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.

and I know most of it won't, I would at least know we'd have an honest presdient making decisions every day thinking about people like me and not continuing to stack the deck in favor of the wealthy.

If by some miracle there is progress on one of these fronts, that's still FAR better than what any other candidate is shooting for. So my choice is clear.

Now that the public knows what's possible, I think we will get there someday. I might not live to see it, but future generations will. But if you attempt only what you know you can achieve, you have compromised before you begin.

Bernie has changed the conversation, completely. Have you noticed these Republicans talking about poverty and wealth inequality? That's not by choice!

Does that mean he had bad character?

FFS, these are statements of belief that speak to the candidate's priorities. Even if NONE of the policies he advocates are implemented in my lifetime, I know we would at least have a president who places my interests above those of big donors. I trust his decision-making process more than that of any other candidate I have ever seen.

YOUR religion applies to YOU. MY religion applies to ME. Speak your mind all you want, but don't be surprised when other people speak back. If you legislate morality, you will no longer have morality but obedience — and there is a huge difference. As Steiner put it, "a virtue practiced under constraint is futile."

People should be able to think, speak and act however they want, provided they are not hurting anyone else — which is exactly what this bill would do. Glad McCauliffe is likely to veto.