Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

"Look at this attention seeking headline to drive traffic to my piece"

If they're smart progressives, are they aware of what will happen to the Supreme Court if Trump is elected?

I have asked that question R2 and they feel that the damage Hillary will cause in 4 years is worse than the damage Trump will cause, even factoring in a Supreme Court appointment.

R3, they should be made aware that there could be at least TWO Supreme Court appointments over the next 4 years:

- The vacant Scalia seat

- Ruth Bader Ginsburg

- And possibly Anthony Kennedy or Stephen Breyer

[quote]I have asked that question [R2] and they feel that the damage Hillary will cause in 4 years is worse than the damage Trump will cause, even factoring in a Supreme Court appointment.

Which means they're in fact absolute morons.

No R5

They are smart people who believe that the Clintons are evil people who are largely responsible for continuing the widening of the gap between rich and poor in America.

They particularly hate the Clintons because they represent the meritocracy-- both Hillary and Bill came from middle class families and rose to power based on their academic achievements. So there's this sense that the Clintons feel some people deserve to be poor and the good students deserve to be rich.

I don't agree with them, but they are not morons.

I will likely vote for Trump as well. Primarily on border/immigration issues. If we can't control who comes in here, nothing else matters.

Just say it, r7. You hate mexicans.

They are not smart and that article is horseshit.

R6 - You're insane - and you think Trump, a billionaire, will look out for the poor people better than the Clintons? Your logic is non-existent.

Valid point, R10.

At least the Clintons, particularly Bill, came from humble beginnings.

Some candidate Hillary is. Can't even run the economy, has to promise to put her feeble HUSBAND in charge. Disgusting.

They're not smart. If they were smart, they'd understand the concept of the lesser evil.

Oh yeah, R10 - Because the Clintons are SO HUMBLE. ROFLMAO.

There's one issue that proves that "progressives" who would vote for Trump over Clinton are either stupid or not progressive at all. The Supreme Court. The next president will decide if it tilts left or right. And that will affect this country for decades and will make the country much more regressive in the long run.

So, in fact, after reading the article, they are neither smart nor progressive.

Yup. That about sums it up, R16.

I will vote for Hillary, but I am not happy about it.

I still think that most DLers are in denial about how well Trump will do. They keep pointing out what an orange baboonical lunatic he is, not understanding that people do not care about that. If he sets himself on fire onstage during a debate with Hillary that still won't change a thing.

People want the US protected from illegal and Muslim immigration, and even a lunatic baboon is capable of shutting the borders down. That's what matters. If Hillary would just say SOMETHING to indicate that she is aware of the potential problems with accepting refugees from Isis troubled area it would go a long way to quell the fear.

The only reason I will stick with her is because of the Supreme Court issue.

r18 Nah, I'm finding many more are alright with letting rome burn... just to watch these sanctimonious pricks suffer.

we're all nazis for so little as a cricket's fart... it doesn't really matter anymore.

calling people stupid, idiots, self hating homophobes or whatever... isn't going to win people to your side. All those to the left made it clear they've got a strict policy on who's let into that party.

little to do with the candidates and everything to do with its supporters.

kind of like Ghostbusters.

If you're a progressive, you're the sanctimonious prick who will suffer (unless you're a homophobic racist Tea Party redneck - then you'll be just fine)

r21 so,

everybody saddle up and get yer woman card. only five bucks a piece.

Maybe buy some of Bernie's pyrite?

Trump's tanning lotion?

At least one of those is usable.

DL's Clintonistas really, really, really, cannot fathom why the rest of us do not see her for the glorious princess she really is.

Hence anyone who is against her is an idiot, a homophobe, a mouth-breather or a "freeper" come from Breitbart to spam them.

Precious little snowflakes are in for a rude awakening when they find out how unlike DL the rest of 'Murica is.

R23 well, the snowflakes will still have academia.

R23, I think you're overlooking the fact that many of us are aware that Hillary is far from perfect.

However, we are also aware that Trump is a loose cannon and that he cannot be trusted to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Sorry R25, but SOME of you are aware she is far from perfect.

MOST of you think that Jesus was a bad, morally corrupt, penis-owning person in comparison

L.A. is experiencing some rather frightening issues right now, today, things are happening all over town.

California WILL be voting Trump.

"Yves Smith is the pen name of Susan Webber, a principal of Aurora Advisors and publisher of the Naked Capitalism economics blog."

says it all!

Why does that "say it all" R28?

Because she's a woman? A blogger? A Wall Streeter?

I've grown to dislike the term progressive. The arguments this author puts forth are why. I agree with the premise that if elected Hillary Clinton will probably to little to nothing to address the redistribution of wealth to the top 1% and decreasing class motility in the United States. By do nothing I mean she may mention it on occasion but come no where no to make it a priority. Just like her Democratic Party predecessors Obama and Bill Clinton.

