The New American Politics thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Bernie has regularly outperformed the polling. I think he will win by 15-20 tomorrow night.

California is quite liberal and climate change is obviously a huge deal for that state. I think Bernie will do fantastic there.

The notion he's "outperformed" polling is not really true. He has...in caususes, but his results in primaries is nowhere near as good. The only primary states he's outperformed in are Vermont (doesn't count), Illinois and Oklahoma. Otherwise he's performed as expected or worse

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...n-out-of-them/

The polling average for Wisconsin has him up 2.7%. A couple polls have her ahead even. I expect he wins tomorrow night, but that the margin is inside 5%. California is never going 2:1 for Bernie, it might give him a win but again at best we're looking at a 5% or smaller margin. The available California polls have her up around 10%. Expecting a 40% shift is...well....banking on an indictment, because that's the only way it'll ever happen. Bernie has fought hard and done well, but math isn't biased and it shows he has almost no chance without an indictment. He would need a staggering shift of people to him, and nothing at all suggests its coming.

[Coach]

Why you always gotta poop on Bernie, SCD? We can dream. Just let us dream!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Why you always gotta poop on Bernie, SCD? We can dream. Just let us dream!

Dream then. It's probably the only way you'll see Bernie as the nominee. But when I see Bernie supporters acting like winning California by 25-30 points isn't some extreme long shot like it is, but rather as a "most likely scenario", I don't know what else to say. Michigan is pretty much their crutch there, but that polling error was easy to deduct and predictably hasn't occurred again since.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Are you suggesting that he's waging some secret campaign against the worst elements within his political ideological wing without anyone noticing?

I'll respond to this again as you clearly didn't understand me the first eime.

I assumed that the idea that he should/would be on an active campaign to tone-police liberals was hyperbole. Whether or not this was hyperbole, it kind of strongly hints that this is the standard you'd want to see: an active campaign.

Which is kind of crazy. He's the POTUS, not the nanny of the nation.

Let me ask you this: why is Obama in any way responsible for the "worst parts of the liberals"? He himself is a well-known centrist that at some point people around him suspected would join the Republicans. Extreme liberals commonly hate him. Many of those liberals don't even vote for the Democrats.

As a personal opinion, I really don't want the POTUS to spend his time herding cats, that's really not at all his job description.

The other thing I said was pretty much this:

You've built your own fantasy Obama out of things you're NOT seeing him do (enough). In other words, lack of existence of something used as proof of something else. Then you have your own expectations on what you'd WANT him to do. When it's your fantasy Obama vs. your expectations, what can anybody say to that?

You're not grounding anything you say in anything that Obama has actually done. The one thing you have mentioned that Obama has actually done is exactly the thing you want. So at best you have him at "he's not doing it as much as I'd like". Yet for some reason he's responsible for Trump.

Let's take your Federalist link as another example of why you're not making much sense.

You obviously have not simply read the facts of what happened from there, but agree with their interpretation of what happened. Considering the source, that should be a clear warning sign to yourself.

You have no idea why the White House decided to edit out the words "Islamist terrorist", and neither do I. You just decided it was because of White House political correctness gone haywire. If I was to guess, I think it's just as likely someone in Hollande's staff asked them to edit that out, because they care the most about it. It's also perfectly possible that the White House staff did edit it themselves. It's possible Obama didn't know, and would not have approved. It's possible he knows and approves. There's a possibility something happened we couldn't even guess. Mostly we don't know.

What we do know is this: It's incredibly small and really irrelevant. Is Obama to some extent responsible for the work of his staff? Of course. Can you point out to this behavior being somehow rampant? No you can't. More importantly, how this relates to Trump supporters I have no clue.

The other link you provided said that Obama used a stat about female sexual abuse that is pretty well established to be false. Sure. It's also probably the most commonly quoted number. I get why the wrong stat bothers you, but how does that in any way back your claim? How does an incorrect figure about violence against women make Trump supporters feel so bad about themselves that they feel they have to lash out by supporting Trump?

Also, if you want to talk about insanely kneejerk political rhetorics, you just turned Obama's public appeal to end violence towards women against him, because you don't like the statistic he used. Let me just say that it doesn't exactly make you seem like a guy that I'd be taking moral guidance from anytime soon.

