I'm really surprised the Jill Stein is at around 5% in the polls, mostly by bernie or bust. She's pretty transphobic, she panders to the anti-vaccination crowd, she is anti-gmo (despite its numerous testing and health benefits), and supports homeopathy despite being a harvard medical graduate. She is a mean spirited person who has no problem pushing vague insinuations ("Big Pharma") or celebrating the brexit vote despite it being pushed on the back of xenophobia and racism (hey, the ends justify the means). Her comments on ontheissues are only in the year that leads up to her elections, and I can't recall reading one that was critical of the GOP, only the democrats. It would be nice if during the other three years she could help leftist causes, but that's too hard for her. It's easier for her to run in elections, siphon votes from the dems, and help the GOP win.You're only focusing on specific issues as opposed to her overall record.
Edit: This is exactly the opposite of what you did with Hillary.
Anyone wanna go get the platforms? Cause the GOPs is hilarious!
Ironbite-and by hilarious I mean super frightening.
Conversion therapy for queer kids. Let me repeat that. CONVERSION THERAPY FOR QUEER KIDS. Some members of the RNC even wanted to endorse it more explicitly than they did.
Zealous opposition to same-sex marriage. Here’s the quote: “Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere In this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the States.”
Reversing the Obama administration’s order to grant trans students access to restrooms, locker rooms, etc. The Republicans feel that such things should be based on biological gender, not gender identity.
Treating internet porn as “a public health crisis.” Quote: “Pornography, with his harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and wellbeing[.]”
Gender discrimination. To quote Time magazine: “[T]he platform committee voted against including the word “gender” in a list of types of discrimination that should be opposed. On Tuesday, one member described the attempt to add that word to a list including qualities like race, sex and creed as a “sneak attack.”
Repeal of the Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment currently prevents churches and other tax-exempt organizations from organizing politically, endorsing political candidates, etc. Repealing it would throw separation of church and state out the window…not to mention that it would give evangelical churches and televangelist organizations much more power, driving the country further to the right.
Anyone wanna go get the platforms? Cause the GOPs is hilarious!
Ironbite-and by hilarious I mean super frightening.
Good jorb me. For following someone on tumblr who remotely does politics. And without further ado....the GOP platform.QuoteConversion therapy for queer kids. Let me repeat that. CONVERSION THERAPY FOR QUEER KIDS. Some members of the RNC even wanted to endorse it more explicitly than they did.
Zealous opposition to same-sex marriage. Here’s the quote: “Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere In this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the States.”
Reversing the Obama administration’s order to grant trans students access to restrooms, locker rooms, etc. The Republicans feel that such things should be based on biological gender, not gender identity.
Treating internet porn as “a public health crisis.” Quote: “Pornography, with his harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and wellbeing[.]”
Gender discrimination. To quote Time magazine: “[T]he platform committee voted against including the word “gender” in a list of types of discrimination that should be opposed. On Tuesday, one member described the attempt to add that word to a list including qualities like race, sex and creed as a “sneak attack.”
Repeal of the Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment currently prevents churches and other tax-exempt organizations from organizing politically, endorsing political candidates, etc. Repealing it would throw separation of church and state out the window…not to mention that it would give evangelical churches and televangelist organizations much more power, driving the country further to the right.
And I'll start screaming and never stop.
Ironbite-*drinks*
“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
“It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement.
...
Schwartz says of Trump, “He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it.” Since most people are “constrained by the truth,” Trump’s indifference to it “gave him a strange advantage.”
When challenged about the facts, Schwartz says, Trump would often double down, repeat himself, and grow belligerent.
“I was shocked,” Schwartz told me. “Trump didn’t fit any model of human being I’d ever met. He was obsessed with publicity, and he didn’t care what you wrote.” He went on, “Trump only takes two positions. Either you’re a scummy loser, liar, whatever, or you’re the greatest. I became the greatest. He wanted to be seen as a tough guy, and he loved being on the cover.”
Call me nitpicking, but isn't there a rule against announcing yourself as a ghostwriter?
Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties.
If there is such a rule I don't think it applies when it's made explicit in the cover of the book in question.QuoteSchwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties.
And Trump still makes statements like “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ” He doesn't give a fuck about any evidence when he lies.
Heh, I remember that picture from the 2008 primaries. Ah, good times.
Heh, I remember that picture from the 2008 primaries. Ah, good times.
........BWHAHAHAHAHAA!
Ironbite-also Nazi salute
Heh, I remember that picture from the 2008 primaries. Ah, good times.
Good times, man. Remember when we thought things couldn't possibly get any worse?
Hey Ironbite, if you're hanging around, isn't Trump god friends with Vince McMahon? I seen to remember a friendship.
Despite promising "the truth, and nothing else" in his convention speech, Donald Trump presented the nation with a series of previously debunked claims and some new ones Thursday night — about the U.S. tax burden, the perils facing police, Hillary Clinton's record and more.
Hey Ironbite, if you're hanging around, isn't Trump god friends with Vince McMahon? I seen to remember a friendship.
No, I'm not expecting wrestlers until the inauguration. I'm just wondering if Trump is recording any help getting to the lowest common denominator.
So Hillary is apparently going to pick her VP today. All signs are pointing to Tim Kaine, or Tom Vilsack. Unless she pulls some sort of shocking pick out of left field. I don't know anything about these two other than the states they are from. Tim Kaine could help out with Virginia and possibly North Carolina. Tom Vilsack could help out with Iowa. But where they stand politically I have no idea.
I saw this ad by Clinton to attack Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA)
Really, Clinton? That's the best you can do, think of the children? One of the reasons Trump's gotten this far is that the media keeps talking about his language and insults, instead of fact-checking him. If she really wants to take him down, her ads should say, "False!" after every stupid comment that he makes.
Now i'm still not a fan of Clinton, but I'd think that, 'Think of the children' is something the GOP would sink to. With all her money, she could hire someone to fact check Trump and bury him with no effort.
Hopefully she comes to her senses by the debates. I seriously doubt B.S. ads like this will do anything but make the public laugh at her.
I disagree, I think it was effective to its end. Hillary is still at a point to define her campaign because (1) she hasn't really done so yet, and (2) Trump hasn't done so yet as the RNC was just a bash Hillary fest with the old cliches of Emails and Benghazi. When the two national party candidates have high unfavorability ratings, I don't think going negative is the right choice. But, this ad highlights Trumps bombastic tone while presenting Hillary as an even-handed and level-headed leader, which isn't that different from the effective campaign LBJ ran against Goldwater.
What is more, the ad will probably resonate differently with different groups: a white man in South Carolina may not see it that same way as a latina in New Mexico. Trump's rhetoric has already acted to normalize bigotry among children (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/09/california-primary-trump-rhetoric-school-bully?CMP=share_btn_tw). I think the ad really intends to target mothers who are black or latina (evidenced against from Trump's "Blood from her 'where-ever'" comment in the video) who fear that Trump represents the racial underbelly of America coming to the forefront of our national politics.
Besides, I think throwing a fact check into your opponent's face is most effectively done in a live debate, a la Obama-Romney in 2012.
He will disappoint some liberals namely because of his pro-trade position, which he will have to temper now.
Yeah, sorry, not buying it. The media has been trying the same tactic for a year now and all it's done is make Trump even more popular. A number of people are flocking to Trump because, according them, he's 'keeping it real and calling it like he sees it.'
If Clinton wants to take out trump and Pence she should learn how to shoot a gun then in one of her debates just unload a glock on 'em.
So Ted Cruz can kill up to 37 people but Hillary can't even kill two?If Clinton wants to take out trump and Pence she should learn how to shoot a gun then in one of her debates just unload a glock on 'em.
Yeah..... I don't think that is a very good idea. There is this thing. It is called a felony. You generally don't want one of those.
Ted Cruz killed 37 people?
I don't believe Cruz killed 37 people. It's got to be more then that by now.
Anyway here's some food for thought Why we should make Trump the King of America. (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12235572/donald-trump-king-america)
A cache of more than 19,000 emails from Democratic Party officials, leaked in advance of Hillary Clinton's nomination at the party's convention next week in Philadelphia, details the acrimonious split between the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's former rival, Senator Bernie Sanders.
Several emails posted by Wikileaks on its document disclosure website show DNC officials scoffing at Sanders and his supporters and, in one instance, questioning his commitment to his Jewish religion. Some emails also show DNC and White House officials mulling whether to invite guests with controversial backgrounds to Democratic Party events.
Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series.
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
It's these Jesus thing.
AMEN
When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak... as being spit on by the rest of the world.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Resigns As Democratic Party Chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she is stepping down as Democratic Party chairwoman at the end of this week's convention.
The Florida congresswoman has been under fire following the publication of leaked internal emails by Wikileaks suggesting the Democratic National Committee favoured Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries.
That prompted runner-up Bernie Sanders on Sunday to call for Wasserman Schultz's immediate resignation.
In a statement, Wasserman Schultz says she still plans to fulfil her duties formally opening and closing the convention in Philadelphia. She also says she will speak at the four-day gathering.
http://bients.com/julian-assange-next-leak-will-ensure-hillarys-arrest/
Does anyone think that IF Clinton got arrested there could be any other result than Trump winning the elections? Because I don't see any other candidate having a chance at beating Trump anymore and although 1342014th claim that THIS TIME we can prove that Hillary Clinton definitely did something so bad that she would get arrested for it is well into "beating a dead horse" territory it is possible that the endlessly repeated claims will at least hurt her popularity regardless of the truth behind the claims.
http://bients.com/julian-assange-next-leak-will-ensure-hillarys-arrest/
Does anyone think that IF Clinton got arrested there could be any other result than Trump winning the elections? Because I don't see any other candidate having a chance at beating Trump anymore and although 1342014th claim that THIS TIME we can prove that Hillary Clinton definitely did something so bad that she would get arrested for it is well into "beating a dead horse" territory it is possible that the endlessly repeated claims will at least hurt her popularity regardless of the truth behind the claims.
Does anyone think that IF Clinton got arrested there could be any other result than Trump winning the elections?
Oh. So it's less "Hillary did a bad thing" and more "The party wanted to make sure that their member became the candidate rather than the outsider?"That's what was the main result of the dump. When saying Hillary would get arrested Assange referred to her telling someone to edit the mention of the security clearance out from an email but the FBI investigation deemed it as carelessness and not malicious.
I don't remember the details but the smaller parties need certain amount of votes for easier ballot access in the next election. That's why they will benefit from being able to draw voters away from the two unpopular big party candidates. In clearly red or blue states this will be a bigger factor but in the battleground state voters are harder to draw away since they know their votes are critical for actually winning the election.
I stand corrected. Hearing people talk about the importance of voting tactically has led me to believe that's a common way of thinking. Looking at the actual election results and polling data seems to refute that. By the way, this look at the data made me really worried. I hope Clinton gets a good boost from the convention.I don't remember the details but the smaller parties need certain amount of votes for easier ballot access in the next election. That's why they will benefit from being able to draw voters away from the two unpopular big party candidates. In clearly red or blue states this will be a bigger factor but in the battleground state voters are harder to draw away since they know their votes are critical for actually winning the election.
I don't know. Here in FL, which I believe is still a battleground state, it seems most people want either Trump or Johnson, and Johnson is pretty popular, at least here in N FL.
So Trump got a convention bump and is now leading in the polls http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-gets-convention-bounce-drawing-polls-to-dead-heat/.
I'm getting sick and tired of how stupid the American people are. I have no idea how in this day and age a fucking fear mongering narcissitic blow hard can make it this far. Especially from a man who makes extreme promises with no actual plans on how to deliver on them. It's truly getting scary now.
Hillary has to somehow unite the democratic party this week
Hillary has to somehow unite the democratic party this week
I don't see that happening.
At least not as long as Clinton's campaign strategy is saying "Fuck you" to the left and riding high on wads of corporate donor money.
Half a day in and already the DNC has had more good speeches than the RNC had in total.But what about radical Islamic terrorism and illegal alien drug smugglers who run around killing Americans and stealing their jobs? The Democrats clearly don't really care about American lives at all.
Predictions:
The Republican Party as we've known it is over. It'll stick around, but anyone who expects to win in its nominating contests is going to have to be openly racist, not covertly racist.
We'll have a left to center right party, and a party of ridiculous Nazi re-run characters.
Is it really that surprising? This is a country that STILL daemonizes intelligence, that despises intellectual pursuits and holds up brainless athletes as the epitome of what one can become. A country where people like Tom Cruise can still be taken somewhat seriously despite being a raving lunatic, where "militias" aren't disbanded by force despite being domestic terrorists in waiting, where the only thing that matters when you want to run for leadership of the incredibly complex machine that is government is whether or not you're popular and say things people like. This is a country that barely blinks at mass murders, but if you dare disrespect or somehow interrupt the Super Bowl, you'd be lucky to not get lynched. A country that spends more on military R&D than it does on fucking infrastructure. The only two things that separate us from third world shitholes in Africa are a high GDP and an ostensibly working government.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1917/minorities-majorities.htm
Seriously read this, it's a quick read.
What was the Amy meeting all about??
Hey there! It was basically just a general check-in meeting where she thanked us for being flexible as we wait for a nominee and said that she and Kaplan are in the process of figuring out what our collaboration with Hillary's people will look like once she gets it.
Leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee scrambled this spring to conceal the details of a joint fundraising arrangement with Hillary Clinton that funneled money through state Democratic parties.
But during the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.
...
Miranda argued in the emails that the committee should try to shape any coverage by claiming that “while the funds are going to the DNC right now to build tools and capacity for the general election, there will be a point when the funds stay in the states to fund coordinated campaigns that are now beginning to get organized.” But in a subsequent email in early May he admitted he wasn’t sure if the coordinated campaigns with the state parties were already getting started “or does it start later in the summer?”
