Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 7/23/2016 at 3:48 AM, doublename said:

His signature is piss poor -

 

pretty good IMO tbqh

These DemRep tickets make me want to smash a goddamn window with a refrigerator

  On 7/23/2016 at 3:48 AM, osobjornmedved said:

SIGN the PETITION - Over 100,000 Petition Bernie: Break from the Democratic Party and run independent through November!

this would hand trump the presidency.

edit: but i think a new progressive party is needed.

what would happen is the dems would just remarket themselves and give more progressive candidates places on the ticket in state/local elections. it would be a clusterfuck for a while for sure.

but at very least would send clear message to establishment

its pretty clear which of the two major parties is hollowed out with rot and utterly decrepit.

the way to a 3 party system is to hasten its demise.

low taxes sounds good to everyone. its funny when they try to explain it like it's an intellectual thing. i get it, low taxes.

its inevitable that two leading parties would polarize around that lowest common denominator. the simplest of simplifications.

its inevitable that the party standing for low taxes would become puppets for the rich and utterly corrupt.

all they can do is shout about how the others are corrupt too, and feed the parrots with plausible politimemes to perpetuate through the 98% of society who won't break things down to the originating evidence, and just go with consensus.

its inevitable that the mega-amplified information channels will be weaponized by those on the side of the more corrupt. like the guilty party shouts louder, and the honest are at a disadvantage against the dishonest.

  On 7/23/2016 at 6:38 AM, very honest said:

 

its inevitable that the mega-amplified information channels will be weaponized by those on the side of the more corrupt. like the guilty party shouts louder, and the honest are at a disadvantage against the dishonest.

inevitable? i thought it already happened.

f o x n e w s

and i guess there's a counter point to foxnews somewhere but i can't say what it is. no cable over here. guessing it's MSNBC?

  On 7/23/2016 at 2:14 AM, caze said:

 

  On 7/23/2016 at 2:13 AM, osobjornmedved said:

 

  On 7/23/2016 at 1:39 AM, Deer said:

It breaks my heart what the DNC has done to Bernie, they fucked him in the ass then forced him to endorse a she demon, now that orange cunt demon will be president and from there things become uncertain.

Bernie would have wiped the floor with trump :(:(

 

good luck to us all!

heartbreaking and infuriating

not really, sanders supporters treated them all like shit, not surprising they weren't their biggest friends.

lol how childish

the dnc is supposed to function as a neutral organization, they're not supposed to collaborate with the media to undermine candidates.

throughout the campaign sanders argued that the dnc was working against them, they always denied it. now there is evidence that they were lying and were in fact attempting to smear him in order to make it easier for their favorite candidate.

their neutrality is supposed to play a clear role in the democratic process and is in no way contingent on whether sanders was nice to them or not.

It's pretty dire innit

they're neutral in terms of the policies of the democratic party, not surprising that they're going to react negatively to an effort to undermine the mainstream positions of the party. it's the same with corbyn, both are not really proper members of their parties, and the popular movements behind them are diametrically opposed to the policies of their parties. do you expect them to just sit there and do nothing while outsiders infiltrate their party and try and completely reposition them? I don't blame them for trying though, both the UK and the US have big problems with democratic representation, are in serious need of electoral reform, so this is the only real chance they have of getting into power. kind of naive to think that everyone else is just going to sit there and take it though, or that they have any kind of moral obligation to do so.

@Caze

"Understandable" is not the same "defensible" or "done properly, in accordance with the law"

It's "understandable" given OJ Simpson's rage and sexual jealousy that he killed his wife but obviously that is not a defense for what happened

It doesn't matter if Bernie had his dick and balls hanging out of his pants the entire campaign...there is no defense for literally undermining American democracy over some petty interpersonal grievance

  On 7/23/2016 at 4:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

@Caze

"Understandable" is not the same "defensible" or "done properly, in accordance with the law"

 

It's "understandable" given OJ Simpson's rage and sexual jealousy that he killed his wife but obviously that is not a defense for what happened

 

It doesn't matter if Bernie had his dick and balls hanging out of his pants the entire campaign...there is no defense for literally undermining American democracy over some petty interpersonal grievance

Is there something illegal they've done? I'm no expert in US election law, maybe there is. Otherwise your OJ comparison isn't valid.

bernie lost me with this

not sure why you'd say that. having looked at his opening remarks, i can still say i love the man. i

just hope he can put aside his idea that change can only come through being the president. presidents exist to simply keep the country running. to run the store. not to innovate and try changing the business of running a country. he should continue working on his ambitions from any place but the white house. the white house would only restrict his chances to achieve his ambitions, imo.

  On 7/23/2016 at 4:47 PM, caze said:

they're neutral in terms of the policies of the democratic party, not surprising that they're going to react negatively to an effort to undermine the mainstream positions of the party. it's the same with corbyn, both are not really proper members of their parties, and the popular movements behind them are diametrically opposed to the policies of their parties. do you expect them to just sit there and do nothing while outsiders infiltrate their party and try and completely reposition them? I don't blame them for trying though, both the UK and the US have big problems with democratic representation, are in serious need of electoral reform, so this is the only real chance they have of getting into power. kind of naive to think that everyone else is just going to sit there and take it though, or that they have any kind of moral obligation to do so.

of course it would be naive to think this kind of thing isn't integral to the political process but nevertheless the recent document dump does undercut the official positions of both hillary's campaign and the dnc platform (which, of course, were transparently full of shit).

for example, the whole issue of fundraising seems now to verifiably conform to sanders' appraisal of it during the campaign (here's a piece with some details from may). it was pretty obvious at the time that hfa and dnc were working together to reroute funds for the benefit of hfa (e.g., the funds that were delivered to state parties were immediately rerouted back to the dnc) and in no way do the recent docs stand as some revelation but they do provide further evidence of the dnc/hfa clearly transgressing their own financial regulations to offer dnc funds as an accessible supplement for hfa. i don't know if these transgressions amount to illegalities but they are certainly unethical and serve the singular purpose of propping up a candidate according to internal party interests over those of the voting public who, in this instance, they actively deceived.