Supreme Court appointees are important to me but I think a lot of those likely to vote don't see it that way. Except now they may. The Republicans blocking the appointment of a new justice makes it an issue people are looking at. (As far as being an issue in previous elections - that can be a difficult case to make. Reagan appointed tow justices. Both of whom ended up being considered swing votes.)

You aren't politically progressive if you vote for Trump over Clinton It's not complicated. If you value your economic well being more than you do rejecting racism and sexism then you aren't a progressive.

My own guess is that people who call themselves progressive and would vote for Trump over Clinton consider themselves progressive because they do curb side recycling. Just to be clear only curb side.

No, R6, they are stupid. This isn't jr high and the student council election. And concern about the Clintons who worked for their successes, over Donald Trump who was handed his? Maybe they should get their heads out of their asses and read a little history. Rarely do I hope people die in a grease fire, but these people really are too stupid to breathe.

R6 is correct.

What R6 does not mention is that the Clintons are Republicans.

R10 and R11,

The Democrats — which you can call The Clinton Party — do not look out for the poor.

The party used to do that. Poverty was greatly important more than five decades ago with Lyndon Johnson. But the Democrats stopped.

Bill Clinton’s humble beginnings are just that — early in his life. He and Hillary are well fed.

Democrats look after the poor more than the Republicans do. And those are your choices. And the Clintons are not Republicans, unless you live in Delusional-Trumpworld.

I do know some progressives who say they will vote for Trump if Clinton is our nominee.

They are out there. No sense trying to stick our head in the sand and pretend it's not true.

That was such a crock of shit I could not get past the 2nd paragraph

R35 - Then they aren't progressives.

The reason the Clintons have moderated their positions is quite simple. The progressive vote has never delivered.

Bill Clinton's centrism was in direct response to Democrats losing three presidential elections in a row. He was expected to deliver health care, but had no support against the Republicans in '94, just as Obama got no support in 2010.

It won't matter to the too holy progressives who insist there is no difference between Trump and Clinton. These types are always around and never suffer under the Reagans, the Bushes, or the Trumps.

Cool story Bro.

DL must be more popular than I've realized if they're sending republican trolls to post here.

If you don't by now understand that Republicans play dirty, they are dangerous and the damage that they do is far reaching. You are neither smart, nor are you progressive. Supreme court justices are appointed not for 4 years or 8 years, but for life. The Citizens United (corporations are people) decision struck an ugly blow to our attempt at democracy, thanks to the Republican Supreme Court justices. When Republicans gerrymander districts (as they like to do). We're stuck with that for 10 years. It will no and possibly forever be more difficult for certain segments of the population to vote, because Republican justices gutted The Voting Rights Act.

Because Democrats, like her friends, don't consistently show up to support Democrats. The progressive agenda that they claim to support is not possible and will not be possible. Because of Democrats, like her friends, Republicans control congress and most state governments. Because of Democrats, like her friends, our politics keep shifting to the right. Because of Democrats, like them, a moderate Democrat is the best that we can do.

Maybe voting every 4 years in the presidential election (if the perfect progressive shows up) accomplishes nothing. Hillary is not the problem. Democrats like her and her friends are the problem.

R40, I think it is you who is the paid troll......

As head of the Correct The Record Super Pac for HIllary Clinton, David Brock has launched something called the Barrier Breakers.... an online mob of paid trolls designed to attack any and every person who says one cross word about Hillary on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,l Reddit, or elsewhere.

R38,

Then it is your advice that no one who is actually a true progressive should ever vote Democratic.

I appreciate that someone here said it.

R42 Being that Republican trolls spam any and everything posted on the internet with their toxic nonsense. I can completely understand why that is necessary.

Another link about Clinton's paid trolls.

It's more than possible, R41.

Assholes like you make sure to vote against it - and this helps neoliberals like Hillary.

You're a loser piece of shit and are corrupt in your own way - just as all of Hillary's primaries voters.

Um hm Bernie Bro@R46

If you don't by now understand that Republicans play dirty, they are dangerous and the damage that they do is far reaching. You are neither smart, nor are you progressive. Supreme court justices are appointed not for 4 years or 8 years, but for life. The Citizens United (corporations are people) decision struck an ugly blow to our attempt at democracy, thanks to the Republican Supreme Court justices. When Republicans gerrymander districts (as they like to do). We're stuck with that for 10 years. It will no and possibly forever be more difficult for certain segments of the population to vote, because Republican justices gutted The Voting Rights Act.

Because Democrats, like her friends, don't consistently show up to support Democrats. The progressive agenda that they claim to support is not possible and will not be possible. Because of Democrats, like her friends, Republicans control congress and most state governments. Because of Democrats, like her friends, our politics keep shifting to the right. Because of Democrats, like them, a moderate Democrat is the best that we can do.

