The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**RivenSkull**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:

I think that was his point.

With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.

And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.

It's incredibly frustrating.

Agreed... I don't think she really can run on any platform except for the first woman thing. Even her policies that she does talk about in debates and whatnot feel more like her saying "this is my policy.... right now"

And it's not like she hasn't been given an opportunity to do as Obama did, when opponents brought out video of him supporting "traditional marriage," IIRC, he responded by saying, "that video was taken years ago, I have met more people, talked with people, etc. and those people have shown me that my views were in error and that people should be free and legally able to marry the person they love"

She may have done that, but if she did, I don't recall it, nor even the debate it would have happened in.

She's done a "I've always supported gay marriage", where there are videos of her saying that she flat out opposes it.

I'm honestly just feeling completely drained with the current political atmosphere, especially after tonight. I don't mind that the turnout ended up with Hilary winning by around 5.5%. It's just that with all the super delegate that have backed her right away pretty much turns this from a very close race between Sanders and Hilary to something that feels incredibly rigged.

It just pushes the feeling of "Why bother voting."

**whembly**

RivenSkull wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:

I think that was his point.

With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.

And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.

It's incredibly frustrating.

Agreed... I don't think she really can run on any platform except for the first woman thing. Even her policies that she does talk about in debates and whatnot feel more like her saying "this is my policy.... right now"

And it's not like she hasn't been given an opportunity to do as Obama did, when opponents brought out video of him supporting "traditional marriage," IIRC, he responded by saying, "that video was taken years ago, I have met more people, talked with people, etc. and those people have shown me that my views were in error and that people should be free and legally able to marry the person they love"

She may have done that, but if she did, I don't recall it, nor even the debate it would have happened in.

She's done a "I've always supported gay marriage", where there are videos of her saying that she flat out opposes it.

I'm honestly just feeling completely drained with the current political atmosphere, especially after tonight. I don't mind that the turnout ended up with Hilary winning by around 5.5%. It's just that with all the super delegate that have backed her right away pretty much turns this from a very close race between Sanders and Hilary to something that feels incredibly rigged.

It just pushes the feeling of "Why bother voting."

At least the DNC *have* super delegates...

The RNC is looking at a Trump nomination,

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

The RNC is looking at a Trump nomination,

Which is good for the country as a whole...

**whembly**

My take:

Uno: It doesn’t matter whether Kasich & Carson formally withdraw or not. Neither of them will ever see ~3% again, anywhere. If they continue, it's nothing more than a vanity project. It’s truly a three-man race, with things will get interesting.

Dos: The March 1st primaries will either give Trump the nomination or eliminate one of the remaining two. Cruz *will* win Texas, which has the most delegates up for grabs by far; if he can pick up even one or two other wins in addition to Texas, unfortunately that’s the end for Rubio.

Tres: In the resulting two-man race, Trump is very, very weak... Cruz will win every primary after March 1st and take the nomination on the first ballot.

las Cuatro: In the General, Clinton will need to win over the Sanders voters and keep those voters highly motivated. I bet that the Sanders voters are feeling a bit 'disenfranchised' due to the DNC's SuperDelegates. I'd bet that people will forget about that primary and remain motivated for Hillary.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
whembly wrote:

The RNC is looking at a Trump nomination,

Which is good for the country as a whole...

Sure, if you want Clinton/Sanders to win...

**LordofHats**

I do

If only because the GOP needs to get its head pulled from its butt and if this is what needs to happen then let it be so!

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

Sure, if you want Clinton/Sanders to win...

Well... better than religious nut jobs who actually believe the crap coming out of their mouths. Trump has recently been caught on video talking favorable about "his" policies when in fact he's being given exact copies of a number of Sanders' policies.

I personally would rather the country move forward, into the future, not try and go back to the bronze age.

**whembly**

Heh... one thing I didn't realize about South Carolina... it's an open primary.

Had it been closed (like most of the up coming states), Trump would've been much, much lower...

**Gordon Shumway**

whembly wrote:
Heh... one thing I didn't realize about South Carolina... it's an open primary.

Had it been closed (like most of the up coming states), Trump would've been much, much lower...

I'm not so sure about that. He won evangelicals (surprising considering that's Cruz's base). In fact he won pretty much every demographic in the exit polls. I think you are giving Cruz too much of a chance in your post above. Rubio seems bettered positioned to me. Cruz does well in certain states but those states tend to allot delegates proportionally. Bush getting out will be a huge boon to Rubio as the establishment sway and money will now go to him. Carson and Kasich will likely still hurt Rubio the longer they stay in (look for Kasich to do well in Michigan and Ohio, but that's about it) and Carson is still pulling bigger numbers than I would have expected. Basically, it boils down to if Cruz stays in (Trump wins easily) or if he gets out sooner rather than later (Rubio might be able to make it competitive).