Wasserman Schultz responded: “It starts now.”
...
Beyond the transfers, much of the fund’s $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.
The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for “salary and overhead expenses” to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive — both of which also serve the Clinton campaign — for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.
Just to put some things in perspective: https://thenib.com/hillary-s-holdouts-were-bigger-than-bernieorbust
Well, at least they know how to turn the blame towards Sanders when Trump wins.Just to put some things in perspective: https://thenib.com/hillary-s-holdouts-were-bigger-than-bernieorbust
but something something bernie bros misogyny.
That’s the way things look after the New York Times reported Wednesday that Donald Trump Jr. offered Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) the opportunity to be "the most powerful vice president in history" back in May.
According to a Kasich adviser who spoke with the Times, the younger Trump said that Kasich would be in charge of both domestic and foreign policy. And what would Donald Sr. be in charge of? "Making America great again."
The only silver lining is that Trump probably won't actually be president if he wins.QuoteThat’s the way things look after the New York Times reported Wednesday that Donald Trump Jr. offered Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) the opportunity to be "the most powerful vice president in history" back in May.
According to a Kasich adviser who spoke with the Times, the younger Trump said that Kasich would be in charge of both domestic and foreign policy. And what would Donald Sr. be in charge of? "Making America great again."
So this is probably an election between Clinton and Pence, with an angry orange yelling racist stuff but not doing anything if Trump wins.
The only silver lining is that Trump probably won't actually be president if he wins.QuoteThat’s the way things look after the New York Times reported Wednesday that Donald Trump Jr. offered Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) the opportunity to be "the most powerful vice president in history" back in May.
According to a Kasich adviser who spoke with the Times, the younger Trump said that Kasich would be in charge of both domestic and foreign policy. And what would Donald Sr. be in charge of? "Making America great again."
So this is probably an election between Clinton and Pence, with an angry orange yelling racist stuff but not doing anything if Trump wins.
We don't know if Pence got the same deal Kasich did. Keep in mind that Kasich has two more years as a governor than Pence and six more years in the House (plus four years in the Ohio State Senate).
The only silver lining is that Trump probably won't actually be president if he wins.QuoteThat’s the way things look after the New York Times reported Wednesday that Donald Trump Jr. offered Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) the opportunity to be "the most powerful vice president in history" back in May.
According to a Kasich adviser who spoke with the Times, the younger Trump said that Kasich would be in charge of both domestic and foreign policy. And what would Donald Sr. be in charge of? "Making America great again."
So this is probably an election between Clinton and Pence, with an angry orange yelling racist stuff but not doing anything if Trump wins.
The only silver lining is that Trump probably won't actually be president if he wins.QuoteThat’s the way things look after the New York Times reported Wednesday that Donald Trump Jr. offered Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) the opportunity to be "the most powerful vice president in history" back in May.
According to a Kasich adviser who spoke with the Times, the younger Trump said that Kasich would be in charge of both domestic and foreign policy. And what would Donald Sr. be in charge of? "Making America great again."
So this is probably an election between Clinton and Pence, with an angry orange yelling racist stuff but not doing anything if Trump wins.
If I was a Republican this would make me more likely to vote for Trump. It would give faith that the GOP is still the old GOP and the pandering to populists is still just lies to get votes and nothing more. In fact Trump as a figurehead would serve as a great distraction as long as he has no real power.
...holy sh*t those were four good speeches. Biden was amazing, Bloomberg savaged Trump, Kaine saved his speech with the "Believe me" section, and Obama was Obama.
So….. Lucky you…. I have been asked to contact you about your giving to the DNC…..I thought I would email you rather than call and put you on the spot.
I know you are all in for Hillary (thank goodness things are looking good there finally), but the DNC is looking to past generous supporters like you for contributions now, before the convention. I know there is an argument for giving through the Hillary Victory Fund, but it is also important to give now if you want anything at convention….. If you do another DNC max out check now, before June 1, you qualify for a convention package….. And I am expecting you want to be there! It has been my experience that the DNC can do more for donors than the campaign can - at this point in the cycle for a first term presidential candidate -
You know… I am as up front and straightforward as possible - so there you go
Let me know what you are thinking - the convention package information is attached
We're back for good on the 8th. I plan on going to the convention and, of course, want the best package but, in the scheme of everything, it's less important than Hillary becoming President. Happy to talk with you but my inclination is to give to the Victory Fund. Also, I'm curious who asked you to reach out. They usually call me directly. In any event, let's talk, either by phone or over lunch, as I always value your opinion.
Well… giving to the DNC only strengthens it for when she is the nominee and gets you into the convention -
The argument for giving thru the Victory Fund is credit or access…. If the campaign will give you more credit for giving through the victory fund and more access because you can attend a smaller event post convention with that max out check - then, you should wait - but going to convention is also part of “being there” and “getting credit”
[...]Trump as a figurehead would serve as a great distraction as long as he has no real power.
[...]Trump as a figurehead would serve as a great distraction as long as he has no real power.
So, basically another Reagan, then :P
Apparently that Assange quote where he said he had "enough evidence" to guarantee a Clinton indictment was fabricated (https://boingboing.net/2016/07/29/how-a-cooked-assange-quote-end.html)
I stopped paying attention after Trump's RNC speech when I realized that there's no good outcome for this election for me, so it isn't worth my time.
I've found myself happier in the last week+ since I turned off the political news. Maybe it's the head-in-the-sand effect, but when your choices are Horrible Candidate A, Horrible Candidate B, and irrelevant candidates C and D, the sand isn't looking so bad.
Donald Trump says the fall debate schedule is "unacceptable," raising the specter that he may try to skip them.
In a tweet on Friday night, Trump incorrectly said that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are "trying to rig the debates."
In fact, the fall debate schedule was determined almost a year ago by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, a private group made up of both Republicans and Democrats.
His primary complaint is that two of the debates are scheduled on the same nights as NFL games.
That's true. (It was also true in 2012, and the debates were still high-rated.)
As usual, Hillary & the Dems are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games. Same as last time w/ Bernie. Unacceptable!
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested Monday that he fears the general election "is going to be rigged" — an unprecedented assertion by a modern presidential candidate.
Trump's extraordinary claim — one he did not back up with any immediate evidence — would, if it became more than just an offhand comment, seem to challenge the very essence of a fair democratic process.
"I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest," the Republican nominee told a town hall crowd in Columbus, Ohio. He added that he has been hearing "more and more" that the election may not be contested fairly, though he did not elaborate further.
Gerrymandering is one of the most mind-blowingly anti-democratic things done in American politics.
EDIT:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-election-rigged-1.3703650
And now Trump is saying the election will be rigged.QuoteRepublican presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested Monday that he fears the general election "is going to be rigged" — an unprecedented assertion by a modern presidential candidate.
Trump's extraordinary claim — one he did not back up with any immediate evidence — would, if it became more than just an offhand comment, seem to challenge the very essence of a fair democratic process.
"I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest," the Republican nominee told a town hall crowd in Columbus, Ohio. He added that he has been hearing "more and more" that the election may not be contested fairly, though he did not elaborate further.
Ah but Lizard, here's the crux of the statement every other political system save for, say a dictatorship is run better than the fucking U.S.
Ah but Lizard, here's the crux of the statement every other political system save for, say a dictatorship is run better than the fucking U.S.
I don't really think that's true. American politics seems somewhat better than Argentinian politics, for one, and I don't just mean the fact that you had much fewer military coups.
For one thing, this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amado_Boudou#Vice-Presidency) was never your vice president.
Ah but Lizard, here's the crux of the statement every other political system save for, say a dictatorship is run better than the fucking U.S.
I don't really think that's true. American politics seems somewhat better than Argentinian politics, for one, and I don't just mean the fact that you had much fewer military coups.
For one thing, this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amado_Boudou#Vice-Presidency) was never your vice president.
"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.
Hate to tell you SCarpelan but the Trump story about asking why can't we use nukes to solve our problems is probably true. It fits the man's personality. Couple that with the fact the GOP is already entertaining back up plans if Trump decides to just drop out and I think we're witnessing a full on political party meltdown.
Ironbite-it's delicious.
Nude photographs published this week are raising fresh questions about the accuracy of a key aspect of Melania Trump’s biography: her immigration status when she first came to the United States to work as a model.
The racy photos of the would-be first lady, published in the New York Post on Sunday and Monday, inadvertently highlight inconsistencies in the various accounts she has provided over the years. And, immigration experts say, there’s even a slim chance that any years-old misrepresentations to immigration authorities could pose legal problems for her today.
While Trump and her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said she came to the United States legally, her own statements suggest she first came to the country on a short-term visa that would not have authorized her to work as a model. Trump has also said she came to New York in 1996, but the nude photo shoot places her in the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists.
The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.
Representatives of the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization did not address detailed questions about the timing and circumstances of Melania Trump’s arrival in the country, but campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to the emailed questions by stating, “Melania followed all applicable laws and is now a proud citizen of the United States.”
I have the impression that it is an attack against Trump by showing that his wife did something "shameful." Why they didn't simply mention the previous horrible thing that Trump said rather than trying to shift the focus onto irrelevant matters like what his wife has done is not clear to me.
I have the impression that it is an attack against Trump by showing that his wife did something "shameful." Why they didn't simply mention the previous horrible thing that Trump said rather than trying to shift the focus onto irrelevant matters like what his wife has done is not clear to me.
In the face of all this bad news, some Trump supporters have taken it upon themselves to, essentially, make up poll numbers that look favorable for Trump. This is Long Room, the website dedicated to changing poll numbers so they’re “unbiased”
These poll numbers are total bullshit. The website’s methodology page claims that the tracker incorporates state data to accurately reflect the demographics of voters. But it seems that, in reality, if a pollster consistently gets results that favor Clinton, it’s deemed more “biased” — and Long Room changes the number further in Trump’s direction.
Of course, this misses the possibility that the great majority of polls aren’t biased at all and Clinton really is far ahead of Trump in the election.
Still, Trump supporters — especially at r/The_Donald on Reddit — are promoting this site to give themselves a bit of hope.
I seem to remember back in 2008 that conservative pollsters were making up polls to make Mccain/Palin look like they were doing better than they were.
Why are nudes of Melania being released?
Is it supposed to be some sort of diversion from Trump's failing campaign?
What's the final nail in the coffin going to be?
I'd just like to add this post clearing up some bs about Jill Stein:
http://doomy.me/post/148132817882/leftclausewitz-scapetheserpentstongue
I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.
Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.
For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.
As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved. There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.
Do you think vaccines should be investigated as a possible cause of autism?
I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines.
What will you do to protect Americans, especially young children and pregnant women, from exposure to mercury through vaccines?
I will ensure that all vaccines are as safe as possible for our children by working to ensure that Thimerosal and mercury are removed from vaccines.
What will you do to protect Americans, especially young children and pregnant women, from exposure to mercury through vaccines?
I support the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines and work to ensure that Americans have access to vaccines that are mercury free.
"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But, but I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges, right now we're tied, you see what's going on."It just occurred to me Trump is going to encourage his followers to commit acts of violence if/when he loses.
Holy fuck. Just holy fuck. Trump has basically said, "Somebody shoot Hillary Clinton."
I didn't think it was possible for anyone, even Trump, to go over the top Trump established.
Trump, having Narcissistic personality disorder won't be able to accept a lose in the election. To him it's not a sign that he's a bad candidate. To him you're the problem. Or the systems rigged. I bet he'll bitch and complain for months. Demand recounts. I don't see him conceding on election night even if he's beaten badly.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/10/donald-trump-says-president-obama-is-the-founder-of-isis/21449301/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D514418462_htmlws-main-bb (http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/10/donald-trump-says-president-obama-is-the-founder-of-isis/21449301/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D514418462_htmlws-main-bb)I had to stop the video when the crowd started applauding his lies and he stopped his speech, turned around and made encouraging gestures to them while just basking in their adoration. I felt physically ill at the sight. I always feel a bit uneasy when people get too excited about a politician even if I agree with his/her opinions on the actual issues. Seeing people go crazy about that narcissistic idiot and refusing to see what is in front of their eyes is just absolute horror.
So Trump is now claiming Obama started ISIS. I'm wondering if at this point he's just trolling the American people to see what he can get away with. Apparently, quite a lot.
When did she oppose the TPP? Everything I've read for her said she supported it. Also, people are suspicious of those speeches because she was paid quite a great deal for each of them, meaning those companies might want something in return.
As long as the political cost of supporting it is greater than the benefit she will continue to oppose it. She is already disliked and angering too many people would put her re-election chances in a great danger - assuming that there is no unexpected turn of events and she wins the presidency in the first place, of course.
The more reason not to alienate too many people. She needs all the support she can get.As long as the political cost of supporting it is greater than the benefit she will continue to oppose it. She is already disliked and angering too many people would put her re-election chances in a great danger - assuming that there is no unexpected turn of events and she wins the presidency in the first place, of course.
I strongly suspect that no matter what she does should she win, she will face a primary challenge in 2020. I'm not sure who will mount it, but somebody will challenge her.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced on Tuesday that Ken Salazar, the former interior secretary and Colorado senator, would become chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s transition planning team.
The effort, which will be based out of Washington, is aimed at preparing Mrs. Clinton and her team to enter the White House after the November election if she wins — an operation intended to be largely separated from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign apparatus in Brooklyn.
The campaign said Mr. Salazar would lead four team members: Tom Donilon, who served as national security adviser under President Obama; Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan; Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress; and Maggie Williams, the director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics and a longtime Clinton confidante.