Maybe voting every 4 years in the presidential election (if the perfect progressive shows up) accomplishes nothing. Hillary is not the problem. Democrats like her and her friends are the problem.

R32 wins! Exactly.

Yeah because the democratic candidate can be far left but still appeal to those "independents" that he/she will need to replace the liberal voters who don't show up.

[quote]California WILL be voting Trump.

You're the same shill who's been insisting that black people will vote for Turnip, aren't you?

You really should stay off the internet until the brown acid wears off.

[quote] The reason the Clintons have moderated their positions is quite simple. The progressive vote has never delivered.

So you point is that we should accept a change in position based upon current polls? I hope you are a straight upper- income white male. Otherwise get ready for your civil rights to be taken away based upon your premise.

There are no progressives voting for that thing. NONE. I swear Alex Jones is NOT paying enough nickels. If I were you idiotic trolls, l would seek employment somewhere else.

That article made progressives look dumb.

Trump is the man who used the words "Mexican" as pejorative to describe a federal judge.

Today he pointed to the only black person at his rally and called him 'My African American' as if wistful for that time when slavery wasn't abolished.

He has opined that we should grant nuclear weapons freely like candy. Then later he recanted and said he never said he wanted Japan to have nukes (yes he did).

There's not a more shallow, empty vessel than Donald Trump and the people that support him has to be equally shallow and vile.

Well, I think Trump gets 18% of the black vote(easy). And, if he does, he wins.

More black males than black females, but still..... my prediction is that he gets at least 18% of the black vote.

If you watch the face of Van Jones on CNN, he knows it and has actually spoke about it with worry. He said Clinton definitely has to get between 90 to 92% of the black vote to win, and he is skeptical about Clinton being able to do that.

AGain this is the man who just called the ONLY black person at his rally MY AFRICAN AMERICAN R54. If you think that reminding black people that they were once Owned by Whites is the way to get 18% of the black vote then you're an idiot.

Come on R55..... you are really stretching it and sound like a total fool.

I'm telling you. Listen to Van Jones when he talks about the subject. He damn well knows that Trump is going to get a much bigger chunk of the black vote than Republican candidates in the past.

The good students do deserve wealth if they are also good business minds in as adults. Meritocracy of the Clintons and Obamas is a good thing. R6 The meritocracy are NOT the people who think the poor are losers and deserve nothing, by the way.

[quote]If you watch the face of Van Jones on CNN, he knows it and has actually spoke about it with worry. He said Clinton definitely has to get between 90 to 92% of the black vote to win, and he is skeptical about Clinton being able to do that.

Van Jones is a Bernie Bro, pure and simple. He has no magic insight on the black vote. Really.

Turnip will be lucky to get 10% of the AA vote, 8 percent of the Latino vote. They aren't stupid.

R56 LOL Comments on black twitter:

""Look at my African American over here" he's talking to him as if he's a toy smh Queens added

Reggie Bush wrote: "Look at my African American friend!" Who says that??? Like yes I got one on my side see everybody look! Lord Help U"

"Look at my African American" he didn't even know the mans name. Disgusting DOH D▲DDY added,"

"He said “my African-American… He was sitting there BEHAVING when protesters came in”….. Like he’s a child "

"If anyone ever says of me, "look at MY African-American," I'm going ALL THE WAY off."

I'd say it's not going well for Trump with African Americans.

I believe Romney got 6% of the black vote. Trump will triple that with ease. Hence, 18%.

And, since I know I'm right, I'm bumping this thread after the election.

NOBODY who votes for Trump over Hillary can be called 'smart'.

If the "smartest" people you know are voting for Trump over Hillary, then you know a bunch of blithering idiots.

[quote]the Clintons, particularly Bill, came from humble beginnings.

White Tiger kids

[Quote] He has no magic insight on the black vote. Really.

And somehow you do?

[quote] I believe Romney got 6% of the black vote. Trump will triple that with ease. Hence, 18%. And, since I know I'm right, I'm bumping this thread after the election.

[quote] The idea that Trump would succeed where no GOP candidate has succeeded since Richard Nixon in 1960 is mystifying, especially since the billionaire is running a campaign fueled by appeals to racial anxiety and hostility, xenophobia, and economic distress. Vague platitudes about economic uplift and flashy public-relations events with conservative black ministers have long been the bread-and-butter of Republican minority outreach efforts, and have long yielded little return. This is especially true when race is evident. Though not single-issue voters, African Americans often use their racial identity and experience as a guiding principle, informing their decisions on politics and political candidates. And with Trump, their opinion is overwhelmingly negative.

R65, that author's opinion is more relevant than Van Jones' because?

Again, I'll be sure to bump this thread after the election.

