The GOP never to this point kowtowed to that part of the base anyway until they decided to attempt to harness the energy of that faction to the point that this faction has a stranglehold of the party, and yet are wholly ignorant on the issues. We're talking about people who hold up signs that read "Keep your government hands off my medicare" caliber people. Or people who think Obama isn't an American. Or people who think Obama is "a complete socialized take over of health care". Stuff like that which is so obviously untrue, it's laughable.

And I want to be clear. I'm not accusing the right of having a monopoly on stupid people in their base. There's PLENTY of stupid liberals. The difference is the Democratic party is doing a far better job of keeping their idiots supporting them without enacting what those idiots want or succumbing to their idiocy.

Here's proof - how many times do you see Democratic leaders constantly say crap like George W. Bush is a war criminal for Iraq? Name a Democratic presidential candidate who actually has said over and over again that Ted Cruz isn't a US citizen? Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, over and over again insists Obama isn't a US citizen, as have many many Republican Congressmen.

When the GOP signed the deal with the devil so to speak by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, this was the inevitable outcome. The Tea Party has been hijacked twice by my count because the people within it are so incredibly ignorant, they don't seem to realize what they stand for. It was Libertarian in the beginning both socially and economically. Then it got hijacked to become more socially conservative and economically conservative. Now, it's been hijacked by Donald Trump, who nobody actually even knows what he is socially or economically at this point overall.

Why did this happen? Because GOP support is so contaminated and dominated by so much ignorance, you can have a TV personality say a bunch of stupid crap they want to hear but is certifiably absurd, that he can become the front runner. Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, no matter how you feel about illegal immigration as far as ideals go, is simply not a practical solution to stop illegal immigration. You can't make Mexico pay for a wall even if you built it. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Replacing Obamacare with something "terrific" is NOT a policy proposal; it's non-specific anti-Obama BS to make people who hate Obama love you. He could replace it with "Trumpcare" which could be basically Obamacare, and that could be "something terrific" for all you know.

Trump and Cruz don't exist without the Tea Party, and the Tea Party wouldn't be a thing if the GOP didn't decide to eventually attempt to galvanize it. Well, mission accomplished, but you're never going to get the support of the growing minority segments of the population. You've forfeited the support of moderates like myself, too. And young people by enlarge are rejecting this version of the GOP big time. Women are increasingly rejecting it, too.

Your second point... Umm, big fat no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-last-presidential-candidate-who-was-as-unpopular-as-donald-trump-david-duke/

Asher Edelman, the original Gordon Gecko, was on CNBC. One of the talking heads asked him who of the Presidential Candidates would be best for the economy. His answer: Bernie Sanders. Facial expressions are pure gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdI1QHIX1Fo

Oh my god, Bob, you're hilarious. Your favourite party is going to make Trump their presidential candidate and you say that? That? Seriously?!

You magnificent clown, I love you.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

I know this isn't going to change the world (almost certainly), but it moved me a little bit to see that point made on such a prominent stage and so bluntly. If this doesn't happen soon, i don't see how our species can thrive. There is currently so little regard for the consequences of our actions.. and Hilary probably believes what she says, that it never affected her. But subtle changes to priorities here and there add up over the years. As smart as she must be to be a presidential candidate, lobbyists can buy 'experts' to sound convincing and come up with selective ways to show data, or just buy more access to a politician and get more time to put their point across.

The real Ronald Reagan was in favour of a social safety net for the truly needy, despite being known for the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which cut benefits for some of the better-off welfare recipients. Also, if you look at his position on immigration (granted amnesty in 1986) and gun control (banned open carry in California, banned sale of machine guns in 1986, lobbied for the ban on assault rifles in 1994) you'll find that he is politically far to the left of any of the current Republican presidential candidates.

The real Barack Obama proposed income tax rates lower than under Reagan, and if he's ever proposed socialist style wealth redistribution then I didn't hear about it. From over here he looks centre right poitically, so it's a little bit jarring to hear people talk about him as if he's a leftist!

What the fuck is going on here? Is this real politics? This is an obviously stupid, ignorant man. It's as though he has verbal diarrhea - he just can't stop exaggerating and making things up as though he's a kid in a playground, with no thought for evidence or substance, i'm expecting any minute for him to say that his dad can lift a house, he's been to the moon three times and he's been made Earth President by the alien high council. How the hell can he make so much progress in his bid for the American PRESIDENCY?

"I don't know where i saw the video, but i know i saw it because i have the world's greatest memory"
Those words were spoken in absolute seriousness by a leading presidential candidate for the US in 2015 when justifying a racist comment about muslims. I write this for posterity so future historians are left in no doubt, when the video is long gone, when all we have are fossils of internet text, because our civilisation violently died when President Trump took the west to nuclear war because he thought his dad is better than Putin's dad.

You can trust my memory. Where did i see it? I don't remember.....

@bobknight33 - whereas those right wing comedians have been absolutely killing the ratings as of late. They don't exist because as Chris Rock said comedy should always be punching upwards - so where is the comparison to say whether or not a right wing comedy show would do so much better? Personally i very rarely find Colbert funny, but that's because i don't find him funny, not because i think he's left wing - hence i wouldn't watch his show regardless of politics. It's your burden to prove that his political leanings have anything to do with his ratings.

Oh no!!

Will Santa Claus still visit me there? Or the Easter Bunny?

Maybe the loch ness monster will be there! Or a republican presidential candidate with an IQ above 50....

With a consistent 3 (the minimum) electoral votes.

I'm from Kansas, where it is pretty much guaranteed that any vote to a non-republican (presidential) candidate is pretty much pointless. All 6 of those electoral votes are going red unless "you look over and see Satan sitting next to you on the sofa, and then look out the window and see snow".

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

Bob's at least correct that billionaires on both sides buy candidates. All presidential candidates are owned by billionaires.

Sorry, but no, this is complete bullshit.

Some of the most powerful politicians in the US are devotee's of Ayn Rand, including the last vice presidential candidate and several front runners for the upcoming presidential elections.

Dissecting and criticizing her work is not some sort of straw man argument. It is perfectly legitimate criticism of the core values of those politicians.

Don't correct my inaccuracy with another one. Iran is NOT a democracy, it is an Islamic theocracy. My referencing Ahmadinejad as a 'dictator' was only used in the same sense that folks use when referring to Bush, Cheney or Obama as 'dictators'. None of them came to power through a coup or by birth right, and each stepped down in normal course.

Calling Iran a democracy though is just wrong, and is about as accurate as referring to America as a dictatorship, In Iran the presidential candidates must ALL be approved by the Islamic council or nobody gets to even try to vote for them. The highest position of power in the country is not the President, but the Supreme Leader who is appointed by a small group of Islamic 'experts'. There is no room in the Iranian system for the election of an non-Muslim, or even a Sunni muslim, to even attempt to hold the position of President let alone Supreme Leader.

Rationalist African-Americans tend to dress so people will know from looking at them that they reject ghetto culture.

Aren't we talking about culture, but pretending we're talking about race?

For example, conservatives dislike ghetto crime, but they've wanted Herman Cain and Allen West to be their presidential candidates.