at it.”

A federal spending bill apportioned $50 million to Cleveland to help with the cost of convention security, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The paper reported that the city has proposed using part of the funds to purchase 2,000 sets of riot gear.

Although the City of Cleveland would not comment on operational security matters, it said in a March 18 statement that it looked forward to a successful convention while “working with our federal, state and local security as well as our business partners.”

There's no way even the Republican Party is crazy enough to go for this horse shit (give it another four years, then maybe). Probably because they know damn well what would likely happen if a bunch of people came toting guns to the convention floor. Especially considering Drumpf has already threatened riots if there's a brokered convention.

And don't tell me for a second that at least some of the people who signed this petition didn't do so specifically so they'd be able to shoot people if the convention didn't go their way.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That's just a terrible idea. Don't get me wrong, I like guns and will own one eventually when I live somewhere non-rented that I can put a gun safe in, but even I can see that letting people openly carry firearms at a contentious political convention is a very very bad idea.

Though I will admit that the cynical part of me thinks that they should allow it to happen so an arena-style gladiatorial deathmatch eliminates the crazies in the Republican party.

[Borgholio]

Though I will admit that the cynical part of me thinks that they should allow it to happen so an arena-style gladiatorial deathmatch eliminates the crazies in the Republican party.

Or just a big demonstration of exactly why unlimited and unregulated carry of firearms is a bad idea. Be better if a mass shooting happened to the very nuts who support this sort of thing than innocents in a movie theater or a school.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can we just agree that an election convention degenerating into a shootout would be a bad thing, instead of talking about the advantages if a bunch of Republicans got shot?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Absolutely. Like I said it isan extremely bad idea, I just decided to let my cynical side out in a less-than-serious moment.

Back on the main topic, my other half and I were discussing your election over dinner the other day (terribly romantic I know) and our view (which is matched by most of my friends and family) is that Trump's candidacy is like a really stupid joke that people have taken seriously and it just won't stop. He's like Nigel Farrage in that regard.

For reference, the portion of ym friends and family that don't think that simply tihnk that Trump is a twat and reckon that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

[Borgholio]

Can we just agree that an election convention degenerating into a shootout would be a bad thing, instead of talking about the advantages if a bunch of Republicans got shot?

Actually I'm afraid I can't agree on that. Sometimes the only way to stop a bad idea from being implemented is by demonstrated the consequences of such an idea. These guys want guns everywhere. They think everyone should be packing, including those who have no formal training or psych evaluations. They think teachers should carry guns at schools for fucks sake. If all these wannabe Wyatt Earps suddenly find out how bad things can potentially get if they have their way...maybe this madness can be stopped before any more people get hurt. I will certainly agree with you that a bunch of dead people at the convention is a bad thing. But if people have to die so other people's eyes are opened, I'd rather the gun nuts die than children.

[The Romulan Republic]

It wouldn't teach the hard core nuts anything. It would just be a bunch of dead people, and a bunch more dead people once the reprisals started and the whole election degenerated into a string of riots, assassinations, and terrorist attacks.

[Borgholio]

It wouldn't teach the hard core nuts anything. It would just be a bunch of dead people, and a bunch more dead people once the reprisals started and the whole election degenerated into a string of riots, assassinations, and terrorist attacks.

And then the general public (including the more reasonable conservatives) would realize that unlimited gun ownership is a bad thing, pass more stringent gun control laws, and attempt to reign in the crazies. Problem solved.

[The Romulan Republic]

America's long history of political violence hasn't lead to that yet.

[Borgholio]

America's long history of political violence hasn't lead to that yet.

I'll be the first to say that I hope it doesn't. Just to be clear, I DON'T want violence. But if it does, better them than others. I do hope you're right.

[The Romulan Republic]

My point, in case it wasn't clear, is that all our past bloodbaths haven't served as the proverbial "wake up call", so there's no reason to believe one more would. It would likely just be more pointlessly dead people on the pile. Especially since very often, the reaction to one side in an ideological dispute opening fire is to fire back, not to end the violence.