Incidentally, when I predicted a 10 seat pickup for the Republicans in the 2014 election, most of you said I was crazy/a troll.

I was one off. They got 9.

Course, the media political "experts" were predicting a 1 to 2 seat loss for the Republicans. That was their best analysis/HOPE. They were dead wrong, and the reason they were wrong is because they never actually tried to make a factual prediction. They were just trying to shape the election. That's all!

[quote] [R65], that author's opinion is more relevant than Van Jones' because?

I didn't address the relevance of Mr. Jones' comments. .

I genuinely think the US is beyond reform. No president can solve its problems. Trump has a good chance of becoming a dictator and destroying the entire system of government. I see this as a good thing in the medium to long term. Bring on the deluge!

[quote] Again, I'll be sure to bump this thread after the election. Incidentally, when I predicted a 10 seat pickup for the Republicans in the 2014 election, most of you said I was crazy/a troll. I was one off. They got 9. Course, the media political "experts" were predicting a 1 to 2 seat loss for the Republicans. That was their best analysis/HOPE. They were dead wrong, and the reason they were wrong is because they never actually tried to make a factual prediction. They were just trying to shape the election. That's all!

What planet were you on. For probably well over a year everyone, Democrats and Republicans, Independents, everybody talked about how many seats Democrats would lose. The Democrats seemed to have just plain given up. The general consensus was that it would be a blood bath. As we moved closer the election the predictions got even worse.

Utter bullshit, R72.

Silly Hillbots

A lot of progressives I know look at Trump's prior life as a liberal Democrat and have decided that his choice for Supreme Court won't be any worse than hers.

OP is right-- no one would have said this about Biden.

Bravo R73. That's a brilliant way to describe most of your commentary.

[quote]I genuinely think the US is beyond reform. No president can solve its problems.

Finally wisdom! The US has become far too large, too populous to solve the problems of crime, an unending and voracious bureaucracy, failures in health care, education, inability to protect its borders and citizens. The only solution left to the US is to break up into smaller, more efficiently and easily administered entities. Otherwise, it will continue down the disintegration and 3rd world shithole road.

Did Biden vote for the invasion of Iraq? Because that alone proves Hillary has nothing to do with any progressive thought.

Well, r70, I'm glad that we agree that the article has no more relevance than any other article or political opinion (unless we are dealing with a verified, highly accurate psychic) and is designed to comfort and reassure nervous leftists who are afraid that they might be losing control of their blacks. The truth is that if you truly believed that Trump had no chance of making inroads with blacks, you wouldn't bat an eye when someone else says that he can. That's if you truly think the very idea of it is as outlandish as many of you say it is.

David Brock is one of the worst things to happen to the Democratic party. He should have just kept sucking R. Emmett Tyrell's dick and.stayed away from Hillary. She lost in '08 largely thanks to him, and he isn't doing her any favors this election cycle either.

[quote] Silly Hillbots A lot of progressives I know look at Trump's prior life as a liberal Democrat and have decided that his choice for Supreme Court won't be any worse than hers. OP is right-- no one would have said this about Biden.

Being that he has stated that he would appoint anti gay justices. Yes his choice would be worse than any Democrat.

Being that Republican justices gave us the Citizens United (corporations are people) unlimited cash decision. Yes his choice would be worse than any Democrat.

Being that Republicans justices gutted the Voting Rights Act. Yes his choice would be worse than any Democrat.

And any progressive knows that. You don't know progressives. You know regressive idiots.

Well, I remember that the media and DL were giddy that Kansas, Georgia, and Kentucky were going to turn blue in 2014. Didn't happen.

Hell, Chris Matthews was practically salivating. However, since I live in Georgia, I damn well knew that call was wrong. Nunn didn't have a chance and neither did Jimmy Carter's grandson

You do know R77 that whether we were going to invade Iraq or not did not hinge on Clinton's vote. It was going to happen because the Bush administration wanted it to happen and they claimed anyone who was anti war was not patriotic. Clinton also voted for a plan based on US inspection first. It's just that Bush backed out of that and went directly to war.

Here's what she said partly at the time: "I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise."

Now here's where she mentions the contingency: "Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation"

Those are the words of someone who's not a warmonger as you and Bernie tried to portray her.

R76, as Jay said in the Federalist Papers (#2), a single union made sense in 1776 because Americans were one people, living in one country, descended from the same ancestors, with a common religion, a common language, common cultural values, and common enemies. Many of those considerations no longer apply today. America is a multi-racial, multi-language, multi-religion nation and the gulf in values between parts of the nation seems unbridgeable.

Moreover, the Constitution itself was always pretty undemocratic, and more of a charter for plutocracy. It was designed to make it difficult to reform and to give land owners more rights than people (like giving every state 2 votes in the Senate). The "Founding Fathers" would have been uniformly hostile to anti-racism and socialism.