Let me also suggest to you this: considering the way Obama behaves in public, my guess is that in his opinion it would be improper for the POTUS to try and tone-police the nation. Freedom of speech and all. I would however guess that he expects the people in his staff to reflect his values in their behavior, and those values clearly include respect towards the opposing views. To me that is the only thing he should be doing.

You may disagree, and I get THAT. What I really don't get is how on earth is liberal rhetorics in any way Obama's fault, when the cultural wars between liberals and democrats have been going on way before anyone knew who he was, and both sides of that war pretty much instantly started hating him and wouldn't listen to him anyway.

[Itse]

Another voting guide that I found funny:

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Can you give me examples of the bolded part so that I can follow your argument?

There are a bunch of things I couldn't find the links for and I don't want to spend hours combing through Twitter, but here's a few bits of crazy.

Guardian shuts down reader comments on any story having to do with race, immigration, or Islam.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...-three-topics/
CNN writer argues that "only" 64% of egyptians favour the death penalty for leaving Islam, and "only" 13 of 34 Muslim-majority countries implement that same death penalty, as if these are positive numbers.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinio...slim-comments/
All white people are racists, and all men are sexists.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...white-america/
Oregon student union proposes banning "I have a dream" for being inadequately inclusive.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/26/wh...-just-isnt-inc
I really probably could have skipped this list and just posted a link to Salon. They've basically made an entire website out of this stuff.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/we_b...errorists_too/
Bernie Sanders is a sexist because he doesn't allow himself to be interrupted by Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/opinio...ler/index.html
Bernie himself then says white people don't know what it's like to be poor or live in ghettoes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCHfH0WABTY
Cologne woman gives interview about her sexual assault on New Year's Eve; is subsequently accused of being a racist.
http://www.swr.de/landesschau-rp/nac...teu/index.html
Guardian columnist says that people upset about Cologne assaults are privileged; should be more understanding of the perpetrators.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-new-years-eve
Lifelong gay rights activist attacked for being transphobic and "inciting violence" by signing a letter supporting free speech.
http://archive.is/hiHu5
Correcting peoples' spelling is racist.
https://i.imgur.com/XRxXP2r.png
So is talking about whether or not affirmative action is a good policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-pot-and-more/
Straight women choosing to wear non-traditionally-feminine clothing constitutes cultural appropriation of lesbians.
http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2...ed-my-wardrobe
Health officials advise women to avoid pregnancy owing to outbreak of Zika virus; accused of sexism for not providing same advice to men.
http://www.damemagazine.com/2016/02/...virus-warnings
Conservative speaker tries to give speech; doors blockaded by protesters, fire alarm pulled, has to be escorted out by police for own safety.
http://abc7.com/news/ben-shapiro-esc...sters/1219358/
Zuckerberg says only way to fight back against terrorists is to make them feel cared for and loved.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ISIS-terrorism
Incidentally, Facebook and Twitter are actively censoring conservative posts under the guise of preventing harassment or "hate speech".
Researchers create study of "feminist glaciology"; conclude glaciers are sexist.
https://archive.is/fwnJS

There's a cross-section of craziness. If I was just doing University examples I could easily do a hundred more.
There's a loud contingent on this side of the political spectrum that has essentially gone totally off the deep end. Which is in no small part why Ora TV started Unsafe Speech - there's actually an audience of left-leaning people who are pissed off about it and want their political ideology back.

The most important thing to understand is that this is not just a series of isolated examples. This is everyday stuff. There are a huge contingent of people, especially young people, for whom this is how they see the world, and it's become far more significant in recent years. Everyone who disagrees isn't just wrong, they're evil: racist, sexist bigots, and are harassers, and are creating a threatening environment and engaging in micro-aggressions and on and on. This isn't just true of the David Dukes of the world, it's true of anyone who doesn't tow the party line (which is how you get lifelong gay rights activists being called bigots; there are tons of similar examples). There's a religious quality to the whole thing, hence I always refer people to this blog post which I think sums it up quite nicely:

http://goddoesnt.blogspot.ca/2016/01...egressive.html

Originally Posted by Itse

STUFF.

Thanks for expanding; I'm not sure I understand everything you're saying but it generally makes much more sense now.

I assumed that the idea that he should/would be on an active campaign to tone-police liberals was hyperbole. Whether or not this was hyperbole, it kind of strongly hints that this is the standard you'd want to see: an active campaign. Which is kind of crazy. He's the POTUS, not the nanny of the nation.

