Election Day

[AI Wessex]

Yes, we can't trust Hillary, so vote for Trump.

[Fenring]

Yes, we can't trust Hillary, so vote for Trump.

You know what? They should be punished for trying to foist Hillary on America. If Trump for 4 years is the way to safeguard against such nonsense in the future (for either party) then actually I am for it.

[AI Wessex]

There's never been an election cycle like this before.  The top four candidates are reckless, hated, untrustworthy and a socialist.  One of them will become the leader of the world's largest democracy.

[Greg Davidson]

You know what I would find interesting? A single debate now between Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.  As with baseball, an inter-league game (once upon a time, teams from the National League and the American League would never play each other during the regulat season; consider today's standard for political debates to be the same).

[Pyrtolin]

You know what I would find interesting? A single debate now between Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.  As with baseball, an inter-league game (once upon a time, teams from the National League and the American League would never play each other during the regulat season; consider today's standard for political debates to be the same).

With a more normal candidate pool, that might be a good idea, with this group, it might start off interesting, but I could easily see it degenerating into a knife fight between Clinton and Trump (with Cruz "mysteriously" coming out completely maimed from "missed" swings on both sides) while Kasich and Sanders pull off to the side with the moderators and argue policy over shots, eventually promising that if one wins their primary at the other loses, they'll consider putting aside differences to create a fusion ticket that history will never forget.

This isn't to say that it's a bad idea, just to properly set expectations for just how epic to expect it to be.

[AI Wessex]

It runs counter to the very idea of having Parties.  We could go full-on originalist and follow the Constitutional requirement that electors don't have to vote for the VP choice of the Party of the Presidential candidate who wins the most (popular) votes in their state.  In other words, voters don't vote for the VP.  There hasn't been that sort of conflict since 1800, but there's no legal provision against a state's electors voting for Hillary and Kasich, or Trump and Ann Coulter, or maybe even Cruz and his mother.  In fact, since voters are actually voting for electors rather than the Presidential candidate, there's not even a legal requirement that Party electors vote for their own Party's candidate, so Trump could win the majority of electoral votes in November and in December the electors could vote for Clinton.  This year is so weird, that I can imagine that happening if I squint hard enough.  You know, even that wouldn't surprise me.

One other fun fact is that the VP is not term limited.  Either Party could select and elect a VP who meets the Constitutional requirement of being 35 years old, and re-elect him/her in every following election until s/he dies or ascends to the Presidency and serves two terms.

[Greg Davidson]

One other fun fact is that the VP is not term limited.  Either Party could select and elect a VP who meets the Constitutional requirement of being 35 years old, and re-elect him/her in every following election until s/he dies or ascends to the Presidency and serves two terms.

So Biden is available for whoever wins on the Democratic side...

[LetterRip]

Wow.... miraculously Clintons paperwork was submitted by the DNC on time, but somehow Sanders wasn't.  It is quite impressive how the party keeps making these mistakes and they always favor Clinton.  I'm sure it is strictly an accident...

Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork, but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline..

The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders‘ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders‘ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested.

Confusion appeared to reign late Wednesday over just what happened and whether it could be fixed.

D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/bernie-sanders-left-dc-primary-ballot-after-democr/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-district-columbia-ballot-221398

[Fenring]

So Biden is available for whoever wins on the Democratic side...

Maybe Al Gore would like another crack at it?

[LetterRip]

Note that I do think it was legitimately a screw up, but good grief.

[AI Wessex]

I was a bit imprecise above.  26 states and DC require electors to vote for their Party's nominee with varying penalties if they don't, but 24 states have no binding on electors.  Since every state gets to decide how serious the penalties are and how free unbound electors are, it could be a free-for-all.  But, before we get there, we have to have a candidate to vote for.  That ain't over by a longshot on the GOP side:

Should Trump fail to nab the majority of delegates on the first ballot —  and at this point, that looks entirely possible — the race becomes a fight for the support of those on the convention floor.

Since many delegates will be free to vote for whomever they wish on a second ballot, they could conceivably ditch Trump on later votes. Take, for example, South Carolina. Though Trump won the state, only Republicans who attended the state’s 2015 convention — in other words, party insiders or activists — can become delegates. Many have expressed support for Cruz over Trump, reports Politico.

