Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 12:19:20 am

Title: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 12:19:20 am
On account of the shit-talking and general hissy fits of the partisans of Sanders & Clinton.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on August 04, 2015, 01:23:13 am
I'm inclined to agree, though I'd like to see Sanders get a shot the infighting really could screw the pooch.

I just don't want to think about who that might leave as winner from among the Republicans.

I really hope it's not Walker. He set my state back decades. Actually managed to reverse many long established labor rights, and funding for education is down the shitter too. I suspect that the "bomb threat" called in to the state capital was a move to prevent real debate on a budget defunding of our open access to information laws, but info on the investigation has been hard to find.  :x
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 04, 2015, 01:33:19 am
Sanders seems cool, but some of his supporters make me want to vote for a Romney.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 01:38:41 am
Sanders seems cool, but some of his supporters make me want to vote for a Romney.

Pretty much.  It's like watching Palin voters in 2008. 

The rule of thumb is that anyone who refers to him as "Bernie" is an assbucket.  Pretty sure the proper way to say his name is "Senator Sanders".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 04, 2015, 02:33:19 am
Sanders seems cool, but some of his supporters make me want to vote for a Romney.

Pretty much.  It's like watching Palin voters in 2008. 

The rule of thumb is that anyone who refers to him as "Bernie" is an assbucket.  Pretty sure the proper way to say his name is "Senator Sanders".

Right? HE'S NOT YOUR GODDAMNED DRINKING BUDDY.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 04, 2015, 02:38:08 am
Reddit is supporting Sanders in the same way they supported Ron Paul in 2008.  Ie; with cult-like adoration and general creepiness.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 02:46:46 am
Reddit is supporting Sanders in the same way they supported Ron Paul in 2008.  Ie; with cult-like adoration and general creepiness.

That seems to be the majority of his vocal supporters.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: President Television on August 04, 2015, 02:51:32 am
Reddit is supporting Sanders in the same way they supported Ron Paul in 2008.  Ie; with cult-like adoration and general creepiness.

It did occur to me half a month ago that Sanders just might be the Ron Paul of the left. It was a pretty dismaying realization.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 04, 2015, 02:55:16 am
Sanders seems cool, but some of his supporters make me want to vote for a Romney.

Pretty much.  It's like watching Palin voters in 2008. 

The rule of thumb is that anyone who refers to him as "Bernie" is an assbucket.  Pretty sure the proper way to say his name is "Senator Sanders".

Doesn't he prefer "Bernie?" All of his official stuff uses it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 02:55:36 am
Reddit is supporting Sanders in the same way they supported Ron Paul in 2008.  Ie; with cult-like adoration and general creepiness.

It did occur to me half a month ago that Sanders just might be the Ron Paul of the left. It was a pretty dismaying realization.

Amazingly enough, one of Hillary's senator pals just called him exactly that.

The shit is now flinging both ways.  Eat popcorn, watch the clown car take over America.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 02:56:31 am
Sanders seems cool, but some of his supporters make me want to vote for a Romney.

Pretty much.  It's like watching Palin voters in 2008. 

The rule of thumb is that anyone who refers to him as "Bernie" is an assbucket.  Pretty sure the proper way to say his name is "Senator Sanders".

Doesn't he prefer "Bernie?" All of his official stuff uses it.

There's a direct correlation between the use of the name "Bernie" and the apparent desire to alienate everyone who isn't already a fanatic.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 04, 2015, 04:13:14 am
Sanders seems cool, but some of his supporters make me want to vote for a Romney.

Pretty much.  It's like watching Palin voters in 2008. 

The rule of thumb is that anyone who refers to him as "Bernie" is an assbucket.  Pretty sure the proper way to say his name is "Senator Sanders".

Doesn't he prefer "Bernie?" All of his official stuff uses it.

There's a huge difference between, say, your doctor using her first name, and random strangers addressing her by her first name at a professional conference where she's talking.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 04, 2015, 04:15:29 am
Like, one of my closest friends prefers Annie. But people who don't know her personally address her as Dr. Frank, because that's how you do.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 04:33:15 am
Using a first name or nickname is very bad strategy.  Ask Ron Paul, Ed Muskie, or "Howie" Dean.

In fact, the last politician to get away with it was Ike, and he could have shat on the podium and been elected.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 04:33:41 am
The reason for this is that it makes your base look like groupies, so nobody else takes you seriously.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 04, 2015, 04:39:14 am
The reason for this is that it makes your base look like groupies, so nobody else takes you seriously.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 04, 2015, 05:23:56 am
That said, I'd still be surprised if the Dems actually lost.

I mean, the race for the Republicans is going to be between Bush and Trump, and Bush is probably going to win.  Either way, the Dem voters are going to recoil in horror, and I don't think Sanders or Clinton are quite spiteful enough to go independent against each other.

Trump is, however, the government America deserves.  A truly postmodern fascist in a clown suit, like Berlusconi without any redeeming qualities as many coke-filled parties with hookers.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 05:44:14 am
That said, I'd still be surprised if the Dems actually lost.

I mean, the race for the Republicans is going to be between Bush and Trump, and Bush is probably going to win.  Either way, the Dem voters are going to recoil in horror, and I don't think Sanders or Clinton are quite spiteful enough to go independent against each other.

Trump is, however, the government America deserves.  A truly postmodern fascist in a clown suit, like Berlusconi without any redeeming qualities as many coke-filled parties with hookers.

Hillary Clinton will most likely be the next president, if you look at the numbers.

I have a horrible feeling of dread, though.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on August 04, 2015, 05:55:36 am
I'm voting for Senator Sanders in the primary.


Former Secretary of State Clinton seems even more towards the middle than Obama is.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2015, 06:00:10 am
I'm voting for Senator Sanders in the primary.


Former Secretary of State Clinton seems even more towards the middle than Obama is.

I'm voting Sanders because I'm a socialist.

But I'm voting dem no matter who wins the primary.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 04, 2015, 07:20:46 am
That said, I'd still be surprised if the Dems actually lost.

I mean, the race for the Republicans is going to be between Bush and Trump, and Bush is probably going to win.  Either way, the Dem voters are going to recoil in horror, and I don't think Sanders or Clinton are quite spiteful enough to go independent against each other.

Trump is, however, the government America deserves.  A truly postmodern fascist in a clown suit, like Berlusconi without any redeeming qualities as many coke-filled parties with hookers.

YEP.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 04, 2015, 07:21:29 am
Politics has pretty much turned into a race against horror.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Invisible Man on August 04, 2015, 09:15:07 pm
So when Trump used to be a Dem, was that bullshit... or is THIS bullshit? Or did he legitimately change his views? It's hard for me to give him credit of any sort of authenticity.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 04, 2015, 10:36:44 pm
That's assuming he had consistent views in the first place.  He's been registered with every party at least twice, and despite being a "Democrat" was a strong supporter of Reagan in the 80s,

The only consistent thread I could find with regard to his politics is Israel: he supported pro-Israeli politicians regardless of political party or personal political beliefs. Centrist, conservative or progressive.  Democrats have traditionally been stronger supporter of Israel than the Republicans...the recent rise of the religious right has changed that, but there are still many covert anti-semites in the GOP.

The more conspiratorial Republicans think Trump is running to ensure Hillary wins the election.  I just think that, amazingly, Rick Perry has the right of it and the man has no consistent politics, beyond egomaniacal posturing and demogogic populism.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Meunster on August 04, 2015, 11:01:05 pm
Reddit is supporting Sanders in the same way they supported Ron Paul in 2008.  Ie; with cult-like adoration and general creepiness.

Ron paul is great though. He has his own memes
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 04, 2015, 11:12:47 pm
You know who else had his own memes?  Adolf Hitler, that's who.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Meunster on August 04, 2015, 11:15:14 pm
You know who else had his own memes?  Adolf Hitler, that's who.

Yeah, and im reading a book about him. It's called "look whos back" pretty funny
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on August 05, 2015, 02:51:36 pm
I sure hope the fact that Sanders is the Tumblr favorite right now doesn't wipe him out.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 05, 2015, 11:58:08 pm
I sure hope the fact that Sanders is the Tumblr favorite right now doesn't wipe him out.

What's going to wipe him out is that he's using the tactics that get you elected "senator from Vermont" to run for "president of the United States".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Invisible Man on August 06, 2015, 06:33:24 am
I sure hope the fact that Sanders is the Tumblr favorite right now doesn't wipe him out.

What's going to wipe him out is that he's using the tactics that get you elected "senator from Vermont" to run for "president of the United States".

And Trump is using the tactic of being a comic book villain to run for the same title.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 06, 2015, 07:21:47 am
Trump's building an audience for his booksales and self-help "business strategy" seminars too.  Not that he needs the money or anything, mind you.

I'm fairly sure Trump just loves the sound of his own voice, and doesn't especially care if he gets to hear it from the White House, or from some podium somewhere.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 06, 2015, 03:22:08 pm
Trump's building an audience for his booksales and self-help "business strategy" seminars too.  Not that he needs the money or anything, mind you.

I'm fairly sure Trump just loves the sound of his own voice, and doesn't especially care if he gets to hear it from the White House, or from some podium somewhere.

He's a narcissist who earnestly believes that all the proof he needs that he's smarter and better than everyone else is his net worth.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on August 06, 2015, 03:47:19 pm
He's the Prosperity Gospel's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) Jesus.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on August 06, 2015, 05:15:38 pm
He's the Prosperity Gospel's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) Jesus.

 :horrormirth: Comb-over Jesus has returned!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 06, 2015, 07:09:05 pm
I sure hope the fact that Sanders is the Tumblr favorite right now doesn't wipe him out.

What's going to wipe him out is that he's using the tactics that get you elected "senator from Vermont" to run for "president of the United States".

And Trump is using the tactic of being a comic book villain to run for the same title.

It's just the Palin Effect.  The candidate will of course be Jeb Bush.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 02:21:06 am
Sanders is finished.  I'm moving his odds from 3:1 against in the betting book to 10:1 against.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 03:36:31 am
Watching his Portland appearance. 

He's doing well.  But I still think it's too late.  20,000 people are there, 9000 watching on Youtube.

The whole country, OTOH, saw him getting punked.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 10, 2015, 04:42:48 am
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 04:52:58 am
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: MMIX on August 10, 2015, 10:22:51 am
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

The site seems to be down. Interesting.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: President Television on August 10, 2015, 02:02:00 pm
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

The site seems to be down. Interesting.

It works just fine for me. But then, I am a filthy Canadian.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: MMIX on August 10, 2015, 03:36:54 pm
It works just fine for me. But then, I am a filthy Canadian.
Yeah, its working for me now, too. Still think it interesting that it was down earlier.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Edward Longpork on August 10, 2015, 03:44:37 pm
Helpful graphic of Sanders' position on civil rights and racial justice:

(https://i.imgur.com/rrWZ2u5.png)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 10, 2015, 03:59:32 pm
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

Hmmm.  I do know BLM basically disavowed the Seattle protestors, and no surprise why (pro-tip: attacking the politician most receptive to your message and his supporters will probably not help matters).

However, this once again shows the limits of hashtag activism, that any idiot can set up a local movement, affiliate it with your own, and infect it with their own dumbassery.  If BLM had a centralized organization, a press office, PR manager etc...the first thing any journalist with a lick of sense would do would be to contact them and say "these idiots say they're your idiots.  Do you own these idiots?"  And then can turn around and say "no they're free-range, organic idiots" and everyone can go back to what they were doing before.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 04:02:31 pm
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

Hmmm.  I do know BLM basically disavowed the Seattle protestors, and no surprise why (pro-tip: attacking the politician most receptive to your message and his supporters will probably not help matters).

However, this once again shows the limits of hashtag activism, that any idiot can set up a local movement, affiliate it with your own, and infect it with their own dumbassery.  If BLM had a centralized organization, a press office, PR manager etc...the first thing any journalist with a lick of sense would do would be to contact them and say "these idiots say they're your idiots.  Do you own these idiots?"  And then can turn around and say "no they're free-range, organic idiots" and everyone can go back to what they were doing before.

No, they didn't. Did you see the press release? Or the results of the protest? And the claims that one of the protesters is a Palin supporter are bullshit, too. Christian? SURPRISE! A Black Christian woman who is passionate about black lives? GO FIGURE.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 04:05:25 pm
What happened is that White liberals REALLY didn't like being called out, and they didn't like that Sanders dropped the ball, so they're digging and screeching as much as they can to try to discredit the BLM protesters, instead of doing the smart thing and embracing  the message as a wake-up call.

That Sanders called the protest "disappointing" turns my stomach.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 04:08:54 pm
I love all the White men on Facebook screaming about how the protesters were just attention-seekers, "bad for the movement", uneducated, unstrategic, and my favorite, that they "need to think smarter". Gotta tell those uppity Black women how they SHOULD BEHAVE!

Except that it had exactly the desired result, which BLM activists have been politely asking Bernie for for weeks, which is that he directly address the issue of racially-driven police brutality on his platform.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Edward Longpork on August 10, 2015, 04:15:32 pm
I agree with you - I think they poked a soft spot which Sanders needed to firm up. After the first round of disruptions, Sanders focused on economic inequality. But that missed the point, police brutality happens to well-off / college educated people too.

Now, for the first time, he's talking about police reform. Good! Somebody had to give him a black eye and now he's stronger for it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 04:25:44 pm
https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/why-are-black-lives-matter-activists-targeting-bernie-sanders-because-he-gets-it-almost/
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 04:31:41 pm
I agree with you - I think they poked a soft spot which Sanders needed to firm up. After the first round of disruptions, Sanders focused on economic inequality. But that missed the point, police brutality happens to well-off / college educated people too.

Now, for the first time, he's talking about police reform. Good! Somebody had to give him a black eye and now he's stronger for it.

Yep. He fucked up, but he seems to have learned from it. He thought he could ignore racial issues, which is a common theme with well-intentioned white people... just pretend that racial issues are really economic issues, and that way you don't have to deal with the icky feeling that comes from looking racial issues in the face.

Conspiracy theorists are floating the rumor that the protesters are secretly just trying  to undermine Sanders. Because, well, that's more palatable than facing the reality that the protesters had a fucking point.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 10, 2015, 04:37:13 pm
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

Hmmm.  I do know BLM basically disavowed the Seattle protestors, and no surprise why (pro-tip: attacking the politician most receptive to your message and his supporters will probably not help matters).

However, this once again shows the limits of hashtag activism, that any idiot can set up a local movement, affiliate it with your own, and infect it with their own dumbassery.  If BLM had a centralized organization, a press office, PR manager etc...the first thing any journalist with a lick of sense would do would be to contact them and say "these idiots say they're your idiots.  Do you own these idiots?"  And then can turn around and say "no they're free-range, organic idiots" and everyone can go back to what they were doing before.

No, they didn't. Did you see the press release? Or the results of the protest? And the claims that one of the protesters is a Palin supporter are bullshit, too. Christian? SURPRISE! A Black Christian woman who is passionate about black lives? GO FIGURE.

I know the initial Seattle BLM page disavowed their actions, but said page is run by a single person (yet again proving the hashtag/leaderless activism point), but the posts I saw on Twitter and other social media outside of Seattle were largely saddened by the choice of tactics and language used by the activists.  For a leaderless movement, there will never be official disavowal, but what I saw looked like general sympathy with their motives combined with general antipathy towards the means.  Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong feeds?

I also literally woke up 10 minutes before I wrote that, so I'm not going to pass judgement on the whole Palin thing before I get more info.  It's interesting, if true, but not indicative of anything on its own.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 05:22:18 pm
Doesn't matter.  He's doomed.  He needs 95% of the "middle" dem voters (30% total) plus his base plus 95% of the Black vote.  He can't do both.

To have a prayer with the middle, he has to stick to economic justice issues.  That's what they want to hear (think Carville/Begalla during the 1992 campaign "It's the economy") and any deviation from that message is going to kill him.

But if he DOES stick to that message, it's going to cost him 15-20% minimum of the Black vote.

So he can't get the numbers no matter which way he goes.  And so the only guy willing to take on the banks and the polluters and the Koch brothers is eliminated by his own people.  Which is so friggin' predictable that, if this were a novel, I'd stop reading it now and throw it away.

By contrast, HRC needs about 50% of that middle - and the best numbers say she already has 60% - and about 20% of the Black vote, which she's going to get easily.  BLM won't be able to get to the stage (not at a Hillary rally, no fucking way), and when she steps out in January, she gets the nomination without giving a fuck about Blacks or the middle class (let alone the working class).  At best, nothing will change.  At worst, she loses to the clown car and EVERYTHING changes.

So while we slide into the pink, dead ocean of the future, we can all bitch about how "all politicians are the same", and how Senator Sanders is worse than George Wallace.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 05:28:16 pm
"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

Hmmm.  I do know BLM basically disavowed the Seattle protestors, and no surprise why (pro-tip: attacking the politician most receptive to your message and his supporters will probably not help matters).

However, this once again shows the limits of hashtag activism, that any idiot can set up a local movement, affiliate it with your own, and infect it with their own dumbassery.  If BLM had a centralized organization, a press office, PR manager etc...the first thing any journalist with a lick of sense would do would be to contact them and say "these idiots say they're your idiots.  Do you own these idiots?"  And then can turn around and say "no they're free-range, organic idiots" and everyone can go back to what they were doing before.

No, they didn't. Did you see the press release? Or the results of the protest? And the claims that one of the protesters is a Palin supporter are bullshit, too. Christian? SURPRISE! A Black Christian woman who is passionate about black lives? GO FIGURE.

I know the initial Seattle BLM page disavowed their actions, but said page is run by a single person (yet again proving the hashtag/leaderless activism point), but the posts I saw on Twitter and other social media outside of Seattle were largely saddened by the choice of tactics and language used by the activists.  For a leaderless movement, there will never be official disavowal, but what I saw looked like general sympathy with their motives combined with general antipathy towards the means.  Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong feeds?

I also literally woke up 10 minutes before I wrote that, so I'm not going to pass judgement on the whole Palin thing before I get more info.  It's interesting, if true, but not indicative of anything on its own.

There is definitely some very different information circulating online. A lot of people were VERY fast and VERY vocal about trying to distance themselves from those two activists, who are in fact the main BLM Seattle organizers. It was almost like a reflex; JUMP BACK FROM THE UPPITY BLACK WOMEN! OH GOD NO WE DON'T CONDONE THAT KIND OF THING! And besides, they're RELIGIOUS and maybe even NOT DEMOCRATS, not like us good, respectful, enlightened and polite Atheist BLM hashtaggers! So despite being black, and having lives, they aren't REAL Black Lives Matter activists!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 05:29:07 pm
You might say I'm a little disgusted.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 05:30:40 pm
Doesn't matter.  He's doomed.  He needs 95% of the "middle" dem voters (30% total) plus his base plus 95% of the Black vote.  He can't do both.

To have a prayer with the middle, he has to stick to economic justice issues.  That's what they want to hear (think Carville/Begalla during the 1992 campaign "It's the economy") and any deviation from that message is going to kill him.

But if he DOES stick to that message, it's going to cost him 15-20% minimum of the Black vote.

So he can't get the numbers no matter which way he goes.  And so the only guy willing to take on the banks and the polluters and the Koch brothers is eliminated by his own people.  Which is so friggin' predictable that, if this were a novel, I'd stop reading it now and throw it away.

By contrast, HRC needs about 50% of that middle - and the best numbers say she already has 60% - and about 20% of the Black vote, which she's going to get easily.  BLM won't be able to get to the stage (not at a Hillary rally, no fucking way), and when she steps out in January, she gets the nomination without giving a fuck about Blacks or the middle class (let alone the working class).  At best, nothing will change.  At worst, she loses to the clown car and EVERYTHING changes.

So while we slide into the pink, dead ocean of the future, we can all bitch about how "all politicians are the same", and how Senator Sanders is worse than George Wallace.

What you seem to be saying is exactly what I was getting a sense for in the general reaction to the activists; most white Liberals are secretly racist as fuck.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 05:33:42 pm
Basically, that if he includes racial equality and ending racially-based police violence in his platform, white Liberal Democrats won't vote for him, because that doesn't address their concerns.

That's also kind of the subtext of the "the way the protesters pushed their message will hurt the Black Lives Matter movement"; basically, black people being impolite will cause white liberals to turn away in disgust. Which, fortunately, seems not to actually be the case, but tells me a LOT about the people saying it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 05:40:29 pm
Doesn't matter.  He's doomed.  He needs 95% of the "middle" dem voters (30% total) plus his base plus 95% of the Black vote.  He can't do both.

To have a prayer with the middle, he has to stick to economic justice issues.  That's what they want to hear (think Carville/Begalla during the 1992 campaign "It's the economy") and any deviation from that message is going to kill him.

But if he DOES stick to that message, it's going to cost him 15-20% minimum of the Black vote.

So he can't get the numbers no matter which way he goes.  And so the only guy willing to take on the banks and the polluters and the Koch brothers is eliminated by his own people.  Which is so friggin' predictable that, if this were a novel, I'd stop reading it now and throw it away.

By contrast, HRC needs about 50% of that middle - and the best numbers say she already has 60% - and about 20% of the Black vote, which she's going to get easily.  BLM won't be able to get to the stage (not at a Hillary rally, no fucking way), and when she steps out in January, she gets the nomination without giving a fuck about Blacks or the middle class (let alone the working class).  At best, nothing will change.  At worst, she loses to the clown car and EVERYTHING changes.

So while we slide into the pink, dead ocean of the future, we can all bitch about how "all politicians are the same", and how Senator Sanders is worse than George Wallace.

What you seem to be saying is exactly what I was getting a sense for in the general reaction to the activists; most white Liberals are secretly racist as fuck.

I don't pretend to understand Black folks.  I am not Black.  But I DO understand white folks, at least to some degree, and the number one thing that American whites want is for tomorrow to be the same as yesterday, even if that means compromising their principles, which by no means are even remotely important as their sense of entitlement (when taken as a demographic).

White folks know they're doomed, and they're willing to listen to change.  Very narrow change.  Very very narrow change.  They want to hear about the economy, because the ass-fucking has finally chafed them to the point that they can't ignore it. 

But if the message widens, even to include things they generally agree with (BLM, for example), then suddenly the herd spooks and Senator Sanders is maybe a little too radical.  Not because Blacks are involved, the same would happen if he brought up the murder rate among transgendered people.  So they clench up and vote the "safe" way, which is to say Clinton.

Do I agree with this mindset?  No.  Is it a political reality?  Of course it is.

Last night in Portland, Sanders had his handlers/intro speakers talk a great deal about BLM.  Then he mentioned it, then moved on to his central message and stayed there.  That's a hell of a lot more than is going to come out of HRC (who, again, doesn't need the majority of the Black vote and doesn't care, because Iran needs a paddlin' and contracts need to be signed), and certainly more than the clown car is going to say (on account of they actively hate persons of color, Black, Hispanic, whatever).

Is it good enough?  No.  Will it have to do?  You decide.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 05:45:11 pm
That's also kind of the subtext of the "the way the protesters pushed their message will hurt the Black Lives Matter movement"; basically, black people being impolite will cause white liberals to turn away in disgust. Which, fortunately, seems not to actually be the case, but tells me a LOT about the people saying it.

Impolite has nothing to do with it.  Black has nothing to do with it.

Seizing the stage is always considered political hooliganism, and always has been.  Remember Palin at the 2008 debates?  "No, I don't want to talk about THAT, I want to talk about THIS."  She hijacked the debates and lost 15% in 10 minutes, among conservatives, who are more likely than liberals to tolerate hooliganism.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 05:50:26 pm
So Sanders was doomed before, and he's doomed now. And?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on August 10, 2015, 05:52:56 pm
There is something really nasty about the "support for your side is conditional, based on politeness" narrative...

I'll admit that my immediate response was "why the FUCK are they doing this to the one candidate who seems most likely to be receptive to your message." But, I guess he really WAS receptive to their message, in spite of that?

I dunno. My gut reaction sure felt a lot like standard white, educated liberal hand-wringing, and it's hard for me to shake that impression. But my gut is for processing shit, not politics, so maybe it demands re-examination.

My support for things like Black Live Matter (and the understanding that shit like #AllLivesMatter is a way of hijacking the message to render it meaningless) is definitely not conditional based on politeness. This event doesn't make me want to turn against it. But I'm struggling with trying to figure out if it was the politically astute thing to do.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 05:57:03 pm
So Sanders was doomed before, and he's doomed now. And?

I had him at 3:1 against, now 10:1 against.

All I'm saying is he can't please everyone during the election, and he now has to do that.  Either the blue collar Whites bail or the Blacks bail.  Or at least enough of either group to kill the momentum that he has gathered.  He's gonna crash like Howie Dean, but for entirely different reasons.

The other result will be a gigantic split in the left, as the Sanders supporters and BLM point blame at each other and scream abuse.

This is why the left is ineffectual.  So is the right these days, for more or less the same reason.  Meanwhile, the good folks at Raytheon and Corrections Corporation of America and Exxon lick their lips and chuckle, because this is in fact the perfect political climate for their objectives.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 05:58:54 pm
There is something really nasty about the "support for your side is conditional, based on politeness" narrative...

I'll admit that my immediate response was "why the FUCK are they doing this to the one candidate who seems most likely to be receptive to your message." But, I guess he really WAS receptive to their message, in spite of that?

I dunno. My gut reaction sure felt a lot like standard white, educated liberal hand-wringing, and it's hard for me to shake that impression. But my gut is for processing shit, not politics, so maybe it demands re-examination.

My support for things like Black Live Matter (and the understanding that shit like #AllLivesMatter is a way of hijacking the message to render it meaningless) is definitely not conditional based on politeness. This event doesn't make me want to turn against it. But I'm struggling with trying to figure out if it was the politically astute thing to do.

BLM is important to everyone, whether or not they realize it.

But seizing the stage isn't impoliteness.  It conveys a completely different message.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:01:53 pm
Sanders DIDN'T have the black vote. I'm pretty sure he was assuming that he would, but that was a bad assumption. If Democrats don't take a hard stance on police reform, they are going to lose the black vote, potentially for the long haul.

Sanders thought that he could move his campaign forward without even specifically addressing plans for police reform on his platform. You seem to have a big misunderstanding regarding what the protesters wanted, and what several other BLM protesters have asked Sanders for; they wanted him to include police reform on his platform. That doesn't mean that they want him to focus on it, or spend a ton of time talking about it; they wanted him to CLEARLY ADDRESS IT. The fact that he clearly thought that he didn't need to clearly address it from the very beginning of his campaign says VERY CLEARLY that he doesn't consider it a priority. You can bet that Clinton won't make that mistake, and if the Republicans are smart (which fortunately they are not) they will drum up a candidate who is more black-friendly than Jeb Bush, and have them embrace the shit out of police reform.

THE ASSUMPTION THAT BLACKS ARE LIBERAL IS A STUPID ONE. Yet Democrats seem to mostly be persistently, blindly ignorant of the fact that black communities lean toward religious and conservative. It is the thinnest of ties keeping the black vote tethered to the Democratic party, and it won't take much to sever it. Sanders made the right choice by adding black lives matter to his website yesterday and officially including it in his platform, and addressing it immediately in Portland. That might not be enough to make up for the mistake he made by not having it in his platform from day one.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:03:58 pm
There is something really nasty about the "support for your side is conditional, based on politeness" narrative...

I'll admit that my immediate response was "why the FUCK are they doing this to the one candidate who seems most likely to be receptive to your message." But, I guess he really WAS receptive to their message, in spite of that?

I dunno. My gut reaction sure felt a lot like standard white, educated liberal hand-wringing, and it's hard for me to shake that impression. But my gut is for processing shit, not politics, so maybe it demands re-examination.

My support for things like Black Live Matter (and the understanding that shit like #AllLivesMatter is a way of hijacking the message to render it meaningless) is definitely not conditional based on politeness. This event doesn't make me want to turn against it. But I'm struggling with trying to figure out if it was the politically astute thing to do.

BLM is important to everyone, whether or not they realize it.

But seizing the stage isn't impoliteness.  It conveys a completely different message.

Yes. What it conveys is "Stop letting police murder us or we're going to fuck your shit up".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on August 10, 2015, 06:06:13 pm
That Sanders had the black vote is totally something I assumed. Damn it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:07:26 pm
There is something really nasty about the "support for your side is conditional, based on politeness" narrative...

I'll admit that my immediate response was "why the FUCK are they doing this to the one candidate who seems most likely to be receptive to your message." But, I guess he really WAS receptive to their message, in spite of that?

I dunno. My gut reaction sure felt a lot like standard white, educated liberal hand-wringing, and it's hard for me to shake that impression. But my gut is for processing shit, not politics, so maybe it demands re-examination.

My support for things like Black Live Matter (and the understanding that shit like #AllLivesMatter is a way of hijacking the message to render it meaningless) is definitely not conditional based on politeness. This event doesn't make me want to turn against it. But I'm struggling with trying to figure out if it was the politically astute thing to do.

Yes, there is something HORRIBLE about "if we don't like your manners, we'll disregard your message" when the message is PEOPLE BEING MURDERED IN THE STREETS. I mean, really, really, bad, deep-down ugly horrible.

And, as their press release makes extremely clear, they targeted Sanders because he ALMOST gets it. They targeted him because they want him to represent them. Because they want to vote for him.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on August 10, 2015, 06:11:43 pm
Right... and the reactions on FB and most media are tut-tutting their form, as per usual.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:13:51 pm
If the Republican party abandoned the "pandering-to-the-negrophobes" white flight strategy they've been rolling with since Nixon, they would recapture the black vote in a heartbeat. I guarantee it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:15:01 pm
Right... and the reactions on FB and most media are tut-tutting their form, as per usual.

Oh, yeah. Completely. The worst thing about Bernie Sanders is his supporters; the angry white liberal backlash is enough to turn my stomach.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:18:10 pm
"Poor form, poor form... if you had just continued to ask politely, we would have supported you, but since you didn't, I'm afraid I'll have to punish you by ignoring the fact that our police just keep slaughtering your kids without repercussions".

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 06:22:46 pm
THE ASSUMPTION THAT BLACKS ARE LIBERAL IS A STUPID ONE.

That leaves Blacks in an interesting situation.

They can be conservative, which is more or less suicide (given the conservative approach to police shootings and, for that matter, Blacks in general).
They can be apolitical, which simply removes their voice.
They can start another political movement entirely, with a base of 13-19%.

In short, the Black vote isn't a kingmaker in this election; it is a king-breaker, but limited to breaking the candidate that is most sympathetic to BLM.  The Black vote is too small and spread out among electoral districts to affect any of the other candidates in this particular election.  The GOP is ignoring it entirely, and HRC assumes (probably correctly) that she'll get half the Black vote in the face of the GOP no matter what she does or does not do...But that she will probably still win without it.

Personally, I find the most important issue to be the environment, as it's a species survival thing.  He talked about that for the same amount of time that he talked about BLM last night.

I'm still going to vote for him, because I have a good idea of how he'd act as president...Which is to say, far better than any of the other candidates, on either BLM or the environment.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on August 10, 2015, 06:25:12 pm
I think the reason that narrative got me hook-line-and-sinker is not so much because it made my monocle pop out and fall into my free-range organic quinoa-kale smoothie, but because it was very easy for me to accept the idea that members of the religious right were deliberately trying to provoke dissent in the ranks.

But I probably had the wrong of it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 06:25:31 pm
If the Republican party abandoned the "pandering-to-the-negrophobes" white flight strategy they've been rolling with since Nixon, they would recapture the black vote in a heartbeat. I guarantee it.

That has in fact been their base since LBJ signed the civil rights act.  If they go against it, they lose 14 states minimum.  Not gonna happen.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:27:23 pm
https://www.facebook.com/BLMSeattle/posts/716844418437393

Quote
PRESS RELEASE: Black Lives Matter Seattle ‪#‎BowDownBernie‬ Action
MEDIA CONTACTS: Marissa Johnson (360) 840-6234 blacklivesmatterseattle@gmail.com
Black Lives Matter Seattle organizers and supporters take over Bernie Sanders’ rally at Westlake on Saturday, August 8, 2015.

Today BLM Seattle, with the support of other Black organizers and non-Black allies and accomplices, held Bernie Sanders publicly accountable for his lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement and his blatantly silencing response to the ‪#‎SayHerName‬ ‪#‎IfIDieInPoliceCustody‬ action that took place at Netroots this year.

Bernie’s arrival in Seattle is largely significant in the context of the state of emergency Black lives are in locally as well as across America. The Seattle Police Department has been under federal consent decree for the last three years and has been continually plagued by use-of-force violations and racist scandals amongst their rank and file. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has refused to push any reform measures for police accountability, not even the numerous recommendations of his self-appointed Community Police Commission. The Seattle School District suspends Black students at a rate six times higher than their white counterparts, feeding Black children into the school-to-prison pipeline. King County has fought hard to push through a plan to build a $210 million new youth jail to imprison these children, amid intense community criticism and dissent. The Central District, a historically Black neighborhood in Seattle, has undergone rapid gentrification over the past few decades, with Black people being displaced from the only neighborhood that we could legally live in until just years ago. While white men profit off of the legalization of marijuana, our prisons are still filled with Black people who are over-incarcerated for drug offenses.

This city is filled with white progressives, which is why Bernie Sanders’ camp was obviously expecting a friendly and consenting audience for today’s campaign visit. The problem with Sanders’, and with white Seattle progressives in general, is that they are utterly and totally useless (when not outright harmful) in terms of the fight for Black lives. While we are drowning in their liberal rhetoric, we have yet to see them support Black grassroots movements or take on any measure of risk and responsibility for ending the tyranny of white supremacy in our country and in our city. This willful passivity while claiming solidarity with the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ movement in an effort to be relevant is over. White progressive Seattle and Bernie Sanders cannot call themselves liberals while they participate in the racist system that claims Black lives. Bernie Sanders will not continue to call himself a man of the people, while ignoring the plight of Black people. Presidential candidates will not win Black votes without putting out an explicit criminal justice reform package. As was said at the Netroots action, presidential candidates should expect to be shut down and confronted every step along the way of this presidential campaign. Black people are in a state of emergency. Lines have been drawn in the sand. You are either fighting continuously and measurably to protect Black life in America, or you are a part of the white supremacist system that we will tear down in the liberation of our people.

On this, nearly the one year anniversary of the ruthless murder of Mike Brown, we honor Black lives lost by doing the unthinkable, the unapologetic, and the unrespectable. Out of radical love for our Black brothers and sisters, we put our lives and our bodies on the line to testify to their persecution and resilience. We join together in Black love to #SayHerName and declare that #BlackLivesMatter, understanding that our love will disrupt the complicity and corruption of our anti-Black society; GOP, Democrat, and otherwise.

There is no business as usual while Black lives are lost. We will ensure this by any means necessary.

With the strength of our ancestors and for the future of our children,
Black Lives Matter Seattle Co-Founders
Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:28:26 pm
THE ASSUMPTION THAT BLACKS ARE LIBERAL IS A STUPID ONE.

That leaves Blacks in an interesting situation.

They can be conservative, which is more or less suicide (given the conservative approach to police shootings and, for that matter, Blacks in general).
They can be apolitical, which simply removes their voice.
They can start another political movement entirely, with a base of 13-19%.

In short, the Black vote isn't a kingmaker in this election; it is a king-breaker, but limited to breaking the candidate that is most sympathetic to BLM.  The Black vote is too small and spread out among electoral districts to affect any of the other candidates in this particular election.  The GOP is ignoring it entirely, and HRC assumes (probably correctly) that she'll get half the Black vote in the face of the GOP no matter what she does or does not do...But that she will probably still win without it.

Personally, I find the most important issue to be the environment, as it's a species survival thing.  He talked about that for the same amount of time that he talked about BLM last night.

I'm still going to vote for him, because I have a good idea of how he'd act as president...Which is to say, far better than any of the other candidates, on either BLM or the environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/charles-blow-race-to-the-finish.html
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:31:46 pm
THE ASSUMPTION THAT BLACKS ARE LIBERAL IS A STUPID ONE.

That leaves Blacks in an interesting situation.

They can be conservative, which is more or less suicide (given the conservative approach to police shootings and, for that matter, Blacks in general).

This is where Democrats pat themselves on the back simply, as far as I can tell, for not cheering the cops on. Democrats seem to be under the impression that their party has been GOOD to blacks, but in reality it's merely been slightly less bad. Maybe.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 06:32:00 pm
THE ASSUMPTION THAT BLACKS ARE LIBERAL IS A STUPID ONE.

That leaves Blacks in an interesting situation.

They can be conservative, which is more or less suicide (given the conservative approach to police shootings and, for that matter, Blacks in general).
They can be apolitical, which simply removes their voice.
They can start another political movement entirely, with a base of 13-19%.

In short, the Black vote isn't a kingmaker in this election; it is a king-breaker, but limited to breaking the candidate that is most sympathetic to BLM.  The Black vote is too small and spread out among electoral districts to affect any of the other candidates in this particular election.  The GOP is ignoring it entirely, and HRC assumes (probably correctly) that she'll get half the Black vote in the face of the GOP no matter what she does or does not do...But that she will probably still win without it.

Personally, I find the most important issue to be the environment, as it's a species survival thing.  He talked about that for the same amount of time that he talked about BLM last night.

I'm still going to vote for him, because I have a good idea of how he'd act as president...Which is to say, far better than any of the other candidates, on either BLM or the environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/charles-blow-race-to-the-finish.html

I can't see anything I argue with in that article.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 06:34:29 pm
THE ASSUMPTION THAT BLACKS ARE LIBERAL IS A STUPID ONE.

That leaves Blacks in an interesting situation.

They can be conservative, which is more or less suicide (given the conservative approach to police shootings and, for that matter, Blacks in general).
They can be apolitical, which simply removes their voice.
They can start another political movement entirely, with a base of 13-19%.

In short, the Black vote isn't a kingmaker in this election; it is a king-breaker, but limited to breaking the candidate that is most sympathetic to BLM.  The Black vote is too small and spread out among electoral districts to affect any of the other candidates in this particular election.  The GOP is ignoring it entirely, and HRC assumes (probably correctly) that she'll get half the Black vote in the face of the GOP no matter what she does or does not do...But that she will probably still win without it.

Personally, I find the most important issue to be the environment, as it's a species survival thing.  He talked about that for the same amount of time that he talked about BLM last night.

I'm still going to vote for him, because I have a good idea of how he'd act as president...Which is to say, far better than any of the other candidates, on either BLM or the environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/charles-blow-race-to-the-finish.html

I can't see anything I argue with in that article.

Well... you did just say:

That has in fact been their base since LBJ signed the civil rights act.  If they go against it, they lose 14 states minimum.  Not gonna happen.

I don't think that's accurate, and according to the article, it probably isn't.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 06:35:51 pm
THE ASSUMPTION THAT BLACKS ARE LIBERAL IS A STUPID ONE.

That leaves Blacks in an interesting situation.

They can be conservative, which is more or less suicide (given the conservative approach to police shootings and, for that matter, Blacks in general).

This is where Democrats pat themselves on the back simply, as far as I can tell, for not cheering the cops on. Democrats seem to be under the impression that their party has been GOOD to blacks, but in reality it's merely been slightly less bad. Maybe.

By the same standard, I am unimpressed with the dem's behavior on trade, workers rights, and banks.  I feel that I have been fucked.

But I know the difference between bad and worse.  I can choose between disregard for my welfare and actual antipathy for my welfare.

Now there's a candidate who is - in my opinion - not bad.  Imperfect is probably the best word for it.

So now I can choose between imperfect, bad, and worse.  I'm going to choose imperfect.  When he loses the primary, I guess I'm gonna vote bad, because it's still better than worse.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 06:39:01 pm

Well... you did just say:

That has in fact been their base since LBJ signed the civil rights act.  If they go against it, they lose 14 states minimum.  Not gonna happen.

