I've a number of thoughts here...
1. There's never a perfect candidate so you're always picking the least sucky at some level.
2. I voted for Bernie in the primaries and he's been able to pull Hillary far to the left in her words. Assuming she gets elected, we'll see what her actions bring.
3. I live in a state that is safely Democrat, but with trump I don't want to take any chances and he should be overwhelmingly defeated so people like him knows those ideas are rejected and also the rest of the world knows we reject those ideas.
4. If the other candidate sucks more (IMHO) and gets elected that's tolerable, but I'm pretty fearful of what would happen if trump is elected. Or in other words, he's a special case that isn't just the other person is suckier.
5. I agree with your thought in general, but picking alternative party candidates is the equivalent of voting for the person that's least like what you prefer when you have a two dominant party system. If the U.S. had say 6 or 7 parties, I think we'd be better off.

In a lot of ways, I support WHAT they're doing, if not HOW they're doing it.

I love watching people do amazing skilful stuff on bikes, boards, or just their hands and feet. If someone asks me if my taxes should pay for skate parks, etc. my answer is "hell yes".

I also understand doing it illicitly, spotting a rail or a gap or a drop somewhere and wanting to hit it. I don't even really mind them sneaking in, but if you're caught, just admit defeat and move on. Don't be a dick about it.

But the main problem is litigation, IMO. Everyone is so afraid of getting sued that you can't let anyone do something like this on your property.

In NZ, we have something called the ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). It's basically a government insurance fund that everyone pays into (it's funded from petrol and car taxes, employee levies, etc), and it means that if you have any kind of accident, your treatment is covered (and a percentage of lost earnings if you can't work).

I know... evil socialism, right? But it's freaking awesome. It means you can have a sports club without carrying a stupid amount of insurance. It means that if someone injures themselves doing something stupid on your property (or public property or govt property) they can't sue anyone because they are already covered.

OK, I can kind of get on board with this, but who the hell designed this one? How stupid can you get to make it stop if the cat touches the screen? It should require a specific pattern to stop, and otherwise just react to touches, like make the moth turn around and flutter, or make the mouse squeak if the cat touches it. Going back to the static start screen is terrible and defeats the purpose, no?

Doing everything he can do to defeat Trump would mean continuing to fight to be the nominee, because a Clinton VS Trump election is a toss up, not a way to defeat him. Only a Sanders nomination blocks a Trump presidency, a Clinton nomination gives us a 50/50 chance of a Trump presidency at best.....and people are OK with that?!? WTF people? What's wrong with you?

If you don't want Trump, you should continue to support a Sanders nomination at the convention.
If you support Clinton, you are gambling with the nation for your personal preference, and clearly "beating Trump" is NOT your major concern, if it's a concern at all.

As he said, it's about convincing voters that Clinton is WITH THEM, not convincing voters to be with her. She has failed completely at that task, and seems to not have even tried. In fact, her campaign made more efforts to court anti-Trump republicans than is has to court independent Sanders supporters. That, as much as anything, is an indication that she plans on moving far to the right if she's elected, not that she plans to work towards the few goals she's temporarily adopted from the Sanders camp.
If Sanders supporters don't think Clinton is going to work towards their goals, and she's given little to no indication that she will, they won't vote for her. It's up to HER to convince them she's on their side. Get to it, woman, or bow out.

I so admire Mr Sanders.

That might be shaken after the Dem Convention, if he doesn't strongly endorse Clinton.

Because it isn't just politics at this point -- it is a two way horse race with passions running high.

I have to self-soothe by endlessly repeating -- it is a loooong time until November. It is a very looooooog time until November. There is enough time for Sanders to do what he says at the very beginning of this interview -- EVERYTHING HE CAN TO DEFEAT TRUMP.

Then you end up with people taping mags together and reloading within a second or so.
Even faster if they count shots and stop firing at capacity-1 before reloading.
There are work-arounds...




Realistically, the end game of the political left is a gun ban + confiscation. The end game of the political right is total gun deregulation.
Each side needs something to argue to excuse their existence, so they will argue in their direction so long as there is anything left to argue, and those are the natural consequences.
Gridlock is literally the best thing that can happen for folks in the middle.




Syria isn't the best example. The people were not armed, and they turned to foreign auxiliaries to fight for them. They invited and gave shelter to all sorts of foreign militants to fight against their government, and made a mess of things. They would have been better off with a home-grown insurgency.

Not like a home grown insurgency would have done much good either way. The Syrian Arab spring was a democratic call for ... Islamic law. It originated in Hama, where an earlier Islamic insurgency was put down (the muslim brotherhood) by Assad's father. Half the country didn't support the insurgency against Assad, and anyone who is non-muslim or secular, or even moderate, is sitting on Assad's side of the country hoping he holds out.

But generally speaking, insurgency with small arms is what defeats occupiers over time. Not in pitched battles, but by making occupation so expensive and tedious that the occupier loses interest over time.


-schehearazde

Congratulations! Your video, How Peter Braxton defeated a patent troll and still lost, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 31 Badge!

Your video, How Peter Braxton defeated a patent troll and still lost, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

I remember when my brother had to have a psych evaluation, he told me that one of the questions they asked was "Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear?"
I realized it was good I wasn't the one being evaluated, because I see and hear things other people don't see and hear all the time, whenever I'm alone for instance, and often when I'm with others if I'm looking at or listening to something no one else is. That answer wouldn't go over well, I'm fairly certain.

