and it allowed W to be elected. Twice.

of the Republicans. Unawareness also plays a role, of course.

rampant across both the justice & political system & crosses party lines.

many other isms. Not our finest hour, that's for sure.

Just looking at CNN running weeks worth of huge font fear headlines. Listened to Diane Rehm on my chores this morning - no awareness of the role the media plays in misinforming the public. And worse.

-taking by a victim toward a captor.

No, it is not Stockholm Syndrome.

It is called individual choice.

Don't vote for him, he's a radical and has no chance?

Like the choice between O'Malley, Sanders, and Clinton. While I personally think O'Malley and Clinton are the only two serious options, no one is taking anything from Sanders.

The choice is between three candidates.

But what if the party organizational choice wins? I don't have the syndrome.

Sanders supporters have claimed POC are suffering from Stockholm if they support Clinton. Now you are saying it is just her supporters in general? I wish you knew how offensive you are.

Who are you trying to say has a syndrome? Me? I have something to tell you if that is the case.

know what's offensive? People who say they have my best interests at heart and don't fix it. That's light years more offensive I could ever be nor want to be.

You are just moving all around. But you got to throw the word Stockholm out there so job well done.

I'm consistent. At least I left the option out there of unawareness.

Is it you and people who vote similar to you who are suffering from Stockholm or are just unaware?

See, you left only the possibility of your brilliance, while everyone else must be suffering from something.

You are simply pointing fingers and claiming you "left options out there." You didn't put options in for the other four fingers and you point and wag at others from the mountaintop.

hasn't been fixed meaning it can happen again.

It was about choices at the booth.

I haven't moved. Bernie is not the leader currently.

Wall street does not take us hostage or put a cap in our knees if we don't go along and neither does the anti-wall street candidate.

known union supporter because they are afraid he cannot win or because they just do not understand? I talk to a lot of voters and they think the system is rigged and she is going to win OR we are going to lose the general. They are hostages to propaganda.

that has no basis in fact.

own interests - $15 hour wages, TPP, etc. Why would they do that? When I say they are afraid it is not a physical fear - it is a fear of losing and then not being able to work with the winner unless they worked for her/his election. Fear in this case is not illogical but it is not going to win them anything but more trouble.

As to the people I talked with some are union and they all tell me that they think Bernie is right but their unions endorse Hillary. You may be right but the left has gotten beat a lot lately. And that is what they are thinking.

What is a logical answer to why they would vote against their own needs? If you can answer that we will both have the proof you are asking for. BTW I was calling the union leaders afraid, not the members.

Otherwise, quit insulting union members.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You are a free agent and your vote is your own.

If you are listening to "Don't vote for him, he's a radical and has no chance," then that argument is resonating with you to some extent. It might be troubling to you, but you've only yourself to look to for that unease.

You'll have to place your "blame" on your very own thought process, for hearing the argument and finding some validity in it.

best choice of what I want and expect in a candidate.

I have my own list of policies and factors that I apply to a candidate. I make up my own mind.

So your argument that I am somehow under some mystic magical evil eye spell is wrong.

Assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you or prioritizes differently that you is lacking awareness or intellectual sophistication is a piss-poor way to understand anything.

It always seems to lead to people feeling that they are one of the elect who have special insight, which leads to CT type scenarios.

I'm sure those are waiting in the wings.

and what others are. You'll find what you're discussing particularly among authoritarian conservatives, which to some degree is most of them, but strong conservatives are almost (not entirely) practically synonymous with strong authoritarian attachment and obedience to recognized authorities. As hijackers may become.

That LIBERALS ARE NOT prone to this behavior, though, is key. WE DON'T DO THAT.

Extremists on both sides may also attach themselves in an irrational way or degree to a particular leader also, as we sometimes see during elections.

But LIBERALS DON'T DO THAT. To diminish this particular behavior, encourage both liberalism and rational, open thinking in education, culture, and leadership. Oh, yes, and especially in ourselves.

However, my point remains and is a real issue.

Trump for saying his supporters were right to best up a protester are like all of us.

That kind of person does that. People like me do not.

You know what's in you, of course. Just do not confuse yourself with "America."

afraid to vote for a candidate they believe is right then yes, Stockholm Syndrome.

Personally I am going to feel more lost if we lose a primary election because we are afraid to fight.

All I'm sayin man. Messed. Up.

This, ignorance, or people actually support conservative policy. These are the only possibilities.

Google economic Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and Hillary's plan better.

Nah, can't be that

"Only I can protect you from the Republicans"...no matter that her policy is warmed over 80s Republican supply side shit.

.....all because you don't like others' choices.

I don't know of anyone here that sympathizes with the poor unfortunate commercial mega bankers.

hint, clever comebacks only work when there is a moducum of universal truth in them.

It was bad enough the first time.