Draw contrasts with Republicans without going negative by describing our candidates in simple language:

Integrity. Courage. Honor.

The ACLU’s position is that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech. If someone is wrong, he or she should be corrected but not silenced, at least not by the government. That preserves everybody’s rights and advances debate.

In practice, the ACLU’s position allows bubbles of lies to form and remain unchallenged (see FOX News). They nevertheless say that the freedom to speak is more precious than somehow arbitrating all speech and permitting only true things to be said. The government cannot do that under the Constitution, for good reason.

They have been brainwashed to shut down whenever they hear that name, and refuse to hear any more. They cling to a debunked study saying Snopes is fake.

So, plagiarize. Read the Snopes article and pick out two or three facts that prove something is fake, and make those points in your own words. You can cite the same sources they do. That's usually enough to change minds, as long as they don't know where it came from.

If you address these problems like a kindly old schoolmarm, Sen. Schumer, you won’t win over any voters.

When we talk calmly and rationally about horrific outrages, people sense the disconnect and perceive our side as not being genuine, as though we don’t believe what we are saying. That makes people less inclined to agree with us.

So...think of all the suffering this decision causes, feel it in your gut, get really pissed off, THEN speak. Righteous anger at these daily moral outrages is contagious.

I realize this plan of raising your voice will lead to accusations of us being unhinged, but have you heard RW talk radio lately?

NOT that they happened the way the accusers said. Apologizing for inappropriate behavior (such as jokes) is not the same as admitting to sexual assault.

Tweeden was quick to accept his apology and move on once Franken mentioned an ethics inquiry. Now we find out Stone had been coaching her. That says a lot about her credibility and motive.

except, as you noted, we didn't have to make anything up about him. He set up the surveillance state, instituted torture, invaded the wrong freaking country and had the worst domestic terrorism attack go through on his lack of watch.

In pointing out those things, we (myself included) called him every name in the book, illegitimate, *, the antichrist, Li'l Boots, you name it. The right heard this and it hurt their feelings. If they don't hear the backstory and don't know the details of history, they dismiss legitimate criticism as sour grapes if it comes sprinkled with insults. Insults make it easier to tune out criticism, so it never pierces the bubble.

So they came up with illegitimacy arguments (birtherism), blamed him for the debt (his "massive spending increase" was accounting for the off-the-books supplementals W used to fund the wars), blamed him for "bungling" the wars his predecessor started, blamed him for the surveillance state his predecessor built, and used the same constitutional arguments we did against domestic spying.

Now we're out of adjectives for the incoming shitstormtroopers. I think our best strategy is to stick to the constitutional viiolations, because that's about the only thing they hear. Suffering means nothing to them.

Trump will violate the emoluments clause unless he fully divests from his business interests. He cannot be seated by the electors or the House.

I before we, especially HRC.

that a person's vote is a sacred choice and an essential part of society even if that vote never decides an election; that society only works if people are able to exercise their voice; and that it fails when they can't; and that society can be said to function well as a representation in proportion to voter turnout. (No instance of voter impersonation has decided an election either, but I digress...)

There are those who vote strategically, saying half a loaf is better than no loaf, or half a loaf is better than a baboon. Then there are those who vote their conscience, who would rather vote FOR what they believe instead of against what they fear. That's their (your) right; and no one can say fuck-all about it (or rather, they can say it, but it matters fuck-all) because it's YOUR voice. Authoritarian types might urge you to join their strategy, and they have the right to try to persuade, but no amount of peer pressure should influence your vote—only you.

So put me down on the side of voting one's conscience.

Churches have great GOTV. Southern blacks would be a lot more comfortable voting for an active Christian rather than a secular Jew. They've known the Clintons for decades and see them as heroes; but they've never heard of Sanders, or if they have, it's likely to be shade.

Outside of the bible belt, the country is more secular and more aligned with Sanders' vision for the future.

Viability. People saying he can't win, yet he does.