I'm the one that cited evidence. Actual words coming out of mouths.

The people who disagree have argued back with 'nuh uh, yer wrong'.

Vix, @trumpfan88 is calling you.

I have to refuse. That would be like handing over the One Ring to Mithrandir. I would use this trolling power with the best of intentions, but in the end it would ultimately corrupt me.

What is it like to go through the world, seeing everything through your special Sklansky eyes?

Caucusing looks like it'd be fun if there were a voting holiday, otherwise just do primaries. Better yet just do primaries.

Well, I am not not aware of anyone with a smart parent and smart sibling who is Palin level dumb. He may be that dumb now, but likely through learning style (narcissism, lack of curiosity) or exogenous factors (drugs, dementia). It's not a slam dunk argument but I think it gets him over the Palin bar. I mean I think you could teach an avg. 6th grader the Palin's NATO response.

I like that stuff about Nicole Wallace. She's pretty bright and poised and Palin hated her.

Bureaucracy
Graft
Sexual Judicial Activism

To be fair those actually are accomplishments to liberals but they seldom tout them as such. This is the first time I have heard anyone mention the stimulus since 2010. you are on the more extreme wing so the gag order doesn't apply to you.

This is all there is.

First, Clinton, Trump, or any politician talking "over" the point is just standard operating procedure. Trump just does it best. You can't actually win arguments with facts anymore in this "post-fact" political world. A good example of this is someone like Rand Paul. Liberty is important, but ultimately no one cares and few will appreciate a fact-based argument.

Look at the strategies employed: if you ask Clinton a hard question about one of her scandals (as say, Jorge Ramos did) she either invokes 9/11, says she won't dignify the question with a response, etc. Same thing as when you ask Trump a hard question. For example lets say we ask Trump if his policies are similar to hitler, or a more realistic example maybe: it is okay to have Putin's approval given he kills journalists. If Trump would have categorically denied it, what happens in reality is that it keeps the frame against him, and puts him on the defensive. The headline the next day will be: "Trump: 'I'm not hitler'", for example. And that will work strongly against him. The significance of Trump dodging these jabs is hard to understate: in my opinion the fact that Trump is even still in the race can be significantly attributed to the fact that he absolutely does not feed other people's negative framing of the issues. Trump actually dodges questions as much as any other politician (if not more due to the ferocity and volume of the questions). The real magic/con is that he convinced the public that he's the "straight shooter" that "tells it like it is." In reality, he's just the best dodger of the question / best at keeping control of the frame wrt his talking points.

===

Second, there is a legitimate argument that democracy has become an oligarchy, but it isn't because of the electoral college system as previously stated. It is money and the RNC/DNC themselves. We can look at the extreme amount of money required to win an election. This is in heavy contrast to other first world countries which have campaign finance reform and limits on the timeframe for campaigns. We can also look at the RNC/DNC controlling who gets put up for the general election. The 50% threshold for delegates, or superdelegates on the DNC side. It is virtually impossible to have 50%+ delegates without being an entrenched, establishment politician. Especially if the contests start multi-way. If they are going to say that you need to beat the superdelegate threshold (aka win 60% of the delegates winnable via voters), or that you need to have 50%+ delegates outright, then why even have a vote? (*See below quote.) I think people have a skewed perspective on this issue due to not liking Trump. You should mentally replace it with your favorite person and ask if its still okay to rat**** millions of voters for being at 49%. Hell, it's even possible for them to rat**** him if he is OVER 50%.

Imo a plurality should be enough, but Trump even passes the strict dominance criterion (he wins headsup vs ALL other GOP candidates.) In any non-dictatorial voting system to nominate one candidate, this property is always satisfied. So for him to lose legitimately betrays the voters under ANY democratic system. Another argument made is that "those are the rules and RNC/DNC is private" but the point is that the actual rules themselves (such as having superdelegates) betray democracy. Just **** over tens of millions voters and airdrop Paul Ryan? Lol. We make fun of places like Russia/China for having a "vote" but this is the same thing. The only reason they allow this voting process to continue is to keep the veneer of legitimacy, but IMO the system is already rotten, and the straight-faced talk of airdropping Ryan/Romney who no one voted for (even if it was just talk) is already proof.

Half past midnight. Right on cue.

Trump used his failed businesses to construct a persona as an elite businessman. A man must have superhuman levels of emotional intelligence to pull off that sociopathic act.

For much of US history, if the Westerners didn't vote early in the morning then the election was over by the time they got in line after work.

Fair enough on the stimulus but liberals frequently tout marriage equality and Obamacare as accomplishments.

Comments like this remind me of talking politics with my dad. He thinks everyone hates Obama because he only watches FOX News and primarily talks politics with 65+ year old white men.

Also, "Sexual Judicial Activism" is a new one.

No.

So you think Trump would lose to Palin in an IQ test because he is running for president. Brilliant.

Got me again, lol.

DMW- I straight up just clowned you about 2012, man. You remembered that Biden line about 1929, but you didn't catch this one:

"Osama Bin Laden is dead but General Motors is still alive"?

That seems like it is maybe the product of you exclusively consuming intentionally dishonest fairy tales made by rubes for rubes.

I remember seattlelou or adios or one of them being convinced that Obama wouldn't mention the ACA in his campaign because some right wing hack had told his readers so(Krauthammer?). Whoops!

Obama played up all his accomplishments, as accomplishments. That is going to happen again in 3 months, guys. Really enjoy the **** out of Cruz and Trump at least agreeing that Obama is a weak incompetent tool of the Ay-rab Menace, because once we hit summer it's going to be Barry Bamz' Greatest Hits 24/7.

Obama is the best President of my lifetime lol and historians of the future are going to rank him top 10, maybe top 5. Seriously, fairy tales. You tell yourself a fairy tale about a future conversation you're never going to have. What's the point?

Stopped reading at 'liberty'. It's hard to make points using words that embody almost meaningless levels of abstraction.

What in the actual ****. You skipped quite a few steps there. In order to execute the office one must have some basic understanding of A-Z. Trump thinks he can do the job without any of these qualities. Because... wait for it.. he's an idiot.

I think Fly needs a puppy.

Well as the clear and obvious choice - whom do you nominate?

I guess you're just not patriotic enough to vote for Rand Paul then. Pity.

NOT MANIC BRO NEVER SEEN CLEARER EYES WIDE OPEN

I would rather scroll past 100 5-screen-high AW posts, quoted by Mayo, than read another post of IQ arguments.

By what metric is "bureaucracy" larger under Obama than W?