Honestly, if twenty little children getting gunned down at Sandy Hook didn't lead to major gun reform, what will?

No, a solution, if one ever comes, is going to have to be a more gradual cultural/policy shift. There won't be one big moment after which everything changes. People always hope for that, but in reality I think life is seldom so simple.

But even if I did think one more bloodbath would cause peoples' attitudes to change, I still wouldn't condone it because, you know, dead people. And there is something particularly abhorrent to me about politically motivated violence, because it is entirely antithetical to democracy. I cannot think of anything more undemocratic than imposing ones' political values at gun point. Violence at a political convention would be a direct attack on the foundations of the rule of law and democratic government. It would be an assault on the concept of democracy.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. Even the GOP isn't insane enough to let gun toting nuts into a convention.

Edit: And since I just know someone will bring up situations that they feel were justified political violence, I will state again that yes, I do recognize that their are certain, very limited situations where it may be necessary and just to wage war, or to otherwise use force defensively. But this, I think we can all agree, is not one of them.

[Raw Shark]

Random Lone Whackjob vs Random Civilians might not change opinions, but Organized Gun Nuts vs Slightly Different Organized Gun Nuts might, at least in the sense of, "Holy shit, it's not Them shooting Us anymore, it's Us shooting Us!" if not, "This kind of resembles a war zone. Maybe we should rethink this whole guns for everybody, in their hands, pointed at each other, is cool, even while discussing politics thing." Not that I endorse violent solutions or a thinning of the opposition through bloodshed, because that's not what I'm about, but there would be a certain irony and possibly more-useful outcome to it, if you can stomach the means to the end.

[Soontir C'boath]

I want to think of it as a self-fulfilling vaccine. Experience the small dose now to prevent a worse outcome!

Sandy Hook didn't do anything for these people because their mindset is that the teachers/principle/janitor/etc didn't have guns and so they can still live out their fantasies. In the convention scenario, presumably a good chunk of the people there would have guns to defend from the "bad guys with guns".

[Civil War Man]

I doubt that a hypothetical shootout at the convention would cause a significant amount of soul searching for most open carry people. You might see it from some people who were actually there to experience it, since they would be affected personally by the chaos, but probably not from the armchair generals watching it from the comfort of their living rooms.

What I think would be a more likely outcome is that right-wing talking heads would start peddling conspiracy theories that one or more of the people who started the incident were secretly operatives of whatever their particular boogeyman is as part of an attempt to take away everyone's guns. They'd then use those conspiracy theories to argue that the violence proved that people should have been there armed, and that so many lives would have been saved if everyone there was armed. And, of course, if they had personally been there, they would have used their elite Delta Force Special Ops training that they learned from going to a gun range every other week and/or playing Call of Duty to quickly and efficiently kill the shooters and be the hero, unlike those untrained scrubs who just sprayed and prayed into the crowd.

[Borgholio]

What I think would be a more likely outcome is that right-wing talking heads would start peddling conspiracy theories that one or more of the people who started the incident were secretly operatives of whatever their particular boogeyman is as part of an attempt to take away everyone's guns.

Already happening. There are accusations that it was a liberal who started the petition to sabotage the open carry groups.

[Knife]

It would destroy the GOP party quicker than the Repubs already are. Sure the crazies are in charge and driving it into the ground, but a self committing massacre would have any moderate rank and file jump ship faster than you could blink and hoards of them would pull a lever for whatever Democrat won their primary.

[Silver Jedi]

Just so we're all clear though, the RNC is a National Special Security Event, Which means the Secret Service, not the Republican Party, has the final say on security matters. There's no way in hell they're going to allow open carry at a NSSE.

[Civil War Man]

Just so we're all clear though, the RNC is a National Special Security Event, Which means the Secret Service, not the Republican Party, has the final say on security matters. There's no way in hell they're going to allow open carry at a NSSE.

