2016 Democratic Thread

[Soxbadger]

Iirc db or rabbit posted something similar about the Saudis several weeks back, but it turned out that the donation was to an independent pac so legally Clinton has zero control over it and can't accept our refuse any donations.

 

So another "misinterpretation."

 

I am beginning to see a pattern.

[StrangeSox]

Hey man don't go dropping a bunch of silly nonsense and then use me as an excuse to flounce off. Own your claims and I'll gladly shut up.

 

Also pear learn the definition of the word ignorant.

Edited October 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Steve9347]

LOL check CNN's Twitter feed for all of the headlines they put up today.

 

The headlines:

Negative Trump: 21

Negative HRC: ZERO

Positive Trump: 1 (toddler at his speech), 2 (Trump supporter comments)

Positive HRC: 4

Neutral Trump: 3

Neutral HRC: 2 (Podesta Leaks not reported with any ugly HRC emails)

You aren't comparing apples to apples. Trump is acting like a twat 24/7. Lots of gasoline to dump on the fire.

[Quin]

CNN paid trump's former campaign manager who is still in regular contact with Trump 500k to be on the air. CNN is without an ideology beyond ratings ratings ratings imo.

 

True.

 

They used to be the good one on the middle spectrum, then Flight 370 happened.

 

[StrangeSox]

So another "misinterpretation."

 

I am beginning to see a pattern.

In fact this pretty much had to be the case because it is 100% illegal for campaigns to even solicit foreign donations let alone accept them.

[greg775]

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4433

 

Clinton's campaign manager says she, "has begun to hate everyday Americans" to which Clinton's Director of Communication responded, "Truth."

Of course she hates the middle class. I've been saying it on here forever. She's a one percenter folks, just like Donald. They both are elitist. They both are rich. Their lives for the most part are over (not being mean here, their ages and quality of life that's coming). So you'd think they'd want to help the little guy and gal their last 10 years or so of their working lives (til 78, 80). But nooooo. Of course she hates Americans. So does Trump for that matter. FYI I don't think Obama hates Americans nor did Carter or Reagan. Bushes were kinda elitist themselves. And as an addendum by "hate Americans" I mean yes they'd do ANYTHING to stomp them if it meant them staying a one percenter. Sure they hate us.

 

Why do you insist on condescending me? I post news and you joke "October Surprise!!!" Then you ask if I read the email? Really? What do you take exception to specifically? Can you respond to the actual material at hand? Or when it paints HRC negatively or do you just condescend, wave your hand and parrot conspiracy theory?

Bingo! But he doesn't see it.

Edited October 12, 2016 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Here's the thing (once again)...

 

Most Democrats are willing to look at HRC objectively. We're far from worshiping/adoring/coronation day in terms of opinions. In fact, I've ready a number of the "right wing" books assailing the Clinton Foundation (Clinton Cash, etc.) and find 50% of it to be interesting and at times, thought-provoking.

 

But this whole idea of "media bias" is just sour grapes. If you've been around long enough, you remember when it was Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush as president for 20 out of 24 years, and then after Clinton you had Bush, so GOP presidents for 28/40 years, or 70% of a lifetime.

 

It's usually a case where individual reporters/columnists/anchors tend to have a leftward lean and the corporations (see Murdoch or the Koch Brothers) and newspapers who are their bosses and run the editorial boards, so everything tends to even out over time. For many years, there was really only "right wing radio" starring the likes of Rush Limbaugh. There seemed to be 4-5 programs on the right, for every CNBC with Maddow, Matthews and Olberman. Heck, even CROSSFIRE on CNN had a very "wimpy" liberal who wasn't really much of a foil for the more aggressive right-leaning pundits who tended to dominate those shows in terms of tone and content.

 

The irony of Citizens United is that if the GOP had any idea how to articulate a fresh and dynamic vision for the country with the built-in fundraising advantages they SHOULD theoretically enjoy, they would be absolutely WIPING OUT the Democrats right now coming after a two-term president with "mediocre" popularity numbers for most of his tenure.

 

The reason Trump's losing isn't media bias, it's because he's a terrible candidate, and clearly so inexperience and unwilling to learn policy most GOP voters would have a large pause before punching that particular ballot.

 

McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore (although you can argue that one) and Kerrey also lost because they simply weren't good enough candidates, and they failed to appeal to the center-right voters in the moderate 40% which make up the middle of the country and consider themselves independent or non party-affiliated.

 

So let's stick to reality and discuss things in mature, adult fashion...something that only Ken Bone appears to be capable of at this point in time. (Heck, if you instantly could put him on the ballot, Mr. Bone would have a very good chance of winning the presidency with civil discourse having reached such a low point.)