Countries exist because people in different regions disagree about social questions and want governments that agree with their values. Breaking up America makes sense from democratic grounds, if you can accept you'll no longer have the world's only superpower to defend your interests.

NOBODY who is actually a progressive would ever vote for Trump.

Yeah R76, good idea genius - they're called STATES. The Federal government is the problem - it is too big and carries too many regulations and bureaucracies that do not fairly serve the people. Only the fat cats in business and in Washington are served. Can you not see that?

Haha, the douchenozzle who wrote this sounds like Trump himself. "My readers are super-smart. I've got some of the smartest, most highly educated progressives around. Everyone agrees the progressives who visit my website are the smartest."

R84, Clinton voted for the war, and these after the fact justifications are nonsense. The US kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq then invaded. I knew it was bullshit and so did she. She also learned nothing afterwards, destroying Libya.

Hillary Clinton is an evil pro-Israel warmonger. Vote for her if you want to, but don't pretend the facts are other than they are.

R85 has been brainwashed by right-wing propaganda.

[quote] True progressives, [bold]as opposed to the Vichy Left[/bold] [my bold], recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along.

Oh God, get fucked you fucking cunt. I thought Politico was a serious website..

We can't even begin to restore all lost from 1980 to now unless we shut the borders.

[quote] many of the fiercest critics of Clinton in the commentariat are women, with handles like HotFlash, Katniss Everdeen, Martha r, Portia, Bev and Pat.

Seriously, who is this ridiculous person?

Either way it goes, Trump or Clinton, the next 4 years are going to suck. BOTH parties need to get their shit together NOW for 2020. This is fucking ridiculous. 300 million + people in this country and these two fucking ridiculous cunts are the best we can do? I am fucking ashamed.

Those aren't after the facts justifications. Those were her words at the time of the vote.

How old are you R87? It seems you know little of that time after 9/11 and are regurgitating something you've read on a flyer. Hillary did not have the power you give her. She was not the President and it was Bush who circumvented all the process he was supposed to go through and decided to go to war. It's incredible how you're trying to rewrite history now.

R93, I lived through it all and knew the war was utter bullshit.

Hillary's ass-covering is almost more offensive than if she'd just declared she wanted to murder Iraqis for 9/11, which was what most Americans believed at the time. It's nonsense. She voted for the war despite no evidence justifying it. Fuck Hillary.

In a perfect world Dr. Jill Stein would be our next president. But the green party is too threatening and weird for many Americans. The media gives her zero support but they cover every Trump fart and Hillary cackle. Bernie is the second best choice.

R82 Race baiting and hate mongering to appeal to the elderly Republican KKK base will never win favor or votes from significant numbers of Black people. Are you under the impression that Blacks are unaware of the bigoted toxic rhetoric spewed by Republicans? Its all over the internet. Right wing talk radio and Fox News make millions broadcasting it 24 hrs a day. Republicans couldn't get away from that if they tried. Not that they ever would. That would mean abandoning their base. Which they would never do. They painted themselves into that corner and the will remain there in their white sheets & hoods. And Blacks and other racial minorities will stay far away.

You make little sense R94. You were around after 9/11 and so you didn't believe what almost every Americans believed at the time which was that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction? Then you were a clairvoyant of the HIGHEST ORDER and knew something no one else did. Funny how you shirked all the responsibility away from Bush and shoved it on to Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she clearly said at the time that her vote was not for war but for an inspection. Funny how your memory overlooks the role the actual President of the United States as well as Dick Cheney and the Republican administration played in that war and how you put it all down to Hillary.

Anyone who've looked at the issue takes a more nuanced view of that time and that vote:

While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.

Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war—and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.

"On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a “mistake” which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president’s war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large."

R95, Jill Stein has never gone through a primary process. And judging by her twitter posts, she's kind of an idiot and would make a terrible President.

That's DR. Jill Stein, and she is the most intelligent of all the candidates.

Ha, R90. I thought the same thing after reading her posts. My reaction was THIS is the person Bernie supporters are going on and on about? WOW, she's a fidiot..

Bernie is actually a terrible choice. I have to wonder if his supporters actually pay attention to the man, or if they're just high on misogyny (Hillary Hate) and the idea of free stuff. I can't imagine how anyone can look at the actual man and think he'd be a good President.

He's way too thin-skinned for the job. He's walked out on four, count-em, FOUR interviews the moment they asked a question he didn't like. His inner circle is entirely straight white men. No diversity. Casual racism & sexism permeate his entire campaign. His interview with the New York Daily News was a disaster, where it became clear he has no clue how to implement his grand promises... even on issues that are core to his campaign. He just doesn't know. Just like he's admitted he knows nothing about California's water issues, or anything about Latin America in recent interviews.