  Quote

 

but they are certainly unethical and serve the singular purpose of propping up a candidate according to internal party interests over those of the voting public who, in this instance, they actively deceived.

that's debateable. sanders doesn't represent the voting public any more than clinton does. it's up to the voting public to decide who to vote for, not you or me. the DNC prioritising one candidate over another is fine AFAIC, as long as they're not breaking any laws. Sanders campaign was responsible for spreading more than enough bullshit during their campaign too, it's not like they're a bunch virginal campaigners for truth and justice, they were in it to win as much as Clinton was.

  On 7/23/2016 at 8:28 PM, caze said:

 

  Quote

 

but they are certainly unethical and serve the singular purpose of propping up a candidate according to internal party interests over those of the voting public who, in this instance, they actively deceived.

 

that's debateable. sanders doesn't represent the voting public any more than clinton does. it's up to the voting public to decide who to vote for, not you or me. the DNC prioritising one candidate over another is fine AFAIC, as long as they're not breaking any laws. Sanders campaign was responsible for spreading more than enough bullshit during their campaign too, it's not like they're a bunch virginal campaigners for truth and justice, they were in it to win as much as Clinton was.

 

this is from the dnc charter & bylaws, article 5, section 4:

"The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process." (emphasis added)

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.11.2009.pdf

  On 7/23/2016 at 5:15 PM, very honest said:

bernie lost me with this

 

  On 7/23/2016 at 5:33 PM, goDel said:

not sure why you'd say that. having looked at his opening remarks, i can still say i love the man.

timestamp in link not working in some browsers or something. 1:36:27

^true, but also he (Obama) then hired her (Clinton)? To be Secretary of State, even. All arguments here are broken.

I don't get how Bernie lost anyone with anything with those particular things mentioned, but that's an opinion of course, so be it. He lost me but for different reasons, and she lost me long long ago for plenty of reasons (though I'll likely vote for her).

  On 7/24/2016 at 8:02 AM, osobjornmedved said:

 

  On 7/24/2016 at 7:37 AM, auxien said:

^true, but also he (Obama) then hired her (Clinton)? To be Secretary of State, even. All arguments here are broken.

 

I don't get how Bernie lost anyone with anything with those particular things mentioned, but that's an opinion of course, so be it. He lost me but for different reasons, and she lost me long long ago for plenty of reasons (though I'll likely vote for her).

 

No broken arguments here. Hillary was attacking Bernie for not supporting Obama, which wasn't true. Bernie retaliated with a one-liner which called to mind her vicious campaign against Obama. As to why Obama then selected her as SoS? Well... Obama hasn't proven himself to be much of a liberal himself. He's about as progressive as George H.W. Bush, and less so than Nixon.

 

I must have incorrectly assumed your argument, as based on this I honestly have no clue what your angle is.

https://youtu.be/OJ97gEFBH5k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

i was talking about how bernie was making fun of her getting cucked on national television, with her standing there. you have to watch it for like a minute, i picked the time to give it some set-up.

especially glaring in the context of it coming out of his frustration in realizing (in february 2016, as the primaries were moving into southern states and he was trailing due to superdelegates) that his behavior toward obama would likely cost him the election. seemed like he snapped and just had a very ugly moment of cruelty at the end of that debate there. merciful that the press let him get away with it.

osobjornemedved, i watched the 3am ad and im not sure what you find problematic about it. regarding the picture of obama in muslim garb, from what i gather the clinton campaign denied putting it out. regarding the assassination comment, i'm not sure what your problem is with that either. i dont even know what to say about how you're trying to hold it against hillary that she ran against obama in 2008.

  On 7/24/2016 at 12:58 AM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 7/23/2016 at 8:28 PM, caze said:

 

  Quote

but they are certainly unethical and serve the singular purpose of propping up a candidate according to internal party interests over those of the voting public who, in this instance, they actively deceived.

that's debateable. sanders doesn't represent the voting public any more than clinton does. it's up to the voting public to decide who to vote for, not you or me. the DNC prioritising one candidate over another is fine AFAIC, as long as they're not breaking any laws. Sanders campaign was responsible for spreading more than enough bullshit during their campaign too, it's not like they're a bunch virginal campaigners for truth and justice, they were in it to win as much as Clinton was.

 

this is from the dnc charter & bylaws, article 5, section 4:

 

"The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process." (emphasis added)

 

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.11.2009.pdf

Wasserman Schultz "quarantined"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/index.html

she's confirmed she's stepping down

  On 7/24/2016 at 10:49 PM, Alcofribas said:

she's confirmed she's stepping down

she fucked herself.

the DNC is shit. so is RNC.. as expected.. big money politics at this level is a weird game.

just a tangent story about business as usual.

Obama actually banned certain contributions.. DNC rolled back the bans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

The ban was a symbolic way for Obama to put his stamp on the party in 2008 when he promised voters “we are going to change how Washington works.”

at least she can resign with a sense of accomplishment in a job well done.

  On 7/25/2016 at 12:17 AM, caze said:

at least she can resign with a sense of accomplishment in a job well done.

lol. true. and the price of that good work is she'll be answering questions about it for a long time.

i think she had plans to run for something somewhere but i'm guessing this little scandal will follow her around long enough to be a monkey wrench. i'm guessing she gets a political appointment in the clinton administration if clinton wins.