In Louisiana, Cruz may actually end up with more supporters than the primary winner, Trump, noted the Wall Street Journal. That’s because five delegates are unbound per state rules and five were allocated to Marco Rubio. These 10 have indicated that they are more likely to back Cruz, prompting a lawsuit threat from Trump.

In fact, National Review reports that a good chunk of delegates across the country could likely defect to Cruz. In other words, the second ballot favors the Texas senator who’s done a much better job organizing around the rules, according to Putnam.

I'm beginning to warm up to LetterRip's observation that Trump could buy delegates' votes one by one.  I'd be tempted to lean in his lever if I could timeshare in his New York City apartment for a week.  No, make that two weeks.  Hell, just give me a key and I'm good.

[cherrypoptart]

Trump.

Build the wall. Good fences make good neighbors. If we want to look at a good example of how to model our own immigration law and procedures all we need to do is follow Mexico's example, especially since everyone tells us how great they all are. No illegals should get any taxpayer benefits. No schools. No welfare. No nothing. They should be deported. For every one permanently deported I'm fine with letting three of the millions who are waiting in their own countries right now, sometimes for years, to come here legally and who already have their paperwork in the pipeline getting expedited approval.

Get rid of birthright citizenship, by Amendment if need be or by Supreme Court decision or just do it by Executive Order the way Obama does everything. Outlandish hypothetical but if during WWII a pregnant female Japanese pilot managed to blow up a U.S. battleship during the attack on Pearl Harbor and then survived a crash landing in a clearing in a Hawaiian mountain forest and survived until she gave birth to her child, would that child automatically be a U.S. citizen just because they were born here? Also of course assume Hawaii was a state at the time which of course as we all know it wasn't yet. If an enemy waging war against America has their child on U.S. soil and there is nothing in the law or Constitution to prevent that child from being a U.S. citizen then that is a very serious problem that needs to be corrected.

Everyone who comes into our country needs to be better vetted. Muslims coming in from terror states need to be kept out until the vetting process for them can keep out the terrorists. If that keeps out refugees then so be it. We can work to help them settle somewhere safer but somewhere else.

And it's not that I agree with Trump so much as he agrees with me about what I've been saying and thinking since long before he threw his hat in the ring. He's not persuading me at all. He never needed to.

Also we should go over there and as he says bomb the stuffing out of ISIS and then occupy their territory permanently and take every last drop of oil under it as well as all the other resources in it for ourselves. If instead of getting deported illegals want to go to our new colony and populate it and after ten years or so of law abiding productive contributions earn their American citizenship that's fine. And for everyone around the world who wants to go to our new colony and populate it too with the same deal that's fine as well. Instead of an Islamic Caliphate we will turn it into a non-Islamic American controlled oil producing state with hundreds of millions of non-Muslims right in the heart of formerly Muslim territory. A fitting punishment for ISIS indeed.

[AI Wessex]

Outlandish hypothetical but if during WWII a pregnant female Japanese pilot managed to blow up a U.S. battleship during the attack on Pearl Harbor and then survived a crash landing in a clearing in a Hawaiian mountain forest and survived until she gave birth to her child, would that child automatically be a U.S. citizen just because they were born here? Also of course assume Hawaii was a state at the time which of course as we all know it wasn't yet. If an enemy waging war against America has their child on U.S. soil and there is nothing in the law or Constitution to prevent that child from being a U.S. citizen then that is a very serious problem that needs to be corrected.

Cherry, thanks for providing a good example of why it is almost impossible to reason with Trump supporters.  You left out many other potential (but admittedly somewhat outlandish) hypotheticals.  What if a pregnant Japanese female pilot from WWII who had been impregnated by Hitler crash-landed in the westernmost Aleutian island, fell into a state of frozen hibernation and was awakened in 2001 and gave birth to a transgender Siamese twin connected at the head to a racist rapist pedophile radical conservative.  Would the mother then be eligible for food stamps or to receive the annual Alaska oil bonus paid to all residents?

[D.W.]

I'm amused by the idea of turning our immigration issue into imperial colonial homesteaders. 

