2016 Democratic Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Hold up, there are s***ty people on the internet? NO WAY.

 

Just today a dude that got a Cowboys Superbowl Champs tattoo got death threats over the internet. People are awful when given an anonymous platform. We've known this for years.

[Kyyle23]

Hold up, there are s***ty people on the internet? NO WAY.

 

Just today a dude that got a Cowboys Superbowl Champs tattoo got death threats over the internet. People are awful when given an anonymous platform. We've known this for years.

 

people are even more awful when they are in a position of power and are able to influence anonymous people on an anonymous platform and then claim they didnt say that

[BigSqwert]

Hold up, there are s***ty people on the internet? NO WAY.

 

Pretty scary that you see no issue with someone with so much power calling out private citizens by name, even though there's evidence that each time he does this, that person gets harassed with death threats. This is somehow normal to you.

 

[illinilaw08]

Hold up, there are s***ty people on the internet? NO WAY.

 

Just today a dude that got a Cowboys Superbowl Champs tattoo got death threats over the internet. People are awful when given an anonymous platform. We've known this for years.

 

Jenks, stop being obtuse. Every time Trump has attacked an individual on Twitter since the campaign began, that person has been subjected to all kinds of threats and harassment on social media by Trump's supporters. Thus, the effect of saying bad things about Trump in a public forum is that he attacks you on social media, and you get threats from his supporters. That's really, really bad!

 

The difference between the Trump stuff and the guy getting a Cowboys Superbowl tattoo is that one of them is caused by the inappropriate actions of the President Elect of the United States, and the other is not.

[StrangeSox]

Hold up, there are s***ty people on the internet? NO WAY.

 

Just today a dude that got a Cowboys Superbowl Champs tattoo got death threats over the internet. People are awful when given an anonymous platform. We've known this for years.

 

She's being attacked, even a year later, because she questioned Trump. Whatever other dumb stuff happens on the internet is irrelevant. The only reason she gets the threats and harassment that she did is because she asked him a question and he cried like a baby about it on twitter. The only reason that the local union president from Carrier is getting death threats and having his children threatened is because Trump cried like a baby about him on twitter.

 

This is not something that happened with Obama. Obama didn't whine on any form of media about individual private citizens who dared criticize him or even just asked him a question, his media director didn't doxx their social media accounts, his supporters didn't regularly send those people threats. This isn't something I'd expect would happen under a Jeb! or Kasich or Rubio administration, either. This is a uniquely Trump phenomenon, and people need to stop making excuses for it. Don' try to justify it with "he's not allowed to respond to critics?" or "other people also get harassed for non-Trump reasons".

Edited December 9, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, stop being obtuse. Every time Trump has attacked an individual on Twitter since the campaign began, that person has been subjected to all kinds of threats and harassment on social media by Trump's supporters. Thus, the effect of saying bad things about Trump in a public forum is that he attacks you on social media, and you get threats from his supporters. That's really, really bad!

 

The difference between the Trump stuff and the guy getting a Cowboys Superbowl tattoo is that one of them is caused by the inappropriate actions of the President Elect of the United States, and the other is not.

 

I don't agree. Just like I wouldn't blame Clinton for her supporters bombing a campaign office of Trump. Stupid people do stupid things. Unless he was calling for his supporters to go after her, even indirectly, simply commenting on her doesn't make him responsible for what stupid people decide to do.

 

Is it Presidential? No. Should he be doing it? No.

[StrangeSox]

Nicholas ThompsonVerified account

‏@nxthompson

With Puzder, the Trump White House now has as many men accused of spousal abuse as women in total.

[StrangeSox]

REPORT: Trump Only Receiving One Intelligence Briefing Per Week; Pence Receiving Six

 

gotta focus on the important stuff, the cult-like rallies!

[GoSox05]

I don't agree. Just like I wouldn't blame Clinton for her supporters bombing a campaign office of Trump. Stupid people do stupid things. Unless he was calling for his supporters to go after her, even indirectly, simply commenting on her doesn't make him responsible for what stupid people decide to do.