**shasolenzabi**

So NV was supposed to be a landslide of 20 or more points for Hillary, that Sanders changed that to so close a race shows things are swinging in a different direction than the establishment would like to have. For America to be repaired from the Reagan Impact, we need a bold candidate, I see Hilary as just more of the same lame, failed crap under her Husband and even to some extent Obama. She will do little in major changes if anything, she is likely to ride on being the first female in office, and do about as much "progress" as the last 2 Dems have done. Which is steer little away from the damage of the Reaganites

**Compel**

I don't know much about how American politics work but would a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a... I think it's Secretary of State (equivalent to the UKs Home Secretary?) or VP be a possible thing?

**RivenSkull**

Compel wrote:
I don't know much about how American politics work but would a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a... I think it's Secretary of State (equivalent to the UKs Home Secretary?) or VP be a possible thing?

It's very unlikely. Obama did that for Clinton because the two have very very similar politics. It was also a way of keeping her in the political system so that she could run for President again after Obama's terms.

Sanders is too much of an outsider for Clinton to do that.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Compel wrote:
I don't know much about how American politics work but would a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a... I think it's Secretary of State (equivalent to the UKs Home Secretary?) or VP be a possible thing?

Secretary of State is the equivalent of foreign minister. The closest equivalent to the Home Secretary in the US is either the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, depending on what part of the responsibilities we're discussing.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Not another victory for Trump.

Better dig that trench and dig out my grandfather's lee enfield rifle and prepare for Trump's invasion of Scotland.

He won't forgive us for wanting him banned from Scotland.

**Tannhauser42**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He won't forgive us for wanting him banned from Scotland.

Nah, he's already forgotten about you. Besides, he's moved on to wanting to boycott Apple.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He won't forgive us for wanting him banned from Scotland.

Nah, he's already forgotten about you. Besides, he's moved on to wanting to boycott Apple.

I am loathe to tell Americans how they should vote, but Donald Trump? C'mon America.

The nation that gave the world John Adams, Mark Twain, James Madison, FDR, Martin Luther King, et al...

I'd settle for Gerald Ford over Trump any day of the week

EDIT. Hell, right now I'd take Al Gore or Mitt Romney for President.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The nation that gave the world John Adams, Mark Twain, James Madison, FDR, Martin Luther King, et al...

To be fair, we're also "responsible" for the Dixie Chicks, Miley Cyrus, and Stephanie Meyer...

**BrotherGecko**

I'd take an actual stump over Trump right now.

Can't wait until he brings back Ulysses S. Grant style nepotism lol. Ivanka and Eric Trump are going to be in his administration for sure lol.

**DutchWinsAll**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not another victory for Trump.

Better dig that trench and dig out my grandfather's lee enfield rifle and prepare for Trump's invasion of Scotland.

He won't forgive us for wanting him banned from Scotland.

Honestly you could beat him off with a longwinded Scottish speech. No need for a rifle. I do own an Enfield though.

I fething love Scotland and am pretty good with UK accents but I've met more than one Scot that I've talked to and had no idea what they were saying. I once talked to guy in Houston and said something like "You must be a Rangers fan" He responded with "something something Celtic FC something something"

I've got a trip planned for August to do parts of the West Highland Way with a few days in the Speyside area. Basically I want to live in the Balvenie distillery.PM me if you know any other areas I should hit, Cheers

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The nation that gave the world John Adams, Mark Twain, James Madison, FDR, Martin Luther King, et al...

To be fair, we're also "responsible" for the Dixie Chicks, Miley Cyrus, and Stephanie Meyer...

And root beer

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not another victory for Trump.

Better dig that trench and dig out my grandfather's lee enfield rifle and prepare for Trump's invasion of Scotland.

He won't forgive us for wanting him banned from Scotland.

Honestly you could beat him off with a longwinded Scottish speech. No need for a rifle. I do own an Enfield though.

I fething love Scotland and am pretty good with UK accents but I've met more than one Scot that I've talked to and had no idea what they were saying. I once talked to guy in Houston and said something like "You must be a Rangers fan" He responded with "something something Celtic FC something something"

I've got a trip planned for August to do parts of the West Highland Way with a few days in the Speyside area. Basically I want to live in the Balvenie distillery.PM me if you know any other areas I should hit, Cheers

I could tell you what areas to avoid: Loch Ness (tourist trap) Fort William (another tourist trap) and Inverness (dull place, but decent people, but still a dull place) What out for Lyme's disease as well.