[NobleHunter]

Ethnic cleansing is hilarious.

[Fenring]

Ethnic cleansing is hilarious.

What, like with a cloth or something?

[D.W.]

Ethnic cleansing is hilarious.

What, like with a cloth or something?

No that's white washing... isn't it?

[cherrypoptart]

Obviously that hypothetical wasn't meant to imply that illegals should have their anchor babies automatically granted birthright American citizenship. It just shows that as the liberals on the Supreme Court always insist, our Constitution's original intent, if in this case that even was the original intent, can't always account for every possibility. Babies born to illegals and non-citizen birth tourists shouldn't be granted birthright American citizenship either. That's just ridiculous and makes a mockery of our laws, our borders, and our Constitution. Breaking the law should not be rewarded. And the birth tourism thing is just ridiculous. The fraudulent citizenship erroneously bestowed upon all such individuals should be revoked by Trump with an Obama type imperial executive order.

[cherrypoptart]

And no need for ethnic cleansing either. How many people in Mexico are waiting there right now years after filling out the paperwork to come to America legally?

For every illegal who jumped in line ahead of them and can be permanently deported I'd let in three of those who are waiting to come here legally. Let them in right now and finish their paperwork while they enjoy America like the illegals that butted in front of them were doing. Every time someone is deported take all their biometrics like dna, fingerprints, retina scan, facial recognition print, and go for gait analysis too if you want and then never let them back into the country again ever. And maybe not any of their children either. In return as I said let in even more of the law abiding people from the same country who are waiting to come here legally. I don't see what's the problem.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/26/fact-check-trump-birthright-citizenship/32397823/

> Jon Feere, the author of the CIS report, told us via email that if the U.S. were to stop granting automatic citizenship to children of immigrants who are in the country illegally, "it would be following an international trend."

    Feere, Aug. 24: In recent years, the international trend has been to end universal birthright citizenship. Countries that have ended universal birthright citizenship include the United Kingdom, which ended the practice in 1983, Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland, which ended the practice through a national referendum in 2004, New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic, which ended the practice in January 2010. The reasons countries have ended automatic birthright citizenship are diverse, but have resulted from concerns not all that different from the concerns of many in the United States. Increased illegal immigration is the main motivating factor in most countries. Birth tourism was one of the reasons Ireland ended automatic birthright citizenship in 2004.

----------------------------------------

I almost said we should just model ourselves on Mexico which doesn't allow birthright citizenship but I'm glad I checked that first before I made the same mistake Trump made and just assumed it was true. But in any case from the same article that said Mexico does allow it there was still this nice little tidbit that does the trick anyway. Again going back to the liberals on the Supreme Court, we're supposed to be looking at international trends now upon which we should base our own laws, right? At least if it's convenient anyway.

[NobleHunter]

What do you think would happen if you started shipping people from South and Central America to Iraq? They'll all just hang out and drill for oil together?

[cherrypoptart]

They are hard workers, right? So yeah. Of course they'll require training and that can be provided. Obviously oil won't be the only industry. There will be support industries and then with the entrepreneurial talent and powerful injection of fresh young blood immigrants our known for the oil is just the start and there is no telling what other industries and accomplishments they will provide the world. Maybe they'll start a space program, or make advancements in arable land agriculture, or have computer programs with the new VR, or make a new entertainment industry to rival Hollywood. There's no telling. I can't wait to see what happens.

[cherrypoptart]

Oh sorry, I just got the ethnic cleansing joke. I thought it was meant that America would experience it because we're kicking out the illegals to which I responded by saying we'll import even more people from the same countries but they'll just be legals instead.

But... the territory referred to was what is now held by ISIS.

I didn't say we would kick out the Muslims who are there.

All I saying is we will flood them with hundreds of millions of non-Muslims.

How is that ethnic cleansing?

Diluting a population while still letting them live there is different from killing them all or driving them out. I'm not sure we have a good term for it though. I guess it could be similar to what the Chinese are doing to Tibet if the Chinese weren't keeping Tibetan men from marrying Tibetan women and things like that.

But this wouldn't be that type of ethnic suppression.