 

 

[Quin]

Of course she hates the middle class. I've been saying it on here forever. She's a one percenter folks, just like Donald. They both are elitist. They both are rich. Their lives for the most part are over (not being mean here, their ages and quality of life that's coming). So you'd think they'd want to help the little guy and gal their last 10 years or so of their working lives (til 78, 80). But nooooo. Of course she hates Americans. So does Trump for that matter. FYI I don't think Obama hates Americans nor did Carter or Reagan. Bushes were kinda elitist themselves. And as an addendum by "hate Americans" I mean yes they'd do ANYTHING to stomp them if it meant them staying a one percenter. Sure they hate us.

 

 

Bingo! But he doesn't see it.

 

Did you really just gloss over two pages of discussion?

 

She hates the phrase "everyday Americans"

[caulfield12]

Of course she hates the middle class. I've been saying it on here forever. She's a one percenter folks, just like Donald. They both are elitist. They both are rich. Their lives for the most part are over (not being mean here, their ages and quality of life that's coming). So you'd think they'd want to help the little guy and gal their last 10 years or so of their working lives (til 78, 80). But nooooo. Of course she hates Americans. So does Trump for that matter. FYI I don't think Obama hates Americans nor did Carter or Reagan. Bushes were kinda elitist themselves. And as an addendum by "hate Americans" I mean yes they'd do ANYTHING to stomp them if it meant them staying a one percenter. Sure they hate us.

 

 

Bingo! But he doesn't see it.

 

 

It's very simple. John Edwards and Al Gore in 2000 were the last two to run "populist" campaigns. Most perceived them as lacking authenticity or not being "genuine" enough.

 

The last Republican to really address helping the middle class (and at least appear like he cared) was probably Jack Kemp, and the

only modern campaign that really reached out to the poor and dispossessed (not even middle class) was run in 1968 by Robert F. Kennedy, before he was assassinated after winning the California primary.

 

Obviously, there probably are very few Americans who believe the Kennedys are "like them" or "care about them," right?

 

 

Back to HRC. Nobody ever argued she was particularly likable. Remember Obama's zinger from eight years ago, "you're likable enough, Hillary"? She does give off that impression (and her husband has the opposite charisma) of creating a perception that she doesn't care or even "hates" everyday Americans, because she's so wary of interacting with them and she has developed a paranoia going back to 1978 when Bill first won the governorship and quickly lost it (only to win again in 1982, having been chastened by the electorate)...it was at that point she started distrusting the press and feeling that taped or photographed conversations with everyday Americans would only lead to "misinterpretations" which would later be used against her. She's a lawyer, and that's how she and her husband think, so the less you say, the less likelier you are to get yourself in trouble.

 

 

 

SEEMS QUITE OBVIOUS A THIRD PARTY REPRESENTING THE MIDDLE 50% OF THE COUNTRY (FLYOVER STATES LIKE IOWA OR KANSAS) IS THE ONLY SOLUTION.

 

Of course, if you have three parties, you're going to continue electing leaders that have the support of a minority of Americans. That, in and of itself, could also be dangerous. But look at the Tea Party, the Gingrich 1994 Revolution, Occupy Wall Street/1% vs. 99%, Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, etc. All of them have tried to go in the direction of splintering off one party or another...either to lead it in their preferred direction (see Democratic Leadership Council or Grover Norquist's foundation) and some with idealistic notions of creating a "third way" in American politics. All of them were beaten down or co-opted by those two principal parties.

[Balta1701]

Just a reminder, that you make this statement, but there are a hell of a lot of republicans who have been very vocal against Trump. I don't think you ever saw me say anything kind about him and I've mentioned on multiple occasions how embarrassed I am. I also don't think you can just lump everyone voting for Trump or putting a vote his way or who supported him at any time as racist persay, you could absolutely lump almost all of them as being "frustrated" with the process. Now there are definitely a fair share who fall into the camp of "nutjobs / crazies", etc, and that doesn't just mean race, but plenty of other things.

And how exactly did it get to this point? Did you go along when your party called for "Self deportation" in 2012? Did you get angry and vote against that? Did you casually look the other way at the howls of "voter fraud" when even people within the party admitted publicly that it was just a way to keep the blah people from voting? Were you ok with your party being filled with this poison up to a certain point and only mad when the cup finally spilled over?

 

For crying out loud, here's 5 minutes of

you can imagine crammed into one Fox News segment. This aired on the Republican's quasiofficial network. In 2016.

 

How did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where we have a KKK member running for Congress, where we have slurs being hurled at Jewish reporters, where you can drive past all the Confederate flags to a trump rally? Because people didn't stop it. Because people were ok with it as long as it did something useful.

[RockRaines]

Want to know why the emails arent being taken more seriously? Because they are editable and have been changed. Plus they show almost nothing.

[StrangeSox]

And how exactly did it get to this point? Did you go along when your party called for "Self deportation" in 2012? Did you get angry and vote against that? Did you casually look the other way at the howls of "voter fraud" when even people within the party admitted publicly that it was just a way to keep the blah people from voting? Were you ok with your party being filled with this poison up to a certain point and only mad when the cup finally spilled over?

 

For crying out loud, here's 5 minutes of

you can imagine crammed into one Fox News segment. This aired on the Republican's quasiofficial network. In 2016.

