U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[krbe 193]

8 hours ago, Easy Bakes said:

But how long was the berlin wall? a  hundred miles or so?

It is correct that the Berlin Wall itself was less than a hundred miles in total -- 155 km around West Berlin, of which 105 or so km were the wall as we know it (concrete sections, anti-vehicle ditch, death strip, etc.) with the remainder being a mesh fence barrier. The statistics I refer to are from the inner German border running from the Baltic Sea in the north wrapping around East Germany to the south. This is much more comparable to the American situation, although there are two major differences: The US-Mexico border is far longer, exponentially increasing costs; and also running through more desolate areas. 

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

First of all, the West Bank barrier has not stopped terrorist attacks from occurring with Israel. They continue to happen reguarly, its just that they no longer bomb public transport as often. Instead they just drive their cars into people waiting at bus stops. ... Billions spend to no effect. 

You're absolutely correct, it has not stopped terrorist attacks on Israel. But are they fewer? Yes, there is a lot less attacks now. Has the nature of attacks changed? Yes, from suicide bombers, to stabbings and running cars into people. Not a single Israeli official have believed that the wall would stop attacks. What they did believe, is that a wall would make it next to impossible to sneak across the border with explosives, by forcing everyone to go through the checkpoints. Suicide vests are not readily available in Israel, and cars are not normally a weapon of terror; so naturally, stabbings and running people over is a good tactic; until they have enough of that as well. But no effect? You know better than this.

4 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Similarly the Berlin wall did not work, and while yes, it stopped people from crossing it directly, they just found other routes around the wall. 

Did you even read the statistics on GDR emigration? In 1961 more than 200,000 persons emigrated -- and Berlin was cut off in August that year. Between 1949 and 1961 included, 2.73 million emigrated in total

. That is 210,000 on average each year, the vast majority crossing the German-German border directly. That number grows to an annual average rate of 237,000 if you include 1989 and the first six months of 1990.

Between 1962 and 1988 included, 565,000 emigrated. That is 21,000 -- one tenth -- of the average emigration as long as the wall and border barriers were in effect. The vast majority of these crossed through third countries. Again, the barrier works; people didn't just find other routes, some people -- some very lucky people, who had the luxury of securing an exit visa to go to another East bloc country -- managed to escape.

4 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

These people are willing to pay exorbitant fees to get into the US, you think 'cost' is an issue for them?

Cost is an issue to every single human being affecting every single action. Whether it is money, time or life or limbs; there are costs to everything. Increasing the cost to cross the border illegally will quite naturally deter anyone who do not have the means (as in monetary means) or is willing to take the risks (as in getting injured, killed or deported). Do you really think cost is not an issue? And no, the fact that you are literally willing to do everything you can to achieve something is meaningless, because most people have very little in the way of everything.

4 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Besides, the US already has a physical barrier along its Mexican border. You know, the great border fence?

Yeah, I know that. Do you know what it is? It's a fence. Similarly to what you would build around a construction site or a luxury car park. And then again it this only exists for short stretches in a few places, with sensors along the rest of the area that is actually protected. Considering border barriers, it is a joke, and the only thing that helps it work is that small army.

[Larks2242 251]

On 6/18/2016 at 11:33 PM, Easy Bakes said:

Because the "masses" buy into their rhetoric and vote straight party.

your average voter on one side or the other only want one of 2 things.

1 things to stay the same

2 things to change

And it appears neither ever happens no matter who wins.

because every thing does change but it still stays the same.  

 

It's funny though, Cause Trump  seems like the most pompous candidate in history and yet his abrasive nature seems to only draw more popularity, We have seen people who try to be civil burn while those that show little class are the ones that have been appealing. 

 

^ In terns of fencing, We already have the Rio Grande,  Let's just load it up with poisonous snakes and gators, Problem solved, We got a moat

[Easy Bakes 253]

3 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

It's funny though, Cause Trump  seems like the most pompous candidate in history and yet his abrasive nature seems to only draw more popularity, We have seen people who try to be civil burn while those that show little class are the ones that have been appealing. 

 

^ In terns of fencing, We already have the Rio Grande,  Let's just load it up with poisonous snakes and gators, Problem solved, We got a moat

Thats what gets attention nowadays.LCD is the way to go to become popular.

these are the same people who watch Bigfoot Hunter and deadliest catch and think they are educational nature shows.