In his quarter century in Congress (both House and Senate) he hasn't managed to put together ANY network of support. He got very few endorsements from his coworkers. He's been shown (and proven) to alienate those who should be his natural allies. Without a network of support, he wouldn't be able to get anything done.

He'd make a terrible President.

Well, the other day did you hear Obama sounding like Porky Pig?

His attempted Trump takedown wasn't exactly effective!

He's never good when he goes off the teleprompter

R54 You are speaking the absolute truth. I don't doubt for a moment that none of the black DLers can stand Trump, and I'm sure that their circle of friends say the same thing. But step outside the realm of educated forward thinking AA and you better believe there are more than a handful of them who prefer Trump....mostly because of his stance on Mexicans. I;m talking about the sort of AAs who are wholly disenchanted with Obama and feel like he has turned his back on his own people.(yes, they truly do exist.) They see Hillary as an extension of Obama type thinking and policy, and I don't think I have to remind anyone here how they feel about Obama and his apparent dedication to moving G&L issues to the front of his agenda. Why we LOVE him is exactly why they don't. I think that 15-18% sounds just about right, and that could be disastrous for Clinton.

R98: Everyone who was paying attention knew Bush and Cheney were lying America into a war. The entire thing was incredibly obvious.

Stick your "nuance" up your ass. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Hillary is just another neocon warmonger. She's a war criminal and she belongs in jail with Bush.

I was one of the millions of people protesting against the war. We all knew it was bullshit. Hillary either was too stupid, or just didn't give a shit about murdering Iraqis as long as it was convenient.

Everyone who supported that war should fucking kill themselves.

R104 here again. I just wanted to emphasize that the contingency I am referring to do not post on Twitter or have informed political discussions online.

I posted last week that my Haitian housekeeper is a big fan of Trump and I doubt that she saw the disconcerting event at his rally in which he was so patronizing to "his African American." Have you seen the two black middle aged ladies who frequently appear on CNN praising Trump? I think they go by Diamond and Silver or something like that. They are not a particularly "informed" twosome.

Look, I am not trolling nor am I a Freeper, I am merely saying that you are kidding yourself if you think that Hillary has the AA vote in the bag.

This thread is just a lot of Trumpies wanking each other, right?

R107, I still think MOST AA will vote for Hillary. True, some AA will vote for Trump, but it won't change the fact that the majority will vote for Hillary. You can always find people willing to vote against their best interest, in this case AA voting for Trump. Thankfully though they seem to belong to the minority, at least for now.

It's a choice between two more republican justices or another war in the middle east. Chew on some nails or fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

The only reason why they should vote for Hillary is the Supreme Court appointments. God knows who Trump would appoint... Ted Cruz? Ivanka? John Barron? Beyonce?

It's actually a choice between a smart, coalition building person with the ability to create and implement policy and an attention seeking reality star uninterested in public service or governing. Those of us with common sense and experience will be voting for the liberal who will chose the next two Supreme Court justices. The rest of you will continue sitting on your asses trolling gay websites.

r112

Hillary Clinton seems to be the only politician who has paid a price of any kind for supporting the Iraq War, even though her support was not pivotal and not without nuance. Once again, it's only a problem when Hillary does it.

People don't need much knowledge of history to remember the reason we went to war was George W. Bush. The war was unimaginable without Bush/Cheney. Yet, we seem thrilled to repeat the pattern - treating Hillary like Gore, Trump like Bush, and Sanders like Nader.

Gore was called a warmongering, corporate empty suit. History is repeating itself, with an even more obnoxious Republican ready to take the spoils of the progressives' insistence on purity.

Hillary is far from perfect. She's also best qualified of all the candidates.

[quote]I believe Romney got 6% of the black vote. Trump will triple that with ease. Hence, 18%.

18% of black voters are going to vote for the guy with a Klan endorsement? Lay off the brown acid, son.

How exactly is Cornel West wrong?

Farrakhan preaches...

The Bernie troll (OP) is now the Trump troll- you would think he'd wait till Wednesday! Not going down with the ship?

Cornell West is hated in the black community because he criticizes Obama. Not saying that's good or bad just the way it is.

Progressives should wear I voted for Trump buttons if he wins though. I'd like to know who to punch in the face when things go to shit.

Hillary supporters are too complacent. That will be her downfall. A lot can happen between now and November.

So basically they just hate women so much that they'd vote for a buffoon over Hillary

Textbook wingnut strategy. Respond to any and all criticism of Turnip with "Hillary SUX!", over and over and over and over and over.

Mentally stable black voters are not, I repeat not, gonna vote for the guy with a Klan endorsement. Period.

[QUOTE]Progressives should wear I voted for Trump buttons if he wins though. I'd like to know who to punch in the face when things go to shit.

You work for Vox, R120?

