Andras

They also liked and spent time with the mythical snake. You know, the guy you spend your time flirting with.

Respect is earned, not guaranteed. The 60's are dead, bruh.

Someone else gets it. THANK YOU!

FFS, what is the approval rating of congress again? The congress that can only pump out moderate policies? So much for the moderate America. You admit to being the foolish establishment? Is that supposed to be an endorsing claim? I'm sorry, you are not the authority on life. Nearly every single person making their living through the double talkin' jive of politics is a waste of space. You think you're the special snowflake. I think you're the epitome of what is wrong. Keep trying to reel people into the moderate world. It surely is looking good, huh? Maybe you can try it with some charts. Maybe you can quit being a wimp and actually address the latest reports of the oppressive ACA fines and repayments. You are not above error. You sat here for years being it's constant defender but now that it's being exposed for the failure that it is, you want to move on to a new topic while pretending to be an authority? LOL for real, bud.

^Handing over the reigns to the enemy of the people. Once again, Republicans were right. A lot of so called Liberals are truly seeking primary government control. Nothing more.

Blame republicans. Democrat priority #1. Republicans didn't cause Lybia. Republicans didn't cause Syria. Republicans didn't force the disgusting drone strikes. Republicans didn't arm what eventually became ISIS. Republicans didn't force a republican healthcare bill. Republicans didn't force the current D "frontrunner" to advocate for the Iraq war. Republicans didn't force her to support the Patriot act. I know you like to blame them for everything in a cowardly fashion but the candidate you are suggesting is what the public wants is the epitome of what the large majority of Americans disapprove of in congress. Democrats are being their typical weak selves. Undying allegiance to moderate politics. No one wins. Everyone loses in equal proportions. You don't seem to understand that the general public overwhelmingly despises the current government and their policies. People on both sides are sick of it. You can keep repeating your indoctrinated bull#hit until you're blue in the face. Conservatives do not have a problem with the so called polarization. In fact, they are disgusted with the moderate politics that they feel are serving no one but the government and their puppeteers. The same goes for Liberals. This polarization claim is nothing but another cry to return to moderate politics(where we already ******* are). "Elect the moderate Republican with the D next to her name" is the translated cry. There's some respect for Republicans. At least they go for what they want. They aren't stupid enough to start at their settling point and negotiate down. Pulling statistics out of your a$$ or citing other corporate sponsored sources does not change the reality of what we have been getting. What we have been getting is NOT the result of polarization. It is the production of moderate republicans masquerading as democrats. Now, you just want a scapegoat. If the people were so moderate, it wouldn't be half of the nation that are supporting far right and far left politicians. Throw on some charts and some articles from the purchased media sources, it will never change the actual facts of reality. Polarization had less to do with the obstructionism than the President's race. You can't sit here for years and argue that the anti-Obama movement is mostly racial and turn around in the next cycle and claim that it's just political extremism. That dog won't hunt. You also won't convince people outside of your own circle that eliminating choice(eliminating primaries) results in more choice. Trying to bury people in word confetti can never overshadow the fact that you are now advocating for total nomination control by the problem the people seek to change.

The ACA is the result of lack of polarization. Democrats couldn't agree to typical democratic ideals. "Too liberal."

Considering the current polls of who favors better against republican candidates, it isn't Hillary. That's a whole bunch of opinion without substance behind it. You can keep claiming polarization by defaulting to another's opinion but what are the facts behind the actual policies we receive? Left or right, it's the same ******* thing. The funny thing is you say this while insinuating that the public won't support the supposed fringe left candidate. That undermines the claim of massive polarization. It looks like the fringe on the right have given empty talking heads the ground to claim that we don't have two parties serving the same causes. Through Democratic leadership there has been wall street deregulation, stagnant wages and the income gap, Republican healthcare proposals(that were a last resort because of a more conservative democrat congress), more disgusting foreign policy, same old spying, same old support of Israel, same old destabilization of the Middle East, big talk about domestic spending with little action, same old war on drugs that was escalated by a Democratic President's crime bill. The result is a well-stocked private prison industry that just coincidentally gives campaign funds to the current leading democratic candidate. So different! What is said does not match up to what is done. Period.