I often wonder if auditory hallucinations that are not verbal or in any way communicative are indicative of anything important or worrying. I often can hear phantom music or phantom unintelligibly quiet talk radio in white noise, which defeats the main purpose of the white noise (made by a loud air filter), which is to drowned out all distracting noises so I can sleep.

@3:50 - Bernie is wrong about support for Trump. There are plenty of American's who will vote for him because of his insulting comments, and plenty more who will hold their nose and vote Kang over Kodos.

"I don't really like him either, but least Kang didn't breach classified information, or take bribes from BigCorp like Kodos did," they might say.

@4:30 - "I will do anything in my power to stop Kang from becoming president" is code for "I'll vote for Kodos, if I have to."

Bernie was our last hope. The only human running. He was unable to defeat the dirty tricks of Hillary's campaign, with her big bank bribes donations, more "donations" from foreign governments, and her endless Super PAC money...

Bernie failed to understand that in America, it's the leaders who become idolized and it's the cheaters who usually lead. Bernie isn't a cheater. He is a man of dignity who stands by his word, and refused to act outside his principles or allow the ends to justify his means.

And that is why he will not be president.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but the UK has had our Sanders moment and our Sanders (Jeremy Corbyn) won. He's had it very tough, receiving nothing but bad coverage from a very establishment controlled, rich elite controlled press. They lie about him or things that he has said either by omission or commission and establishment politicians within his own party try each week to cook up another scandal to weaken his leadership.

Getting them elected as a candidate is only the first very small step, but at least we did that. I believe that some other European countries have recently seen a surge in popularity for left-leaning candidates and/or have just managed to defeat a right wing candidate into power.

Having said all that, i think it was a joke. But if America finds itself in a position where it has a choice between idiocy and corruption it is only because of economic policy and the power/money/greed cycle which has led us to crony capitalism and neo liberalism. America led the developed world during that time period, so of course they would see the most extreme effects.

Truly well said eric. I feel this way too. Unfortunately, @bareboards2 is so intent on defeating the enemy (Trump) that she doesn't realize the enemy (the DNC and often Hilary) has already defeated itself.

I'm confused, in one paragraph you say the primary is over, but you go on to say it's not really over, it's just really over. If it's not over, it's not over, and FSM damit it's not over yet.
It was pretty improbable that he would win Alaska 82%-18%, but he did. IF he did that well in California, he could get no other vote on the 7th and still win. Improbable, maybe, highly improbable, no, certainly not this election, nothing is.
Even the exit polls have been wrong by well over 35% this year, and they are always more reliable than pre-voting polls. Bernie has HUGE support in California, I've not seen a SINGLE Hillary bumper sticker here in N Cali., despite what the (100% Clinton supporting) media has told you. Sanders winning 53% of California is not even improbable, it's within the margin of error for the polls you mention.

Hammer that message (that Sanders is a FAR better candidate for numerous reasons) into their skulls until the 7th and maybe he'll get enough of California to win...he's absolutely got my vote. Anyone who choses Hillary is rolling the dice on a Trump presidency, THEY are the ones putting us all in danger, not the Sanders supporters. What you absolutely should not be doing is claiming 'it's over so don't even bother trying'. That's simply a lie. Wait until after a nominee is named before saying anything of the sort. That the Clinton campaign has been saying it for months just shows their level of honesty....zero%.

Again, if a Trump presidency is something you fear, you should be shouting for Bernie with all your might right now....it's not over, not by far, and he is CLEARLY far and away the best choice, both for his platform and to defeat Trump.

@newtboy and @ForgedReality
First up, I'm not saying I like Hillary, but let's be real here; Trump is much, much worse.

Hillary's a liar and a felon (citation needed, btw)?
Trump wants to bring back torture, to close the country to Muslims and deliberately bomb people's families. Yeah, he might not get to do any of that, but the fact that he WANTS to is fucking terrifying.
So, yes, she's undoubtedly the lesser of two evils.

As for voting for someone other than Hillary or Trump, as far as I'm aware, right now, there aren't any other candidates announced (assuming Hillary gets the Dem nomination, which she will, as I already explained because numbers).

A quick google doesn't show any other third party candidates (although it did reveal that Roseanne Barr once ran!) for this year. Bernie has said nothing about running as an independent, so right now your options are almost certainly Trump or Clinton.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary gets the dem nod and Bernie decides to run as an independent.

Now in a sane political system, I would absolutely advocate voting for your favourite candidate, but the US election system is so fundamentally broken that voting for Bernie would hand Trump the election. That's the reality.

@Baristan
"Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. "

No, that doesn't happen. *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

A third party rises up, splits the vote of it's nearest rival and then disappears over the next couple of election cycles.

Your voice is already inconsequential. The US badly needs election reform.

It SUCKS, and by FSM, I really hope I'm wrong. Maybe Bernie will somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but it's just really unlikely.

But above all, you cannot elect Trump. If you really think he wouldn't be worse than Hillary, then I'm sorry, but you're fucking delusional.

Look, I REALLY wanted Bernie to win. I even checked if there was some way I could donate to his campaign as a non-US citizen. But it didn't happen. You (plural, US voters, especially democrats) had your chance and y'all done fucked it up and now you have to live with the choices you've made.