 

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

A wall would be of most use for the 859 km between El Paso and San Luis and would be virtually useless along natural borders (rivers)

[Easy Bakes 253]

9 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

A wall would be of most use for the 859 km between El Paso and San Luis and would be virtually useless along natural borders (rivers)

Dont forget california too

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Just now, Easy Bakes said:

Dont forget california too

California wants them ...

you know, to pick their fruit and clean their mansions

[Easy Bakes 253]

Just now, OcramsRzr said:

California wants them ...

you know, to pick their fruit and clean their mansions

but you cant have it both ways.

if there is a wall in TX they have to build one in CA too.

other wise whats the point?

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

4 hours ago, Easy Bakes said:

but you cant have it both ways.

if there is a wall in TX they have to build one in CA too.

other wise whats the point?

 

You misunderstand. The border wall is most useful along Arizona and New Mexico. Texas has the Rio Grande and a fence. California has the Colorado River and a fence. Just replace the fence between the two rivers with a wall.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

I guess the tall steel fence is not good enough.  Does it really need fortified watchtowers with garrisoned centurions?

If Israel versus the Palestinians is going to be the model, then I guess we are looking at:

For 1,989 miles cross-continent?!

Ron Paul did point out during 2011 Republican debates that to some the wall will not be good enough until it has machine gun emplacements.  He also warned that such a mighty wall to keep people out might one day be used to keep people in, and given the control-freakishness towards which our politics are sliding, that should give us pause.  Ominously, many in his debate audience missed the point, and thought he was actually advocating for the machine guns and that it was a good idea.  Maybe even with minefields.  As much as I am loathe to agree with Ron Paul, I think he is right in alluding that no amount of wall will ever be politically enough, because the seemingly tough, simple promise of such a wall is an empty distraction meant to fool us away from other issues.  Besides, didn't the 9/11 terrorists come in to the U.S. legally across the border with Canada, where a self-radicalized Muslim terrorist even attacked their parliament?  Maybe the machine guns and the minefields are on the wrong side!

 

Amusingly, one of the long-term regional aims in South Texas is to connect San Antonio to Monterrey by way of Laredo/Nuevo Laredo with a high-speed rail line.  Larger that San Antonio, Monterrey is Mexico's most affluent city, with broad middle-class money they are eager to spend in the U.S. for U.S.-available products, but they too do not necessarily want to shop on the desert border or drive though badlands when they are in range of a major-U.S. city that is conveniently Spanish-speaking.  While many make weekend trips, we want them to make daily trips.  Meanwhile, in between, both Laredo and Nuevo Laredo have become each of their country's busiest inland port due to volume of cross-border trade, with 175,077 freight trucks, 31,080 rail containers, 3,631 buses, and 467,197 cars entering the U.S. at Laredo just this past March alone.  There were 1,404,692 entries of people just at that one city during that month, interestingly with none registered as train passengers. Those are staggering incoming numbers, and the chokepoints already look like this:

The fear here is that national political obsessions over some grandiose wall are overriding our region pressures to expand international connections.  Trump promises a big, beautiful door, but we are wanting to run more freight and passenger trains though it, and Mexico is already eager to start laying down their own stretch of the route.  While the true stumbling in Texas block right now is inevitably funding, which means America's first potential international high-speed rail line is definitely not coming anytime in the foreseeable future, the more omnipresent social and political stumbling block arises the moment we mention passenger trains to Mexico, as the feared image suddenly becomes trainloads of illegals.  Fears of the undocumented in Arizona perhaps heading for "sanctuary cities" in California threatens to sabotage our need to improve Texas infrastructure for legal traffic to San Antonio, which is not a "sanctuary city."

Look at those numbers again...do we really believe we caught everything trying to slip by that month in those 677,000 hiding places?  Of course not, and we never will, not without machine guns, and especially with a Great Wall money sink out in the remote desert.

Sadly, Trump was here in San Antonio this past Friday for fundraising, but opted to avoid any public events in the largest Hispanic-majority city in the U.S.  He spent the afternoon not in front of the crowds at the symbolic Alamo, but in private, closed-door fundraising at the suburban Oak Hills Country Club, where invitees reportedly paid from $500 up to $250,000 to attend.  $250,000?!--like Hillary's paid speeches, that must have been quite a lunch plate!

 

[Delta 88 262]

1 hour ago, OcramsRzr said:

You misunderstand. The border wall is most useful along Arizona and New Mexico. Texas has the Rio Grande and a fence. California has the Colorado River and a fence. Just replace the fence between the two rivers with a wall.