I don't think that's accurate, and according to the article, it probably isn't.

Forgive me here, I'm not trying to be obtuse:  I did not see in that article where the republicans will not lose their base in 14 of 50 states if they abandon their white flight approach.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 07:08:13 pm

Well... you did just say:

That has in fact been their base since LBJ signed the civil rights act.  If they go against it, they lose 14 states minimum.  Not gonna happen.

I don't think that's accurate, and according to the article, it probably isn't.

Forgive me here, I'm not trying to be obtuse:  I did not see in that article where the republicans will not lose their base in 14 of 50 states if they abandon their white flight approach.

Quote
To get more directly at the issue of racism in political parties, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight Politics looked at “a variety of questions on racial attitudes in the General Social Survey” and specifically at “the numbers for white Democrats and white Republicans.”

This wasn’t a perfect or complete measure of racial bias, but more a measure of flagrant bias — the opinions of people aware of their biases and willing to confess them on a survey.

That said, they found that:

“So there’s a partisan gap, although not as large of one as some political commentators might assert. There are white racists in both parties. By most questions, they represent a minority of white voters in both parties. They probably represent a slightly larger minority of white Republicans than white Democrats.”

So, if there isn't that large of a partisan gap, either there are a lot more racists in the Democratic party (who haven't fled due to Black fear) than you're accounting for, or a lot fewer in the Republican party. Probably, either way, not enough for the Republicans to lose 14 states.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 07:19:11 pm
Assuming those racists don't cluster.

My guess is that the GOP would lose
Kentucky
Tennessee
Texas
Georgia
South Carolina
Louisiana
Missouri
Indiana
Utah
Oklahoma
Arkansas
North Dakota
Arizona

for a combined total of 138 electoral votes.  They would in effect be destroyed as a political party.

Hence the ravings from Barbour and Stein quoted in the article you linked.  The GOP has to ramp it up for short-term survival.  I don't think they have a long term survival, really.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 07:26:53 pm
Eh, I disagree. But that's OK.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 07:36:51 pm
Eh, I disagree. But that's OK.

I'm just going off the difference in numbers between Obama's elections and prior elections.

The biggest gap in the numbers, pro-GOP, was in those 14 states.  I do not know where the author of the article you linked got his numbers on the racists in each party.  Lemme go look.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 07:38:21 pm
Okay, he got them from Nate Silver, here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/

BRB, reading.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 07:41:01 pm
From the sourced article:

Quote
If the partisan gap in racial attitudes toward blacks has widened slightly in the past few years, it may be because white racists have become more likely to identify themselves as Republican, and not because those Americans who already identified themselves as Republican have become any more racist.

Then I read the rest of the article.

You're right.  It's hopeless.   :sad:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 08:00:58 pm
Republicans would be stupid to not attempt regaining the black vote by taking a strong line on police reform. It aligns with their "everyman" image that they try to project. Family values, and jobs, and neighborhoods. So they lose the extreme racist vote, but gain the black conservative vote... that's a lot of people. A whole lot of people. God and freedom and family values are strong currents in black communities.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 08:04:45 pm
Yeah, well, as long as I believed that the USA was factionalized on the race issue at least to some degree, I felt that there was a chance for redemption.

There is not, given the details in the article and the supporting documentation.

And I don't believe than an immoral nation deserves to exist.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2015, 08:15:40 pm
Yeah, well, as long as I believed that the USA was factionalized on the race issue at least to some degree, I felt that there was a chance for redemption.

There is not, given the details in the article and the supporting documentation.

And I don't believe than an immoral nation deserves to exist.

So a racist white minority makes the whole nation, including all the black people in it, immoral?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 08:24:04 pm
Yeah, well, as long as I believed that the USA was factionalized on the race issue at least to some degree, I felt that there was a chance for redemption.

There is not, given the details in the article and the supporting documentation.

And I don't believe than an immoral nation deserves to exist.

So a racist white minority makes the whole nation, including all the black people in it, immoral?

If you buy that it's a minority.  As Silver says in the article, people frequently answer with a social-acceptance bias.

And when the rubber hits the road?  How many people - as a function of the population as a whole - protested the last few years of murders committed by the police?  How many, instead, talked about "thugs" and "instead of complaining about being choked to death, why don't you obey the law?"

Likewise, the outcry among churches - White AND Black - against Gay rights?

I am not Diogenes.  One honest man - or 10% of the population - isn't enough.  If there is no faction in a representative republic that represents morality on a political level across the issues, that is an indication that there is no demand for one.

To my mind, the United States is morally bankrupt, as a nation and a society, a few outliers notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2015, 11:14:20 pm
In a further complication:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/10/real-black-lives-matter-wsnts-activists-publicly-apologize-bernie-sanders.html
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Johnny on August 10, 2015, 11:35:24 pm
There is something really nasty about the "support for your side is conditional, based on politeness" narrative...

This phrase out of context seems to me very profound that trascends the current discussion...

Like, the general population is so excluding and bland, im having a hard time grasping and expressing it...

Its sometimes like they dont care to the point as if they were reacting to animals, in the sense that if one treats them well or horridly its not of much trascendence and its only limited by how it makes you feel. Is it nice and cute? Great! Did it growl at you or doesnt appeal with your aesthetic sensibilities? Pass me the bat...

There is no generalized social perspective that sees excluded groups as sets of people with legitimate rights and needs so mere small things such as social etiquette or manner of transmission of message are enough excuses to feel repelled by them.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: N E T on August 10, 2015, 11:38:52 pm
I agree with you - I think they poked a soft spot which Sanders needed to firm up. After the first round of disruptions, Sanders focused on economic inequality. But that missed the point, police brutality happens to well-off / college educated people too.

Now, for the first time, he's talking about police reform. Good! Somebody had to give him a black eye and now he's stronger for it.

Yep. He fucked up, but he seems to have learned from it. He thought he could ignore racial issues, which is a common theme with well-intentioned white people... just pretend that racial issues are really economic issues, and that way you don't have to deal with the icky feeling that comes from looking racial issues in the face.

Conspiracy theorists are floating the rumor that the protesters are secretly just trying  to undermine Sanders. Because, well, that's more palatable than facing the reality that the protesters had a fucking point.

Saying Sanders ignored racial issues before the shitty Seattle protest is not remotely true:

www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-campaign-adds-young-black-woman-as-new-public#.woxOp0p5mp

Quote
Symone Sanders is a young, black criminal justice advocate and supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement. She’s also a progressive political activist right out of the Sanders mold: Her last job was at Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen. In an interview, Symone Sanders said she first connected with the senator about three weeks ago, offering him advice on how to better understand the message of Black Lives Matter activists in an hourlong chat.

“One of my suggestions, he took it and ran with it on Meet the Press, is that racial inequality and economic inequality are parallel issues,” she said. “I [told him,] you know, economic equality is an issue. It’s something we need to address. But for some people it doesn’t matter how much money you make, it doesn’t matter where you went to school, it doesn’t matter what your parents do. It doesn’t matter that Sandra Bland had a job and was on her way to teach for her alma mater. It doesn’t matter. None of that matters.”
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 04:43:00 am
I agree with you - I think they poked a soft spot which Sanders needed to firm up. After the first round of disruptions, Sanders focused on economic inequality. But that missed the point, police brutality happens to well-off / college educated people too.

Now, for the first time, he's talking about police reform. Good! Somebody had to give him a black eye and now he's stronger for it.

Yep. He fucked up, but he seems to have learned from it. He thought he could ignore racial issues, which is a common theme with well-intentioned white people... just pretend that racial issues are really economic issues, and that way you don't have to deal with the icky feeling that comes from looking racial issues in the face.

Conspiracy theorists are floating the rumor that the protesters are secretly just trying  to undermine Sanders. Because, well, that's more palatable than facing the reality that the protesters had a fucking point.

Saying Sanders ignored racial issues before the shitty Seattle protest is not remotely true:

www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-campaign-adds-young-black-woman-as-new-public#.woxOp0p5mp

Quote
Symone Sanders is a young, black criminal justice advocate and supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement. She’s also a progressive political activist right out of the Sanders mold: Her last job was at Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen. In an interview, Symone Sanders said she first connected with the senator about three weeks ago, offering him advice on how to better understand the message of Black Lives Matter activists in an hourlong chat.

“One of my suggestions, he took it and ran with it on Meet the Press, is that racial inequality and economic inequality are parallel issues,” she said. “I [told him,] you know, economic equality is an issue. It’s something we need to address. But for some people it doesn’t matter how much money you make, it doesn’t matter where you went to school, it doesn’t matter what your parents do. It doesn’t matter that Sandra Bland had a job and was on her way to teach for her alma mater. It doesn’t matter. None of that matters.”

OK, he didn't ignore racial issues entirely, but here the issue is that he didn't explicitly include police reform in his platform. He just didn't enter the race prepared to discuss it at all.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 04:43:43 am
There is something really nasty about the "support for your side is conditional, based on politeness" narrative...

This phrase out of context seems to me very profound that trascends the current discussion...

Like, the general population is so excluding and bland, im having a hard time grasping and expressing it...

Its sometimes like they dont care to the point as if they were reacting to animals, in the sense that if one treats them well or horridly its not of much trascendence and its only limited by how it makes you feel. Is it nice and cute? Great! Did it growl at you or doesnt appeal with your aesthetic sensibilities? Pass me the bat...

There is no generalized social perspective that sees excluded groups as sets of people with legitimate rights and needs so mere small things such as social etiquette or manner of transmission of message are enough excuses to feel repelled by them.

Yes, this.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2015, 04:49:45 am

OK, he didn't ignore racial issues entirely, but here the issue is that he didn't explicitly include police reform in his platform. He just didn't enter the race prepared to discuss it at all.

Problem with police reform is the 10th amendment.  He's not empowered to monkey with state or local police.  Congress would have a hard time with it, even if congress is willing, which they're not.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 04:59:27 am
In a further complication:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/10/real-black-lives-matter-wsnts-activists-publicly-apologize-bernie-sanders.html

This article calls up all sorts of red flags for me. For example, the reference to "the real Black Lives Matter", when actually the people who registered a nonprofit in that name do not have a monopoly on the movement. For example, also, the statement that Johnson and Willaford are not affiliated with the .org, when they, in fact, are registered with them (a wholly voluntary act that has no bearing on the fact that BLM is a movement, not an organization... despite the fact that there is an organization bearing the movement's name). For example, further, the citation of one of their own writers as evidence, citation of a seeming random Twitter user (no link provided) as further evidence, and the claim that Johnson and Willaford are actually affiliated with another group, Outside Agitators 206, but without citing any evidence.

It's red-flag-tastic.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 05:03:34 am

OK, he didn't ignore racial issues entirely, but here the issue is that he didn't explicitly include police reform in his platform. He just didn't enter the race prepared to discuss it at all.

Problem with police reform is the 10th amendment.  He's not empowered to monkey with state or local police.  Congress would have a hard time with it, even if congress is willing, which they're not.

Well, that's a dandy excuse to just not address the topic at all, I guess.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 05:07:18 am
Hmmmmmm

https://outsideagitators206.org/who-we-are/

Doesn't seem to be what that article claims they are.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2015, 05:30:06 am
In a further complication:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/10/real-black-lives-matter-wsnts-activists-publicly-apologize-bernie-sanders.html

This article calls up all sorts of red flags for me. For example, the reference to "the real Black Lives Matter", when actually the people who registered a nonprofit in that name do not have a monopoly on the movement. For example, also, the statement that Johnson and Willaford are not affiliated with the .org, when they, in fact, are registered with them (a wholly voluntary act that has no bearing on the fact that BLM is a movement, not an organization... despite the fact that there is an organization bearing the movement's name). For example, further, the citation of one of their own writers as evidence, citation of a seeming random Twitter user (no link provided) as further evidence, and the claim that Johnson and Willaford are actually affiliated with another group, Outside Agitators 206, but without citing any evidence.

It's red-flag-tastic.

I'm not claiming that they're legit.  I'm just saying the number of factions are growing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 03:42:02 pm
In a further complication:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/10/real-black-lives-matter-wsnts-activists-publicly-apologize-bernie-sanders.html

This article calls up all sorts of red flags for me. For example, the reference to "the real Black Lives Matter", when actually the people who registered a nonprofit in that name do not have a monopoly on the movement. For example, also, the statement that Johnson and Willaford are not affiliated with the .org, when they, in fact, are registered with them (a wholly voluntary act that has no bearing on the fact that BLM is a movement, not an organization... despite the fact that there is an organization bearing the movement's name). For example, further, the citation of one of their own writers as evidence, citation of a seeming random Twitter user (no link provided) as further evidence, and the claim that Johnson and Willaford are actually affiliated with another group, Outside Agitators 206, but without citing any evidence.

It's red-flag-tastic.

I'm not claiming that they're legit.  I'm just saying the number of factions are growing.

Or at least, the white progressives who have their stomachs in knots after being called racist would like you to believe so, by portraying BLM as factionalized, based on things written by white bloggers. That way, they can discount the fact that black people think they're racist by dismissing them as an illegitimate faction who in no way reflect the thoughts of REAL, LEGITIMATE black people.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 03:49:52 pm
I know you keep trumpeting Sanders as "the only candidate who really cares about the environment", but I am unconvinced. Not only does Clinton have a stronger track record in terms of action against climate change, but Sanders' support of GMO labeling makes me think he's more interested in pandering to his demographic than actual environmental protection, simply because labeling is such a big brick in the wall for the anti-GMO contingent. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-let-states-require-gmo-food-labels

He does talk a good game, I'll give him that. But I am skeptical.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 03:56:07 pm
Doesn't look like adding BLM to his platform is hurting him any. http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/10/3689728/after-repeated-protests-bernie-sanders-releases-racial-justice-platform/

Unless, of course, we just aren't yet hearing from the legions of white Progressives who will abandon him because they think  his message is being "diluted" by concern for black Americans.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 04:01:04 pm
This is a really good analysis of the tensions between white progressive Sanders-supporters and BLM that might shed some light into why they feel defensive enough to try to discredit BLM activists: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127653/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 11, 2015, 04:33:28 pm
The video interview at that link is really interesting. It makes it very clear that Sanders is the champion of the white middle class, and, at least until now, has been determined to shoehorn the killings of black people into an economic context. It's no mystery that he and most of his supporters see race as a distraction, and therein lies the disconnect.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: N E T on August 11, 2015, 06:51:24 pm
This is a really good analysis of the tensions between white progressive Sanders-supporters and BLM that might shed some light into why they feel defensive enough to try to discredit BLM activists: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127653/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter

Do you disagree with the premise--that racial inequality is largely a function of economic inequality?

It seems to me that it strikes at the heart of the matter. What drives the school to prison pipeline? Underfunded schools and and the continued privatization of prisons. Do a lot of cops think black lives don't matter because they are black or more because our value as human fucking beings in America is viewed in terms of money and the power that comes with that? Are there specific racial issues that wouldn't be heavily mitigated by tangible reform towards more economic justice? If so, how exactly are they mutually exclusive from economic disenfranchisement?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Johnny on August 11, 2015, 08:25:35 pm
You didnt ask me, but, a major part is discrimination, which encompasses all difference from the white male upper class standard.

So if you are not white, not male, not upper class you will be treated worse than the abstract standard.

So yes and no, if you act white enough and have enough money, i.e. Condolezza, Beyonce, Oprah then you can bypass some of that discrimination, but money is just one of the factors of discrimination.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 12, 2015, 01:57:47 am
This is a really good analysis of the tensions between white progressive Sanders-supporters and BLM that might shed some light into why they feel defensive enough to try to discredit BLM activists: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127653/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter

Do you disagree with the premise--that racial inequality is largely a function of economic inequality?

It seems to me that it strikes at the heart of the matter. What drives the school to prison pipeline? Underfunded schools and and the continued privatization of prisons. Do a lot of cops think black lives don't matter because they are black or more because our value as human fucking beings in America is viewed in terms of money and the power that comes with that? Are there specific racial issues that wouldn't be heavily mitigated by tangible reform towards more economic justice? If so, how exactly are they mutually exclusive from economic disenfranchisement?

Yes, I absolutely disagree with that premise. There is really no evidence that supports it. While poverty is higher among black people by percentage, they are a smaller total percentage of the population, by a lot, and therefore there are far more poor white people than poor black people. If economic inequality explained the poor treatment of black people, then you would expect to see that same economic inequality affecting poor white people in the same ways. Therefore, you would expect to see an epidemic of white deaths at the hands of police, and an epidemic of white people in prison, far outstripping those occurring among black people.

But we don't. And we do see middle-class black people being murdered by the police, and middle-class black people being sent to prison, at a far higher rate than one could ever expect based on the economics-over-racism model.

I think it is a very appealing story that many white Progressives tell, that there is truly no racism, really, only classism under another name. Unfortunately, it is not supported by the available evidence provided to us by our friend, Reality.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 12, 2015, 02:00:38 am
You didnt ask me, but, a major part is discrimination, which encompasses all difference from the white male upper class standard.

So if you are not white, not male, not upper class you will be treated worse than the abstract standard.

So yes and no, if you act white enough and have enough money, i.e. Condolezza, Beyonce, Oprah then you can bypass some of that discrimination, but money is just one of the factors of discrimination.

Please don't with the "act white". Just don't. That has nothing to do with anything.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Trivial on August 12, 2015, 04:53:18 am
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/May-2015/Bernie-Sanders-University-of-Chicago/ (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/May-2015/Bernie-Sanders-University-of-Chicago/)

He organized a sit-in protest in 1962 against racially segregated campus housing.  Just learned that today because of the BLM thing.





Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on August 12, 2015, 06:04:19 am
This is a really good analysis of the tensions between white progressive Sanders-supporters and BLM that might shed some light into why they feel defensive enough to try to discredit BLM activists: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127653/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter

Do you disagree with the premise--that racial inequality is largely a function of economic inequality?

It seems to me that it strikes at the heart of the matter. What drives the school to prison pipeline? Underfunded schools and and the continued privatization of prisons. Do a lot of cops think black lives don't matter because they are black or more because our value as human fucking beings in America is viewed in terms of money and the power that comes with that? Are there specific racial issues that wouldn't be heavily mitigated by tangible reform towards more economic justice? If so, how exactly are they mutually exclusive from economic disenfranchisement?

Yes, I absolutely disagree with that premise. There is really no evidence that supports it. While poverty is higher among black people by percentage, they are a smaller total percentage of the population, by a lot, and therefore there are far more poor white people than poor black people. If economic inequality explained the poor treatment of black people, then you would expect to see that same economic inequality affecting poor white people in the same ways. Therefore, you would expect to see an epidemic of white deaths at the hands of police, and an epidemic of white people in prison, far outstripping those occurring among black people.

But we don't. And we do see middle-class black people being murdered by the police, and middle-class black people being sent to prison, at a far higher rate than one could ever expect based on the economics-over-racism model.

I think it is a very appealing story that many white Progressives tell, that there is truly no racism, really, only classism under another name. Unfortunately, it is not supported by the available evidence provided to us by our friend, Reality.

OK. Was sitting this out, weighing things, adjusting priors. This post sent it way over the top. I'm convinced. Bernie thinks economic inequality is at the root, but you've clearly shown its not.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 12, 2015, 07:59:56 am
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/May-2015/Bernie-Sanders-University-of-Chicago/ (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/May-2015/Bernie-Sanders-University-of-Chicago/)

He organized a sit-in protest in 1962 against racially segregated campus housing.  Just learned that today because of the BLM thing.

There's no question he was an activist, 50-odd years ago.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on August 12, 2015, 02:33:31 pm
My support of Sanders is based on the fact that he voted against the invasion of Iraq, Clinton did not. Sure, she later changed her mind, but that hardly counts for anything. The decision to go to war to war or not is something you need to get right at the beginning, not after you've already done it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Edward Longpork on August 12, 2015, 06:23:10 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-black-lives-matter-2016/index.html

That headline is a bit misleading, but the guts are that Hillary is handling the BLM protestors very very carefully.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2015, 09:12:57 pm
Everything I've seen and read so far is pretty compelling.

But I'm voting for Senator Sanders no matter what, but not because I am a "Bernie" fan.  No, I plan to vote for him because the other candidates are the same old thing, and Sanders is Crazy Eddie.  His policies cannot work; for an experienced politician, he is very naive.  His policies will in fact cause massive political messes and likely real-world messes.

But it will be entertaining.  And when everything finally implodes, I'd just as soon be amused.  Also, it's worth noting that "the same old thing" isn't working, either.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 12, 2015, 10:16:13 pm
Re the police shootings th9ng, the real issue there is the justice system being corrupt. If it were possible for a police officer to be convicted of a crime there'd be a lot less of these shootings, racism or not.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 12:01:39 am
Re the police shootings th9ng, the real issue there is the justice system being corrupt. If it were possible for a police officer to be convicted of a crime there'd be a lot less of these shootings, racism or not.

Well, the thing is, it IS possible, according to the laws of the land. Our racist police force simply always "investigates" and then "clears them of any wrongdoing", or our racist justice system finds them "not guilty".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: N E T on August 13, 2015, 05:13:49 am
This is a really good analysis of the tensions between white progressive Sanders-supporters and BLM that might shed some light into why they feel defensive enough to try to discredit BLM activists: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127653/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter

Do you disagree with the premise--that racial inequality is largely a function of economic inequality?

It seems to me that it strikes at the heart of the matter. What drives the school to prison pipeline? Underfunded schools and and the continued privatization of prisons. Do a lot of cops think black lives don't matter because they are black or more because our value as human fucking beings in America is viewed in terms of money and the power that comes with that? Are there specific racial issues that wouldn't be heavily mitigated by tangible reform towards more economic justice? If so, how exactly are they mutually exclusive from economic disenfranchisement?

Yes, I absolutely disagree with that premise. There is really no evidence that supports it. While poverty is higher among black people by percentage, they are a smaller total percentage of the population, by a lot, and therefore there are far more poor white people than poor black people. If economic inequality explained the poor treatment of black people, then you would expect to see that same economic inequality affecting poor white people in the same ways. Therefore, you would expect to see an epidemic of white deaths at the hands of police, and an epidemic of white people in prison, far outstripping those occurring among black people.

But we don't. And we do see middle-class black people being murdered by the police, and middle-class black people being sent to prison, at a far higher rate than one could ever expect based on the economics-over-racism model.

I think it is a very appealing story that many white Progressives tell, that there is truly no racism, really, only classism under another name. Unfortunately, it is not supported by the available evidence provided to us by our friend, Reality.


You're saying that poor white people aren't affected in the same ways? They aren't killed by cops, they don't get funneled into the for-profit prison system, they aren't turned away from jobs and aren't caught in the same vicious cycle of poverty?

Do you think that if racial equality were achieved tomorrow that there wouldn't be a prison industrial complex chewing people up and spitting wads of cash into a few people's pockets (but hey, at least it would be wrecking people's lives in proportion to their racial demographics).

I'm not saying inequality is the sole factor and that racism doesn't separately compound the problem. All I'm saying is that poverty and ever widening inequality are a major factor. I'm saying socio-economics are the primary instrument through which institutional racism is expressed. Black lives matter yeah, and so do Native American lives, and so do Hispanic lives, and so do transgendered people's lives. Their houses are on fire too.

I don't think there is a silver bullet, but in terms of a kyriarchy of oppression, wealth inequality is screwing the most people and even extends beyond people--the concentration of wealth and power enables greedy scum to wreck ecosystems throughout the world. No one's saying racial issues and inequality are mutually exclusive or that we can only focus on one or the other. But when push comes to shove, inequality subsumes racial issues and affects more people.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: President Television on August 13, 2015, 05:54:42 am
I don't think she's saying that at all, but that's just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on August 13, 2015, 06:51:22 am
Sometimes I get hung up on a thread here @PD, slowly absorbing info and pondering whether or not I have relevant input, and this has definitely been one.

Not sure I should chime in, but I'm gonna because the economic and racial issues are quite intertwined but not the exact same thing and also I begin to suspect that other than Nigel I may have significantly greater experience than many here with the good and bad alike in Black culture and can certainly state that I've seen the prejudice mechanics in action and even counted upon them on some few occasions in my life. Notably to keep Black, and other minority, friends out of jail or needless arrest, but no all my deeds are laudable or fair minded or just. If someone draws from me a need to kick them under a bus, under they go.
This has not been an issue for a very long time and I very much hope to keep it so.

Just to be clear the following draws from my subjective experiences and observations of prejudiced racial attitudes. It is what it is, but what it is not is an attempt to offend or put anybody down. I've lived in the stew of racial strife my whole life and my hometown is a special case of ongoing tensions faced openly and resulting in understanding and compromise. This doesn't mean that the tension is going away any time soon.

Nigel is, as one might guess, totally correct about the very strong religious and conservative tendency in Black culture. It might, just might, be stronger than in White culture, certainly by proportion. I can attest that within my experience their churches are quite a bit more cohesive and often the word of a trusted minister or elder is better able to exert greater influence for good or ill. This tendency does reinforce a certain prejudice common to conservative church-goers against homosexuals. Being Black is hard and unfair, being also gay and male can be nightmarish. Note that this is not AT ALL a hard rule, but a strong and consistent tendency is undeniable in my experience.

It bears mention, because the "Liberal Black" is just another stereotype and not even a particularly realistic one. There's a weird assumption among the more ignorant Whites that all minorities cling together and just freaking love each other. This is probably because the Whites in question don't get, and often don't at all desire, much multi-racial exposure. The "I don't hate those people but..." mentality is extremely common, a certain willful ignorance even more so. But enough about whitey for now.

Where this comes relevant to the discussion at hand is directly related to the BLM movement and Mr. Sanders' reaction to the first of BLM's protests, as I saw it. Mr. Sanders tried to have his say over voices he didn't fully understand, couldn't fully understand because he might be a lot of things but Black isn't one of them. He stood against the fury of it and did his best to stick to his message, to what he knows. This was perhaps not optimal, but not a bad response to a disruption under normal circumstances.

Problem was this was not normal circumstances. Those voices were from people that have an immediate and terribly deadly problem that they NEED to see addressed with due urgency, not diverted to discourse on root causes and long term solutions. Sanders didn't GET IT, but I understand he's trying like hell to and that's far more than ANY other candidate currently running will do. They'll search for a talking point or an ally to act as a mouthpiece maybe, but not really try to understand in an experiential sense. He'll never fully understand because he's pretty darn far from the street level, blood and concrete, shit and Whiter than a mayonnaise sandwich on Wonderbread, but he's BLM's best shot and it certainly got him listening and spread their message. It's a good message about very bad problems.

Those problems go very deep indeed, but I need some sleep and would like some feedback before I decide whether or not to keep going here.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on August 13, 2015, 09:13:13 am
Re the police shootings th9ng, the real issue there is the justice system being corrupt. If it were possible for a police officer to be convicted of a crime there'd be a lot less of these shootings, racism or not.

Well, the thing is, it IS possible, according to the laws of the land. Our racist police force simply always "investigates" and then "clears them of any wrongdoing", or our racist justice system finds them "not guilty".

It's not just racist.  Blacks bear the brunt of it, partly I think because racists are drawn toward policing.  It lets them abuse and murder black people without consequence, but cops kill white people in completely unjustified ways as well.  They are not held any more accountable for it when they do.  It happens more often with white people who are marginalized in some way other than race.  Trans women, the mentally ill, and so forth.

The system is a mess, it is racist, but even if race was not a factor it would still be an awful mess.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 04:33:55 pm
Re the police shootings th9ng, the real issue there is the justice system being corrupt. If it were possible for a police officer to be convicted of a crime there'd be a lot less of these shootings, racism or not.

Well, the thing is, it IS possible, according to the laws of the land. Our racist police force simply always "investigates" and then "clears them of any wrongdoing", or our racist justice system finds them "not guilty".

It's not just racist.  Blacks bear the brunt of it, partly I think because racists are drawn toward policing.  It lets them abuse and murder black people without consequence, but cops kill white people in completely unjustified ways as well.  They are not held any more accountable for it when they do.  It happens more often with white people who are marginalized in some way other than race.  Trans women, the mentally ill, and so forth.

The system is a mess, it is racist, but even if race was not a factor it would still be an awful mess.

This is also true. However, one of the reasons for the BLM movement is that if whites were being beaten, killed, and imprisoned at the rate relative to the population that blacks are, it is very likely that reform would already have happened. But the overwhelming default in the US is that black lives aren't worth getting upset over, hence the movement.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 04:36:24 pm
I don't think she's saying that at all, but that's just my 2 cents.

Yeah, you're correct. Saying that racism IS a problem is  not saying that other problems don't exist.

Saying "rainforests matter" is not the same as saying "no other kinds of forest matter".

Pointing out that ocean acidification is a major problem is not saying that drought is not a major problem.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 04:38:31 pm
Sometimes I get hung up on a thread here @PD, slowly absorbing info and pondering whether or not I have relevant input, and this has definitely been one.

Not sure I should chime in, but I'm gonna because the economic and racial issues are quite intertwined but not the exact same thing and also I begin to suspect that other than Nigel I may have significantly greater experience than many here with the good and bad alike in Black culture and can certainly state that I've seen the prejudice mechanics in action and even counted upon them on some few occasions in my life. Notably to keep Black, and other minority, friends out of jail or needless arrest, but no all my deeds are laudable or fair minded or just. If someone draws from me a need to kick them under a bus, under they go.
This has not been an issue for a very long time and I very much hope to keep it so.

Just to be clear the following draws from my subjective experiences and observations of prejudiced racial attitudes. It is what it is, but what it is not is an attempt to offend or put anybody down. I've lived in the stew of racial strife my whole life and my hometown is a special case of ongoing tensions faced openly and resulting in understanding and compromise. This doesn't mean that the tension is going away any time soon.

Nigel is, as one might guess, totally correct about the very strong religious and conservative tendency in Black culture. It might, just might, be stronger than in White culture, certainly by proportion. I can attest that within my experience their churches are quite a bit more cohesive and often the word of a trusted minister or elder is better able to exert greater influence for good or ill. This tendency does reinforce a certain prejudice common to conservative church-goers against homosexuals. Being Black is hard and unfair, being also gay and male can be nightmarish. Note that this is not AT ALL a hard rule, but a strong and consistent tendency is undeniable in my experience.

It bears mention, because the "Liberal Black" is just another stereotype and not even a particularly realistic one. There's a weird assumption among the more ignorant Whites that all minorities cling together and just freaking love each other. This is probably because the Whites in question don't get, and often don't at all desire, much multi-racial exposure. The "I don't hate those people but..." mentality is extremely common, a certain willful ignorance even more so. But enough about whitey for now.

Where this comes relevant to the discussion at hand is directly related to the BLM movement and Mr. Sanders' reaction to the first of BLM's protests, as I saw it. Mr. Sanders tried to have his say over voices he didn't fully understand, couldn't fully understand because he might be a lot of things but Black isn't one of them. He stood against the fury of it and did his best to stick to his message, to what he knows. This was perhaps not optimal, but not a bad response to a disruption under normal circumstances.

Problem was this was not normal circumstances. Those voices were from people that have an immediate and terribly deadly problem that they NEED to see addressed with due urgency, not diverted to discourse on root causes and long term solutions. Sanders didn't GET IT, but I understand he's trying like hell to and that's far more than ANY other candidate currently running will do. They'll search for a talking point or an ally to act as a mouthpiece maybe, but not really try to understand in an experiential sense. He'll never fully understand because he's pretty darn far from the street level, blood and concrete, shit and Whiter than a mayonnaise sandwich on Wonderbread, but he's BLM's best shot and it certainly got him listening and spread their message. It's a good message about very bad problems.

Those problems go very deep indeed, but I need some sleep and would like some feedback before I decide whether or not to keep going here.

Well said.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 04:45:40 pm
Also, I imagine it probably goes without saying but I just felt like mentioning that the implications of addressing economic inequality in America without also addressing systemic racial inequality is that white people would experience an improvement in economic equality with more job opportunities and less poverty, but black people wouldn't, with a net result of increased economic inequality for black people.

You could say that wouldn't happen, but words are cheap and history is evidence.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 13, 2015, 05:44:34 pm
I'll admit, I used to subscribe to a (much watered down and contingent) theory that addressing economic inequality would help in addressing racism.

But when you look at historical periods of high wage growth and home ownership etc...well, they also align closely with the time the Civil Rights Movement was a thing.  Now you could argue social mores have improved since then and so the comparison doesn't really hold water...but then if you look at current social mores with regard to black Americans, you can see that economic inequality is only part of a much larger problem, and also a symptom of the enduring systemic racism of American society.

Obviously having less black Americans in poverty would be helpful...having the economic resources to challenge bullshit charges, lobby politicians, put pressure on advertisers for racist media outlets and so on is never going to hurt.  But it's not sufficient on its own, the problem comes back to how the political and legal system enables racism to be perpetuated.  Until that is tackled, not much is going to change.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 07:35:35 pm
I'll admit, I used to subscribe to a (much watered down and contingent) theory that addressing economic inequality would help in addressing racism.

But when you look at historical periods of high wage growth and home ownership etc...well, they also align closely with the time the Civil Rights Movement was a thing.  Now you could argue social mores have improved since then and so the comparison doesn't really hold water...but then if you look at current social mores with regard to black Americans, you can see that economic inequality is only part of a much larger problem, and also a symptom of the enduring systemic racism of American society.

Obviously having less black Americans in poverty would be helpful...having the economic resources to challenge bullshit charges, lobby politicians, put pressure on advertisers for racist media outlets and so on is never going to hurt.  But it's not sufficient on its own, the problem comes back to how the political and legal system enables racism to be perpetuated.  Until that is tackled, not much is going to change.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 07:43:26 pm
I have to admit that part of me really, REALLY wants the Republican party to recapture the majority of the black vote, because 1. the confusion it would throw white Progressives into would be hilarious, and 2. I guarantee that a lot of them will switch to open racism. Not the majority, but a substantial minority who are currently held in check only by the idea that black people are default Democrats, and therefore Democrats have to like black people.

We shouldn't forget which party was the party of the KKK. If entire black communities in the US were able to get over that and jump ship from the party of The Great Emancipator, then if the Republican party quits pandering to the Negrophobe minority and embraces racial equality as part of its platform, I would expect to see the majority of Black votes swinging Republican. Which would inevitably lead to a great hilarious squealing and gnashing of teeth among white Democrats, infuriated by the turncoat traitors who just don't know what's good for them.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 13, 2015, 07:52:53 pm
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2015, 08:49:54 pm
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

Yeah, the Republican party seems to have just gone full potato, beyond all rational possibility of hope. It's kind of amazing that their least insane candidate, their ACTUAL least insane candidate, is probably Marco Rubio.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 13, 2015, 08:54:42 pm
Yeah, or maybe Jeb Bush (I'll admit, I haven't done a side by side comparison, but either are still relatively crazy).

Interestingly, the whole cuckservative thing is bringing the GOP closer into the ReturnOfTheKings/RedPill/Breitbart/VDARE/4chan cesspit.  I still can't believe such a blatantly dumb and sexually insecure term has become the rallying cry of the far-right.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 13, 2015, 09:46:38 pm
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

Yeah, the Republican party seems to have just gone full potato, beyond all rational possibility of hope. It's kind of amazing that their least insane candidate, their ACTUAL least insane candidate, is probably Marco Rubio.

What was Kasich's crazy? I don't know enough about the guy but he seemed too rational for the debate he was in.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 13, 2015, 09:49:27 pm
Eh, Kaisch is also one of the more rational ones, possibly even more sane than the above two (his assholish tendencies seem to be the usual "cut spending as much as possible" kinds) but I'd also say he was second tier in comparison with Rubio and Bush.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on August 14, 2015, 03:52:32 am
Kasich is a moderate, he's kind of crazy about abortion though, and the Ohio government has done some very shady things on his watch.  Personally I really hope blacks don't flee to the Republican party because the Democratic party seems to finally be starting to care about poor people again, and I am poor and would really like one of the parties to care about me, and for that party to have as many supporters as possible.  I would like to see the Democrats start to seriously address racial issues.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 14, 2015, 06:06:28 am
Eh, Kaisch is also one of the more rational ones, possibly even more sane than the above two (his assholish tendencies seem to be the usual "cut spending as much as possible" kinds) but I'd also say he was second tier in comparison with Rubio and Bush.

Yeah, I didn't include anyone who is currently showing at less that 10%.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 14, 2015, 06:10:27 am
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

They severely missed the boat in terms of actually using their religious platform to their best advantage. If they had gone with racial and cultural inclusiveness, they could have the black, the Latino, a lot of the Asian, and possibly even the moderate Muslim vote. They could have left the racists with the historically racist Democrats, and nobody but the rich would be getting abortions or birth control.

It's really for the best that they're stupid, I guess.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on August 15, 2015, 02:11:39 am
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

They severely missed the boat in terms of actually using their religious platform to their best advantage. If they had gone with racial and cultural inclusiveness, they could have the black, the Latino, a lot of the Asian, and possibly even the moderate Muslim vote. They could have left the racists with the historically racist Democrats, and nobody but the rich would be getting abortions or birth control.

It's really for the best that they're stupid, I guess.

I wonder if Colin Powell is interested in running. As a prez candidate or even running mate (though VP would be less ideal) he might be able to bridge the racial gaps, "be strong" on military and intelligence, restore credibility to the Republicans, and make for 2 nonwhite executive elections in a row. Republicans could even intentionally and overtly suggest comparison to promote the idea.

Colin Powell could save the Republican Party and The US, but he's not running. :(
 I'd vote for him.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: President Television on August 15, 2015, 02:52:08 am
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

They severely missed the boat in terms of actually using their religious platform to their best advantage. If they had gone with racial and cultural inclusiveness, they could have the black, the Latino, a lot of the Asian, and possibly even the moderate Muslim vote. They could have left the racists with the historically racist Democrats, and nobody but the rich would be getting abortions or birth control.

It's really for the best that they're stupid, I guess.

I wonder if Colin Powell is interested in running. As a prez candidate or even running mate (though VP would be less ideal) he might be able to bridge the racial gaps, "be strong" on military and intelligence, restore credibility to the Republicans, and make for 2 nonwhite executive elections in a row. Republicans could even intentionally and overtly suggest comparison to promote the idea.

Colin Powell could save the Republican Party and The US, but he's not running. :(
 I'd vote for him.

That's an interesting proposition. I imagine a Powell presidency wouldn't be much different from a Clinton presidency on a practical level, but it could have the long-term effect of fostering greater tolerance within the Republican party. Colin Powell himself seems like a perfectly reasonable conservative, one who looks positively centrist by today's standards. Someone with a preference for low taxes, strong military, and small government, but not a suicidally ideological preference. It could pull them back from the brink while stripping them of the qualities that make them so repellent at present.

Sanders vs. Powell 2012: No matter who wins, we win.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 02:55:52 am
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

They severely missed the boat in terms of actually using their religious platform to their best advantage. If they had gone with racial and cultural inclusiveness, they could have the black, the Latino, a lot of the Asian, and possibly even the moderate Muslim vote. They could have left the racists with the historically racist Democrats, and nobody but the rich would be getting abortions or birth control.

It's really for the best that they're stupid, I guess.

I wonder if Colin Powell is interested in running. As a prez candidate or even running mate (though VP would be less ideal) he might be able to bridge the racial gaps, "be strong" on military and intelligence, restore credibility to the Republicans, and make for 2 nonwhite executive elections in a row. Republicans could even intentionally and overtly suggest comparison to promote the idea.

Colin Powell could save the Republican Party and The US, but he's not running. :(
 I'd vote for him.

Powell will never run, because his wife has some mental health issues, and he won't put her through that.  He's made that absolutely clear over the last few election cycles.

