I believe it's the HIM from Cannonball Run.

So, not the Finnish semi-metal band that sang "Wings of a Butterfly"?

So bizarre that when reactionaries talk about opposing the government they mean like school lunch programs, but they'll happily crucify you if you side against the part of the government with actual jackboots and guns.

It's Bernie Mac.



NSFW, obv.

Roe was the woman who wanted an abortion. Do you know why she sued some guy named Wade?

Obergefell was a gay man who wanted to marry another man. Do you know why he sued some guy named Hodges?

Like whole ****ing conservative vs. liberal view on the judiciary is that conservatives, allegedly, wanted judges to stop meddling with the will of the people by inventing new rights and ****, right? Now he thinks it's just that they side with the... government each case?

My dude when those worker's rights laws, when those civil rights of accused criminals cases, when those rollbacks of abortion rights cases, when those voting rights cases get heard, YOU are going to be the one rooting for the government to win. Liberals are going to be the ones on the other side.

Spot on, I've been saying this for a while. This is a guy who thanked himself on twitter a few days ago for a strong consumer confidence index. Just because he's unpopular now doesn't mean it's necessarily going to stay that way. The dude is quite good at media manipulation and propaganda.

The hope I have is the media mostly do whatever they can to get attention: viewers, clicks, whatever, because it adds up to $$$.

A popular president is kinda boring. So maybe we will actually see significant attention paid to the inevitable scandals. How it all adds up, though, I don't know. The average person is dumb as a rock.

no not bernie mac but a great guess and not as far off as you think but i will sy you got the right race. HIM has decided to reveal HIMself soon.

So black Jesus? Pretty sure he already revealed himself on adult swim

There is literally nothing a President could do to get arrested while in office short of the proverbial zombie apocalypse or out and out coup (VP does not take office). The kind of things he could do to get charged would require his term to end or get impeached first.

I don't recall trump putting a plan forth for anything. All he did was state vague generalities like wall, jobs, immigrants evil, love mother Russia.

I don't think in hindsight that Hillary could have done anything that would have changed the outcome. She was an establishment candidate during an election where people wanted an anti-establishment candidate. Just the wrong person for the wrong election.

No question Bernie Sanders beats Trump and does so convincingly.

She lost by a tiny margin. You're basically suggesting she ran a perfect campaign.

Not true. Love hearing this a million times with zero evidence besides feels. Look at the primary in PA and especially in FL, and tell me how you're concluding this great margin of victory (or even any victory).

EDIT: Also NC.

The people who just couldn't pull the handle for Hillary, but like totally could have for anyone else, also would have found that just one specific reason to not pull the handle for a socialist. If Bernie ran and lost, all of the "I just couldn't vote for Hillary" people would have magically been all "if only they had selected Hillary, she was at least centrist, unlike the socialist."

Yes, this is right.

No, it's wrong. All the party line Dems who voted for Hillary would have still voted for Bernie. Bernie only loses the SeattleLou Republicans who supposedly voted for Hillary, but gains people who otherwise wouldn't have voted at all (a lot of people) and some people who voted Trump.

Perhaps Bernie wouldn't match up well against a very moderate Republican who the conservative Democrats could have voted for or been indifferent about, but against Trump, the generally reliable Democratic voters are still reliable.

And lol at calling for evidence. Wtf evidence could there possibly be? An alternative universe? Obviously this is all speculation.

He wouldn't have won Michigan and Wisconsin? He just needs one more beyond those two. Hard to believe that he couldn't have pulled it off, given his lack of the unbelievable amount of baggage this woman had.

Bernie Sanders would have had a good shot at winning, but obviously, so did Hillary Clinton.
He would not have won easily, however. The team that was able to swiftboat a decorated war veteran against a draft dodger and was able to portray a moderate Democrat as a radical (Alinsky + "sat in that pew for years") would have had the "honeymooned in the Soviet Union" spiel perfected. Even the "out of touch elitist" thing would have worked against him just as much as against Hillary, just with a slight twist as a tool to demotivating minority voters.
Repbulicans produced Hillary scandals out of almost thin air. The really bad thing about them was that her team reacted to them poorly and in a way that amplified her secretive and negative image. However, I am not convinced, that the candidate who lost against her would have faired better.
Bernie would have had better tactics at his disposal against Trump's economic populism, but I am not sure, he would have been able to use them without alienating other voters (see above).

This. I have yet to see anyone anywhere who voted for Clinton who wouldn't have voted for Bernie. He starts with 65.8m and adds to it. He wouldn't have needed to add much.

I guess I wasn't super clear. I meant the SeattleLous who played around with voting for hillary but then ultimately decided party loyalty was more important than the future of the country. That's what Dems are up against. They need to stop pretending they can convince the moderate fox news watchers to come over to their side.

(not saying lou voted for trump, fwiw)

Basically in the primaries Hillary crushed with people who ALWAYS vote no matter what and Bernie crushed with very unreliable voters. It would have come down to that. Very very few people are on the fence about which party to vote for.

the key appears to be picking someone charismatic, and from there nothing else matters. Like, really nothing else. Which is good, because the DNC has allowed the party to crash and burn on the state, local, and federal level so the available supply of qualified candidates will be pretty dried up in the near future.

Of course, after this election, suddenly experience will be a Very Important Thing that we all have to pretend to care about, and Trump having governmental experience will be a boon!

How about looking at the primaries? You're asserting that he would've outperformed HRC, which flies in the face of him decidedly not outperforming HRC in the primaries.

Like to win the election, he has to win states that HRC lost. The case can be made for Michigan, and I'm pretty sure he would have won WI, but he lost the primaries in PA, NC, FL, OH by over 12 points each (FL he lost by 30 points). He lost Virginia (HRC +4 in the general) by 30 points. There is no reasonable case to be made on the evidence for him crushing the general.

He has one possible winning map. Everything that HRC won +MI, WI, PA. Even if he pulled it off, no one could call that crushing.