I have read and/or heard that a significant number of voters voted to leave as a protest, not expecting or desiring Brexit. There are also large segments of their society, such as Scotland, Northern Ireland, and young people, who strongly oppose Brexit. Suppose polling shows that after the reality of the result sts in, the majority is actually opposed, might it not become far less "suicidal" for Parliament to overrule the referendum?

The respondents are (according to the poll) 59% male to 33% female and 51% GOP to 28% Dem. Those numbers do not reflect the voting population. My guess is that Breitbart or some such site sent its readers to the poll.

Anonymous wrote:5 overall republican losses would give democrats a senate majority, I think. I can't find the source of that math. Ha ha anyone have a good current seat count? Jk. I heard it is 5. That seems about right.

Republican Party 54
Democratic Party 45
Independent 1

The independent is Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with the Dems; Sanders is now a Dem, and claims he will continue to be one. If the Dems win four seats, the VP's tie-breaking vote will give control to whichever party wins the White House. If they take five, they will have control no matter who is VP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He knows what he's doing. Reportedly he vowed to do this after Obama mocked and humiliated him at the WHCD a few years ago. This is a revenge play. He does't care who gets hurt.

Link?

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:I'm a liberal, as is obvious from previous posts, so my reactions undoubtedly show bias. But the other GOP candidates have been more consistent in holding views I disagree with, and yet none (except Cruz) is as frightening to me as Trump. So it's not really a matter of political stands, but of his childishly egocentric approach that threatens to give us an authoritarian president who puts his own opinions above the Constitution.

I really wish, though, that we could have a President who is not hated by half the country. Gary Johnson may be flaky, but part of me wants to see him win.

This is a little simplistic. If more people knew more about Gary Johnson, more people would dislike or "hate" him.

You're struggling with Bernie's crash and burn, and I get it, but I do wonder why you look to a white male Libertarian as your backup option. Is it the weed? Because that's not really a great reason.

You're right that I originally supported Bernie and like his ideas, but I am glad that Hillary got the nomination because I think she'll be better as President. You'll notice that my comment about Johnson was far from an endorsement (although you're also right that I agree with him about weed). I will work and vote for Hillary, but it bothers me that half of my fellow citizens will hate the result. Unfortunately, it may not be so much about Hillary as about the polarization of the country, where each side demonizes the other. You can see it right here on DCUM.

I'm a liberal, as is obvious from previous posts, so my reactions undoubtedly show bias. But the other GOP candidates have been more consistent in holding views I disagree with, and yet none (except Cruz) is as frightening to me as Trump. So it's not really a matter of political stands, but of his childishly egocentric approach that threatens to give us an authoritarian president who puts his own opinions above the Constitution.

I really wish, though, that we could have a President who is not hated by half the country. Gary Johnson may be flaky, but part of me wants to see him win.

Trump learned his business strategy from the movie The Producers, where the idea was to raise lots of money to produce a show that was sure to fail, so the investors could be stiffed and the producers could walk off with the bulk of the money.

Trump owes Mel Brooks a major debt for the idea.

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Americans have many different outlook and expectations. Some wonderful people may have well-motivated reasons for voting in ways that seem insane to me. If I am a patriotic American, my loyalty should be to the American people, including those I disagree with, including those misguided enough (in my own personal view) to start divisive threads like this one.

And I hope others will feel that way even about people who write preachy notes like this.

As someone whose posts I respect, I am surprised that you think I am seeking to be divisive. What prompted me to post this topic was Jeff's citing of the PPP poll in PA that showed the race to be even. Unlike many of my liberal compatriots, I don't think a Trump presidency is out of the question. He has tapped into a strain of real discontent with the status quo, as did Bernie.

Since I know friends and associates and even family members who planning on voting for Trump, I assure you that they are not racists or bigots.

I apologize for misreading your intent. It looked to me that you were inviting a flurry of blame-throwing, but as I said in the previous note, there are often good motives that are not clear to me.

I definitely agree that a Trump win can happen. It scares me senseless because I fear his view of leadership is closer to Mussolini than to FDR or Reagan.

As a longtime resident of Ward 4, I agree almost word for word with Jeff's assessments. More persuasive than my agreement is the fact that the Northwest Current, which clearly puts a lot more thought into local politics than the Washington Post, also agrees. You can see their endorsements on page 8 of the last two issues:
http://www.currentnewspapers.com/admin/uploadfiles/NW%2006-01-2016.pdf and
http://www.currentnewspapers.com/admin/uploadfiles/NW%2006-08-2016.pdf.

Americans have many different outlook and expectations. Some wonderful people may have well-motivated reasons for voting in ways that seem insane to me. If I am a patriotic American, my loyalty should be to the American people, including those I disagree with, including those misguided enough (in my own personal view) to start divisive threads like this one.

And I hope others will feel that way even about people who write preachy notes like this.

Anonymous wrote:Trump owns 500 businesses. Four have been bankrupt. What's that? Like a .004 percent failure rate? Seems he knows his stuff, which begs the question. What do you do OP? Chances are you're not even 1% as successful

I have no idea how many businesses Trump owns (nor do I care), but for the record, 4 out of 500 is .8 percent.

Unfortunately, I could not get the article to come up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume it pointed out that after Tuesday HRC and BS will each have enough votes so that it is mathematically impossible for either to win without superdelegates. That means that if something happens to make Hillary an untenable candidate, an indictment, for example, it is within the convention rules for the superdelegates to vote against her, either giving Sanders the nomination if enough vote for him, or going to a second ballot if they vote for someone else. Once past the first ballot, all delegates are free to vote as they wish, for Sanders, O'Malley, Biden, Kerry, Warren, Klobuchar, ...

I don't claim this is at all likely as a scenario, just that it is an option for the party if the need arises -- an option that the GOP does not have.

Googling the "little guys wearing yarmulkes" quote got me to a page that pointed out that it was attributed to him in a book by a guy he says he fired, and that he denies ever saying it. Given the hyperbole he is addicted to, I don't think it would mean much anyway.

As to the actual topic of the thread, Trump's highest, if not only, goal is to increase his support, and he will do nothing to chase away any significant group of supporters, including racists and anti-Semites. Just as he dislikes tax loopholes while making full use of them, he happily accepts support from people even if the reason for their support is not something he agrees with.

I have no intention of defending Allen West, but rather than arguing with the respondent(s) defending him, I think we should thank them for actually answering OP's question and explaining what they see in West.

I'm not a conservative, but I would bet that 98% of conservatives are embarrassed by Ted Nugent. (Ten gun Ted, as he is anagrammatically known).