I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

If they didn't want Trump, why is he the nominee of the republican party? Pulled his name out of hat during the republicans primaries?

I clicked on your link, hopefully, no bugs.

Anyway, how is McAuliffe's problems a Clinton scandal? I agree if it turns out he has accepted money he wasn't supposed to, it could affect Clinton's campaign because they are close, but it is not a Clinton scandal.

Quote Finn:




Judging by the way the country is divided, it looks like what you really want is for the Confederacy to gain by ballot what it lost at Appomattox.

It really does look like that. Heaven forbid a thinking person could hold this as a hope.

What an inane comment, but not unexpected from you.

This is why we need two nations, because there are tens of millions of people like you, and apparently snood, who aren't content with disagreeing with people like me. You insist on imputing foul motives, and please don't insult anyone's intelligence with some coy denial. There are as many liberal dog whistles as there are conservative, and "Confederacy" is surely one of them.

To be fair there are tens of millions of people on the right who are as tribal and closed minded as you, who reflexively impute foul motives to liberals.

Better to separate the two broods and see which core beliefs prove most successful.

You can create the Blue Socialist Republic of Amerika, and we will create the Darwinian Republic of 'Merica.

Unless you foresee the US somehow maintaining it's current status for hundreds of years to come (I surely don't), some sort of breakup is inevitable. It need not be Blue vs Red, it could be multiple smaller nations.

The Day Dreamers pine for a United Earth a la Star Trek. Maybe some day in the far distant future that might happen but for generations to come, the only way we will be a united world is if it is under a bloody tyrant

This is from Merriam Webster online

Nihilism
noun ni·hil·ism \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\

2 a. a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

That's interesting but a breaking up of the union along the lines I am suggesting is not destruction. I'm not a "burn it down" nihilist. I don't want to see the country go down in flames in the hope that a conservative Phoenix will rise. I don't want either side of the ideological divide to be oppressed by slim majorities. Right now it looks like those slim majorities may belong to the Left, but who knows? You might be singing a new tune after Trump becomes president.

I don't want to make the mistake of underestimating the stupidity of the American electorate, but I very much doubt there are enough voters stupid enough to make that man president.

Quote Finn:

That's quite a statement coming from the master of coy denial himself. On an earlier post on A2K you were advising Bernie supporters to not give in and vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, not because to do so would aid the Republicans, but instead it meant that they would be making a steadfast stand for sterling principle instead of giving in to middling, uninspiring compromise.

Now you are saying the same thing that white supremacists and modern day Confederates are saying, which is to break the country up along ideological lines, which would yield one country remarkably similar to the Confederacy.



The reasons the white supremacists and Confederates give for this is that as far as they are concerned, the wrong side won the Civil War, the Confederates were right to secede, and now it is time to make things right. The reason you give is that modern day righties and lefties can never live together, (even though they do), and that a breakup is inevitable, (which is questionable). Indeed, Obama, a black candidate, won the capital of the Confederacy, Virginia, both times. He also won North Carolina once and came close the second time.

It would appear that your call for splitting the country up comes not because you believe it is inevitable, but that your side is losing and you figured to make a play for a piece of the pie now, before your forces dwindle even more. Demographics are not with you in the long run.

Boo-yah! Word, Blickers. Eloquent.

Name calling fests do tend to divert a thread. Well played.

Who called a name? Boo-yah is an expression of joy. Look it up in an urban slang dictionary.

Any thing bad that happens is due to Clinton. Dont you know the republican mantra by now Rev?

Seriously, what name calling are you referring to?

It is incredible to me that anyone would think dividing the country were a good idea. It was a bad idea in 1860, and it's a bad idea now. The reasons are obvious, but people usually don't actually think when they get these "great ideas."