The proof is in the pudding. Through Democratic leadership there has been wall street deregulation, stagnant wages and the income gap, Republican healthcare proposals(that were a last resort because of a more conservative democrat congress), more disgusting foreign policy, same old spying, same old support of Israel, same old destabilization of the Middle East, big talk about domestic spending with little action, same old war on drugs that was escalated by a Democratic President's crime bill. The result is a well-stocked private prison industry that just coincidentally gives campaign funds to the current leading democratic candidate. So different! There is what they say they stand for and then there is what they actually do. Keep buying into the words. It supports the claim that they are different. What you get is another story. Yep. 2 parties serving the same master. Surely allowing them to choose their own candidates will fix it. Surely, more of the same will please the public. They just need someone to tell them to calm down cause that works.

Yeah? I guess the trickle up costs of the ACA for the middle class is sustainable? Very polarizing economic outlook for a Republican healthcare bill. Wait, aren't you the resident ACA supporter? I guess arguing about climate change for years and detailing how republicans are just bought by big oil couldn't be relevant to a typical Democratic candidate that accepts money from frackers. Very polarizing. The days of you accepting civil unrest as a consequence of failing systems/economies are gone. Now, we have to believe that the candidates are indirectly responsible and should take charge. Nevermind the lessons of history. I could go on but we know who is paying the candidates' bills. Those very same candidates have connections up and down the party, so yeah, let's let them choose the candidates. I'm sure they will cut themselves off from the tit.

Some think they know but no. I'll just say you've been on my side of issues quite a lot but for some reason, you pulled a 180 on your values. I wonder why.

Suicide is an option for ya. Or you can stop associating with panty waste.

Just crawl under his underbelly where you belong. Maybe he'll pet your little head, forrest.

Now that the ACA is showing to be hurting people more than helping(skyrocketing fines, massive repayments, being under-insured, massive premiums), where are the graphs and "polarizing" responses?

What loophole? The loophole Schultz opened back up recently and turning their back on Obama's policy. Also, the loopholes that permit candidates to be influenced by massive lobbyist spending(Citizens United). They will never cut off their own pay day. To expect them to would be illogical and insulting to the intelligence of anyone that pays attention. Your candidate would logically be the person you sided with 98%(Hillary). I guess you'll claim Kasich. If so, this moves to my next point. Democrats have been moving right for decades. More polarization would suggest a separation and that is not seen in the policies. Save the charts and stand by your own opinions of the past. The failing ACA(which you viciously defend) is a Republican idea that many here, included you, chuckled about being introduced but rejected by the right. It was highly entertaining to watch Democrats become Republicans to prove a point, wasn't it? Yet, you didn't see the writing on the wall. The Democratic party is now the "moderate republican party." Same foreign policy blunders. Same income disparity. Same incompetent ideas to address domestic issues. Sure, you can sit and complain about the infrastructure and Flint incidents but it is the democratic establishment failing to address the issues. But, I know, just blame the obstructionists. They're an easy scapegoat for failure. When someone tries to address these issues, the typical Democratic candidate(Hillary) attacks it as radical. I truly do not care if Sanders wins. The country is ****** either way. I just do not want the fake Democrat to win. I would like to see the only true outsider to take office. Call me a radical but I agree with the 80% of the country's population that does not approve of our current crop of reps. Hillary? She's a liar, a hypocrite, a criminal and an all around disgusting human being. I'll smile when a damaged Democratic constituency does not just ignore her faults and vote for her regardless of how much Trump is compared to boogiemen. You should read up on the reality of this country instead of watching poles and reading about old ideas that no longer apply to this landscape. Citizens United now plays a large role. You can point to your graphs. I point to reality. The proof is in the pudding. We just got 8 more years of Bush. We'll get another 4 with either of the parties typical candidates. But the best trick of it all is to just blame Republicans. Don't get bold, republicans will be mad and sue. Don't act like a leader, it's easier to just publicly scold the other side. Your posts for years have highlighted the very problems my candidate wants to address and your suggestion of eliminating primaries would eliminate the chances of candidates like him from running. Adding another obstacle to the "exchange of ideas"(it's really just masturbation for people that watch this as an occupation) is not the solution.

