Kevin wrote:this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad. this is bad.
If you're smart enough to realize that both candidates suck, you're more than likely a liberal/smart/college-educated person which is more likely to vote Democrat. Sticking it to the man and not voting Democrat hurts Hillary's overall numbers as racists/sexists/rich/conservatives are unified by one candidate
benji wrote:A party doesn't own a vote, it has to earn it.
[Q] wrote:If you're smart enough to realize that both candidates suck, you're more than likely a liberal/smart/college-educated person which is more likely to vote Democrat. Sticking it to the man and not voting Democrat hurts Hillary's overall numbers as racists/sexists/rich/conservatives are unified by one candidate
If in a swing state decided by less than 50,000 votes, and Gary Johnson takes 130,000 votes in that state, I would venture to guess a lot of those Johnson votes would normally go Democrat.
Sauru wrote:what i love about this election is if you did not vote for hillary its because you are an uneducated, racist,xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, micro-aggressive ,misogynist, privileged, patriarchal, cis-gendered white male mansplaining bigot deplorable. there is just simply no other possibilities
Cpt(K) wrote:Sauru wrote:what i love about this election is if you did not vote for hillary its because you are an uneducated, racist,xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, micro-aggressive ,misogynist, privileged, patriarchal, cis-gendered white male mansplaining bigot deplorable. there is just simply no other possibilities
Fix'd I know a missed quite a few . . .
NovU wrote:You kids need to understand Trump's victory is a symbol of growing hatred against ruling elites.
On Friday, I almost assaulted a fan of my work. I was in the Philadelphia International Airport, and a man who recognized me from one of my appearances on a television news show approached. He thanked me for the investigative reporting I had done about Donald Trump before the election, expressed his outrage that the Republican nominee had won and then told me quite gruffly, “Get back to work.” Something about his arrogance struck me, so I asked, “Who did you vote for?”
He replied, “Well, Stein, but—” I interrupted him and said, “You’re lucky it’s illegal for me to punch you in the face.” Then, after telling him to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked away.
A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. These people traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they know cannot win. I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up.
Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.
Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.
I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped.
Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick.
Donald Trump agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle fraud lawsuits over his Trump University real estate seminars, in what New York's attorney general called a "stunning reversal" for the U.S. president-elect.
President-elect Donald Trump’s charitable foundation has admitted to the Internal Revenue Service that it violated a legal prohibition against “self-dealing,” which bars nonprofit leaders from using their charity’s money to help themselves, their businesses or their families.
The admission was contained in the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s IRS tax filings for 2015, which were recently posted online at the nonprofit-tracking site GuideStar. A GuideStar spokesman said the forms were uploaded by the Trump Foundation’s law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
In one section of the form, the IRS asked whether the Trump Foundation had transferred “income or assets to a disqualified person.” A disqualified person, in this context, might be Trump — the foundation’s president — or a member of his family or a Trump-owned business.
The foundation checked yes.
Another line on the form asked whether the Trump Foundation had engaged in any acts of self-dealing in prior years. The Trump Foundation checked yes again.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests