The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Lord MJ]

Furthermore some Republicans were supporting Bernie because they agree with Bernie on most of those same things. So Trump saying the same things wouldn't alienate them.

Let me put it this way. I'm "feeling the Bern" a bit; because you know, he's not going full retard on firearms, unlike Hillary.

The ironic thing is that in 2008 election Hillary was attacking Obama for being too hard on guns. And now in 2016 she is attacking Bernie on guns to the point of implying that he's to blame for Sandy Hook. And I actually had a Clinton supporter on my newsfeed say she should run ads tying the recent mass shootings to Bernie. :/

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah.

Clinton is whatever is convenient to Clinton, for the most part.

She's not as dangerous or buffoonish as Drumpf, by a long shot, but she is a habitual liar and flip-flopper.

[Alferd Packer]

I'd like to think the Democrats couldn't possibly lose. It certainly ought to be true. But I can't help but think that people have been writing Trump off for the last year, not expecting him to get this far, and that getting complacent about the general election would be a really bad idea for the Democrats.

Oh, don't worry, they won't be complacent. There are so many downticket races in play now that they money is going to be pouring in and campaign stops will be made across the country. There will be brutal ad campaigns in contested states (I shudder to think what commercial breaks in Florida are going to look like this fall).

Like I said, the demographics have not favored the Republicans in almost 10 years and it's getting worse all the time. The country is getting less white, of course, but it's also getting more polarized. Fewer and fewer people, once affiliated with a party, cross those party lines when voting. This is a bad combination for Republicans, as their platform is built to cater, essentially, to conservative white people. If you cater only to a shrinking demographic, your influence is going to shrink accordingly. For Trump to overcome this, he cannot cater to conservative white people. He needs to capture a large voting bloc, like Latinos or women, and he needs to do it by a huge margin in a lot of states. Impossible? Of course not. But the Democrats are not going to be the pushovers Trump's Republican competitors were--they will be every bit as vicious as he is, and it's gonna be a brutal campaign.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not pleased about how nasty its likely to get (though I suspect it'll be more from the Republican side, with a barrage of bigotry and Drumpf's brownshirts engaging in further violence with his encouragement). But I hope that the Democrats hold nothing back, take nothing for granted, and use any tool permissible within the law that will increase their chances of defeating him in the general election.

[Purple]

So wait, is it official now? Is Trump the last man standing?

[The Romulan Republic]

The fascist has, realistically, won the Republican nomination, because Cruz and Kasich have both suspended their campaigns, yes.

[Raw Shark]

Yep. It is officially on. Trump is going to the general. I will formally eat crow on this.

Regarding the Bern and guns, I've said it before and I'll say it again: The man has spent three decades representing one of the few states that, perhaps in a somewhat paradoxical manner, is very liberal and is also very pro-firearms. They were the home to this thing called, "The Green Mountain Boys," that kicked a thing you might've heard of called the UK's ass and took some names in 1776 and 1812, they're proud of it, and they also eat what they shoot on occasion. Getting guns out of their culture would be like trying to disarm Texas.

[Starglider]

So no contested convention shenanigans after all. It's kind of a shame, I was curious whether the party would have been able to overrule the primary voters. Well, now we get to see who's willing to make up with Trump and who'd rather sit out another four years.

I've seen quite a few 'Cruz already planning 2020 bid' news stories. It would not surprise me given how he seems to think he is literally chosen by god for the office, but given current trends and either Clinton or Trump as sitting president, I can't see that going well.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie's Puerto Rico plan:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-br ... 64518.html

If you are Puerto Rican, whether you live in the continental U.S or in the island, you are probably paying close attention to the Democratic primaries. If you haven’t, now it’s very important that you do. Why? Because one of the candidates just released the most comprehensive and detailed plan on Puerto Rico so far in the race for the White House. That candidate is Bernie Sanders.