Technically the fence along the California/Mexico border is incomplete. There are large gaps in the Laguna Mountains east of Tecate and the western Imperial Valley, you can confirm this just by looking at it on Google Earth. Sometimes offroaders, hikers, park rangers and land surveyors find skeletons out there. And even where the fence does exist, border patrol sometimes discovers large homemade ladders and even tunnels.

I don't like the idea of a fence or wall anyway, but I'm just saying.

[Sabretooth78 808]

14 hours ago, Odainsaker said:

Besides, didn't the 9/11 terrorists come in to the U.S. legally across the border with Canada, where a self-radicalized Muslim terrorist even attacked their parliament?  Maybe the machine guns and the minefields are on the wrong side!

That's what Scott Walker wanted, but we eventually laughed him away (or rather he imploded).  Same thing basically.  And to those who want to build a wall in the Rio Grande, pffft.  You wimps.  He would have built one down the middle of 4 Great Lakes!  3 of which are quite deep!  Who knows, maybe the 5th as well depending on what his contempt for Lower Michiganders was.  Sadly we'll never know.

13 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

Technically the fence along the California/Mexico border is incomplete. There are large gaps in the Laguna Mountains east of Tecate and the western Imperial Valley, you can confirm this just by looking at it on Google Earth. Sometimes offroaders, hikers, park rangers and land surveyors find skeletons out there. And even where the fence does exist, border patrol sometimes discovers large homemade ladders and even tunnels.

I don't like the idea of a fence or wall anyway, but I'm just saying.

IIRC from viewing in Google Earth/Street View, just past the border peace monument (or whatever it's called) in Tijuana - which is right next to a wall, good symbology there - there is what appears to be a sheet pile wall that appears to extend so many tens of feet out into the Pacific.  Between that and our savvy border patrol staff, I'd say Cali is secure.

[Delta 88 262]

3 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

That's what Scott Walker wanted, but we eventually laughed him away (or rather he imploded).  Same thing basically.  And to those who want to build a wall in the Rio Grande, pffft.  You wimps.  He would have built one down the middle of 4 Great Lakes!  3 of which are quite deep!  Who knows, maybe the 5th as well depending on what his contempt for Lower Michiganders was.  Sadly we'll never know.

IIRC from viewing in Google Earth/Street View, just past the border peace monument (or whatever it's called) in Tijuana - which is right next to a wall, good symbology there - there is what appears to be a sheet pile wall that appears to extend so many tens of feet out into the Pacific.  Between that and our savvy border patrol staff, I'd say Cali is secure.

You mean this thing?

It doesn't extend far at all. I guess it doesn't need to, since water slows people down and there are guard towers close by anyway. There are a bunch of pictures taken by random people at the end of the fence at low tide, so it's definitely not difficult to get to or around.

[Larks2242 251]

On 6/20/2016 at 4:54 PM, Easy Bakes said:

Dont forget california too

We need to wall half of California into Mexico.

Inglewood is just tijuana north.

I say go up from Yuma to Bakersfield.

 

It might be a little difficult to build but with all the taxes saved and less government spending, We will make up for the cost, besides, Now they have a route to Trudeau and Canada!

[Sabretooth78 808]

People and their imaginary lines.

[krbe 193]

One of the interesting features of the election is the money game; where the Donald J. Trump, Incorporated is trailing far behind Mrs Clinton and Mr Sanders. And they're nowhere near their 2012 counterparts.

Interesting to note, however, is that I found several Scandinavian Sanders contribution, employers listed are e.g. Oslo University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Danish Government and Swedish Ministry of Justice. It'd be interesting to map those employers to the state they listed on their donation.

[Larks2242 251]

18 hours ago, krbe said:

One of the interesting features of the election is the money game; where the Donald J. Trump, Incorporated is trailing far behind Mrs Clinton and Mr Sanders. And they're nowhere near their 2012 counterparts.

Interesting to note, however, is that I found several Scandinavian Sanders contribution, employers listed are e.g. Oslo University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Danish Government and Swedish Ministry of Justice. It'd be interesting to map those employers to the state they listed on their donation.

Bernie Sanders: Democratic Candidate Says "'It Doesn't Appear That I'm Going to Be the Nominee"

 

Poor old  Bernie, Finally starting to realize the democrat party doesn't want him.