Yeah, the argument is largely academic. Even if, for some reason, open carry was given the OK, a massive shootout at the convention would be pretty unlikely. Even the 1860 Democratic convention wasn't that pointlessly self-destructive, and there were people there who were actively trying to prevent the selection of a nominee in order to sow chaos in the party, with the goal of handing the presidency to an abolitionist Republican and giving their states an excuse to secede.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just so we're all clear though, the RNC is a National Special Security Event, Which means the Secret Service, not the Republican Party, has the final say on security matters. There's no way in hell they're going to allow open carry at a NSSE.

Thank God for that.

Though like I said, I don't think even the RNC would be nuts enough to support open carry at the convention. Their twisted principles don't extend to actually endangering their own safety, generally.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://usuncut.com/politics/berniemade ... hilarious/

Twitter is expertly skewering the corporate media for erasing the contributions that people of color have made to the Bernie Sanders campaign with #BernieMadeMeWhite.

Two of the last three states Bernie Sanders won by landslide margins — Alaska and Hawaii — are also very ethnically diverse. One-third of Alaska’s population is Native American, Asian, Black, Pacific Islander, or of mixed race. And three-fourths of Hawaii’s population is made up of people of color, with nearly 50 percent being Asian.

Furthermore, Washington State ranks among the ten most ethnically diverse states in the country. But this didn’t stop cable media pundits from belittling Bernie Sanders’ victories by falsely claiming that the populations of those states are mostly white in order to justify the false narrative that the Vermont senator is unable to connect to nonwhite voters.

Twitter didn’t let the corporate media live down their mistake, either. After writer Leslie Lee III, who tweets @tokyovampires, created the #BernieMadeMeWhite hashtag, the social media network let loose:

#BernieMadeMeWhite

Didn't post the full article, since its kind of long and half of it is excerpts from twitter. Still, funny.

[The Romulan Republic]

Drumpf's campaign manager has been charged with battery for grabbing a Breitbart reporter.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/29/472270278 ... th-battery

Police in Jupiter, Fla. have charged Donald Trump's campaign manager with battery for allegedly grabbing a reporter for Breitbart news following a Trump campaign rally earlier this month.

Corey Lewandowski is charged with one count of simple battery.

According to the police report, the reporter, Michelle Fields, told police that she asked Trump a question after the March 8 event, as he was making his way toward the exit of the ballroom at the Trump National Golf Club, and felt someone "yank her left arm." She then asked a Washington Post reporter standing nearby "if it was 'Corey' who grabbed her." The Post reporter, Ben Terris, confirmed it was Lewandowski who had grabbed her arm.


(Sections of the report containing contact information have been redacted by NPR above).

The police report says Fields showed an officer her arm "which revealed bruising from what appeared to be several finger marks indicating a grabbing type injury."

Lewandowski has previously denied involvement in the incident, calling Fields "totally delusional" in a tweet:


However video tape released by the Jupiter Police Department appears to show Lewandowski grabbing Fields as she walked along side Trump. Lewandowski has agreed to a court appearance on May 4.


YouTube
Trump tweeted Tuesday that the "tapes" (other views of the scene had circulated previously) showed "nothing there":



Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks also defended Lewandowski Tuesday morning, saying in a statement :

"Mr. Lewandowski was issued a Notice to Appear and was given a court date. He was not arrested. Mr. Lewandowski is absolutely innocent of this charge. He will enter a plea of not guilty and looks forward to his day in court. He is completely confident that he will be exonerated."
Trump had weighed in earlier this month as well, saying: "This was, in my opinion, made up. Everybody said nothing happened. Perhaps she made the story up. I think that's what happened."

Fields resigned from her Breitbart post after the incident, saying the news outlet had not stood behind her. Fields' resignation was followed by that of Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, and a handful of other employees who alleged the conservative news outlet was more protective of the Trump campaign than of Fields.

Shortly after the alleged incident with Fields, Lewandowski was back in the news after a video appeared to show him grabbing a protester's shirt collar at a rally in Arizona. In that video, a member of Trump's security detail can also be seen reaching for the shirt — the campaign said it was that man who yanked the protester, not Lewandowski.