 

Is it Presidential? No. Should he be doing it? No.

 

Wait, when did Clinton supporters bomb a campaign office?

[Jenksismyhero]

Wait, when did Clinton supporters bomb a campaign office?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aft...m=.764172a8259e

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aft...m=.764172a8259e

 

How do you know that was Clinton supporters as opposed to supporters of Sanders, Johnson, or Stein?

 

If Clinton had just gone out of her way to trash the Orange County NC Republicans, I'd understand.

[StrangeSox]

There's a pretty big disconnect between "someone who was possibly (or even 'probably' to be generous) a Clinton supporter, firebombed a random GOP election office" and "Donald Trump attacked a specific individual on a mass media platform who had dared to question him, and his supporters have carried on a year-long campaign of harassment against that individual"

 

This is what happens when Trump attacks private citizens who question him. He had power before, and now he has enormous power. He's responsible for how he wields it.

[bmags]

The Nation put out a long editors note to that really stupid mtv news article but I'm having trouble getting the images here from the tweet and the nation isn't loading for me

[illinilaw08]

I don't agree. Just like I wouldn't blame Clinton for her supporters bombing a campaign office of Trump. Stupid people do stupid things. Unless he was calling for his supporters to go after her, even indirectly, simply commenting on her doesn't make him responsible for what stupid people decide to do.

 

Is it Presidential? No. Should he be doing it? No.

 

A Presidential candidates negative comments toward a private citizen causes his supporters to threaten and harass that person for over a year.

 

A President elects negative comments toward a private citizen cause his supporters to threaten and harass that person and his family members.

 

Whether Trump intends that response from his supporters is irrelevant. The effect of Trump singling out private citizens who say mean things about him is threats and harassment toward that person. Trump continuing to call out individual, private citizens who fall on his radar is dangerous and irresponsible.

 

This is different than campaign rhetoric. Even if a Clinton supporter bombed that GOP HQ because Clinton called Trump supporters deplorables, Clinton did not, in any way shape or form, target that particular HQ or any of the specific individuals who worked there. Simply put, Trump singling out individuals is dangerous and irresponsible behavior from the President of the United States.

[GoSox05]

That could have been anyone that did. Including the GOP supporters.

 

 

Even if it was some Clinton supporters or something like that. It's nothing compared to the President elect picking on individual citizens. Especially when he knows he has a violent cult like following.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

bmags already put it best imo

 

Presidents of the United States shouldn't criticize private citizens for criticizing them (there are actually few scenarios where this is okay, one of the reasons why Obama invited the police officer who arrested HLG to the white house after)

 

Presidents shouldn't have jobs or positions in private or non profit sector while sitting president.

 

These are good rules. It's up to you to answer why you think Trump should be allowed to do this instead of spending all of your time trying to police everyones language criticizing things that should be criticized.

 

[caulfield12]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/...l-security.html

Is the GOP crazy enough to go after Social Security?

 

Wanted to get that back up before Russian hackers protecting Trump attack SoxTalk servers again.

 

Green. I hope.

Edited December 10, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

 

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

 

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

 

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

[StrangeSox]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/...l-security.html

Is the GOP crazy enough to go after Social Security?

 

Wanted to get that back up before Russian hackers protecting Trump attack SoxTalk servers again.

 

Green. I hope.

 

 

Here's a pretty good summary of the bill that the House GOP is proposing to gut social security.

 

https://twitter.com/MichaelSLinden/status/8...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

Follow

 

Michael Linden

‏@MichaelSLinden

Oh hey, the GOP Chair of the House subcommittee on Social Security just introduced a new bill to massively cut SS benefits. 1/

 

I mean massively. Most workers would see their benefits cut by more than 10 percent. 2/

 

Many would suffer even deeper cuts. For example, benefits to workers making about 50k would shrink by between 11 and 35%! 35 percent!! 3/

 

Some very low income workers get held harmless, but not all. Worker at $12k who only has 14 years of work history gets cut up to ~50%!! 4/

 

This is the GOP plan for Social Security. Enormous cuts for nearly all workers. Not a single penny of additional revenue from the rich. 5/

 

Late addition to the thread (h/t @BBKogan): You may not believe it but this proposal also includes a...wait for it...tax CUT for the rich.