This is going to be the exact opposite. It's going to be ethnic enrichment.

Just like what we're always told is so great when it's happening in America.

[Fenring]

Oh sorry, I just got the ethnic cleansing joke. I thought it was meant that America would experience it because we're kicking out the illegals to which I responded by saying we'll import even more people from the same countries but they'll just be legals instead.

Uh, I kind of thought he meant cleansing America of ethnic 'illegals.'

[cherrypoptart]

Well now I've covered both bases, just in case.

And going back to ISIS being a new multicultural, multireligious "Mecha" of diversity, that would be some nice poetic justice and serve them right for trying to cleanse their territory of all non-Muslims and non-Muslim-enough Muslims.

There is one thing I don't understand though. What is so evil about kicking out the people who came here illegally if we replace them with even more people from the same countries? Surely there are enough people in those countries who would be willing to come here legally and can pass background checks, right?

[D.W.]

Maybe they are rewarding their go-get-em attitude and motivation? 

[AI Wessex]

What is so evil about kicking out the people who came here illegally if we replace them with even more people from the same countries? Surely there are enough people in those countries who would be willing to come here legally and can pass background checks, right?

What makes you think you can screen out bad guys that way?  One of the San Bernadino shooters was a US citizen and his wife passed all of the background checks and tests they ran against her.  Perhaps we should do what Jeb Bush suggested about letting Christians in and keeping Muslims out and just ask them if they are terrorists.  If it's a moral mission, why would they lie?

But once they're here, they're here.  We don't even want people to be asked *why* they want guns and we sure don't stop anyone from going anywhere in this country they want to.  It would stop some people from doing harm if they had to get some sort of entrance waiver - like a visa - to move from one state to another, or even to visit.  No one should be allowed to go anywhere near a sensitive infrastructure installation without an official guide.  Nobody should be allowed to carry guns into schools or churches, or else everyone should be *given* a gun to protect themselves if we can't guarantee that no one snuck in with one.

I have a *lot* more suggestions that would help reduce the awful incidence rate of legal or illegal immigrant terrorist attacks in this country, even though the number is almost as tiny as the number of people who cast fraudulent votes and far smaller than the number of home-grown terrorist acts.

A new motto for today's climate of abject fear: Let's Make America Safe Again: Build a wall, become a good neighbor.

[cherrypoptart]

Apparently it would have violated her civil rights if our government would have checked the Facebook page she was using (under an assumed name I think but still not difficult for our government to fine out about if they wanted to and didn't have a directive to leave alone in any case) on which she clearly indicated her sympathies. But our government has no problem checking any one of our Facebook pages at any time. There is a man now doing research on how many Americans are killed by drunk driving illegals after his child was killed by one of them. That's information "the most transparent administration in history" doesn't want getting out though so I wish him luck. And is it really too much to ask for a background check to deny people entry if they have drunk driving convictions in their home countries? When we have the pick of the litter why are those drunk drivers the ones we should let in first?

[AI Wessex]

That's one man's source of pain.  Shouldn't we also bar people with any convictions, such as criminal, civil and religious?  We should also bar people who are sick or might get sick, not because they would be a burden on the government, but because they might make us sick, those who are possibly unwilling to learn to read and write English and use that language exclusively outside of their homes.  I would also add people who have shown sympathy for any cause that our government deems contrary to our national interests, which would include anyone who opposes any foreign government or regime that we consider an ally.  People who would fit in and should be welcomed include those who enjoy unlimited access to guns and welcome others carrying them in public, who enjoy all legal drugs and liquor, and are opposed to labor unions, unnecessary or excessive government regulations, paying taxes, government spending and helping people with medical or financial needs.  And of course if they are Muslim, know anyone who is Muslim or look like they might be Muslim, because you never can tell.

But first and foremost, nobody with a drunk driving conviction, because you know somebody who was burned by that.

[cherrypoptart]

Well there's hundreds of guys with convictions for drunk driving, child rape, illegal drug use, who were cartel assassins, etc. and then there are millions of people who have had absolutely no problems with the law at all.  Who do you let in first?

With an open border you don't have any say in the matter.