What's funny about the FCC filing is democrats are mocking Trump and attacking him for not having millions of money, The irony is isn't democrats the ones that used to fight for getting corporate money out of politics? Yet they nominated the most corporate nominee in  history, The Queen of wallstreet, With 41 Million in favors she will owe including the millions of dollars from the middle east who do not agree with American culture. 

[Moerp 449]

The whole concept of a wall is just ridiculous

[Delta 88 262]

On 6/21/2016 at 6:31 PM, Larks2242 said:

We need to wall half of California into Mexico.

Inglewood is just tijuana north.

I say go up from Yuma to Bakersfield.

 

It might be a little difficult to build but with all the taxes saved and less government spending, We will make up for the cost, besides, Now they have a route to Trudeau and Canada!

Your wall would make me an official Mexican citizen!

But economically, that would not be good for the US - the port of Los Angeles is a very busy place. I believe a substantial portion of America's trade (specifically with China) comes in through there. But if you want Mexico to have it, well I won't stop you...

[Sabretooth78 808]

12 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

But economically, that would not be good for the US - the port of Los Angeles is a very busy place. I believe a substantial portion of America's trade (specifically with China) comes in through there. But if you want Mexico to have it, well I won't stop you...

Seriously.  Look at how sore Canada got when we had all but taken away their Pacific Ocean access.  We might as well just return the whole Mexican Cession while we're at it.

[igotthis 12]

On 6/21/2016 at 6:31 PM, Larks2242 said:

We need to wall half of California into Mexico.

Inglewood is just tijuana north.

I say go up from Yuma to Bakersfield.

 

It might be a little difficult to build but with all the taxes saved and less government spending, We will make up for the cost, besides, Now they have a route to Trudeau and Canada!

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen this week.

IGT

[MushyMushy 3,618]

Aside from the fact that that idea for a wall through CA is absolutely ridiculous and wrong - how do you expect the government to pay for it if it is hardly collecting any revenue through taxes? Large government projects are usually built through taxes. You know - those great projects whose construction and upkeep you must assume is free or something if you want to slash taxes so badly. Things like the Interstate Highway System.

---

Of course Hillary is all up in Wall Street's business. She's a neolibereal - a conservative in sheep's clothing. Actually, pretty much all of the party favorites and the DNC itself is run by neoliberals at this point. They don't give a hoot about what the people at the more liberal end of the spectrum want. The just say things people want to hear (or simply rely on the fact that we have a lousy 2-party system so the only viable option liberals have is to vote for them) to get votes and then sit around and high-five each other because they kept their "jobs" (lots of politicians seem to look at elected office as a "job" that you try to keep - not as a place where you're supposed to be doing things for the betterment of the country). They love big business, and people like HRC get fat donations from them. Another good example of neoliberalism is to not support any "progressive" ideal until its "safe" and not "radical." A good example is how HRC flip-flopped on same-sex marriage in 2012 or 2013 or something; at that point it wasn't the least bit "radical" to support it.

Frankly, I've noticed a somewhat similar trend in the Republican party. From the times I've gone down to the sticks in Alabama and interacted with people there, I've come to see that plenty of conservatives (particularly poorer ones) really hate "big business" and things like that. Granted, they hate "big government" (whatever that means) too, but a lot of things they don't like are things that the politicians they elect push very strongly for. Lots of conservative politicians seem have the same routine that neoliberal Democratic ones have - hit on all the points that will get people to vote for you and then primarily focus on supporting big businesses and corporations. In this case it would be saying things along the lines of "immigration bad, small government (an ironic thing, I think, since they seem to be such a fan of telling groups of people what they can't do and restricting their rights), and let's return this country to its Christian roots (seems to be a popular one these days)."

It seems to me like our government needs at least three parties.

- An actual liberal/progressive party

- A party that actually stands for what conservative voters (not the politicians) want

- A party that could pretty much be made up of the bulk of current R and D politicians that's a "pro-business" party

Disclaimer: I'm greatly oversimplifying things and using lots of generalizations.

[matias93 7,535]

4 hours ago, MushyMushy said:

Aside from the fact that that idea for a wall through CA is absolutely ridiculous and wrong - how do you expect the government to pay for it if it is hardly collecting any revenue through taxes? Large government projects are usually built through taxes. You know - those great projects whose construction and upkeep you must assume is free or something if you want to slash taxes so badly. Things like the Interstate Highway System.