 

How did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where we have a KKK member running for Congress, where we have slurs being hurled at Jewish reporters, where you can drive past all the Confederate flags to a trump rally? Because people didn't stop it. Because people were ok with it as long as it did something useful.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbarro/status/785992313042505728

[lostfan]

I am getting sick of talking about wikileaks in this election cycle.

 

Whenever they publish anything, probably 90% of people (that might be too conservative, it's probably more) who talk about it don't actually read any of it themselves and have no intention of ever doing so, but they feel knowledgeable enough to discuss it and they make a lot of noise. Of the small percentage of people who actually DO read the documents, they are looking for something to take out of context, with full knowledge that other 90% will parrot 2-3 sentence excerpts all over social media as "proof" of something they already wanted to believe. The "everyday Americans" thing was already discussed, so another example is HRC saying "you need a public position and a private position." She got mocked everywhere for bringing up Lincoln but if you read the speech transcript that literally is what she was talking about. Another example: "DNC officials are racist and said they wanted to do taco bowl outreach with Hispanics." If you read that e-mail exchange it's very obvious what was happening there, two people who work for the DNC (who are themselves Hispanic) were mocking Trump's taco bowl tweet.

 

When people do this, and it's most people, it's impossible to take them seriously. There's just no point. I leave them where they are.

[StrangeSox]

Some more coverage of Clinton's child tax credit plan, which puts the total cost of the program at closer to $200B over a decade. The plan not only lowers the phase-in threshold to $0 (from the current $3000), it also doubles the credit across the board.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/11/497570475/ne...ost-200-billion

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ff2531ce-d1af-...17;s-maria.html

 

Here we have a perfect example....Maria Bartiromo retweeting that Hillary Clinton supposedly called Muslims "sand n*****s" when it wasn't even close to reality

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-hillary-cl...-182710546.html

Maybe the worst political ad in recent memory...attacking Clinton's health "problems"

Edited October 12, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Some scary-crazy from Maine's LePage, saying that we need to counter Obama's autocracy with an authoritarian power from Trump.

 

And some creepiness from Trump:

Teen beauty queens say Trump walked in on them changing. “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”

Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing.

 

The fourth, former Miss Vermont Teen USA Mariah Billado, says she remembered Trump saying as he walked in, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”

 

She also remembers telling Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, a co-host at the time, about the incident.

 

“Yeah, he does that,” Ivanka responded.

Edited October 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-hillary-cl...-182710546.html

Maybe the worst political ad in recent memory...attacking Clinton's health "problems"

 

This is wrong because it's not a link to

[lostfan]

Some scary-crazy from Maine's LePage, saying that we need to counter Obama's autocracy with an authoritarian power from Trump.

 

And some creepiness from Trump:

You're not supposed to actually USE the word "authoritarian."

 

You're also not supposed to lie about imaginary black and Hispanic drug dealers invading your lily-white state to impregnate your precious white women and say you have proof, but your proof says those drug dealers are mostly white so you invent racial resentment out of nothing, but... baby steps.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is wrong because it's not a link to

No no no

. My favorite political ad of all time.

 

Dude was a nut job but also had one of my favorite quotes about politics of all time. Went something like: "When I first arrived in Congress, I thought wow, how the hell did I get here? Then after a while, I thought, how the hell did these other people get here?"

[StrangeSox]

edit: never mind about that map, apparently it's some hypothetical garbage, thanks a lot nate silver

 

You're not supposed to actually USE the word "authoritarian."

 

You're also not supposed to lie about imaginary black and Hispanic drug dealers invading your lily-white state to impregnate your precious white women and say you have proof, but your proof says those drug dealers are mostly white so you invent racial resentment out of nothing, but... baby steps.

LePage is a living, breathing example of the damage a third party can do to your own politics in a first-past-the-post system.

Edited October 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

If the Democrats take back the Senate, what do you guys think the odds are for:

 

1) Abolishing the filibuster for SC nominees

2) Abolishing the filibuster entirely

[lostfan]

If the Democrats take back the Senate, what do you guys think the odds are for:

 

1) Abolishing the filibuster for SC nominees

2) Abolishing the filibuster entirely

After the stunt the Republicans pulled this year with Garland, I think Dems are about done playing by those rules.

[bmags]

If the Democrats take back the Senate, what do you guys think the odds are for:

 

1) Abolishing the filibuster for SC nominees

2) Abolishing the filibuster entirely

1) 20%

2) 0%

 

It should happen. Government needs to be able to do stuff.

[NorthSideSox72]

1) 20%

2) 0%

 

It should happen. Government needs to be able to do stuff.

Agreed all around. The procedural filibuster is a stupid rule.

 

[lostfan]

The Senate filibuster was never intended to be used the way that the Republicans have used it since 2008. The Senate is already set up that way by design, and especially now considering the Democrats need 7-8 million more votes to have a majority in the House. That SHOULD be a full-blown mandate, but it ends up just being a thin temporary majority for the Dems.