How Some of the Lamest Idiots I Know Are Making Weak-ass Attempts to Get People to Vote For Trump

It's interesting the way that leftists, who don't know a thing about African Americans or African American history (outside of blacks were slaves and marched for their rights), always seem to know what is or isn't in our best interests.

Great post, R38, with very legitimate points. People don't remember the dark days of after Gingrich took over the House. It was all Clinton could do to keep things from going upside down. All this far right legislation, the fact that he got any moderate legislation at all is a tribute to his success as a politician. Anyone who calls themselves progressive and votes for Trump is a moron.

No, they will NOT vote for Trump. Worst case scenario: They won't vote at all. Which is just as bad.

Hillary Clinton, the Milli Vanilli of politics. Priceless.

R114 says "Bush started the war, so Hillary supporting it is somehow forgivable"

You're factually wrong. About every vocal supporter of the Iraq invasion paid a political price. Kerry had a hard time getting elected in 2004. Obama probably got in precisely because he wasn't contaminated by Iraq.

Everyone who enabled the US to go to war should be in jail. Bush, Cheney, every single representative and congress member who voted for it, AIPAC, PNAC, the journalists. All of them.

Kerry easily beat Dean, who vocally opposed the war. Kerry lost to Bush, who started the war. If a price was paid in 2004, it was borne by those who opposed or questioned the war.

Clinton lost to an unknown in 2008, who was championed almost solely for opposing the war. Eight years later, Trump and Sanders supporters act like she designed and executed the war. Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld are unscathed. Again. If a price was paid for supporting the war, it's only been paid by Hillary.

R126: pasty white fat boy posting from Mom's basement

That is possibly the most convoluted logic I've ever seen on DL, R131

You should be proud of yourself.

r111, we already know, he released his list.

[quote]No, they will NOT vote for Trump. Worst case scenario: They won't vote at all. Which is just as bad.

The African Americans I know rather like Hillary, and I'm guessing will likely vote for her.

Trump will not get 18% of the African American vote no matter how many times the loony toons post that. Cornel West is not a beloved figure in the African American community. He's considered a complete jackass. Obama is still quite popular with the African American community and got 95% and 93% respectively in the two elections. He's going to campaign on behalf of Hillary. Michelle Obama already took a dig at Trump in her commencement speech.

The minstrel show that is those two ladies who support Trump do not have any influence. The one and only black guy at his rally who he called 'my African American' turned out to be some guy running for office. He's definitely not attracting rank and file black people to his rallies much less to the voting booth.

First hand accounts of people who showed up at the rally in Chicago and who happened to be black said they were stared at by the all white Trump audience with hostility.

So no, there is no huge movement of support for Trump. He will get the normal amount of black, gay and hispanic support the Republicans always get and probably even less than that. There's zero evidence that HIllary Clinton takes the votes of African American for granted. That's why they voted for her in droves and that's why she wins all the states that have a larger AA population and Bernie Sanders wins the ones that are majority white.

Many blacks are destitute since the illegals undercut wages and took their jobs. Trump needs to have rallies in black areas and remind them of this sad fact.

Except, in LA, there are no longer any black neighborhoods -- they are now crowded with Mexicans, again undercutting blacks and costing them political power.

This is Jewish revenge aimed at the blacks for burning down Jewish stores in the various riots.

We should rescind white people's right to vote for 30 years (until the fundies all die) and only let African Americans vote instead. Seriously. Better judges of character as proven by the disdain for crooks Trump, Bush, Reagan, or Nixon- the ones white people so loved.

AA's need to improve on one thing: TURN OUT. Especially mid-terms. Ditto Latinos, single women, youth.

Black turn out for the primary has been low, so I wouldn't say that they voted for her in droves. I think Trump is going to target African American voters by addressing the issues that when unaddressed and unchanged under Obama. About 20% of AAs consider themselves ideologically conservative, 50% moderate, and another 20% liberal. It would not be impossible to pull some of those conservatives and moderates to the Republican side if they put in the effort and strike the right chord. It's naive to assume that AAs only care about race.

African Americans have good voter turnout despite all the obstacles thrown in front of them. The problem is Latinos: they do not fucking vote. If they did, Texas would have turned blue a long time ago.

[quote]The problem is Latinos: they do not fucking vote.

They are too busy working three jobs at Jewish wages, trying to stay afloat.

[quote]It would not be impossible to pull some of those conservatives and moderates to the Republican side if they put in the effort and strike the right chord. It's naive to assume that AAs only care about race.

So implicit acceptance of a Klan endorsement and calling "look, there's my black friend!"? Do those count as "right chords"?

LOLOL

I hate sexual predators and those that spend their nearly entire adult life cleaning up after them. I could never vote for Hillary.