[AI Wessex]

Drunk driving is a misdemeanor in the US and doesn't bar anyone from any future activity.  It might be a more serious offense in another country, but is probably unrelated to their reason for leaving and coming to the US.  My point is that you can disqualify pretty much everyone for whatever reason you want to use to discriminate against them.  I would probably look askance at someone who was arrested for domestic assault or had a record of carrying weapons in public.  I bet any 10 random people in the US could find a reason to exclude everyone.  And if people are excluded for reasons that make them undesirable, then we have a lot of undesirable people here who other random groups of 10 people would want to send to other countries.  That would include blacks, liberals, Jews, atheists, union sympathizers, gays and Catholics, not to mention people who like Disco music, something we can all agree on.  I'm sure you're undesirable, as am I. Perhaps someone should look into our situations.  Who would that be?

[Pyrtolin]

With an open border you don't have any say in the matter.

Just the opposite, with an open border you have _more_ say in the matter, since those people can be checked on the spot as they enter and selectively weeded out while people who represent a threat can safely pass through. It's only when you close the border that you open wide illegal avenues for them to enter, hidden among many more people that are non-threatening, such that we have no idea if they've tried to enter or where they might be.

[D.W.]

He was equating that illegal avenue as the "open door policy".  What you are suggesting is a streamlined legal avenue for immigration.  Something that hasn't been argued against.

[cherrypoptart]

Another great thing about Trump compared to all the other candidates is that Trump won't hesitate to expose all of the illegal activity of Obama along with the incompetence and immorality of his administration. The other candidates will be content to sweep it all under the rug and move on "for the good of the country." Trump is the only one who agrees with me that shining a spotlight on this corruption and watching all the cockroaches scatter and the scumbags turn on each other like rats in a cage as he seeks prosecutions is what's good for the country. He won't hesitate to expose Obama for the imposter usurper fraud that he is such as by revealing if he registered as a foreign student and in fact had a student I.D. that identified him as a foreign student and also if he backdated his Selective Service registration, which is most likely since he wasn't required to register for Selective Service before he turned 18 because the law didn't require that until later so why on Earth would he? We'll also get to the bottom of what Obama is trying to hide with his massive slow walking and outright denial of FOIA requests, along with prosecutions at the IRS for illegally targeting the Tea Party and the statute of limitations hopefully won't be up on Lerner either so she can have her pension stripped since she won't be needing it in federal prison anyway. She won't be lonely though because Hillary will be there to keep her company.

[cherrypoptart]

D.W. has the better sense of it here because I'm not talking about a closed border but instead a secure border. People will still be able to come and go and the difference then compared to now is that we will know who they are and what they're about.  The open border means that massive numbers of people are coming and going at will without anybody knowing anything about them because they can come and go without so much as a "by your leave", for instance by coming through tunnels, swimming a river, getting smuggled in a van or semi, or just simply walking across. At least with the half or so of illegals who flew in and overstayed their visas we know who they are so of course it will be easy enough to pinch them whenever they show up on the radar and definitely put them and perhaps their families on the list of people who can never come here legally again.

[AI Wessex]

Cherry, I'll give you props for leaning into the wind, but you are leading with your chin. All of those wonderfully tasty morsels of massive fraud are are themselves nothing but frauds and hoaxes, all of which have been thoroughly debunked, all of which can now be used to identify people too far gone to take seriously in any discussion about American politics. You're a member of that small, very strident and very, very proud cadre of people who valiantly throw their credibility on the bonfire of their beliefs and get nothing but ridicule in return.  Like I said, I give you props for telling it like you want it to be, but that's all you can ever hope for.

[D.W.]

While I agree with what AI just said about "all the corruption" of the current admin, I think it serves the public good to have people hoping for, wishing for, signs of that corruption to appear.  It keeps our politicians slightly more honest.  Or at least careful. 

Or at least I feel that way until they grind the operating of the country to a halt on a witch hunt. 

[Greg Davidson]

Cherry,

Can you name a President in the last 150 years whose Administration had less corruption that President Obama?

[Fenring]

Cherry,

Can you name a President in the last 150 years whose Administration had less corruption that President Obama?

Not to sidetrack you, but what corruption did JFK have?