Aaand to the surprise of no one who was paying attention, Clinton's progressivism has all been a sham. I wouldn't be surprised if she went forward with the TPP within days of taking office.
What in all are the details on this TPP thing? I mean, I hear people bring it up a lot, but nobody ever says much more than how terrible it is.
What in all are the details on this TPP thing? I mean, I hear people bring it up a lot, but nobody ever says much more than how terrible it is.
Among other things: It harmonizes copyright laws among the signatories, generally making them more restrictive.
It lets multinational corporations sue signatory countries over laws that cut into those companies' profits. The suit is brought before an international tribunal of corporate lawyers and there is no appeal.
What in all are the details on this TPP thing? I mean, I hear people bring it up a lot, but nobody ever says much more than how terrible it is.
Among other things: It harmonizes copyright laws among the signatories, generally making them more restrictive.
It lets multinational corporations sue signatory countries over laws that cut into those companies' profits. The suit is brought before an international tribunal of corporate lawyers and there is no appeal.
That latter bit seems to have the most horror stories about it.
"EBIL-Megacorp-1 decides to use Polish schools as storage to radioactive waste. Poland goes 'why the hell didn't we have a law against this already?' and signs such a law. EBIL-Megacorp-1 sues Poland and gets paid as much money as they estimate they could have profited with their plan to put radioactive waste in schools."
Or more likely when a country tries to stop fracking, outlaw tobacco or something like that the TPP would be used to sue them.
Have the rumours been exaggerated? Possibly. The Pro-TPP people claim so but they refuse to show what the treaty really contains.
Hillary Clinton's family foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if she is elected president, and will bring an end to its annual Clinton Global Initiative meeting regardless of the outcome of the November election.
Former President Bill Clinton made the announcement at an afternoon meeting with foundation staff members, according to participants who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement.
Bill Clinton said the foundation plans to continue its work, but intends to refocus its efforts in a process that will take up to a year to complete. The former president, who turns 70 on Friday, said he will resign from the board, and the foundation will only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities.
Donald Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort resigned on Friday in the wake of campaign shake-up and revelations about his work in Ukraine.
...
Manafort's resignation comes a day after The Associated Press reported that confidential emails from Manafort's firm contradicted his claims that he had never lobbied on behalf of Ukrainian political figures in the U.S.
Emails between Manafort's deputy, Rick Gates, also a top Trump adviser, and the lobbying firm Mercury LLC showed that Manafort's firm directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's then-ruling political party.
The effort included not just legislative outreach but also attempts to sway American public opinion and gather political intelligence on competing lobbying efforts in the U.S.
Joseph Schmitz is accused of bragging about firing Jewish staffers during his time as inspector general at the Pentagon from April 2002 to September 2005, according to a complaint obtained by McClatchy.
In the complaint, Daniel Meyer, a senior officer, pointed out a conversation Schmitz had with former top Pentagon official John Crane where the current Trump adviser downplayed the severity of the Holocaust.
“In his final days, he allegedly lectured Mr. Crane on the details of concentration camps and how the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews,” Meyer wrote in the complaint, according to reports.
OK. Let’s do this. I’ve been waiting for this. Let’s ask Clinton about the drone program, shadow operations in Africa and what the war in Iraq taught her about foreign policy and the limits of military force. Let’s press Trump on NATO commitments and get specifics on his plan to deal with the Islamic State.
I want to know what both candidates think of ballooning military budgets, nuclear modernization and growing tensions on Russia’s borders.
That’s not what happened. Instead, Lauer and the veterans grilled Clinton on her emails for 10 of her 30-minute time slot, and Trump said a bunch of bizarre things that, in any other election cycle, would disqualify him from office.
So business as usual.
Trump then blamed Obama for the Islamic State and advocated imperial, blood-and-treasure foreign policy as a solution for Islamic extremism. “Take the oil,” he said. “If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS.”
“How are we going to take the oil,” a bewildered Lauer asked. “How are we going to do that?”
Trump didn’t have a clear answer. “It used to be that to the victor belonged the spoils,” he said after rambling about the beauty of Iraq’s oil. “I always said take the oil. One of the benefits we would have had if we had taken the oil is ISIS wouldn’t have had the oil to fuel themselves.”
I can tell Matt Lauer probably wants a job in the Trump Administration.
Probably doing work for whoever the fuck is filling in for Goebbels.
Guess what?...And what did he say?
Ironbite-Trump opened his mouth.
Where were you when Hillary Clinton started to fight against memes?
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/
...Actually, where were you when white nationalists took over the screaming frog meme?
Why did the screaming frog meme ever exist? I mean, I love Trollface as much as anyone else, but what did Pepe ever symbolize to begin with?
Here’s a good way to appreciate just how far right you have to go to get to Ted Cruz territory: imagine how left-wing a Democratic presidential candidate would have to be to be Cruz’s mirror image. Such a candidate would have to make George McGovern and the 1970s Congress, dominated by liberal Democrats, look conservative.
To get that far left, we would have to be talking about someone who, for example, would be pushing for eliminating private healthcare, outlawing handgun ownership, guaranteeing a minimum personal income, putting a $5 per gallon tax on gasoline, and imposing a 100 percent estate tax….
Over the past half-century, the GOP has gradually transformed itself from a moderately conservative institution into a hard right social movement. And Ted Cruz represents the far right wing of a party that has gotten so radicalized that it would be barely recognizable to Dwight Eisenhower.
This November Americans will likely face the choice of voting for either, on the one hand, the contemporary equivalent of Eisenhower, and on the other, either a quasi-fascist at the head of a bargain basement cult of personality, or someone who thinks Barry Goldwater was too liberal.
Trump is a fucking dumbass.
I was disappointed with Hillary's performance. I thought she should be more serene and dignified in response to Trump's rude yelling and bully boy behavior.
Why? Because she's a woman and you think women(I wasn't the only sensible person there and for clarity's sake I will add the rebuttals to "Mr. Hillary wasn't dignified enough." )
should know their place?
No. Because a calm, measured approach demonstrates that one is in control of
the situation.
Hillary Clinton should have waited patiently during Trump's outbursts, and quietly
given her rebuttals after he had talked himself out.
You mean like Trump did to her when it was her time to speak? Who are you trying to fool? You get the horse laugh for this one.
You know that you're coming across as endorsing Trump's belligerence and criticizing her not just letting him abuse her, don't you? It goes with your she didn't know a woman's place comment. I think you probably should give it up while you're only way behind rather than back in the Ice Age.
The Media is desperatly trying to make this a horse race but how can you when one of your horses can't even be bothered to show up at the starting box?
True Finns are the most unoriginal Nazis ever. They sound like the type that just copy whatever the other fascist kiddies are doing.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/03/rape-lawsuit-refiled-against-donald-trump/
I'm surprised this seems to be getting little attention.
Let’s be clear: Pence won the debate. While vapid and wholly without any policy details, he was calm and presidential to Kaine’s frenetic and unpolished demeanor. He simply looked the part. But his victory is pyrrhic, because Kaine’s strategy and execution will win the election.
Kaine’s goal was simple: get as many of Donald Trump’s quotes on the record as possible, and force Pence to either defend them, or abandon them. Either situation here was a win/win. The end plan was to use these scripted quotes in television ads that will be seen by a far larger audience than the debate itself, from now until the end of the election.
Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.”
Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”* CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work."
Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,” Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.* “SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.”
Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. *“Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.”
And yet because of the Trump Tapes, nobody gives a shit about Hillary's speeches.
Ironbite-this does nothing to her.
I went ahead and tracked down the first quote in the Wikileaks file, since that seemed...unusually egregiously bad for Hillary. It's from an email sent to Podesta's Georgetown.edu email address from someone with the email "orca100@upcmail.nl", one of a series of 3 emails all sent on the same day in February that are all rambling racist screeds about the multiculturalism "crisis" in Germany. Hillary does not appear to have been cc'ed on these emails and is not mentioned anywhere by name in them that I could find.
So, yeah.
Townhall, not a real debate. It depends on what kind of audience questions the organizers let through their screening. In theory, they can get cowardly and not confront Trump too harshly but I think and hope there is more pressure to confront him than there is to appear neutral.
To: The Democratic National Committee
Re: 2016 GOP presidential candidates
Date: April 7, 2015
Friends,
This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field. Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper.
Our Goals & Strategy
Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-‐in-‐the-‐same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate. We have outlined three strategies to obtain our goal:
1) Force all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election;
2) Undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have to make inroads to our coalition or independents;
3) Muddy the waters on any potential attack lodged against HRC.
Operationalizing the Strategy
Pied Piper Candidates
There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously.
Undermining Their Message & Credibility
Most of the more-‐established candidates will want to focus on building a winning general election coalition. The “Pied Pipers” of the field will mitigate this to a degree, but more will need to be done on certain candidates to undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters. In this regard, the goal here would be to show that they are just the same as every other GOP candidate: extremely conservative on these issues. Some examples:
• Jeb Bush
o What to undermine: the notion he is a “moderate” or concerned about regular Americans; perceived inroads with the Latino population.
• Marco Rubio
o What to undermine: the idea he has “fresh” ideas; his perceived appeal to Latinos
• Scott Walker
o What to undermine: the idea he can rally working-‐ and middle class Americans.
• Rand Paul
o What to undermine: the idea he is a “different” kind of Republican; his stance on the military and his appeal to millennials and communities of color.
• Bobby Jindal
o What to undermine: his “new” ideas
• Chris Christie
o What to undermine: he tells it like it is.
Muddying the Waters
As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. The RNC et al has been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. One way we can respond to these attacks is to show how they boomerang onto the Republican presidential field. The goal, then, is to have a dossier on the GOP candidates on the likely attacks HRC will face. Based on attacks that have already occurred, the areas they are highlighting:
• Transparency & disclosure
• Donors & associations
• Management & business dealings
In this regard, any information on scandals or ethical lapses on the GOP candidates would serve well. We won’t be picky.
Again, we think our goals mirror those of the DNC. We look forward to continuing the conversation.
So much for that plan... They didn't even consider the chance of Trump winning the nomination.
Yeah, all I saw was basically Political Strategy 101. Nothing at all scandalous, just the machine working as it always has.
Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it.
Betsaida - can you send her answer on death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Donna Brazile <donna@brazileassociates.com> wrote:
Here's one that worries me about HRC.
DEATH PENALTY
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
Representative Gabbard,
We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved.
You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign.
Darnell Strom & Michael Kives
I don't pay much attention to these wikileaks posts - Assange is busy off camera eating out of Putin's hand.
I don't pay much attention to these wikileaks posts - Assange is busy off camera eating out of Putin's hand.
Doesn't make their contents any less true or damning.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/UGuXz3QcpAXmaFC4z8eHNwV3ZlfA1w2xh6nu6DnAFoE.jpg?w=640&s=dc0fd9ed258ade3b2c609942b6072753)He says after replacing the middle three letters with asterisks. After all, we can't have anyone's delicate sensibilities offended, now can we?
I don't pay much attention to these wikileaks posts - Assange is busy off camera eating out of Putin's hand.
Doesn't make their contents any less true or damning.
Actually it does. The link that you posted about how Trump is using leaks that were published on the Russian news also has proof that the emails had been edited to look more damning. They got caught editing one email, can you trust them not to have edited more of them?
Yeah, all I saw was basically Political Strategy 101. Nothing at all scandalous, just the machine working as it always has.
Not saying it's shocking, but the fact that this is how "it always has" worked is problematic. The media shouldn't be in bed with politicians.
Yeah, all I saw was basically Political Strategy 101. Nothing at all scandalous, just the machine working as it always has.
Not saying it's shocking, but the fact that this is how "it always has" worked is problematic. The media shouldn't be in bed with politicians.
Politics and elections are basically a war without the guns. In a war, you gain whatever advantage you can over your enemy. Sides, where the hell do you think all that campaign money goes? It sure as hell ain't going to charity. Its sleazy and scummy as fuck, don't get me wrong, but that's what happens when you let something as fragile as a democracy have any kind of serious money in it.
It would but you have to figure out someway to get the people who benefit from it the most to vote against it.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions--or corporations--to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly.
3/4 US presidential candidates oppose vaccination...
But sure, let's talk about how Hillary is also corrupt and people should vote for the third party candidates instead.
DNC Debate Proposal
...
Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over; 5) encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats; and 6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate.
Through discussion of these goals with the DNC their current plan is to begin a debate schedule that would commence in early October, with one debate a month, one each in the early primary and caucus states, and the remaining 2 post South Carolina (we will need to push them to post March 1 and then the later 2 debates would be cancelled if the race ends). The DNC's current plan is to release the attached press release (which lacks this specificity but confirms the number and start window for the debates). The other campaigns have advocated (not surprisingly) for more debates and for the schedule to start significantly earlier. Mo and Anita believe that this announcement prior to the actual entry into the race of other candidates will strengthen their hand as they lock a schedule in with local media partners and state parties.
One remaining issue is the criteria for participation: we believe it is important to the extent possible to keep the debates "multicandidate" and to eliminate the possibility of one on one debates; the most likely standard that would achieve this result is to allow any announced candidate who is: 1) a Democrat and, 2) who meets some threshold of viability (1 percent) in either a national or state specific (e.g. Iowa, NH) to participate.
I honestly don't get why anyone cares if Hillary is scripted or not. Ditto for other similar bs like "which candidate do you want to have a beer with".
Yeah but they all do that. Trump even did that when he tried to pretend to cater to minorities, he's just not good at it.
