Trump said he'd still run if he didn't get the GOP nod, could you imagine 4 viable candidates running at once? Please God, let this happen!! (I know it wont)

The DNC would never let Bernie get the Democratic nod just like the RNC will never let Cruz get the Republican nod.

The RNC \ DNC and media elite and are not aligned with the interest of the people.

On social policies, left and right couldn't be more different. Sure, there are plenty of sane conservatives that have come around towards not treating minorities, women, and LGBT like shit. A lot of times it's that same meme we've seen over and over. Conservatives don't give a fuck until they're personally affected by it. They only stop being pro-war if one of their loved ones dies. They only stop being anti-lgbt if they discover that one of their loved ones are lgbt. Just recently, Kasich got a bit of the spotlight because of his 2nd place in the NH primaries and he gets hailed as the more moderate conservative, but he's still pretty anti-choice, so I'm told.

Now yeah, you're exactly right when it comes to other aspects of the parties. the entire primary process is complete bull. The RNC and DNC are both private organizations. There is no rule whatsoever that they are beholden to votes There is nothing in the constitution about parties. They literally can nominate whoever the fuck they want. Sanders and Trump could win every single primary race and they could still pick anyone they want and ignore the votes. What's worse is that taxpayers fund the primary elections so we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a primary race that literally DOES NOT MATTER. I am an election worker and I recently got contacted that ill be working our state's primary election in May. sure the extra cash is nice (it's only about 100 bucks) but that's 100 bucks we could spend on more useful things and I'd gladly give it up to create a better selection process and eliminate primaries completely. Elections in America are so fucking messed up and resemble a reality show way too much, which definitely explains why Trump is doing as well as he is. If we had actual debates and took shit seriously? He'd never have a snowballs chance in hell. But hey, this is America and we care more about spectacle than substance.

Now yeah, if our only two choices were Cruz or Trump, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. He's the lesser of two evils. (And I also love feeding the RWNJ paranoia that he's a democrat plant). That is the reality of our elections. I knew damned well that Obama was never going to be able to do most of the things he said he would do, even if he did have a friendly Congress. But again, he's the lesser of two evils.

America puts way too much stock in the Office of the President. Congress is where the real power is at, but America's culture mistakenly hinges EVERYTHING on the Presidency, and it's just not true, it's a distraction from the real wheels of power. It's the same in Britain. The monarchy has no real power, they're figureheads. The real power is in Parliament. The monarchy is a distraction.

You're exactly right about lobbyists and money in politics. I've been on board with that on day one. I'm definitely pro Bernie. But even if Bernie wins the general, he's going to have a hostile congress and that's going to limit much of what he can do unless we can take back congress. Again, that's where the real power is. The most he will probably be able to do is appoint more SCOTUS judges.

So democrats, if you want shit to change? stop staying home during the midterm elections. Unless something crazy happens, Republicans aren't going to be retaking the white house any time soon, but you need to start voting in the midterms so that Congress changes. It's this sad little cycle. During general elections, dems come out to vote in droves, but then they stay home for the midterms and Republicans trounce them and they wonder why Congress is right-wing.

So yeah, if for social policies alone, I'll definitely vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Do I think she'll accomplish much? No, but few presidents do. CONGRESS IS WHAT MATTERS!

@VoodooV --

I dunno. That argument holds true, but only if you believe that the parties actually represent different ideologies / interests. Those (like myself) who look at the whole mess and see "pack of billionaires / corporations / lobbyists A" vs "pack of billionaires / corporations / lobbyists B" might be interested in Bernie mainly because the Democrat establishment clearly doesn't *want* us to be.

For me personally, I think Bernie represents the best shot at real, positive change. Then again, I'm wary of that because I thought the same thing about Obama and his rate of delivery on promises has been very very low (to be fair a lot of that is systemic rather than HIS fault). But if/when Bernie doesn't get the Democrat nod, I'd be highly tempted to vote for Trump just because sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better, and Trump is clearly the fastest path towards "worse"...

It's so mind boggling that people refuse to vote for the other candidate when the other candidate wins.

die hard Hillary fans did it to Obama in '08

I get it that your favorite didn't get the nod, but unless you want the other party to win, you gotta suck it up and "eat the chicken" as Maher puts it.

These are the realities of "first past the post" voting. You're not necessarily voting for the person you want, you're voting against the people you don't want. It's sad, i know, but it's the truth.

Alternative voting would be a decent option. vote for a 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc etc.

That was a perfect nod to CYE. I think it would be best if I go back and start watching season 1 again!

I think it would be cool for the character of Hikaru Sulu to be noticed as gay in the reboots. That'd be a decent nod of respect.