[DJQuag]

I agree with this exchange over at Sake River between Dogbreath and Samprimary.

------
I mean, Sanders pretty accurately assessed the situation and warned that this would happen. But then again, he also voted against the war in Iraq. And supported gay rights well before 2013. (which is when Hilary Clinton finally changed her mind about opposing SSM) It's easy, after a scandal like this breaks, to go back and say what the right decision should have been. Sanders is one of the few people (and only presidential candidate) who has had the integrity and conviction to consistently make the right and moral decisions, even though those decisions have often been deeply unpopular at the time.
--------
All throughout contemporary US politics, even going back before I was even born, you can go through the entire laundry list of the most notably stupid bad crap the US has done — and especially the stuff that has come back around to bite us in the ass — and bernie sanders is on video essentially saying 'this is stupid bad crap that will bite us in the ass, believe you me'

it's eerily consistent

[DJQuag]

Just realized that there is some context missing,  the first thing Dogbreath is talking about Sanders being right is him saying years ago that Panama was a tax haven that encouraged bad financial practices.

[DJQuag]

Bernie Sanders on the first Gulf War.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-iraq/#gulf-war-and-desert-storm

[AI Wessex]

I was on one of the buses that went to DC from Ann Arbor to protest the first gulf war in 1991.  Bernie wasn't on my radar back then, but I and everyone on the buses and far more people back at home were saying the same things.  We were acting against a general mood in the country that was almost as if it was a "happy war" that we couldn't lose in a place we really didn't care about the people who were affected to protect our oil supplies that we couldn't live without.  Win-win all around, eh?  No surprise that we weren't taken seriously.

We said it again before the second Iraq war, and were ignored again.  Even so, the "vote for the war" wasn't quite that, though in retrospect it was inevitable and obvious what Bush was going to do. 

You may not remember that when the Iraq resolution was being debated and voted on in Congress in October, 2002 the DC "beltway snipers" were killing people at random.  The sense of anxiety and dread was overpowering for people who lived or visited there during the month. I was commuting to the Virginia suburbs near DC on business about two weeks out of every month the second half of that year and can testify to how the fear the two shooters inspired magnified and multiplied the still-fresh anguish and fear from the 9/11 attacks.  High school football teams were holding team practices in "undisclosed locations" and people disrupted their daily routines to the extent that some wouldn't go to their mailboxes out of fear of being shot for no reason. 

I had lots of long conversations with people who lived there and back home about the way the shootings affected how they felt about the Iraq resolution.  Virtually everyone in the DC area was in favor of the resolution, but people's lives back in Michigan were not impacted by the shootings and many people weren't sure the resolution and possible war was the right direction to take.  It wasn't win-win like the first time, but more acting out of overwhelming fear of lose-lose.

Watching and being part of both events gave a palpable example of how fear based on one event can compound the anxiety you already feel about another.  We seem to never learn that taking the long-term view can help avoid the short-term mistakes that result from acting on impulse and fear.

Knowing what Bernie said then (and that he was right) still doesn't convince me that I should prefer him to Hillary, but like I've said (often, now) I'm ok with either of them as the candidate.

[cherrypoptart]

As for a President who was less corrupt than Obama I would without hesitation offer Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon.

And he was the most corrupt President up until Obama.

And let me be clear about Nixon in that I think Ford was a true putz to pardon him. He should have served the rest of his life in federal prison. The pardon made a mockery of the law and exemplified what Trump is saying about the establishment and how they always cover for each other. Nobody but Trump will investigate federal officials who have committed crimes, from top to bottom, from the ATF to the IRS all the way to Hillary and Barrack. And certainly nobody else will send them to federal prison after their convictions. Why would Trump do that? Because exposing the corruption in Washington and the you rub my back and I'll rub yours way of things will vindicate him and everything he is saying right now. His willingness to make the hard and unpopular stands and say the insulting things he says proves he is the only one willing to do what it takes to tackle the massive corruption not to mention the more run of the mill waste, fraud, and abuse endemic in our government right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't Obama have more unanimous Supreme Court decisions, at least 20 so far, against him and isn't that more than any other President? That means even the liberals he appointed slapped him upside the head and waved the Constitution in his face and then one at a time walked by him and shouted, "No!" in his ear.

