Trump vs Sanders looks awfully probable (over a year out)

*Just for a handful of silver he left us, *

  •  Just for a riband to stick in his coat --- *
    

*Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us, *

  •  Lost all the others she lets us devote; *
    

*They, with the gold to give, doled him out silver, *

  •  So much was theirs who so little allowed: *
    

*How all our copper had gone for his service ! *

  •  Rags—were they purple, his heart had been proud ! *
    

*We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him, *

  •  Lived in his mild and magnificent eye, *
    

*Learned his great language, caught his clear accents, *

  •  Made him our pattern to live and to die !
    

Or maybe that’s The Donald.

I’m guessing very few would vote for the Republican candidate. He’ll either find a way endorse Hillary that appeals to his base, or a way to portray her opponent as the antithesis of progressive ideals, or both. It’s up to the two candidates actually running to get Bernie’s base out to the polls on election day, or get them to stay home.

Eh. As a teacher, the lounge can be pretty toxic sometimes.

Well, yeah, when nobody’s cleaned out the microwave for a while.

How exactly is that supposed to work?

The ideal way would be for Americans to only elect independents. But since that’s not going to happen, I’ll just settle for Presidents applying the law without regard to partisan goals and electoral needs. The best way to ensure that is to elect candidates with a record of not being too involved in partisan shenanigans.

It does appear that this cycle we may get that.

Oh, so your solution is for us Americans to overcome politics and elect the least partisan poison we can find who is still somehow willing to run.

Good luck with that.

I don’t see how it would be any different from when any other candidate leaves. His voters will either vote for the viable candidate that is closest to their views–the Democratic nominee–or they won’t vote (or vote for a nonviable candidate, which amounts to the same thing).

And while the devil’s in the numerical details, I can’t see how it hurts. The only people who are relevant are those who he enticed to vote who weren’t going to. And at least some of them are going vote. Few people who were already going to vote are going to get overly discouraged, as they’re already used to this stuff. So it’s at worse the same as if he didn’t run, and at best helps the Dems out.

It’s not as if this is some heretofore unheard of strategy. A populist gets all I mentioned above, plus an attempt to push Overton window towards more populist ideas.

Hell, if Trump were someone else, and not someone who all his friends say is exactly the same in public and in private, I’d think he was doing the same thing from the other direction.

And while it will likely result in that happening, the problem with the Republican Party has never been under-representation of his particular viewpoint.

The first half, I can entertain in a “far fetched” world. But the second part? It would mean that everything we know about Trump is a lie. That even his friends who say he’s exactly the same in private have been bamboozled. Everyone says he really is saying what he actually thinks.

Did you miss his policy proposals? He’s planning to bankrupt the country to pay for that immigration wall. He has no problem bankrupting what he controls as long as he thinks he can come out ahead–and he always does think that, since he’s “the Greatest.” He’s got that childlike inability to think bad things can happen to him.

He wants to pick a fight with Russia and never back down–he only pushes when he’s angry. That means World War III and possibly a nuclear one. He thinks that, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.

Trump is a functional narcissistic sociopath who was born into enough money that he was able to get enough do-overs to finally hit something that worked. That guy cannot be a good president, and it’s a fluke that he’s doing as well in business as he is.

As I said, I’ll settle for non-tolerance for politicized application of the law.

And where do drone strikes on border crossers fit into that?

Prediction: The OP is wrong on both counts. The Republican establishment is incredibly influential and they dislike Trump. Being the frontrunner in August can be the kiss of death, and Trump’s lead isn’t anything like Romney’s was in 2012. The massive ad-bombs of the billionaire Super Pacs haven’t even gotten started yet.

Sanders will attract a sizable base and good for him. He would make a fine President. But if Hillary falters, Biden is waiting in the wings. And methinks the reports of Hillary’s problems have been greatly exaggerated. Clinton is now at 49 percent to Sanders 25 percent. Biden is at 12 and he isn’t even running yet. Even with the media hostility, Clinton still looks pretty strong.

Hey I’m all for change, but I’d start at the Congressional level.

Actually, Carson called for drone strikes on drug smugglers and gangs. Which is slightly less crazy than unarmed border agents getting shot by said gangs. In an era where we arm freakin’ EPA and IRS agents and the Department of Education gets a SWAT team, why in the holy hell are there border patrol people unarmed?

I’m hearing new reports that she could be in very serious trouble for wiping her server. So I’m not so sure about the part I bolded above. I do think that Biden will jump in and I suspect he will pull a lot of the Bernie fan base. Especially if he has Warren on his side.

Slight nitpick: I’d change “closest to their views” to “closest to their priorities”. There are some folks who vote based on priorities other than views, anything from perceived character to skin tone. There were some people, for instance, who agreed with a lot of Obama’s views, but who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black man. And there are some people who disagree with Sanders’ views, but who value his integrity. In either case, of course, there’s a debate to be had about how many there are, but there are certainly some.

If it’s Bush vs. Sanders, I would vote for Sanders. I value the candidate’s integrity way more than his agenda. If someone is a lying bastard, his agenda is worthless, since I have no idea whether he will promote it or not. And Sanders can’t do as much damage as Bush would. Bush would have the House and maybe the Senate behind him. Sanders would be opposed every step of the way.

I support arming revenue agents and EPA regulators for obvious reasons. I think a better question is why does the Dep’t of Education get a SWAT team?