FYI--Lehane called me about CA primary and I told him that the operating strategy is to keep blue states late (i.e. don't move CA). He said he was at dinner with you and was under the impression that you wanted to move it earlier. He's wondering how to proceed and I said I'd try to get us on the same page and go back with an answer. Are you ok with me saying that we both want CA to stay where it is?
I am less concerned about historical blowback on her past position than this issue eating us alive for being on the wrong side and giving Progressives a real reason to try and push someone more weighty into the primary. There are no other issues that Labor cares about. This is it for them and they actually have voters on their side.
All, I want to share our draft letter on trade. As you'll recall, the idea here is to use this to lay out her thinking on TPA & TPP ahead of action on the Hill and a joint letter by all the former Secretaries of State and Defense. This draft assumes that she's ultimately going to support both TPA and TPP. It focuses on what needs to happen to produce a positive result with TPP, and casts support for TPA as one of those steps. It also says that we should walk away if the final agreement doesn't meet the test of creating more jobs than it displaces, helping the middle class, and strengthening our national security. We've tried to speak directly to the most prominent concerns expressed by Labor and Hill Dems, including Warren. Of course, if we go ahead with a meeting with HRC to lay out the pros and cons and then come to a different conclusion, this letter would change dramatically.
Made it to Medicare. Thank God for single payer.
I don't recall any polling to guide us, but I'd be a bit nervous about rushing to say we'd never support such a tax. Bernie I assume DOES support such a tax and it could be fodder for him if we say unequivocally now that we don't support one.
To be clear: it's lethal in the general, so I don't want to support one. But don't want to give bernie contrast right now. So if there's a way to re-state principles and say she'll announce something in the next few weeks, that would be great.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5613
Hillary Clinton's campaign (before she'd announced) was being consulted on when primaries should be held. In particular, they wanted to keep blue states (like California) late.QuoteFYI--Lehane called me about CA primary and I told him that the operating strategy is to keep blue states late (i.e. don't move CA). He said he was at dinner with you and was under the impression that you wanted to move it earlier. He's wondering how to proceed and I said I'd try to get us on the same page and go back with an answer. Are you ok with me saying that we both want CA to stay where it is?
Yeah but they all do that. Trump even did that when he tried to pretend to cater to minorities, he's just not good at it.
The difference is that Trump can do it on the fly; his stuff about Mexicans being rapists in the speech announcing his candidacy was not in the script from which he was reading. He can actually read a crowd and say what they want to hear; Clinton can't.
Yeah but they all do that. Trump even did that when he tried to pretend to cater to minorities, he's just not good at it.
The difference is that Trump can do it on the fly; his stuff about Mexicans being rapists in the speech announcing his candidacy was not in the script from which he was reading. He can actually read a crowd and say what they want to hear; Clinton can't.
...Is that really a good thing when the crowd wants him to be a horrible person?
In other news: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37661794?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
Ben Carson is asked some serious questions about the Trump harassment scandal and he defends Trump and also demands that a woman's mic is cut because he doesn't want to answer whether or not he thinks that the accusations against Trump are true or lies...
Hah! Tell that to Clinton. The Benghazi scandal is still hurting her despite being proven false repeatedly. In fact she is also hurting from claims that she laughed at the victim of a rapist despite the video in question clearly proving that she didn't.
There is nothing wrong with a party operative asking a candidates' campaign staff member about their opinion on this kind of matter. If there were other campaigns going on at the same time and none of their staff was contacted in a similar manner it would be a problem. Another way it would be a problem is if there was a foreseeable strategic advantage for Hillary's campaign to have California at a certain position. Yes, it ended up having a great significance in hindsight but nobody expected that when the email was sent.
Just because Hillary had her campaign set up way before the others doesn't mean that the party members are not allowed to have any communication with her campaign staff before the others throw their hats in the ring. Mook expresses his opinion and asks what Podesta's is instead of asking for marching orders so this is way on the lighter side of the gray area.
How many people here have read The Postman by David Brin. Does Trump remind anyone of the description of Nathan Holn (though maybe not the survivalist bent necessarily from Trump) and his supporters?
Trump reminds me of Biff Tannen from the alternate 1985 in Back to the Future II.
Don't you dare disparage [alternate] Biff Tannen!
He made 1985 great again.
Oy, Biff was a self made man. Trump just inherited his money.I thought Biff came from money. Maybe not the 1%, but upper middle class definitely.
With how much I hate Trump and have always hated him. These email leaks are not going to change my mind at all, and according to polls America doesn't seem to care either.
(and bear in mind that in ten years, nothing posted by Wikileaks has ever been proven false)
They are selectively edited and have included some fakes from Russian Sources.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/26/1552616/-Russian-Hackers-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/26/1552616/-Russian-Hackers-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks
Then I'll await the DNC's or the Clinton campaign's proof of that alteration.
I am calling it - Assange's next post here will involve his next October Surprise Attempt to swing the election to Fuhrer Trump, possibly including some hints of lurid affection toward Russia's Glorious Leader.
Trump promised to institute a hiring freeze on federal workers and to label China as a currency manipulator...
He said he would work to quash deals that allow media ownership concentration, saying large media companies are "trying to tell voters what to think and what to do."
Trump promised to foil a proposed deal for AT&T to buy Time Warner if he wins the election, arguing it was an example of a "power structure" rigged against both him and voters.
"As an example of the power structure I'm fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it's too much concentration of power in the hands of too few," Trump said.
He also said he would look at "breaking" up Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal in 2013.
"Deals like this destroy democracy," he said.
He also complained that a "corrupt" media is fabricating stories in order to make him "look as bad and dangerous as possible."
The media are "trying to suppress my voice," Trump said.
Trump told the rally that on his first day in office, his administration would announce six measures to "clean up the corruption and special interest collusion" in Washington:
Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
Hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce that workforce through attrition, exempting jobs in the military, public safety and public health.
Requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
Five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
Lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
Complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
I don't think Trump understands how the office works. He can't just do that stuff just because he wants to even if some of it sounds good. He has a little thing called the legislative branch that makes the laws it would just be Trump's job to sign off on the laws passed, and I guarantee they'll tell Trump to fuck off on most of those things.
I don't think Trump understands how the office works. He can't just do that stuff just because he wants to even if some of it sounds good. He has a little thing called the legislative branch that makes the laws it would just be Trump's job to sign off on the laws passed, and I guarantee they'll tell Trump to fuck off on most of those things.
No worries. He'll just sue them too.
My current concerns are whether Clinton's policies with Syria (no-fly zone, etc.) could start a war with Russia. I've seen a lot of claims of this but nothing to debunk it. Does anyone know more about this?
In some of these ads, the connection is as weak as saying “imagine Donald Trump as president” with the candidate supporting him in the House. That’s still too much for the candidates, whose suits include claims that being connected to Trump can cause “substantial and immediate harm” to their campaigns.
ETA: The real news is that Utah may go third party, being the first state to do so in almost 50 years. Now that is impressive.
Trump, you done goofed!Methinks the "deep cover Democrat" conspiracy theories will be exceedingly popular among whatever is left of the GOP after this election.
Trump is winning in many states.
The majority of the media is in collusion with the Clinton campaign.
Clinton ran a pay for play state department.
Trump won all three debates.
Clinton is not in jail because she is in bed with the justice department.
Clinton is a criminal and should be in jail.
For as bad as Sanders was, he was not nearly as disgusting as Clinton is. You guys picked the wrong nominee.
So basically saying the exact opposite of what the media is saying.
Trump just said the election should be cancelled and the Presidency given to him.
...this is insane.
ominous and disturbing music over it.
I've seen claims that Trump is winning because he gets more people to his rallies than Clinton.
...Sanders is a racist?No, what I'm saying is all these people said that due to the fact that they had more people at their rallies, they were winning, which as the 2012 Presidential Election and the 2016 Democratic Primaries show, they lost.
No wait, you obviously meant that he is also a GOP candidate, how silly of me to think otherwise.
http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des-moines-woman-says-she-voted-twice-trump-because-polls-are-rigged#stream/0
Funnily enough this proves not only how rare voter fraud is but also that getting away with it is not as easy as the GOP claims it to be.
Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff attempted to question FBI officials about the contents of the emails alluded to by Director James Comey on Friday, but found that the officials themselves have yet to view the emails. So far, they’ve been unable to obtain legal authorization to do so.
An official told Isikoff that Comey “had no idea what was in the content of the emails” when he sent his letter to Congress on Friday advising them that he is reviewing new materials that may prove pertinent to the investigation against Clinton. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/we-do-not-have-a-warrant-fbi-admits-comey-jumped-the-gun-with-clinton-email-announcement/)
This should be fun. The alleged emails James Comey suggests were under investigation weren't...
...because they haven't actually obtained a warrant so FBI officials had to admit they had no idea what was in them. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html)QuoteYahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff attempted to question FBI officials about the contents of the emails alluded to by Director James Comey on Friday, but found that the officials themselves have yet to view the emails. So far, they’ve been unable to obtain legal authorization to do so.
An official told Isikoff that Comey “had no idea what was in the content of the emails” when he sent his letter to Congress on Friday advising them that he is reviewing new materials that may prove pertinent to the investigation against Clinton. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/we-do-not-have-a-warrant-fbi-admits-comey-jumped-the-gun-with-clinton-email-announcement/)
Shit eh?
Look I'm an Aussie and US laws and politics baffle me at the best of times but shouldn't you make public announcements that you are investigating the dastardly doings of Democrats after you've actually, you know, started the investigation? Is this standard practice in the US of A?
If you're following the letter does it require you to announce your criminal investigation before the court has given you leave to proceed with a warrant? Seems like jumping the gun a bit to me.Applying for the warrant is continuing the investigation so he probably had to tell congress he was doing that.
Also I don't know how you can be legally required to give potential information, that's asking you to speculate before the facts are in - at best.
If its true he violated the Hatch Act, then any remaining only sane man among Bush Administration goons cards Comey had vanish in flames.
I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted
Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.
Folks, I did a service project today. It's so tragic. And what's worse, some homes have not been tested and it's important to encourage seniors to also get tested.
Welp, an unnamed FBI official reported that he decided to sit on evidence that Russia was trying to influence the outcome of the election (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html). If true that'd be a hell of a lot more explosive than the purported Huma Abedin email discoveries.
He's in between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he could decline to tell Congress that new evidence had potentially emerged.
...Considering how much energy the Trump coalition used to shout that there is no evidence of Russian tampering and that Hillary is just lying or seeing things this does seem quite damning.Welp, an unnamed FBI official reported that he decided to sit on evidence that Russia was trying to influence the outcome of the election (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html). If true that'd be a hell of a lot more explosive than the purported Huma Abedin email discoveries.
He's in between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he could decline to tell Congress that new evidence had potentially emerged.
Madame Secretary,
I will make sure all relevant information is in your briefing for the DWS meeting, but I wanted to provide an update in case it comes in handy earlier.
--He asked what he should communicate to POTUS regarding the convention and I reiterated our point of view. I flagged that you will not state a preference if asked by DWS.
--He said that DWS will probably bring up at your meeting that they're thinking of hiring a general election planner and he said it would be helpful for you to reinforce that this is very important. He recommended demurring to on who the person should be, so you don't get caught up in those politics.
--I asked that he make sure she has meetings scheduled with other potential candidates, so they can credibly say they're meeting with everyone.
So now Clinton's dropping in the polls with just one week to go. 538 has her at 71 percent to 29 percent. She dropped ten percentage points in a week all because of this email scandal. Needless to say I'm scared. I couldn't stand 4 years of this smug narcissistic asshole running the country.
Beginning in December 2014, there was an HIV outbreak in Southern Indiana.[93] In 2011, Planned Parenthood ran five rural clinics in Indiana. They tested for HIV and offered prevention, intervention and counseling for better health. The one in Scott County performed no abortions.[94] The Republican controlled legislature and Pence defunded Planned Parenthood.[95] Scott County has been without an HIV testing center for two years.[
Hillary Clinton had this in the bag, then this fucking email shit pops up which the media then jumped all over prematurely. Now I'm seriously scared that undecided voters are completely forgetting the insane bullshit that Trump has said over the past year only to vote for him because of this email scandal.
“The campaign of Donald J. Trump, Trump’s close advisor Roger J. Stone, Jr., Stone’s organization Stop the Steal Inc., the Republican Party of Pennsylvania (‘RPP’), and others are conspiring to threaten, intimidate, and thereby prevent minority voters in urban neighborhoods from voting in the 2016 election,” a complaint filed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party states. “The presently stated goal of the Trump Campaign, as explained by an unnamed official to Bloomberg News on October 27, is to depress voter turnout—in the official’s words: ‘We have three major voter suppression operations under way’ that target African Americans and other groups of voters.”
Democrats claim that Trump, Stone and the state Republican parties are in violation of the 1870s-era Ku Klux Klan Act, which outlaws private conspiracies from threatening voters.
So Presidential
Goddamnit! Now politifact has to disprove conspiracies like this but it is probably too late fir Hillary now: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/04/conservative-daily-post/evidence-ridiculously-thin-sensational-claim-huge-/Aand Comey just came out and said the new emails were a big ol' nothing burger. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/fbi-director-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-criminal-james-comey)
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_581fa7a8e4b0d9ce6fbcc516
The man who will be elected as the president of USA tomorrow isn't allowed to use his own Twitter account because his staff fear that he will mess things up...
Because that doesn't turn it into a horse race.
Ironbite-which the media desperately needs.
DEMOCRACY!
In her complaint, Stein referred to several instances, revealed through leaked emails and memos, that appeared to show coordination between Hillary Clinton and several Super PACs, including Correct the Record, a Super PAC headed by longtime Clinton ally and former GOP operative David Brock. One section of a July 2015 campaign memo addressed to Hillary Clinton instructed: "Work with CTR [Correct the Record] and DNC [Democratic National Committee] to publicize specific GOP candidate vulnerabilities." Leaked emails also reveal meetings between the campaign and Priorities USA Action, and that campaign officials have helped with the group's fundraising.