Also, he's more than a little horrified at the moment, by his own admission.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: President Television on August 15, 2015, 03:00:07 am
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

They severely missed the boat in terms of actually using their religious platform to their best advantage. If they had gone with racial and cultural inclusiveness, they could have the black, the Latino, a lot of the Asian, and possibly even the moderate Muslim vote. They could have left the racists with the historically racist Democrats, and nobody but the rich would be getting abortions or birth control.

It's really for the best that they're stupid, I guess.

I wonder if Colin Powell is interested in running. As a prez candidate or even running mate (though VP would be less ideal) he might be able to bridge the racial gaps, "be strong" on military and intelligence, restore credibility to the Republicans, and make for 2 nonwhite executive elections in a row. Republicans could even intentionally and overtly suggest comparison to promote the idea.

Colin Powell could save the Republican Party and The US, but he's not running. :(
 I'd vote for him.

Powell will never run, because his wife has some mental health issues, and he won't put her through that.  He's made that absolutely clear over the last few election cycles.

Also, he's more than a little horrified at the moment, by his own admission.

It's such a nice pipe dream, though. Imagine an election in which both candidates treat each other with respect.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2015, 03:13:12 am
Didn't Powell also endorse Obama in 2008?

I mean, Trump can get away with his funding of Clinton, but I doubt Powell would be let off the hook so easy.  Plus his record at the State Department would make him easy prey for the Democrats, in addition to some Republicans looking to stick the dagger in purely due to his skin colour.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 03:32:37 am
Didn't Powell also endorse Obama in 2008?

I mean, Trump can get away with his funding of Clinton, but I doubt Powell would be let off the hook so easy.  Plus his record at the State Department would make him easy prey for the Democrats, in addition to some Republicans looking to stick the dagger in purely due to his skin colour.

Yeah, if they could do it and get away with it.

Mostly, they'd just fail to support him.  Like they did to McCain.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on August 15, 2015, 05:52:04 am
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

They severely missed the boat in terms of actually using their religious platform to their best advantage. If they had gone with racial and cultural inclusiveness, they could have the black, the Latino, a lot of the Asian, and possibly even the moderate Muslim vote. They could have left the racists with the historically racist Democrats, and nobody but the rich would be getting abortions or birth control.

It's really for the best that they're stupid, I guess.

I wonder if Colin Powell is interested in running. As a prez candidate or even running mate (though VP would be less ideal) he might be able to bridge the racial gaps, "be strong" on military and intelligence, restore credibility to the Republicans, and make for 2 nonwhite executive elections in a row. Republicans could even intentionally and overtly suggest comparison to promote the idea.

Colin Powell could save the Republican Party and The US, but he's not running. :(
 I'd vote for him.

Powell will never run, because his wife has some mental health issues, and he won't put her through that.  He's made that absolutely clear over the last few election cycles.

Also, he's more than a little horrified at the moment, by his own admission.

Yeah I figured if he could be he would be. I'm sorry to hear that his wife is unwell.

The whole "clowncar" thing is starting to freak me out. Like it's a little TOO apt.
Last time Trump was running I made the joke in a stand up bit about fortune telling something like

"and with the election of The Trump a clear signal will be given of the end of the age of reason"

Now he's trying again and doing better in terms of polls by playing UP his atrocious and demeaning demeanor. We're fucked.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on August 15, 2015, 05:57:35 am
It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).

However, given the prominence with which the term "cuckservative" is being used, it seems if anything they're retreating into race-based psychosexual panic of the most hysterical kind.

They severely missed the boat in terms of actually using their religious platform to their best advantage. If they had gone with racial and cultural inclusiveness, they could have the black, the Latino, a lot of the Asian, and possibly even the moderate Muslim vote. They could have left the racists with the historically racist Democrats, and nobody but the rich would be getting abortions or birth control.

It's really for the best that they're stupid, I guess.

I wonder if Colin Powell is interested in running. As a prez candidate or even running mate (though VP would be less ideal) he might be able to bridge the racial gaps, "be strong" on military and intelligence, restore credibility to the Republicans, and make for 2 nonwhite executive elections in a row. Republicans could even intentionally and overtly suggest comparison to promote the idea.

Colin Powell could save the Republican Party and The US, but he's not running. :(
 I'd vote for him.

That's an interesting proposition. I imagine a Powell presidency wouldn't be much different from a Clinton presidency on a practical level, but it could have the long-term effect of fostering greater tolerance within the Republican party. Colin Powell himself seems like a perfectly reasonable conservative, one who looks positively centrist by today's standards. Someone with a preference for low taxes, strong military, and small government, but not a suicidally ideological preference. It could pull them back from the brink while stripping them of the qualities that make them so repellent at present.

Sanders vs. Powell 2012: No matter who wins, we win.

At this point he'd be a no brainer just because he'd be the only one who is not batshit crazy in some sense or another. It was just a thought that struck me. He was the only person in the Bush jr. Administration that I really liked and believed wanted the best for the nation, but was not the ultimate shot caller and did his best with the hand he had.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 04:30:26 pm
At this point he's a no brainer because he's not fucking running.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 04:35:00 pm
Prediction: Bernie Sanders will lose the nomination, and disgruntled supporters will blame it on Black Lives Matter, fomenting even more (of the already considerable) submerged racism within the Democratic party.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2015, 07:47:05 pm
Ayup.  And then they'll throw their weight behind Hillary, whom I have to say seems very dismissive of BLM.  I mean, she goes through the motions, but she also did the "all lives matter" nonsense and apparently didn't seem very engaged the last time she met with BLM activists.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2015, 10:03:48 pm
Ayup.  And then they'll throw their weight behind Hillary, whom I have to say seems very dismissive of BLM.  I mean, she goes through the motions, but she also did the "all lives matter" nonsense and apparently didn't seem very engaged the last time she met with BLM activists.

It's going to be hillarious.













See what I did there? It's because I hate humanity.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 11:23:30 pm
Prediction: Bernie Sanders will lose the nomination, and disgruntled supporters will blame it on Black Lives Matter, fomenting even more (of the already considerable) submerged racism within the Democratic party.

I will say that you are absolutely right, for about 20-25% of his voters.  Those being the fanatics.  This also gives the fanatics an "out" to vote for HRC when he loses, so that's exactly what they're going to do.  Disgusting as it may be.

Right now, he's leading HRC in New Hampshire, so I am thinking that 3/4s of his voters are interested in the message and not the cult of personality.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 11:24:45 pm

It would definitely be interesting.  If I were advising the Republicans, I'd suggest they try and focus on a social conservatism that is ethnically inclusive, but religiously derived.  That kind of message could allow them to capture significant black and latino votes, not to mention possibly even win back the Muslim vote (if they toned down the explicitly Christian appeal).


If they could do that, they wouldn't be republicans.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: N E T on August 15, 2015, 11:55:06 pm
Senator Sanders wins. Hillary Clinton falls down a flight a stairs while you watch across the street eating a hamburger. You have receptors for neutrinos and can taste them raining through your body when you close your eyes. I give you a hamburger. The flesh of racists and the unrepentant one percenters are served in bearnaise sauce at an international celebration. A small library in Tuscon ceases to exist. The structures of oppression and hegemony vibrate at a perfect E flat major as they dissolve from existence. I die and my soul starts a job at a small library in Tuscon.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2015, 11:57:05 pm
Senator Sanders wins. Hillary Clinton falls down a flight a stairs while you watch across the street eating a hamburger. You have receptors for neutrinos and can taste them raining through your body when you close your eyes. I give you a hamburger. The flesh of racists and the unrepentant one percenters are served in bearnaise sauce at an international celebration. A small library in Tuscon ceases to exist. The structures of oppression and hegemony vibrate at a perfect E flat major as they dissolve from existence. I die and my soul starts a job at a small library in Tuscon.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 16, 2015, 12:30:23 am
Senator Sanders wins. Hillary Clinton falls down a flight a stairs while you watch across the street eating a hamburger. You have receptors for neutrinos and can taste them raining through your body when you close your eyes. I give you a hamburger. The flesh of racists and the unrepentant one percenters are served in bearnaise sauce at an international celebration. A small library in Tuscon ceases to exist. The structures of oppression and hegemony vibrate at a perfect E flat major as they dissolve from existence. I die and my soul starts a job at a small library in Tuscon.

Can I use this elsewhere for... fuck I don't even know what, I just want it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: N E T on August 16, 2015, 01:00:34 am
:thanks:

Senator Sanders wins. Hillary Clinton falls down a flight a stairs while you watch across the street eating a hamburger. You have receptors for neutrinos and can taste them raining through your body when you close your eyes. I give you a hamburger. The flesh of racists and the unrepentant one percenters are served in bearnaise sauce at an international celebration. A small library in Tuscon ceases to exist. The structures of oppression and hegemony vibrate at a perfect E flat major as they dissolve from existence. I die and my soul starts a job at a small library in Tuscon.

Can I use this elsewhere for... fuck I don't even know what, I just want it.

You can use it however you'd like.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on August 16, 2015, 01:19:44 pm
Is that a two-cuil or a three-cuil election?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2015, 11:03:32 pm
Senator Sanders wins. Hillary Clinton falls down a flight a stairs while you watch across the street eating a hamburger. You have receptors for neutrinos and can taste them raining through your body when you close your eyes. I give you a hamburger. The flesh of racists and the unrepentant one percenters are served in bearnaise sauce at an international celebration. A small library in Tuscon ceases to exist. The structures of oppression and hegemony vibrate at a perfect E flat major as they dissolve from existence. I die and my soul starts a job at a small library in Tuscon.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Scott The Cuck on September 02, 2015, 03:44:55 pm
Troll vote of 2016. Voter Senpai who will make anime real, or trump who will restore America to the good old days. Really would like trump to win so when he hands the treasury over to his corporate pals. Riots occur nationwide.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2015, 05:26:44 pm
Best Trump apologist of the week:

Quote
Yeah, he sucks, but he has the jobs and we need to stop the bleeding.

This was some mullet-wearing freak in Mobile talking to Navkat.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: President Television on September 02, 2015, 05:29:45 pm
Best Trump apologist of the week:

Quote
Yeah, he sucks, but he has the jobs and we need to stop the bleeding.

This was some mullet-wearing freak in Mobile talking to Navkat.

Hahaha, what?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 02, 2015, 05:37:02 pm
Best Trump apologist of the week:

Quote
Yeah, he sucks, but he has the jobs and we need to stop the bleeding.

This was some mullet-wearing freak in Mobile talking to Navkat.

Hahaha, what?

It doesn't mean anything; the person who said it is just insane. It's a pjenomenon called "word salad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad#In_psychiatry)"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 02, 2015, 05:51:22 pm
Best Trump apologist of the week:

Quote
Yeah, he sucks, but he has the jobs and we need to stop the bleeding.This is totally the best way to be openly racist.

This was some mullet-wearing freak in Mobile talking to Navkat.

FXT
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2015, 07:05:39 pm
Best Trump apologist of the week:

Quote
Yeah, he sucks, but he has the jobs and we need to stop the bleeding.

This was some mullet-wearing freak in Mobile talking to Navkat.

Hahaha, what?

It doesn't mean anything; the person who said it is just insane. It's a pjenomenon called "word salad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad#In_psychiatry)"

What?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2015, 07:06:01 pm
Best Trump apologist of the week:

Quote
Yeah, he sucks, but he has the jobs and we need to stop the bleeding.This is totally the best way to be openly racist.

This was some mullet-wearing freak in Mobile talking to Navkat.

FXT

Well, yeah.  "Mobile".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 23, 2015, 05:41:22 pm
Best Trump apologist of the week:

Quote
Yeah, he sucks, but he has the jobs and we need to stop the bleeding.

This was some mullet-wearing freak in Mobile talking to Navkat.

Hahaha, what?

It doesn't mean anything; the person who said it is just insane. It's a pjenomenon called "word salad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad#In_psychiatry)"

What?

The quote about bleeding and jobs. It's just words meaninglessly strung together; a common symptom of schizophrenia and of damage to the language centers of the brain.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Meunster on September 23, 2015, 05:53:09 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 23, 2015, 05:55:56 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

Getting seriously funny, you mean.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on September 23, 2015, 06:09:12 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

Getting seriously funny, you mean.

Meunster isn't serious about having a good time. ChaosAdvocate thinks he is, but he thinks lots of things.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 23, 2015, 06:45:37 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

I like how basically the Republican response to Sanders is "Well, we have to nominate someone who is at least as batshit insane as Sanders is reasonable".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Meunster on September 23, 2015, 06:56:29 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

Getting seriously funny, you mean.

Meunster isn't serious about having a good time. ChaosAdvocate thinks he is, but he thinks lots of things.

The problem is if a left person wins and is terrible there will be rioting, economic curruptuon and mudslinging. If a right wing person wins all we'll see is another Ferguson where people stand around in the cold for a few hours holding up signs.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 23, 2015, 06:58:32 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

I still don't understand how this happened. What the hell happened to Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 23, 2015, 07:00:02 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

I like how basically the Republican response to Sanders is "Well, we have to nominate someone who is at least as batshit insane as Sanders is reasonable".

What's wrong with Sanders?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 23, 2015, 07:05:24 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

I like how basically the Republican response to Sanders is "Well, we have to nominate someone who is at least as batshit insane as Sanders is reasonable".

What's wrong with Sanders?

Nothing.  Read that sentence again, slower.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2015, 07:09:36 pm
This is what the people want.  Rationalism was too hard.  It wasn't comfortable.  So they got together and filled up a clown car, and agreed to pick the craziest clown they could find.  And this clown is crazy, he's madcap and zany and he tells them who to hate.  His brand of hate is easy and it's even traditional; hate everyone that isn't White.  He walks the walk, too, as anyone who saw the rally where his one Black fan tried to get his autograph can tell you.  He just walks it in clown shoes.

The other side isn't so smart.  They're still trying to fix things.  Things do not need "fixing".  If we admitted that, we'd have to admit that something was wrong (aside from Mexicans and Iranians and of course those people).  And if something is wrong, then America isn't a perfect, lily-white heaven which just happens to be under siege from shifty brown people and those treacherous Asians.

The rationalists were, of course, devoured alive.  One candidate choked on her own bile and apologized to republicans.  The other candidate is just doomed.

So, yeah, Trump is the next president, and we'll all get what we've been screaming for.  Our old people will die of preventable causes and our children will drink filthy water for their short & miserable lives.  But at least we won't have to think.  And we'll go show those Iranians a thing or two.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2015, 07:10:36 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

I still don't understand how this happened. What the hell happened to Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul?

They couldn't bring themselves to be as committed to Sparkle Motion as Trump is.

You don't seem to understand what's happening with 47% of the country right now.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on September 23, 2015, 07:46:12 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

I like how basically the Republican response to Sanders is "Well, we have to nominate someone who is at least as batshit insane as Sanders is reasonable".

I think they're trying to show God how SERIOUS they are so he will help them take back the country from the heathens. Funny thing is, Trump isn't even one of the big Jesus-talking ones, which goes to show who their true god is. It's not the god of the New Testament. It's the god of LOOKIT MAH YUUUGE WANG!!!!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 23, 2015, 08:25:30 pm
People are actually going to vote for trump.

Fuck fuck fuck, it was funny at first, but now it's getting serious

I like how basically the Republican response to Sanders is "Well, we have to nominate someone who is at least as batshit insane as Sanders is reasonable".

I think they're trying to show God how SERIOUS they are so he will help them take back the country from the heathens. Funny thing is, Trump isn't even one of the big Jesus-talking ones, which goes to show who their true god is. It's not the god of the New Testament. It's the god of LOOKIT MAH YUUUGE WANG!!!!

I'm pretty sure their god is money
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2015, 08:33:07 pm
What's REALLY awesome is the GOP platform, which includes cool shit like this:

"When patients are aware of costs, they are less likely to over-utilize services."  (If you can't pay out of pocket, get out of the way, rich white people need to see the doctor)

"We will champion the right of individual choice in senior care. We will aggressively implement programs to protect against elder abuse, and we will work to ensure that quality care is provided across the care continuum from home to nursing home to hospice."  (No mention of hospital care is made, so just hurry up and die)

"We support options for learning, including home schooling and local innovations like single-sex classes, full-day school hours, and year-round schools."  (No comment necessary, bolding mine)

"We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior."  (HAW HAW HAW)

https://gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Nast on September 23, 2015, 08:38:02 pm
They should just be upfront and call it Renewing the Dark Ages.

"Simpler, better times!"
               
             
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2015, 08:40:45 pm
They should just be upfront and call it Renewing the Dark Ages.

"Simpler, better times!"
               
             

Seriously, if you read the whole thing, it's enough to make you lose your lunch.  And that's only page 6.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 24, 2015, 04:00:58 pm
One of the more interesting things about Trump - actually interesting, not "hurr durr Trump said something idiotic and hateful" clickbait - is that his economic positions are quite different from the Republican mainstream.

He supports social security, wants universal healthcare, bilateral trade treaties (not free trade) and increased taxes on the rich.

Now, like everything Trump says and does, it's arguable how much of this is his true belief and how much of it is done simply to rub the noses of the GOPs financiers in the fact that they can't control him.  But it's still interesting that rightwing, economic populism - almost as much a fringe position as leftwing economic populism - is getting the kind of support that Trump is.  Part of that could be that he's framing it in ways which appeal to the more, uh, base beliefs of the Republican voters ("fuck China and fuck the Mexicans"), but it's still interesting to note, especially in the context of Sanders, Corbyn, Syriza etc.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 24, 2015, 05:52:31 pm
One of the more interesting things about Trump - actually interesting, not "hurr durr Trump said something idiotic and hateful" clickbait - is that his economic positions are quite different from the Republican mainstream.

He supports social security, wants universal healthcare, bilateral trade treaties (not free trade) and increased taxes on the rich.

Now, like everything Trump says and does, it's arguable how much of this is his true belief and how much of it is done simply to rub the noses of the GOPs financiers in the fact that they can't control him.  But it's still interesting that rightwing, economic populism - almost as much a fringe position as leftwing economic populism - is getting the kind of support that Trump is.  Part of that could be that he's framing it in ways which appeal to the more, uh, base beliefs of the Republican voters ("fuck China and fuck the Mexicans"), but it's still interesting to note, especially in the context of Sanders, Corbyn, Syriza etc.

I honestly can't tell whether Trump is batshit insane or a brilliant if egotistical strategist. There's a bit of tiger's blood about him, if you know what I mean.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 25, 2015, 01:47:19 am
I'm definite it's a mix of the two, though I can't say in what proportions.

You know he's not had to even pay for a campaign ad yet?  He gets on TV, says something dumb or hateful, and gets free "advertising" for days.  I believe the full extent of his riches are questionable, but he's running a fairly cheap campaign, on name recognition and the media's rabid desire for clickbait alone.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 25, 2015, 08:22:44 pm
I'm definite it's a mix of the two, though I can't say in what proportions.

You know he's not had to even pay for a campaign ad yet?  He gets on TV, says something dumb or hateful, and gets free "advertising" for days.  I believe the full extent of his riches are questionable, but he's running a fairly cheap campaign, on name recognition and the media's rabid desire for clickbait alone.

That in itself is kind of remarkable.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 22, 2015, 08:03:00 am
Update:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/get-him-the-hell-out-of-here-trump-sics-supporters-on-black-protester-who-gets-beaten-and-kicked/#.VlD4m8gRTIs.facebook
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 22, 2015, 04:28:58 pm
Update:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/get-him-the-hell-out-of-here-trump-sics-supporters-on-black-protester-who-gets-beaten-and-kicked/#.VlD4m8gRTIs.facebook

SURPRISE!

Oh wait, nobody is surprised.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 22, 2015, 06:56:03 pm
Update:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/get-him-the-hell-out-of-here-trump-sics-supporters-on-black-protester-who-gets-beaten-and-kicked/#.VlD4m8gRTIs.facebook

SURPRISE!

Oh wait, nobody is surprised.

In other news, Marco Rubio has proposed that closing mosques and issuing ID badges might not be enough, but that Muslims and suspected Muslims should also be prevented from gathering anywhere they might "inspire" each other.  His examples included internet sites, cafes, etc.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on November 22, 2015, 06:56:10 pm
All lives matter...just not enough to prevent me from beating the shit out of you.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 22, 2015, 07:17:04 pm
All lives matter...just not enough to prevent me from beating the shit out of you.

Well, yeah.

http://boingboing.net/2015/11/09/woman-smashed-in-face-with-bee.html
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on November 22, 2015, 08:34:32 pm
I see this now means all 4 front runners for the Republican Party (Cruz and Rubio are much of a muchness score wise) are in favour of fascism-lite policies.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 22, 2015, 09:14:12 pm
Update:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/get-him-the-hell-out-of-here-trump-sics-supporters-on-black-protester-who-gets-beaten-and-kicked/#.VlD4m8gRTIs.facebook

SURPRISE!

Oh wait, nobody is surprised.

In other news, Marco Rubio has proposed that closing mosques and issuing ID badges might not be enough, but that Muslims and suspected Muslims should also be prevented from gathering anywhere they might "inspire" each other.  His examples included internet sites, cafes, etc.

Yeah, saw that.

I mean, what's the Constitution, anyway?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on November 23, 2015, 01:10:59 am
http://gawker.com/noted-racist-donald-trump-tweets-out-anti-black-propaga-1744083487

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--pH5q3b5G--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1530833601135304231.png)

He's a sloppy liar...

Quote
Donald Trump said Sunday that the protester who interrupted his rally at a convention center here on Saturday morning was “so obnoxious and so loud” that “maybe he should have been roughed up.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/22/black-activist-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/

and a thug.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on November 23, 2015, 01:32:18 am
The most absurd part of that chart is "whites killed by blacks"  Most people are killed by people of their own race.  The other numbers are wrong, but at least on the right side of 50%
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 23, 2015, 01:57:22 am
Not to mention that you can just LOOK UP ACTUAL CRIME STATISTICS. Easily. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on November 23, 2015, 02:51:25 am
This was so stupid even for him, that I had to go to his twitter page to see it for myself. It was still there an hour ago.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2015, 02:58:16 am
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12278761_1224981357519016_3505001292969966874_n.jpg?oh=8c987a30f3fd3ad9309d1b666178884f&oe=56B346F5)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on November 23, 2015, 10:21:03 am
It gets better:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45291_We_Found_Where_Donald_Trumps_Black_Crimes_Graphic_Came_From/

Quote
So there you have it. Donald Trump is posting racist imagery that comes directly from neo-Nazis.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 23, 2015, 03:17:06 pm
It gets better:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45291_We_Found_Where_Donald_Trumps_Black_Crimes_Graphic_Came_From/

Quote
So there you have it. Donald Trump is posting racist imagery that comes directly from neo-Nazis.

It seems impossible to conceive that he could really just plain be so stupid that he doesn't know. But then again,I may be making the typical American  mistake of assuming that "very very rich" means there's some kind of intellect involved.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2015, 04:37:20 am
The DNC just ended the idea of a democratic process in the democratic party.

Well done, that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz lady!  Well done!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 19, 2015, 05:47:04 am
It gets better:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45291_We_Found_Where_Donald_Trumps_Black_Crimes_Graphic_Came_From/

Quote
So there you have it. Donald Trump is posting racist imagery that comes directly from neo-Nazis.

It seems impossible to conceive that he could really just plain be so stupid that he doesn't know. But then again,I may be making the typical American  mistake of assuming that "very very rich" means there's some kind of intellect involved.

It could be a deliberate Door in the face tactic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique) by the Republican Party as a whole. After enough exposure to Trump, Cruz, and Carson, Chris Christie starts to look pretty good.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on December 19, 2015, 12:04:50 pm
It gets better:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45291_We_Found_Where_Donald_Trumps_Black_Crimes_Graphic_Came_From/

Quote
So there you have it. Donald Trump is posting racist imagery that comes directly from neo-Nazis.

It seems impossible to conceive that he could really just plain be so stupid that he doesn't know. But then again,I may be making the typical American  mistake of assuming that "very very rich" means there's some kind of intellect involved.

It could be a deliberate Door in the face tactic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique) by the Republican Party as a whole. After enough exposure to Trump, Cruz, and Carson, Chris Christie starts to look pretty good.

Except the Republicans are eating it up. At this point he's pretty much driving the clown car.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on December 19, 2015, 01:41:35 pm
In relation to the OP, the Dems are now eating each other, what with this glitch/hack by a Bernie staff member.

"We want a schism too!"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on December 19, 2015, 02:24:41 pm
Looks like both the Sanders campaign and the DNC want a split vote - neither is covering themselves in glory at the moment.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 19, 2015, 06:47:18 pm
I'm finding the radically different spin from the DNC and Sanders' campaign unbelievably amusing.

The funniest part is going to be that no matter what degree of wrongdoing by Sanders' staff is confirmed, the indoctrinated Bernieites are still going to wail "Conspiracy!" and "Sabotage!". They have donned the uniform, they must abide by their code.

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 19, 2015, 09:55:35 pm
It gets better:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45291_We_Found_Where_Donald_Trumps_Black_Crimes_Graphic_Came_From/

Quote
So there you have it. Donald Trump is posting racist imagery that comes directly from neo-Nazis.

It seems impossible to conceive that he could really just plain be so stupid that he doesn't know. But then again,I may be making the typical American  mistake of assuming that "very very rich" means there's some kind of intellect involved.

It could be a deliberate Door in the face tactic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique) by the Republican Party as a whole. After enough exposure to Trump, Cruz, and Carson, Chris Christie starts to look pretty good.

Except the Republicans are eating it up. At this point he's pretty much driving the clown car.

I'm talking about the party high ups orchestrating the whole thing. The Republicans don't need to win the republicans, they need to win the swing voters. All it will take is for Trump and Cruz (and possibly Carson) to drop out of the race at the last minute and it will be guaranteed that whoever does win the primary will seem much better to the average voter than they would if they hadn't been in the shadow of two huge crackpots for half a year.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2015, 02:24:27 am
http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-controversy/
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Nast on December 24, 2015, 08:44:36 am
I can't stop loling at the Clinton campaign's "7 ways Hillary Clinton is like your abuela" post.

"Hillary Clinton: Just like your Hispanic grandmother! Except neither Hispanic nor your grandmother."

Yeah, it's pretty awkward.  :lol:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on December 24, 2015, 09:27:22 am
"buena buena medicina, buena buena luz divina"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Nast on December 24, 2015, 05:20:49 pm
"buena buena medicina, buena buena luz divina"

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 24, 2015, 08:48:00 pm
I can't stop loling at the Clinton campaign's "7 ways Hillary Clinton is like your abuela" post.

"Hillary Clinton: Just like your Hispanic grandmother! Except neither Hispanic nor your grandmother."

Yeah, it's pretty awkward.  :lol:

Yeah, but that's pretty harmless idiocy.  Forgivable.  She's not going on about how we need to put yellow crescent moons on the clothing of Muslims.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on December 26, 2015, 07:29:05 pm
If you want worrying from Clinton, her "internets Manhatten project" should concern you.

Stuxnet and Duqu both happened while she was SecState, and while most of us weren't exactly keen on leaving reverse-engineerable cyberweapons around for anyone to use, Clinton obviously liked what she saw.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Meunster on January 02, 2016, 11:05:07 pm
I can't stop loling at the Clinton campaign's "7 ways Hillary Clinton is like your abuela" post.

"Hillary Clinton: Just like your Hispanic grandmother! Except neither Hispanic nor your grandmother."

Yeah, it's pretty awkward.  :lol:

I'm not even Mexican and i feel patronized.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 03, 2016, 01:24:43 am
Today, I was surprised to recall that Lawrence Lessig is running for president.  Then I was like, wait a minute, didn't I like some of his work?  Preliminarily, I can find nothing wrong with him, and he seems to generally do the right thing.  Even admitting that he does not really want to be president is in keeping with the kind of hidden traits I may be looking for in a candidate.  So, excepting previous political experience, what's wrong with this one?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 03, 2016, 01:32:27 am
His late entry and complete and utter lack of any kind of support base.  He should've declared much earlier...and truth be told, the best way to get a political machine behind you is to run for another office first.  That would also deal with the "inexperience" criticism.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 03, 2016, 06:13:01 am
I mean, only being able to hold (lack of) campaign strategy against him is something I could be proud of.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 03, 2016, 04:31:05 pm
Today, I was surprised to recall that Lawrence Lessig is running for president.  Then I was like, wait a minute, didn't I like some of his work?  Preliminarily, I can find nothing wrong with him, and he seems to generally do the right thing.  Even admitting that he does not really want to be president is in keeping with the kind of hidden traits I may be looking for in a candidate.  So, excepting previous political experience, what's wrong with this one?

He's not charismatic enough
He doesn't understand geopolitics enough to have a foreign policy
He doesn't know anything about how laws are made
He doesn't know anything about how to run a city, let alone a state or country
He pledged to give up the job as soon as his pet project was finished, which while some may find that admirable is actually a huge slap in the face to voters and the entire concepts of government and democracy
He had no ability to connect with an audience outside the hyper liberal or nerd crowd

Also this: https://rebelnews.com/annageoffroy/larry-lessig-leaves-democratic-race/
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on February 03, 2016, 04:36:43 pm
Is there any reason for not talking about Trump's bankruptcies and Mob connections more? It would seem somewhat relevant and I don't understand how he's still a thing.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 03, 2016, 06:09:58 pm
Is there any reason for not talking about Trump's bankruptcies and Mob connections more? It would seem somewhat relevant and I don't understand how he's still a thing.

The Donald claims his bankruptcies are proof he is a savvy businessman who knows how to use the law to his advantage.

As for the other, I can only assume people are unaware to the extent that the Mob runs not only casinos, but also the construction business.  That, or they think it makes him more alpha and manly or something.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 03, 2016, 07:04:15 pm
Is there any reason for not talking about Trump's bankruptcies and Mob connections more? It would seem somewhat relevant and I don't understand how he's still a thing.

The Donald claims his bankruptcies are proof he is a savvy businessman who knows how to use the law to his advantage.

As for the other, I can only assume people are unaware to the extent that the Mob runs not only casinos, but also the construction business.  That, or they think it makes him more alpha and manly or something.

The manly man, alpha male thing is a major part of Donald Trump’s appeal to many of his supporters.

Has anyone here ever run across The Hall of Manly Excellence forum? These wacky, zany, self-proclaimed alpha males absolutely adore Donald Trump. You can verify it for yourselves by reading some of the posts in their “Trump 2016” topic right here:

http://manlyexcellence.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35664

Actually, their entire forum is quite a hoot. Here’s the link to the forum index page:

http://manlyexcellence.com/forum/index.php?sid=b4f9040673334c3c38f93274e9cf539f


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 03, 2016, 07:18:50 pm
Trump is considered badass because it behooves the puppeteers to create a vehicle that seems to embody principles of independence and self-reliance ("manly") while still being just a puppet.  In turn, this distracts the voters from their own strings.  It's win-win.

GQP:  it is that last point I was afraid of, re: Lessig
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 03, 2016, 08:27:45 pm
“The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter”

“If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.”

Here’s the link to the article:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

I think this authoritarianism ties into the appeal many have for the manly man, alpha male thing.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 03, 2016, 10:18:26 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CU6mNHQUwAAlrsU.jpg)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Freeky on February 04, 2016, 12:39:05 am
Is there any reason for not talking about Trump's bankruptcies and Mob connections more? It would seem somewhat relevant and I don't understand how he's still a thing.

The Donald claims his bankruptcies are proof he is a savvy businessman who knows how to use the law to his advantage.

As for the other, I can only assume people are unaware to the extent that the Mob runs not only casinos, but also the construction business.  That, or they think it makes him more alpha and manly or something.

Buh-what?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on February 04, 2016, 01:00:17 am
JFK had mob ties and I have never heard that mentioned as a bad thing.  I don't think people mind mostly.  Personally I think the multiple bankruptcies are a worse reflection on him.  The US government defaulting would be bad news.  (not that it would happen, even if he was elected and was a disaster, but still)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 04, 2016, 01:15:14 am
JFK had mob ties and I have never heard that mentioned as a bad thing.  I don't think people mind mostly.  Personally I think the multiple bankruptcies are a worse reflection on him.  The US government defaulting would be bad news.  (not that it would happen, even if he was elected and was a disaster, but still)

Technically it was JFK's father.  The Mob itself never forgave JFK for letting Bobby go after them during his time as Attorney General. Also there was the whole Mafia/Cuba/CIA thing.  Certain people did make great hay of Joseph Kennedy's Mob connections, but they never took ground because JFK made a good show of going up against them.

Also, and you may not be aware of this, but the Mob are pretty bad people.  The US can survive a default, it's the global reserve currency, with nukes.  It can't be ignored, the debt will be written off or delayed.  Having a President with Mob connections, on the other hand, could undermine the entire political process.  Look at how badly the Cosa Nostra harmed the workings of the Italian Republic, in no small part due to their connection with powerful political figures.

Is there any reason for not talking about Trump's bankruptcies and Mob connections more? It would seem somewhat relevant and I don't understand how he's still a thing.

The Donald claims his bankruptcies are proof he is a savvy businessman who knows how to use the law to his advantage.

As for the other, I can only assume people are unaware to the extent that the Mob runs not only casinos, but also the construction business.  That, or they think it makes him more alpha and manly or something.

Buh-what?

Construction has always been a strongly mobbed up business.  The mobs can control the unions, keep the workers in line, control the supply of goods and embezzle the difference.  Another strongly organized crime affiliated industry is garbage disposal.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Freeky on February 04, 2016, 01:53:37 am
I didn't know any of that.  Well, except for the Mob being bad people.  Learning!  :awesome:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on February 04, 2016, 05:58:05 am
I know they are bad people,  I just figure so are most of the other people who have influence in politics.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on February 04, 2016, 06:50:43 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CU6mNHQUwAAlrsU.jpg)

It makes so much better sense this way.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 04, 2016, 09:03:17 pm
I know they are bad people,  I just figure so are most of the other people who have influence in politics.

Most of the other people who also have influence in politics generally don't blow up judges:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Capaci_massacre.jpg)

As bad as Goldman Sachs/the Koch Brothers/insurance companies may be, they tend to draw the line at causing actual direct physical harm to people.  The Mafia, on the other hand, it's sort of a defining feature.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 04, 2016, 09:52:31 pm
Why focus on a stand-up individual like Falcone when you can take-out an entire country instead?  I mean, he gets all that TNT while the average Iraqi citizen only got 40lbs dropped on him.  It's just not fair. :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 04, 2016, 10:03:51 pm
Or, for that matter, Cuba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista).
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 05, 2016, 01:57:00 am
Like this perhaps?
Quote
possible explanation for the failure to crush the rebellion was offered by author Carlos Alberto Montaner: "Batista does not finish Fidel out of greed ... His is a government of thieves. To have this small guerrilla band in the mountains is to his advantage, so that he can order special defense expenditures that they can steal."[21] Batista's rule became increasingly unpopular among the population, and the Soviet Union began to secretly support Castro.[62] However, some of Batista's generals also criticized him in later years, saying that Batista's excessive interference in his generals' military plans to defeat the rebels hampered Army morale and rendered all operations ineffective.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2016, 03:30:15 am
And then there was New Hampshire.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 10, 2016, 04:26:56 am
70,000+ people, given the chance, really thought Trump was the best choice for President?  Urgh.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on February 10, 2016, 07:14:23 am
Am I the only one that noticed Mr. Bungle's "Carousel" being played as background music on Fox News yesterday?  It was around 5:30 Eastern Time or so . . .   

I'll say that again - Mr. Bungle!  on Fox News???!!!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 10, 2016, 12:44:19 pm
70,000+ people, given the chance, really thought Trump was the best choice for President?  Urgh.

92,417  total votes as of the time of this posting, with 89% of precincts reporting. So, the number is going to climb even higher.

Unfortunately, this cartoon sums up the Republican field all too well:

(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f5/ExoMani/Republican%20STD.jpg) (http://s44.photobucket.com/user/ExoMani/media/Republican%20STD.jpg.html)

I’m an independent, or as my voters registration card reads: Unaffiliated (With any political party)

Believe it or not, Trump is not the worst choice in the GOP field. For instance, two of the other Republican candidates are quite possibly sociopaths, Jeb Bush is at least as dumb as his brother, and Marco ‘Roboto’ is nothing more than a pretty boy with a good memory.

After forcing myself to watch the entire 1st Republican Presidential Debate, the only candidate I had any respect for whatsoever was John Kasich.
 
After watching about half an hour of the 1st Democratic Presidential Debate, I had already decided I would vote for any Democrat that won their party’s nomination over any Republican candidate. 

I’m not thrilled with either one of the remaining Democratic candidates. But, either one of them will be the lesser of two evils come General Election Day. I do not want the GOP to have control of the White House.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 10, 2016, 03:31:33 pm
I'm pretty sure he is the worst choice in the field.  Many of the others, Kaisch aside, are pretty bad, but Trump's the only one with a significant Neo-Nazi support base.  If he even only wins the nomination, it paves the way for one of America's major political parties to become a proxy for actual fascism.  Don Black, David Duke, Jared Taylor...they'll all be players. Seats at the table.  "Community leaders".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 10, 2016, 07:23:13 pm
I'm pretty sure he is the worst choice in the field.  Many of the others, Kaisch aside, are pretty bad, but Trump's the only one with a significant Neo-Nazi support base.  If he even only wins the nomination, it paves the way for one of America's major political parties to become a proxy for actual fascism.  Don Black, David Duke, Jared Taylor...they'll all be players. Seats at the table.  "Community leaders".

Oh, the irony! Me, of all people, defending The Trumpster.

Please keep in mind, Trump is an actor who knows his audience. I believe this cartoon sums it up pretty well:

(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f5/ExoMani/Truth%20From%20The%20Donald.jpg) (http://s44.photobucket.com/user/ExoMani/media/Truth%20From%20The%20Donald.jpg.html)

And, it’s no accident that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be Trump’s replacement on that reality TV show.

If and when Trump wins the Republican Party’s nomination, watch how fast and how hard he pivots to the left. The Teabaggers will, of course, howl and cry foul when that happens, but they’ll vote for Trump anyway, and The Trumpster knows it.

Those Neo-Nazi’s and KKK types have always been lurking there in the shadows. They mostly faded from view along with George Wallace, but quickly coalesced again and morphed themselves into ‘The Tea Party’ within days of Obama’s first inauguration. They talked in code and dog-whistles for a long time, but backed by the Koch brother’s money, they grew into a force within the GOP that even the Koch’s can no longer control. If it weren’t for Trump, those Neo-Nazi’s and KKK types would be backing Cruz. They just wouldn’t be so open about showing their true colors.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 10, 2016, 08:23:49 pm
I'm hoping that after Trump loses, he publicly points and laughs at his supporters. But he probably won't if he plans on running again, because this is a good gambit.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2016, 08:47:23 pm
70,000+ people, given the chance, really thought Trump was the best choice for President?  Urgh.

If NH is any indication, and it's Sanders v Trump, I'm gonna laugh my balls off.

But we'll have to wait an see.  It ain't even started until Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 10, 2016, 09:12:59 pm
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/65972363.jpg)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 10, 2016, 09:38:16 pm
70,000+ people, given the chance, really thought Trump was the best choice for President?  Urgh.

If NH is any indication, and it's Sanders v Trump, I'm gonna laugh my balls off.

But we'll have to wait an see.  It ain't even started until Wisconsin.

Yeah, I think Sanders was always forecast to do well in the early primaries, it's the later ones where things will get significantly tougher for him.

As for Trump...he's got a clear lead in South Carolina, and has done in every poll since last July.  Alabama is Trump, easily, with Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia looking similar.  Cruz has a home advantage in Texas, but even there he's only got a 5 point lead.  Trump's also leading the polls in Michigan and Florida at the moment.  Without some big shakeup, after Super Tuesday, Trump all but has the nomination.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2016, 09:54:35 pm
70,000+ people, given the chance, really thought Trump was the best choice for President?  Urgh.

