Are you referring to the Trump administration or me lol

I think he's referring to the Trump, to be more specific.

Was the Reichstag a distraction? More like a justification.

Did you pull a Godwin or am I missing the reference to something more recent?

Compared to the last commission from the Obama years that was bipartisan, this is stacked from the start for voter suppression. Kobach is known for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/01/politics/trump-voter-fraud-kobach/index.html

If creating a false emergency (everyone knows there are several folks who shouldn't be on the rolls that are, or folks who through mistakes at polls voted with old or bad information (myself included) the question is whether they voted fraudulently, and after the thugs in the Republican Party define "fraudulently" in impossibly broad terms they are going to attempt to crack down on democracy so that only their candidates win. It's dirty

The real question I think is whether they're looking to see if investigators are going to be able to spot where the Russians stripped Democrats from the voters rolls in key states.

1968 Democratic National Convention
CBS News correspondent Dan Rather was grabbed by security guards and roughed up while trying to interview a Georgia delegate being escorted out of the building.Cronkite replied, "I think we've got a bunch of thugs here, Dan."

Democratic Party operative Robert Creamer used terror to wage war on honesty. Until forced to resign his post as a “consultant” with a Democratic Party-aligned organization named Americans United for Change, Creamer ran what amounts to a domestic U.S. political terror and propaganda operation dedicated to undermining the 2016 U.S. presidential election—“rigging the election,” to use the current term.

The Dirty Locked Away History of the Democrat Party…: How the Alleged Party of the Little Guy Has Been a 200 Year Parade of Crooks, Thugs, Bigots & Subversive Traitors

by Kevin "Coach" Collins

Two top Democratic strategists have exited the presidential campaign after explosive undercover videos showed them discussing voter fraud and their roles in planting paid agitators at campaign events for Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Robert Creamer, founder of Democracy Advocates and the husband of Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, stepped down from the campaign Tuesday, a day after Scott Foval was fired from his post as national field director of Americans United for Change.

the Democratic Party was assigned a particular function. Its task was to defend the basic interests of capital by posing as a party of the “common man” against the Republicans, who unapologetically championed big business.

Every mass social movement—beginning with the Populist movement of farmers in the 1880s and 1890s, to the anti-monopoly Progressive movement of the early 1900s, to the revolt of industrial workers of the 1930s out of which the UAW was born, to the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, to the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s—was channeled behind the Democratic Party to be smothered, declawed and defeated.

There is historical irony in the Democratic Party playing this role. In the 19th century, it was first the party of the southern slavocracy, and, after the Civil War, the party of Jim Crow white supremacy. It was its lesser northern wing, controlled by sections of capital and operating big city “machines” such as New York’s Tammany Hall, that prefigured the party’s 20th century incarnation.

Pro-slavery ideologues and propagandists linked to the Democratic Party attacked the brutality of emerging industrial capitalism in the North and posed as critics of wage slavery, while portraying Southern chattel slavery as a natural and beneficent system. They sought to inspire fear among northern workers that the liberation of the blacks in the South would undermine their own wages and living standards.

The Democratic city machines solicited the support of northern workers, including immigrant populations such as the Irish, and doled out patronage, while engaging in demagogic attacks against “privilege.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/five-reasons-we-cant-trus_b_1884366.html

in case anyone remembers Robert Creamer's 2012 comments. no wonder people distrusted the media

but Harry Reid still takes the cake

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/?utm_term=.d0a424ff7656

It is beyond irrelevant what the Democratic Party stood for in 1861, give me someone who makes that argument, I'll show you a fucking idiot, and no surprise our very own Gilligan shows up to take the crown.

We dont care what a bunch of deranged douchebags did. What does this have to do with basic human right to healthcare?

Gosh, brain, if you weren't so happily married to Hillary Clinton back in the primary, I would mistake you for a Bernie fan.

Naw if you think Trump had a field day with Hillarys emails replace that with aging socialist and see how an electorate that isnt purely 20-somethings treats Bernie - vs a Lady who won hundreds of millions of votes and had many states in.electoral play that Bernie couldnt have - not even as well as Obama.

I thought she had a better chance. I didnt hate Bernie

Figures Botox is a Bernie bro

Brain, you were a vitriolic asshole toward anyone that even spoke positively about Bernie, and now you're just being a stupid asshole as opposed to a vitriolic asshole. Hillary didn't win "hundreds of millions of votes" - nobody ever has, or ever even come close to it; quit feeding easy lies to Trump fans - and Bernie's electorate wasn't "purely 20-somethings." Saying so further diminishes what he accomplished and what he could have done had he been treated like a legitimate candidate. Likewise, acting as if Bernie couldn't have gotten states that swung the election toward Trump such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan when he won 2 out of those 3 in the primary against Hillary. Oh, and by the way, Obama won all three. Twice. Beyond that, Bernie polled *way* ahead of most Republican candidates during the primaries, including the one who won the election, whereas Hillary consistently polled neck-and-neck with the orange doofus we're asked to call President up through election day. Are you stupid, or do you just not care to actually consider these things?

bernie would have been destroyed in the general election.