Regarding the Trump campaign, two of the candidate's senior staffers formed the Rebuilding America Now Super PAC—almost immediately after leaving the campaign—in violation of FEC rules requiring a 120-day "cooling off" period, intended to keep former staffers from using their knowledge of a campaign's strategy and needs to develop ads for an "independent" group. The complaint also detailed the Trump campaign's dealings with the Mercer family, who has poured millions of dollars into the pro-Trump Super PAC Make America Number 1, and has evidently exerted undue influence in the hiring of senior campaign staffers and the use of data analytics.
Jill, no matter what happens you're polling below a dead gorilla.
You are absolutely never going to outlive that.
My coworkers have been talking with friends and family all over FL. Most of them are voting Trump. Every single one of them (including those voting for Clinton) would've voted for Sanders. Since most are GOP, they couldn't vote in the primaries, but I wonder how much different this election would be if Sanders was still in.
Civil rights groups said they were receiving complaints about intimidating behavior at voting sites in Pennsylvania and Florida as supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and backers of Democrat Hillary Clinton went to cast their ballots.
But a Democratic Party source said the Clinton campaign was not encountering systemic problems beyond the usual Election Day hiccups. Trump sued the registrar of voters in Clark County, Nevada, with a claim that a polling place in Las Vegas had improperly been allowed to remain open last week to accommodate people who were lined up to vote. Nevada is one of several states that allow early voting.
...
More than half of the voter intimidation complaints were coming from Pennsylvania, where poll workers were reportedly asking voters which candidate they supported, and voters waiting in line were shouting at each other, said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, a grassroots group.
Interesting news coming out of Florida. It's going blue.
http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html
Ironbite-very confident about Florida all of a sudden.
I can't believe this is fucking happening.
Trump could win this, and that fucking terrifies me.
This is like...the first time ive given half a shit to yankland\
GO TRUMP
I can't believe this is fucking happening.
Trump could win this, and that fucking terrifies me.
And the idiots in the Democratic Party will blame those damn Sanders supporters who wouldn't vote for the woman who epitomizes the detested, corrupt political establishment, instead of looking inward and realizing that they fucked up by missing the fact that the voters were feeling very populist and that the other party had nominated a populist, and rigged things to ensure that they wouldn't nominate a populist.
It's a very good time to be a rich American, apparently.Yeah, they can fly off somewhere else!
I don't blame Queen - if I were a member of a sexual minority, I'd be finding out how to leave the First American Reich at earliest opportunity. With the sort of people in charge now, there's little other option.
538 had Clinton to win at 71 % today. How did they get it so wrong?
538 had Clinton to win at 71 % today. How did they get it so wrong?
538 had Clinton to win at 71 % today. How did they get it so wrong?They underestimated racism.
Yikes! According to wikipedia Trump is leading...
I'm certainly despairing, but let me just reassure some people. My father told me tonight about how the first presidential election he voted is saw Reagan elected. It'll be hard. It'll hurt. But it's not the end. We survived Reagan. We survived Bush. We'll survive Trump.
So, the GOP is getting the president, the senate and the supreme court. Total victory for them and free hands to do whatever the heck they want.
I am worried that the racists well see electing Donald Trump as an excuse to commit hate crimes.That was a given. Regardless of the outcome.
538 had Clinton to win at 71 % today. How did they get it so wrong?
Polls look at likely voters, and a bunch of unlikely, throw-a-brick-through-the-window voters showed up.
They can, but why would they want to? Tax cuts (for the wealthy) and deregulation are inbound and, contrary to popular belief, he's not going to do a thing to get rid of the illegals (quite the opposite, if anything). Basically, wealth inequality in America is going to go through the roof in the very near future (well, more so than it would've under Hillary).It's a very good time to be a rich American, apparently.Yeah, they can fly off somewhere else!
I couldn't be more smug right now!
Hopefully the right wave will pick up in australia. Pauline Hanson needs a bigger base!Hopefully that shit for brains will get cancer and die! Hopefully her base will give themselves alcohol poisoning and and join her in death.
538 had Clinton to win at 71 % today. How did they get it so wrong?
Polls look at likely voters, and a bunch of unlikely, throw-a-brick-through-the-window voters showed up.
If the Brexit development is any guide this is the case. Yes, racism plays a part. Sexism also plays a smaller one. These together with people wanting to say FU to the mess of a political system and culture raised a bunch of assholes representing the worst the system has to offer to the power because they have an orange fart cushion full of hot air as their figurehead. Congrats, president Pence.
Also, fuck you Assange. Not for leaking the stuff but the timing when doing it. It was perfect for the purpose and you intentionally handed the brick to these people.
Welcome to darkest timeline folks.
Ironbite-not sure if we're gonna survive.
I would say that Brexit and now this have demonstrated quite clearly that leftists should now be aware they need more arguments against things than calling them racist and sexist.I believe Contrarian makes a good point here. Looking back on it, most of the anti-Trump rhetoric boiled down to "Trump is a bad person" (i.e. he's racist, sexist, and idiot, whatever else) rather than "Trump would be a bad president". For every argument against his actual policies (his plans to gut social security and business regulations, especially environmental protections, give massive tax cuts to the rich and appoint far right wing supreme court justices), there was endless amounts of outrage at whatever stupid and offensive yet ultimately irrelevant to his actual merits as leader thing he said this week.
That was all you lot were shrieking during both campaigns...and look how far that got you.
Seriously, ever since Trump got the republican nomination that's all we've heard. And even if he is a massive racist...well i'm sure you've heard the story of the boy who cried wolf...
Most likely, he won because his opponents weren't loud and emotional enough.
Point. You can't just say what you're against. You have to be for something to get people listening.
Most likely, he won because his opponents weren't loud and emotional enough.
Hm, I wonder who on the Democratic side was loud and emotional...
Most likely, he won because his opponents weren't loud and emotional enough.
Hm, I wonder who on the Democratic side was loud and emotional...
You mean Sanders? As I recall, he focused far more on actual issues and policies rather than flinging poo at his opponent.
Most likely, he won because his opponents weren't loud and emotional enough.
Hm, I wonder who on the Democratic side was loud and emotional...
You mean Sanders? As I recall, he focused far more on actual issues and policies rather than flinging poo at his opponent.
But he was loud and emotional as he talked about those issues and policies.
Clinton was very clear on her policies. They were out in the open while Trump refused to explain what he was going to do. Hillary got criticism as a "warmonger" on her Syrian plans while Trump had no clue what to other than "build more walls! Shut it all down!"
Most likely, he won because his opponents weren't loud and emotional enough.
Hm, I wonder who on the Democratic side was loud and emotional...
You mean Sanders? As I recall, he focused far more on actual issues and policies rather than flinging poo at his opponent.
But he was loud and emotional as he talked about those issues and policies.
I would say that Brexit and now this have demonstrated quite clearly that leftists should now be aware they need more arguments against things than calling them racist and sexist.
That was all you lot were shrieking during both campaigns...and look how far that got you.
A lot of people also hated Clinton because of her connections to Wall Street. They knew she's corrupt and saw Trump as anti-establishment (even though he's the opposite).
If they're smart, they'll push Sanders, Warren, or someone similar in 2020. If they lose that after 4 years of crap, they have no one to blame but themselves.
As for Congress being controlled by the GOP, they need 2/3 vote to pass anything, right? From what I've seen, the GOP controls 55% of the House and 51% of the Senate. so they shouldn't be able to pass anything stupid, right?
Anyway, get ready for 4 years of suck and hopefully a real candidate in '20.
As for Congress being controlled by the GOP, they need 2/3 vote to pass anything, right? From what I've seen, the GOP controls 55% of the House and 51% of the Senate. so they shouldn't be able to pass anything stupid, right?The Democratic base is much less forgiving about their representatives throwing temper tantrums (i.e. overusing filibuster) and screwing over the whole system than the Republican base. Heck, the Tea Partiers reward their candidates for doing that. The political culture might have been changed enough that the Democrats are emboldened to follow the Republicans' example but I wouldn't count on it. If they do, the Republicans are sure to cry about it and might make the Democrats pay a heavy political price come the midterm elections in 2018. These elections already tend to favor the Republicans so this approach has a huge risk.
Anyway, get ready for 4 years of suck and hopefully a real candidate in '20.
A lot of people also hated Clinton because of her connections to Wall Street. They knew she's corrupt and saw Trump as anti-establishment (even though he's the opposite).If they are able to.
If they're smart, they'll push Sanders, Warren, or someone similar in 2020. If they lose that after 4 years of crap, they have no one to blame but themselves.
As for Congress being controlled by the GOP, they need 2/3 vote to pass anything, right? From what I've seen, the GOP controls 55% of the House and 51% of the Senate. so they shouldn't be able to pass anything stupid, right?
Anyway, get ready for 4 years of suck and hopefully a real candidate in '20.
A lot of people also hated Clinton because of her connections to Wall Street. They knew she's corrupt and saw Trump as anti-establishment (even though he's the opposite).
If they're smart, they'll push Sanders, Warren, or someone similar in 2020. If they lose that after 4 years of crap, they have no one to blame but themselves.
As for Congress being controlled by the GOP, they need 2/3 vote to pass anything, right? From what I've seen, the GOP controls 55% of the House and 51% of the Senate. so they shouldn't be able to pass anything stupid, right?
Anyway, get ready for 4 years of suck and hopefully a real candidate in '20.
2/3 is for constitutional amendments. They do need 3/5 in the Senate to break filibusters (which don't have to be real filibusters), but the Democrats are spineless (and want to do half that stuff anyway, since they're equally bought) and won't want to be perceived as the "Party of No," however horrendous the things that Trump and Congressional Republicans want to do.
Not only that, but killing the filibuster for good takes only a simple majority in the Senate to change its rules of procedure. Harry Reid did that some years back for judicial appointments (except for the Supreme Court).
As I understand it the next congressional and state elections are really important. Whoever wins will be able to control the gerrymander for the next 10 years.
Well then if the economy tanks (yet again), they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
The DNC just needs to have someone like Sanders, Warren, etc. running in '20 and not another establishment cronie or we'll end up with 8 years of suck instead of 4.
The problem is that Sanders and Warren are too old. And I honestly can't think of any other other candidate the dems could put out that would get people excited.Warren is three years younger than Trump.
Yeah but in four maybe eight years she'll be too old.Eight years might make a difference but four years don't. She will still be younger than Trump in 2020 and only a year older than he is now. I have no idea how the political landscape will change and if she will challenge Trump or not but her age won't be a problem.
This is the results of years of tea party manipulation.
The only thing I can hope for is some sort of progressive counter movement that will start electing more progressive congressman over the course of the next eight years.
But I don't hold out much hope for millennials who would rather not vote and just bend over and take whatever is given to them then to actually try and make any sort of change.
*Sips beer*
I sold all my property and used the money to buy gold and guns. Glenn Beck told me that's all I need so I should be fine.
You have to admit, he'd at least be better than The Annoying Orange.Frankly I would not be at all surprised if the rethuglicans knife their "outsider" and throw him under a court shaped bus. The US would still have a Christofascist regime but at least it would be a punch in the kidneys to the alt-right.
Of course, we've also got Congressional elections in two years, yes? Perhaps, if we can weather the storm until then, Dems will get the majority after Drumpf's first two years are down the proverbial toilet, and they can stonewall it so that, unless it actually does try a coup, it wouldn't be able to do shit.
Though, what about those rape charges? Wouldn't being a convicted felon bar Drumpf from the Presidency, allowing Hillary to be the de facto President, or at least give her another shot?
You have to admit, he'd at least be better than The Annoying Orange.Frankly I would not be at all surprised if the rethuglicans knife their "outsider" and throw him under a court shaped bus. The US would still have a Christofascist regime but at least it would be a punch in the kidneys to the alt-right.
Of course, we've also got Congressional elections in two years, yes? Perhaps, if we can weather the storm until then, Dems will get the majority after Drumpf's first two years are down the proverbial toilet, and they can stonewall it so that, unless it actually does try a coup, it wouldn't be able to do shit.
Though, what about those rape charges? Wouldn't being a convicted felon bar Drumpf from the Presidency, allowing Hillary to be the de facto President, or at least give her another shot?
Still, I really doubt Trump would pick an attorney general who'd actually enforce the law against people like him.
That's a big reason why I trust him enough to take his advice about confronting the apocalypse. On your side of the fence Alex Jones has also some intriguing ideas but I'm afraid that his super male vitality pills would destroy my effeminate liberalism that is so important to my core identity.*Sips beer*
I sold all my property and used the money to buy gold and guns. Glenn Beck told me that's all I need so I should be fine.
Hang on, isn't Glenn Beck on your side when it comes to trump?
In fairness, I didn't realise he was still relevant in this day and age...besides you people have way too many barely distinguishable talking heads.
anti-racist and anti-bullshit constitutionalist. He may even be pro-choice.Well, he's out.
That's a big reason why I trust him enough to take his advice about confronting the apocalypse. On your side of the fence Alex Jones has also some intriguing ideas but I'm afraid that his super male vitality pills would destroy my effeminate liberalism that is so important to my core identity.*Sips beer*
I sold all my property and used the money to buy gold and guns. Glenn Beck told me that's all I need so I should be fine.
Hang on, isn't Glenn Beck on your side when it comes to trump?
In fairness, I didn't realise he was still relevant in this day and age...besides you people have way too many barely distinguishable talking heads.