If NH is any indication, and it's Sanders v Trump, I'm gonna laugh my balls off.

But we'll have to wait an see.  It ain't even started until Wisconsin.

Yeah, I think Sanders was always forecast to do well in the early primaries, it's the later ones where things will get significantly tougher for him.

As for Trump...he's got a clear lead in South Carolina, and has done in every poll since last July.  Alabama is Trump, easily, with Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia looking similar.  Cruz has a home advantage in Texas, but even there he's only got a 5 point lead.  Trump's also leading the polls in Michigan and Florida at the moment.  Without some big shakeup, after Super Tuesday, Trump all but has the nomination.

Meh.  Sanders won in New Hampshire, but then superdelegates happened so he's down 13-15 with two uncommitteds.

I told everyone ages ago that this was gonna be a machine election.

Trump may very well get the nomination (After all. McCain/Palin did).  He's far less scary than Cruz, anyway.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on February 11, 2016, 02:36:48 pm
Super Tuesday is gonna be a RIOT.




Maybe literally.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Reverend What's-His-Name? on February 13, 2016, 01:04:08 am
I'm hoping that after Trump loses, he publicly points and laughs at his supporters. But he probably won't if he plans on running again, because this is a good gambit.

Calling it now, I think Trump wins.  The following 4 years will be absolutely hilarious.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Sung Low on February 13, 2016, 09:30:17 am
A genuine question from someone still bemused by American politics. Is Trump serious, or just someone with enough money who thought 'run for president, it'll be a lark.'?

I reckon the second, but either way  :horrormirth:



Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on February 13, 2016, 05:40:04 pm
/\Rt of the 7eal was on TV for a while.  I think it took me entirely too long to realize it was satire.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 13, 2016, 05:44:48 pm
A genuine question from someone still bemused by American politics. Is Trump serious, or just someone with enough money who thought 'run for president, it'll be a lark.'?

I reckon the second, but either way  :horrormirth:

Sadly he appears to be serious.

You can tell the ones who aren't, because they're selling books and/or seminars.  Like Ben Carson.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 14, 2016, 05:16:29 pm
A genuine question from someone still bemused by American politics. Is Trump serious, or just someone with enough money who thought 'run for president, it'll be a lark.'?

I reckon the second, but either way  :horrormirth:

I think both
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2016, 05:31:21 pm
A genuine question from someone still bemused by American politics. Is Trump serious, or just someone with enough money who thought 'run for president, it'll be a lark.'?

I reckon the second, but either way  :horrormirth:

Sadly he appears to be serious.

You can tell the ones who aren't, because they're selling books and/or seminars.  Like Ben Carson.

For all practical purposes, the race is now Trump v Cruz on the GOP side.

The dems will still fuck this up.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 14, 2016, 05:40:19 pm
All hail President Trump.  The United States of Cuckmerica no more!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2016, 05:44:55 pm
All hail President Trump.  The United States of Cuckmerica no more!

Yep.  The dem party is well and truly split.

On the plus side, we just found out my kids are both legally dual citizens as well.  So I'm okay with this.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 14, 2016, 05:56:57 pm
That means they're still more American than Cruz  :lulz:

The Dems should win, IMO.  Cruz can't rally the Neo-Nazis who otherwise believe the JOOOs run the Electoral College, and Trump can't rally anyone with skin darker than a mild tan.  Despite Dem infighting, I think most people will rally around the candidate regardless of who that is (Hillary).  However, I'm bracing for a spoiler event that gets everyone thinking with the reptilian parts of their brains.  There's plenty of contenders...a re-run of Paris in Europe or North America, the global economy shitting itself, China shitting itself and then the global economy, North Korea being North Korea, increasing violence in Syria....hell, could be a number of things.  Something that gets people going, "well, even if she was a senator and then SecState, we couldn't possibly have a liberal woman in charge during this time of crisis!"

And even if the Dems do win, the machine Trump has allowed to be built around his campaign will be in place.  Neo-Nazis will have a seat in Republican, national level politics and the next Trump will run a far better, more effective campaign. 

And then we'll all be in the shit. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2016, 10:45:54 pm
That means they're still more American than Cruz  :lulz:

 :lulz:

But if they don't like a Trump or Cruz presidency, they can go hang out with their cousins.

Quote
The Dems should win, IMO.  Cruz can't rally the Neo-Nazis who otherwise believe the JOOOs run the Electoral College, and Trump can't rally anyone with skin darker than a mild tan.  Despite Dem infighting, I think most people will rally around the candidate regardless of who that is (Hillary).  However, I'm bracing for a spoiler event that gets everyone thinking with the reptilian parts of their brains.  There's plenty of contenders...a re-run of Paris in Europe or North America, the global economy shitting itself, China shitting itself and then the global economy, North Korea being North Korea, increasing violence in Syria....hell, could be a number of things.  Something that gets people going, "well, even if she was a senator and then SecState, we couldn't possibly have a liberal woman in charge during this time of crisis!"

And even if the Dems do win, the machine Trump has allowed to be built around his campaign will be in place.  Neo-Nazis will have a seat in Republican, national level politics and the next Trump will run a far better, more effective campaign. 

And then we'll all be in the shit.

Democrats don't like to vote, as a group (any midterm election can prove that), and I think that most people on both sides of the primary will use the opposition "stealing" the primary as an excuse to sit on their arses and then be able to say "I told you so" when one of the Nazi clowns win.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2016, 10:53:39 pm
It also occurs to me that I am really starting to hate both factions of dem voters.  If you're voting for Clinton, you're a "corporate stooge" and "same as the republicans."  If you're voting for Sanders, you're a "racist" and "have walked away from feminism", etc.

The vast majority of both groups (ie, anyone that says shit like the above) can suck the farts out of my ass.  They are too Goddamn stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 15, 2016, 02:08:03 am
That means they're still more American than Cruz  :lulz:

The Dems should win, IMO.  Cruz can't rally the Neo-Nazis who otherwise believe the JOOOs run the Electoral College, and Trump can't rally anyone with skin darker than a mild tan.  Despite Dem infighting, I think most people will rally around the candidate regardless of who that is (Hillary).  However, I'm bracing for a spoiler event that gets everyone thinking with the reptilian parts of their brains.  There's plenty of contenders...a re-run of Paris in Europe or North America, the global economy shitting itself, China shitting itself and then the global economy, North Korea being North Korea, increasing violence in Syria....hell, could be a number of things.  Something that gets people going, "well, even if she was a senator and then SecState, we couldn't possibly have a liberal woman in charge during this time of crisis!"

Unless the crisis is over before the actual election. In which case, provided that it's handled either well and/or telegenically by the Obama administration it could greatly boost support for the Democrats.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 15, 2016, 10:44:24 am
Possibly but not necessarily.  A terrorist attack in London or Berlin could create a climate of fear akin to the Paris attacks and thus shift people's thinking closer towards Trump's "register all Muslim" notions regardless of how it is handled.  A global economic crisis could take a while to play out, but again could significantly work to the favour of Trump's protectionist policies ("fine companies who send American jobs abroad").  Any crisis in the South China Sea will benefit Republicans who have been talking up a tougher stance against China.  And so on and so forth.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 01:16:33 pm
Hey Cain,

Assuming that who-ever get in will immediately choose to fuck with foreign policy, what are the likely results on that front at the moment?

I'm guessing Hilary is inclined to continue to Bush/Obama ride, Sanders somewhat less so.

Trump probably wants to give various people nukes as an excuse to then attack them with nukes. Or something equally dumb. I don't know, that's why I'm asking you. I'm guessing the immediate few months will be a shitshow regardless of who takes it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 15, 2016, 01:40:02 pm
Clinton will be Obama+, for people who like how Obama conducted himself, but likely with a more strident tone and more obviously at the forefront (America always has been, even under Obama, but Obama made far less show of it, which upsets some people).  Relations with Russia will be strained, the "Asian Pivot" will likely continue, a harder line will be taken on Iran.

Trump's a weird one.  While relations with Europe and China will hit an unprecedented low, Trump has made no secret of his admiration for Putin.  Putin has apparently reciprocated, but I suspect it's because Putin knows he could manipulate Trump and play him like a fiddle.  A lot of Trump's base also have weirdly positive views of Russia - though this isn't unusual nowadays on the alt-right - Russia has put a lot of effort towards courting paleoconservative and libertarian groups in America, and Neo-Nazi and right populist groups in Europe.  I swear, 20 years from now, we'll look at this as a new Cold War, only with Russia supporting weird rightwingers instead of Communist movements.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on February 15, 2016, 02:11:50 pm
It is somewhat strange looking at the media reporting of Russia over the past few months. I've seen roughly similar numbers or "Good" and "bad" tales.

The Good ones seem to mainly consist of "Russia donates dog to blind man" or such. The bad more along the line of "Russia treats X group horribly".

I assume this somewhat polarized reporting is because news outlets don't know what the party line about Russia will be in a year so they're covering all bases.

I've not seen much from any candidates about the Ukraine and how they intended to deal with that clusterfuck so I'm again assuming that this is not to be talked about until the new boss is in place.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 15, 2016, 03:23:31 pm
Russia's a useful foil for criticising current western leaders.  Putin is manly, decisive and powerful, while the west is emasculated, weakened and striven by discord (ignore that almost exactly the opposite is actually true).  In particular, those who want a harder line on Syria and Islamic extremists, contrast Russia's intervention with our own, a line that is repeated by Russia's pet supporters in Europe, like UKIP.  Redditors practically cream their pants when talking about Russian "resolve" in the War on Terrorism.

Few of them seem to understand that Russia Today is a propaganda outlet, and that Russia has a "stable" of "experts", almost all far-right lunatics associated with the Eurasianist movement and prolific writers besides, it calls upon to legitimate its actions in the alternative media.

http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/pro-russian-network-behind-anti.html

Quote
Kovalenko's task was simple: by giving support to Yushchenko under the Nazi-like flags, he was expected to discredit the democratic candidate in the eyes of Western observers. Luckily for Yushchenko, however, the Western media largely did not buy into that frame-up and ignored it.

But some Western organisations did not. One of those was the eccentric - and apparently non-existent today - British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) not affiliated, despite the name, to the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. The BHHRG was notorious for claiming that elections in authoritarian Belarus met democratic standards, that Latvia had not been occupied by, but incorporated in, the Soviet Union, that the Romani people of the Czech Republic did not suffer from racism as generally reported, etc. On 24 November 2004, the BHHRG published a report "Shadow of Anti-Semitism over Ukraine’s Disputed Election" in which the authors concluded:

Quote
    With friends like these [i.e. Eduard Kovalenko and some others] Mr Yushchenko may feel he has all the People Power he needs to seize the presidency, but should OSCE observers, European parliamentarians, Colin Powell and George W. Bush be undiluted in endorsing a candidate with backing from neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers?

One of the first web-sites to re-publish the report was the very same Centre for Research on Globalization which has recently re-published Eric Draitser's piece on Ukraine to which I referred in the very beginning. Another web-site that re-published the BHHRG report, this time in Russian, was the web-site of the Historical Perspective Foundation headed by Russian national-conservative Natalya Narochnitskaya. Since 2008, she has been heading the Paris-based Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, together with British eurosceptic journalist John Laughland as director of studies. Laughland, described as a "right-wing anti-state libertarian and isolationist", was one of the trustees of the BHHRG.

At least three people who were associated with the BHHRG joined the US-based Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity: Daniel McAdams (Executive Director of the Institute), Mark Almond (former chairman of the BHHRG) and John Laughland. The web-site of the Ron Paul Institute is full of misleading articles on Euromaidan associating it with the extreme right, and various drivels by Mark Almond (who likes to present himself as "professor of history at Oxford University", but does not even work at Oxford) are particularly prominent (see for example his "Ukrainian Opposition and the West ‘Playing with Fire Siding With Extreme Nationalists'").

The Canada-based Centre for Research on Globalization is also interesting. It was founded and is now headed by Michel Chossudovsky; among the Centre's contributors are Neil Clark, Mahdi D. Nazemroaya and William Engdahl. Chossudovsky, Nazemroaya and Engdahl are members of the scientific committee of the Italian journal Geopolitica, which also includes John Laughland and Natalya Narochnitskaya. Geopolitica is edited by Tiberio Graziani, a fervent advocate of the Eurasian cooperation and a member of the High Council of the International Eurasian Movement led by Russian fascist Aleksandr Dugin. In 2008, Dugin called for the Russian occupation of Georgia, and even made a trip to South Ossetia together with his followers from the Eurasian Youth Union.

Geopolitica itself is an off-shoot from the Italian extreme right journal Eurasia, Rivista di Studi Geopolitici, published and edited by Italian Nazi-Maoist Claudio Mutti. The scientific board of Eurasia includes Aleksandr Dugin and William Engdahl. In the early January, Engdahl published a piece titled "The Belgrade US-Financed Training Group Behind the Carefully-Orchestrated Kiev Protests".

Quote
All the above-mentioned people and groups form - apparently a small - part of the wide network which is aimed at promoting anti-Western, pro-Russian and pro-Eurasianist ideas in the EU and the US and Canada. Moreover, the following people from this network are official regular contributors to the Kremlin-sponsored Russia Today (RT) TV:

    Michel Chossudovsky (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)
    Neil Clark
    William Engdahl (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica, Eurasia)
    Eric Draitser (Centre for Research on Globalization, Stop Imperialism)
    Daniel McAdams (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Mahdi D. Nazemroaya (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)


And these authors are in the pool of political commentators of yet another Kremlin-sponsored media service, the Voice of Russia:

    Mark Almond (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Michel Chossudovsky (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)
    Neil Clark
    Eric Draitser (Centre for Research on Globalization, Stop Imperialism)
    Aleksandr Dugin (International Eurasian Movement, Eurasia)
    William Engdahl (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica, Eurasia)
    Tiberio Graziani (Geopolitica)
    John Laughland (ex-BHHRG, Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Daniel McAdams (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Natalya Narochnitskaya (Institute of Democracy and Cooperation)


The Voice of Russia's offshoot in France is ProRussia TV which is linked to the French far right National Front and headed by Gilles Arnaud, a former National Front councilor in the Upper Normandy. The National Front's leader Marine Le Pen has received a warm welcome in Russia last summer. Then, in particular, she met Vice-Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who helped found the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation when he was Russia's ambassador to NATO (2008-2011). It was during Rogozin's service in the Russian Mission to NATO when Ukraine and Georgia were denied membership in this organisation.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 15, 2016, 08:15:59 pm
HRC received a coveted endorsement in Nevada.

Here’s the link:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/15/hookers-for-hillary-clinton-nevada-caucuses-bernie-sanders-moonlite-bunny-ranch

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2016, 02:08:10 am
Possibly but not necessarily.  A terrorist attack in London or Berlin could create a climate of fear akin to the Paris attacks and thus shift people's thinking closer towards Trump's "register all Muslim" notions regardless of how it is handled.  A global economic crisis could take a while to play out, but again could significantly work to the favour of Trump's protectionist policies ("fine companies who send American jobs abroad").  Any crisis in the South China Sea will benefit Republicans who have been talking up a tougher stance against China.  And so on and so forth.

I'm not even sure that's necessary.  I mean, there's blatant fascism on the march, and the response of a good chunk of the left is either to blubber that voting doesn't matter, or to go full tumblrina on everything left of center, because it's easier than shouting down brownshirts.

I am of the opinion that no matter who wins the dem primary, the left will flush its spine down the toilet, devour itself, and we'll be dealing with anti-science, anti-everyone who isn't a white protestant male scumbag for however long it lasts, and we'll all be drinking Flint water for the rest of our lives.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 16, 2016, 04:13:47 pm
I'm in this weird position where I really like Sanders as a senator and as a political personality (how much of that personality is genuine and how much is interns memeing it up I neither know nor care), but I'm somewhat concerned about what a Sanders presidency would mean. Maybe you get all the Bernie Bros to show up for the midterms and give him a legislative branch willing to get shit done on some of his progressive goals, but how realistic is that? And while the right hatehatehates Hillary, I think she might get more done in office, and maybe more of it would be positive. Or maybe she'd facilitate the ongoing slide to the right and side with the hyper-rich on every issue. I really don't know.

Sanders seems like he would be more electable in the general, he's got a lot of enthusiasm behind him (misplaced or not) and enthusiasm means high turnout, which bodes well for democrats. Everyone keeps questioning his viability in the general, but the right has been preparing for a run against Hillary since Bill left office and she's kind of a "feminist of a certain age," that is, someone who had to take on a brutally sexist system by learning how to play as dirty as the boys. Without women who were willing to sacrifice everything like that, the tumblrinas of today wouldn't have the room to be as hardline about their own ethics, but it makes her a little distasteful. Then again, someone who isn't capable of some heinous shit probably isn't capable of being president in the first place.

I dunno. I'm surrounded by hardline Sanders supporters, and I fell out of love with Clinton a long time ago, but I'm still not feeling the Bern. The whole situation has me deeply nervous for the future of the country.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 16, 2016, 04:21:08 pm
I think, while definitely not as skilled a political infighter as Clinton, who is pretty much legendary tier at this stage, people do underestimate how much political savvy Sanders has (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825) (note the date).

I still think, even with this, he definitely won't have the advantages Clinton would - being a party insider, being far more central within the party etc, and how the mid-terms are handled would be a critical factor.  But I do think people underestimate him on that front, and he may be capable of quite a bit more than people think.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 16, 2016, 04:25:16 pm
I think, while definitely not as skilled a political infighter as Clinton, who is pretty much legendary tier at this stage, people do underestimate how much political savvy Sanders has (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825) (note the date).

I still think, even with this, he definitely won't have the advantages Clinton would - being a party insider, being far more central within the party etc, and how the mid-terms are handled would be a critical factor.  But I do think people underestimate him on that front, and he may be capable of quite a bit more than people think.

There's also the cost of losing Bernie in the senate. We could hope that Vermont would put up a similarly progressive person to replace him, but I was here when Kennedy's seat was filled by Scott fucking Brown, so I'm a little skittish there.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 16, 2016, 04:25:51 pm
I think, while definitely not as skilled a political infighter as Clinton, who is pretty much legendary tier at this stage, people do underestimate how much political savvy Sanders has (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825) (note the date).

I still think, even with this, he definitely won't have the advantages Clinton would - being a party insider, being far more central within the party etc, and how the mid-terms are handled would be a critical factor.  But I do think people underestimate him on that front, and he may be capable of quite a bit more than people think.

There's also the cost of losing Bernie in the senate. We could hope that Vermont would put up a similarly progressive person to replace him, but I was here when Kennedy's seat was filled by Scott fucking Brown, so I'm a little skittish there.

Yeah, true, I can see that being a major concern.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2016, 04:32:06 pm
I'm in this weird position where I really like Sanders as a senator and as a political personality (how much of that personality is genuine and how much is interns memeing it up I neither know nor care), but I'm somewhat concerned about what a Sanders presidency would mean. Maybe you get all the Bernie Bros to show up for the midterms and give him a legislative branch willing to get shit done on some of his progressive goals, but how realistic is that? And while the right hatehatehates Hillary, I think she might get more done in office, and maybe more of it would be positive. Or maybe she'd facilitate the ongoing slide to the right and side with the hyper-rich on every issue. I really don't know.

Sanders seems like he would be more electable in the general, he's got a lot of enthusiasm behind him (misplaced or not) and enthusiasm means high turnout, which bodes well for democrats. Everyone keeps questioning his viability in the general, but the right has been preparing for a run against Hillary since Bill left office and she's kind of a "feminist of a certain age," that is, someone who had to take on a brutally sexist system by learning how to play as dirty as the boys. Without women who were willing to sacrifice everything like that, the tumblrinas of today wouldn't have the room to be as hardline about their own ethics, but it makes her a little distasteful. Then again, someone who isn't capable of some heinous shit probably isn't capable of being president in the first place.

I dunno. I'm surrounded by hardline Sanders supporters, and I fell out of love with Clinton a long time ago, but I'm still not feeling the Bern. The whole situation has me deeply nervous for the future of the country.

I have never "felt the bern", and that phrase gives me hives.  Seriously, it makes me want to punch America.  But he's still the closest thing to a socialist, so I'm going to vote for him.  When he loses the primary, I'm going to vote for Hillary, because she is my second choice.  She is my second choice because her last name is neither Trump nor Cruz.

And I hardly think it's fair at all to blame the tumblrina's on Clinton's hard work, any more than Sanders should be blamed for the tribly & fake katana set.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 16, 2016, 04:44:36 pm
I'm in this weird position where I really like Sanders as a senator and as a political personality (how much of that personality is genuine and how much is interns memeing it up I neither know nor care), but I'm somewhat concerned about what a Sanders presidency would mean. Maybe you get all the Bernie Bros to show up for the midterms and give him a legislative branch willing to get shit done on some of his progressive goals, but how realistic is that? And while the right hatehatehates Hillary, I think she might get more done in office, and maybe more of it would be positive. Or maybe she'd facilitate the ongoing slide to the right and side with the hyper-rich on every issue. I really don't know.

Sanders seems like he would be more electable in the general, he's got a lot of enthusiasm behind him (misplaced or not) and enthusiasm means high turnout, which bodes well for democrats. Everyone keeps questioning his viability in the general, but the right has been preparing for a run against Hillary since Bill left office and she's kind of a "feminist of a certain age," that is, someone who had to take on a brutally sexist system by learning how to play as dirty as the boys. Without women who were willing to sacrifice everything like that, the tumblrinas of today wouldn't have the room to be as hardline about their own ethics, but it makes her a little distasteful. Then again, someone who isn't capable of some heinous shit probably isn't capable of being president in the first place.

I dunno. I'm surrounded by hardline Sanders supporters, and I fell out of love with Clinton a long time ago, but I'm still not feeling the Bern. The whole situation has me deeply nervous for the future of the country.

I have never "felt the bern", and that phrase gives me hives.  Seriously, it makes me want to punch America.  But he's still the closest thing to a socialist, so I'm going to vote for him.  When he loses the primary, I'm going to vote for Hillary, because she is my second choice.  She is my second choice because her last name is neither Trump nor Cruz.

And I hardly think it's fair at all to blame the tumblrina's on Clinton's hard work, any more than Sanders should be blamed for the tribly & fake katana set.

Wasn't meant as a blame thing. We've got a whole generation of women who've grown up expecting to be treated like goddamned human beings and getting confused and enraged when things don't work the way they should, which I think is exactly the right direction for things to be going. Obviously, Clinton isn't the only one who fought that fight, but she was part of it and I think she deserves some credit for that. Tumblrinas are just the loudest faction of the "of course we're equal!" front, but I probably shouldn't have used them for shorthand there.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2016, 04:48:10 pm
Tumblrinas are just the loudest faction of the "of course we're equal!" front, but I probably shouldn't have used them for shorthand there.

Here is where we disagree.  Equality does not even seem to be on the agenda of tumblrinas.  Spend enough time under the blanket, you go full Garbo, doesn't matter who you are.

So while I agree that Clinton did a great deal - just by example - for feminism, I don't think smearing her with tumblr is very fair.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 16, 2016, 04:49:24 pm
Tumblrinas are just the loudest faction of the "of course we're equal!" front, but I probably shouldn't have used them for shorthand there.

Here is where we disagree.  Equality does not even seem to be on the agenda of tumblrinas.  Spend enough time under the blanket, you go full Garbo, doesn't matter who you are.

So while I agree that Clinton did a great deal - just by example - for feminism, I don't think smearing her with tumblr is very fair.

Point taken and conceded.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trippinprincezz13 on February 16, 2016, 07:13:10 pm

I have never "felt the bern", and that phrase gives me hives.  Seriously, it makes me want to punch America.  But he's still the closest thing to a socialist, so I'm going to vote for him.  When he loses the primary, I'm going to vote for Hillary, because she is my second choice.  She is my second choice because her last name is neither Trump nor Cruz.

And I hardly think it's fair at all to blame the tumblrina's on Clinton's hard work, any more than Sanders should be blamed for the tribly & fake katana set.

THANK YOU. I like Sanders since, as you said, he's the closest thing to a Socialist on the ballot, but every time I see that phrase/slogan, I am filled with irrational anger. I just hate it so much.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2016, 08:07:56 pm

I have never "felt the bern", and that phrase gives me hives.  Seriously, it makes me want to punch America.  But he's still the closest thing to a socialist, so I'm going to vote for him.  When he loses the primary, I'm going to vote for Hillary, because she is my second choice.  She is my second choice because her last name is neither Trump nor Cruz.

And I hardly think it's fair at all to blame the tumblrina's on Clinton's hard work, any more than Sanders should be blamed for the tribly & fake katana set.

THANK YOU. I like Sanders since, as you said, he's the closest thing to a Socialist on the ballot, but every time I see that phrase/slogan, I am filled with irrational anger. I just hate it so much.

It's not the worst in our history ("Tippicanoe and Tyler, too!"), but it's certainly in the bottom half dozen.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on February 17, 2016, 03:28:13 pm
I've also said the "I'll vote for Bernie in the primary, and Hillary in the general", and I realize what I'm saying (and only what I'm saying -- I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth) is that I think Bernie won't win the primary, and that I may even want him to lose it, so I'll "have" to vote for Clinton.   Which puts me in a weird idealistic/pragmatic bind.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 17, 2016, 04:04:10 pm
I've also said the "I'll vote for Bernie in the primary, and Hillary in the general", and I realize what I'm saying (and only what I'm saying -- I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth) is that I think Bernie won't win the primary, and that I may even want him to lose it, so I'll "have" to vote for Clinton.   Which puts me in a weird idealistic/pragmatic bind.

I just decided to stop fucking hedging and come out and say that I prefer Clinton. I like her better in almost all aspects, including honesty, even though I don't like her in a couple of areas of policy.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2016, 04:16:25 pm
I've also said the "I'll vote for Bernie in the primary, and Hillary in the general", and I realize what I'm saying (and only what I'm saying -- I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth) is that I think Bernie won't win the primary, and that I may even want him to lose it, so I'll "have" to vote for Clinton.   Which puts me in a weird idealistic/pragmatic bind.

Of course he's going to lose the primary.  Even without the super delegates issue, he is going to meet cold reality in the Southeast.  I'm most definitely not happy with this, but what's crying about SDs - assuming that's even an issue - going to do but hand fuel to the fascists?  We're going to find out.  Because a third of either side's partisans is going to stay home or - even more hilariously - "write Bernie in".

Stop and think about that for a moment.  They're going to "write Bernie in" to a general election, when he couldn't beat Clinton in the primary in a two way election. That's a special kind of stupid.

The only good news about this is that the GOP is going to split for sure.  Trump has said that the RNC isn't treating him fairly, so his pledge is invalidated.  And they HAVE to crap on him even if it means the election, or they lose control of the party.   

Personally, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's smug grin may be hard to look at, but it's still not as bad as electing actual Nazis.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 17, 2016, 05:04:28 pm
I think is just trying it on, giving his anti-establishment credentials a polish.  If anything, it seems that the party is coming around to Trump (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/republicans-prefer-trump-cruz), especially if the only other option is for them to have Cruz.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2016, 05:19:41 pm
I think is just trying it on, giving his anti-establishment credentials a polish.  If anything, it seems that the party is coming around to Trump (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/republicans-prefer-trump-cruz), especially if the only other option is for them to have Cruz.

Well, everyone hates Cruz, but he's not completely out of control like Trump is.
Jeb isn't even there.  He's off to one side, whining about how mean everyone is.
Rubio?  Who is he?

Hard call.  The guy everyone loathes, or the guy who will establish that a candidate can be chosen outside of the RNC's control?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 17, 2016, 06:53:50 pm
Of course he's going to lose the primary.  Even without the super delegates issue, he is going to meet cold reality in the Southeast.  I'm most definitely not happy with this, but what's crying about SDs - assuming that's even an issue - going to do but hand fuel to the fascists?  We're going to find out.  Because a third of either side's partisans is going to stay home or - even more hilariously - "write Bernie in".

Stop and think about that for a moment.  They're going to "write Bernie in" to a general election, when he couldn't beat Clinton in the primary in a two way election. That's a special kind of stupid.

Once Bernie Sanders’ time in the national limelight is over, I don’t doubt he’ll tell his supporters to throw their full support behind HRC. I would also be very surprised if Sanders didn’t actively go out and campaign for her, and that has to count for a lot.

The only instance I can recall of a write-in vote having any significance is when Lisa Murkowski beat Joe Miller in the Alaska Senate race of 2010. And even there, Murkowski was the incumbent senator, even though she had officially lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller. (If anyone knows of a case where write-in votes had any real influence in the outcome of a presidential election, I’d genuinely like to hear about it. No sarcasm, etc. intended.) 

The only good news about this is that the GOP is going to split for sure.  Trump has said that the RNC isn't treating him fairly, so his pledge is invalidated.  And they HAVE to crap on him even if it means the election, or they lose control of the party.
   
You could be right about the RNC continuing to try to bring Trump down. Unfortunately, the next guy in line is Cruz. So, the old boys have to jump over both Trump and Cruz to get to a true establishment candidate.               
   
Personally, I don’t think the old boys have the stones to go the distance against Trump, but we shall see.

Personally, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's smug grin may be hard to look at, but it's still not as bad as electing actual Nazis.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz can grin all she wants, if her Democrats can keep all of these GOP clowns out of the White House. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on February 17, 2016, 07:39:14 pm
The other thing is that some of my more trusted economic sources (Krugman, et al) are becoming more vocal about their thoughts on Bernie's economic plans; to wit, they have similar magic asterisks as Paul Ryan's, where implausible assumptions about the economy are assumed in order to make the plan work.

If I want Democratic Socialism (or whatever the exact name of Sanders' political stance), I don't want to have smoke blown up my ass about it.  I know it's going to cost more.  I want someone to really lay it out.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2016, 07:44:26 pm
The other thing is that some of my more trusted economic sources (Krugman, et al) are becoming more vocal about their thoughts on Bernie's economic plans; to wit, they have similar magic asterisks as Paul Ryan's, where implausible assumptions about the economy are assumed in order to make the plan work.

If I want Democratic Socialism (or whatever the exact name of Sanders' political stance), I don't want to have smoke blown up my ass about it.  I know it's going to cost more.  I want someone to really lay it out.

Actually, it will cost a bit less.


Most people know roughly how much we spend on military adventurism, but they don't feel the cost in their guts.  We've been doing it for so long that we assume that's just money spent before you see it, so to speak.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on February 18, 2016, 12:04:42 am
I love these so much (https://www.facebook.com/superdeluxevideo/videos/222260281451863/)

 kinda makes me feel sorry for Jeb, though (https://www.facebook.com/superdeluxevideo/videos/219506155060609/)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 18, 2016, 02:49:55 am
This article is mostly crap, except that it's the first time that Trump and Cruz are taken seriously against Clinton, and it's also the first time I've seen any major media even mention Sanders as being a serious candidate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269702-hillary-trails-trump-head-to-head-poll

The numbers are horrifying, but probably as reliable as the poll predictions in 2012.

Probably.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on February 18, 2016, 03:37:28 am
Trump/Sanders 2016!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 18, 2016, 03:42:34 am
I stand on my record at PD, election-wise.  Old-timers (pre-2008) know about this.

The democrats are doomed.  Fucking doomed.  they will not take the house, they will not take the senate, and if Trump is nominated, he will win.  If he is not nominated, then the dems MAY retain the white house, but that's it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pæs on February 18, 2016, 05:43:15 pm
https://vine.co/v/ivw1WwiDJje
THE SOUND OF POLITICS IN 2016.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2016, 06:25:42 am
Horrible racism.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on February 20, 2016, 06:54:29 am
I think Sanders can beat Trump.  I do not think Clinton can.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2016, 07:04:29 am
I think Sanders can beat Trump.  I do not think Clinton can.

There's only one poll so far that agrees.

It's something like Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Rubio, but all within 3%, which is inside the margin of error.

It's too early to tell.  My guess is that if Trump gets nominated, he wins the general, because the democratic party hates each other and wouldn't piss down each other's throats if their hearts were on fire.  If Cruz gets nominated, Trump runs as an independent, splits the GOP, and the dem candidate squeaks out a win.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on February 20, 2016, 07:08:05 am
I think Sanders can beat Trump.  I do not think Clinton can.

There's only one poll so far that agrees.

It's something like Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Rubio, but all within 3%, which is inside the margin of error.

It's too early to tell.  My guess is that if Trump gets nominated, he wins the general, because the democratic party hates each other and wouldn't piss down each other's throats if their hearts were on fire.  If Cruz gets nominated, Trump runs as an independent, splits the GOP, and the dem candidate squeaks out a win.

Within margin of error means that he could win, it's a reasonable possibility.  I think the Clinton supporters will line up behind Sanders, but the Sanders supporters are much less likely to line up behind Clinton.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2016, 04:57:17 pm
I think Sanders can beat Trump.  I do not think Clinton can.

There's only one poll so far that agrees.

It's something like Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Rubio, but all within 3%, which is inside the margin of error.

It's too early to tell.  My guess is that if Trump gets nominated, he wins the general, because the democratic party hates each other and wouldn't piss down each other's throats if their hearts were on fire.  If Cruz gets nominated, Trump runs as an independent, splits the GOP, and the dem candidate squeaks out a win.

Within margin of error means that he could win, it's a reasonable possibility.  I think the Clinton supporters will line up behind Sanders, but the Sanders supporters are much less likely to line up behind Clinton.

I don't think either side - as a whole - will line up behind the other.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on February 20, 2016, 08:05:53 pm
So on a slight sidetrack the Chicago photo of Sanders' arrest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html) has found a use among the "opposition"

Check this shiny little turd out

hxxp://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/underneath-bernies-democratic-socialism-hides-a-dangerous-communist-revolutionary

Not one mention of the civil rights context of the pic and the usual implication of disloyalty and "dangerous revolutionary" shit painting.

I kinda want to hit 'em.  I kinda want to puke. I don't know, but figured I'd show what I happened to spot.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 20, 2016, 09:34:30 pm
He might pass on American secrets to the Russians.  Oh, no wait, they found capitalism.  The Chinese?  Oh, also capitalist?  Cuba?  Opened diplomatic negotiations with the USA, you say?

Well, he still might sell us all out to North Korea.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 20, 2016, 09:36:08 pm
Meanwhile, the neoconservative movement was founded by literal ex-Trotskyites.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on February 21, 2016, 02:04:12 am
Meanwhile, the neoconservative movement was founded by literal ex-Trotskyites.

Wow! Things really are redder on the right.

He might pass on American secrets to the Russians.  Oh, no wait, they found capitalism.  The Chinese?  Oh, also capitalist?  Cuba?  Opened diplomatic negotiations with the USA, you say?

Well, he still might sell us all out to North Korea.

 :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2016, 03:29:06 am
So on a slight sidetrack the Chicago photo of Sanders' arrest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html) has found a use among the "opposition"

Check this shiny little turd out

hxxp://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/underneath-bernies-democratic-socialism-hides-a-dangerous-communist-revolutionary

Not one mention of the civil rights context of the pic and the usual implication of disloyalty and "dangerous revolutionary" shit painting.

I kinda want to hit 'em.  I kinda want to puke. I don't know, but figured I'd show what I happened to spot.

If you're Goldman Sachs or Exxon, he is a dangerous revolutionary.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2016, 04:30:07 am
Jeb Bush dropped out, Clinton wins Nevada, Trump wins South Carolina.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on February 21, 2016, 04:50:35 am
So on a slight sidetrack the Chicago photo of Sanders' arrest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html) has found a use among the "opposition"

Check this shiny little turd out

hxxp://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/underneath-bernies-democratic-socialism-hides-a-dangerous-communist-revolutionary

Not one mention of the civil rights context of the pic and the usual implication of disloyalty and "dangerous revolutionary" shit painting.

I kinda want to hit 'em.  I kinda want to puke. I don't know, but figured I'd show what I happened to spot.

If you're Goldman Sachs or Exxon, he is a dangerous revolutionary.

What fucks with me is that I can already imagine the CT shit he'd have to deal with as president. You think Kenyan Muslim Antichrist Deathpanel Obama was bad? Sanders would get the worst shitfest ever as an openly socialist JEWISH president. They'll be calling him a plant for the ZOG in the underground as soon as he may win the primary, especially if Trump is his opponent I suspect. And he's the LAST person the actual, rather ethnically diverse as I hear it, banking cartels want in office. He might cut military spending and just GIVE it to the masses for health and education. The nerve!

I really hope he prevails despite his loss in Nevada.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2016, 05:44:15 am
So on a slight sidetrack the Chicago photo of Sanders' arrest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html) has found a use among the "opposition"

Check this shiny little turd out

hxxp://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/underneath-bernies-democratic-socialism-hides-a-dangerous-communist-revolutionary

Not one mention of the civil rights context of the pic and the usual implication of disloyalty and "dangerous revolutionary" shit painting.

I kinda want to hit 'em.  I kinda want to puke. I don't know, but figured I'd show what I happened to spot.

If you're Goldman Sachs or Exxon, he is a dangerous revolutionary.

What fucks with me is that I can already imagine the CT shit he'd have to deal with as president. You think Kenyan Muslim Antichrist Deathpanel Obama was bad? Sanders would get the worst shitfest ever as an openly socialist JEWISH president. They'll be calling him a plant for the ZOG in the underground as soon as he may win the primary, especially if Trump is his opponent I suspect. And he's the LAST person the actual, rather ethnically diverse as I hear it, banking cartels want in office. He might cut military spending and just GIVE it to the masses for health and education. The nerve!

I really hope he prevails despite his loss in Nevada.

He expected to lose Nevada, that's Harry Reid's territory.  He was down 40 points there in the polls, managed to get around 48%.  Better than expected, but still a loss.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2016, 05:48:23 am
Current totals, minus superdelegates.

Iowa: Hillary - 23, Bernie - 21
NH: Hillary - 9, Bernie - 15
Nevada: Hillary - 19, Bernie - 15

51 to 51
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on February 21, 2016, 06:33:44 am
So on a slight sidetrack the Chicago photo of Sanders' arrest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html) has found a use among the "opposition"

Check this shiny little turd out

hxxp://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/underneath-bernies-democratic-socialism-hides-a-dangerous-communist-revolutionary

Not one mention of the civil rights context of the pic and the usual implication of disloyalty and "dangerous revolutionary" shit painting.

I kinda want to hit 'em.  I kinda want to puke. I don't know, but figured I'd show what I happened to spot.

If you're Goldman Sachs or Exxon, he is a dangerous revolutionary.

What fucks with me is that I can already imagine the CT shit he'd have to deal with as president. You think Kenyan Muslim Antichrist Deathpanel Obama was bad? Sanders would get the worst shitfest ever as an openly socialist JEWISH president. They'll be calling him a plant for the ZOG in the underground as soon as he may win the primary, especially if Trump is his opponent I suspect. And he's the LAST person the actual, rather ethnically diverse as I hear it, banking cartels want in office. He might cut military spending and just GIVE it to the masses for health and education. The nerve!

I really hope he prevails despite his loss in Nevada.

Nevada's a pretty minor loss.  I think he is still ahead on elected delegates.  I expect Clinton to be ahead after South Carolina, but not by a huge amount.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on February 21, 2016, 06:34:35 am
heh, if I had read the whole thread I could have seen that they are, in fact, now tied...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on February 21, 2016, 11:36:54 am
Apparently Mcaffe (Of bathsalts/hookers and guns/antivirus fame) was/is buggering around as a libertarian candidate.

I can only assume that ended as most things tend do for the man.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on February 21, 2016, 11:53:36 am
Meanwhile, The Donald has marched to victory in South Carolina with a 10 point lead over both Rubio and Cruz.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35624026
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2016, 09:45:16 pm
NOT HORRIBLE RACISM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5uWu0nSsg7w&app=desktop
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on February 23, 2016, 05:04:29 pm
One comforting thing is that, IIRC, both Sanders and Trump have promised to give the TPP the full Andrew Jackson treatment in regard to complete refusal to abide by a treaty.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on February 24, 2016, 10:54:34 am
This is getting silly now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35647126

Quote
In his victory speech, Mr Trump told a roaring crowd of supporters: "We're winning, winning, winning the country, and soon the country is going to start winning, winning, winning."

He's channeling Charlie sheen for fucks sake.

Quote
...says "I love the poorly educated" in his victory speech

meaning "loves to exploit the poorly educated". Seriously, I can't understand how this has gone as far as it has. It's just depressing on too many levels.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on February 24, 2016, 02:57:20 pm
Oh don't be silly, Reagan will never be elected, he's a celebrity.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2016, 03:35:26 pm
This is getting silly now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35647126

Quote
In his victory speech, Mr Trump told a roaring crowd of supporters: "We're winning, winning, winning the country, and soon the country is going to start winning, winning, winning."

He's channeling Charlie sheen for fucks sake.

Quote
...says "I love the poorly educated" in his victory speech

meaning "loves to exploit the poorly educated". Seriously, I can't understand how this has gone as far as it has. It's just depressing on too many levels.

He's just trying to give this country the President it's asking for.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on February 25, 2016, 03:37:06 pm
Clearly, that still makes it no less depressing.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/black-lives-matter-activist-confronts-clinton-over-mass-incarceration-i-am-not-a-super-predator/

For balance, let's talk about how much of a shitshow Clinton is, shall we?

The reactions from the crowd in the above video are sheer class. Hissing, accusations of trespass (totally erroneous and unfounded) and the call of "this is not appropriate". To be blunt, Clinton is pretty fucking evil and has a terrible record for a great many things. This quote is hardly new news, certainly no secret and as far as I know, still not addressed. I suspect it never will be in any real way because it's pretty fucking indefensible. The larger implications with X to Prison pipelines are quite stark and I don't see any serious attempts likely to be made to address it. The prison lobby has grown far too large to be adequately controlled. It's also now capable of throwing around the required monies to ensure that it stays uncontrolled.

Additionally, this horseshit about it being pro/anti feminist to vote for clinton is such fucking nonsense it's quite sickening. "Hey, let's remove all thought and nuance and just check genitals! Who's got the sexual organs you can trust?" I suppose it makes a certain degree of sense, it's not like you can just vote for the candidate with the best hair this time. 

It's times like this that make you really question if voting is actually worthwhile. If it comes down to Trump/Clinton, how could you vote for either with a straight face? But no, let's fuck about and try and pick the least crappy option.

(https://bradtaylor.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/spider-on-voting1.jpg)

More like prophecy every year.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 01, 2016, 03:02:34 am
It occurs to me that the final failure of Discordianism is that we pretend we're not baboons until something like the election comes along.  Then we jump right in with the humans and button our uniforms up until we can't breathe, pointing and gasping about everyone else's uniforms, while at the same time waving our inflamed baboon asses all over the place.  It is nothing more than assisted self-abuse, though at one time it was that AND some interesting stuff.  Like 7 years ago.  Sort of like the Church of the Subgenius, only 5 years later.

Discordianism is a pathetic joke, an excuse for assholes, and a means by which to pretend that we're not as dumb as THEM.

Politics is also a pathetic joke, for exactly the same reason.

I want nothing more to do with either one, really.  I may be here, but I'm done pretending that I'm anything more than just another dumb fucking ape flinging poo at the other dumb fucking apes.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on March 01, 2016, 06:35:53 am
If the the common food analogy for spiritual matters can be extended I see Discordianism as basically candy with drugs in it. It's not bread or meat or even fresh water, just concentrated sugar and unnatural additives wrapped up in a flashy package like a bag of Skittles.

It's not that it can't be USEFUL, fun, even amazing, but it's not real nourishment. For that you have to look for more and the one useful thing in Discordianism is if you dig deep you're going to find the stuff all the jokes were based on and those are "real food".

Now I think the problem with politics is that most folks don't have any such thing as nourished spirits and they're all crackhead crazy on the shit WORSE than Discordianism they get in their all-consuming "feed" these days. They're playing a sport without nutritive food in a sense.

I have no idea how to resolve the problem. This is just how I see it. This and I REALLY think that there is in fact an ontological cartel, probably several, in our world in full knowledge of the state of things and interested in keeping it profitable perpetually, no matter who they have to kill or what they have to destroy. I would like to think I'm wrong.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 04, 2016, 04:49:26 pm
I have no idea how to resolve the problem.

I used to think something had to be done to "resolve the problem" but then I realised nothing could be done. Either "the problem" resolves itself or it doesn't. Maybe it stays a "problem", maybe it gets worse but that's it, that's all it is - a problem.

Problems may or may not be solvable. If they're not solvable then the best one can hope to do is avoid them insofar as avoidance is possible.

The world may go up in smoke tomorrow. Unsolvable. Unavoidable. Game over. A situation entirely beyond my control. Furthermore, I may become dead, via any number of alternative fates. Buses, gas leaks, glitches in my dna-code, hostile dna-code.

Many people (the vast majority) who are not me, decide to buy into this - democratic pantomime, feelgood bullshit because, for that brief second they put an x in a box, they feel hope. They feel empowered. The politician stands on tv and tells them they have the power, he quotes the holy constitution and they believe in a bunch of dog and pony crap. Me? I see it as propaganda. Media induced hope.

So the stage is set, the actors are spewing trite, predictable one-liners, designed by the best scriptwriters in the country, to incite and enflame the passions of the audience. The audience will exercise their "power" and, finally, some will claim victory and other defeat.

A year from now, everything will be exactly the same, save for a new baddie to blame for everything that's wrong with the world.

Vote for change. Vote for a job. Vote for a career. Vote for a family. Vote for a fucking big television, vote for washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin can openers. Vote for good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Vote for fixed-interest mortgage repayments. Vote for a starter home. Vote for your friends. Vote for leisure wear and matching luggage. Vote for a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Vote for DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Vote for sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Vote for rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Vote for your future. Vote for life . . . But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to vote for life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got democracy?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on March 04, 2016, 05:33:55 pm
I have no idea how to resolve the problem.

I used to think something had to be done to "resolve the problem" but then I realised nothing could be done. Either "the problem" resolves itself or it doesn't. Maybe it stays a "problem", maybe it gets worse but that's it, that's all it is - a problem.

Problems may or may not be solvable. If they're not solvable then the best one can hope to do is avoid them insofar as avoidance is possible.

The world may go up in smoke tomorrow. Unsolvable. Unavoidable. Game over. A situation entirely beyond my control. Furthermore, I may become dead, via any number of alternative fates. Buses, gas leaks, glitches in my dna-code, hostile dna-code.

Many people (the vast majority) who are not me, decide to buy into this - democratic pantomime, feelgood bullshit because, for that brief second they put an x in a box, they feel hope. They feel empowered. The politician stands on tv and tells them they have the power, he quotes the holy constitution and they believe in a bunch of dog and pony crap. Me? I see it as propaganda. Media induced hope.

So the stage is set, the actors are spewing trite, predictable one-liners, designed by the best scriptwriters in the country, to incite and enflame the passions of the audience. The audience will exercise their "power" and, finally, some will claim victory and other defeat.

A year from now, everything will be exactly the same, save for a new baddie to blame for everything that's wrong with the world.

Vote for change. Vote for a job. Vote for a career. Vote for a family. Vote for a fucking big television, vote for washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin can openers. Vote for good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Vote for fixed-interest mortgage repayments. Vote for a starter home. Vote for your friends. Vote for leisure wear and matching luggage. Vote for a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Vote for DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Vote for sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Vote for rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Vote for your future. Vote for life . . . But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to vote for life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got democracy?

Fantastic.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on March 05, 2016, 03:48:44 am
For those still interested in this US election cycle, here’s a recent article by Professor Paul Krugman, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner in 2008:

“Clash of Republican Con Artists”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/opinion/clash-of-republican-con-artists.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3

It’s a short article, but in explaining the Republican cons Krugman writes, “Establishment Republicans denounce Mr. Trump as a fraud, which he is. But is he more fraudulent than the establishment trying to stop him? Not really.”

Further down Krugman writes, “… the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base. I’m talking about the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class.” (Bold print mine.)

I’m going to have to start paying more attention to Professor Krugman. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 05, 2016, 05:34:07 am
There are things I don't like about Clinton (she does not want to abolish the death penalty, for instance, and she is about on par with Obama in terms of supporting military aggression). However, I don't agree with the demonization she faces at all, and am somewhat baffled by how she ends up being deemed "evil" for at the time they were proposed verbally expressing support for bills, such as her husband's crime bill, which both she and Bernie have since denounced, but which Bernie actually voted for as a senator. I also frequently see her demonized for having been a Young Republican, despite the fact that the quote that is most often associated with that is one from her autobiography, in which she is describing her transformation from a sheltered little rich Republican white girl to a liberal civil rights activist -- hardly damning.

When she's not being blamed for things her husband did or for wearing an unfashionable pantsuit, most of the "Shillary is evul" propaganda seems to be lifted straight from Republican talking points without so much as a cursory attempt to fact check or look up context.

I know that a lot of people have fully absorbed the "Evil Witch Hillary" storyline, but to be honest, I like her. I think she's smart and strong and tough and the most honest politician in the Presidential race this year. I identify with her, because she has had to do a hard job while receiving the full brunt of American misogyny. Nothing she can do will buy her a reprieve from the category of personal insults reserved for people with vaginas. She has had to make shitty decisions and doesn't shy away from admitting when those decisions have been wrong. She is old, witty, hardass, liberal, and a woman, which is an unforgivable combination in America. Yet she has made it this far anyway, which bespeaks a level of political genius that has probably never been exceeded in an American President.

I don't think she supports the Socialist America I'd like to see, but I think she will do more of the kinds of things Obama has done, and more effectively. She doesn't make me afraid for the future. All the other candidates do.

Except for Bernie, because I find the disappointment of Utopian idealists delicious.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on March 06, 2016, 03:24:57 am
I always assumed Bill was just the pretty face of the Clinton Administration.  Hillary strikes me as far more competent when it comes to actually running things and Bill seems like he knows that so I assume she made most of the important decisions.  I really do not at all want a repeat of the Clinton administration.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 06, 2016, 04:04:15 am
I always assumed Bill was just the pretty face of the Clinton Administration.  Hillary strikes me as far more competent when it comes to actually running things and Bill seems like he knows that so I assume she made most of the important decisions.  I really do not at all want a repeat of the Clinton administration.

Of course, that's totally how it works. Sort of like how I'm a massage therapist and Alty is a neurobiologist. It's not like spouses are separate people who do their own jobs and have separate minds.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 06, 2016, 04:05:11 am
Barbara Bush is exactly the same person as George Sr., with all the same opinions.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 06, 2016, 06:28:14 am
Relevant: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on March 06, 2016, 05:25:53 pm
Worth a read: https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/trump-supporters-aren-t-stupid-3d38f70f2a2f#.a8qam8qnu
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 06, 2016, 07:14:54 pm
Worth a read: https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/trump-supporters-aren-t-stupid-3d38f70f2a2f#.a8qam8qnu

That was a really interesting read. It reminded me of Howard Zinn's writings on the deliberate creation of post-emancipation racism.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: N E T on March 06, 2016, 10:22:44 pm
Quote
One can assume that his model of a "compromising" politician is Hillary Clinton, who took $675,000 to give three speeches to [Goldman Sachs]. "Look, I make speeches to lots of groups," Hillary explained. "I told them what I thought."

Asked by Anderson Cooper if she needed to take $675,000 to tell Goldman what she "thought," Hillary shrugged. "I don't know," she said. "That's what they were offering."

Even more significant than the $675,000 Hillary took from Goldman, or the $30 million in speaking income she and her husband received combined in the last 16 months, is the account of what Hillary apparently told Goldman she "thought" during those speeches.

According to Politico, who spoke to several attendees, Hillary used the opportunity to tell the bankers in attendance that the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-tells-us-how-to-vote-20160205?page=2

Seeing how there is literally no new legislation to prevent bankers from wrecking the economy again, at least we will know that when the rich elite inevitably pull an even bigger stunt and ask for a bailout, it will be no surprise when Hillary has their back.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Brother Mythos on March 07, 2016, 05:05:00 am
Relevant: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/

That’s an interesting article.

I’m neither female, nor Generation X, but I also have a hard time liking HRC. I say that in spite of admiring her efforts on the Clinton Health Security Act of 1993, and the job she did as Secretary of State. (When compared to her predecessor, political hack Condolezza Rice, HRC’s job performance was stellar!) 

I’m not happy about her vote, as a US Senator, in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. But, I was among the minority of US citizens that opposed the war at the time Dubbya, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons and chickenhawks were busy selling their bill of goods. (Unfortunately, few people cared to listen to, let alone believe, what Hans Blix, the head of the UN’s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, had to say about WMDs.) Here, for what it’s worth, is a recent article where the author speculates on the reason for HRC’s senate vote:

“The Meeting That Never Was: One UN Weapons Inspector’s Effort to Educate Hillary Before Her Iraq Vote"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote_b_9350340.html
 
Nevertheless, the GOP’s “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” attacks never impressed me in the least bit. I don’t give a damn about her e-mail server, and I know from personal experience that the government’s “classified information” process is flawed. (For instance, I’ve come across manuals for an obsolete military computer system that were classified “Secret”. The flaw in the classification process is/was that anyone in the world with a checking account could have openly purchased that particular computer system, or just the system’s manuals, directly from the OEM at the time the system was brand new and on the market.) I don’t care how much money HRC has made, since leaving office, giving speeches, and I don’t particularly care what she said to the Wall Street cabal behind closed doors. 

I expect to be voting for HRC in the fall, and I don’t doubt she’ll do a respectable job as POTUS. Still, at this point in time, she’s one of those people I’d have to meet in person before finally deciding whether I like her or not.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on March 07, 2016, 09:37:21 pm
I am frustrated with the way the FBI is handling the e-mails thing.  If they are going to indict her I wish they would go ahead and do it, before she has the nomination locked down.  Constant noise about a possible indictment just makes me paranoid that they will hit her with it after she is the nominee, and then we end up with president Trump.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 07, 2016, 09:44:37 pm
I am frustrated with the way the FBI is handling the e-mails thing.  If they are going to indict her I wish they would go ahead and do it, before she has the nomination locked down.  Constant noise about a possible indictment just makes me paranoid that they will hit her with it after she is the nominee, and then we end up with president Trump.

The FBI and the DoJ have said - repeatedly - that there is no investigation and no promise of one.

The person saying there is, is the same person responsible for the creative editing of what Sanders said yesterday.

That man is Karl Rove, and millions of democrats on both sides of the primary are doing his work for him.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on March 07, 2016, 09:46:27 pm
Relevant: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/

That’s an interesting article.

I’m neither female, nor Generation X, but I also have a hard time liking HRC. I say that in spit of admiring her efforts on the Clinton Health Security Act of 1993, and the job she did as Secretary of State. (When compared to her predecessor, political hack Condolezza Rice, HRC’s job performance was stellar!) 

I’m not happy about her vote, as a US Senator, in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. But, I was among the minority of US citizens that opposed the war at the time Dubbya, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons and chickenhawks were busy selling their bill of goods. (Unfortunately, few people cared to listen to, let alone believe, what Hans Blix, the head of the UN’s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, had to say about WMDs.) Here, for what it’s worth, is a recent article where the author speculates on the reason for HRC’s senate vote:

“The Meeting That Never Was: One UN Weapons Inspector’s Effort to Educate Hillary Before Her Iraq Vote"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote_b_9350340.html
 
Nevertheless, the GOP’s “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” attacks never impressed me in the least bit. I don’t give a damn about her e-mail server, and I know from personal experience that the government’s “classified information” process is flawed. (For instance, I’ve come across manuals for an obsolete military computer system that were classified “Secret”. The flaw in the classification process is/was that anyone in the world with a checking account could have openly purchased that particular computer system, or just the system’s manuals, directly from the OEM at the time the system was brand new and on the market.) I don’t care how much money HRC has made, since leaving office, giving speeches, and I don’t particularly care what she said to the Wall Street cabal behind closed doors. 

I expect to be voting for HRC in the fall, and I don’t doubt she’ll do a respectable job as POTUS. Still, at this point in time, she’s one of those people I’d have to meet in person before finally deciding whether I like her or not.
I'm becoming more inclined to give her a fair shake.  Apart from the 2002 debacle, which is quite significantly determining, it's unclear to me exactly what detracts me from her.  This would usually indicate an uninformed/ignorant bias in my thinking.  In particular, I do not believe that I need to personally like the candidate, nor would I respect one simply seeking my approval.  What I think momentarily turned me off to her was my glib observation of how desperate she seemed to win.  Again, I would not want to give credence to such superficial assessments, however I think they may have played a role informing disposition toward her, initially.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2016, 03:11:04 pm
Things are looking good for Clinton.  Sanders is winning in many states, but not by enough to make the delegate split mean anything.  Clinton's had 3 wins in which she took home all the bacon.  It's still a race, but it's becoming obvious who is poised to win.  No surprise, Sanders IS the underdog candidate, and outside of bad Disney movies, the underdog is gonna lose.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2016, 03:53:01 pm
Thread is no longer about the tendency for dems to steal defeat.  Thread is now about the SGitR.

Carry on.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2016, 08:32:50 pm
I'd like a thread split, please.  Say, post 326.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on March 10, 2016, 12:03:33 am
Pundits seem to feel Sanders may have  chance after all, after the tie in Michigan
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2016, 12:37:57 am
Pundits seem to feel Sanders may have  chance after all, after the tie in Michigan

He needs to win about 63-66% of the vote in every single state from this point forward.

Looks like I'll be voting for Clinton in the general.  I've had happier thoughts, but she ain't in the fucking clown car full of Nazis, so...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on March 11, 2016, 07:37:42 am
I'd like a thread split, please.  Say, post 326.

Done, with relevant responses to the sub-conversation centered on post 326 split out as well so that those who wish to continue with that conversation may hopefully do so seamlessly.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 11, 2016, 09:23:25 am
The thought occurs that the aftermath of this election is going to be so much of a shitshow we can't even guess how funny it will get.

If Trump takes it, pundits will never want for work for their daily/weekly shows because something stupendous will drop out of him regularly. Republicans and democrats shit themselves and refuse to do anything constructive. 

If Hilary takes it, the same but with references to Clinton/Blowjobs. When attempting to do anything, Republicans and democrats shit themselves and refuse to do anything constructive.

So that would probably leave either fucking about with Foreign policy and you just know how well that will fucking go.

So Ha fucking Ha. At this rate I wouldn't be surprised with either starting to pull the ISIS card a lot more over the next few months.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 11, 2016, 01:19:24 pm
Last night's GOP debate was the scariest one yet, because they all suddenly looked... serious.

Still saying hate-filled, ignorant bullshit, but calmly.  One of those fuckers could win, couldn't they?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 11, 2016, 01:56:26 pm
I suspect Rubio's plea for Trump to recognise that "American" and "Muslim" are not mutually exclusive categories will lose him even more votes in Florida.  After California, Florida has the 2nd highest concentration of anti-Muslim hate groups in America (after California), and is of course the home state for Stormfront and Don Black.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 11, 2016, 05:39:36 pm
Last night's GOP debate was the scariest one yet, because they all suddenly looked... serious.

Still saying hate-filled, ignorant bullshit, but calmly.  One of those fuckers could win, couldn't they?

Yes.  Trump or Cruz.  I'm actually thinking Cruz.  His eschaton bullshit is really starting to go down with the crowd.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 11, 2016, 05:39:51 pm
I'd like a thread split, please.  Say, post 326.

Done, with relevant responses to the sub-conversation centered on post 326 split out as well so that those who wish to continue with that conversation may hopefully do so seamlessly.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 11, 2016, 05:58:33 pm
Last night's GOP debate was the scariest one yet, because they all suddenly looked... serious.

Still saying hate-filled, ignorant bullshit, but calmly.  One of those fuckers could win, couldn't they?

Yes.  Trump or Cruz.  I'm actually thinking Cruz.  His eschaton bullshit is really starting to go down with the crowd.

I think the party is falling apart.  Romney is pushing for a brokered convention....if that happens, all hell breaks loose.  If it doesn't...Trump or Cruz win, and all hell breaks loose anyway.

There is literally no good option from an RNC POV.  I'd almost feel sorry for them, if they weren't suffering from circumstances of their own devising.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 13, 2016, 04:13:07 am
Looks like Trump has secured the all important euphoric pop-scientist/navalgazer vote:

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/708817118150537216

Quote
People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Freeky on March 13, 2016, 04:41:30 am
Looks like Trump has secured the all important euphoric pop-scientist/navalgazer vote:

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/708817118150537216

Quote
People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump.

I just shouted at my computer for them to shut the fuck up.

THANKS OBAMA.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Aucoq on March 13, 2016, 05:59:56 am
I'm holding out hope that that's just a poorly phrased, spur of the moment tweet reacting to the embarrassing events at the Chicago Trump rally. Or his account was hacked.  :lol:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 13, 2016, 06:40:00 am
Looks like Trump has secured the all important euphoric pop-scientist/navalgazer vote:

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/708817118150537216

Quote
People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump.

 :lulz:

Although on some level I'm already burned out on American election bullshit, it does continue to deliver.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 13, 2016, 05:00:37 pm
Its about to get more fun than anyone possibly ever wanted.

Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies, and is speaking with his legal team about paying the fees to defend his supporter who helped start a brawl last night by sucker punching a protestor.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 13, 2016, 05:36:41 pm
Sorry, no, he's paying the legal fees of the guy who punched someone on Wednesday, my bad:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violent

Quote
n Wednesday, 26-year-old Rakeem Jones was being escorted out of a Donald Trump rally by security when John McGraw punched him in the face.

Jones was protesting the rally, which is why he was being escorted out by security to begin with. McGraw was charged with the assault. But he was unrepentant.

"He deserved it," McGraw told Inside Edition. "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization."

When Donald Trump was asked about the incident at CNN's debate Thursday night, he generally defended the attendees at his rallies. And on Sunday, he told Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press that he's "instructed (his) people to look into" paying McGraw's legal fees.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 13, 2016, 10:30:41 pm
Its about to get more fun than anyone possibly ever wanted.

Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies, and is speaking with his legal team about paying the fees to defend his supporter who helped start a brawl last night by sucker punching a protestor.

Wow.  This isn't at all Munich.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 13, 2016, 10:31:27 pm
What's particularly amusing about this is that Sanders isn't exactly the darling of the BLM crowd.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 13, 2016, 11:42:25 pm
Another thing:  I am a Sanders voter, but I will vote for whomever wins the democratic primary. I have had it up to HERE with utopian cunts who say they're staying home if Sanders loses the primary.

Seriously.  Clinton vs ACTUAL NAZIS.  THIS ISN'T CALCULUS.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 14, 2016, 12:38:47 am
Yeah, I saw that clown on your profile.  "Oh, but ze Clinton, she is zo HORRIBLE."

It's just like those idiots in the Reichstag, convinced their real enemies were the KPD and SPD.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2016, 02:57:11 am
Yeah, I saw that clown on your profile.  "Oh, but ze Clinton, she is zo HORRIBLE."

It's just like those idiots in the Reichstag, convinced their real enemies were the KPD and SPD.

Pretty much.

"If I can't have Hindenburg, fuck it, I'm for that Hitler dude.  At least he's not the establishment."
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Aucoq on March 14, 2016, 04:16:25 am
Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies,

While I understand the "an eye for an eye" mentality, if Trump wanted to play it smart he should lay low and accept this gift that Bernie's supporters are trying to give him. Right now they're casting him in a sympathetic light, another victim of (from the conservative perspective) the left's "tolerance." I've noticed even my most diehard anti-Trump conservative friends have softened to Trump (at least slightly) over what happened in Chicago. He's the lesser of two evils.  But if he retaliates in kind then he'll lose that sympathetic light.

But a plan that hinges on Trump playing it smart is no plan at all.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 14, 2016, 05:05:30 pm
Fortunately, Trump is more vindictive than smart.

Unfortunately, that probably wont prevent some idiots with guns turning up to a Sanders or BLM rally at some near point in the future.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2016, 05:23:48 pm
Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies,

While I understand the "an eye for an eye" mentality, if Trump wanted to play it smart he should lay low and accept this gift that Bernie's supporters are trying to give him.

Is there any evidence at all that the people showing up are Sanders supporters?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 15, 2016, 12:17:52 am
At least the bots support Hillary Clinton.  Sort of.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/comments/4aesip/john_cena_endorsed_hillary_claiming_that_hilary/

Quote
John Cena endorsed Hillary, claiming that Hilary is the only major candidate who did 9/11
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 15, 2016, 12:40:35 am
Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies,

While I understand the "an eye for an eye" mentality, if Trump wanted to play it smart he should lay low and accept this gift that Bernie's supporters are trying to give him.

Is there any evidence at all that the people showing up are Sanders supporters?

from what i hear a percentage of the protesters are carrying bernie sanders signs
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 15, 2016, 12:46:41 am
Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies,

While I understand the "an eye for an eye" mentality, if Trump wanted to play it smart he should lay low and accept this gift that Bernie's supporters are trying to give him.

Is there any evidence at all that the people showing up are Sanders supporters?

from what i hear a percentage of the protesters are carrying bernie sanders signs

The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/sanders-attacks-trump-vicious-campaign-chicago-backlash) has reported that is the case:

Quote
Signs in support of Sanders were visible around the protests in Chicago on Friday night, and the senator defended the protesters. “What our supporters are doing is responding to a candidate who has in fact in many ways encouraged violence,” he said.

Of course, there's a big difference between that and what Trump is claiming.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 15, 2016, 12:48:46 am
i think bernie is smart enough to realize that getting trump any media attention whatsoever will only help his cause and, therefore, has not been calling for protestors.

also - I've been watching Fox News non-stop for the last 4 months.  Ask me anything!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2016, 02:34:05 am
well, this is good and bad. 

Good, because they have the balls to scream at Nazis.

Bad, because Trump's goons will escalate this.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on March 15, 2016, 03:29:51 am
Meh, what's the worst that could...

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/trump-militia-forms-to-forcefully-protect-rally-goers-against-far-left-agitators/


Oh.

Sorry I asked.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Aucoq on March 15, 2016, 05:10:55 am
Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies,

While I understand the "an eye for an eye" mentality, if Trump wanted to play it smart he should lay low and accept this gift that Bernie's supporters are trying to give him.

Is there any evidence at all that the people showing up are Sanders supporters?

 MSNBC has an article on who organized the protests in Chicago and how they organized it, if you have some time to kill. (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-bernie-sanders-supporters-shut-down-donald-trump-rally-chicago)

Trump has threatened to send people to attack Sanders' rallies,

While I understand the "an eye for an eye" mentality, if Trump wanted to play it smart he should lay low and accept this gift that Bernie's supporters are trying to give him.

Is there any evidence at all that the people showing up are Sanders supporters?

from what i hear a percentage of the protesters are carrying bernie sanders signs

The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/sanders-attacks-trump-vicious-campaign-chicago-backlash) has reported that is the case:

Quote
Signs in support of Sanders were visible around the protests in Chicago on Friday night, and the senator defended the protesters. “What our supporters are doing is responding to a candidate who has in fact in many ways encouraged violence,” he said.

Of course, there's a big difference between that and what Trump is claiming.

I think I prefer Trump's version of reality, that Bernie is a shadowy puppet master ordering his brownshirts to do his bidding, just because it's such a hilarious idea.  I mean we're talking about Bernie fucking Sanders here, a man with the aggressive nature of a teddy bear.  What would that scenario look like?  "Listen, my friends.  Okay.  I want you to take these government subsidized baseball bats, okay?  Go to Trump's rally and break up his supporters' kneecaps like I'm going to break up these big banks once elected!  And don't hold back, okay?  Remember that once I'm elected they'll get free healthcare so go to town on them like I'll go to town on Wall Street!"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 15, 2016, 05:31:45 am
Apparently, Trump supporters believe George Soros is the mastermind behind the "attacks" on their rallies.  Because what's better than accusing one Jewish person of organising a shadowy conspiracy against you?  Accusing two of them!

Never mind that Soros supports Clinton, either.  JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 15, 2016, 07:14:28 am
So, someone suggested an interesting nightmare scenario to me.

Cleveland is a brokered convention.  Due to unrest at previous rallies and political events, the National Guard are put on alert for the convention.  The RNC decides Trump has gone too far and Cruz and Rubio are too unviable, and annoints Kasich as their nominee, as the only guy with a snowball in hell's chance against Clinton.

Trump supporters react predictably, start breaking shit.  The National Guard are called in.

We'd be looking at a situation where a Presidential nominee is using military force to suppress supporters of his chief rival, who arguably has greater democratic support.

It'd be legal.  But politically?  It'd be toxic as hell.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 15, 2016, 10:02:21 am
i've been considering attending the convention - just to watch the show.  it's be a long day's drive, but almost worth it.  maybe recoup some gas costs by selling popcorn

Trump/Sanders 2016!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2016, 02:57:02 am
well, that's about it for Sanders.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on March 16, 2016, 03:09:17 am
well, that's about it for Sanders.

Probably, though as a long-suffering Seattle sports fan I am accustomed to holding out hope until my team is flat-out mathematically eliminated. Still gonna caucus for him on the 26th. And hot damn, man, I never though I'd live to see any sort of real leftist political movement in America gain even a tiny bit of traction. Kind of gives me a tiny bit of hope for the future.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2016, 03:19:58 am
well, that's about it for Sanders.

Probably, though as a long-suffering Seattle sports fan I am accustomed to holding out hope until my team is flat-out mathematically eliminated. Still gonna caucus for him on the 26th. And hot damn, man, I never though I'd live to see any sort of real leftist political movement in America gain even a tiny bit of traction. Kind of gives me a tiny bit of hope for the future.

I'll still be voting for him on the 22nd, but my priority right now has changed to keeping the GOP out of the whitehouse.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on March 16, 2016, 07:40:55 am
Thankfully I live in WA so I am afforded the luxury of voting (or not voting) my conscience.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 16, 2016, 09:01:09 am
Rubio's done after losing Florida.  No surprises there.  Looks like Trump has cemented his lead over Cruz too...it's still not a done deal, 125 delegates isn't an insurmountable lead....but most of the polls for the remaining states seem to show wins for Trump.  Though some of those polls are pretty out of date, so Cruz may be able to take more at the margins...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 16, 2016, 09:43:00 am
I am increasingly surprised at each day that passes where no-one has managed to grab and/or steal Trump's wig.

If this doesn't occur soon it'll end up a significant historical relic like Washington's Teeth or Jackson's pimp cane.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 16, 2016, 11:42:47 am
Kasich sounds like he's going to hold on until the convention, as the "reasonable" alternative.

Won't it be funny when his ideas and track record gets vetted by the public?


"Well, at least he's not openly racist."
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 16, 2016, 12:03:55 pm
With Rubio gone, and Cruz not yet given some lithium meds, Kasich is the only "elite-approved" RNC friendly candidate now left in the race.

And so the likelihood of all hell breaking loose in Cleveland comes one step closer...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 16, 2016, 12:50:52 pm
The funny thing about voting early in the primaries is that you only get the initial pitch from the candidates, and can only witness from the wings what happens a month or so down the road.

Which is to say, Bernie's ideas about international trade don't have much economic evidence to back them up, and it sounds more and more like he's demagoguing.  I dunno, I feel you can still be a populist without resorting to truth-stretching.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2016, 05:47:08 pm
I've heard enough shit from my fellow Sanders voters concerning those of my family and friends who have instead opted for Clinton.  I won't tolerate that anymore than I tolerated Clinton fans making ridiculous comments about Sanders voters.

As such, I will not be voting in the primary on the 22nd.  Sorry, Senator Sanders.  It wasn't you, it was them.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 23, 2016, 02:05:58 pm
Jeb just endorsed Cruz for President.

Establishment getting behind the Zodiac Killer? 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 23, 2016, 03:17:28 pm
Jeb just endorsed Cruz for President.

Establishment getting behind the Zodiac Killer?

Jeb was, after all, tragically born without a sense of dignity.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 23, 2016, 03:33:02 pm
More wins for Trump and Clinton.

At least the upcoming attack ads should be amusing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 23, 2016, 04:13:26 pm
Apparently some fuckery at the polls in Arizona.  Same as Florida.  "Only republicans vote today", and, "sorry, mister life-long democrat, we have you down as an independent".

Not enough that it would have made any difference to the end result, mind you, but it's still fuckery.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 23, 2016, 04:41:41 pm
Yeah, definitely not cool
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 23, 2016, 07:20:00 pm
So, you say "There is Florida-style fuckery afoot in Arizona", and you MEAN that the GOP is actively suppressing votes.  But the kneejerk reaction is that you're saying Clinton's mob is doing it.   So suddenly you're a fascist, a closet Trump voter, an idiot and whatever the hell else comes to mind.  I have now been told by both sides where I stand in the party, which is specifically "outside the tent, behind the porta-potties."

I've now had it with both factions of the democratic party.  I hate all of them.  Each and every bastard who brought us to this.  Fuck the lot of you, right in your ear hole.  I'd rather burn down the entire joint than associate with either side.

It turns out I agree with Nigel on one thing in this election.  My vote is not owed to anyone.  So nobody is going to get it.  I don't give a fuck WHO wins the primary,or what the consequences of a dem loss in Novemeber may bring.  Everyone can eat the peanuts outta my shit.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 23, 2016, 07:46:47 pm
Even if you were saying Clinton was doing it...if there was evidence to support that, then what, you're just meant to keep your mouth shut and be a good little Dem, because Hillary is owed the entire Democratic vote or something?  Fuck that noise.

At this point, I think time may be better spent preparing for how to handle a Trump presidency. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 23, 2016, 07:51:22 pm
Even if you were saying Clinton was doing it...if there was evidence to support that, then what, you're just meant to keep your mouth shut and be a good little Dem, because Hillary is owed the entire Democratic vote or something?  Fuck that noise.

At this point, I think time may be better spent preparing for how to handle a Trump presidency.

I think time is better spent making popcorn and getting ready to yuk it up as we do what we seem to be compelled to do once a century or so.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on March 23, 2016, 08:10:18 pm
More wins for Trump and Clinton.

At least the upcoming attack ads should be amusing.

Yesterday was not a win for Clinton,  she won a bigger state, but he got more delegates in total.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2016, 08:25:14 pm
I just hope to someday get to a point in the political process where the majority of voters aren't getting their political information from memes, tweets, and clickbait articles from US Uncut and Daily News Bin.

But that's unlikely, so I guess I'll just hide in a lab and try to understand the downstream effects of prenatal stress until climate change kills the oceans and starts a trophic cascade that culminates in the extinction of all mammals.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 23, 2016, 08:31:20 pm
I just hope to someday get to a point in the political process where the majority of voters aren't getting their political information from memes, tweets, and clickbait articles from US Uncut and Daily News Bin.

But that's unlikely, so I guess I'll just hide in a lab and try to understand the downstream effects of prenatal stress until climate change kills the oceans and starts a trophic cascade that culminates in the extinction of all mammals.

USUncut headline version of this post: "Hillary voters in favour of climate change, extinction of mammals!"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 23, 2016, 08:32:41 pm
That's going to happen anyway.  There is no set of political solutions that will have any bearing on that.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2016, 08:36:12 pm
I just hope to someday get to a point in the political process where the majority of voters aren't getting their political information from memes, tweets, and clickbait articles from US Uncut and Daily News Bin.

But that's unlikely, so I guess I'll just hide in a lab and try to understand the downstream effects of prenatal stress until climate change kills the oceans and starts a trophic cascade that culminates in the extinction of all mammals.

USUncut headline version of this post: "Hillary voters in favour of climate change, extinction of mammals!"

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 24, 2016, 01:30:59 am
So, you say "There is Florida-style fuckery afoot in Arizona", and you MEAN that the GOP is actively suppressing votes.  But the kneejerk reaction is that you're saying Clinton's mob is doing it.   So suddenly you're a fascist, a closet Trump voter, an idiot and whatever the hell else comes to mind.  I have now been told by both sides where I stand in the party, which is specifically "outside the tent, behind the porta-potties."

I've now had it with both factions of the democratic party.  I hate all of them.  Each and every bastard who brought us to this.  Fuck the lot of you, right in your ear hole.  I'd rather burn down the entire joint than associate with either side.

It turns out I agree with Nigel on one thing in this election.  My vote is not owed to anyone.  So nobody is going to get it.  I don't give a fuck WHO wins the primary,or what the consequences of a dem loss in Novemeber may bring.  Everyone can eat the peanuts outta my shit.

Kinda sorta sounding like a certain breed of trump supporter here. 

I think of a vote for trump like a vote for Walter Peck.  Sure, Egon and Venkman were tight when they said shutting off the containment would be extraordinarily bad.  But Peck was like, "Shut these off.  Shut these all off. .

But the thing is, without Peck, we never would've got the staypuft marshmallow man. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2016, 01:41:17 am

Kinda sorta sounding like a certain breed of trump supporter here. 


Eat my entire ass, shitheels.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 24, 2016, 01:43:59 am
That's not a very nice thing to say at all...  Unless, of course, your ass is delicious
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2016, 01:47:41 am
That's not a very nice thing to say at all...  Unless, of course, your ass is delicious

My ass is like the filet mignon of rectums.

But you can take the Trump supporter comment and shove it up your oppositional-defiant ass, you fucked up little monkey.  I fucking hate you, in a non-humorous way.  Good night.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 24, 2016, 01:56:05 am
Good night.  .   . 


























Jerk
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2016, 01:57:53 am
You act like a complete shitbag to get the attention of a friend, you get the attention but not the friend.

I can't see myself ever taking you seriously again, given that you pull this shit like clockwork once every 6 months or so.

So it's not so much goodnight as "goodbye".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 24, 2016, 02:00:43 am
Whatev's














I voted for Bernie, you know. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2016, 02:01:19 am

I voted for Bernie, you know.

who cares?   :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2016, 02:01:36 am
Anyway, I'm gonna go see what I can fit in my ass.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 24, 2016, 02:02:28 am
We already know your head will fit
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2016, 02:05:06 am
"whatevs"

 :lol:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: rong on March 24, 2016, 02:15:14 am
"whatevs"

 :lol:
:motorcycle:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on March 24, 2016, 08:40:40 am
Even if you were saying Clinton was doing it...if there was evidence to support that, then what, you're just meant to keep your mouth shut and be a good little Dem, because Hillary is owed the entire Democratic vote or something?  Fuck that noise.

At this point, I think time may be better spent preparing for how to handle a Trump presidency.

I think time is better spent making popcorn and getting ready to yuk it up as we do what we seem to be compelled to do once a century or so.

I am strapped in and ready for the ride of a lifetime. In some ways it's going to be disappointing if we get a Clinton win and everyone manages to brush all the excitement off as high-spirits.

For another four years at least.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2016, 07:21:48 pm
Looks like National Enquirer is in the tank for the Donald.

This Cruz affair thing looks suspicious as fuck, especially when at least two of the women are identifably Katrina Pierson (aka Miss "Live Bullets Make for a Great Necklace" Trump spokeslady) and a staffer for Carly Fiorina.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2016, 09:15:55 pm
Looks like National Enquirer is in the tank for the Donald.

This Cruz affair thing looks suspicious as fuck, especially when at least two of the women are identifably Katrina Pierson (aka Miss "Live Bullets Make for a Great Necklace" Trump spokeslady) and a staffer for Carly Fiorina.

Yeah, I didn't believe Squiggy could get any strange ass myself, but I am not in the business of helping Nazis.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2016, 09:30:48 pm
Nazis lying about Nazis.

I'll be interested to see if this actually has any impact though.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2016, 09:37:22 pm
Nazis lying about Nazis.

I'll be interested to see if this actually has any impact though.

Remember Ernst Rohm?  Neither do I.

And naw, Cruz has no chance at all anyway.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 26, 2016, 12:43:46 am
A lady in a group I'm in posted this article and stated her response better than I ever could have:

http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-allows-sanders-supporters-to-say-theyll-never-vote-for-clinton/

Quote
This means that for those who are socially vulnerable, or would be under a GOP presidency are voting for their safety, their livelihoods, their health, or even possibly their lives. For them, the notion of 'bernieorbust' is unthinkable. It is only people who have a reasonable expectation of being able to ride out a GOP administration unscathed that have the luxury of sticking their noses in the air and wasting their vote. Yes, one should vote their conscience, but unless that conscience includes how your vote impacts others, you are being self-absorbed and privileged.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 03:18:42 am
what's really awesome is being told "the voters reflect on the candidate" or words to that effect.

Until you agree and say that you aren't voting for either candidate, no matter who wins the primary, because both candidates are supported by an ocean of digbags and useless partisan shitheads who can't agree long enough to outsmart Donald fucking Trump.

THEN you're "privileged", because the whole point of the FIRST exercise is that the voters reflect on any candidate as long as that candidate is not Hillary Clinton.

There are no standards or principles here, just expedience.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 03:24:33 am
Not that there isn't a level of privilege.  My kids, I found out a few years back, ARE Canadian citizens, are of age, and can fuck off whenever they like.  So can Jenn and I.  Hell, I wouldn't even have to change jobs.  I'd be more likely to stay, though, because a party is a party.

But if you think I'd for one minute regret what happens to people who already hold me in contempt, I'm just gonna have to laugh for a minute and then go back to not giving a shit.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 01:01:08 pm
A lady in a group I'm in posted this article and stated her response better than I ever could have:

http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-allows-sanders-supporters-to-say-theyll-never-vote-for-clinton/

Quote
This means that for those who are socially vulnerable, or would be under a GOP presidency are voting for their safety, their livelihoods, their health, or even possibly their lives. For them, the notion of 'bernieorbust' is unthinkable. It is only people who have a reasonable expectation of being able to ride out a GOP administration unscathed that have the luxury of sticking their noses in the air and wasting their vote. Yes, one should vote their conscience, but unless that conscience includes how your vote impacts others, you are being self-absorbed and privileged.

I'm really not sure about that piece. The author is clearly voting democrat, regardless of the eventual candidate. That's fine.

What isn't fine by me is the argument through fear because the other side's guy will be worse. Now while that may obviously be the case, it doesn't really excuse the fact that I consider all candidates at present to be a little shitty to say the least. Elections have been about picking the "least worst option" for far too long. And it often happens and the inevitable results are never anticipated. Remember the Obama run up and inital year? Huge optimism despite consistently being given reasons not to be. I'm not exactly sure what the real day-to day impact of Obamacare has on the US but it's rare to hear anything good about it. When you starting talking about his various fuck arounds with Drones, it gets grim quickly.

I can't see any of the potential candidates being less averse to using drones. I'd suspect that Clinton and Trump would have fleets commissioned in short order after taking power.

How about NSA/CIA agency related issues? Does anyone think that any of the current candidates will do anything remotely positive in this area? Again, I'd guess who-ever takes over will gladly throw more money down the pit because they've got no fucking choice. Or they'll do it gladly without seeing any problems.

Pulling the "Vote for democrats because the republicans will be worse" is a shitty, shitty argument, particularly when I can see no real evidence of things being "better" under democrats. 



The other side of this is the constant reference to "campaign promises". Until election manifestos are in some way contractually binding, these things mean precisely shit. It would surprise no-one if the person elected took over and just did the complete opposite of what they promised. I'd even expect them to do exactly that. I could write pages here but lets cut it down to Gitmo is still operating despite promises. And due to all the attention and bullshit around Trump + Co. No-one even gives a shit any more. When was the last time you heard anyone talk about waterboarding? Exactly. There was more vague bullshit in late feb about Obama wanting to clear it out but this seemed unlikely with a republican congress. So the shitshow there will continue unabated.

There's also this:

Quote
If you’re reviling Clinton for campaign contributions made by banks, but did not revile Barack Obama for the same thing, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.

At this point, the author needs to take a long drink of "Go fuck yourself". Clinton, in common with all candidates is part of the wonderful cycle of donations and lobbyists that make the entire political process in the US a fucking joke. All candidates have taken money from questionable sources. Some are worse than others. Highlighting only banks here is just stupid, the issue is there are a massive number of firms that make significant, equal, donations to BOTH sides. You should be disgusted with them taking the fucking bribes in the first place not concerned with who else did it or what sector they came from. Bribes from Pharmaceutical companies are not magically more ethical than bribes from Wall street. 

When all candidates are shitty and untrustworthy, is it worth the effort to vote? When all candidates are likely to do exactly the same things and continue existing policies, is there any fucking point in it either?
 
Don't worry too much, we get to do this all again in a few years and pretend that everything would have been totally different and much Better/Worse under the other guy.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on March 29, 2016, 01:19:34 pm
You don't hear anything good about Obamacare because people like it that way. It's still far away from what I want, but the fact is that it's better than before.

And I'm not sure you appreciate the threat that yahoos pose when they see that "their guy" has got the big job, so now they can get to work "making America great again." And all the horrors that entails.

Clinton will piss people off (and who won't?), but Trump will embolden fascists.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 29, 2016, 01:42:16 pm
I have lots of privilege.  I mean, LOTS.  White, college grad, upper tax bracket, male, good family, etc.


It occurred to me a few weeks ago that regardless of who is president or who is in congress, I probably wouldn't see any major ill effects on my life.  And so, functionally speaking in a selfish, Randian sort of way, it doesn't really matter who I vote for, or if I vote at all.

But that would make me a really shitty human.  I consciously voted for the candidate and the party that would raise my taxes in the primary.  And I'll eagerly vote against the party that has decided to fuck over more than half the country.  Because fuck those guys.

There is no balanced equivalence between the two parties.  On one side you have a moderate leftist versus a leftist moderate; on the other side you have the closest I've seen to Godwin's Law made manifest in my lifetime.  To hold an ideology that declares that holding out for one guy is more important than letting tinted tube of hemorrhoid cream with a fuzzy applicator tip Trump take the wheel is really, really fucking stupid.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 01:53:01 pm
Well, by that token wouldn't Clinton also embolden fascists? Their guy lost, probably due to (insert conspiracy) so let's go and act the arse. You'll get bullshit with idiots and racists regardless of the victor, I can't honestly say that it would be better or worse under either. The Obama terms have hardly been free from racial events. While I can't exactly level the blame at Obama, it didn't really seem like fascists were cowed and hiding.

So a Trump win would make rednecks go crazy. Crazier. So obviously a Clinton win will make them into perfect citizens, right? There's no chance that they'll act like a gang of arseholes, regardless, right? 


Wankers act like wankers, they need little excuse. Who-ever wins there will always be some cretin shouting about militas and the evils of gubment. Until your presidential candidates stop taking bribes from the NRA idiots will be able to walk around armed and cause problems. But you can't mention anything negative about guns if you want to be president.


It just really looks and feels like another stage of the two man con to me.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 29, 2016, 02:30:34 pm
The point is, under Clinton you won't have Muslims being denied entry to America for their religion, or Mexican immigrants (as well as, almost certainly, a shit-ton of Latin-Americans who are citizens) being mass-deported.  You won't have a DHS that is afraid to move against far-right political violence and terrorism (Clinton saw enough of that, first time around when her husband was President, to not have much patience with such groups).  You won't have yahoo police captains thinking their day has come and escalating their violence against black American even further than it is already has, because President Trump has their back and everyone from the White House down "knows" BLM is a front for the New Black Panthers.  You won't have Sikhs suffering from being mistaken for Muslims and thus accused of "sneaking into the country" before getting beaten to death as ISIS infiltrators.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 29, 2016, 02:32:22 pm
You seem to be talking about knock-on effects about how the people will act.  But what about the knock-on effects about who's in power?  When President Trump or Cruz nominates someone to the right of Scalia for the Supreme Court?  When all the people not voting out of protest leave the House and Senate in the hands of the GOP, again?  When (even more) Anti-LGBT laws become federal statutes?  When the income gap stretches out even wider?  When the national minimum wage laws become maximum wage laws?  When internment camps for immigrants become permanent detainment structures?

Ok, those last two may be a stretch, but with a president Cruz or Trump, its a lot more probable.  But I don't see a president Clinton doing anything that horrible.


[EDIT: Cain just said it better.]
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 02:53:27 pm
I wish I could share your optimism, but it seems a little misplaced. I can't realistically see anyone inclined to curb the income gap for example. Not in a way that doesn't allow the wealthy to avoid/benefit from any such laws enacted.

While Trump would obviously make things worse, I'm struggling to see Clinton making anything better. Who-ever wins, it's quite likely that there will be a huge racially related news story within the first 3 months for sure. While Clinton may address the problem in a more palatable way, I can't see her crippling the X to prison pipelines or removing bullshit search and seizure laws. Or any significant change in law that is an actual progressive move. The Sheriff Joes will continue as normal regardless of who is in control. And as long as you have Sheriff Joes, you'll get a whole heap of unjust racist bullshit.

A change of president does not mean that all the idiot TSA/Border agents/what-have-you's will suddenly just stop their shit. With a republican in charge it may get worse. With a democrat in charge, I'd say it's likely to stay the same, at best.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 02:58:11 pm
As an aside, I would love to be proven wrong and have Clinton works miracles and fix all manner of social ills.

I just think it's massively unrealistic to expect any of that from anyone. I also doubt any of the candidates are particularly inclined to do so. After all, the revenue streams are mutual.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 29, 2016, 04:14:09 pm
It's sort of like proving a negative.  If Clinton wins, you can only speculate what horrible manner of shit the current crop of GOP candidates would have done. 

I ask myself, "is it more probable than not Trump or Cruz would do something spectacularly disastrous as president as opposed to Clinton?"

I find the answer to be yes.

And to belabor a point, boycotting the election means not casting votes for local and state races as well as the presidential.  Which maintains the current conservative status quo.

To combine both our viewpoints, I wonder if anyone has suggested not voting in the presidential race, but still voting local and state?  Because to me, that's a tad more ideologically acceptable.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 04:40:24 pm

But that would make me a really shitty human.

Yeah, well, guilty as charged.  I hate the electorate, damn near everyone to be honest.   I don't see any fucking reason to jump in the shit pit.  Especially when both factions on "my side" spend all day telling me what a total shitburger, racist, corporate whore, whatever, I must be if I am interested in the other faction.  So fuck it.  I have no use for them, and they will just have to live without my .000000001% of the decision.  This goes for both Hillary Clinton's faction and Bernie Sanders' faction.  A plague on everyone's house.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 29, 2016, 04:41:36 pm

But that would make me a really shitty human.

Yeah, well, guilty as charged.  I hate the electorate, damn near everyone to be honest.   I don't see any fucking reason to jump in the shit pit.  Especially when both factions on "my side" spend all day telling me what a total shitburger, racist, corporate whore, whatever, I must be if I am interested in the other faction.  So fuck it.  I have no use for them, and they will just have to live without my .000000001% of the decision.  This goes for both Hillary Clinton's faction and Bernie Sanders' faction.  A plague on everyone's house.


To be clear, I am not calling you a shitty human.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 04:43:03 pm

But that would make me a really shitty human.

Yeah, well, guilty as charged.  I hate the electorate, damn near everyone to be honest.   I don't see any fucking reason to jump in the shit pit.  Especially when both factions on "my side" spend all day telling me what a total shitburger, racist, corporate whore, whatever, I must be if I am interested in the other faction.  So fuck it.  I have no use for them, and they will just have to live without my .000000001% of the decision.  This goes for both Hillary Clinton's faction and Bernie Sanders' faction.  A plague on everyone's house.


To be clear, I am not calling you a shitty human.

I got that part.  :lol:

But you are a bit of an outlier in that regard.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on March 29, 2016, 05:03:31 pm
That seems so insulting, vote or don't for whomever you want. That's your personal contract and voice within society and calling it a privilege is one of the most disgusting things I can think of, you said it before: A privilege is something that can be withdrawn. Voting is a right, which had to be fought for, telling someone there is personally something wrong with them for exercising that right to me seems defeating of the purpose of the exercise: Why vote at all, we will pick the right candidate for you.

The lack of selection does limit the scope of that expression but thats not an argument to vote for the least-worst-candidate, thats an indicator of a need for full reform.

Not to harp on with comparisons to here but we just had our election...
In Ireland we have had one of the odder outcomes of what can come of a multi party system: the distribution of votes has been almost equal to all parties, none able to form a government without going into power with at least two of its rivals.

In fact some parties are deliberately trying to stay out of government despite having slightly higher numbers because they will be destroyed when the next election comes. Its cool because what the people have effectively said to the lot is "fuck you" and its resulted in a paralysed government that even if it forms will be unable to pass any kind of contentious issue (for better or worse).
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 05:06:32 pm
That seems so insulting, vote or don't for whomever you want. That's your personal contract and voice within society and calling it a privilege is one of the most disgusting things I can think of, you said it before: A privilege is something that can be withdrawn. Voting is a right, which had to be fought for, telling someone there is personally something wrong with them for exercising that right to me seems defeating of the purpose of the exercise: Why vote at all, we will pick the right candidate for you.

That's how American politics IS, this time around.  The tea party ate everything, on both sides of the aisle.  So now you have to be "pure" enough, or you're just another shitlord.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 05:26:50 pm
Quote
To combine both our viewpoints, I wonder if anyone has suggested not voting in the presidential race, but still voting local and state?  Because to me, that's a tad more ideologically acceptable.

This is interesting. The presidential race gets a lot of focus due to the nature of the role. However day to day life is probably affected by the local/state laws far more frequently. Or instances where the power of the state is in question to the power of the federal government (Pot laws for instance. No more needs said)

Candidates at these levels are typically far more moderate regardless of affiliation. Some may even be human beings, statistically speaking.

This makes me think that the office of president should probably take a bit of a knock in terms of power to reduce any president to a figurehead and little more. It's arguably been quite a while since a "good" president, so why bother with it if the only people who get the job are fuckups? It would allow the public to just elect who-ever with little real consequence beyond quality of meaningless soundbites. Trump can rant all he wants provided he has no power to actually do anything as far as I'm concerned. Same goes for any other candidate, really.


And for the record, Roger may or may not being a shitty human is not up for debate due to irrelevance. The committee is currently in session  to determine the quality of his lizardness.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 05:45:19 pm

And for the record, Roger may or may not being a shitty human is not up for debate due to irrelevance. The committee is currently in session  to determine the quality of his lizardness.

Brothers and sisters, I have a scheme...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on March 29, 2016, 07:10:38 pm
This has seriously been the worst election cycle in my lifetime. And we still have 5 more months of this shit. I'm exhausted, I've poisoned relationships with family members that I thought were always going to be there, I've been in no fewer than three heated arguments with the husband, who can't even goddamn vote shut the fuck up already, my kids are genuinely afraid for their future and asking me about the separation of powers and how impeachment works. Fuck all this shit straight to hell.

I'm gonna vote, but I may just write in a big middle finger for the presidency if this keeps up much longer. I'm in a solid blue state, my vote in the general doesn't mean dick anyway.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 07:15:31 pm

And for the record, Roger may or may not being a shitty human is not up for debate due to irrelevance. The committee is currently in session  to determine the quality of his lizardness.

Brothers and sisters, I have a scheme...

...Of black children, and white children slaving away in our glorious swamps providing free range food for all lizard-kind.

I'm calling campaign manager. Can't beat 'em, collaborate with them.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 07:24:23 pm

And for the record, Roger may or may not being a shitty human is not up for debate due to irrelevance. The committee is currently in session  to determine the quality of his lizardness.

Brothers and sisters, I have a scheme...

...Of black children, and white children slaving away in our glorious swamps providing free range food for all lizard-kind.

I'm calling campaign manager. Can't beat 'em, collaborate with them.

That's what I'm talking about.  If you can't stick to glass, you're an ass.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 07:25:30 pm
This has seriously been the worst election cycle in my lifetime. And we still have 5 more months of this shit. I'm exhausted, I've poisoned relationships with family members that I thought were always going to be there, I've been in no fewer than three heated arguments with the husband, who can't even goddamn vote shut the fuck up already, my kids are genuinely afraid for their future and asking me about the separation of powers and how impeachment works. Fuck all this shit straight to hell.

I'm gonna vote, but I may just write in a big middle finger for the presidency if this keeps up much longer. I'm in a solid blue state, my vote in the general doesn't mean dick anyway.

Yep.  That is precisely my feeling on the subject.  Spot on.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on March 29, 2016, 07:33:19 pm
This has seriously been the worst election cycle in my lifetime. And we still have 5 more months of this shit. I'm exhausted, I've poisoned relationships with family members that I thought were always going to be there, I've been in no fewer than three heated arguments with the husband, who can't even goddamn vote shut the fuck up already, my kids are genuinely afraid for their future and asking me about the separation of powers and how impeachment works. Fuck all this shit straight to hell.

I'm gonna vote, but I may just write in a big middle finger for the presidency if this keeps up much longer. I'm in a solid blue state, my vote in the general doesn't mean dick anyway.

Yep.  That is precisely my feeling on the subject.  Spot on.

I swear to Zod the next person who says they'd rather have Trump because "at least it'd be INTERESTING" I am revoking their goddamned breathing privileges.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 07:36:39 pm

In fact some parties are deliberately trying to stay out of government despite having slightly higher numbers because they will be destroyed when the next election comes. Its cool because what the people have effectively said to the lot is "fuck you" and its resulted in a paralysed government that even if it forms will be unable to pass any kind of contentious issue (for better or worse).

So what has been the general result to actual day to day life? I'm guessing people have noticed but I have no idea of actual impact. I imagine most things are ticking along relatively well and public pressure will probably force any immediate issues. The water still fucked there?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 29, 2016, 07:39:55 pm

And for the record, Roger may or may not being a shitty human is not up for debate due to irrelevance. The committee is currently in session  to determine the quality of his lizardness.

Brothers and sisters, I have a scheme...

...Of black children, and white children slaving away in our glorious swamps providing free range food for all lizard-kind.

I'm calling campaign manager. Can't beat 'em, collaborate with them.

That's what I'm talking about.  If you can't stick to glass, you're an ass.

That's the most electable slogan I've heard in this entire cycle.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on March 29, 2016, 08:03:42 pm

In fact some parties are deliberately trying to stay out of government despite having slightly higher numbers because they will be destroyed when the next election comes. Its cool because what the people have effectively said to the lot is "fuck you" and its resulted in a paralysed government that even if it forms will be unable to pass any kind of contentious issue (for better or worse).

So what has been the general result to actual day to day life? I'm guessing people have noticed but I have no idea of actual impact. I imagine most things are ticking along relatively well and public pressure will probably force any immediate issues. The water still fucked there?
Too soon to notice much, the president was the one leading all the 1916 centenary celebrations though which was really nice. Looks like Irish Water will be abolished or scaled back massively because most of the people who got in are the ones who said they would get rid of it.
But otherwise yeah, month without a ruling government and things are fine.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 08:35:30 pm
Well, I spent the last half hour climbing out of the adit, and in that solitude it occurred to me that I still have three reasons - which I am not here to discuss- that I have for holding my nose and going to vote for whomever the dem candidate is.  So I guess I gotta.

Doesn't mean I have to be pals with any of their shitbag fanatical partisans, though, and it most assuredly means I don't have to forgive and/or forget a Goddamn thing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 10:22:26 pm
Gotta say, I'm amused at Clinton's staff geek saying she won't debate until Sanders "changes his tone", which I gather means "stop complaining when Clinton runs over on the clock and then interrupts you."

Which brings to mind Trump not debating unless Meghan Kelly stopped being mean.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on March 29, 2016, 10:38:46 pm
Well, I spent the last half hour climbing out of the adit, and in that solitude it occurred to me that I still have three reasons - which I am not here to discuss- that I have for holding my nose and going to vote for whomever the dem candidate is.  So I guess I gotta.

Doesn't mean I have to be pals with any of their shitbag fanatical partisans, though, and it most assuredly means I don't have to forgive and/or forget a Goddamn thing.

I've done my best to stop listening to supporters on both sides since the MA primaries.  Like, I can plainly see which party I'm going to go with  in November, so it doesn't really bother me which one gets it.  Though it's gonna be a tough road for Bernie.  But who knows?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2016, 10:45:35 pm
Well, I spent the last half hour climbing out of the adit, and in that solitude it occurred to me that I still have three reasons - which I am not here to discuss- that I have for holding my nose and going to vote for whomever the dem candidate is.  So I guess I gotta.

Doesn't mean I have to be pals with any of their shitbag fanatical partisans, though, and it most assuredly means I don't have to forgive and/or forget a Goddamn thing.

I've done my best to stop listening to supporters on both sides since the MA primaries.  Like, I can plainly see which party I'm going to go with  in November, so it doesn't really bother me which one gets it.  Though it's gonna be a tough road for Bernie.  But who knows?

Doesn't really matter.  I have concluded that my responsibility begins and ends with keeping Nazis out of the white house.

After that I don't care. 

1.  Nazis out.
2.  Misanthropy in high gear.
3. ???
4.  Profit.

I despise the right because they are evil.  I despise almost everyone else because they are stupid.  I don't mean the kind of stupid everyone does, like locking the keys in the car.  I mean the kind of stupid that comes from eating paint chips or doing bath salts.  I am a giant ball of hate right now, and I really do think there's enough coming out the back of me to go around.  There are three people that are behind Hugh on the general forgiveness list.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 30, 2016, 07:40:37 am
I'm gonna vote, but I may just write in a big middle finger for the presidency if this keeps up much longer.

Like a joke candidate, or an actual moddle finger drawn on the ballot?

(And if a joke candidate, who do you favor? Vermin Supreme? Incitatus (Caligula's horse)? "Yo mama"?

EDIT:
Of course it could be argued that Trump is every bit as ridiculous a candidate as Incitatus or Vermin Supreme
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 30, 2016, 10:36:05 am
I wish I could share your optimism, but it seems a little misplaced. I can't realistically see anyone inclined to curb the income gap for example. Not in a way that doesn't allow the wealthy to avoid/benefit from any such laws enacted.

While Trump would obviously make things worse, I'm struggling to see Clinton making anything better. Who-ever wins, it's quite likely that there will be a huge racially related news story within the first 3 months for sure. While Clinton may address the problem in a more palatable way, I can't see her crippling the X to prison pipelines or removing bullshit search and seizure laws. Or any significant change in law that is an actual progressive move. The Sheriff Joes will continue as normal regardless of who is in control. And as long as you have Sheriff Joes, you'll get a whole heap of unjust racist bullshit.

A change of president does not mean that all the idiot TSA/Border agents/what-have-you's will suddenly just stop their shit. With a republican in charge it may get worse. With a democrat in charge, I'd say it's likely to stay the same, at best.

The point is, under Trump, or a lesser extent other Republicans, the ways it will get worse will almost certainly impact on ethnic minorities more than it will on white Americans.

However unpalatably phrased parts of that opinion piece may be, I think that is pretty unarguable. Clinton isn't exactly an ideal President either, but the point is, she's not the one currently arguing all Muslims need to be banned from the USA, or that Mexicans are rapists and murderers.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 30, 2016, 10:46:52 am
Well, I spent the last half hour climbing out of the adit, and in that solitude it occurred to me that I still have three reasons - which I am not here to discuss- that I have for holding my nose and going to vote for whomever the dem candidate is.  So I guess I gotta.

Doesn't mean I have to be pals with any of their shitbag fanatical partisans, though, and it most assuredly means I don't have to forgive and/or forget a Goddamn thing.

Yeah, the partisans are why I have to hold my nose while voting for Labour in this country.  Any look at how Labour supporters conduct affairs among themselves is...well, it's like that quote which compares law-making to sausages.  Only in this case, laws aren't even being made.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on March 30, 2016, 01:33:08 pm
I'm gonna vote, but I may just write in a big middle finger for the presidency if this keeps up much longer.

Like a joke candidate, or an actual moddle finger drawn on the ballot?

(And if a joke candidate, who do you favor? Vermin Supreme? Incitatus (Caligula's horse)? "Yo mama"?

EDIT:
Of course it could be argued that Trump is every bit as ridiculous a candidate as Incitatus or Vermin Supreme

A literal middle finger. My normal "I don't really like the democrat" strategy is to vote for a third party just to keep needling the system, but really fuck 2016.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2016, 02:52:03 am
DOO BEE DOO BEE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/bernie-sanders-left-dc-primary-ballot-after-democr/

Quote
Because of an error by the D.C. Democratic Party, Sen. Bernard Sanders‘ name is not on the ballot, according to a report by WRC-TV, the local NBC affiliate.

Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork, but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline.

The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders‘ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders‘ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested.

Confusion appeared to reign late Wednesday over just what happened and whether it could be fixed.

D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 31, 2016, 09:08:04 am
Meanwhile, Trump has gone from "Planned Parenthood does some good things" to "women who get abortions should be criminally prosecuted" to "doctors who perform abortions should be prosecuted, not women" in the space of about 6 hours.

Unless it's changed again since I slept.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on March 31, 2016, 10:29:29 am
Is it a case of he's trying to offend everyone, or trying to appeal to everyone by giving each possible answer to the same question.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 31, 2016, 12:05:35 pm
I'm beginning to think I've completely underestimated Trump or whoever is behind him. I figured he was just another bog standard nazi fuckhead but he's managing to surgically appeal to every fuckhead position on every divisive issue facing the semi-sentient majority of the US electorate. Dumb white fuckers love him cos he says he hates the blacks, dumb black fuckers love him cos (in the same sentence) he says he hates the whites. His fans have such tunnel vision, they only hear the small percentage of his words that align with the opinions the media gave them.

Meanwhile the intelligent minority are scratching their heads and wondering what the fuck. They are meaningless in an election. It's the idiots who decide who shills for corporate for the next term.

He's not stupid - he's the perfect democracy exploit!  :eek:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 31, 2016, 12:19:52 pm
Is it a case of he's trying to offend everyone, or trying to appeal to everyone by giving each possible answer to the same question.

It's hard to say, because a lot of his supporters can't give coherent reasons as to why they support him.

I realise Reddit may not be the best place to do this kind of "research", but I read the pro-Trump forum there, /r/The_Donald.  People will say in one breath that they like him because of his integrity and outsider status, then dismiss his comments on abortion because he's just trying to pander to traditional Republicans, and it doesn't matter anyway as Trump is entitled to his beliefs.

It's actually really bizarre to watch.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on March 31, 2016, 02:41:52 pm
Is it a case of he's trying to offend everyone, or trying to appeal to everyone by giving each possible answer to the same question.

It's hard to say, because a lot of his supporters can't give coherent reasons as to why they support him.

I realise Reddit may not be the best place to do this kind of "research", but I read the pro-Trump forum there, /r/The_Donald.  People will say in one breath that they like him because of his integrity and outsider status, then dismiss his comments on abortion because he's just trying to pander to traditional Republicans, and it doesn't matter anyway as Trump is entitled to his beliefs.

It's actually really bizarre to watch.

Cognitive dissonance in action. It does seem to get a little worse every cycle.

I do get what you're saying about the likely impact of Trump of various people compared to Clinton, I'm just quite sceptical that she'll amount to much better, really. I suppose there's a degree of paranoia that she may push comparable/worse policies with the justification of "Trump wanted to go much further. This is a reasonable compromise"

How much actual power does the President actually have?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on March 31, 2016, 03:08:43 pm
Over domestic policy?  They're constrained to an extent by Congress, but through appointments and the bully pulpit they can shape outcomes.  Congress is currently Republican controlled, but extremely unpopular.

Over foreign policy?  Practically limitless below the nuclear war threshold.  The Senate confirms Ambassadors after they are appointed by the President, but the President has huge discretion over foreign affairs, military deployments etc.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on March 31, 2016, 04:20:16 pm
It's sort of like proving a negative.  If Clinton wins, you can only speculate what horrible manner of shit the current crop of GOP candidates would have done. 

I ask myself, "is it more probable than not Trump or Cruz would do something spectacularly disastrous as president as opposed to Clinton?"

I find the answer to be yes.

And to belabor a point, boycotting the election means not casting votes for local and state races as well as the presidential.  Which maintains the current conservative status quo.

To combine both our viewpoints, I wonder if anyone has suggested not voting in the presidential race, but still voting local and state?  Because to me, that's a tad more ideologically acceptable.

That's what I've been doing since 1996. Only time I've cast a presidential vote since then was for Obama in '08 but that was just me going and turning in my dad's ballot because he was too sick to do it himself. But yeah, who's on the school board or the county council has WAY more effect on my daily life than which suit is currently taking all the money in DC.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on March 31, 2016, 04:27:55 pm
I have also long been of the opinion that we'd be better off if we were one of those countries that splits its foreign and domestic agendas between a president and a prime minister.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on April 01, 2016, 01:06:35 pm
It's probably been mentioned in the thread, but have we looked at candidates media links yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/03/04/fox-newss-bill-oreilly-embarrasses-self-colleagues-country-in-post-debate-debacle/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandomuk_3_na

Quote
To be precise, the idiocy started at 11:02 p.m.: “I don’t know who this guy — he’s been following me around all day. Now look, we’re standing mano a mano here, you’re not gonna be taller than me,” said O’Reilly alongside Trump. Whatever that was supposed to mean. Lame, vacuous, inside-softball questions ensued — about Mitt Romney’s speech hammering Trump — “You think he’s a phony?” O’Reilly asked — and about Hillary Clinton. All the sort dialogue you’d expect O’Reilly and Trump, who are longtime friends, to enjoy over a pair of vanilla milkshakes.

Quote
Shallow, Trump-centric questions continued into an O’Reilly chat with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who deserves a Fox News medal for sitting patiently through insulting interviews. For example, O’Reilly said, “The Trump phenomenon seems to have changed politics. Would you say it has changed it?” Another: “Do you believe that if Trump is the nominee in Cleveland, he gets his butt kicked by Hillary Clinton?” Another: “How would Hillary Clinton with all the scandal surrounding her . . . why couldn’t Trump convince all these people to go with him and not her?” Another: “Do you think Donald Trump’s an honest man?”

I'm sure you're shocked about the standards of journalism here.

Anyway, I think it's prettty safe to say that the Trump bullshit wouldn't exist without Fox and other outlets pandering to it. There's probably quite a complicated discussion to be had about Media influence on election results as the Murdoch (And for balance, others.) press has had significant impact on UK elections for decades. I'm sure there's at least an equal impact in the US. I think the problem I'm trying to get at is how do you get away from a candidate that media interests are determined to push? My best guess is "ridicule" but the fact that there's still a significant portion of the population that don't view the candidates as a gang of clowns makes this difficult.


Fuck it, let's just start campaigning for Bernie Madoff for 2020. It's not like he'd present as a worse candidate to the current crop.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on April 01, 2016, 01:17:57 pm
FOX are pretty conflicted on Trump.  O'Reilly is sucking up to him, but I don't think you can expect similar from Megyn Kelly, for example.  And Roger Ailes doesn't like Trump either.

Breitbart, on the other hand, have gone completely in for Trump (and for the alt-right generally (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45800_Breitbart_))...to the point that when Trump's campaign manager assaulted one of their reporters, they were gagged from talking about it.

And of course, the New York Times are shamelessly in the tank for Clinton.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on April 25, 2016, 02:32:32 pm
The inevitable:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36127175

Quote
Donald Trump's two rivals for the Republican party's presidential nomination have announced they will now co-ordinate strategies against him.
Ted Cruz will cut campaigning in the Oregon and New Mexico primaries to help John Kasich, while the latter will give Mr Cruz a "clear path" in Indiana.

In other news, shit slinging anticipated to reach record high.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cramulus on April 26, 2016, 02:59:22 pm
too little, too late
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on April 26, 2016, 04:10:37 pm
Two friends in CT reporting voting problems (one was told she was ineligible to vote when she wasn't, another had his ballot rejected by the machine reader and was told to put it in the side). Both Sanders supporters, no surprise there.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on May 02, 2016, 06:13:47 pm
I have found myself in the position of actually considering the possibility of voting third party this year IF, by election time, I have decided that Clinton (assuming she is the Democratic candidate) has a solid ZERO chance of winning in Tennessee.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 02, 2016, 07:02:56 pm
I have found myself in the position of actually considering the possibility of voting third party this year IF, by election time, I have decided that Clinton (assuming she is the Democratic candidate) has a solid ZERO chance of winning in Tennessee.

It's not a bad tactical vote if you're in a solid red or solid blue state to bump a third party's national numbers. The trick is figuring out which states are really "swing" states this year.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2016, 07:11:23 pm
But WHICH 3rd party?

Just because they're funnier doesn't make them better.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on May 03, 2016, 04:15:27 am
I have found myself in the position of actually considering the possibility of voting third party this year IF, by election time, I have decided that Clinton (assuming she is the Democratic candidate) has a solid ZERO chance of winning in Tennessee.

It's not a bad tactical vote if you're in a solid red or solid blue state to bump a third party's national numbers. The trick is figuring out which states are really "swing" states this year.

I also want to send a message that the Democratic party can nibble my taint.

You're right about swing states. There are a significant number of conservatives here who think Trump is bananas.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on May 03, 2016, 04:29:49 am
But WHICH 3rd party?

Just because they're funnier doesn't make them better.

That's a good question. I don't even know which ones will have a candidate in my state. Green party is the first one to come to mind, mostly in an "I would have voted Democrat, BUT..." kind of way.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2016, 05:18:43 am
But WHICH 3rd party?

Just because they're funnier doesn't make them better.

That's a good question. I don't even know which ones will have a candidate in my state. Green party is the first one to come to mind, mostly in an "I would have voted Democrat, BUT..." kind of way.

Oh, the cunts who handed the country over to George w Bush?  That Green Party?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on May 03, 2016, 11:03:32 am
But WHICH 3rd party?

Just because they're funnier doesn't make them better.

That's a good question. I don't even know which ones will have a candidate in my state. Green party is the first one to come to mind, mostly in an "I would have voted Democrat, BUT..." kind of way.

Oh, the cunts who handed the country over to George w Bush?  That Green Party?

Ah, shit. I had forgotten all about that. Had to google it to remind myself. Now I remember. That was the last election where I was able to convince myself that both parties were "pretty much the same".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on May 03, 2016, 03:23:41 pm
But WHICH 3rd party?

Just because they're funnier doesn't make them better.

That's a good question. I don't even know which ones will have a candidate in my state. Green party is the first one to come to mind, mostly in an "I would have voted Democrat, BUT..." kind of way.

Oh, the cunts who handed the country over to George w Bush?  That Green Party?

The Supreme Court is the Green Party? :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 03, 2016, 06:57:24 pm
We've been having a running debate about who's to blame the most for the 2000 election. Current consensus in the office is Jeb Bush, the rest of the Bush Cabal, Al Gore, the Supreme Court, then Nader. Interestingly Nader doesn't get blame for the actual votes registered for him in the general, but for perpetuating the "THEY'RE ALL THE SAME" mindset that kept the election close enough for shenanigans to matter.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on May 04, 2016, 12:48:31 am
I have found myself in the position of actually considering the possibility of voting third party this year IF, by election time, I have decided that Clinton (assuming she is the Democratic candidate) has a solid ZERO chance of winning in Tennessee.

It's not a bad tactical vote if you're in a solid red or solid blue state to bump a third party's national numbers. The trick is figuring out which states are really "swing" states this year.

I also want to send a message that the Democratic party can nibble my taint.

You're right about swing states. There are a significant number of conservatives here who think Trump is bananas.

I think the best "nibble my taint Dems" party is the greens.  Green voters pretty much always go Dem if they go major party, so it is clearly a vote that they lost. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on May 04, 2016, 12:56:08 am
But WHICH 3rd party?

Just because they're funnier doesn't make them better.

That's a good question. I don't even know which ones will have a candidate in my state. Green party is the first one to come to mind, mostly in an "I would have voted Democrat, BUT..." kind of way.

Oh, the cunts who handed the country over to George w Bush?  That Green Party?

That is what tends to happen when enough people tell the Democrats to nibble their taints.  You'd think the Democratic establishment would have learned from that experience.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 04, 2016, 01:40:04 am
Ted Cruz just dropped out of the race

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ted-cruz-drops-out-of-presidential-race-222763

Looks like its Trump versus Hillary in the general
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 04, 2016, 02:26:46 am
Ted Cruz just dropped out of the race

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ted-cruz-drops-out-of-presidential-race-222763

Looks like its Trump versus Hillary in the general

which means "Trump", given the number of otherwise-intelligent people who think throwing a tantrum is more important than keeping actual Nazis out of power.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 04, 2016, 02:39:36 am
Sanders wins Indiana by 6-7%.  Pledged delegates now at 1681/1360 Clinton.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 04, 2016, 03:11:47 am
I wonder if there may be some deep state fuckery directed Trump's way...when the CIA and Pentagon have already come out and called you insane and made it clear they will refuse illegal orders, then the whole "ruining American relations with China" (who isn't actively trying to dick America or NATO over) and make nice with Russia (who is), at a time when US military presence in Eastern Europe is so dangerously low Russia could probably steamroll everything east of the Vistula without breaking a sweat and it would take at least 12 months to just mobilize the forces to retake those territories...and when Russian-financed far-right parties are gaining ground in western Europe...

I mean, I'm not the only one who's seeing all this, right?  Someone on the NSC must be able to put this together without someone having to put together an infographic and slide show.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 04, 2016, 03:24:46 am
I wonder if there may be some deep state fuckery directed Trump's way...when the CIA and Pentagon have already come out and called you insane and made it clear they will refuse illegal orders, then the whole "ruining American relations with China" (who isn't actively trying to dick America or NATO over) and make nice with Russia (who is), at a time when US military presence in Eastern Europe is so dangerously low Russia could probably steamroll everything east of the Vistula without breaking a sweat and it would take at least 12 months to just mobilize the forces to retake those territories...and when Russian-financed far-right parties are gaining ground in western Europe...

I mean, I'm not the only one who's seeing all this, right?  Someone on the NSC must be able to put this together without someone having to put together an infographic and slide show.

Um, if someone else is seeing this, they certainly aren't here in the USA.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Da6s on May 04, 2016, 10:08:16 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiJYGV8faZw&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiJYGV8faZw&feature=youtu.be)

I was naively hoping Kasich could pull an 11th hour miracle. Glad Cruz is out, but this shit show is just starting. I'm starting to believe enough people might vehemently hate hilldog to allow this to happen.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 04, 2016, 11:19:06 pm
Is it wrong that I am now looking forward to the tears of EITHER side of the democratic primary?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on May 05, 2016, 03:39:59 am
Is it wrong that I am now looking forward to the tears of EITHER side of the democratic primary?

Wrong in an actual moral sense or in the sense of an ironic or off putting outcome?

Actually... question withdrawn. I'm going with no. Not wrong at all. Democrats need to be getting over it. If you were gnashing at the bit to see the party fully implode and by default back a true nightmare candidate unfit properly govern like the Republican Party just irreparably has... THAT might be kinda wrong IMO.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 05, 2016, 12:07:03 pm
So, fun fact: we in Massholevania elected our First Black Governor right before we helped elect Obama. The trajectories weren't identical, but you could draw parallels besides race.