Divided, what had been a nation has two or more sections, none of which have the economic muscle that the Union possesses. All the BS about the Rust Belt ignores that high tech innovation has replaced industrial might. These sections would also have no influence and no respect in foreign capitals. Palmerston and the so-called Napoleon III would have liked nothing better than to have seen the United States broken up in 1860. People also don't seem to know our constitution even though they so often bleat about it. The constitution prohibits the formation of confederacies which was one of the legal bases for Lincoln's actions. Break up the Union and ignore inconvenient sections of the constitution, and you might as well toss the entire document out the window.

But more than that, support for the Confederacy was by no means universal, or even widely popular in the Old South. After Virginia seceded from the Union, the western counties of Virginia seceded, and in 1863 became the State of West Virginia (which is unconstitutional, but that's not going to change now). Eastern Tennessee steadfastly refused to cooperate with Confederate authorities, and Confederate armies laid siege to Knoxville more than once, failing miserably each time--including when Longstreet with troops from the Army of Northern Virginia attempted, and failed to take the city. That's why Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's second Vice President. He was the only southern Senator who did not resign his seat in 1861 (he was Senator from Tennessee), and he ran with Lincoln in 1864, even though he was a life-long Democrat. Deserters in southwest Virginia set up a virtually independent state, and Lee was obliged to send thousands of troops to round them up. They broke up the renegade government, but most of the deserters got away. The same defiance was seen in the mountains of the Carolinas. Desertion was so bad that Thomas Jackson advised Jefferson Davis not to grant anyone leave from the armies. The Confederacy instituted conscription long before the United States, in 1861. In 1862 the act was twice amended, first to raise the age for conscription to 45 (they were desperate) and then with what became known cynically as the "20 nigger law"--my apologies to those who find that offensive. It exempted any owner of 20 or more slaves from conscription.

Don't think this is just a boring historical recitation--there's a very strong point here. The Confederacy was created by and for the benefit of a privileged elite. It is not true that slavery enriched the United States in the early years, the United States prospered despite slavery, not because of it. If you were a poor white man with ambitions to better yourself, you left the South and headed north or west. Who living in the South today would want such an idiotic situation? White supremacists and political elites might want it. Would the Americans of African descent living in the South today want that? Would highly educated and highly skilled workers want that? Where would they get airliners--they'd have to buy them from the remainder of the United States. Where would they get automobiles, where would they get military hardware? The chemical plants and refineries of the South could be replaced a hell of a lot faster in the North and the West than the South could replace the industrial base which they would be abandoning. Skilled and well-educated labor would abandon the South in a flood.

Really, a Neo-Confederacy is an hilariously idiotic idea. Quite apart from all of those problems, once you start breaking up the Union, where would it end? I am reminded of the skeptical old Junker general who referred to the reformers in Prussia as "the rage of dreaming sheep."

The divide between the 1% and the rest of the crowd, is all the classism we'd need for now.

This may be what takes the Clintons down.

Watching closely.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-2016/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-20/why-hillary-clinton-will-lose-to-donald-trump

Here's how she loses.

I just saw Joe Scarborough (will kick myself later for giving in to old habit of Morning Joe), who I happen to think is a little blowhard piss-ant but whose bro-mance with Trump is renowned, say that Trump's chances of winning the presidency are 65% to 35% against.

He actually gives salient reasons for this gloomy forecast. Trump's bringing up of Bill Clinton's dalliances this past week was the act of a man still fighting a primary battle, not a general election candidate. He just went to New Mexico and trashed the powerful female Hispanic governor -a very respected Republican governor of a swing state who happens to represent a needed demographic. He's getting more, and not less reckless at a time when the shift to being "more presidential" is expected and needed.

Scarborough said he's about half convinced Donald doesn't even want to win now. To me that's still a very real possibility, if the buffoon has enough common sense to realize his time will no longer be his own and that he will actually have a demanding government job.

So you individuals doubting Hillary's chances, and digging up every sliver of negativity you can find to create the facade that her candidacy is doomed, take note. All she has to do is beat Donald Trump. And he's starting to make that easier.

Is 'boo-yah' the name calling you were referring to. edgar?