Whether you like it or not, say hello to the dissatisfaction and irrational behavior you're seeing. It is the b@stard child of the current process. It is the result of finding entertainment in radical Trump comparisons. Don't sit around here and blame republicans for appealing to radicals when your "entertaining" rhetoric breeds more confused and angry radicals in response to the labels.

To deny the part money plays in the parties themselves? LMFAO. Dude, you sit around here for years talking about the GOP is controlled by the "no new tax" pledge. You do not make it out of that gate without that forced idea. There is hardly any difference between the parties now. To let them screen which ideas are exchanged on the air will be a final nail in the coffin of that process. How FOS do you have to be to omit the allegiance to Hillary by Schultz? Of course you don't see a problem with stopping primaries and letting the parties choose. Surely they will clean themselves up and close those loopholes. BTW, I literally lol'd when I saw you acknowledge the problem of money in politics, while also trying to state there needs to be other parties, while claiming the problem is candidates and not the parties. What prevents additional parties and campaigns? Funding. Without it, you don't get off of the ground. What else? The media. The amount of **** Ron Paul got was pathetic. The amount of **** Perot got was intense. "Just label them as a crazy uncle and move on." The amount of praise your candidate has received by the press is absolutely unwarranted. What ensures the 2 party system? Giving them more control over which ideas are expressed. Neither of these problems will be solved by the pre-screened establishment candidates. It would be insane to expect them to hunt for their own heads. Would the party's pledged candidates open up the door for additional competition? Absolutely not. That would go against any logical nature. Don't play the naive game. The corruption is much deeper than just individual candidates. The whole process is flawed.

Just curious, who is a supporter of the idea to suspend primaries and just let the bought political parties declare a candidate. So much for the exchange of ideas. That would simply be a viewing of forced ideas.

Democracy is failing. Try to patronize. Ask for babysitters. It has failed. Polish that brass.

The phrase, "Be careful whose toes you step on today, they might be attached to the *** you have to kiss tomorrow" comes to mind. Address the cause instead of asking for a babysitter to dampen the symptom. If not, don't act shocked or verklempt when it shows up on your door. Maybe a little less running around comparing Trump to boogiemen. Entertainment news may as well be releasing pictures with crosshairs over him. You reap what you sow. Don't give torches to the mob of dissatisfied citizens and act surprised when **** starts burning down.

This is nothing but a trap to paint Sanders' supporters as radical outsiders. Sell that **** somewhere else. If there is an organized effort to protest, there is no one person that can make them stop. Instead of trying to focus on the candidate as the cause or possible pacifier of the clash, focus on the issues behind the outrage(which is not the supposed sponsoring candidate here). Otherwise, it will continue to come off as biased rhetoric. If it were Hillary supporters doing the same, the response would be different. Just like when BLM disrupted the Sanders speech. It was fine then but as soon as it came to Hillary's speech, it was denounced. To ever go out to attack Sanders for not making a worthless statement, that would stop nothing, is clearly just an effort to attribute the clash to said candidate.

BTW, the board king would post just months ago how declining economies and cultures result in disobedience and clashes. Today, it's not the conditions that will control the outrage, all it takes is the wagging of a finger from the candidate to set it right. Good election cycle. Many hacks and hypocrites are exposed.

Apparently it's "logical" to think representatives are responsible for what voters do and say. Just like it's "logical" to think gun manufacturers should be held liable for gun violence. It's not that hard to put 2 + 2 together there. And don't even try to front like it's the right thing to do. To even accept any responsibility for it would result in a negative perception of his campaign. "Bernie supporters are radical!" would be the headline. If you don't like the reality around you, which results in conflict, fix the ******* problem instead of asking a rep to babysit. AKA stop being a pu$$y.

When people support a candidate that believes in suing gun manufacturers, is it any surprise that they will say a candidate should try babysitting every single voter outside of his control? I definitely am not surprised by it. It's hilariously pathetic.

LOL