---

Of course Hillary is all up in Wall Street's business. She's a neolibereal - a conservative in sheep's clothing. Actually, pretty much all of the party favorites and the DNC itself is run by neoliberals at this point. They don't give a hoot about what the people at the more liberal end of the spectrum want. The just say things people want to hear (or simply rely on the fact that we have a lousy 2-party system so the only viable option liberals have is to vote for them) to get votes and then sit around and high-five each other because they kept their "jobs" (lots of politicians seem to look at elected office as a "job" that you try to keep - not as a place where you're supposed to be doing things for the betterment of the country). They love big business, and people like HRC get fat donations from them. Another good example of neoliberalism is to not support any "progressive" ideal until its "safe" and not "radical." A good example is how HRC flip-flopped on same-sex marriage in 2012 or 2013 or something; at that point it wasn't the least bit "radical" to support it.

Frankly, I've noticed a somewhat similar trend in the Republican party. From the times I've gone down to the sticks in Alabama and interacted with people there, I've come to see that plenty of conservatives (particularly poorer ones) really hate "big business" and things like that. Granted, they hate "big government" (whatever that means) too, but a lot of things they don't like are things that the politicians they elect push very strongly for. Lots of conservative politicians seem have the same routine that neoliberal Democratic ones have - hit on all the points that will get people to vote for you and then primarily focus on supporting big businesses and corporations. In this case it would be saying things along the lines of "immigration bad, small government (an ironic thing, I think, since they seem to be such a fan of telling groups of people what they can't do and restricting their rights), and let's return this country to its Christian roots (seems to be a popular one these days)."

It seems to me like our government needs at least three parties.

- An actual liberal/progressive party

- A party that actually stands for what conservative voters (not the politicians) want

- A party that could pretty be made up of the bulk of current R and D politicians that's a "pro-business" party

I'm greatly oversimplifying things and using lots of generalizations.

I think we could split this a bit, between positions that politicians have by their own ideology, and positions they take strategically to profit from electoral rules.

Hillary (and both Clintons, in fact) aren't neoliberals in the way Friedman or Thatcher were, but they aren't socialists. I think they converged lately (in the 1990s) with renovated socialists, like Blair or Hollande, even if they weren't socialists before. What I'm positive they are is liberals, and that liberalism was a core element on Bill's platform to the presidency. They didn't embrace liberal advances before they already gained momentum, but that wasn't an honest move, but an strategic one in a two party system, where being honest is to lose the center, and hence, the voters' majority. Most Democrats now are in the same situation: they are upper class liberals that favour some focalized welfare, but are heavily restricted trying to keep their party on the center. Their base, formed from a myriad of small minorities, has never being capable of organize themselves to change the party course.

With Republicans another thing happens: they are evidently the most pro-wealthy politicians, and act on behalf of their (moral and economical) values. That meant for decades that they were comfortable in a conservative platform, because they could use the 'small government' demand to benefit their core constituency, and to advance conservative policies that appealed to their grassroots constituency without angering wealthy donors. Now with the Tea Party's radical conservatism  and subsequent Trumpist capture of the party, the wealthy core is seeing their grassroots base rebelling against them for not being conservative enough, and lately, for being indeed an oppresive elite.

Now, comparing this with other countries:

Spoiler

You have an interesting situation: depending on how coalitions get formed, but also depending on rules, you can get diferent party mixes. Canonically, the US formed their parties in the same way that Colombia and Uruguay did (rural and urban elites fighting each other up to a civil war, then allying themselves with small portions of the lower classes to keep hold of government). Both countries changed their systems after deep political and economical parallel crises. 

In Colombia they lost all their political parties and got a Hawk and a Dove party because their main political problem was the war against the FARC guerrilla and the drug cartels: the hawkish Álvaro Uribe used a 'law and order on steroids' platform to get the presidency (think on Rupert Giuliani as commander in chief), then one of his ministers (Santos) rebelled and took the party, changing radically the proposal; now the Santos' 'Dove Party' archieved an armistice, most people predicts the leftist FARC to become an important leftist party and Uribe's new 'Hawk' party to wane.

Uruguay is a bit more comparable case: with a heavy economical crisis, a guerrilla movement, the Tupamaros, begun to represent the far-left option to the Colorado (i.e. liberal, 'democratic') party; the system's change happened when a Colorado president gave a military-backed self-coup. After the end of the dictatorship, the Tupamaros joined a mess of small leftist, green and liberal movements to form the Frente Amplio, a loosely leftist coalition that organized itself to avoid neoliberal reforms. Now they are the dominant party and both Colorados and Blancos (i.e. conservatives, 'republicans') are allied against them.