*sips tea*With much wailing and gnashing of teeth now, probably followed by a whole lot of nothing in, oh, give it about a week.
Evening, chaps. How's your apocalypse going?
*sips tea*With much wailing and gnashing of teeth now, probably followed by a whole lot of nothing in, oh, give it about a week.
Evening, chaps. How's your apocalypse going?
Kind of like a 2009-era Facebook layout change.
For real though, you guys need to lay off the dramatics. It's going to suck, don't get me wrong, but it's far from the impending apocalypse you all seem to think it is. Think less 1984 and more another four to eight years of Reagan/Bush.
Hope you're right.*sips tea*With much wailing and gnashing of teeth now, probably followed by a whole lot of nothing in, oh, give it about a week.
Evening, chaps. How's your apocalypse going?
Kind of like a 2009-era Facebook layout change.
For real though, you guys need to lay off the dramatics. It's going to suck, don't get me wrong, but it's far from the impending apocalypse you all seem to think it is. Think less 1984 and more another four to eight years of Reagan/Bush.
For real though, you guys need to lay off the dramatics. It's going to suck, don't get me wrong, but it's far from the impending apocalypse you all seem to think it is. Think less 1984 and more another four to eight years of Reagan/Bush.
Obamacare. Fewer insured means dead people.*sips tea*With much wailing and gnashing of teeth now, probably followed by a whole lot of nothing in, oh, give it about a week.
Evening, chaps. How's your apocalypse going?
Kind of like a 2009-era Facebook layout change.
For real though, you guys need to lay off the dramatics. It's going to suck, don't get me wrong, but it's far from the impending apocalypse you all seem to think it is. Think less 1984 and more another four to eight years of Reagan/Bush.
You have to admit, he'd at least be better than The Annoying Orange.
Just a wee point on Republican presidents. The nuttiness in Reagan and Bush jr were emergent properites that became known after they got their claws stuck into power. Bush has displayed vengefulness, meglomania and an ability to make huge financial fuckups before getting anywhere near the White House.
So there's that!
I'll admit I laugh a little thinking of all those companies who gave Clinton $ for future favors that she can't do now.
Here is why MOST people who voted for Trump, voted for him:
The average working American is tired of Washington DC. They tired of them making the politician lives better and theirs worse. They are tired of paying for every other fuck out there (whether thats in state or out of the country). They are tired of stupid laws and rules, taxes and insurances, this and that. They are simple tired of the same old bullshit lies that isnt going to change anything, other than line the politician pockets with more cash.
If you dont think Hillary is one of them, you are blind. The DNC rigged the Dem vote. If theyd of had Sanders (even tho technically he was Independent), they would have won. A vote for Hillary was saying "Sure, continue to rip my ass a new one. I dont mind!" So a lot of us Sanders voters who werent trying to save the world with peace, love, and happiness turned on them.
Now is Trump going to fix this, no, but there is at least a good chance some stuff is going to shake up. Obamacare (while the intent is good) will get off the fucking table and maybe get fixed, or at worst, lower insurance costs because its nullified.
In the end, if you think the POTUS is some all savior thats going to lift the American people and rise, think again. We havent had that since FDR. The POTUS is an American Mascot who parades around to other countries and you get to put a face to something.
Maybe, with Trump the American people will finally raise up and revolt and finally do something. We are pissed at Washington and want stuff fixed.
Now, there is still a large portion of bigots, sexists, racists, gun humping (I like guns too, but I mean gun lovers to tenth power), and just sad/weird people who voted for him, but that can be said about Hillary as well. She isnt a saint and if you think she is better than Trump, then youre telling me again, youre good with the way the current political system is, and you cant possibly feel that way.
In the end though, now we have an orange baboon with a funny hair piece as a mascot, and we can all laugh at that.
Holy fuck that is ignorant. I don't care what the person's ethnicity is they are a privileged fucking cunt. The US health system lets people die due to lack of insurance and while Obamacare reaches only some of them it still means thousands of lives saved each year in long term. Thinking that Trump or the Republicans care enough to to do anything about it is delusional.QuoteHere is why MOST people who voted for Trump, voted for him:
The average working American is tired of Washington DC. They tired of them making the politician lives better and theirs worse. They are tired of paying for every other fuck out there (whether thats in state or out of the country). They are tired of stupid laws and rules, taxes and insurances, this and that. They are simple tired of the same old bullshit lies that isnt going to change anything, other than line the politician pockets with more cash.
If you dont think Hillary is one of them, you are blind. The DNC rigged the Dem vote. If theyd of had Sanders (even tho technically he was Independent), they would have won. A vote for Hillary was saying "Sure, continue to rip my ass a new one. I dont mind!" So a lot of us Sanders voters who werent trying to save the world with peace, love, and happiness turned on them.
Now is Trump going to fix this, no, but there is at least a good chance some stuff is going to shake up. Obamacare (while the intent is good) will get off the fucking table and maybe get fixed, or at worst, lower insurance costs because its nullified.
In the end, if you think the POTUS is some all savior thats going to lift the American people and rise, think again. We havent had that since FDR. The POTUS is an American Mascot who parades around to other countries and you get to put a face to something.
Maybe, with Trump the American people will finally raise up and revolt and finally do something. We are pissed at Washington and want stuff fixed.
Now, there is still a large portion of bigots, sexists, racists, gun humping (I like guns too, but I mean gun lovers to tenth power), and just sad/weird people who voted for him, but that can be said about Hillary as well. She isnt a saint and if you think she is better than Trump, then youre telling me again, youre good with the way the current political system is, and you cant possibly feel that way.
In the end though, now we have an orange baboon with a funny hair piece as a mascot, and we can all laugh at that.
There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
Well Fascism is the combination of right wing, and nationalistic with authoritarian. This is why not every authoritarian is a "Fascist", Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Caligula were not Fascists. While I don't agree with niam he's not calling for the mobilization of all citizens to form a one party state in a nation that draws it's power from a merger of state and corporate control.There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
And you were calling me a Nazi?
Lol. Nice of you to show off your own fascist credentials there.
Well Fascism is the combination of right wing, and nationalistic with authoritarian. This is why not every authoritarian is a "Fascist", Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Caligula were not Fascists. While I don't agree with niam he's not calling for the mobilization of all citizens to form a one party state in a nation that draws it's power from a merger of state and corporate control.There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
And you were calling me a Nazi?
Lol. Nice of you to show off your own fascist credentials there.
Neither are you, though you certainly fit the "authoritarian", "right wing" and "nationalist" parts.
But then being precise with words you throw around was never really your thing!
If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.
Personally, I think Democrats should take the advice they levelled at Trump before the election and accept the result without shenanigans...
...or riots.
Lol.
There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.
Personally, I think Democrats should take the advice they levelled at Trump before the election and accept the result without shenanigans...
...or riots.
Lol.
Having a view that's contrarian to the view of the majority is authoritarian...wait...Well Fascism is the combination of right wing, and nationalistic with authoritarian. This is why not every authoritarian is a "Fascist", Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Caligula were not Fascists. While I don't agree with niam he's not calling for the mobilization of all citizens to form a one party state in a nation that draws it's power from a merger of state and corporate control.There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
And you were calling me a Nazi?
Lol. Nice of you to show off your own fascist credentials there.
Neither are you, though you certainly fit the "authoritarian", "right wing" and "nationalist" parts.
But then being precise with words you throw around was never really your thing!
If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.
I'd rather shove a wet noodle up a bobcat's ass than listen to another one of her speeches.
Well Fascism is the combination of right wing, and nationalistic with authoritarian. This is why not every authoritarian is a "Fascist", Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Caligula were not Fascists. While I don't agree with niam he's not calling for the mobilization of all citizens to form a one party state in a nation that draws it's power from a merger of state and corporate control.There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
And you were calling me a Nazi?
Lol. Nice of you to show off your own fascist credentials there.
Neither are you, though you certainly fit the "authoritarian", "right wing" and "nationalist" parts.
But then being precise with words you throw around was never really your thing!
If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.
Personally, I think Democrats should take the advice they levelled at Trump before the election and accept the result without shenanigans...
...or riots.
Lol.
Warren/ Sanders 2020?
We need a breath of young air in the democratic party. I think half the problem is that the candidates involved were old - a younger, brighter voice would resonate more strongly. As superficial as that may sound, I suspect it may be true on some level.
We need a breath of young air in the democratic party. I think half the problem is that the candidates involved were old - a younger, brighter voice would resonate more strongly. As superficial as that may sound, I suspect it may be true on some level.
Honestly, I don't think anyone could have beaten Clinton given how the DNC had stacked the deck. What has to be done going forward is to clean house at the DNC, hammer the corporatists into acquiescence/submission/a bloody pulp to ensure that they don't do suicidal crap like put in Dean as chair and Kaine as the 2020 nominee, and put progressives in their place who don't do things like take corporate money. Put Keith Ellison (Sanders' preferred choice) in as chair ASAP and run Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner against Trump in 2020. Nominate progressives for every seat up for grabs in 2018--even if it means turfing corporatist incumbents in primaries--and let the voters decide between progressivism and corporatist paleoconservatism.
I keep talking to people on the net on why they think that people in populated regions should have their vote count for less than the ones in rural areas. It mostly seems to follow on "but then the yuppies and commies in few cities would decide the elections for the entire country and they live in their own bubble and don't know a thing about our lives outside the cities." But I don't see the problem in that. One person, one vote each of the same value.
How can you go and say that "this person's thoughts on how this country should be run matter less than MINE" and still claim to support democracy? I mean I know it's annoying for me when I look at election results and see that people who most agree with me are my own age and the elderly voters are mainly against things that I consider reasonable but this still does not mean that I would support taking away voting rights from old people.
I keep talking to people on the net on why they think that people in populated regions should have their vote count for less than the ones in rural areas. It mostly seems to follow on "but then the yuppies and commies in few cities would decide the elections for the entire country and they live in their own bubble and don't know a thing about our lives outside the cities." But I don't see the problem in that. One person, one vote each of the same value.
How can you go and say that "this person's thoughts on how this country should be run matter less than MINE" and still claim to support democracy? I mean I know it's annoying for me when I look at election results and see that people who most agree with me are my own age and the elderly voters are mainly against things that I consider reasonable but this still does not mean that I would support taking away voting rights from old people.
Warren/ Sanders 2020?
Not Sanders, way too old. Even Warren will in 2020 be a year older than Trump is now.
Look to someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner... assuming the DNC gets their act together and puts progressives in charge.
Well Fascism is the combination of right wing, and nationalistic with authoritarian. This is why not every authoritarian is a "Fascist", Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Caligula were not Fascists. While I don't agree with niam he's not calling for the mobilization of all citizens to form a one party state in a nation that draws it's power from a merger of state and corporate control.There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.
Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.
And you were calling me a Nazi?
Lol. Nice of you to show off your own fascist credentials there.
Neither are you, though you certainly fit the "authoritarian", "right wing" and "nationalist" parts.
But then being precise with words you throw around was never really your thing!
If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.
Personally, I think Democrats should take the advice they levelled at Trump before the election and accept the result without shenanigans...
...or riots.
Lol.
I have no problem being labeled as a fascist by someone like you. The electorate that spoke were barely literate mouth-breathers - the Rural Whites make possibly the best case for eugenics that could ever be made. These are people who have methods presented to them which could improve their lives...and they choose to get fucked harder and harder each and every time, just because they think its what their religion demands and because the results might screw over people they dislike for having different skin color.
They concoct these absurd ideas for themselves. I saw one article that talked about Southerner Values like honor and loyalty to ones' own "folk", among others. These were some of the most antiquated, hilarious ideas I've ever seen.
And lastly, they choose their Presidents based not on ability or any other qualifier, but whether or not he speaks the same brain-damaged dialect as the rest of them.
Really, its sad we allow such idiots to choose our Presidents.
Warren/ Sanders 2020?
Not Sanders, way too old. Even Warren will in 2020 be a year older than Trump is now.
Look to someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner... assuming the DNC gets their act together and puts progressives in charge.
Whoever runs needs to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Trump verbally. No matter how good their policies, no matter how much they could actually accomplish, the people won't care if Trump crushes them in the debates. Clinton did well until Trump mentioned the TPP and her corruption, in which case she had almost zero defense.
The good news is if the Establishment pushes Kaine, and it sounds like they will, any progressive can steamroll him.
But it's going to take Obama-level charisma to face off against Trump. Sanders is at least well known. Do any of the other progressives have what it takes to stand up to Trump?
Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
Warren/ Sanders 2020?
Not Sanders, way too old. Even Warren will in 2020 be a year older than Trump is now.
Look to someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner... assuming the DNC gets their act together and puts progressives in charge.
Whoever runs needs to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Trump verbally. No matter how good their policies, no matter how much they could actually accomplish, the people won't care if Trump crushes them in the debates. Clinton did well until Trump mentioned the TPP and her corruption, in which case she had almost zero defense.
The good news is if the Establishment pushes Kaine, and it sounds like they will, any progressive can steamroll him.
But it's going to take Obama-level charisma to face off against Trump. Sanders is at least well known. Do any of the other progressives have what it takes to stand up to Trump?
Maybe, but Clinton still got more votes the last count, (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/) and the name of the howler monkey that came up with proportional representation escapes me.Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
This narrative of "backward-ass rural hillbilly types stealing the election from wise benevolent urban Democrats" is horseshit when you consider that it was electoral votes from previously safe blue seats in the north and northeast that swung the result.
Maybe, but Clinton still got more votes the last count, (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/) and the name of the howler monkey that came up with proportional representation escapes me.Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
This narrative of "backward-ass rural hillbilly types stealing the election from wise benevolent urban Democrats" is horseshit when you consider that it was electoral votes from previously safe blue seats in the north and northeast that swung the result.