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

That's the one where nobody in America pays SS tax on income over $108,000 or $116,000...?

 

This just sounds like political suicide. Since the market has blown up since the election, they'll probably revisit privatizing for workers under 30, conveniently overlooking what would have happened to all those accounts three years after the last GOP attempt by Bush in 2005.

[StrangeSox]

That's already the law, SS deductions are capped around there. In order to boost the solvency of the program, you can lift that cap or cut benefits. Gop has decided to cut benefits and sneak in additional tax cuts for the wealthy. Their Obamacare repeal bill does the same.

 

Enrich the rich, cat food for everyone else.

Edited December 10, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

So this really is rather amazing. We have a foreign intelligence industry successfully intervening in a U.S. Election on behalf of one candidate with the tacit approval of that candidate and other top level officials in his party, including one whose wife is now a cabinet level nominee.

 

At this point, the United States system does not have any way to deal with this. if someone successfully intervenes in the U.S. election using foreign resources, a faulty election still stands because there's no mechanism by which we could do anything about the intervention.

[Quin]

So this really is rather amazing. We have a foreign intelligence industry successfully intervening in a U.S. Election on behalf of one candidate with the tacit approval of that candidate and other top level officials in his party, including one whose wife is now a cabinet level nominee.

 

At this point, the United States system does not have any way to deal with this. if someone successfully intervenes in the U.S. election using foreign resources, a faulty election still stands because there's no mechanism by which we could do anything about the intervention.

 

This is the worst flaw in the system.

[caulfield12]

That's already the law, SS deductions are capped around there. In order to boost the solvency of the program, you can lift that cap or cut benefits. Gop has decided to cut benefits and sneak in additional tax cuts for the wealthy. Their Obamacare repeal bill does the same.

 

Enrich the rich, cat food for everyone else.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/give-poor-mo...-135858208.html

 

This is timely. Results of at least 19 studies showing poor people don't act in the ways stereotypically portrayed when provided with money (via microloans/govnt transfers, etc.)

 

Of course, this will never come close to changing anyone's minds due to perception or "Self Serving" bias. We see what we want to see with poor people. And that covers all races and creeds, but particularly minorities in the inner city areas.

 

Not too long from now, 25% of those men eligible to work from 25-54 will have been displaced by automation/made redundant. Not a great trend for the American family. And nice to for once see them thoughtful policy comments and suggestions at the bottom of the article.

 

 

these "expert studies" let's give money directly to recipients instead of inserting large bureaucracy driven products in between. For example, let's give everyone money for health care directly, in health insurance accounts and let them choose how to spend it. You yourself say that they will do so wisely. Same with housing payments, whatever. We will save gazillions by eliminating wasteful programs and government workers.

 

Of course, you could just as easily say get rid of the health insurance industry, too.

 

And the problem with school voucher or medical savings account problems isn't the idea itself...it's when the gap between what they pay out and what individuals need to come up with based on income levels is simply unrealistic or irrational for families.

 

I can get a voucher for $10,000 to send my son to the best private school, but coming up with $40,000 myself when the cost is going to be $50,000 in total probably doesn't make sense. Heck, lots of families are already making the argument that the costs of a university education outside of particular areas like STEM are just not worth it in terms of helping their children pay for college/university.

 

Finally, looking at microloan programs like Grameen, the biggest problem (in the third world) is for profit banks getting involved in copying the idea while simply jacking up the rates to usury levels. Of course, payday loans or cash for check schemes are the same issue for the working poor in America.

Edited December 10, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/preparing-white-...--politics.html

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just name Medvedev as Secretary of State?

 

Green again...theoretically.