Could there be post-election violence in the United States?

At the same time, Bernie wasn't into helping the downballot candidates, nor holding any form of loyalty to the party. Regardless of what one thinks of party loyalty, I have no doubt that did work against him.

If this were a third grade debate, you would have scored some nifty points there.

That was a garamet level deflection. John, I hate to be the one to break this to you, and I really do mean this in the nicest ways possible because you genuinely seem like a good person who cares about people being hurt in the world, but in your own way, you can be every bit as bigoted as Dinner, and that statement you made about "old white men" is a prime example of that.

Holy shit, nope.

Yes. Yes, you are, John.

Whatever it is you're drinking, stop adding Drano to it. It's not worth it.

Try to laugh or shrug it off all you want, but Dinner was just as bigoted against Republicans (or at least the cartoon version of them he had in his head) as you are not all that terribly long ago.

I'll be purchasing an 1873 and a Turkish Mauser shortly. Ready to defend the castle.

That's fair. What I do believe the Democrats screwed him over, I can't really blame them. Guy's sitting as an independent, and he openly admitted he was only running for the Democratic nomination because independent candidates don't have a chance of winning. I suppose I can give him points for honesty, but telling an organization you're just using them isn't the best way to get their support.

You're so adorably stupid.

Go for a broomhandle Mauser, so you can cosplay as Doctor Doom. Though the castle is probably a better prop.

I remember when he would talk about establishment politics and would lambast the way the Democratic Party did things, I remember thinking it was going to come back and bite him in the ass, which it did. I liked Bernie, still do, but there was no way the party was going to fully support someone who wasn't a team player. It does make an excellent illustration regarding the chances a third party candidate really has in this country. If Bernie ran as an independent, he probably wouldn't have made it as far as he did. That should be a concern for anyone, that a simple party affiliation makes that much of a difference when trying to find a suitable leader.

As we've seen with the GOP, it can also backfire. They gave Donald Trump a platform like no other, and he's used it to tear them to the ground while promoting himself. Just my own two bits, but I think that when this is all over, Donald will come out of this relatively unscathed (the business world already knows he's a egotistical sociopath), but the GOP will be in flames for a while.

Bill Clinton.

Not Hillary Clinton.

Who is from Chicago.

Isn't that what I said?

I thought you implied that the presence of notices about Bill Clinton implied some local affection for Hillary Clinton.

My apologies if I was mistaken.

No, you aren't mistaken. I just figured I'd see at least one Hillary yard sign while passing through a city that has her name on an airport and a library.

Check the post office. That's where they put up the wanted posters.

That's called sucking up for government grant money.

Don't mistake it for genuine affection.

And yet 40% of Arkansas voters will cast a ballot for her.

Many because they don't want to get taken out in the woods and shot by Hillary's goons.

So? 40% of Americans will vote for anyone as long as it is their party. Or not the other party.

Hillary (or Bill) Clinton have no "goons" in Arkansas.

Arkansas is virtually a Republican enclave now thanks to various factors.

Republicans hold the governorship, both state legislature houses, all four U.S. House seats and both Senate seats.

This election could put that to the test.

America is a big country. Not just population wise, but land as well. This means that both a large infrastructure AND significant cash is needed to mount a national campaign.

That kind of infrastructure can't be built every 4 years. You need volunteers willing to keep it running (while supporting local, state and midterm elections) in between.

That's all a party is really, the people maintaining the infrastructure between elections.

And if you didn't help build it or maintain it, why should you get to use it? We see in Trump what happens when someone with no investment in the party takes over.

It's looking likely that in Utah, no one will get 40% of the vote.

If that were remotely true, you wouldn't be a Hillary supporter.

Except that it is true, and I am. We could do this all day and it would add nothing of value to the conversation. You don't like Hillary, so you view people who support her as lacking in those skills, and since I like and support her, you transfer that to me. I can't help the perceptions and biases you carry, but I can say that holding on to those biases often comes back to bite people in the ass later down the road, my friend.

How can you like Hillary? Not even her close advisers like her. Her protective detail despises her. Her husband avoids her.

My question is what if the election goes the same way as the Bernie thing? Either the electoral college votes going to Hillary when Trump won the particular state or some form of massive voter fraud?

Massive voter fraud is not going to happen. The system, while imperfect, requires too many cogs and gears working in perfect sync and on too grand a scale for such a huge undertaking to work successfully, and without detection.