Another example of elite political parties losing their foothold, this time against a populist, is Argentina: there existed a "liberal" (in fact, conservative) party, and a "radical" (in fact, liberal) party, and smaller ones aside. In the 1940s a coup allowed Juan Domingo Perón to get the Labour Secretary and beginning to give things to poor people; in a matter of years, the military caudillo had become the people's leader and forced his way to the ballot, winning easily. The conservatives simply dissapeared and the liberals became the main opposition to Perón, allying themselves to former conservatives and non-peronist leftists.

 

In the US, election rules force bipartidism because you can get a congressional seat with just a plurality of votes. Let's begin imagining that that doesn't hold and you can get as many functional political parties as you want. Beggining in the current moment, you could see three main splits and maybe a fusion:

• The Democrats would split themselves into a Socialdemocratic Party, with Sanders and maybe Warren on the front, and a Liberal Party with the Clintons and most neoliberals. Some democrats could well end getting into the already existent Green Party. What is interesting is that probably, the socialdemocrats would be less liberals than they are now, because their voting bases would be predominantly workers and less educated people, that care more about economic reform than moral issues.
• The Republicans would split themselves in three parts: a populist Popular Party from Trump followers, that get the most of their grassroots electorate, a Bourgeois Party from the core wealthy donors, and a Conservative Party, that would be basically the Tea Party (they can keep the name if they want, I'm using generic ones for the sake of clarity). The bourgeoises would be the most liberal of the pack (think on the historic Rockefeller Republicans), and the populars would change postures depending on voters' demand.
• Now, using colours, as in the european tradition, the first obvious coalition is a Yellow-Violet (Liberal-Bourgeois) one, what is to say, the Clintons and the Bushes governing together, applying austerity measures, and if they get hawkish enough, going to another proxy war with the backing of the Conservatives.
• Against that, a Red-Orange (Socialdemocrat-Popular) coalition doesn't sounds too crazy. Whatever, from the menace of cutting Social Security or make every government penny means-tested, to send more poor youngsters to die at the other side of the world, could make Sanders to swallow his words and back Trump. They could try to get the greens' backing, but that's harder.
• Another combination could be a strange return to the current system, if minorities' rights are at stake: the Liberals and Bourgeoises could include Greens and maybe some backing from the more diverse Socialdemocrats to form a 'Great Coalition' against a Orange-Blue axis of bigotry moral defense. This could happen if Trump and Cruz try to build a wall, deport muslims, or to back segregation measures, or if they react against liberal advances as a nationwide legalization of abortion/marijuana/free marriage/etc.

 

This is like free candies to me and my career colleagues: a crazy parlamentarian system for the US. Sadly, it is enormously unlikely, because elites don't like huge rule changes (unless they make them to avoid losing their posts). A more realistic scenario (in fact, my bet for what the US political scenario will be in 10 years more), following the same tendencies, is to get this:

• The Tea Party and the establishment conservatives will be getting out of the Trump-laden GOP and will form a sort of Authentic Republican Party (those fancy names have been used a lot in more convoluted countries, brace yourselves to this). Trump will use the party base to transform the GOP in what basically is the Popular Party of the previous simulation. 
• In response, Democrats won't lose their opportunity to give a hit, and keep themselves united, eventually getting the presidency. There, conflicts between the (neo)liberal elites and the more populistic-prone portion of the voter base will allow for a small leak to the Popular Party, maybe with Sanders on board, but without his college followers. 
• Most democratic voters will stick with their party, which devotes mainly to defend minorities' rights, and discard any resemblance with a New Deal era workers' party.
• Being isolated and under-represented by the electoral system (oh, the irony!), the old republicans are going to eventually ally themselves to the Democrats, as an 'endangered minority' of convenient wealthy donors. Don't get surprised if the main proposal of this coalition is to give a Basic Universal Income and get rid of traditional welfare measures: that is useful for the business class and the low-wealth minorities. 
• This arrangement surely won't imply the old GOP to dissapear, but to become a 'pivot party': they could be with the Democrats when feeling menaced by rampant populism, but change and flip-flop to the Populars when trying to advance christian values or deny the liberals and foreigners chances to change the american culture. Pivot political parties are very durable, and particularly successful if are backed by the richer donors.

