Scott

Kiss the votes goodbye, baby muah

Keep in mind that the people who support him are making their choices based on who buys the most ads on their Facebook feed. I’m not sure how much this debate affects him.

This shit makes me want to buy a MAGA hat. I’m ashamed that I have to support this party.

There's a clip going around of him making an unfunny joke about that scene in Game of Thrones when one guy pushes another guy out of a tower to his death. Very eerie.

You need to visit an ICU.

That’s a terrible fucking example and I’m sure you know it.

Not entirely true. People started rabidly supporting him in the primary, when there were plenty of (R)s to vote for. It’s astounding how many people support him on nothing but the fact that he is unfiltered. He “tells it like it.” He “talks like me.” Etc. At least a dozen people in my personal life have given this as their reason for supporting him. We know he’s a bad businessman. But most lay people don’t. They know he’s a gold-plated billionaire who was on that show for all those years and has his name on all those buildings. And beyond that, moderates don’t give a shit about his specific business record - they know that he’s a greedy capitalist from the corporate world. They know he’ll slash tax rates, regulations, etc.

Hardcore trump voters will never vote for anyone but trump. They’re beyond help. But there are a ton of people who don’t love trump, who will never vote for a perceived socialist, and who would be open to a more moderate candidate. I know a ton of people in the medical community who don’t love trump but would never vote for Bernie due to a concern about being taxed to oblivion. They’d be open to Bloomberg. It’s fine not to start out in a defensive position - just make sure your starting position is one that appeals to enough voters that you can win the election. I don’t know that Bernies platform accomplishes that. The question is this: do you go with a moderate liberal and assume the extreme liberals and some disaffected conservatives will come along, or do you go with an extreme liberal and hope you’ll win the election without any conservatives and without some moderate liberals? Do you bet that the extreme platform is appealing enough to turn out new and previously uninspired voters?

Bloomberg would be infinitely better than trump. I don’t like Bloomberg buying the election, but let’s not pretend that there’s no difference between him and trump. This is why I hate all the shitty in-fighting right now. A bunch of people are gonna get butthurt and refuse to vote for someone like Bloomberg. And they can nurse that butthurt all the way through another 4 years of trump.

You gotta stop stealing jokes from reddit, brah

My coworker’s toddler was life-flighted from their local regional hospital to a larger medical center in a bigger city about an hour away. My coworker obviously had no influence on the flight path or chosen destination. He was told by his insurer that since there was a hospital closer than the one that was ultimately used, he had to pay out of pocket for the helicopter ride. Again, my friend had no say in any of this. But because Tulsa is slightly closer to him than Little Rock, he owes the hospital $40,000 out of pocket.

Far better to have fractious in-fighting that becomes so bitter that broad swaths of would-be voters get fed up with the party and stay home on Election Day. For casual voters (like 95% of my friends and relatives who actually vote) everything is about optics. Republicans are a pro-trump monolith right now. Dems look divided and disorganized. “Bernie’s a nazi” and “Pete’s a racist” probably aren’t going to be our rallying cries to victory.

Wish we could stop the in-fighting and just focus big picture on trump. I get that it’s a primary and this is the point, but I hate for all the dirty laundry to be aired now for Republicans to use in the general.

Y'know what's weird? You don't have to agree with someone every single time. You don't have to support every single thing they do. I'll cheer him when he does something I find agreeable, and chide him when he does something I find disagreeable. If our response to someone from the other "team" having a backbone is to shit on them, we're going to silence them and prevent any future behavior of a similar kind.

Give me any Kennedy over any Trump any day. I wasn't alive for JFK's presidency, but I don't hear the support for him and his family described as a cult of personality. Trump's is certainly that. We have ignorant people tuning in for their favorite reality tv show and cheering on their favorite sports team. It's way beyond, or below, politics.

The cynicism on this board is nauseating. Everyone must be run through a weird purity test, and damn them forever if they don't score 100%. I'm not usually a Romney fan, but his speech on the Senate floor was one of the most honorable, inspiring things I've seen in a long, long time. Massive credit to him. I could certainly be proven wrong, but I don't see a cunning politician angling for future higher office - I see a deeply religious man actually committed to upholding his oath of office and to serving the God he believes in. We should support this, not deride it.

Quit making ridiculous generalizations to support an argument you can't let go of from over a week ago. Not everyone who will be glad to watch the Rush Limbaugh era end is excited that it's happening because of lung cancer. Are some people? Sure. Is everyone? No. Are most people? I doubt it.

The contrast is appropriate when one person was admirable and the other was one of the vilest pieces of shit in American history. Ghoulish seems a weird word. I don't need to hear about his death rattle. But rejoicing that something bad will be gone from the world hardly seems worthy of all the high-horse moralizing and passive aggressive condemnation.

I think the term gets misused a lot in our everyday dialogue. I think it isn't meant to describe someone whose views fall in the middle of the spectrum of ideas; I think instead it describes someone who isn't committed to one party or the other, and who might support separate tenets from each party. Outdoorsmen, for example, who want public land access but also want gun rights. Or someone like myself who would like to cut funding for the military but would also like lower taxes. It's not that I don't know where I stand on the issue of taxation or environmental protection or whatever - it's that sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on multiple issues - and for many people like that, they don't know whom they disagree less with - Trump or the Dem nominee. (That isn't my particular situation. I'll never vote Republican. But I know a lot of people who would love to vote for someone other than Trump, but who fear someone perceived to be as radical as Bernie). Side note in Bernie's favor: I think Bill Maher made a great point on Friday. He said other than Trump, Bernie is the only candidate who has an army. Who has people willing to get in the streets. I think that's where we are these days. And I think Maher is right.

Is Bernie a lock if he wins Iowa, NH, and SC, or are we expecting none of it to matter once Super Tuesday hits? Predictions?

I've been deliberately paying as little attention as possible to this carnival of shit, because if I focus too much on it my soul is going to wither up and die. Having said that, what exactly is the stated reason for going to such lengths to prevent witnesses from testifying? How is it not glaringly obvious that this is what guilty people do? Is there seriously any other way to interpret it? What's the lie the Right is pushing? That Bolton is going to give up the launch codes on accident if he's allowed to be questioned?

My intention is not to be basic or reductive. We can only know these public figures to a limited degree. And Kobe’s legacy is mostly one of positivity. Screaming about his rape allegation seems to me like those people who scream about MLKJr plagiarizing his college essays or whatever. Yeah, he probably did some bad shit, and we can talk about that, but do we need to scream about it on MLK day, when most of the world is trying to reflect on all the good he did for the world?

I feel like this conversation has served no purpose. No one is suggesting we ignore the crimes and misdeeds of others. And you don’t have to be in my house slapping me in the face for it to have an impact. I view humans as complex puzzles - people do good and bad things. In my opinion, it’s not inappropriate to give those who loved someone a moment to process their grief before immediately mentioning the single worst thing the deceased did while they were alive. I guess we’re splitting hairs over what is tactful in polite, respectful society. You can bring up someone’s worst qualities 4 minutes after their violent death. You have that right. And the conversation is worth having at some point. But stay the fuck away from me.

You don’t give a shit about him. That’s clear, and that’s fine. But to many people he was a very important, influential part of their lives. His death affected them. I’m sure plenty of people have friends or parents who did something heinous in their lives; but upon hearing of their death, they’ll probably recall the positive impact they had rather than that heinous act. I don’t think we’re doing a disservice to victims to let those who loved a mostly great person to have a few minutes to grieve and process the death before we run in and pour salt on their wounds.

There’s a big difference between saying, “I don’t believe the woman. That man is innocent” and saying “I don’t have enough facts to fairly make a decision.”