A quote about the 2016 presidential election

Says the person who plays on that legacy when ever it suits his own agenda.

No, he's the quintessential idiot. Regrettably, there is no shortage of his kind on either side of the political fence. Yes, he leans left on most issues, but he is best classed as an idiot, without attributing a red or blue label.

Now here you yourself are showing a bit of idiocy. I won't bother to list the hundreds of prominent corporate executives who are liberal, as I'm sure you already know this.

You're not concerned about how that will impact your corner of the world? Like it or not, who we choose has repercussions well beyond US borders. Trump would likely be an even bigger disaster for Europe than for the US (Presidents don't have nearly as much power on domestic issues).

It depends on the issue.

He will win the nomonation but unless Hillary really drops the ball he won't win the general election.

moron.

Except, no, no I do not or else you wpuld be able to come up with an example. Now, for the rest of ypur diarrhea...

Wow, all the smart people agree with your far right position, huh? Impressive except for the fact that you can't explain Germany. They manage to do just about everything Bernie calls for (free college, universal care, higher tax rates on the wealthy, generous social services, less corruption, etc...) yet still has a strong economy. According to you that is impossible yet there it is and they are not the only one.

So one of us really does ignore evidence and lives in a fantasy world.

Hey, Gul, if I am such an idiot why do I keep predicting elections so much better than you? Read my user title, bitch.

He might start a trade war or two.

So who's your candidate, Sunshine?

Speaking of the general problems with the way our elections are held, one big problem we're having is due to the way Congress has decided to vote on legislation. They take every idea any of them can think of and stick it in one giant bill, which passes, and then nobody really understands what was in it and whenever a candidate is pointedly asked about his vote, he talks about some other provisions in the bill and why, all things considered, his vote was the right thing to do. What Congress has done is come up with a system of plausible deniability for themselves, and you see its effect time and again in the Democratic debate and the Republican debate.

It also produces laws that almost nobody supports. If only a couple Congressmen want some particular item, under pressure from some special interest or a crazy parent with a hair up their ass, they deal and horse-trade and it gets stuck in as a provision in some omnibus spending bill. Everyone else in Congress is doing the same with their own pet spending projects. Then they vote to pass the bill packed with goodies for everybody, even though almost none of those goodies had a prayer of getting past a majority vote on its own. So then it goes to the President, who signs it because it's got some of his own pet causes in it.

And so the crap laws and bizarre spending projects keep piling up, deeper and deeper, and when the voters get rightfully angry about it nobody can figure out who to blame, because Congress has figured out and nearly perfected plausible deniability. This has been going on for a while, and whenever we try to hold them accountable they say they are helpless given how Congressional spending bills work. So we keep changing out Congressmen for new ones who likewise can't address the problem - because of the giant omnibus spending bills. Well by God somebody needs to stop it or what's the point of having a representative democracy?

The solution, of course, is to go back to lots of small bills focused on narrow subjects, which the people can understand, and on which a Congressmen can be called to account for how he voted, and which the President has to sign or veto on the issue's merits.

Sorry bud, modern liberalism is most closely approximated as a manifestation of mental illness. Leaving aside those who benefit directly or indirectly: to that extent liberalism's simply rational, util maximizing behavior.

'Executives' and other elites (like when Trump was a Democrat and spent millions funding the political left) are also not necessarily mentally ill - just varied examples of profit maximizing from their perspective (policies that help corporate profits, or venality in their lives that a salve of "I'm a modern liberal, see how I vote" allows them to sleep a bit better).

But on balance the easiest way to comprehend the perversion of a genuine desire to achieve the greater good for mankind into what is today called "liberalism" is to recognize liberalism as essentially a mental illness. From that point a more reasoned understanding of the condition is possible.

Yes, yes, anyone who doesn't agree with your world view is mentally ill. Hell, you still can't explain how Germany and other countries have done exactly what Bernie advocates yet your claims of doom and gloom have not happened.

You just keep ignoring real world examples while screaming it is impossible and if you disagree then you are mentally ill because... Reasons.

The really funny part is earlier you were claiming other people were the ones who didn't use evidence or reason when in reality you were the person you were describing.

You finally accept what you are, congratulations.

I for one can not wait for the invasion of the United Kingdom. I'll be calling the Pentagon letting them know that you're a wanker chav whose plotting rebellion against your new God the Trumpster.

That's our man @Tuttle. Criticize everyone else without declaring for a candidate himself. His posting history makes him sound like a Trumpster. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

Just my opinion (of course), but I don't think that works. In an ideal world it would, but we live in a world where misinformation is taken for information, and information is viewed as propaganda. When you live in a first world society where people are purposely not vaccinating their children because they think 99.999% of doctors are lying, and this idea gains traction, then there is a significant problem with the receiver, and not the message being transmitted.

So a station has to lose money by broadcasting amateurish boring low rated left wing shows nobody likes for three hours a day if they broadcast three hours of professional engaging highly rated money making right wing shows? Why doesn't the government just run their own stations so they can make sure people are hearing the "correct" viewpoints then? Of course that's every liberal's dream situation but hardly fair.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...hy-the-fairness-doctrine-is-anything-but-fair

It means they actually have to honestly explore ideas and not broadcast lies pretending it is truth.

To be fair you are pretty stupid.

Apply this to newspapers, TV, cable TV, and the internet.

Don't just put it on radio.

On their own dime? If the station cannot get any businesses to sponsor "Shrill Sandy's Libtard Report" they have to broadcast the show for free?

There are a number of reasons most people will say they disagree with the government.

One, of course, is that saying "the government sucks" is a deeply ingrained knee-jerk response. But beyond that, "the government" is the result of so many different elections that almost everyone was on the losing side of some of them.

At the federal level alone, between the president, Congress and Supreme Court, "the government" is the result of not just the last four years' worth of elections, but of every presidential election since 1984 and every Senate election since 1982. On top of that, most people don't make a huge mental distinction between federal, state and local government, so if they get pissed off at where their school board decides to build a new high school or how some probate judge ruled in their divorce, that's "the government" just as much as their congressman is. And on top of that, most government functions are ones that you don't notice at all when they're done right, and only notice when they're screwed up.

Civil war was about states rights and bing bang theory is a lie.

I thought we buried that with Muad.

Just messin with you, I'm a federalist at heart. Anna did you ever watch the john adams miniseries.

Not even John Adams watched the John Adams miniseries.