Our most recent gubernatorial election pitted Charlie Baker (some white guy with a big head) against perennial candidate for _something_ and outspoken hater of the voting public, Martha Coakley. Coakley, who failed to secure the late Senator Kennedy's seat for the democrats in the special election, is widely and openly disliked everywhere. Yes, she is a member of the party who has "paid her dues," but she's been the Attorney General of the state for a while and made some real shit decisions while in office, and she seems incapable of making a good impression on anybody. But she has _name recognition_ so she keeps winning primaries. The dems, sad that no one else could take the nomination from her, were still convinced that the voters would suck it up because the alternative was so much worse.

Charlie Baker is governor now.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on May 05, 2016, 01:11:58 pm
Yes, but Baker isn't utterly insane.

Though he did let GE set up shop in the seaport.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 05, 2016, 03:27:35 pm
Yes, but Baker isn't utterly insane.

Though he did let GE set up shop in the seaport.

He's not, but Deval Patrick was no Obama either.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 05, 2016, 03:40:05 pm
True, but Obama was also never alleged to be a member of HIMEOBS.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on May 05, 2016, 04:05:54 pm
Because it doesn't exist.



Of course.



Of course.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 05, 2016, 04:43:46 pm
Incidentally, re: my earlier comments on Russia, Politico ran a story today that, since Trump is now the last nominee left standing, he and his staff will start getting intelligence briefs.  One problem: Trump's campaign has several people in it with extremely close links to Russia and have worked for Russian oligarchs before now. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on May 05, 2016, 04:53:45 pm
Oh, this could get fun.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on May 05, 2016, 05:13:47 pm
Incidentally, re: my earlier comments on Russia, Politico ran a story today that, since Trump is now the last nominee left standing, he and his staff will start getting intelligence briefs.  One problem: Trump's campaign has several people in it with extremely close links to Russia and have worked for Russian oligarchs before now.

can I get a link to that?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 05, 2016, 05:22:18 pm
Wait, my bad.  It was Josh Marshall at TPM who said it

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/728041353570045953
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on May 05, 2016, 05:45:18 pm
Thanks Cain.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on May 18, 2016, 08:39:51 pm
So Nevada was a mess, and now the Democratic establishment is pushing the idea that Sanders supporters are violent, really hard.  Whether this is true or not isn't really the point, at least not in my eyes, since it so closely mirrors the way that black lives matter, Occupy, and the Seattle WTO protests were deligitimized in the public eye by calling them violent protests.  Philadelphia is going to be a shitshow.

Also, what the votes would really have come out as in Nevada is also beside the point.  It would not have been enough to make a difference, but it's a crucial narrative moment, for both sides.  Berners get to see the election being stolen, moderates get to see violence and good reason for the skull cracking and tear gas that will be coming in Philly.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: QueenThera on May 19, 2016, 09:42:12 pm
A question occurs to me.

How easy is it to immigrate to Canada? Should I be starting the paperwork for that now, or can it wait for a confirmation of Trump winning the presidency?

There are too many jokes about preparing for Trump online, not enough actual advice.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on May 19, 2016, 10:04:58 pm
A question occurs to me.

How easy is it to immigrate to Canada? Should I be starting the paperwork for that now, or can it wait for a confirmation of Trump winning the presidency?

There are too many jokes about preparing for Trump online, not enough actual advice.

Hard.  Canada is a great place to live and they don't want everyone taking advantage of that. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: QueenThera on May 19, 2016, 10:51:57 pm
A question occurs to me.

How easy is it to immigrate to Canada? Should I be starting the paperwork for that now, or can it wait for a confirmation of Trump winning the presidency?

There are too many jokes about preparing for Trump online, not enough actual advice.

Hard.  Canada is a great place to live and they don't want everyone taking advantage of that.
I'd like to go over with my girlfriend, four children, and my ailing mother ideally.

... I don't have a chance in hell of being able to plan this out properly.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 19, 2016, 11:29:24 pm
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/eligibility.asp
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on May 20, 2016, 05:46:29 am
A question occurs to me.

How easy is it to immigrate to Canada? Should I be starting the paperwork for that now, or can it wait for a confirmation of Trump winning the presidency?

There are too many jokes about preparing for Trump online, not enough actual advice.

Hard.  Canada is a great place to live and they don't want everyone taking advantage of that.
I'd like to go over with my girlfriend, four children, and my ailing mother ideally.

... I don't have a chance in hell of being able to plan this out properly.

As long as you're fabulously wealthy they'll welcome you and your brood with open arms.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 20, 2016, 04:41:54 pm
A question occurs to me.

How easy is it to immigrate to Canada? Should I be starting the paperwork for that now, or can it wait for a confirmation of Trump winning the presidency?

There are too many jokes about preparing for Trump online, not enough actual advice.

Hard.  Canada is a great place to live and they don't want everyone taking advantage of that.
I'd like to go over with my girlfriend, four children, and my ailing mother ideally.

... I don't have a chance in hell of being able to plan this out properly.

That's probably not realistic. Easiest way to get in is to marry a Canadian.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on May 20, 2016, 05:07:39 pm
"Anchor 'Murricans"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on May 20, 2016, 05:58:15 pm

"Anchor 'Murricans"

I see an opportunity for like a "little chapel on the border" chain. The physical locations would mostly be for very "chop-chop" ceremony and signing services. The real function would be an app and "very stringent (and lucrative) matching algorithms." Other than taking sorting by gender preference quite seriously all matching is done purely by gut feeling and for teh lulz, the waivers ironclad, and fees non-refundable.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 22, 2016, 09:23:41 pm
Canada is going to have to build a wall
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on May 27, 2016, 11:47:42 am
So it looks like there's more and more stuff turning up re: Rodders' emails/lack of security standards.

Will she be indicted?

Sanders and Trump are talking about debating each other... should be interesting to see who comes out on top there... and how many pops are taken at HRC for not being there.



Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on May 27, 2016, 11:59:11 pm
I was hoping she would be, prior to the Dem convention.  I don't think she will, and if she is after the convention that will be rather blatant interference in an election.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 28, 2016, 02:01:33 am
Keep on believing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 29, 2016, 05:44:32 pm
If she is, they better go after Condi and Powell too.

Seems like this was SOP for Secretaries of State, going by what I've read of the most recent report (not much, admittedly).

But they probably wont be, because the Bush years are like some sort of fever dream which, if you go by people who are actually in politics, never actually happened.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on May 29, 2016, 07:21:54 pm
Wanted to see if this holds up under scrutiny, or if there's some bigger picture I'm missing.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 29, 2016, 08:27:43 pm
The final figure, at least, is in the right ballpark - politifact examined some claims in April which gave Clinton 2.4 million more votes than Sanders.  Taking into account recent losses, that number seems in the area of being right.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on May 29, 2016, 11:37:50 pm
(https://scontent.flcy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/13243890_10153688219510678_6883042985124336269_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2016, 05:25:35 am
But they probably wont be, because the Bush years are like some sort of fever dream which, if you go by people who are actually in politics, never actually happened.

I know it doesn't seem like it could have happened.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2016, 05:27:03 am
The final figure, at least, is in the right ballpark - politifact examined some claims in April which gave Clinton 2.4 million more votes than Sanders.  Taking into account recent losses, that number seems in the area of being right.

which makes the fuckery very Nixon-esque.  She was going to win without wasserman-Schultze's "help".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2016, 11:28:00 pm
well, 81% of Sander's voters have gone over to Clinton, and 8% have gone over to Trump, leaving only the hardcore Bernie Bros, most of whom have decided that he's a "sellout" for doing what he said he'd do, and are now voting for Jill Stein's stupid ass.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 07, 2016, 08:48:50 pm
From the "Some people just want to watch the world burn" department...

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/07/you-need-to-suck-it-up-and-vote-for-trump-n2188770

Quote
Donald Trump is a vulgar clown posing as a conservative, unmoored to any coherent ideology. He has generated unprecedented opposition and the contempt of people across the political spectrum. He is unbound to any principle other than his own appetite for adulation. And those very factors that make him so appalling also make him America’s only hope.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 07, 2016, 08:53:31 pm
From the "Some people just want to watch the world burn" department...

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/07/you-need-to-suck-it-up-and-vote-for-trump-n2188770

Quote
Donald Trump is a vulgar clown posing as a conservative, unmoored to any coherent ideology. He has generated unprecedented opposition and the contempt of people across the political spectrum. He is unbound to any principle other than his own appetite for adulation. And those very factors that make him so appalling also make him America’s only hope.

Note: he said this in 2013:

Quote
Let’s be clear – being a veteran is not a “Get out of work free” card that excuses you from the basic responsibility of supporting yourself and your family. If I pass a bum with a sign reading “Homeless Vet,” I don’t feel an overpowering surge of solidarity. I feel disgusted that another low-life is trying to milk sympathy off a proud status that millions of us earned with our blood and sweat and years of our lives.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on July 09, 2016, 01:45:24 pm
From the "Some people just want to watch the world burn" department...

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/07/you-need-to-suck-it-up-and-vote-for-trump-n2188770

Quote
Donald Trump is a vulgar clown posing as a conservative, unmoored to any coherent ideology. He has generated unprecedented opposition and the contempt of people across the political spectrum. He is unbound to any principle other than his own appetite for adulation. And those very factors that make him so appalling also make him America’s only hope.

 :crackhead:

From the "Some people just want to watch the world burn" department...

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/07/you-need-to-suck-it-up-and-vote-for-trump-n2188770

Quote
Donald Trump is a vulgar clown posing as a conservative, unmoored to any coherent ideology. He has generated unprecedented opposition and the contempt of people across the political spectrum. He is unbound to any principle other than his own appetite for adulation. And those very factors that make him so appalling also make him America’s only hope.

Note: he said this in 2013:

Quote
Let’s be clear – being a veteran is not a “Get out of work free” card that excuses you from the basic responsibility of supporting yourself and your family. If I pass a bum with a sign reading “Homeless Vet,” I don’t feel an overpowering surge of solidarity. I feel disgusted that another low-life is trying to milk sympathy off a proud status that millions of us earned with our blood and sweat and years of our lives.

I mean, the irony is so blunt... Are we sure he's not  :troll: ? I mean, this sounds like it came straight from Clickhole.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 09, 2016, 03:51:51 pm
What should really worry you is the guy who wrote that is a trial lawyer and was previously a colonel in the Army.

Is your professional officer classes learning?  Sadly, nope.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on July 09, 2016, 04:18:15 pm
What should really worry you is the guy who wrote that is a trial lawyer and was previously a colonel in the Army.

Is your professional officer classes learning?  Sadly, nope.

What the actual fuck? I don't think a serious ex-colonel would "troll" like this. He must be a serious sack of shit.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Don Coyote on July 11, 2016, 02:59:37 pm
What should really worry you is the guy who wrote that is a trial lawyer and was previously a colonel in the Army.

Is your professional officer classes learning?  Sadly, nope.

What the actual fuck? I don't think a serious ex-colonel would "troll" like this. He must be a serious sack of shit.

The military is full of scum, and I am honestly not suprised a lawyer that was a colonel would say that. Odds are he went to law school, joined as a captain, and never actually led troops.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 11, 2016, 03:02:47 pm
Out of curiosity, what is the feeling of the military to the two candidates? I can't see them being overly fond of either.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on July 11, 2016, 05:03:34 pm
What should really worry you is the guy who wrote that is a trial lawyer and was previously a colonel in the Army.

Is your professional officer classes learning?  Sadly, nope.

What the actual fuck? I don't think a serious ex-colonel would "troll" like this. He must be a serious sack of shit.

The military is full of scum, and I am honestly not suprised a lawyer that was a colonel would say that. Odds are he went to law school, joined as a captain, and never actually led troops.

Ah, yes. I forgot college puts you at higher ranks. Good point.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 11, 2016, 05:48:21 pm
Out of curiosity, what is the feeling of the military to the two candidates? I can't see them being overly fond of either.

You mean of Clinton and Trump?

Clinton, based on her Sec. State time, seems hawkish, USA-policing-the-world sort of thing. Like neocon lite.

Trump wants to make the Middle East a glass parking lot.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 11, 2016, 05:51:40 pm
Badly phrased question sorry was trying to ask if the military branches prefer either candidate above the other. Suspect Clinton's likely aims will not be too popular but Trump is also retarded with questionable aims/ goals so....
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 11, 2016, 05:54:02 pm
Best reference point is that while they've remained quiet on Hillary, they've publicly denounced some/most of Trump's suggestions on how to deal with terrorism.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 11, 2016, 05:55:25 pm
A subtle but telling difference.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2016, 01:34:32 am
Sanders tossed the sponge in today.

On FB, watching Berners immolate themselves.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 13, 2016, 01:52:17 am
You should totally sign up to Reddit.

https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/ is hilarious right now.

Quote
The entire point of running against Clinton was to fight corruption on the part of the DNC and the government. If you're so quick to get back behind that corruption, good luck.

While I wish Bernie had endorsed Trump instead, I feel the wiser option would have just been to publicly state after the convention that he was endorsing nobody.

Quote
Looks like I'm voting trump. And don't give me any of this a true Bernie supporter would never vote for trump. It's time to accept this nations fate. Yes, I would love Jill Stein but it's not happening. Anyone but Hilary has my vote and the most likely to defeat her is trump.

Quote
Quote
bernie sanders has been a man working in the system his entire life. he was never outside of it, he has never fought it. he was controlled opposition and today he revealed his true colors. He cultivated you like little voter plants and now he is giving you to his master to harvest.

Quote
Endorsing her shows that he isn't the man of principles and conviction he ran his entire campaign based off of. All I'm saying is he has proven he is just another politician that will default to toting the party line just like EVERYONE else. He is not the courageous man who will put himself on the line for what he believes in, and will cower to political pressure. He is no different from other politicians.

He doesn't have to say "I will do anything I can to make sure Hilary is the next president" in order to prevent Trump from driving a wedge. There is a massive middle ground there.

Quote
wtf are you talking about. This man that was so anti establishment... so anti everything hililary ciltron, bites the dust and endorses cilnton. Sorry but thats the sign of a weak man. A man that would never have made a difference. This true colors are flying now, hes a sellout.

Quote
Yeah he lit a spark, and just now he helped to snuff it out. It just adds to the apathy my friends who already thought everything was corrupt feel.

Bernie did what Clinton never could, drive a steak in the heart of his movement by showing it was all a ploy all along.

And so old what else did he have left to lose? The spectre of the boogyman Trump made Sanders go scared to corruption?

Of course, this is the subreddit which spawned this legendary copypasta after the New York primary:

Quote
Holy shit. My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets and I literally screamed at her and hit the plate of chicken nuggets out of her hand. She started yelling and swearing at me and I slammed the door on her. I'm so distressed right now I don't know what to do. I didn't mean to do that to my mom but I'm literally in shock from the results tonight. I feel like I'm going to explode. Why the fucking fuck is he losing? This can't be happening. I'm having a fucking breakdown. I don't want to believe the world is so corrupt. I want a future to believe in. I want Trump to be president and fix this broken country. I cannot fucking deal with this right now. It wasn't supposed to be like this, I thought he was polling well in New York???? This is so fucked.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Eater of Clowns on July 13, 2016, 02:08:17 am
Quote
Yeah he lit a spark, and just now he helped to snuff it out. It just adds to the apathy my friends who already thought everything was corrupt feel.

Bernie did what Clinton never could, drive a steak in the heart of his movement by showing it was all a ploy all along.

And so old what else did he have left to lose? The spectre of the boogyman Trump made Sanders go scared to corruption?

 :lulz: Somehow this is my favorite part.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2016, 02:32:23 am
You should totally sign up to Reddit.


I am inclined to agree.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 13, 2016, 04:00:17 am
You should totally sign up to Reddit.

https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/ is hilarious right now.

Quote
The entire point of running against Clinton was to fight corruption on the part of the DNC and the government. If you're so quick to get back behind that corruption, good luck.

While I wish Bernie had endorsed Trump instead, I feel the wiser option would have just been to publicly state after the convention that he was endorsing nobody.

Quote
Looks like I'm voting trump. And don't give me any of this a true Bernie supporter would never vote for trump. It's time to accept this nations fate. Yes, I would love Jill Stein but it's not happening. Anyone but Hilary has my vote and the most likely to defeat her is trump.

Quote
Quote
bernie sanders has been a man working in the system his entire life. he was never outside of it, he has never fought it. he was controlled opposition and today he revealed his true colors. He cultivated you like little voter plants and now he is giving you to his master to harvest.

Quote
Endorsing her shows that he isn't the man of principles and conviction he ran his entire campaign based off of. All I'm saying is he has proven he is just another politician that will default to toting the party line just like EVERYONE else. He is not the courageous man who will put himself on the line for what he believes in, and will cower to political pressure. He is no different from other politicians.

He doesn't have to say "I will do anything I can to make sure Hilary is the next president" in order to prevent Trump from driving a wedge. There is a massive middle ground there.

Quote
wtf are you talking about. This man that was so anti establishment... so anti everything hililary ciltron, bites the dust and endorses cilnton. Sorry but thats the sign of a weak man. A man that would never have made a difference. This true colors are flying now, hes a sellout.

Quote
Yeah he lit a spark, and just now he helped to snuff it out. It just adds to the apathy my friends who already thought everything was corrupt feel.

Bernie did what Clinton never could, drive a steak in the heart of his movement by showing it was all a ploy all along.

And so old what else did he have left to lose? The spectre of the boogyman Trump made Sanders go scared to corruption?

Of course, this is the subreddit which spawned this legendary copypasta after the New York primary:

Quote
Holy shit. My mom came into my room to bring me a plate of chicken nuggets and I literally screamed at her and hit the plate of chicken nuggets out of her hand. She started yelling and swearing at me and I slammed the door on her. I'm so distressed right now I don't know what to do. I didn't mean to do that to my mom but I'm literally in shock from the results tonight. I feel like I'm going to explode. Why the fucking fuck is he losing? This can't be happening. I'm having a fucking breakdown. I don't want to believe the world is so corrupt. I want a future to believe in. I want Trump to be president and fix this broken country. I cannot fucking deal with this right now. It wasn't supposed to be like this, I thought he was polling well in New York???? This is so fucked.

WOW. Such delicious manbaby tears.  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 13, 2016, 04:52:13 am
Of course, this is nothing in comparison to what will happen if Trump loses in November (or, as is rumoured may happen, he steps down at the convention).

The Trump subreddit, "The_Donald" is made up of the worst refuse the internet alt-right has to offer and almost pathologically disobeys Reddit site-wide rules.  It's speculated that the only reason it hasn't already been banned is because it would harm Reddit's reputation, shutting down the official campaign subreddit in the middle of an election.  The minute the election is done it is likely toast, though.

And when that happens, it will make last year's "Fat People Hate" drama pale into comparison.  That was the one where the front page of reddit was dominated for 3 days by pictures of CEO Ellen Pao being depicted as Hitler, because she wouldn't let the FatPeopleHate subreddit harass and stalk its users, or attempt to DDoS Reddit partner site Imgur.  Lots of former FPHers are also on The_Donald...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2016, 04:55:00 am
Of course, this is nothing in comparison to what will happen if Trump loses in November (or, as is rumoured may happen, he steps down at the convention).

The Trump subreddit, "The_Donald" is made up of the worst refuse the internet alt-right has to offer and almost pathologically disobeys Reddit site-wide rules.  It's speculated that the only reason it hasn't already been banned is because it would harm Reddit's reputation, shutting down the official campaign subreddit in the middle of an election.  The minute the election is done it is likely toast, though.

And when that happens, it will make last year's "Fat People Hate" drama pale into comparison.  That was the one where the front page of reddit was dominated for 3 days by pictures of CEO Ellen Pao being depicted as Hitler, because she wouldn't let the FatPeopleHate subreddit harass and stalk its users, or attempt to DDoS Reddit partner site Imgur.  Lots of former FPHers are also on The_Donald...

Now I have to sign up.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 13, 2016, 04:57:21 am
With The_Donald, I would recommend waiting until he loses/steps down before you strike.

For all their whining about free speech, they will ban you at the first indication you are not 100% on the Trump train.  I have an alt ready to go on the day that happens, and I am going to rub their nose into it and mock their loser Dear Leader
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2016, 04:59:15 am
With The_Donald, I would recommend waiting until he loses/steps down before you strike.

For all their whining about free speech, they will ban you at the first indication you are not 100% on the Trump train.  I have an alt ready to go on the day that happens, and I am going to rub their nose into it and mock their loser Dear Leader

Sounds like a plan.  I'm just gonna lurk for a while.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Don Coyote on July 13, 2016, 07:07:33 am
Out of curiosity, what is the feeling of the military to the two candidates? I can't see them being overly fond of either.

I know people that were talking about voting for Trump waaaaaay back when it seemed impossible he would be the front runner.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 14, 2016, 11:38:10 pm
Mike Pence is strongly rumoured to be Trump's running mate.

ABC and the BBC are confident enough to state that's the case, at least.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 21, 2016, 12:43:52 pm
Weird of me to say this, but I'm really glad Trump is the nominee.

Cruz' speech last night showed that he'd have been a real threat, rhetorically, against Clinton.  Scariest thing I heard all night.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 21, 2016, 01:16:17 pm
Apparently NATO is now on Trump's shit list.

At this rate he'll be promising to blow up one of the US states just to show terrorists how serious he really is about having a good time.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 21, 2016, 02:50:15 pm
NATO's been on Trump's shit list for a while.  Along with many other US military allies.

Yes, certain European countries don't keep to the spending limit that NATO should.  But some (ahem Greece, France, Poland, Turkey) also overspend.  Does that balance out in the long run?  Eh, couldn't say. 

The point is, everything Trump has been saying suggests he wants to return to an Imperial Athens style of tributary alliances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League), wherein other nations pay America what is essentially protection money in order to benefit from American military power.  There's a reason the world has, by and large, rejected that form of alliance system in the current period.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 21, 2016, 03:19:25 pm
It may be worth noting that the term "tribute" has seen increasing use in political senses. It goes without saying that there's multiple implications with such a term.

And thanks, I've not been worried enough about Trump until recently. We're firmly in the strange times now and I'm only expecting increasingly odd and horrible things to occur.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 21, 2016, 06:02:14 pm
Weird of me to say this, but I'm really glad Trump is the nominee.

Cruz' speech last night showed that he'd have been a real threat, rhetorically, against Clinton.  Scariest thing I heard all night.

I read an article about his speech. Didn't he accuse the Democrats of doing all the horrible things the Republicans have been doing (telling you who to marry, telling you what to believe, etc.)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 22, 2016, 04:02:16 am
I want you all to know that if you never hear from me again I've had a hate aneurysm after listening to Trump's speech before bed. Every single republican who cheered for "protecting the lives of LGBT Americans" while enthusiastically supporting bathroom bills that put the lives of trans people in immediate danger can choke to death on every toy bad dragon produces. I hate them all.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 22, 2016, 08:02:33 am
I want you all to know that if you never hear from me again I've had a hate aneurysm after listening to Trump's speech before bed. Every single republican who cheered for "protecting the lives of LGBT Americans" while enthusiastically supporting bathroom bills that put the lives of trans people in immediate danger can choke to death on every toy bad dragon produces. I hate them all.

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I like it!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 22, 2016, 01:00:03 pm
choke to death on every toy bad dragon produces. I hate them all.

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I like it!

I'm guessing dildoes.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on July 22, 2016, 01:07:15 pm
choke to death on every toy bad dragon produces. I hate them all.

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I like it!

I'm guessing dildoes.

The ones that release the eggs inside? Hence "Dragon?" Because I'd pay to see that.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 22, 2016, 01:33:17 pm
I think the ovipositor dilodes are more "Alien" and less "Dragon".

But hey, google "Bad Dragon" and browse the products at your convenience.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on July 22, 2016, 01:47:46 pm
I think the ovipositor dilodes are more "Alien" and less "Dragon".

But hey, google "Bad Dragon" and browse the products at your convenience.

Oh yeahhhhh...

Also, can't really at the moment as I'm at work. Only reason I asked.  :oops:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Freeky on July 22, 2016, 05:29:47 pm
Yep, they're a sex toy company.  And apparently based out of Arizona.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 24, 2016, 02:11:11 pm
On a slightly different note, I think I've figured out what is making this election cycle so grim for me. In short, it's essentially a massive campaign against the other from every perspective. There's very little Pro-Clinton/Trump propaganda kicking around compared to the swathes of anti-clinton/trump crap. It's not been about any of their possible plus points, just how much worse the other one will be/is.

It's actually pretty worrying as who-ever wins will just keep on shouting that it would be so much worse with the other in charge. Depending on various choices and multiple events beyond anyones control, the repeat of this in 3 years or so will probably just be even worse.


In other news, there's a few interviews kicking around of journalists interviewing trump delegates about how THE WALL will be constructed, what it will look like, etc. Answers range from "Just like the Great wall of china" to "It's a metaphor" and most structures in between. If anything of this sort actually occurs, it's going to be graft and corruption on a scale previously unimaginable to humankind.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 24, 2016, 04:25:37 pm
The hack of DNC material was...suspiciously well timed as a leak.

It's almost like some sort of group of Russian hackers grabbed the information, then sat on their hands before leaking it to Wikileaks and The Intercept at a time for maximum impact.  And then - because Greenwald displays an almost childlike lack of curiousity in why he is getting the information he gets and, well, who the fuck knows what Assange is thinking anymore - no-one questions why it all just happens to fall this way.

It's because Russia is trying to game the election to put in power a President who is financially in debt to Russian oligarchs tied to Putin and who on a political and personal level admires Putin, to the point he is willing to consider throwing NATO allies under a bus.

And I feel like I'm taking fucking crazy pills, because apart from Josh Marshall and some political science professor at NYU no-one is even talking about this.  Trump infamously doesn't care about policy.  He led the RNC write his entire presidential policy platform.  Except one bit.  One tiny bit.  He strenuously objected to, and got dropped, proposals about arming Ukraine against Russian aggression.  Out of all the things in the world to care about, and Trump cares about that?  Trump's blacklisted by most American banks, which should be newsworthy in and of itself.  So in the early 2000s he went to Russian billionaires, hand in cap.  Only these weren't just any Russian billionaires, they were known cronies and political allies of Putin.  All his advisors, from Paul Manafort to Carter Page, have significant Russian oligarch-linked histories and interests (Carter Page worked with Gazprom.  Gazprom, it's Putin's personal treasure chest of goodies).

The whole point is to get the Dems fighting amongst each other when they should be focusing on their actual political enemy and geopolitical rival and they are falling for it.  Every fucking time.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 24, 2016, 05:08:06 pm
Cain, you're scaring me.

Anyone else, I'd call them a crank. But from you........
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 24, 2016, 05:25:28 pm
The bank thing is hardly shock given his financial history. His financial history in general would be shameful for any nominee and should be the go to thing to point at when trump talks about anything with financial implications, which is pretty much everything.

On a slightly different note, is greenwald/intercept worth it's own thread? This is not the first time at taking a very strange approach with information received.  Any notable related parties possibly steering the ship?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 24, 2016, 05:51:37 pm
Cain, you're scaring me.

Anyone else, I'd call them a crank. But from you........

Well here's Josh Marshall's own story

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

Quote
To put this all into perspective, if Vladimir Putin were simply the CEO of a major American corporation and there was this much money flowing in Trump's direction, combined with this much solicitousness of Putin's policy agenda, it would set off alarm bells galore. That is not hyperbole or exaggeration. And yet Putin is not the CEO of an American corporation. He's the autocrat who rules a foreign state, with an increasingly hostile posture towards the United States and a substantial stockpile of nuclear weapons. The stakes involved in finding out 'what's going on' as Trump might put it are quite a bit higher.

There is something between a non-trivial and a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence for a financial relationship between Trump and Putin or a non-tacit alliance between the two men. Even if you draw no adverse conclusions, Trump's financial empire is heavily leveraged and has a deep reliance on capital infusions from oligarchs and other sources of wealth aligned with Putin. That's simply not something that can be waved off or ignored.

And here's Vice talking specifically about the hack:

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack

Quote
"If this is, as it appears to be, a Russian intelligence operation, that’s how a blown operation was rapidly transitioned into an influence operation and a disinformation and deception campaign, which started to mitigate the blowback," The Grugq said. "Given that the media is currently reporting that the cover hacker was responsible, and not Russian intelligence services after all, it seems the deception operation is working.”

Given all the evidence available, as well as the timeline of the events, it’s “more likely than not” that the whole operation, including the Guccifer 2.0 part, was orchestrated by Russian spies, according to Thomas Rid, a cybersecurity expert.

“One of the most convincing details to me is how quickly this hacker apparently came out with this pretty sophisticated false flag operation, including leaking files and talking to various media outlets. It’s too smooth for one hacker,” Rid, who is a professor in the Department of War Studies at King's College London, told me in a phone call on Thursday.

And this is how Wikileaks reacted to being fingered as a suspect:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoHKU9YUkAAwE32.jpg)

Meanwhile, here is how a Russia Today "journalist" responded to the allegation:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoG73lRUAAACBoR.jpg)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 24, 2016, 05:57:32 pm
On a slightly different note, is greenwald/intercept worth it's own thread? This is not the first time at taking a very strange approach with information received.  Any notable related parties possibly steering the ship?

Possibly.  We know Pierre Omidyar really runs the show over there.  But if anything Omidyar's plugged into the American political elite.

If anything, elements of the Snowden story now do make me more suspicious.  I don't think Snowden is a Russian spy, like some crazies claim.  But I think he may have been duped/pushed...and there are suspicious discrepancies in his story.  Dates of movement, number of files taken and given...that sort of thing.  And there is Russian infiltration of the NSA, both direct and further down the feeds (Canada, of all places).  If there's a point of entry by which First Look media is being manipulated, it is probably via that or Wikileaks...as Assange not only worked for Russia Today and helped arrange for Snowden to get to Russia, but has voiced some rather strong pro-Russian statements in the past.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 24, 2016, 06:02:58 pm
If you want more evidence on the DNC hack being linked to Russia, btw

https://twitter.com/RidT/status/751325844002529280

For those who don't tech speak, basically some of the same Malware control servers used in the DNC hack were also used in a hack on the Bundestag...also allegedly carried out by Russian intelligence.

I've considered writing this up for some kind of big publication, but given the amount of shit people are getting on social media just for putting these pieces together...well, life is too short to mess around with people who play chess one move at at a time.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 24, 2016, 07:49:36 pm
I want you all to know that if you never hear from me again I've had a hate aneurysm after listening to Trump's speech before bed. Every single republican who cheered for "protecting the lives of LGBT Americans" while enthusiastically supporting bathroom bills that put the lives of trans people in immediate danger can choke to death on every toy bad dragon produces. I hate them all.

To be fair, it's not like they're trying to legalize assaulting these people. I mean, some of them might also want to do that but that's a seperate matter clearly beyond the scope of the bill. The bathroom bill strikes me as clearly coming more from a place of contempt rather than of hate. Your argument that it endangers trans people does more to show the need for a crackdown on hate crimes than to showcase any inherent failing of the bills.

That said I do oppose the bathroom compliance bills as I consider them to be much ado about nothing and if enacted their sole effect would be to waste government resources to no valid end. Bathroom compliance os irrelevant, regardless of gender and/or sex.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Salty on July 24, 2016, 08:06:23 pm
I want you all to know that if you never hear from me again I've had a hate aneurysm after listening to Trump's speech before bed. Every single republican who cheered for "protecting the lives of LGBT Americans" while enthusiastically supporting bathroom bills that put the lives of trans people in immediate danger can choke to death on every toy bad dragon produces. I hate them all.

To be fair, it's not like they're trying to legalize assaulting these people. I mean, some of them might also want to do that but that's a seperate matter clearly beyond the scope of the bill. The bathroom bill strikes me as clearly coming more from a place of contempt rather than of hate. Your argument that it endangers trans people does more to show the need for a crackdown on hate crimes than to showcase any inherent failing of the bills.

That said I do oppose the bathroom compliance bills as I consider them to be much ado about nothing and if enacted their sole effect would be to waste government resources to no valid end. Bathroom compliance os irrelevant, regardless of gender and/or sex.

:facepalm:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 24, 2016, 09:33:00 pm
I want you all to know that if you never hear from me again I've had a hate aneurysm after listening to Trump's speech before bed. Every single republican who cheered for "protecting the lives of LGBT Americans" while enthusiastically supporting bathroom bills that put the lives of trans people in immediate danger can choke to death on every toy bad dragon produces. I hate them all.

To be fair, it's not like they're trying to legalize assaulting these people. I mean, some of them might also want to do that but that's a seperate matter clearly beyond the scope of the bill. The bathroom bill strikes me as clearly coming more from a place of contempt rather than of hate. Your argument that it endangers trans people does more to show the need for a crackdown on hate crimes than to showcase any inherent failing of the bills.

That said I do oppose the bathroom compliance bills as I consider them to be much ado about nothing and if enacted their sole effect would be to waste government resources to no valid end. Bathroom compliance os irrelevant, regardless of gender and/or sex.

You can also feel free to choke to death on a pile of dragon dicks.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 24, 2016, 11:42:53 pm
Quote
Pwn All The Things ‏@pwnallthethings  Jun 15
14) Tldr: this "lone hacker" uses many VMs, speaks Russian; username is founder of USSR secret police & likes laundering docs via Wikileaks.

From that twitter link. Wow.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2016, 04:21:58 am

To be fair, it's not like they're trying to legalize assaulting these people.

No.  They are only saying that it's okay to do so on a moral level.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on July 25, 2016, 06:15:44 am

To be fair, it's not like they're trying to legalize assaulting these people.

No.  They are only saying that it's okay to do so on a moral level.

They actually are.  Not for just being trans, but for being trans and being in the "wrong" bathroom.  They are, if you look at what has happened with black folks breaking minor laws, trying to make it legally ok to kill trans people for being in the wrong bathroom, at least for cops to kill them.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 25, 2016, 08:36:18 am
Quote
Pwn All The Things ‏@pwnallthethings  Jun 15
14) Tldr: this "lone hacker" uses many VMs, speaks Russian; username is founder of USSR secret police & likes laundering docs via Wikileaks.

From that twitter link. Wow.

When it's this blatant, it's pretty hard to deny.

Thus why I feel like I'm on crazy pills.  No wonder spies go insane and off the deep end all the time, this is probably how the Foreign Office and MI6 felt in the 1930s in Berlin.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 25, 2016, 09:40:04 am
Quote
Pwn All The Things ‏@pwnallthethings  Jun 15
14) Tldr: this "lone hacker" uses many VMs, speaks Russian; username is founder of USSR secret police & likes laundering docs via Wikileaks.

From that twitter link. Wow.

When it's this blatant, it's pretty hard to deny.

Thus why I feel like I'm on crazy pills.  No wonder spies go insane and off the deep end all the time, this is probably how the Foreign Office and MI6 felt in the 1930s in Berlin.

Blatant seems too soft a word. Between this lot and Trumps actual actions such as the (lack) of policy stances certainly does point to outside interests steering his actions to no small degree. I'd be interested in seeing more solid financial links between Trump and the various Russian oligarchs that are mentioned. While this can probably be explained to a degree through business interests, Putin is notorious for essentially using close friends to launder money and exert control. With Trump's past, I can easily see more than one of his "developments" just being a washing operation.

It doesn't look good for US/RUS relations in the near-mid future either way though. If Putin's successful he'll get a puppet who will make Nixon look like the most charismatic and reasonable guy you ever heard of. Popularity rankings will not be high. These kind of connections get widely made a few years in and it's a shitshow till the end of his term.

Alternatively, you get Clinton, who may or may not shout about these links. Putin now has no puppet and is somewhat out of pocket. I wonder how long it will take a narky autocrat to think that expanding his territory is the thing that will put a smile back on his face? I'd guess about 3 months or so. Add in decent prep time and you're looking at another annexation in what? Mid 17 to early 18?

Please feel free to tell me I'm crazy and way off. I'd like to do the same for you, but I can't with a straight face.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 25, 2016, 12:01:25 pm
The Washington Post had a more in depth look at Trump's Russian financial links, I don't have a link to hand but it was published on July 16th I believe.

One problem is that Clinton is (to a much lesser extent) also compromised.  The Clinton Foundation was involved in a...situation involving Russian money and uranium.

My concern is that a President Trump would embolden Russian provocation in the Baltic, given his comments about not necessarily coming to the aid of a NATO ally.  Russia has sizeable minorities in all three states, which have undoubtedly been treated pretty shabbily by their national governments.  Any kind of Crimean re-run could ignite a war between European NATO powers and Russia, with America on the sidelines.  And given NATO was always designed around America being the primary combatant, with other member states providing specialist support units...well, without America, things would be quite bad.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 25, 2016, 12:37:32 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-fundraising-emails-overseas-prompt-complaints-here-and-abroad/2016/06/29/ad66a1e2-3e0a-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html

Quote
The emails to Gale were among a wave of fundraising pleas inexplicably sent by the Trump campaign in recent days to lawmakers in the United Kingdom, Iceland, Australia and elsewhere. The solicitations prompted watchdog groups in Washington to file two separate complaints Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Trump campaign was violating federal law by soliciting funds from foreign nationals.

Quote
Another fundraising pitch sent to the same account last week was signed by the candidate himself. “Hillary Clinton is a world-class liar,” it said.

“I don’t know if someone at Team Trump was stupid enough to think that all Conservative Party MPs would consider themselves Republicans,” Gale said. “But I asked around, and it seems that most others did get these emails, too.”

Not the article in question, but another exploring Trump's less that cautious solicitation of foreign funds.

A third possibility occurs - Trump is just willing to take money from anyone, strings or no strings attached, legality for a future court to determine after it's been given and spent. While unlikely, I don't think we can rule out simple fraud and embezzlement just yet.

I would suggest that your concern RE baltic states may be worse than suspected. I can see a situation where Russia plays the "Let's annex X" game and is supported in this by the US. I'm pretty sure it would be fairly easily to convince the population that X are harbouring terrorists and we need to help Russia bring X into the fold. Russia will be the obvious supervisor of X due to their historic links and it will make US citizens safer. Collaboration seems to be much more profitable and convenient for both sides.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 25, 2016, 12:38:53 pm
Also, suspect this is the first article in question:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/donald-trumps-most-enduring--and-unbefitting--trait/2016/07/15/f5684848-488b-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html

Quote
Plenty of financial and real estate players got carried away in the go-go 1980s. But Trump was in a class by himself.

He ended up presiding over six — count ’em, six — bankruptcies because he kept making business decisions with his gut rather than with his brain.

Edit to add:
Quote
“The Apprentice” was a pivotal event for Trump. It made him into a truly national figure, and he says the show paid him more than $200 million during its run.

Even in the strange world of TV payments and salaries, this seems like an extraordinary sum. The most likely explanations here are either lying, mentally ill or he's actually been paid this amount. With his past, I'm leaning to two of the three.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 25, 2016, 05:57:26 pm
Also, suspect this is the first article in question:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/donald-trumps-most-enduring--and-unbefitting--trait/2016/07/15/f5684848-488b-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html

Quote
Plenty of financial and real estate players got carried away in the go-go 1980s. But Trump was in a class by himself.

He ended up presiding over six — count ’em, six — bankruptcies because he kept making business decisions with his gut rather than with his brain.

Edit to add:
Quote
“The Apprentice” was a pivotal event for Trump. It made him into a truly national figure, and he says the show paid him more than $200 million during its run.

Even in the strange world of TV payments and salaries, this seems like an extraordinary sum. The most likely explanations here are either lying, mentally ill or he's actually been paid this amount. With his past, I'm leaning to two of the three.

That's about $140k per episode, or $14m/year for the 14 years it ran.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 25, 2016, 06:02:58 pm
So, more than Mario Batali or Alain Ducasse, but less than Gordon Ramsay, Rachael Ray, Wolfgang Puck, and Paula Deen.