Not some blatant political bullshit, just a "oh, he's gay. Carry on." moment. Like in reality, nothing else has to change.

Let's face it, the GOP field are unanimously insane and Bernie is too nice to get the nod, so you're gonna vote for her anyway. You'll just feel dirty when you do.

They used to say the same thing about Trump, but I think the RNC is finally starting to relent and starting to accept Trump even though they didn't want him originally. When it comes to primaries, votes do not matter.

I just don't think it really matters. I think most of the polls have agreed so far that in almost every possible match up....regardless of which republican, regardless of which democrat. Democrat wins.

Palin and Trump may rally the base, but they rally more people to vote against them. If McCain had picked just about anyone else for VP. I think he might have won. I think Palin made a large number of Republicans stay home and a large number of Democrats to come out to vote. I think the only thing that made it a semi close race (popular vote wise, not electorally) was that Obama was black and that made the racists come out in droves to vote against him. Fortunately, racism is slowly slowly dying. I'm also sure there were some die hard Hillary fans that were still pissed that Obama got the nod so they stayed home.

I think Trump is going to be a repeat of that. Islamaphobes and everyone who despises minorities will vote Trump, but more people (Republicans as well) will vote against him. And again, it might be sorta close because whoever will get the Democrat nod, there will be the die hard fans of the other person who will stay home.

That's my take on it so far anyway. It's the Democrats' race to lose. They've been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the past.

the problem is the primaries. Primaries are just simply a shitty system. End of story. The primaries are run by the RNC and the DNC and they don't give a fuck about your vote. The RNC wants anyone but Trump. Trump will not get the nod unless they make some behind the scenes deal that we never hear about. The DNC wants Hillary and it doesn't matter how popular Bernie is.

The RNC/DNC are private organizations and there is no law whatsoever that they are beholden to us.

As the founders warned...parties are bad. I'm not going to tell you that they're equally bad, because that's stupid...but they are both bad.

Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are the problem and both organizations need to be dissolved, but the Constitution does protect the right to assemble. The person is supposed to matter..not party..not money. Maybe an amendment could be created banning political parties somehow, but insanely difficult to enforce. A lot of shit would go away if we got rid of money in elections though and made them 100 percent publicly funded. It's so much bullshit that we spend so much money on elections in the Internet age.

Just give each candidate their own website...no fancy ads or graphics..just a fucking open source free wiki site where each candidate can put whatever they want on it so people can visit and judge for themselves. Elections are not fucking reality TV shows. This should be a no-brainer.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

"if this tactic is unsuccessful,they will do what they did to ron paul and demonize sanders.they will portray him as a "kook" a weird,fringe "goofy' candidate.which is exactly what was done to ron paul."

Except that Paul WAS a goofy, fringe candidate. He had no mainstream support from either side. Sure, the libertarians loved him, but the conservatives hated his stance on drugs and progressives hated his stance on, well, pretty much everything else.

Sanders probably has more actual support amoung his liberal base than Paul did amoung the conservatives, but there's a very real chance that he WOULD lose a presedential race against a moderate conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Sanders get in. Ironically, I think the only chance he has is if Trump gets the republican nod.

Just wanted to respond to show that I'm not ignoring this, but mainly just nodding my head. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think that feminism is needed despite some of the excesses of its adherents, just like I don't consider myself a civil rights activists, but think that it's a needed movement despite some of the excesses of its adherents (I'm too lazy to be either a feminist or a civili rights activist).

I completely agree that the wage gap is real but incredibly hard to isolate, define and quantify, and that a lot of the intended measures to adress it can end up fucking over individuals while failing to adress the core issues. That, to me, means that we have to work smarter and harder, which some economists are doing. I just don't think CHS is the one leading that field forward, unfortunately.

And finally, death threats and threats of violence seem to me like they are almost synonymous with the internet. I find I can't draw any conclusions from the existence of threats of violence online, because if I did I would conclude that the following are all toxic cultures of death and violence: feminism, gaming, conservatism, progressivism, ISIS, Harry Potter, men's rights activism and environmentalism, to mention just a few. Of all of those I'm pretty sure it's only ISIS that actually represents a toxic culture of death.

Why is it a little sad?

Does it take air away from what ever issue you want to see promoted on the sift? If you want everyone to agree with you, there are plenty of forums of people who will nod along with everything you say. ; )

And I love how because some of us agree with the woman in the video, we're threatened and wronged... That's a great conversational tactic, ascribing negatives to people you disagree with to instantly portray them as venal and weak... X D

So you're complaining because people don't all lockstep to your opinions, and taking cheapshots at the same because they don't...

Where's the empathy now? \= )

Right. But nobody laughs at the punchline. They nod in agreement. I mean really, how do you ridicule the willfully ridiculous?