Glen Coe is very nice to visit. Spectacular scenery.

And remember, we drive on the LEFT.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrotherGecko wrote:
I'd take an actual stump over Trump right now.

Can't wait until he brings back Ulysses S. Grant style nepotism lol. Ivanka and Eric Trump are going to be in his administration for sure lol.

I don't know why Grant gets such a bad press. Yeah, he might have employed people who helped themselves to taxpayers' cash now and again

But dammnit! He won the civil war and cracked down on the KKK.

**LordofHats**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But dammnit! He won the civil war and cracked down on the KKK.

Probably because those things were a lot less ridiculous than the Grant administrations unbridled nepotism and cronyism, which along with Andrew Johnson's sabotage, pretty much killed the progressive side of the Reconstruction period and set the stage for pretty much all of American's 20th century problems. I mean sure, we'd have had problems anyway cause everyone has problems, but that doesn't really absolve Grant's administration for setting all the gears in motion.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

LordofHats wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But dammnit! He won the civil war and cracked down on the KKK.

Probably because those things were a lot less ridiculous than the Grant administrations unbridled nepotism and cronyism, which along with Andrew Johnson's sabotage, pretty much killed the progressive side of the Reconstruction period and set the stage for pretty much all of American's 20th century problems. I mean sure, we'd have had problems anyway cause everyone has problems, but that doesn't really absolve Grant's administration for setting all the gears in motion.

The irreversible force of reconstruction was always going to come against the immovable object of the defeated southerners.

Even Lincoln, had he lived, would have struggled to reconcile the differences.

**shasolenzabi**

Well, Bernie is the closest we have today of FDR, that would be yet to be seen if he can do as well in foreign policy as FDR did, but that was WW2.

But for equality issues and infrastructure that FDR made, well the corporates tried to stifle FDR back in the 1930's, they are hoping to stem Bernie this go around to avoid a fair nation as we had under FDR.

Right now we are more Oligarchy than Democracy. GOP purely serves them, the Dems pay lip service to being for the little guys, but seriously, Hilary's "No we can't" says otherwise, same with Pelosi and company,

**sebster**

Breotan wrote:
I've seen a report that participation dropped as much as 1/3 from 2008. I'm sure that's a factor. It'll definitely be a factor in the general election, too.

I thought Nevada didn't release raw vote totals? Can you link to them, because that'd be interesting reading.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
And Jeb has dropped out, and most of the remaining sanity in the Republican race went with him. At least the current numbers put Rubio just ahead of Cruz.

It's amazing that Jeb! was the sane one. Anyone remember when GW Bush was considered out on the fringe?

It's still amazing, though. Sanders lost, sure, but not by much.

Yeah, he's dragged his numbers up, a lot more than I thought he would. It's still quite hard to plot a plausible path to victory for him, but with the Nevada result it is now possible. If anything, Nevada was a better result for Sanders than New Hampshire was.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RivenSkull wrote:
With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.

Her policy position is to continue the moderate, incremental reform work that's taken place under Obama. It’s kind of ironic that for all their differences on the campaign trail in 2008, in most places Obama ended up doing things the way Clinton had argued for.

It’s left her as the defender of his legacy, and also of hers, as it’s hard to see how she would have done any differently in office had she won in 2008. And given the amount of frustration among voters that change didn’t come fast enough during the year, well I guess that’s where Sanders comes in.

And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.

It's incredibly frustrating.

The whole primary process is very strange, and probably the worst part is the super-delegates. Handing votes to individuals in the party establishment basically means one of three things. The most likely result is that super-delegate votes will line up with the candidate who also got the most votes, in which case the super-delegates do nothing and don’t need to be there. It's also possible that most super-delegates will line up behind a less popular candidate, but not do enough to change the result, so again the super-delegates do nothing and don’t need to be there. The last possibility is that super-delegates will line up in sufficient numbers behind a candidate who narrowly lost the popular vote, enough to overrule the voters. This is the only situation in which super-delegates change the result, and it’s a disaster if it happens.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
At least the DNC *have* super delegates...

The RNC is looking at a Trump nomination,

If the majority of the party want him as their nomination, then he should be their nomination. He may not be a good candidate or a good person, but democracy should be about letting the people vote, and then watching the chips fall where they may.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Tres: In the resulting two-man race, Trump is very, very weak... Cruz will win every primary after March 1st and take the nomination on the first ballot.