As I mentioned before there are also the matters of the date of his Selective Service registration and whether or not he registered as a foreign student for benefits while going to college. I agree with Trump on not mentioning the birth certificate thing for the moment until after he gets into office and can get to the bottom of all of these mysteries. Mystery still on the birth certificate? Well it was mysterious that one of the government officials involved in it inexplicably died in a plane crash after she was already in the water with a life jacket with the other survivors. Echoes of Ron Brown who was about to go after Bill Clinton and investigate some of his schemes.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't suppose anyone has heard about the voting machines that switch Republican votes to Democrat votes? Or the ones that switch Bernie votes to Hillary?

Nobody is going to get to the bottom of that type of illegal activity but Trump. He's the only one who will be willing to play hardball.

The rest of them will cover it up because exposing the true level of corruption would cause such outrage that it would threaten them all.

That's why they are all teaming up to take Trump out. He's the only one who is truly a threat to the bacon wrapped shrimp club they've been enjoying all this time.

And I don't really have a problem with Cruz. He'll make a fine Supreme Court justice as Trump's first order of business when the Republicans maintain control of the Senate and rubber stamp him. But Cruz doesn't have the brass ones Trump has to reveal all the corruption and Cruz proves it by how nice he is. Right now we don't need nice. We need downright mean and rude.

[DJQuag]

I take your point on Clinton and Cruz not being willing to dig too deep into past transgressions, but there is absolutely nothing about Sanders to suggest that he would cover up for the benefit of the system.

[Fenring]

Nobody but Trump will investigate federal officials who have committed crimes, from top to bottom, from the ATF to the IRS all the way to Hillary and Barrack. And certainly nobody else will send them to federal prison after their convictions.

Just to elaborate on this point, I don't think the sole blame lies in corrupt power brokers that cover for each other. There is a cultural element in America, a sort of 'patriotic' credulousness where people are extremely hesitant to point fingers at a white collar criminal with an eye towards seeing justice done. There is vehement emotion in America about locking away violent offenders and sex offenders, but not so much bankers or politicians. Most of the time when a politician goes down in a scandal it was a hatchet job by his enemies rather than 'the people' prevailing. As an example of this cultural attitude, I was chatting with a English girl the other day and talking to her about Blair regarding Iraq 2.0. There is a major investigation into him right now on the topic of potential war crimes (waging an illegal war and lying to the English people) and apparently it's being taken very seriously over there. People from both parties there want to see him go down and likewise the people are very upset at him for what they believe he did. Contrast with America, where there is no similar push to prosecute anyone for Iraq 2.0 from either party, and even 'regular folks' from both parties seem not to be interested in such a thing. Evidence of that can even be seen here on Ornery where there was more or less unanimous consensus that either nothing could be or should be done about it.

When you have a culture of acceptance like this where it is not expected that officials will be held to task for their actions it's no wonder that people of influence are so brazen about covering for each other with no fear. I don't really know that Trump will actually take this system on, but what would help would be the average person waking up and not tolerating systemic corruption any more. I believe this is part of what Bernie's campaign is about, which is one reason I support him. Change has to come from below, not from above, for things to have lasting impact. If the people don't demand a result it won't really happen; and in a way nor should it. The people get the government they deserve.

[Pyrtolin]

I'm not sure what legal remedies there are for the Iraq war, but it's helpful that Sanders has Bill Black as one of his top economic advisors, who has been calling for prosecutions in response to the financial crisis similar to those that he helped with in the wake of the SnL crisis in the 80.

[cherrypoptart]

I would like to hope that Sanders will do something and certainly even though on policy I probably disagree with him more than Hillary I'd still rather see him get elected than her because there is a slight possibility he will investigate and do something about waste, fraud, and general corruption. I'm just hesitant to trust him because I feel that Obama was promising the same sort of things and we all experienced the disappointing results for instance as far as I know nobody going to prison for crimes committed during the housing meltdown. That happened mostly under Bush so Obama would have been free to pursue legal action without even taking any of the blame, unless you count the Freddie/Fannie connection to the Democrats. Much of that misbehavior was actually technically legal but I can't believe that all of it was and yet there weren't many if any prosecutions. I do agree with Bernie very much about breaking up Too Big to Fail companies. If it's too big to fail then it's too big to exist. I hear Trump though and he is also talking about tackling Wall Street and the bankers and they seem to be taking him seriously too the way they are trying to stop him.