R143 What about Indiana born and raised Judge Curial. Him With Little Hands said he's biased because of his "Mexican heritage" and that he has it out for him because the Donald wants to build a wall.

Think that'll get him the Hispanic vote? These Trump Trolls are unbelievable.

R44, your reply just baffles me. Trump is more of a sexual predator than Bill Clinton ever could be, but by saying you can't vote for Hillary, you're saying you're actually better with Trump winning. Which is just FUCKING INSANE.

The hypocritical bullshit and lack of self-awareness in Hillary Bashers is just jaw-dropping.

Wow so nobody here actually know what a sexual predator is?

Trump more of a sexual predator? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you really believe that shit? There's the sexual harassment of Monica Lewinsky. Paul Jones. All the affairs. At least eight rape accusations. About 20 trips to pedo island while ditching his secret service protection. Then you have Hillary her spent nearly her whole adult life being a cum rag cleaning up after him. Are you fucking kidding me? Do you really believe what you just typed? Are you that fucking delusional? Plus I wouldn't vote for Trump.

This is just one issue. How could anyone, with the slightest of moral compass, possibly vote for Hillary? She's disgusting. They both are.

Trump was accused of rape; Clinton accused - neither convicted, so must be assumed innocent. They're both philanderers. You know who isn't? Hillary. So between those 2, she wins by your own standards, r44.

Well Clinton did settle with one of his victims and there is no doubt about the workplace harassment of Monica Lewinsky. You can say she was all for it if you want but it is a classic power structure where she could not give consent. Then the way he dealt with it was a farce. Especially Hillary going around on all the talk shows saying it was a vast right wing conspiracy. Fucking liar. Bill Clinton's whole life shows pattern. You know. It's just that he's your sexual predator so you don't care. You're just as filthy and by turning a blind eye almost as guilty.

If they're voting for Trump, how "smart" can they be?

R148 I believe Trump's own (ex) wife accused him of rape. Since you say accusations makes someone guilty then I guess that means that Trump is a sexual predator.

I'd vote for anybody who'd advance the Democratic platform (and help prevent the Republican 'screw the poor' platform.) Hillary will do that.

You act like I'm defending Trump. Which I 'm not. OK let's label him a sexual predator. Now let me hear you say Clinton is. :

"“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.” Hillary Clinton

Then they deserve what they will get. #HillaryorBust

R148 demonstrates that to support and/or defend Trump, one has to be amazingly ignorant of Trump, who he is, and what his history is.

Trump supporters are just stunningly ignorant. If not downright stupid.

Work place harassment is only takes place when you aren't interested in the boss. There was no harassment of Monica Lewinsky.

HILLARY is not a sexual predator.

Jesus Christ.

Given the choice between Hillary and Trump, it's no contest: Hillary by ten-thousand miles.

Donald Trump is a pathological liar, a sexual predator, a sociopath, a racist, a misogynist, a fascist authoritarian, a bully, and an ideologue.

So given all that, what the FUCK is your point trying to dredge up 20+ year old allegations against someone who isn't Hillary Clinton in order to depress voter turnout for her?

How much is Trump or Karl Rove paying you, I wonder?

OP, I know ONLY progressives and NONE will vote fore trump, not one single one.

you're a troll

Well R158 it has been reported that Rove and Trump finally met in the last day or so which makes me feel the online posts bashing any democrats will multiply. I can already see it happening here.

R157 - do some research buddy. You interpretation of work place harassment is wrong.

Turnip's lawyer also said on the telly that case law repeatedly proves that by law, you can't rape your spouse.

Stupid or evil? I really can't decide.

[quote] So given all that, what the FUCK is your point trying to dredge up 20+ year old allegations against someone who isn't Hillary Clinton in order to depress voter turnout for her?

Nice try. She is just as bad as her husband. The fact that she stayed married to him is proof of that.

Conservatives are so stupid, really.

R163, you have an opinion, then look for a justification for it. It's dishonest & neurotic.

[QUOTE]OP, I know ONLY progressives...

Really? And you're proud of how insular you are, R159? No wonder some people are so narrow minded.

I'm voting for whom smart progressive Susan Sarandon's tits are voting for.

I didn't read this whole thread - but this article sounds immediately suspicious as it's under a pen name "Yves Smith is the pen name of Susan Webber, a principal of Aurora Advisors and publisher of the Naked Capitalism economics blog."

Why does she need to write under a pen name - ever? Bullshit piece.

This is such a sad fall for Yves Smith, who wrote some brilliant stuff about the 2008 economic crisis.

R149 No. We are not obliged to view Clinton as innocent of rape because he was never tried and found guilty.

The presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law.

Make America Grape Again

R163 is the winner...

Stop bumping old election threads, bitch.

it's Politico--they publish a lot of crap, esp. "contrarianism" like this which is basically about supporting the status quo.