Senator Bernie Sanders, the underestimated underdog turned serious contender for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, just released an impressive plan to address not one, but virtually all of the Puerto Rico’s main issues. Sanders’ Plan for Puerto Rico is so wide-ranging and complete that some could say it’s unprecedented for a presidential hopeful. Topics such as Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, health care, energy, education and Vieques’ environmental clean-up, all show up in Sanders’ Plan for Puerto Rico. Even the controversial and never-ending debate on the island’s political relationship with the United States is addressed with spectacular clarity. So, let’s take a look at Sanders’ positions on Puerto Rico’s key issues and problems.

Debt Crisis
Taking on the debt crisis, Sanders first proposal is to afford Puerto Rico the same Chapter 9 bankruptcy protections that exist for municipalities across the United States, allowing Puerto Rico to restructure its debt in a rational way that does not harm its people, ordinary investors or pension funds in the United States. This is just the first issue and it’s already as far as Hillary has gone.

Sanders then recommends an audit of Puerto Rico’s debt to investigate the constitutionality of whether the debt was incurred legally, setting aside any debt issued to creditors in violation of Puerto Rico’s constitution. He stands firm on stopping austerity measures that have harmed children, senior citizens, and the most vulnerable people in Puerto Rico.

Sanders also calls for a $1 trillion jobs program that would create over 140,000 good-paying jobs in Puerto Rico, and put 13 million people to work all over the U.S by concentrating resources in rebuilding Puerto Rico’s crumbling roads and bridges, improving its ports, upgrading its drinking water and wastewater plants, fortifying flood control projects, modernizing the island’s electric grid and expanding high-speed broadband through the island.

Status
Sanders’ willingness to fight for a U.S. congressionally sanctioned and binding referendum is also unprecedented. Several politicians in Puerto Rico, mostly those who favor statehood, have long pushed for this in Congress to no avail. No presidential candidate has ever pledged to bind the U.S Congress to the will of the People of Puerto Rico, which is precisely what Puerto Rico needs to guarantee congressional action on the island’s status.

Renewable Energy and Environmental Issues
When it comes to clean energy and environmental issues, Bernie encourages significant investments in wind, solar, and geothermal energy to diversify the island’s dependency on fossil fuels. Sanders also addresses the severe pollution of the Martin Peña Canal, which has caused tremendous distress among residents nearby and is currently one of Puerto Rico’s main environmental concerns, second only to Vieques’ environmental clean up.

Vieques
Since the U.S Navy’s exit in 2003, efforts to clean up the environmental mess caused by 60 years of live-fire bombing have been fruitless, largely due to the few resources that the U.S Department of Defense has allocated to decontamination works. After 13 years since the bombing range was closed, an extensive cleanup of the eastern portion of Vieques is years from being finished. Sanders’ Plan for Puerto Rico calls attention to the alarming rates of cancer and other serious health conditions on Vieques caused by the environmental damage left behind.

Though the list continues, these are some of the major points addressed in Sanders’ Plan for Puerto Rico. Regardless of which candidate you vote for, it is evident that Bernie Sanders’ campaign has gone out his way to come up with a realistic plan that addresses Puerto Rico’s major social and economic issues with a radically larger scope and depth than any prior or current presidential hopeful.

Some pundits are not surprised, given that Betsy Franceschini, a Puerto Rican and former Director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration in Florida, currently serves as regional Latino outreach director for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Franceschini stands out as the only high-level Puerto Rican adviser in either Democratic campaign.

There are 1,000 Puerto Rican families a week moving to the mainland in search of better job opportunities and a more stable future. The human cost of not addressing Puerto Rico’s issues will soon get worse unless we stand up and do something about it. As Puerto Rican, voting is now more important than ever because the future of our beautiful island is at stake.

Go out, vote and #StandUpForPuertoRico.

Granted, its an obviously biased source, but its nice to see someone talking about Puerto Rico's problems in the campaign.

[Raw Shark]

Funny Coincidence: I just drove three Puerto Ricans who voted for full statehood last night and we had a WTF?-themed conversation about it not being formalized yet. Two of them were very cute girls. They have very cute girls. Let 'em in, already! 51 stars!

[momochan]

What about the important Republican donors? Will they want to write checks for Trump, or will it all go to the congressional campaigns? Could Trump in fact mostly self-fund, if it hypothetically came down to that?

