When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Yes. I've been following him for a long time. I believe he's still losing audience share but he maintains a key role in rightwing messaging.

Parts of the right are presently going uber-nuts with theories on Scalia being murdered. Imagine if, this week or next, Limbaugh was to die as well. Those parts of the right would turn into something like Woodstock in a huge insane asylum.

I thought they were already there! Nuts.

That guy is still around?

That guy is still around, because the older-uneducated love him.

What is "coercive political activism"? Ths appears to me to be a euphamism for activism coming from people with whom you don't agree. The problem is their right to represent their views is equal to that of anyone else. You are applying a priori judgments here that don't pass the laugh test.

Have you examined the facial expressions, postures , vocalizations, etc. of all (or even a large segment of) the voters in Texas or all Republicans? I think not. Even in cases where this is done it is simply not possible to read anothers thoughts and inner motivations. Evidently you claim this remarkable ability.

Religious people generally describe their beliefs as 'faith" i.e. a belief, as opposed to a known fact. You here are going much farther - you claim to actually know and make sweeping judgments based on it. That is delusional.




What you do with your time is your call, not mine.

Quote blatham:


Quote cicerone Imposter:


Those parts of the right, (which have a habit of slowly seeping into the "normal" right), are going increasingly, screechingly off the rails. In addition to other items, it is now agreed on with them that Sandy Hook was a hoax to make guns illegal, and that all the Southwestern WalMarts are joined together by secret tunnels that nobody recalls being constructed where American citizens will be transported against their will to Mexico, to meet who knows what awful fate.

Only one example:

Yep. But Coulter's profile is much reduced from what it was previously. I'm not sure just why that is. Maybe she's made enough money (many millions) already. Maybe Ailes concluded she was a destructive voice.

I also posted this on the 'Bernie's In' thread...

This is an excellent article by Laura Clawson in The Daily Kos:

Like the Michelle Goldberg article I linked to somewhere else, without slamming anyone or deifying anyone it gives a thoughtful and measured explanation of how this person decided Hillary was the best choice.

Excerpts:
"...I simultaneously want a more serious and nuanced class analysis—something deeper than the talking points, more flexibly targeted to specific questions rather than broad strokes—and more willingness to depart from the talking points, to acknowledge that sometimes you really can’t turn a question to your subject of choice. When the time is right to talk about inequality, try to fit the statistics to the moment. When the time is wrong, at least pretend to notice. Clearly Sanders’ talking points are working for lots of people, and I don’t doubt his commitment on these issues, but the repetition has failed to give me anything new or interesting to hang onto. And beyond inequality, the repetition is a problem with how he talks about—or avoids talking about—other major issues, which he so often dismisses. A president has to be willing to take on issues they don’t necessarily care the most about, able to become an expert on anything, able to pivot and start to care. I need more than “trust me,” and I don’t see Sanders failing to give me that, I see him refusing to do so. That’s not confidence-inspiring...."

"...How will Sanders win not just the presidency but the ability to get a big agenda through Congress? The people will rise up. Except Bernie Sanders is not organizing the people to rise up. He’s running a fairly conventional presidential campaign. Sanders is a long-time member of Congress who has yet to create the kind of movement he’s now suggesting will simply rise up despite the absence of the kind of organizing effort that would take. This will be difficult, and he’s not fully owning that or explaining how we’ll get through the challenges, especially given below-2008 Democratic turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s a set of promises resting on a fundamental misdiagnosis of how movements and organizing work, and I don’t know whether Sanders believes his line or is selling a line, let alone which would be more damning...."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/14/1483010/-How-Bernie-Sanders-lost-me-and-Hillary-Clinton-won-me-over

Their message must be simple. Look at Trump's success.

Excellent article that mirrors my concerns about Bernie.

will read; you all know I go back and forth.

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post that follows this quote. You need to slow down in your reading, thinking and writing. You refuse to get a very simple point and differentiation that I've repeated a number of times now. Why you are doing this, I don't know, but it makes dialogue purposeless. So I'll do this one last time, george.

1) if a faith community has a belief different from my own, that's fine. Most do. And if that belief constrains the behavior of the members of their own community or coerces behaviors in their own community, that's fine. What business is it of mine? It's like a family down the street behaving badly (in my view). It's not my business (outside of criminality, obviously).

2) but if that faith community then proceeds to become politically active in the broader community such that they seek to constrain the behavior of others outside their community or seek to coerce others outside their community based on their beliefs and values, then they are categorically different from 1). It is now no longer a matter of me disagreeing. They have now involved me and everyone else and it becomes a matter of me (and others) defending our autonomy and rights of self-determination.

3) This faith community has every right to voice their values and beliefs into the broader community if they wish to do so. Why would I care if someone knocks at my door or passes out a broadsheet to publicize their notion that there is a God with blue skin and four arms who creates unlimited universes? Or that a different God created the universe in six days? Or that the sky and the earth were once in happy accord then got in a fight and separated? Or that abortion is an intrinsic evil? Fine. Let them talk. Let them publish. Let them get on TV and explain their ideas and traditions.

4) Moves to ban all abortions or even to ban most abortions and moves to coercively force women to undergo vaginal probes originate in faith communities in the US (and elsewhere). Because they feel justified, by their faith, in controlling my behavior and non-members lives absolutely regardless of non-members' wishes, I consider them (where they so act) as my immediate enemy.

I know. These are very old tendencies (see Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics) but they manifest in an ebb and flow. We're apparently in a flow period.

What a woman wishes to do with her own body comes to mind.

He's running a "conventional campaign"? He has of yet to create a movement"??

LOL.

She has shady vision, although I think it's time for Bern to be more expansive with plans.

There are people who think dancing is a sin, playing cards is a sin, listening to anything other than Christian music is a sin, and there are people who believe that procreation is the only decent motive for intercourse.

The men who claim a vaginal probe is no more intrusive (than anything they can dream up) have a low opinion of women, and an overblown grandiose view of their right to guide us poor childlike gals. Apparently they see the female anatomy as something they have divine dominion over. Shame on those who think a woman's genatalia or reproductive health should be decided by voters in issues that are so private and personal it becomes a violation of their human rights. I don't see this issue as different than the morality police who roam
around enforcing sharia law in the different theocracies we fear, in this country it is the fundamentalists who want to enforce their notion of sin by limiting women's choice by fiat.

Rather.

That men have dominion over women is, for many, simply a given. It's not just faith communities (some) which hold that this is just a reflection of natural laws, of course. But when it is codified in a faith community's theology, then it becomes far more influential.

It is truly despicable wherever it appears.

Your blind spot for Bernie prevents you from seeing that a revolution supposedly against a government CANNOT be (and there is not a precedent in history for it, either) spearheaded by the person who will be in its central seat of power - the American presidency. What kind of "revolution" is run by the person at the center of the bureaucracy being revolted against? The government that Bernie has operated inside of for 26 years (which your blind spot prevents you from seeing as making Bernie another professional politician) will still be the government that Bernie will have to contend with as president. You are operating with chop logic that compels you to see Hillary as bad and Bernie as good, even though the difference in how they would ACTUALLY have to govern would be minimal. Your activity constantly denigrating Hillary and constantly idolizing Bernie is destructive, and pointless.

Gandhi performed a similar revolution. MLK Jr started one, but was gunned down. They did what they could within the system to change it

As now.

Hillary Clinton profits from the present system. Bernie's been shouting about it for most of my life. The overriding passion of his life has been calling out the situation and trying to change it.

I'm not blind. I'm one of the ones who see.