Wow, that was a long post!

[metarvo 711]

Unfortunately, this will never happen, because the two-party system is hard-coded into the US government structure.  Even the few independents that manage to get senate seats still caucus with one of the two parties.  There are a few third parties that show up on general election ballots, but a vote for any of them is what I would call a waste.

[matias93 7,535]

Biden spoiling: Sanders will endorse Clinton anyway. Yes, it could be Biden forcing it instead of announcing, but with same-sex marriage worked anyway.

Whatever, this people is further going away from a multipartidist option (so sad for political science )

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286206-biden-spills-beans-sanders-will-endorse-clinton

In any case, I keep my suspiction of old GOPers going away with a pivot party: they have some territorial strongholds (Utah maybe, some congressional districts on New England or the wealthy portions of the Bible Belt) to become the small difference between a congressional majority and a minority. If any of both predicted big parties want to advance legislation or recieve funds, they will have to conquer the conservatives' favour.

[Duke87 1,070]

2 hours ago, matias93 said:

Biden spoiling: Sanders will endorse Clinton anyway. Yes, it could be Biden forcing it instead of announcing, but with same-sex marriage worked anyway.

So much for Bernie Sanders the "independent".

And this is why we have former Bernie supporters switching their allegiance to Trump. Anyone who is simply sick of the establishment isn't voting for Clinton, that's for sure.

 

 

[Sabretooth78 808]

So, the one candidate (of the 4 primary) that we thought might have been a principled, decent guy has shown himself to be yet another spineless sell out, and one of the John McCain mold no less.  Well, I'd be remiss if I didn't say I'm not too shocked.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

What ????

Do you consider Sanders weak because he now tries to fight the obvious danger that Trump is ?

What would you say if he didn't take position now ?? "hey, look at that weak old guy, he can't pick a side".

Please...

[Larks2242 251]

Bill is already playing the role of first lady, Speaking to the attorney general even though there should be no contact.

This is why people don't like the Clintons, they have no proper judgement for anything. 

[matias93 7,535]

I think Sanders is doing exactly what a 'issues' candidate should do, and he has been very successful on that work: on the last decades, the Democratic party hasn't paid attention to the socioeconomic malaise that Sanders' campaign is most concerned. To make a dominant party to compromise itself publicly to support strong positions on issues they normally don't care about is really hard, and a very good starting point to change the main political cleavage (which is now strongly centered on moral issues).

Yes, this implies he's not here to oust all corrupt politicians or to wage a literal 'revolution'; but we already know that fact from the first day: electoral politics simply doesn't allow those objectives, and Sanders is in no position to lead a guerrilla movement, nor his supporters are. This doesn't mean he is 'just another corrupt politician', but opposed to what many pundits thought, the guy is not living on a fantasy world and can manoeuvre strategically to get others to do what he want.

Also, even if the platform definitions that Sanders has managed to tip to his side are non-binding, the mere showing that a major political party can support those positions, even just in paper, allows for a deeper discussion and mobilization: which will surely result on a stronger and more results-oriented grassroots movement. Things as a 15 dollars minimum wage were deemed as absurd just the past year, and now many cities and states are considering it as a reasonable measure.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Of course, rather than just let Bill and Hillary squirm under their own bad optics, Trump compulsively has to try to outdo them by digging out more neo-Nazi imagery and labeling her with a Star of David badge of shame pulled from a neo-Nazi fringe site.  As if the earlier American Waffen-SS troops, the Siegfried Oaths, the Nazi butler, the bedside book of Hitler's speeches, the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, or the campaign calls for mass round-ups, special deportation squads, collective punishments, extrajudicial killings, and outright war crimes were not enough!

He is either deliberately trying to lose this, or the casino showman is trolling us!

 

On a more serious note, CNN offered a fascinating article by John Blake:  "What black America won't miss about Obama."  I must admit, some of the article's points hit too close to home, as I am becoming unnerved by the increasingly greater openness with which friends, co-workers, and even family members have begun to assert blatantly racist and bigoted opinions as if the openness to do so were a new normal.  I'm having to more often bite my tongue when innocuous, everyday, water cooler conversation somehow veers into angry, punitive talk regarding "The Blacks," "The Gays," "The Mexicans," or "The Muslims," and while I might try to jovially point out less excitable, less melodramatic, and less conspiratorial viewpoints, I know all too well that you cannot argue with crazy.