[FaxModem1]

On Trump and fundraising:

NPR

Will Donald Trump Get Back The $38 Million He Lent His Campaign?

3:49

Queue
Download
Embed
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Email
May 4, 20164:34 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Peter Overby 2010
PETER OVERBY
Twitter
The apparent Republican nominee, Donald Trump, at Trump Tower in Manhattan on the night of his victory in Indiana.
The apparent Republican nominee, Donald Trump, at Trump Tower in Manhattan on the night of his victory in Indiana.
View Press/Corbis via Getty Images
Donald Trump likes to say he is self-funding his campaign. That isn't entirely true. He has actually lent his campaign about three-quarters of the $49 million or so that he has spent so far.

That means the campaign can pay him back if it has the money. But there's a deadline. Trump has 11 weeks to repay himself — exactly at the moment when he needs to pivot and start raising cash for the general election campaign.

The loans began more than two months before his announcement speech last June, when he said, "I'm using my own money. I'm not using the lobbyists. I'm not using donors. I don't care." He paused. "I'm really rich."

Trump had lent the campaign nearly $38 million as of March 31. It's not much in the grand scheme of "really rich" candidates. Mitt Romney, for example, lent his 2008 primary campaign $44 million.

Romney later converted the loans into campaign contributions, something Trump may do as well. But the fact that Trump chose to make loans, not contributions, suggests he at least has hopes of getting repaid.

And here's where it gets complicated for the apparent nominee. Fundraising to repay candidate loans is regulated in two ways.

"If he wants that money back, he needs to raise it in $2,700 chunks before the convention, and make that repayment from his campaign committee to his personal bank account," said campaign finance lawyer Paul S. Ryan, at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

The $2,700 limit applies to all contributions to federal candidates. The deadline was imposed by Congress in 2002, to prevent situations where lobbyists' money was going directly into the personal accounts of newly elected lawmakers.

Looking ahead, Trump's general election campaign could easily cost $750 million or more, 15 to 20 times what he has spent on the primaries. So the fundraising pressure is on.

The campaign hasn't laid out clear plans for raising that money or for dealing with the candidate loans. Trump discussed fundraising strategy Wednesday morning, on MSNBC's Morning Joe.


"Do I want to sell a couple of buildings and self-fund? I don't know that I want to do that necessarily, but I really won't be asking for money for myself; I'll be asking money for the party," he said.

He also got on the phone with ABC's Good Morning America, saying his campaign will be seeking general-election contributions up to the $2,700 legal limit. "We will probably take small contributions," he said. "We will take the limits. I don't want big contributions."

Trump strategist Paul Manafort explained the limits of Trump's self-funding last week on the Laura Ingraham Show.

"Now when it comes to the general election, we're no longer running as an individual," Manafort said. "We're running as the head of a ticket. And so the party itself will be doing some things to raise money, and Mr. Trump has indicated he'd be willing to help the party."

Thus, if Trump wants to recover his loans, he'll have to do debt-retirement fundraising at the same time that he solicits wealthy donors for Republican Party committees.

The national committees have much higher contribution limits than do candidate committees. For the Republican National Committee, the per donor cap is $333,400 a year.

The Trump campaign didn't respond to requests for comment.

If Trump decides against converting the loans to contributions, attorney Ryan says the GOP's priorities for him would be obvious: "(a) campaigning for president, (b) raising money for the general election to be spent down the road, not (c) raising money to repay loans I've made to myself and money spent months ago in order to actually get the nomination."

Trump has yet to say whether these are his priorities too.

[maraxus2]

What about the important Republican donors? Will they want to write checks for Trump, or will it all go to the congressional campaigns? Could Trump in fact mostly self-fund, if it hypothetically came down to that?

So far the Kochs are saying that they're going to stay out of the race, and most of their donors will probably follow suit. They'll most likely dump all of their cash into the local and congressional races, since they've got a lot of hot action down there. I wouldn't be surprised if NC was absolutely blanketed with dark money, since they have a hot Presidential, Gubernatorial, and Senate race down there this year.