Direct question Contrarian, is it just to give Red State areas effectively more of a vote than blue state areas? If so, why? Shouldn't be too much of a stretch given that espousing your opinion is your chief talent!
See, I've been hearing a whole lot about Democrats and whoever the left is this week being elitist but those cheering the outcome of this election, like you, are championing a system that gives elite privileges to some voters but not others.
Funny that.
Dude, did you not understand what I said? I HOPE TO MOTHER F'ING THE UNITED STATES REVOLTS. I mean it's not like 100's of people aren't dying every day to killings, whether race wars or crime wars, or just plain hate. It's not like I go to work every day and bust my ass so I can have half of it taxed and either mooched off by the government or pay for some lazy ass. It's not like I look at insurance companies and the medical field rip off my mother-in-law and father-in-law (a Vietnam Vet btw) while one battles cancer and the other is battling to keep his heart alive (and both can't work anymore) and will probably go bankrupt in order to have a chance at fighting for their lives, and yet the CEOs are getting million dollar bonuses every year. It's not like the education system is putting people in $100,000+ debt as soon as they come out of college and have to work for $12/hr because that's the only job they can find, and that's IF they're lucky enough to find a school that teaches them something and doesn't just let them graduate for showing up. It's not like our for-profit jails aren't keeping people behind bars for 20 years for selling weed, yet rapists are getting off, and bank CEOs stealing money from the hard working class Americans are getting slaps on the wrists and then have $10 million buyouts when they are "forced" to resign/get fired. It's not like America isn't supporting countries (whether through armed weapons or food/clothing), yet American children, (estimated 1 in 6) are going to bed hungry every night.
There's a lot of fucked up shit in my country. But that's okay, it's still the greatest country in the world, because even with that, *I* have worked hard, *I* know to save money, *I* have a moral compass, and *I* have the liberty to do things. Yeah, I agree, my life would have been a whole lot different I'd I been a female, been a minority, or whatever else you want to say. I am not arguing that one bit. But to think Hillary Clinton is going to break the barrier on that you're a moron. To think Trump being elected for President is going to have all the racists come out of the wood work, you're a moron for that too. You have to understand, it's been there. It's ALWAYS been there. It's GOING to continue to be there until a giant mass revolution...whether it's done peacefully or through a giant civil war II...I don't know. But it's going to happen. It will happen. Whether it's in my time or the next. The levy is/will fucking break.
Trump had the advantage of not having any political decisions burdening him. In four years he will have a four year political record and will be seen as a representative of the new "establishment". A different dynamic altogether.
Trump had the advantage of not having any political decisions burdening him. In four years he will have a four year political record and will be seen as a representative of the new "establishment". A different dynamic altogether.
Problem is Trump is good at deflecting the blame and getting people on his side. Short of an impeachment-level offense, he could still win if he looks good in the debates.
Who do you think could match him face-to-face verbally?
.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.
So because of one expression of what you labelled impotent rage you're fine and dandy with a system that actually favors some people over others. To prevent one angry voters fantasy of suppressing votes you are in favor of the absurdly lopsided Electoral college to say nothing of the rampant gerrymandering (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/) and active (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/) voter (https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/) suppressing (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/republicans_are_already_suppressing_minority_votes_all_over_america.html) favoring the Republican side that goes with it.Maybe, but Clinton still got more votes the last count, (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/) and the name of the howler monkey that came up with proportional representation escapes me.Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
This narrative of "backward-ass rural hillbilly types stealing the election from wise benevolent urban Democrats" is horseshit when you consider that it was electoral votes from previously safe blue seats in the north and northeast that swung the result.
Direct question Contrarian, is it just to give Red State areas effectively more of a vote than blue state areas? If so, why? Shouldn't be too much of a stretch given that espousing your opinion is your chief talent!
See, I've been hearing a whole lot about Democrats and whoever the left is this week being elitist but those cheering the outcome of this election, like you, are championing a system that gives elite privileges to some voters but not others.
Funny that.
Generally no, but seeing that the objection to it here seems to carry with it more than a hint of wanting to disenfranchise voters just because they voted the "wrong" way, i'd say it's a necessary evil in this case.
Trump had the advantage of not having any political decisions burdening him. In four years he will have a four year political record and will be seen as a representative of the new "establishment". A different dynamic altogether.
Problem is Trump is good at deflecting the blame and getting people on his side. Short of an impeachment-level offense, he could still win if he looks good in the debates.
Who do you think could match him face-to-face verbally?
There is at least one who did it in this campaign (https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/763130669606309892) and who seems the most obvious choice right now.Quote from: Elizabeth Warren.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.
Warren has three flaws: age (yes, Sanders is older now than she will be in four years, but men and women are judged differently on this), being a woman (the same sexism that came into play against Clinton will come into play against her), and her vacillation during the primaries, which soured a lot of progressives on her. It's probably better to go with somebody younger, like the people I've mentioned before: Grayson, Gabbard, Turner, or even Merkley, all of whom endorsed Sanders and will in four years be younger than even Clinton, never mind Trump, is now. (Even Brown will be, but he has a similar problem to Warren: he outright endorsed Clinton early on.) Warren would probably be more valuable as a surrogate from the day whichever progressive runs announces his or her campaign.It's way too early to say what will happen during the next four years but I don't think most people will carry their grudge to her for that long. She is going to be one of the leaders of the opposition to Trump and that will gather a lot of goodwill for her among liberals. While age is an issue for women in other fields I don't think it matters in politics.
Aaaand after his discussion with Obama Trump says he might not kill Obamacare after all (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-obamacare-repeals-latest-policies-quote-replacement-president-elect-a7412621.html), just "amend" it. The key word here is "might".
Aaaand after his discussion with Obama Trump says he might not kill Obamacare after all (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-obamacare-repeals-latest-policies-quote-replacement-president-elect-a7412621.html), just "amend" it. The key word here is "might".Well he might be throwing a bone to the 67% of non college educated whites or the 41% of folks with incomes under $30,000 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0) but nah, his concern for them will last...I dunno seconds, minutes. Is it still there?
We'll see if anything changes. If Trump forces the Republicans to change their plans it shows he truly is a wild card after all and is not content to play the part of a figurehead. In this case I will gladly eat crow. On the other hand, he avoided promising anything for certain and him being a slippery conman it's not a good sign. There is also the chance that it becomes a pattern that he keeps changing his mind constantly depending on who he has talked with last which would show he truly is just an easily influenced idiot.
Here's another scary thought: what happens in three years if Trump and his cronies think that they're going to get turfed out of office in 2020? (Or even in 2018 if they think they might lose the House or the Senate, though that's unlikely.) Trump has no respect for civil liberties, so does he start jailing his political opponents (like prospective Democratic candidates), jailing the press who cover him negatively, shooting protestors...Well he's in office, a lot of people wrote that off as silly.
Here's another scary thought: what happens in three years if Trump and his cronies think that they're going to get turfed out of office in 2020? (Or even in 2018 if they think they might lose the House or the Senate, though that's unlikely.) Trump has no respect for civil liberties, so does he start jailing his political opponents (like prospective Democratic candidates), jailing the press who cover him negatively, shooting protestors...Well he's in office, a lot of people wrote that off as silly.
Not anymore.
I never said you did, Trump was the candidate endorsed by the KKK and worshiped by /pol. The Nazis declared Trump to be their Fuhrer because they saw the comparison!Here's another scary thought: what happens in three years if Trump and his cronies think that they're going to get turfed out of office in 2020? (Or even in 2018 if they think they might lose the House or the Senate, though that's unlikely.) Trump has no respect for civil liberties, so does he start jailing his political opponents (like prospective Democratic candidates), jailing the press who cover him negatively, shooting protestors...Well he's in office, a lot of people wrote that off as silly.
Not anymore.
Do I still sound ridiculous for making the Nazi comparisons?
"Republicans control:
SCOTUS
Senate
House
President
34/50 Governors
68/99 state legislative chambers
Full control of 33 state legislatures"
"Republicans only need 5 more state legislatures to have 3/4ths of all states. Then they can pass all the constitutional amendments they want"
Every president or presidential candidate, at least in my lifetime, has been accused of being a fascist or the next Hitler. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and probably Bob Dole, Al Gore and John Kerry. The difference is that none of them pretended to not know who David Duke is instead of outright rejecting him, none of them suggested forcing Muslims to carry special identification or ran entirely on fear mongering. None of them were literally seig heiled on stage at their political conventions.His racism and authoritarianism does attract that crowd. It doesn't mean he's capable of turning into the next Hitler despite their fantasies. Yes, he is going to make America a lot shittier place for anyone who is not a relatively well-off white male with no serious medical conditions if he and his handlers follow his rhetoric. Yes, he will escalate American military actions abroad and there is a nonzero chance that he will drive America into a war with Iran. Jailing American journalists and dissenters? I don't think he has that kind of hold over the Republican party and the justice system. It's not an impossibility but I'm not going to panic about it yet.
Just came across this: https://twitter.com/KStreetHipster/status/797250896619077632 (https://twitter.com/KStreetHipster/status/797250896619077632)Quote"Republicans control:
SCOTUS
Senate
House
President
34/50 Governors
68/99 state legislative chambers
Full control of 33 state legislatures"
"Republicans only need 5 more state legislatures to have 3/4ths of all states. Then they can pass all the constitutional amendments they want"
The midterms are going to be extremely important.
Two days after Donald Trump was elected president, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an ardent Trump supporter, admitted the president-elect's promise to get Mexico to fund his proposed border wall may have just been "a campaign device." "He may not spend much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it," Gingrich said of a hypothetical border structure. "But it was a great campaign device."
...Usually people don't admit that the campaign promises were just lies. There used to be repercussions from something like that.
I certainly don't support the specific language Trump has used in every instance. But I think one thing that should be distinguished here is that the media is always is taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously but it always takes him literally. I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. So when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment, or things like that, the question is not are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China, or how exactly are you going to enforce these tests. What they hear is we're going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy. We're going to try to figure out how do we strike the right balance between cost and benefits.
...Usually people don't admit that the campaign promises were just lies. There used to be repercussions from something like that.They probably figure that the electorate didn't care that he was bullshitting all the way along the campaign trail so why should they care now?
So because of one expression of what you labelled impotent rage you're fine and dandy with a system that actually favors some people over others. To prevent one angry voters fantasy of suppressing votes you are in favor of the absurdly lopsided Electoral college to say nothing of the rampant gerrymandering (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/) and active (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/) voter (https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/) suppressing (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/republicans_are_already_suppressing_minority_votes_all_over_america.html) favoring the Republican side that goes with it.Maybe, but Clinton still got more votes the last count, (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/) and the name of the howler monkey that came up with proportional representation escapes me.Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
This narrative of "backward-ass rural hillbilly types stealing the election from wise benevolent urban Democrats" is horseshit when you consider that it was electoral votes from previously safe blue seats in the north and northeast that swung the result.
Direct question Contrarian, is it just to give Red State areas effectively more of a vote than blue state areas? If so, why? Shouldn't be too much of a stretch given that espousing your opinion is your chief talent!
See, I've been hearing a whole lot about Democrats and whoever the left is this week being elitist but those cheering the outcome of this election, like you, are championing a system that gives elite privileges to some voters but not others.
Funny that.
Generally no, but seeing that the objection to it here seems to carry with it more than a hint of wanting to disenfranchise voters just because they voted the "wrong" way, i'd say it's a necessary evil in this case.
To stop one guys fantasy about stopping "the wrong people" from voting you give your blessing to One political party's and an entire political system geared to and actively preventing "the wrong people" from voting and watering down the votes of those who do.
All while tut tutting others for being elitist. Look in the bloody mirror!
President-elect Donald Trump was adamant throughout his campaign that he had no connections with Russia.
But a Russian diplomat torched Trump's claim on Thursday, telling the Washington Post that top Russian officials were in contact with members of Trump's campaign orbit.
"I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives," Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Post.
I'm not the one throwing the term "elitist" around Conty and you are doing on the basis of a single frustrated forumite who wants to stop the "wrong" people from voting, yet you are giving your blessing that had the result it did because of a system that weights the votes in favor of one political party.So because of one expression of what you labelled impotent rage you're fine and dandy with a system that actually favors some people over others. To prevent one angry voters fantasy of suppressing votes you are in favor of the absurdly lopsided Electoral college to say nothing of the rampant gerrymandering (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/) and active (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/) voter (https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/) suppressing (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/republicans_are_already_suppressing_minority_votes_all_over_america.html) favoring the Republican side that goes with it.Maybe, but Clinton still got more votes the last count, (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/) and the name of the howler monkey that came up with proportional representation escapes me.Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
This narrative of "backward-ass rural hillbilly types stealing the election from wise benevolent urban Democrats" is horseshit when you consider that it was electoral votes from previously safe blue seats in the north and northeast that swung the result.
Direct question Contrarian, is it just to give Red State areas effectively more of a vote than blue state areas? If so, why? Shouldn't be too much of a stretch given that espousing your opinion is your chief talent!
See, I've been hearing a whole lot about Democrats and whoever the left is this week being elitist but those cheering the outcome of this election, like you, are championing a system that gives elite privileges to some voters but not others.
Funny that.
Generally no, but seeing that the objection to it here seems to carry with it more than a hint of wanting to disenfranchise voters just because they voted the "wrong" way, i'd say it's a necessary evil in this case.
To stop one guys fantasy about stopping "the wrong people" from voting you give your blessing to One political party's and an entire political system geared to and actively preventing "the wrong people" from voting and watering down the votes of those who do.
All while tut tutting others for being elitist. Look in the bloody mirror!
