bokey wrote: 
Sure they can; that's the easy solution.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
To bad the people who post them can't be blocked.

 Proclivities wrote: 
I don't know where you live,but my neighborhood has been turned into a bowl of turds.2 days after my lawn was cut,I had 2 Corona bottles and 1 Modela can in my front yard.Aye caramba!

Taste The Outrage: Donald Trump Jr.'s Tweet Compares Refugees To Skittles

 "...the bowl of Skittles would have to be awfully large for Trump's analogy to be accurate: The odds of being killed by a refugee in a terrorist attack are about 1 in more than 3.6 billion, according to a recent Cato Institute study."

 haresfur wrote: 
I know, right?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Wait. Isn't the Onion supposed to be satire?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I clicked on the sponsor link there. Pretty cool "Maytag No-Smear" browser extension (Chrome) blocks negative political posts. I'm not installing it tho.

Who Are Donald Trump’s Supporters?

 buddy wrote: 
I hear ya.I supported Obama in 2008.No way a mere Trump supporter can sink lower than that.I'm eternally damned.I have to get a telescope to look up to the untarnished Trump supporters.

 aflanigan wrote: 
This blog post explains what Citizens United really stands for, which is basically that now corporations can attack politicians by name in their pre-election ads.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/the-court-after-scalia-campaign-finance-law-wonderland/#more-246262

 kcar wrote: 
In the current political climate, achieving ambitious goals like marriage equality through an incremental process seems like the realistic approach, wouldn't you say?

The Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton's Incrementalism 

How to Overturn Citizens United 

Neil Hume and Henry Sanderson in Singapore, David Sheppard in London

Mr Hamm’s comments may also reflect a growing dichotomy in the US. While low prices have long been feted as a boon for consumers, the oil price crash has been painful for energy-producing states such as Texas and North Dakota.

 ScottN wrote: 
Ah! Ya got me. I can be very bad at picking up on deadpan-type humor. 

Yeah, I support Hillary—strongly so—but I think she's too insulated from the average American. If I had her ear, I would tell her to talk about things that make her passionate. Show people that you want to help them, that you're not just about getting power. Apologize if necessary for the email server. Pledge to hold yourself and your staff to clear standards of conduct.

I would also advise her to disband the Clinton Foundation or sever ties between it and her immediate family. As things stand now, idiots like Rush Limbaugh will be connecting the dots between old donations and decisions that Hillary makes as President, even if there's absolutely no substance to the charges. 

 kcar wrote: 
My poor attempt at sarcasm.  I support HRC. Trump is a disaster, imo.  Worse than a fraud.  He seems a distinctly unprincipled man.

 ScottN wrote
 
As opposed to who and when? Have we ever had this "clear ideological and controversy-free, well-qualified candidate choice"? 

This election was bound to be nasty and cynical, after the optimism and promise a new era in politics that surrounded Obama in '08. A lot of voters feel ignored by the parties' establishment and left out of the benefits of the economic recovery. Sarah Palin's sneering at "that hopey-changey thing" resonates with them. 

We're experiencing the uglier side of democracy right now. The leaders of both parties really mis-read the mood of Americans and pushed forward Jeb and Hillary. Both ticked off boxes for big donors and the political establishment but didn't appeal to the voting public.

That lead to the rise of Bernie and Trump, both of whom pandered to an angry populace which had real and serious complaints but lacked a clear understanding of whether politics could provide what it wanted, and if politics could deliver, how those things would happen. 

Trump is still pandering and it should be clear to any intelligent adult still paying attention that Trump is a fraud. He is promising the moon to his supporters but has zero idea of how he's going to deliver on those promises.

Hillary is extremely qualified but does not appeal when speaking to a large public. She seems morally compromised and secretive. Her policy goals are achievable but incremental and uninspiring.  

It's been a long, ugly, mudslinging campaign. Many voters want more than politics can deliver—things like a return of enough manufacturing jobs, a revival of the coal industry, free healthcare and free college tuition. I think for a lot of us America feels like a bit of ripoff, with a shifting and disappearing mosaic of economic opportunities and a national political system that doesn't answer to the average guy anymore. 

Right now we are in an age of diminished expectations and disillusionment. We should push for change starting at the local and state level instead of expecting that a new President is going to fix everything. 

 ScottN wrote: 
How's one out of three?

 DaveInVA wrote:Yes. It is unfortunate that there isn't a clear ideological and controversy-free, well-qualified candidate choice.  Bad for the country.

 

 ScottN wrote: 
I wasn't trying to support Trump. What I don't understand is why anyone wants to defend either of them as they are both horrible choices but yet all the Clitnon apologist come out. I don't want either of them as leader of this country.

 DaveInVA wrote: 
You do understand, I hope, that by Trump's claim, not Clinton's, he has quite embarrassed himself into defining his own ineligibility?
By Trump's standards and claims, not hers.