[Darth Yan]

I made another post on another forum about how Trump is the living embodiment of what republicans have become. One conservative guy said "then why do me and every other conservative dislike him?" That's an interesting question

[Flagg]

Not pleased about how nasty its likely to get (though I suspect it'll be more from the Republican side, with a barrage of bigotry and Drumpf's brownshirts engaging in further violence with his encouragement). But I hope that the Democrats hold nothing back, take nothing for granted, and use any tool permissible within the law that will increase their chances of defeating him in the general election.

As long as they don't use juvenile insults about his families former, forcibly changed name. Because only pricks do that.

[Knife]

Because he forces them to look into the mirror on every nasty little thing they've dog whistled about for 40 years. They keep saying to themselves they aren't racist, they just don't want foreigners to take their jobs. They aren't greedy, they just don't want anyone to take anything they think is theirs. You can couch it in code words, but when Trump goes out there and bluntly says the stuff they've uttered quietly in their minds, it sounds UGLY.

[maraxus2]

Because he forces them to look into the mirror on every nasty little thing they've dog whistled about for 40 years. They keep saying to themselves they aren't racist, they just don't want foreigners to take their jobs. They aren't greedy, they just don't want anyone to take anything they think is theirs. You can couch it in code words, but when Trump goes out there and bluntly says the stuff they've uttered quietly in their minds, it sounds UGLY.

It is kind of interesting how liberal commentators have been much better at prognosticating the GOP primary than the conservatives.

Re: Trump prying off disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters:

Bernie Sanders fans may not love Hillary Clinton. But they won't vote for Donald Trump.
by Jeff Stein May 4, 2016 4 min read original

Democrats hoping to bring the party together after a bitter and contentious primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may have found their answer: Donald Trump.

Trump has become the presumptive Republican nominee after rivals John Kasich and Ted Cruz suspended their presidential campaigns.

From the perspective of Democratic Party unity, Trump's march to the nomination is great news: Sanders's supporters have made a lot of noise about going "Bernie or bust," but a poll out from CNN on Wednesday finds they prefer Clinton to Trump by an 86-to-10 margin.


That's about the same ratio of Clinton supporters who voted for John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008, according to Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz. And it's still early: As we move to the general election, Abramowitz says, Democrats are even more likely to swing behind their nominee.

"The reality of staring at Donald Trump over there as the Republican nominee, now that that's settled, I think will do wonders to concentrate the minds of Democrats," Abramowitz said.

The CNN poll found less reason to believe Republicans would unify around their nominee. In it, only 70 percent of Republicans who backed another candidate said they would support Trump, while 24 percent of them said they wouldn't.

Why experts think "Bernie or bust" will probably go bust
Back in March, I interviewed two experts — Abramowitz and Matt Grossmann, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University — who said they thought "Bernie or bust" is unlikely to have much of an impact.

Many of Sanders's supporters have insisted that they'll never support Clinton. In one poll, for instance, 33 percent of Sanders voters say they won't vote for Clinton, and more than 90,000 people have already signed a pledge to that effect.

But here are some of the key reasons the political scientists gave for thinking the Democratic Party will eventually come together:

They mostly agree on big policy questions: Sanders and Clinton may seem at odds right now, but they stand an ocean apart from the major Republican candidates on an overwhelming number of positions.

"The differences between Sanders and Clinton on policy just aren't very great, and they get blown out of proportion in a primary contest," Abramowitz said.

There are far too many to list here, but a sample include: the need to raise taxes on the wealthy, the reality of climate change, appointing a progressive to the Supreme Court, the desire not to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and raising the minimum wage.

A (relatively) civil primary: Sanders and Clinton have traded some barbs over their past voting records, and Sanders has knocked her for taking exorbitant speaking fees from Wall Street.

But the primary hasn't been that acrimonious. "On our worst days ... we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate," Sanders said in February. There have been few attacks driven by the candidates' personalities or personal histories.

"The race hasn't been very bitter — much less bitter than that between (Barack) Obama and Clinton, for instance," Grossman said.

Sanders himself: Sanders himself has pledged to back Clinton if he loses the primary, reiterating in March that both candidates' key goal must be to not allow the Republicans to win back the White House.


This effect will be even more powerful if Sanders gives a major speech at the Democratic National Convention urging his supporters to rally behind Clinton, Abramowitz noted.