I think this is the main difference: you don't think he should say anything; I think he should. As the leader of the democratic party, he's effectively the spokesman for the left in America. You think he's a centrist, because you're from Finland and by Finnish (and Canadian) standards, he is. In the USA, he's the standard bearer for politically left-wing people. Consequently, what he says does matter to those people. Similarly, as the President, he has a ton of influence that can be brought to bear to talk about what he thinks is or is not the right ideological viewpoint. He wields this influence frequently. It would be nice if he did this sort of thing (which I referenced earlier) more often.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lly-surprised/

As to why he bears the onus of doing this, there are, so far, two political options in the United States: Democrats and Republicans. If you're not voting Democrat, you're voting Republican. When the average blue-collar worker looks at some of the craziness above, turns on his TV and sees BLM protestors suggesting that he's privileged and probably latently racist, sees Jezebel columns talking about how his enjoyment of porn makes him a soldier for the patriarchy, and feels like he needs to keep his mouth shut about how he isn't a big fan of Caitlyn Jenner for fear of being called transphobic, and worries about whether or not the government thinks Islamist terrorism really has nothing to do with Islam, he knows what side of the political spectrum all of this is coming from. When the Democratic President either doesn't seem to notice a problem here, or speaks in a way that seems more or less okay with it all, he's far more inclined to think, "This Donald Trump guy is a blowhard, but the other guys don't seem to get it at all".

That's why I say it's a missed opportunity for the Democrats, and for Obama, by ceding these conversations to Trump.

You've built your own fantasy Obama out of things you're NOT seeing him do (enough). In other words, lack of existence of something used as proof of something else. Then you have your own expectations on what you'd WANT him to do. When it's your fantasy Obama vs. your expectations, what can anybody say to that?

Still don't get this. I get now that what you mean by "fantasy Obama" is Obama doing the things I'd like him to do. Why is that surprising? Here's a leader I like, but wish he was doing X and Y instead of Z. Isn't that most people's view on any President, or any political figure for that matter? I think you might be putting too much emphasis on my "blame" of Obama and the left for complicity in Trump's rise - what I'm really saying here is that there are some simple things they should be doing, and doing them would have to some degree blunted this populist movement we're seeing. They haven't done those things. They've missed that opportunity. They've punted.

That said, it's the second part I don't understand - "proof of something else". Proof of what? I'm making the argument set out above - that failing to rein in the crazy leads people to distrust or reject the democrats and embrace Trump as "telling it like it is". If the Dems would just speak candidly and honestly on all issues, Trump's bluster wouldn't resonate the way it does.

You have no idea why the White House decided to edit out the words "Islamist terrorist", and neither do I. You just decided it was because of White House political correctness gone haywire. If I was to guess, I think it's just as likely someone in Hollande's staff asked them to edit that out, because they care the most about it. It's also perfectly possible that the White House staff did edit it themselves. It's possible Obama didn't know, and would not have approved. It's possible he knows and approves. There's a possibility something happened we couldn't even guess. Mostly we don't know.

It's certainly a fair point that Obama isn't himself to blame for this, personally. However, he has personally adopted a policy of mum's the word when it comes to linking any terrorist act to Islam, and so it's not surprising that this sort of thing would occur. Among the many terms Maajid has coined that I like, the "Voldemort Effect" is near the top of the list:

http://bigthink.com/videos/maajid-na...ldemort-effect

This stuff isn't small and irrelevant, as you suggest. It's an aspect of a problem within the left described in the James Lindsay link posted above. The right is well out in front in the race to batcrap crazyville - I fondly hope they've already arrived and aren't going to get any crazier from here, but that seems optimistic. My other hope, though, is that the left doesn't follow suit in the other direction, and we're starting to see it happen. The significant number of people who operate in this way, and treat their ideology as a sort of grievance based religion, are the precursors of our own version of the Tea Party.

Also, if you want to talk about insanely kneejerk political rhetorics, you just turned Obama's public appeal to end violence towards women against him, because you don't like the statistic he used. Let me just say that it doesn't exactly make you seem like a guy that I'd be taking moral guidance from anytime soon.