Oddly enough I didn't see you whinging when it was thought *due to that exact same electoral college* all Hillary needed to do was win her safe consituencies in California and the Northeast.
Even with the rural midwestern states having a supposedly lopsided representation in electoral seats they would somehow still have been an irrelevance if Pennsylvania and North Carolina had voted according to form. That's the real issue with your system, not Kansas having 6 electoral votes instead of 4.
Oddly enough I didn't see you whinging when it was thought *due to that exact same electoral college* all Hillary needed to do was win her safe consituencies in California and the Northeast.
I STILL remain amazed we're letting monkey-brained simpletons with family trees that more resemble family tumbleweeds decide our elections - I read that the electoral college was instituted and kept around to placate slave states.
So, really, it seems my evaluation had some basis. Namely, that this election's result rests squarely upon the pudgy shoulders of Appalachia and the South.
This has served as a political awakening for me - I will work toward consequences for these enablers of antiquated ideas and 1950s Nostalgia. California is one of the biggest economies, and we can - with the right laws and regulations - focus our trade and businesses into the total exclusion of the South / Appalachia and the Rust Belt from receiving our goods, services, food, and business. There are better and more productive markets we can focus on.
I STILL remain amazed we're letting monkey-brained simpletons with family trees that more resemble family tumbleweeds decide our elections - I read that the electoral college was instituted and kept around to placate slave states.niam, the US election wasn't just decided on the people who did vote. It was also decided by the people who didn't. Plenty of former Bernie Bros voted independent and plenty of people who came out to vote for Obama didn't this time around.
So, really, it seems my evaluation had some basis. Namely, that this election's result rests squarely upon the pudgy shoulders of Appalachia and the South.
This has served as a political awakening for me - I will work toward consequences for these enablers of antiquated ideas and 1950s Nostalgia. California is one of the biggest economies, and we can - with the right laws and regulations - focus our trade and businesses into the total exclusion of the South / Appalachia and the Rust Belt from receiving our goods, services, food, and business. There are better and more productive markets we can focus on.
I'm not the one throwing the term "elitist" around Conty and you are doing on the basis of a single frustrated forumite who wants to stop the "wrong" people from voting, yet you are giving your blessing that had the result it did because of a system that weights the votes in favor of one political party.So because of one expression of what you labelled impotent rage you're fine and dandy with a system that actually favors some people over others. To prevent one angry voters fantasy of suppressing votes you are in favor of the absurdly lopsided Electoral college to say nothing of the rampant gerrymandering (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/) and active (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/) voter (https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/) suppressing (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/republicans_are_already_suppressing_minority_votes_all_over_america.html) favoring the Republican side that goes with it.Maybe, but Clinton still got more votes the last count, (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/) and the name of the howler monkey that came up with proportional representation escapes me.Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
This narrative of "backward-ass rural hillbilly types stealing the election from wise benevolent urban Democrats" is horseshit when you consider that it was electoral votes from previously safe blue seats in the north and northeast that swung the result.
Direct question Contrarian, is it just to give Red State areas effectively more of a vote than blue state areas? If so, why? Shouldn't be too much of a stretch given that espousing your opinion is your chief talent!
See, I've been hearing a whole lot about Democrats and whoever the left is this week being elitist but those cheering the outcome of this election, like you, are championing a system that gives elite privileges to some voters but not others.
Funny that.
Generally no, but seeing that the objection to it here seems to carry with it more than a hint of wanting to disenfranchise voters just because they voted the "wrong" way, i'd say it's a necessary evil in this case.
To stop one guys fantasy about stopping "the wrong people" from voting you give your blessing to One political party's and an entire political system geared to and actively preventing "the wrong people" from voting and watering down the votes of those who do.
All while tut tutting others for being elitist. Look in the bloody mirror!
Oddly enough I didn't see you whinging when it was thought *due to that exact same electoral college* all Hillary needed to do was win her safe consituencies in California and the Northeast.
Even with the rural midwestern states having a supposedly lopsided representation in electoral seats they would somehow still have been an irrelevance if Pennsylvania and North Carolina had voted according to form. That's the real issue with your system, not Kansas having 6 electoral votes instead of 4.
Yet I don't hear you calling Republicans elitist for what they actually do as opposed to wish for. Why the double standard?Oddly enough I didn't see you whinging when it was thought *due to that exact same electoral college* all Hillary needed to do was win her safe consituencies in California and the Northeast.
I never made the argument that the electoral college was good when it helped the Democrats. I'm arguing on the basis of something you did, rather than didn't do which rather helps ground the whole thing in the real world. What you did was charge left wing people with being elitist because a singular left wing (in your opinion) person wanted to do to Republican rural voters the exact same thing that Republicans have been doing for years to Democrat urban voters. If it's wrong it's wrong yes?
1. He's not alone in that sentiment. Just look at all the butthurt whinging from millennials after the brexit vote when they discovered that the over-45s had a distinct preference for leaving.
And that time, not only did they want to disenfranchise and probably euthanise a whole bunch of old people who had the AUDACITY to vote the other way, but also wanted to re-run/ignore the whole thing after they lost the POPULAR VOTE.
The left does this shit constantly for fuck's sake.
Again you're complaining about a sentiment while ignoring actual voter suppression. It's like equating someone who types DIAF to a sociopath who actually sets fire to homeless people.I'm not the one throwing the term "elitist" around Conty and you are doing on the basis of a single frustrated forumite who wants to stop the "wrong" people from voting, yet you are giving your blessing that had the result it did because of a system that weights the votes in favor of one political party.So because of one expression of what you labelled impotent rage you're fine and dandy with a system that actually favors some people over others. To prevent one angry voters fantasy of suppressing votes you are in favor of the absurdly lopsided Electoral college to say nothing of the rampant gerrymandering (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/) and active (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/) voter (https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/) suppressing (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/republicans_are_already_suppressing_minority_votes_all_over_america.html) favoring the Republican side that goes with it.Maybe, but Clinton still got more votes the last count, (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/) and the name of the howler monkey that came up with proportional representation escapes me.Hey Conty, you do know that Clinton won the popular vote right? I don't agree with niam saying "those people" shouldn't have the right to vote. But I definitely get frustration of people who know that there are people who have more of a vote by virtue of the real estate they're living on.
This narrative of "backward-ass rural hillbilly types stealing the election from wise benevolent urban Democrats" is horseshit when you consider that it was electoral votes from previously safe blue seats in the north and northeast that swung the result.
Direct question Contrarian, is it just to give Red State areas effectively more of a vote than blue state areas? If so, why? Shouldn't be too much of a stretch given that espousing your opinion is your chief talent!
See, I've been hearing a whole lot about Democrats and whoever the left is this week being elitist but those cheering the outcome of this election, like you, are championing a system that gives elite privileges to some voters but not others.
Funny that.
Generally no, but seeing that the objection to it here seems to carry with it more than a hint of wanting to disenfranchise voters just because they voted the "wrong" way, i'd say it's a necessary evil in this case.
To stop one guys fantasy about stopping "the wrong people" from voting you give your blessing to One political party's and an entire political system geared to and actively preventing "the wrong people" from voting and watering down the votes of those who do.
All while tut tutting others for being elitist. Look in the bloody mirror!
Oddly enough I didn't see you whinging when it was thought *due to that exact same electoral college* all Hillary needed to do was win her safe consituencies in California and the Northeast.
Even with the rural midwestern states having a supposedly lopsided representation in electoral seats they would somehow still have been an irrelevance if Pennsylvania and North Carolina had voted according to form. That's the real issue with your system, not Kansas having 6 electoral votes instead of 4.
Yet I don't hear you calling Republicans elitist for what they actually do as opposed to wish for. Why the double standard?Oddly enough I didn't see you whinging when it was thought *due to that exact same electoral college* all Hillary needed to do was win her safe consituencies in California and the Northeast.
I never made the argument that the electoral college was good when it helped the Democrats. I'm arguing on the basis of something you did, rather than didn't do which rather helps ground the whole thing in the real world. What you did was charge left wing people with being elitist because a singular left wing (in your opinion) person wanted to do to Republican rural voters the exact same thing that Republicans have been doing for years to Democrat urban voters. If it's wrong it's wrong yes?
1. He's not alone in that sentiment. Just look at all the butthurt whinging from millennials after the brexit vote when they discovered that the over-45s had a distinct preference for leaving.
And that time, not only did they want to disenfranchise and probably euthanise a whole bunch of old people who had the AUDACITY to vote the other way, but also wanted to re-run/ignore the whole thing after they lost the POPULAR VOTE.
The left does this shit constantly for fuck's sake.
2. Given that between California and the Northeast, the Democrats have an almost unassailable advantage built into the electoral college from the start, it's a bit fucking sad that you have to cry about a few tiny rural states that have statistically no bearing on the final result.
If I were a Democrat, i'd be taking a long look at how we managed to throw away 20 electoral votes in a single supposedly safe blue state rather than trying to tip the balance further to the blue side by stripping the odd elector from some irrelevant farm states.
In a post on Wednesday [Daily Stormer’s Nazi-in-chief Andrew Anglin] pointed his readers to dozens of tweets from Hillary supporters publicly declaring themselves scared by Trump’s win.
“You can troll these people and definitely get some of them to kill themselves,” Anglin happily tells his readers.
Just be like “it’s the only way you can prove to the racists that Hillary was right all along.”
"“Mass Suicides After Trump Victory” would be a headline the media would play up, but all it would do would demoralize the left even further.
GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!"
Yeah but once people realize that he's not going to bring the jobs back, that the Wall is a pipe dream, that there's not going to be a mass deportation force, that he can't change anything about Washington politics, that it would be a huge mess just to dismantle Obama care. I have a feeling that not so many people are going to turn out to vote for him next time.Thing is, between now and then the Repugs will be fucking with the electoral machinery to prevent a loss whatever happens.
Just a hypothetical question, but let's say Trump in his 4 years really did improve things without taking anyone's rights away and starting any wars. If he ran again (and his opponent wasn't Sanders or another progressive), would you vote for him in the reelection?
...Didn't anyone brief him? When he became the Republican candidate didn't his party tell him how to do this? You might convince me that Trump would not listen to instructions but the rest of his team has no excuse for this ...If it's even true.
...Didn't anyone brief him? When he became the Republican candidate didn't his party tell him how to do this? You might convince me that Trump would not listen to instructions but the rest of his team has no excuse for this ...If it's even true.It's also been reported that he didn't want to jinx his victory chances by planning the transition beforehand. My guess is that his staff didn't believe they could win and didn't bother pressuring him on this.
Trump surrogates are already citing Japanese internment camps from WW II as "precedent" for Muslim registry
Appearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a “diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat.” She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
Someone brought up Tulsi Gabbard as a potential leader for the American liberal movement in this thread. I happened to bump into this little nugget: when it comes to Islam she has more in common with Trump than the liberals (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard). She is also friendly with the Indian Hindu nationalist BJP party due to a large part of her constituency supporting them and has fought against US condemning BJP supporters' violence against the Muslim minority in India. Warren's hawkish approach to the Palestinian conflict pales when compared to her islamophobia.QuoteAppearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a “diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat.” She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
I know that this is off-topic but since it as mentioned, the thing that most annoys me when someone tries to explain that "all women want X" is not that it's usually said by guys. The most annoying thing is that it's a generalization and even I (a guy) can't make such generalization on men because of how many kinds of men there are and though I understand women even less than I understand other men I assume that women are similarly complex so statements like this are more likely to be false than true.
Someone brought up Tulsi Gabbard as a potential leader for the American liberal movement in this thread. I happened to bump into this little nugget: when it comes to Islam she has more in common with Trump than the liberals (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard). She is also friendly with the Indian Hindu nationalist BJP party due to a large part of her constituency supporting them and has fought against US condemning BJP supporters' violence against the Muslim minority in India. Warren's hawkish approach to the Palestinian conflict pales when compared to her islamophobia.QuoteAppearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a “diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat.” She criticized Obama for saying that “poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education” is contributing to radicalization. “They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology,” she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
Is Rep. Gabbard perfect? No. Is Sen. Warren perfect? No. Is Rep Ellison perfect? No. Is Sen. Turner perfect? No. Is Sen. Sanders perfect? No. I could go on, but you get the point.
Are they better than corporatist Democrats? Yes.
The trouble had begun when Sanders—who was promoting his book, Our Revolution—entertained a written question from a woman named Rebecca who said, “I want to be the second Latina senator in U.S. history. Any tips?”
Sanders began his response, captured on a smartphone camera, with a warning: “Let me respond to the question in a way that the questioner may not be happy with.” And then:
It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen.
So far, so good ...
But it is not good enough for somebody to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests.
And then, after backing up to stress the need for diversity in politics—“We need 50 women in the Senate. We need more African-Americans.”
The quote omits the full context: (https://newrepublic.com/article/138921/bernie-sanders-meant-say-identity-politics)QuoteThe trouble had begun when Sanders—who was promoting his book, Our Revolution—entertained a written question from a woman named Rebecca who said, “I want to be the second Latina senator in U.S. history. Any tips?”
Sanders began his response, captured on a smartphone camera, with a warning: “Let me respond to the question in a way that the questioner may not be happy with.” And then:
It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen.
So far, so good ...
But it is not good enough for somebody to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests.
And then, after backing up to stress the need for diversity in politics—“We need 50 women in the Senate. We need more African-Americans.”
Sanders is not dismissing identity politics. He is reminding that it's not the only dimension of the political struggle and the economical dimension with its class struggle should not be forgotten. These are not mutually exclusive approaches; on the contrary they are connected and ignoring either one is detrimental to building an inclusive society.