"Botox" ... ha, I'm still laughing from that one

Based on.... got any actual data to back that up, Santa Clausowitz? Hell, Clinton, the insider's insider actually won the popular vote in a VERY outsider year against Trump (and may have won the electoral vote to boot, but that's yet to be determined). Frankly, there was no time when Sanders wasn't outpolling her, especially on the issues that were critical. In fact, he may well have won for the simple fact that he would have run a campaign based on actual issues, rather than pearl clutching the way Clinton did. Seriously, as a percentage of her ads and other messaging, Clinton's campaign was by far the most negative and least issue driven campaign in a long time by a whopping margin. Even Trump addressed issues more than her campaign did. Maybe this is not advice worthy of million dollar consulting contracts, but when you're a pretty solidly disliked candidate, maybe running a campaign on your personal biography isn't so smart?

http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/blog/2016-election-study-published/

Turns out, issues matter. who knew?

Sanders, was and remains, one of the most popular politicians out there. It ain't because of his charisma, that's for sure.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

For camparison, Clinton was leading Trump by 6-8 point at that point

You can't prove what would happen in an alternate universe, I'm sorry. I don't have figured from the multiverse where Bernie won. Botox and his ilk will trot out poll numbers taken as the Hillary campaign treated Bernie with kids gloves, what happens when berries ties with murderous commie world leaders was revealed, what about his Vietnam war past? What about his wife's financial shenanigans, about the price tag on his programs and the tax increases that would be required. The republicans would have absolutely crushed him on it.

Particularly once they trotted out his Russia ties, his stealing from charities, his long record of sexual assault, and his racism and sexism. That'd have sunk him for sure...

Oh, wait.

No one gives a shit about Vietnam. See bush v Kerry. Hell, what about Trump's Vietnam dodging? Non issue. His wife "financial issues" are another bit of breitbart fake news. Of course Republicans will believe it, but those people aren't voting for a Jew anyway. As for tax increases, they're hugely popular programs and a heck of a lot cheaper than the gutting of the (popular Obamacare). Sanders could sell that easily by pointing to the sweetheart deals Wall Street gets and keeps getting while middle America does. I don't think that's have been hard in the slightest.

I have yet to hear a cogent argument for why Trump could have beaten sanders. All sanders would have had to do would be to stay on message.

Og, you are wrong, people do give a shit against vietnam, but it only works against democrats, like sanders.

And thanks for reminding me he's not Christian, even less of a chance. He stood absolutely no chance in the general election

Hell, Clinton could have won if the party weren't such morons and so tied to Wall Street. It's the voters, stupid!

Actually, I suspect Clinton did win, but that's another story. Only a matter of time before someone examines the voting machines for evidence of tampering which astonishingly has not been done yet.

She lost because liberals were too busy griping about the things wrong with her rather than being fucking adults and realizing what was at stake. Whatever, hope Botox and his ilk enjoy the 6-3 (or 7-2) Supreme Court that will last decades. Fucking idiots. This is what happens when you raise a nation of botoxs. Consumer citizens who are so indoctrinated with the "customer is always right" motto that they think they can get a better deal somewhere else. Sorry, only one shop in town dickheads, enjoy the total erosion of your civil liberties.

I'm, again, zero data to support that. Liberals showed up, but the minorities who gave Clinton the nomination stayed home, especially the African american vote. And of course she completely ignored the Midwest with, yes, zero! Ad buys in Wisconsin until a week before the election! Being insanely stupid had a lot to do with it. Failing utterly to talk about policy was another own goal. "Hey, Is a woman" doesn't cut it as a campaign when people are hurting. If you think liberals sniping was the problem, no doubt you and your centrist kind will continue with they substance free, policy free stupidity while Republicans win everything in sight. the Democrats have been bashing the left for near on twenty years and running as Republican lite and that has resulted in the biggest series of Republican victories in history. But, sure, by all means, let's keep running the same utterly failed strategies that have failed for decades and expect a different result. Go ahead. Completely ignore the massive economic dislocations and see how that goes. Trump did a half assed job, but a half assed job was better than none.

All I ask is that California be let out so Democrats and Republicans can continue being stupid on their own dime.

Sanders gave Clinton the playbook and it was liberals donating and doing the walking. I sure didn't see many mushy moderates out there doing shit. All talk and no work.

Fuck that

Good, give sanders or warren the nomination next time, see how that works for you (and the rest of us)

And alert. Vietnam also works against Guys who won bronze sars, silver stars, and three Purple Hearts.... with people who aren't going to vote for a party that includes black people no matter what. The point is, Vietnam makes zero difference being no matter what people did in Vietnam Republicans will lie and attack regardless. Interesting that another of the guys who won the presidency as Democrats served. In fact, the more decorated candidate for President has lost every election since 1988. (Gore ironically volunteered to go to Vietnam, yet his deployment was held up by the Nixon White House to ensure his dad didn't get political advantage in the senate election. So, Gore's Vietnam tour was short because of Republican intervention)

The fact is, if Vietnam mattered, these right wing vets would vote Democratic, but they never do. Bo, Vietnam service or lack there of is waaaaay down on the list

Sure a lot of people aren't voting for a Jewish guy, but those guys will never vote for Democrat because of the black people in the party. They literally don't matter. What matters is that Sanders could have picked up more Obama voters by addressing the issues than Clinton did.

Independents gave Sanders Oklahoma. When just Democrats were polled for the primary, Clinton had the lead, but the Democratic Party let independents vote in the primary and they tipped for Sanders. He was preferred by people outside the party. Independent registration is growing across the country. Sanders definitively had better chances than Clinton.