Nope. This is an obvious false dilemma, particularly because I explicitly said "I'm with you on the policy". It's therefore completely silly to suggest that I somehow turned the policy "against him". Surely we can be a bit more nuanced than that. I want policy focused on addressing sexual assault. I don't want hyperbole and made-up stats to try to catastrophize the situation on campus, because that just makes people suspicious about the whole endeavour. "You've just lied about the extent to which the problem exists, why should I listen to you at all", that sort of thing. It's like writing a recruitment pamphlet for MRAs. I'm for the policy, I'm against the rhetorical style. And for what? He's advancing a worthwhile, laudable goal. It doesn't need the window dressing.

Let me also suggest to you this: considering the way Obama behaves in public, my guess is that in his opinion it would be improper for the POTUS to try and tone-police the nation. Freedom of speech and all.

I disagree for the reasons I expressed at the top of the post - talking to the country about the way the country talks to each other is well within his role as a leader on the left and as President. But more importantly, doing so would not be an exercise in limiting speech, particularly if the message is to listen to one another rather than assuming everyone who disagrees with you is morally inferior. Your comment here suggests that by emphasizing the importance of a free exchange of ideas, this would somehow trench on people's right to oppose the free exchange of ideas. I know that's not what you're trying to say, but it follows necessarily from the suggestion that any "tone policing" by a President has free speech implications.

The TL;DR here is, I think you're taking my criticism farther than it was intended to go - which may be to some extent my fault, if I wasn't clear initially. I don't think the rise of Trump is solely on Obama, or even mostly on Obama. But I do think the Left is in some measure complicit for failing to speak sensibly and honestly about certain issues, usually out of concern for the potential of offending anyone at all (thereby validating those people who will inevitably be offended by anything they can). Frustration with this atmosphere has led a significant number of people to see Trump, bluster and all, as a breath of fresh air instead of the bag of gas he is - the most common thing you'll hear from any Trump supporter is that he's the best because "he tells it like it is", or "he calls it as he sees it". Consequently, the President and the Democratic party generally have missed an opportunity to stand up and say "let's all get some perspective and cut the crazy" - presumably because they benefit politically from the notion that Conservative Principles = Evil rather than Conservative Principles = Not Good for the Country.

[Vulcan]

and worries about whether or not the government thinks Islamist terrorism really has nothing to do with Islam, he knows what side of the political spectrum all of this is coming from. When the Democratic President either doesn't seem to notice a problem here, or speaks in a way that seems more or less okay with it all, he's far more inclined to think, "This Donald Trump guy is a blowhard, but the other guys don't seem to get it at all".
That's why I say it's a missed opportunity for the Democrats, and for Obama, by ceding these conversations to Trump.

Obama always refers to ISIL, he as far as I know never mentions Islamists. There are many levels and types of Islamists, some may not even hate or are a threat to the USA, so why antagonize them? Trump can go off on Islamists because he's a buffoon who doesn't know the difference or the political implications.

[RougeUnderoos]

nm

[2Stonedbirds]

Boston Bombing: Salon declares the Muslim community has nothing to answer for, bigots!

Charlestown shooting: Salon demands white america answer for the crime, bigots!

Good times. PBS it is.

[2Stonedbirds]

I'll give America one thing. They have successfully weaponized media and it's the most effective divide and conquer mechanism existing in the free world today.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think this is the main difference: you don't think he should say anything; I think he should. As the leader of the democratic party, he's effectively the spokesman for the left in America. You think he's a centrist, because you're from Finland and by Finnish (and Canadian) standards, he is. In the USA, he's the standard bearer for politically left-wing people.

Obama being a centrist in the US political map that is generally disliked or even hated by the strongly liberal elements of Democrats is IMO pretty well established. Just because the conservatives call him a socialist doesn't actually make him one. I don't see how the liberals consider him a standard bearer of any kind.

As to why he bears the onus of doing this, there are, so far, two political options in the United States: Democrats and Republicans. If you're not voting Democrat, you're voting Republican.

No. The most popular option is to not vote.

When the average blue-collar worker looks at some of the craziness above, turns on his TV and sees BLM protestors suggesting that he's privileged and probably latently racist, sees Jezebel columns talking about how his enjoyment of porn makes him a soldier for the patriarchy, and feels like he needs to keep his mouth shut about how he isn't a big fan of Caitlyn Jenner for fear of being called transphobic, and worries about whether or not the government thinks Islamist terrorism really has nothing to do with Islam, he knows what side of the political spectrum all of this is coming from.

First of all, your vision of "average blue collar worker" is outdated and frankly a rather insulting generalization.