Historical precedent: In July 2008, 54 percent of Clinton voters said they wouldn't support Barack Obama in a general election. (They even had a nickname, "PUMAs" — "party unity my ass," the 2008 analog to today's "Bernie or bust-ers.")

Ultimately, however, nine in 10 Democrats ended up voting for Obama over John McCain, according to the Nation. Similar threats were made — and later failed to materialize — from the supporters of Howard Dean in 2004, according to Abramowitz.

"Just about every time there's a closely contested nomination battle, the supporters of the candidate who appear to be losing threaten to walk out," Abramowitz said. "Then they don't."

What are the reasons to believe this conventional wisdom is wrong?
Is there any reason to believe that something will be fundamentally different this year?

One argument advanced by Sanders's supporters is that we're in an "anti-establishment" year — in which both primary electorates are ignoring cues from party leaders — and that the independents who have flocked to the Vermont senator are therefore unlikely to support Clinton, the consummate insider.

Another possible variable is that young people, who have thrilled to Sanders in huge numbers, will feel less of an allegiance to stay within the Democratic Party and support its nominee. That makes their support for the nominee less likely to be a sure bet.

"Young people are certainly less tied to the political parties in general," Grossmann says. "They're less likely to have stable partisan voting patterns, and that makes them more likely to be open to alternatives."

Democrats' support for Obama should help Clinton unify the party
There is one scenario in which the supporters of a losing primary candidate tend to really not support the party's nominee: when an unpopular presidential incumbent faces a tough challenger.

"When you see an incumbent president seeing a serious challenge for the nomination, that's always a bad sign," Abramowitz said, noting that primary challenges against Gerald Ford in 1976 and Jimmy Carter in 1980 both reflected their weakness in the general election.

I asked Abramowitz if this year could prove another iteration of this basic dynamic. After all, isn't Clinton largely running for Obama's third term?

He rejected that notion out of hand. Yes, Clinton has run under the banner of Obama's third term — but that should help, not hurt, her efforts to unify the party, he said.

"Obama is actually very popular among Democrats," Abramowitz said, noting the president has a nearly 90 percent approval rating among members of his party. "If there were more discontent among rank-and-file voters with Obama, there would be more opportunity for an anti-establishment candidate in the general."

Link

[NeoGoomba]

Yep. It is officially on. Trump is going to the general. I will formally eat crow on this.

Regarding the Bern and guns, I've said it before and I'll say it again: The man has spent three decades representing one of the few states that, perhaps in a somewhat paradoxical manner, is very liberal and is also very pro-firearms. They were the home to this thing called, "The Green Mountain Boys," that kicked a thing you might've heard of called the UK's ass and took some names in 1776 and 1812, they're proud of it, and they also eat what they shoot on occasion. Getting guns out of their culture would be like trying to disarm Texas.

As someone who currently teaches in Vermont, guns and hunting (and trapping, fishing, etc.) are extremely ingrained in the population here, or at least the rather large one I interact with. And yet we don't really get any of the sort of crazy half-cocked gun accidents here. Proper firearm education seems to be taught before literacy skills. And that...is only a half joke, sadly

[Raw Shark]

As someone who currently teaches in Vermont, guns and hunting (and trapping, fishing, etc.) are extremely ingrained in the population here, or at least the rather large one I interact with. And yet we don't really get any of the sort of crazy half-cocked gun accidents here. Proper firearm education seems to be taught before literacy skills. And that...is only a half joke, sadly

Yeah, seriously. Teach your kids gun safety before you ever put a gun in their hands. The first thing I was taught about guns was, "You don't ever muzzle-sweep anything you don't intend to kill." Second thing: "Kill every squirrel you see." Both of these pieces of advice have served me well in life.

[Purple]

Why such hate for the furry little nut biters?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Why such hate for the furry little nut biters?

I have to go with Perps on this, Shark. Squirrels have next to no meat, and the their only nuisance is when they stockpile nuts/dog food in your car's engine.