That assumes the field narrows very quickly, and that Rubio drops out soon. It’s possible, but I wouldn’t assume it’s certain.

Similarly, there’s a big issue with the assumption that Trump’s got a hard ceiling. It’s a plausible theory, but it isn’t absolute, and we won’t know it’s true for certain until the field breaks up. For Trump to get beaten, two things need to happen – the Republican field needs to narrow to 3 and then to 2 candidates fairly soon, and when it does Trump can only pick up a small portion of those voters. That’s probable, but anytime you start needing multiple things to happen, and one of those things is almost entirely theoretical, well then I think it’s a decent rule of thumb to consider it less an 50% likely.

Oh, and fivethirtyeight makes an interesting point on Cruz – his best states all give votes on a proportional basis. So he might win the state with 30 or 40% of the vote, but all he gets is 30 or 40% of the delegates. Whereas Rubio and Trump have their best figures in states with winner takes all delegate counts. This, along with the fact that people inside the party really hate Cruz makes me think the man most likely to beat Trump is Rubio.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

shasolenzabi wrote:
So NV was supposed to be a landslide of 20 or more points for Hillary, that Sanders changed that to so close a race

Clinton wasn’t up by 20 points in Nevada since about December. And the expectations game is a very silly game.

The actual story is that Sanders spent about twice the money in Nevada that Clinton did, because a win or a close result would give his campaign a genuine feeling of being able to win the whole campaign. And he did well, closed the gap in Nevada from where it was months ago, and came close enough to show that he’s really in this primary. Probably the biggest win for him was with Hispanics, while he got thumped in black voters, he actually won Hispanics, showing his vote isn’t limited to white voters.

I see Hilary as just more of the same lame, failed crap under her Husband and even to some extent Obama.

Inflation adjusted median household income in 1992 - $49k. Inflation adjusted median household income in 2000 – $56k. Damn that failed Clinton presidency.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RivenSkull wrote:
It's very unlikely. Obama did that for Clinton because the two have very very similar politics. It was also a way of keeping her in the political system so that she could run for President again after Obama's terms.

And Clinton was a natural fit for Secretary of State as she had lots of ideas and ambitions on the international stage. Sanders' is more focused on domestic matters. Really none of the executive positions would really help him with his policy objectives. If we’re going to stretch things he could take Health or Education, but he’d be hamstrung in either of those roles without new legislation to allow him new programs to roll out.

Assuming he doesn't win the presidency, the place he’s most able to influence things is by remaining in the senate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But dammnit! He won the civil war and cracked down on the KKK.

Yeah, but he won the Civil War as a general. And as a general he was very good, it's just his record as a President that wasn't a bit rubbish.

**Gordon Shumway**

@Sebster: Sanders got the majority of Hispanic voters via the exit poll numbers, if you look into the actual results, Clinton won Hispanic areas (suburbs of LV) pretty handily which suggests those exit polls might have been off (not surprising considering their small sample size). That's not to take anything away from Sanders though, he had to do better than expected with that demo considering the closeness of the overall results.

**sebster**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Sebster: Sanders got the majority of Hispanic voters via the exit poll numbers, if you look into the actual results, Clinton won Hispanic areas (suburbs of LV) pretty handily which suggests those exit polls might have been off (not surprising considering their small sample size). That's not to take anything away from Sanders though, he had to do better than expected with that demo considering the closeness of the overall results.

Yes, I read fivethirtyeight too

, and read about the speculation given the small portion of voters that maybe the actual result was different. But given it is speculation I thought I’d go with the simple headline – Sanders wins among Hispanic voters. Especially given fivethirtyeight speculated on points both ways, perhaps the exit poll was misleading, but perhaps the electorate results were, as those Hispanic neighbourhoods also tend to be older (and therefore lean Clinton), while many younger Hispanic voters (who lean to Sanders) live in white areas.

Well, it’s all speculation and the exact detail probably doesn’t matter that much. The big story is what you say –Sanders being talked about as maybe having won the Hispanic vote shows is a big win in itself, because it gives him a narrative of having appeal outside of white interests. And on a pure vote counting basis, given his strength in white votes, then drawing the Hispanic vote is probably enough. If it wasn't for black voters, that is. That's the flip side to his good showing among hispanics. Despite the money his campaign spent in Nevada, he didn’t make any real dent in Clinton’s advantage among black voters. And unless he can make in-roads there, or something causes Clinton’s share among white voters to drop significantly, then it remains Clinton’s to lose.