Also, so what if some people blame Democrats or Obama for everything? It doesn't change anything in the relationship between Obama and the extreme liberals.

When the Democratic resident either doesn't seem to notice a problem here, or speaks in a way that seems more or less okay with it all, he's far more inclined to think, "This Donald Trump guy is a blowhard, but the other guys don't seem to get it at all".

Again, you're trying to build a case that because some other people don't understand or like liberals, it's somehow Obama's fault.

That's why I say it's a missed opportunity for the Democrats, and for Obama, by ceding these conversations to Trump.

Let's just see if Trump even manages to get a presidential candidacy, and then who wins the election. After all, if we go by your definition that there are only Democrats and Republicans (which is btw IMO rather clearly false when you look at the primary process of both parties), one might also notice that Trump is considered by many Republicans to be an absolute disaster for the Republican party and a guaranteed loser if he's the actual nominee.

Still don't get this. I get now that what you mean by "fantasy Obama"

Everything you've said about why you think Obama is in the wrong is built pretty much completely on what you're NOT seeing and what you think this might mean. There are no actual facts that you're basing any of this.

In comparison, someone who calls Obama a centrist might point out that he's rather hawkish on whistleblowers and civil rights in general and might want to discuss his tax policies. All things that can be tracked to actual things he (or his government at least) has actually done. Someone who dislikes his drone war can point to actual people killed under his watch and by a program that he has very clearly said is closely monitored by him personally. Someone who really likes him might point out Obamacare, which he clearly had a lot to do with.

If the Dems would just speak candidly and honestly on all issues, Trump's bluster wouldn't resonate the way it does.

I really don't see that.

This stuff isn't small and irrelevant, as you suggest. It's an aspect of a problem within the left described in the James Lindsay link posted above. The right is well out in front in the race to batcrap crazyville - I fondly hope they've already arrived and aren't going to get any crazier from here, but that seems optimistic. My other hope, though, is that the left doesn't follow suit in the other direction, and we're starting to see it happen. The significant number of people who operate in this way, and treat their ideology as a sort of grievance based religion, are the precursors of our own version of the Tea Party.

This part I agree with you to some extent. The culture war in the US is clearly heating up again. That said, I don't think this is local phenomenon. The US is IMO leading the way in this, like they often do. Political extremism in general is clearly on the rise again.

Personally however I simply can not see any reason why Obama would be in any way to blame for it.

I want policy focused on addressing sexual assault. I don't want hyperbole and made-up stats to try to catastrophize the situation on campus, because that just makes people suspicious about the whole endeavour. "You've just lied about the extent to which the problem exists, why should I listen to you at all", that sort of thing. It's like writing a recruitment pamphlet for MRAs. I'm for the policy, I'm against the rhetorical style. And for what? He's advancing a worthwhile, laudable goal. It doesn't need the window dressing.

Yeah, but you seem to actually CARE more about the false stat. Which okay seems to be very characteristic of you personally, it's like your trademark almost, being overly focused on numbers and details I don't agree with you using that point like that, and I guess more importantly the argument, I don't think most people care about details in that way.

If I was to guess why they went with that particular stat, it's because it's what the US feminists want to hear. It's a sad state of affairs that the POTUS bows to such nonsense, and while I kind of agree that yeah maybe they shouldn't do that, it's one of those hills that you have to be ready to die on if you bring it up, and I get why he doesn't want to do that.

Still, as much as crazy feminists get a bad rap for driving people away from feminism, I still put the responsibility for people to not be crazy chauvinist a-holes on people themselves. Blaming the other side is rather childish IMO.

Your comment here suggests that by emphasizing the importance of a free exchange of ideas, this would somehow trench on people's right to oppose the free exchange of ideas. I know that's not what you're trying to say, but it follows necessarily from the suggestion that any "tone policing" by a President has free speech implications.

I'm not really suggesting that it does, I'm just saying that Obama seems to me like that professor who doesn't intervene even when students start shouting at each other, as long as they don't actually start making threats or something like that. Stuff that is actually illegal. Which is a completely different reason to not start criticizing extreme liberal rhetorics than him sort of going along with it, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I don't think the rise of Trump is solely on Obama, or even mostly on Obama.

You did kind of sound like that at some point, but this does make more sense

But I do think the Left is in some measure complicit for failing to speak sensibly and honestly about certain issues, usually out of concern for the potential of offending anyone at all (thereby validating those people who will inevitably be offended by anything they can).