[The Romulan Republic]

And the Right wing infighting continues unabated:

http://www.ibtimes.com/third-party-cand ... an-2364486

United States Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., penned an open letter on Facebook Wednesday night criticizing presidential front-runners Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and encouraging voters to find an honest, mature leader. Sasse, who's been in office since January 2015, labeled Trump and Clinton "terrible options," pushing instead for a candidate who isn't part of the establishment, promises to only serve one term and hopes to move the country forward.

"There is no reason to believe that either of these two national front-runners believe in limiting anything about D.C.’s power," Sasse wrote. "I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again — if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things — in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart. I think there is room — an appetite — for such a candidate."

Politico noted Sasse was quick to disqualify himself, adding that the would-be candidate needs to have a schedule that allows him or her to campaign constantly until November, a stipulation that would exclude parents of young kids. Sasse has three children.

Sasse also vowed to continue to fight for the Republican party, but he said neither the GOP nor Democratic party were working well. They were spending too much time "bicker[ing] like children about tiny things," which has alienated voters — young voters, in particular — he added.

Despite being their respective parties' leaders, both Trump and Clinton have negative ratings, according to RealClearPolitics data. Trump, who has 1,053 delegates of the 1,237 needed to secure the GOP nomination, has a net favorable rating of -37. Clinton, who has 2,205 of the 2,383 delegates needed for the Democratic gig, has a net favorable rating of -16.5.

"With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose," Sasse wrote. "Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do."

Wednesday wasn't Sasse's first foray into the presidential debate. The senator previously aligned himself with the #NeverTrump movement, a group of Republicans who have broken with the party to say they will not back Trump should he win the nomination, the Hill reported. Sasse voted for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in the Nebraska primary last month, but Cruz dropped out of the race Tuesday. Ohio Gov. John Kasich suspended his campaign Wednesday, leaving Trump the presumptive nominee.

There are a few third-party hopefuls campaigning for the Oval Office already, among them the Green Party's Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson, according to NBC News. Third-party candidates primarily serve to influence political discussion, though they can have an impact on the general election: In 1992, independent Ross Perot received nearly 19 percent of all votes.

"Minor parties have been working and working and working all these years, and it's slowly paying off," Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News, told USA Today last month. "Nobody notices because it's little incremental changes, but it's adding up."

Read Sasse's full letter below:

www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36214738

Former US presidents George H W Bush and George W Bush will not endorse Donald Trump's candidacy for president, aides have told local media.
This marks a first for the 91-year-old former president Bush, who had endorsed Republicans in the past five elections.
Republican politicians are struggling to define their support, or lack thereof, for Donald Trump.
Mr Trump's remaining opponents dropped out earlier this week leaving him as the presumptive Republican nominee.
Both Bush men had previously campaigned this year for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who exited the race in February.
They had each supported past Republican presidential nominees John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.
Although neither former president has openly attacked Mr Trump or his policy proposals, George W Bush made a veiled criticism at a campaign event for his younger brother saying, "The strongest person usually isn't the loudest one in the room".
"I understand that Americans are angry and frustrated. But we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our anger and frustration," George W Bush told the South Carolina audience.

Aww, sad they've lost control of their pet nuts?

[Elheru Aran]

Apparently online sign-ups to the Libertarian Party have jumped considerably since Tuesday. I suspect that for once we're going to see decent (relatively) performance among the smaller parties this election. Probably not on Ross Perot levels... but better than they've been since.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is going to be a very, very interesting general election.

Hopefully Right wing defections from the fascist's camp will be enough to offset any Bernie or Bust type idiocy if Clinton is the nominee.

[Raw Shark]

Why such hate for the furry little nut biters?

I have to go with Perps on this, Shark. Squirrels have next to no meat, and the their only nuisance is when they stockpile nuts/dog food in your car's engine.

Never had a garden, huh? Those bold little fuckers will eat as much as a glutinous human, given the chance. Specifically the corn on my parents' property, and also the seed out of my Mom's bird-feeder before I designed a really squirrel-proof one and built it with my Dad for Mothers' Day when I was 16, but also anything else they can reach.

Also, they can make some pretty good eating in a pinch, and there were some pinches. I'm not going to search for it, but I believe that LadyTevar has posted a recipe.