I disagree with Iraq being a good example of this type of corruption but that's a whole big topic to get into though I will sum up my opinion as if it was a mistake it was based on faulty intelligence such as that coming from an Iraqi general and even that is questionable as far as how faulty it was because we still have no idea or any longer even any curiousity about that massive convoy of trucks that was caught on satellite video rolling into Syria right before we invaded. If those were chemical weapons, for instance maybe some of the ones used in the Syrian civil war, then maybe we weren't wrong at all. And in any case Saddam was violating the cease fire agreement that left him in power and numerous UN resolutions. The big mistake was pulling out too early allowing the rise of ISIS. I was with McCain on the need to occupy them for decades like we've done with Germany and Japan and Korea and in fact I agree with Trump that we can pull out of those countries and use all those troops and resources to invade and occupy ISIS territory and steal all their oil.

Having said that, there are numerous other examples of corruption that both parties benefit from and cover up to tackle and I agree that there isn't much public outcry about it but I also believe that is largely because these crimes are covered up well enough that they are unknown and I just trust Trump to work to expose them more than Bernie. That seems to be Trump's primary agenda while Bernie has a different agenda that he will focus on. Trump will be able to tackle this and then say, "See I told you so." Bernie has a lot more on his plate and isn't talking about this type of thing as much or as forcefully.

[OpsanusTau]

Every time I stop and think about it, which isn't often thank goodness, I'm just astounded that these are the candidates available to us this election cycle.

Hilary Clinton: jeeza pete. I mean I know I'm supposed to like her because I'm a woman, but actually I don't care about that and I do care that she is sleazy and treats her subordinates like dirt. Also I have no intention of voting for a boomer ever again, and especially not one who is so exactly typical of boomers.

Trump: omg this man lies all the time, who even knows what he would do in office? Maybe I would like it, maybe I wouldn't. There is literally no way to tell, because he just constantly lies about everything and then pretends he didn't.

Sanders: is a socialist, and also has a lot of bona fide silly policy ideas. I mean he seems like a nice person and I have no doubt that he would try to do a good job, but I am very skeptical that he would be able to get anything at all done as an executive.

Cruz: I hate to be rude but I am just amazed that a man this weird looking is being seriously considered for national office in this day and age. Did we learn nothing from Nixon/Kennedy? And I'm aware that it's some kind of attempt to woo "hispanic" voters but there is a really major and important cultural difference between Mexican-Americans and Cuban-Americans and putting a Cuban-American on the ticket is not exactly going to make Mexican-Americans feel better about the Republican party. Also he's kind of a religious nutbar but that's almost beside the point.

Anyways I can't bring myself to really "support" any of these candidates but all I really hope for is that I won't be put in the position of a Clinton vs Trump ballot because I live in a swing state and I know how to do my duty but I'd rather not.

[AI Wessex]

Anyways I can't bring myself to really "support" any of these candidates but all I really hope for is that I won't be put in the position of a Clinton vs Trump ballot because I live in a swing state and I know how to do my duty but I'd rather not.

If you vote, those are your choices, so you're in the same boat as (most of) the rest of us.  But I would characterize the bad options differently.  Cruz wants to destroy the government and is willing to let the country be destroyed as a result. Trump wants to rule the country and with each nonsensical decision he will feel more entitled to ignore the screams.  Sanders would preach fire and brimstone to a choir (Congress) who sing from a different hymnbook and who will respond by calling him a silly old man.  Then there's Clinton, who wants to reassure everyone that the boat isn't going to sink, but doesn't quite realize realize that the hole is getting bigger and the winds are beginning to howl.

We, the People, can't reach them to tell them what they should know and what they should do, because they won't listen to us and believe that they were given the sacred mission to tell us those things instead.

I'll vote with a modicum of hope as well as a healthy amount of fear.