I think the generalizations you're making on who is doing what and why are just way overblown. One of the loudest group of people trying to get the worst of the PC police under control are various other liberals and feminists. It's clearly been one of the major topics of conversation in the last year or two in many liberal forums. I think I remember that you yourself considered yourself a liberal, and there you are blowing that same horn. I'm actually with you on that, to some extent. So no, I don't agree that "the left" is to blame here for being silently complicit, not anymore at least.

Frustration with this atmosphere has led a significant number of people to see Trump, bluster and all, as a breath of fresh air instead of the bag of gas he is - the most common thing you'll hear from any Trump supporter is that he's the best because "he tells it like it is", or "he calls it as he sees it". Consequently, the President and the Democratic party generally have missed an opportunity to stand up and say "let's all get some perspective and cut the crazy" - presumably because they benefit politically from the notion that Conservative Principles = Evil rather than Conservative Principles = Not Good for the Country.

I again fail to see why the Republican crazies are somehow the responsibility of the Democrats. Shouldn't it be the Republicans who should be reining in their crazies?

Besides, many Republican principles are in the axis of good or evil, not in the axis of good or bad for the country. Abortion bans don't mess up GDP, they mess up people's lives. Racism and a very poor and desperate lower class can actually be good for the everyone else, but it's still pretty evil. From a liberal point of view anyway. Gay rights are really insignificant for the country at large, but a huge deal for those people.

A really major point of the liberal movement since the age of Enlightenment is that there are fundamental human rights that should be measured on the individual level and not subjected to questions such as "is this good for the country".

Plus as I said: I don't see why the Democrats would want to hinder Trump. He's a terrible candidate making their political opponents look absolutely terrible.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump did that sit down with the Washington Post and the transcripts were a crazy read that showed he's clueless and has no depth. Bernie did a sit down with the New York Daily News and while it wasn't quite as disastrous, it certainly shows why he's avoided going into much depth with his policies and plans. Americans really have nothing but bad choices right now

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/t...icle-1.2588306

[Swift]

Trump outlines how he is going to finance the building of the Mexican wall...

The key to the wall’s financing, Trump wrote in a two-page memo to the Washington Post, is threatening to halt money transfers from Mexican immigrants in the US to family back home. These remittances amount to nearly $25bn each year, roughly 2% of the Mexican gross domestic product, according to the World Bank. Cutting off these money transfers could doom the Mexican economy to recession and severely damage diplomatic relations.
“It’s an easy decision for Mexico,” Trump wrote in the memo, written on campaign stationary emblazoned with his “Make America Great Again!” motto. “Make a one-time payment of $5-$10bn to ensure that $24bn continues to flow into their country year after year.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...an-remittances

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Trump outlines how he is going to finance the building of the Mexican wall...

So he's going to steal from American citizens?

[Fuzz]

No, he is going to threaten to, then the Mexican government will pay. It's a flawless plan that should go exactly how he expects.

[Red Ice Player]

All I want to see is someone haul off and kick Trump in the shallots, with meaning, on live television. Such an event would make me uncomfortably happy.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There are a bunch of things I couldn't find the links for and I don't want to spend hours combing through Twitter, but here's a few bits of crazy....

First of all, thanks for taking the time to post these links. I didn't read all of them in their entirety (and none of the one in German as I couldn't figure out how to translate it), but I tried to look through them all to get the gist of what the author was trying to say.

I do, however, disagree with your assertion that the links provided showed "the left behaving in an insane fashion". I felt that many of the articles didn't support your summation provided, and while I agreed or disagreed with some of the authors arguments (some were written from the perspective of the left and some from the right, neither of which had my full support), none of them showed any "insane" behavior and definitely none were of enough significance that I would expect a POTUS (either Democrat or Republican) to have to comment on them.

When I see the word "insane", I expect to see a lot more of an extreme view or action. This makes me think that either you are exaggerating to make a point or you are so far to the right that anything center or left is an extreme view. Either that or you have a different definition of "crazy" than I do.

[octothorp]

Big leads for Cruz and Sanders early in Wisconsin.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Cruz has won, Bernie's lead got up to 15% for about 10 seconds and now it's inside 5%. Win doesn't matter, obviously all about the margin.

[ResAlien]

Still don't understand how they can call a winner with 6% of districts reporting. Math, you so crazy.