**shasolenzabi**

Yeah, but so much of her results had something to do with the concentration of people in general in the county that Vegas is nestled in as it is the most densely populated precinct of NV, Had Sanders focused a bit more there as Clinton had, he may have had a bigger impact, he went the whole state, thus spreading around, but not enough on Clark county, had he understood NV as Hillary had, and she has been working over NV for some time as she wanted to win there yet again, and not lose as she did in '08. But she had similar results vs Obama in 2008 in NV a she had to Bernie.

Bernie's message is what is fighting against her PACs+Media+Pundits+DWS lead DNC

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Danielle Allen wrote:The moment of truth: We must stop Trump

Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I have spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald Trump’s rise, I now understand. Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate. That is not my point. My point rather is about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Nazism, I have generally relied on the German-Jewish émigré philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow people can understand themselves as “just doing their job,” yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine. Arendt also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called “Men in Dark Times.” In this book, she described all those who thought that Hitler’s rise was a terrible thing but chose “internal exile,” or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation. They knew evil was evil, but they too facilitated it, by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

One can see both of these phenomena unfolding now. The first shows itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth and thereby help acculturate all of us to what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask, in covering the Republican front-runner? Have we not already been acculturated by 30 years of popular culture to offensive and inciting comments? Yes, both of these things are true. But that doesn’t mean journalists ought to be Trump’s megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut the lights out on offensiveness; turn off the mic when someone tries to shout down others; reestablish standards for what counts as a worthwhile contribution to the public debate. That will seem counter to journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He’ll still have plenty of access to freedom of expression. It is time to draw a bright line.

One spots the second experience in any number of water-cooler conversations or dinner-party dialogues. “Yes, yes, it is terrible. Can you believe it? Have you seen anything like it? Has America come to this?” “Agreed, agreed.” But when someone asks what is to be done, silence falls. Very many of us, too many of us, are starting to contemplate accepting internal exile. Or we joke about moving to Canada more seriously than usually.

But over the course of the past few months, I’ve learned something else that goes beyond Arendt’s ideas about the banality of evil and feelings of impotence in the face of danger.

Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is that the vast majority of voting Americans think that Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate, but we are split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him. Similarly, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too, thus far, have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across our ideological divides.

The only way to stop him, then, is to achieve just that kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her, but it is also the case that she is a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton and Trump would be unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Jeb Bush has done the right thing by dropping out, just as he did the right thing by being the first, alongside Rand Paul, to challenge Trump. The time has come, John Kasich and Ben Carson, to leave the race as well. You both express a powerful commitment to the good of your country and to its founding ideals. If you care about the future of this republic, it is time to endorse Marco Rubio. Kasich, there’s a little wind in your sails, but it’s not enough. Your country is calling you. Do the right thing.

Ted Cruz is, I believe, pulling votes away from Trump, and for that reason is useful in the race. But, Mr. Cruz, you are drawing too close to Trump’s politics. You too should change course.

Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump, but then again she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You, too, need to help the Republicans beat Trump; this is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, re-register and vote for Rubio, even if, like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I too would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee, but pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump takes the nomination. The republic cannot afford that.

Finally, to all of you Republicans who have already dropped out, one more, great act of public service awaits you. As candidates, you pledged to support whomever the Republican party nominated. It’s time to revoke your pledge. Be bold, stand up and shout that you will not support Trump if he is your party’s nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference. Endorse Rubio, together. It is time to draw a bright line, and you are the ones on whom this burden falls. No one else can do it.

Marco Rubio, this is also your moment to draw a bright line. You too ought to rescind your pledge to support the party’s nominee if it is Trump.

Donald Trump has no respect for the basic rights that are the foundation of constitutional democracy, nor for the requirements of decency necessary to sustain democratic citizenship. Nor can any democracy survive without an expectation that the people require reasonable arguments that bring the truth to light, and Trump has nothing but contempt for our intelligence.

We, the people, need to find somewhere, buried in the recesses of our fading memories, the capacity to make common cause against this formidable threat to our equally shared liberties. The time is now.

**Sigvatr**

Read the first line, saw the Hitler comparison, stopped reading. Not worth it. If you go ahead and start a comment of yours with such a comparison, you pretty much declare yourself as devoid of any historical / political knowledge.

**Kilkrazy**

Yeah, I was the same, but actually I did read to the end, and her basic point is correct despite the overblown rhetoric at the beginning.

**jmurph**

So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit. Because Trump talking about building a wall obviously equals death camps. But it's cool because it's not like the whole second to last paragraph is all unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks or anything.

Aren't politics fun?