Sorry, didn't know what else to compare him to except TV chefs, I am kind of out of the reality-tv loop.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 25, 2016, 06:34:00 pm
Bernie's delegates are absolutely freaking out at his speech right now.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2016, 06:35:52 pm
Bernie's delegates are absolutely freaking out at his speech right now.

Fuck 'em. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2016, 07:30:09 pm
Nate Silver now saying if the election was today, Trump would win.  And he's the least doom-y of anyone right now.

I told you so.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 25, 2016, 07:39:29 pm
Nate Silver now saying if the election was today, Trump would win.  And he's the least doom-y of anyone right now.

I told you so.

Post-convention bump right now, polls mean nothing until the DNC's finished.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2016, 08:10:08 pm
Nate Silver now saying if the election was today, Trump would win.  And he's the least doom-y of anyone right now.

I told you so.

Post-convention bump right now, polls mean nothing until the DNC's finished.

DNC is devouring itself.  DNC is sinking into the swamp.  It's all over.  Abandon ship.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 25, 2016, 09:41:25 pm
So, more than Mario Batali or Alain Ducasse, but less than Gordon Ramsay, Rachael Ray, Wolfgang Puck, and Paula Deen.

Sorry, didn't know what else to compare him to except TV chefs, I am kind of out of the reality-tv loop.

Fair enough comparison. It turns out I really have no idea how much money is floating around TV. At least it's not likely to survive in this fashion in another 10-15 years.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2016, 03:13:04 am
The Bernie Bros are booing Michelle Obama.

They can kiss my entire ass until it blisters up.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2016, 03:48:34 am
And warren.  And they shouted "Black Lives Matter" over Booker while he was trying to speak.

Oddly enough, he is Black and they are almost without exception white.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2016, 04:22:51 am
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd they ate Sanders alive.   :lulz:

I think they were waiting for him to say "write me in in November!"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on July 26, 2016, 04:30:46 am
At this point, I'm thinking about writing in Ralph Nader in the hopes that that somehow will magically cause G.W. Bush to be president again.

Because, hey, when you're falling off a cliff, WHY NOT flap your arms? Maybe you WILL fly!



HAHAHAH! BIKAW!! HAHAHAHA!!!! BIKAW!! BIKAW!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2016, 05:10:57 am
BIKAW!! HAHAHAHA!!!! BIKAW!! BIKAW!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!![/b][/size]

The official slogan of the Post-American Century™.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on July 26, 2016, 06:26:05 am
BIKAW!! HAHAHAHA!!!! BIKAW!! BIKAW!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!![/b][/size]

The official slogan of the Post-American Century™.   :lulz:

Hey! Maybe it won't be so bad! Just think of the possibilities!

I mean, can you Imagine? We could have CHIEF JUSTICE BAIO! Nobody would be doubting whether or not Charles was really in charge THEN, huh?

AMIRITE!!!??!?!!?!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 26, 2016, 08:28:29 am
Also, suspect this is the first article in question:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/donald-trumps-most-enduring--and-unbefitting--trait/2016/07/15/f5684848-488b-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html

Quote
Plenty of financial and real estate players got carried away in the go-go 1980s. But Trump was in a class by himself.

He ended up presiding over six — count ’em, six — bankruptcies because he kept making business decisions with his gut rather than with his brain.

Edit to add:
Quote
“The Apprentice” was a pivotal event for Trump. It made him into a truly national figure, and he says the show paid him more than $200 million during its run.

Even in the strange world of TV payments and salaries, this seems like an extraordinary sum. The most likely explanations here are either lying, mentally ill or he's actually been paid this amount. With his past, I'm leaning to two of the three.

That's about $140k per episode, or $14m/year for the 14 years it ran.

It seriously ran 14 years!?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 26, 2016, 12:45:07 pm
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd they ate Sanders alive.   :lulz:

I think they were waiting for him to say "write me in in November!"

Want to take a bet on when the first actual cannibalisation of a candidate occurs? I'm thinking something along the lines of the ending scene from Perfume within the next couple of cycles.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 26, 2016, 04:52:49 pm
In case anyone feels like making some memes, here's a bunch of photos of Sanders supporters wailing and gnashing their teeth at the DNC.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/26/photos_of_angry_sad_horrified_bernie_sanders_supporters.html
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 26, 2016, 04:54:51 pm
That was impressively mean, even for Slate
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 26, 2016, 05:11:03 pm
In fairness, most look old enough to know better.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 26, 2016, 05:13:21 pm
Oh believe me, that wasn't me condemning them.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 26, 2016, 05:44:19 pm
Incidentally, I heard a new (to me) portmanteau: "Sandernistas".  Seems fitting.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 26, 2016, 05:49:46 pm
You need to go on social media more.  That's been swirling around since Feburary or so, I think
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 26, 2016, 08:35:41 pm
Bernie's delegates are absolutely freaking out at his speech right now.

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on July 26, 2016, 11:50:11 pm
You need to go on social media more.  That's been swirling around since Feburary or so, I think

It's been around since Sanders expressed his support for the actual Sandanistas, back when they were a viable thing.  So quite a bit longer than February.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 27, 2016, 01:38:35 am
FINE. I get it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 01:56:37 am
The NYT is now reporting the hacked documents may have been altered.

Basically, the metadata in the leaked files posted by Wikileaks is in Russian.  This means one of two things.  Either the hackers opened up the emails in Word and saved them....or they opened them up in Word, selectively edited them to make them look a bit spicier, and then saved them.  No-one knows.

I'm inclined to believe they weren't edited, because quite frankly if they were the revelations would be a lot more damaging.  But Wikileaks does not give any fucks either way regarding the possibility, apparently, or else they would have noticed the same thing and asked for the raw files.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 27, 2016, 09:45:00 am
Quote
I'm inclined to believe they weren't edited, because quite frankly if they were the revelations would be a lot more damaging.  But Wikileaks does not give any fucks either way regarding the possibility, apparently, or else they would have noticed the same thing and asked for the raw files.

Wikileaks aside for the moment, is not the hack in and of its-self, regardless on contents revealed, an indication of general security arrangements? Clinton has had plenty of shit of late over email severs and possible security lapses so I'd suggest that part of the motive is just to feed that narrative more. "Oh look, now they've left X accessible, she can't possibly be trusted with national security". I think this may be one of those unusual hacks where it's not so much about any information, just pointing out that X is not as secure as X claims, indirectly boosting Y's credentials.

The fun will really start if there's some kind of Trump hack because you just know so much of his material is going to be quite libellous.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 27, 2016, 05:11:12 pm
Quote
I'm inclined to believe they weren't edited, because quite frankly if they were the revelations would be a lot more damaging.  But Wikileaks does not give any fucks either way regarding the possibility, apparently, or else they would have noticed the same thing and asked for the raw files.

Wikileaks aside for the moment, is not the hack in and of its-self, regardless on contents revealed, an indication of general security arrangements? Clinton has had plenty of shit of late over email severs and possible security lapses so I'd suggest that part of the motive is just to feed that narrative more. "Oh look, now they've left X accessible, she can't possibly be trusted with national security". I think this may be one of those unusual hacks where it's not so much about any information, just pointing out that X is not as secure as X claims, indirectly boosting Y's credentials.

The fun will really start if there's some kind of Trump hack because you just know so much of his material is going to be quite libellous.

There won't be.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 27, 2016, 05:37:41 pm
Quote
I'm inclined to believe they weren't edited, because quite frankly if they were the revelations would be a lot more damaging.  But Wikileaks does not give any fucks either way regarding the possibility, apparently, or else they would have noticed the same thing and asked for the raw files.

Wikileaks aside for the moment, is not the hack in and of its-self, regardless on contents revealed, an indication of general security arrangements? Clinton has had plenty of shit of late over email severs and possible security lapses so I'd suggest that part of the motive is just to feed that narrative more. "Oh look, now they've left X accessible, she can't possibly be trusted with national security". I think this may be one of those unusual hacks where it's not so much about any information, just pointing out that X is not as secure as X claims, indirectly boosting Y's credentials.

The fun will really start if there's some kind of Trump hack because you just know so much of his material is going to be quite libellous.

Clinton doesn't run the DNC, so that line of logic would be quite a stretch. Then again, people seem to have bought that some random staffer inadvertently inserted Michelle Obama's speech into Melania Trump's speech and somehow, nobody noticed until after it was delivered, sooo...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 06:54:32 pm
OK.  I'm feeling less like I'm on crazy pills now.

Though Trump was asked about the DNC hack, and basically said "I hope Putin has Clinton's emails too".  And talked about her VP "Tom Kean", advocated torture and withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 27, 2016, 07:03:45 pm
I believe he openly invited Putin to hack Hillary as well, didn't he?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 07:08:24 pm
Yup.

And refused to say if the US would come to the defence of the Baltic states in the event of an attack by Russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/donald-trumps-falsehood-laden-press-conference-annotated/
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 07:39:47 pm
Oh, and check this out

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-hacked-emails-of-dnc-oppo-researcher-point-to-russians-and-wider-penetration-154121061.html

Quote
Just weeks after she started preparing opposition research files on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort last spring, Democratic National Committee consultant Alexandra Chalupa got an alarming message when she logged into her personal Yahoo email account.

“Important action required,” read a pop-up box from a Yahoo security team that is informally known as “the Paranoids.” “We strongly suspect that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors.”

Chalupa — who had been drafting memos and writing emails about Manafort’s connection to pro-Russian political leaders in Ukraine — quickly alerted top DNC officials. “Since I started digging into Manafort, these messages have been a daily oc­­­­currence on my Yahoo account despite changing my p­­a­ssword often,” she wrote in a May 3 email to Luis Miranda, the DNC’s communications director, which included an attached screengrab of the image of the Yahoo security warning.

This is a widespread sabotage campaign of your elections.

If the US doesn't respond to this, you may as well roll over and let Russian hackers gut your entire country.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 27, 2016, 07:41:57 pm
I'm amazed how quiet everyone's being about this.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 07:52:39 pm
Kick up a storm yourself.  It's what I've been trying to do, via social media.

The press is finally starting to stir, thanks to Josh Marshall and Dan Drezner.  NYT, Daily Beast, WaPo, Atlantic...everyone's discussing Trump's potential links to Russia now, and what a Russian hack and Russian manipulation of the American elections actually means. 

So I'd start with those publications.  Spread them around, get people talking.  Beyond this being a chance to bury Trump (which is no small thing), it's also about your national security.  Russia is manipulating your elections.  It's not going to stop, it's going to get worse.  Unless they're held accountable and made to pay for their actions.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 27, 2016, 08:19:37 pm
OK.  I'm feeling less like I'm on crazy pills now.

Though Trump was asked about the DNC hack, and basically said "I hope Putin has Clinton's emails too".  And talked about her VP "Tom Kean", advocated torture and withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.

Godwin's Law doesn't apply if you're talking about actual Nazis.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 27, 2016, 08:20:30 pm
I'm amazed how quiet everyone's being about this.

It's the new normal.  It's what we wanted.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 27, 2016, 08:20:46 pm
Almost makes you wonder if they (Russia) have taken any interest in any other recent votes.

Surely that's just silly and paranoid.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 27, 2016, 08:22:36 pm
Almost makes you wonder if they (Russia) have taken any interest in any other recent votes.

Surely that's just silly and paranoid.

*looks at congress*

Not actually necessary until now.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Emo Howard on July 27, 2016, 08:24:35 pm
Seems like a good time to start Trump: Secret RussianTM memes that parody the Obama: Secret MuslimTM stuff.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 08:30:03 pm
Almost makes you wonder if they (Russia) have taken any interest in any other recent votes.

Surely that's just silly and paranoid.

*looks at congress*

Not actually necessary until now.

I think Junk was referring to a recent referendum in the UK, where at least one of the major parties involved is lead by a man who openly admires Putin, and whose European, eurosceptic allies are often funded by Russian money.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 08:42:31 pm
That said I don't recall any suspicious leaks of data which could have been of benefit.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 27, 2016, 08:58:46 pm
That's no guarantee that funding didn't drift through though.

And to be honest, I was just thinking about anywhere where Russia's interests would be advanced with certain parties/policies. I could point a finger at more than a few in Europe. I'm sure there's some kind of overt lobby group in the US for Russian interests too.

As for congress, there must be at least a couple there on Putin's payroll, surely?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 27, 2016, 09:12:58 pm
That's no guarantee that funding didn't drift through though.

And to be honest, I was just thinking about anywhere where Russia's interests would be advanced with certain parties/policies. I could point a finger at more than a few in Europe. I'm sure there's some kind of overt lobby group in the US for Russian interests too.

As for congress, there must be at least a couple there on Putin's payroll, surely?

Probably not.  We're plenty spastic enough to do that without their assistant.  Seriously, it's really hard to explain to an outsider.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on July 27, 2016, 09:23:30 pm
Quote
I'm inclined to believe they weren't edited, because quite frankly if they were the revelations would be a lot more damaging.  But Wikileaks does not give any fucks either way regarding the possibility, apparently, or else they would have noticed the same thing and asked for the raw files.

Wikileaks aside for the moment, is not the hack in and of its-self, regardless on contents revealed, an indication of general security arrangements? Clinton has had plenty of shit of late over email severs and possible security lapses so I'd suggest that part of the motive is just to feed that narrative more. "Oh look, now they've left X accessible, she can't possibly be trusted with national security". I think this may be one of those unusual hacks where it's not so much about any information, just pointing out that X is not as secure as X claims, indirectly boosting Y's credentials.

The fun will really start if there's some kind of Trump hack because you just know so much of his material is going to be quite libellous.

There won't be.

Why not?  There are plenty of hackers on the left who despise Trump.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 27, 2016, 09:36:35 pm
Quote
I'm inclined to believe they weren't edited, because quite frankly if they were the revelations would be a lot more damaging.  But Wikileaks does not give any fucks either way regarding the possibility, apparently, or else they would have noticed the same thing and asked for the raw files.

Wikileaks aside for the moment, is not the hack in and of its-self, regardless on contents revealed, an indication of general security arrangements? Clinton has had plenty of shit of late over email severs and possible security lapses so I'd suggest that part of the motive is just to feed that narrative more. "Oh look, now they've left X accessible, she can't possibly be trusted with national security". I think this may be one of those unusual hacks where it's not so much about any information, just pointing out that X is not as secure as X claims, indirectly boosting Y's credentials.

The fun will really start if there's some kind of Trump hack because you just know so much of his material is going to be quite libellous.

There won't be.

Why not?  There are plenty of hackers on the left who despise Trump.

*looks around*

Yeah?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 10:13:16 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/

Quote
Retaliation is politically fraught and could have serious consequences, but this is an attack against our democracy. We need to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin in some way — politically, economically or in cyberspace — and make it clear that we will not tolerate this kind of interference by any government. Regardless of your political leanings this time, there’s no guarantee the next country that tries to manipulate our elections will share your preferred candidates.

Even more important, we need to secure our election systems before autumn. If Putin’s government has already used a cyberattack to attempt to help Trump win, there’s no reason to believe he won’t do it again — especially now that Trump is inviting the “help.”

Over the years, more and more states have moved to electronic voting machines and have flirted with Internet voting. These systems are insecure and vulnerable to attack.

But while computer security experts like me have sounded the alarm for many years, states have largely ignored the threat, and the machine manufacturers have thrown up enough obfuscating babble that election officials are largely mollified.

We no longer have time for that. We must ignore the machine manufacturers’ spurious claims of security, create tiger teams to test the machines’ and systems’ resistance to attack, drastically increase their cyber-defenses and take them offline if we can’t guarantee their security online.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 11:03:30 pm
"I'm totally not Putin's bitch-boy!"

10 minutes later... http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-to-look-at-recognizing-crimea-as-russian-territory-lifting-sanctions-putin/
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 27, 2016, 11:06:05 pm
Will be interesting to see how much traction this all gains. It's also stunning that any warning have been largely ignored. I mean, I see that happening for profit but after the second/third guy finds an issue, at least one of these will have already offered the information to something less than reputable.

It's pretty much guaranteed the aftermath as a shitshow now in any event. Who-ever wins is going to get tarnished with this somehow.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 27, 2016, 11:07:25 pm
"I'm totally not Putin's bitch-boy!"

10 minutes later... http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-to-look-at-recognizing-crimea-as-russian-territory-lifting-sanctions-putin/

Oh, come on. This is just bizarrely stupid now.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 11:08:35 pm
And we haven't seen anything yet.  It's called an "October Surprise" for a reason.

Whatever gets leaked in the final 2 weeks of the election is going to make this look like a storm in a teacup by comparison.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see actual violence.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 27, 2016, 11:18:34 pm
Undoubtedly, the real question is between whom and why? When you consider that the UK, with it's comparatively non-existent level of guns had an MP shot dead quite recently, it's reasonable to assume that some are likely to escalate matters sooner or later. The recent police issues don't suggest it's going to be a mild over-reaction and a cream pie as the probable weapon of choice.

Book's wide open, Even money on practically anything you'd care to name.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 27, 2016, 11:32:12 pm
Well, I finally heard the story on local news, so it's trickled down that far, at least.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 27, 2016, 11:44:19 pm
Heh-- Trump's doing an AMA on Reddit in 15 minutes. Anyone plan on watching?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 27, 2016, 11:52:51 pm
Heh-- Trump's doing an AMA on Reddit in 15 minutes. Anyone plan on watching?

I'm sort of tempted, but I suspect it's going to be brigaded to fuck by the The_Donald members, so any actually interesting questions will be downvoted into oblivion.

Undoubtedly, the real question is between whom and why? When you consider that the UK, with it's comparatively non-existent level of guns had an MP shot dead quite recently, it's reasonable to assume that some are likely to escalate matters sooner or later. The recent police issues don't suggest it's going to be a mild over-reaction and a cream pie as the probable weapon of choice.

Book's wide open, Even money on practically anything you'd care to name.

John Robb's suggested civil war.  I don't think things would go that far, but generalised riots, irate Trump supporters, black nationalist offshoots, genuine Neo-Nazis....maybe National Guard mobilised in response.  Or ISIS could take advantage and throw a molotov-cocktailed flavoured spanner into the works.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 28, 2016, 12:07:03 am
I'm still waiting to see who ISIS declares for.

I'm only half joking with that.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 28, 2016, 12:10:26 am
"We won't attack the USA if Trump is elected."




Fuck. That would work.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 28, 2016, 12:11:17 am
http://i.imgur.com/HYYF0X2.gifv
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 28, 2016, 12:13:51 am
"We won't attack the USA if Trump is elected."




Fuck. That would work.

"We think we can work with Clinton to reform the region to accomodate the Caliphate".

They could go either way, and might just. You know you can't actually rule it out because it's just stupid enough to happen now.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 28, 2016, 12:16:53 am
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/20/hillary-clinton/donald-trump-now-being-used-terrorist-propaganda-v/
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 28, 2016, 12:20:35 am
This noise I'm making, I assure you it's laughter.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 28, 2016, 12:23:24 am
And while I'm here

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7?r=US&IR=T

Quote
Russia's troll factories were, at one point, likely being paid by the Kremlin to spread pro-Trump propaganda on social media.

That is what freelance journalist Adrian Chen, now a staff writer at The New Yorker, discovered as he was researching Russia's "army of well-paid trolls" for an explosive New York Times Magazine exposé published in June 2015.

"A very interesting thing happened," Chen told Longform's Max Linsky in a podcast in December.

"I created this list of Russian trolls when I was researching. And I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don't know what's going on, but they're all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff," he said.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 28, 2016, 12:32:52 am
Again, It's a laughing sound.

Oh, this is going to be so much more of a shitshow than I thought a week ago, and it's only likely to get worse.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 28, 2016, 01:51:09 am
What do you guys think the odds are that a Trump presidency would cause the actual end of he world (as opposed to "merely" a police state and/or another pointless war and/or an America as bankrupt as everything else that Trump's ever ran)?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 28, 2016, 02:08:29 am
And while I'm here

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7?r=US&IR=T

Quote
Russia's troll factories were, at one point, likely being paid by the Kremlin to spread pro-Trump propaganda on social media.

That is what freelance journalist Adrian Chen, now a staff writer at The New Yorker, discovered as he was researching Russia's "army of well-paid trolls" for an explosive New York Times Magazine exposé published in June 2015.

"A very interesting thing happened," Chen told Longform's Max Linsky in a podcast in December.

"I created this list of Russian trolls when I was researching. And I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don't know what's going on, but they're all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff," he said.

I knew this election cycle was going to be funny. I just didn't realize HOW funny.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2016, 03:33:55 am
Siggie (Jasper) has decided that I am the biggest bottom-boil ever, for reasons that should (but do not) surprise me:

1.  I refuse to acknowledge that Bernie should have won the primary just because he had less votes.

2.  And because I refuse to agree that "progressive's" votes are super special and they wanted it so bad.

3.  when a "progressive" says "I will never ever ever vote for Hillary", I miss my cue and don't start licking their arses and begging them to do so.  Instead I make fun of them.  Then he says he's not kidding and he's done with me and waaaah.

4.  Then he used my real name, so I blocked his ass. 

The reason I bring this up is that it represents - as far as I've seen - about 99.9% of the remaining hardcore berners.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on July 28, 2016, 08:28:21 am
Siggie (Jasper) has decided that I am the biggest bottom-boil ever, for reasons that should (but do not) surprise me:

1.  I refuse to acknowledge that Bernie should have won the primary just because he had less votes.

2.  And because I refuse to agree that "progressive's" votes are super special and they wanted it so bad.

3.  when a "progressive" says "I will never ever ever vote for Hillary", I miss my cue and don't start licking their arses and begging them to do so.  Instead I make fun of them.  Then he says he's not kidding and he's done with me and waaaah.

4.  Then he used my real name, so I blocked his ass. 

The reason I bring this up is that it represents - as far as I've seen - about 99.9% of the remaining hardcore berners.

They sound more like the actions of an arse-biscuit to me.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 28, 2016, 01:26:35 pm
So regarding that Trump AMA on Reddit, someone asked Trump what he was going to do to end the corrupting influence of money in politics (one of the seven questions he actually answered, btw).

As it turns out, Obama was also asked this question when he did an AMA on Reddit, years ago.  Compare and contrast their answers:

Quote from: Obama
Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and been sponsored in Congress - to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.

Quote from: Trump
Keeping Crooked Hillary Clinton out of the White House!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 28, 2016, 01:47:38 pm
I assume that's one of his more substantial answers?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 28, 2016, 01:48:28 pm
Is there a summary somewhere, or do I have to wade into Reddit to find it?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 28, 2016, 01:50:00 pm
It's barely worth it for seven sentences, really.

If anyone was slightly arsed they could probably guess at least two or three based on the above response.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 28, 2016, 01:50:26 pm
I assume that's one of his more substantial answers?

Yes.  NASA good, voter fraud bad, Hillary crooked.

do I have to wade into Reddit to find it?

Yes, but I'd recommend reading it via https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/4uxifu/donald_trump_ama_megathread/ than the thread itself.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 28, 2016, 02:01:35 pm
Sweet vishnu:

Quote
Might be waiting a while since the_donald mods have stickied a comment onto the post saying they will remove comments form new accounts and comments that break their rules about criticizing Trump or the mods. -/u/stopscopiesme
...
11:17 EST: A post titled Hey /u/spez fuck you and your cuck admin team gets over 4000 upvotes. Spez (the CEO of reddit) then stickies an announcement in the subreddit, -stopscopiesme
09:33 CEST; The_Donald rage against Reddit in general and Spez in particular continues: "Officially calling for /u/spez to step down" (3,5K+ upvotes; besides a ton of other submissions on their front page decrying perceived Reddit censorship. Also, a lot of salt because /r/enoughtrumpspam managed to get the famous nude painting of Trump to /r/all - trumping the AMA itself. In 'revenge' they're mounting a campaign to upvote a nude painting of Hillary to r/all. - JebusGobson

Classier by the day.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 29, 2016, 01:59:12 am
That's pretty much The_Donald all over.  "Free speech", but no criticising Trump, while making fun of SJWs for having safe zones.  Their lead mod is also a self-admitted rapist.

Meanwhile...https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-security-experts-request-congressional-investigation-of-dnc-hack/2016/07/28/81fa5cb8-550e-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html?postshare=6821469751846917&tid=ss_tw

Quote
Two dozen Republican national security experts signed a letter to congressional leaders Thursday asking for an immediate investigation into the cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee, writing that “this is not a partisan issue” but rather “an assault on the integrity of the entire American political process.”

The letter, signed by conservative luminaries of the Reagan and Bush administrations, urges political leaders to reject any effort to seek partisan advantage from the hack and its fallout.

“Congress has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this extraordinary breach, not only to determine who was responsible but also to consider the appropriate response,” reads the letter signed by Republican foreign policy hawks such as Elliott Abrams, who served as an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration and as deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 29, 2016, 02:09:24 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cofar3rVIAEsdbP.jpg)

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on July 29, 2016, 03:20:39 am
Has anyone asked trump if he will parden snowden?
I'm fairly certain that given trumps winging it on the fly, there's a 50% chance he'd say yes.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 29, 2016, 04:52:37 am
Has anyone asked trump if he will parden snowden?
I'm fairly certain that given trumps winging it on the fly, there's a 50% chance he'd say yes.

Trump said if he was President there would be no question that Putin would extradite him to the USA, and that he would prosecute him under the Espionage Act, as he is a "total traitor".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 29, 2016, 05:02:50 am
Neo-Nazi says what?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on July 29, 2016, 05:05:11 am
See, kids, this is what comes out from under the bushes when you enable the neo-Nazis.

And now it's here screeching about DUURRRRR JOOOOS!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 29, 2016, 05:54:28 am
Oh, look, a hate-filled delusional shitnugget.

How charming.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Freeky on July 29, 2016, 05:59:31 am
Quote
EXILIC YEHUD

I don't think these are words, you guys.  Is it an acronym of some sort?

Extra
Xylophonic
Islands
Lay
In
California,

You
Ever
Had
Underwear
Drop?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 29, 2016, 05:59:44 am
Just the truth faggot. Every word.

No, you're meant to say "what?"

Please try to keep up.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 29, 2016, 06:21:12 am
This should explain things (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KGmHsKsa-U) :lulz:
(plug in names of cureent candidates in place of Obama and Romney)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on July 29, 2016, 02:18:24 pm
Nihil's here?


Now we gotta switch to the plastic silverware.  No sharp objects, people.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2016, 05:15:55 pm
It's like this friends (as if you don't already know): the neocon and neolib EXILIC YEHUD have got it in for TRUMP, PUTIN and the entire rank-and-file GENTILE population of the West. They fear any strong, popular leader who isn't in their pockets and doesn't bow to their opinion-control system or their agenda to fundamentally transform our civilization and get TRIBAL VENGEANCE. This is a time of revelation; this corrupt system is being revealed for all to see and spinning out of their control. They are getting so desperate now that they're trying to pull a McCarthy on those EVUL RUSSKY GOYIM.

Note that it's the DESPERATE NEOCON RATS pushing this shit from both sides of the aisle; now that the game is almost over for them, they're fleeing for the bad ship HILLARY.

So you see friends, there clearly is a hostile transnational tribe of financiers, war-mongers, cultural engineers, goyim-herders and media manipulators who always conspire against us in our own lands -- as any moran with half a brain can see, and as our good 'STEIN friends here are demonstrating. HITLER WAS RIGHT!

Dark Enlightment shitbags exist only to be mocked or kicked.  They are like schmoos.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2016, 05:17:25 pm
Note how our "liberal" and "leftist" friends here are allying themselves with "right wing" neocons like that Reaganite scumbag Abrams. This illustrates an age-old fact, which is common knowledge outside of their manipulation zone: no matter what superficial form or ideology they adopt (capitalist/socialist, liberal/conservative, atheist/religious, etc.), at the end of the day, JEWS ARE JEWS, and will always circle the wagons to propagandize against any leader who demonstrates an ability to unite the goyim and who doesn't submit to the Judaic will. And this is precisely WHY WE FIGHT!

Dude, shut up.  Seriously.  You are scum.  If I had my way, which unfortunately I don't, I'd just ban you immediately and call it a day.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trix on July 29, 2016, 05:22:38 pm
Has anyone asked trump if he will parden snowden?
I'm fairly certain that given trumps winging it on the fly, there's a 50% chance he'd say yes.

Trump said if he was President there would be no question that Putin would extradite him to the USA, and that he would prosecute him under the Espionage Act, as he is a "total traitor".

Sure, but if you ask him AGAIN, there's still a 50% chance he will say yes.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 29, 2016, 06:37:37 pm
(https://scontent.fbos1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13669207_10210274636604912_6856872599546320683_n.jpg?oh=d368e36ead9f98fb40672e4ea8556068&oe=582C9069)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mangrove on July 29, 2016, 07:17:55 pm
HITLER WAS RIGHT!

...on the political spectrum.

(Mang - providing useful context since 2004.)

Anyway, I thought you declared your 'victory' over us in 2013. How's that working out for you?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on July 29, 2016, 07:41:44 pm
It's at least a 3 year old joke though, for what that's worth.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on July 30, 2016, 02:11:21 am
You realize you asshole nazis have made it very difficult to criticize the state of Israel?  If I were conspiracy minded I might think that meant something.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 30, 2016, 03:02:43 am
While the stupidity of the neonazis is the most offensive piece of that paradigm, the largest part of it -  the actual driving force behind it - could be argued to stem more properly from the stupidity of the common man.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 30, 2016, 04:00:44 am
The most recent hack - the one people are just reporting on a few hours ago - appears to have been carried out by "Advanced Persistent Threat 28", aka Sofacy Group, aka "Fancy Bear".

They're even more obviously a Russian hacker group than APT 29, who carried out the DNC hack last month.  As in, it's been widely known for months now.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2016, 04:41:36 am
Has it been 3 years already? Did you miss me?

Roger, answer one question for me please: are you a jew?

No, but I play one on TV.

Shut your Nazi cakehole.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 30, 2016, 04:57:16 am
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759191265988653056

Quote
Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.

Quote
lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts

Quote
lose cannon

Quote
insticts
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 30, 2016, 05:00:47 am
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759191265988653056

Quote
Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.

Quote
lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts

Quote
lose cannon

Quote
insticts

I like how his method is to simply say things and hope people believe them. And then, somehow, people do.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 30, 2016, 05:08:45 am
His Twitter feed is somewhat similar to the output of a child who took too much Ritalin.  I'm only surprised that tweet didn't manage to work a #CrookedHillary and more ALL CAPS in there.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 30, 2016, 05:25:09 am
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759191265988653056

Quote
Hillary Clinton should not be given national security briefings in that she is a lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts.

Quote
lose cannon with extraordinarily bad judgement & insticts

Quote
lose cannon

Quote
insticts

More relevant than the spelling mistakes is the fact that that describes him much better than it describes Hillary, especially the loose cannon part. Plus the accusation doesn't even line up with the standard anti-Hillary rhetoric; isn't she supposed to be a coldly calculating white-collar criminal manipulator?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 31, 2016, 12:46:04 am
More relevant for sure, but not as funny.

You know what else is funny?  Clinton is now the only Presidential candidate not to have voiced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories  :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 01:34:05 am
More relevant for sure, but not as funny.

You know what else is funny?  Clinton is now the only Presidential candidate not to have voiced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories  :lulz:

 :popcorn:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 05:12:01 am
More relevant for sure, but not as funny.

You know what else is funny?  Clinton is now the only Presidential candidate not to have voiced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories  :lulz:

Oh god why. Why is this happening. How did we get here? This is not what 2016 was supposed to be like.  :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 31, 2016, 05:52:33 am
More relevant for sure, but not as funny.

You know what else is funny?  Clinton is now the only Presidential candidate not to have voiced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories  :lulz:

Oh god why. Why is this happening. How did we get here? This is not what 2016 was supposed to be like.  :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:

Indeed. This was all supposed to happen in 2012. According to mistranslations of the ancient Mayans at any rate.

(Seriously, what estimate do you guys give of the odds that a Trump presidency would cause the literal end of the world? I think it would put us at least back into Cold War era territory with regard to chances of a world-ending man-made cataclysm)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: CBXTN on July 31, 2016, 05:59:58 am

Indeed. This was all supposed to happen in 2012. According to mistranslations of the ancient Mayans at any rate.

(Seriously, what estimate do you guys give of the odds that a Trump presidency would cause the literal end of the world? I think it would put us at least back into Cold War era territory with regard to chances of a world-ending man-made cataclysm)

A trump presidency, like a laxative, would only encourage the natural progression of a large scale violent uprising across the country.
A clinton presidency would be another 4 years of constipation.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on July 31, 2016, 06:53:27 am
More relevant for sure, but not as funny.

You know what else is funny?  Clinton is now the only Presidential candidate not to have voiced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories  :lulz:

Oh god why. Why is this happening. How did we get here? This is not what 2016 was supposed to be like.  :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:

Indeed. This was all supposed to happen in 2012. According to mistranslations of the ancient Mayans at any rate.

(Seriously, what estimate do you guys give of the odds that a Trump presidency would cause the literal end of the world? I think it would put us at least back into Cold War era territory with regard to chances of a world-ending man-made cataclysm)

Unlikely IMO, he's more Mussolini than Hitler and Hitler didn't end the world.  He's mostly going to piss off our allies, who aren't going to provoke a war over it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 31, 2016, 06:56:57 am
More relevant for sure, but not as funny.

You know what else is funny?  Clinton is now the only Presidential candidate not to have voiced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories  :lulz:

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiieeeeee eee
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on July 31, 2016, 07:52:44 am
More relevant for sure, but not as funny.

You know what else is funny?  Clinton is now the only Presidential candidate not to have voiced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories  :lulz:

Oh god why. Why is this happening. How did we get here? This is not what 2016 was supposed to be like.  :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:

Indeed. This was all supposed to happen in 2012. According to mistranslations of the ancient Mayans at any rate.

(Seriously, what estimate do you guys give of the odds that a Trump presidency would cause the literal end of the world? I think it would put us at least back into Cold War era territory with regard to chances of a world-ending man-made cataclysm)

Unlikely IMO, he's more Mussolini than Hitler and Hitler didn't end the world.  He's mostly going to piss off our allies, who aren't going to provoke a war over it.

Agreed, though I can imagine at least one potential nuclear war scenario arising from a Trump Presidency.  It's not likely, but it's possible:

Emboldened by a Trump Presidency, Russia steps up covert destabilisation operations in the Baltic nations, maybe in hope of creating conditions whereby they can intervene as they did in the Crimea, with "little green men" and "self-defence militias" everywhere, maybe just to be dicks.

Concerned by Trump's lack of support for NATO unified collective security policies, Baltic nations increase military spending and adopt an aggressive posture against Russian military interference.

Cue "security dilemma", whereby spiralling military commitments to the border caused by mutual suspicion cause both sides to feel on the brink of war.

No longer certain of American intentions, the Baltic nations approach France and the UK to shore up their military and diplomatic muscle.

Neither France or the UK are suitable stand-ins for American forces, though they cannot be discounted as easily as Baltic nation military forces.  The UK and France however, are both second-strike capable nuclear powers, capable of launching a decapitation strike on Russia even in the event of Russian strikes on those respective countries.

You now have a direct military stand-off between three nuclear powers, on a very uncertain border, involving countries who have significant Russian populations who have been treated especially poorly, in a 24 hour social media driven political landscape.

One idiot with a bomb or a gun could be enough to set things off.

However, my feeling is that we will see more unrest in the Balkans, Baltic, Middle East and South China Sea generally, as a variety of nations attempt to push President Trump's buttons and see how he reacts, if he does at all.  Its what I'd do, in their place.  Give him a short, sharp smack in the mouth and see if he flinches, and whether he doubles down, is all bark or can respond effectively.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 01, 2016, 05:09:07 am

A trump presidency, like a laxative, would only encourage the natural progression of a large scale violent uprising across the country.


 :lulz:

There will be no revolution as long as the TV works.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 01, 2016, 08:23:03 am
Accelerationists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism) are cute.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 01, 2016, 09:04:40 am
Accelerationism never considers that the only thing it is pushing us closer to is the Great Filter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter). 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 01, 2016, 11:32:01 pm
You may want to look at Trump's latest ABC interview

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw4&wpmm=1

Includes some hilarious backpedaling/denial/trying to have your cake and eat it on Russia, Ukraine and NATO.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 02, 2016, 02:20:04 am
You may want to look at Trump's latest ABC interview

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw4&wpmm=1

Includes some hilarious backpedaling/denial/trying to have your cake and eat it on Russia, Ukraine and NATO.

The highlights are a nice touch.

Increasingly convinced this is how we will get the beast and the smiler. In 3 cycles it's just going to be trump classic vs trump original.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 02, 2016, 06:44:05 pm
You may want to look at Trump's latest ABC interview

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw4&wpmm=1

Includes some hilarious backpedaling/denial/trying to have your cake and eat it on Russia, Ukraine and NATO.

That interview really highlights that Trump's strategy is to just insist the same things over and over, and hope that people just believe them, regardless of evidence.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on August 02, 2016, 06:45:33 pm
Sadly, it's been known to work.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 02, 2016, 06:59:43 pm
Yep. People believe what they hear, and it's very difficult to undo those beliefs.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 02, 2016, 07:01:21 pm
See how well it worked with the whole "Hillary is a liar and a criminal" thing... we now have liberals who believe that just because it's been repeated so incredibly often. It's total bullshit, but if you say bullshit enough times, you will convince the people who want to believe it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 07:19:55 pm
You may want to look at Trump's latest ABC interview

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw4&wpmm=1

Includes some hilarious backpedaling/denial/trying to have your cake and eat it on Russia, Ukraine and NATO.

That interview really highlights that Trump's strategy is to just insist the same things over and over, and hope that people just believe them, regardless of evidence.

I believe Scott Adams (Writer/artist of comic strip "Dilbert") did a bit on Trump being an absurdly effective propagandist. He was basically saying that regardless of your position, his skill with generalizations and shifting attention from one topic to another were almost unparalleled, and that that's why he was winning the nomination (This was before the nomination). I don't remember his particular stance on the politics, but it was pretty detailed and a good watch. I think he had a written piece on it as well.

Will edit with the link later if I get a chance.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 02, 2016, 08:02:01 pm
You may want to look at Trump's latest ABC interview

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw4&wpmm=1

Includes some hilarious backpedaling/denial/trying to have your cake and eat it on Russia, Ukraine and NATO.

That interview really highlights that Trump's strategy is to just insist the same things over and over, and hope that people just believe them, regardless of evidence.

I believe Scott Adams (Writer/artist of comic strip "Dilbert") did a bit on Trump being an absurdly effective propagandist. He was basically saying that regardless of your position, his skill with generalizations and shifting attention from one topic to another were almost unparalleled, and that that's why he was winning the nomination (This was before the nomination). I don't remember his particular stance on the politics, but it was pretty detailed and a good watch. I think he had a written piece on it as well.

Will edit with the link later if I get a chance.

Trump is, fundamentally, a salesman. He is effective for the same reason David Avocado Wolf and Mercola are effective; people will disregard the vague hand-waving nonsense and obvious bullshit as long as the take-home promises them what they want.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on August 03, 2016, 05:53:19 pm
You may want to look at Trump's latest ABC interview

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw4&wpmm=1

Includes some hilarious backpedaling/denial/trying to have your cake and eat it on Russia, Ukraine and NATO.

That interview really highlights that Trump's strategy is to just insist the same things over and over, and hope that people just believe them, regardless of evidence.

I believe Scott Adams (Writer/artist of comic strip "Dilbert") did a bit on Trump being an absurdly effective propagandist. He was basically saying that regardless of your position, his skill with generalizations and shifting attention from one topic to another were almost unparalleled, and that that's why he was winning the nomination (This was before the nomination). I don't remember his particular stance on the politics, but it was pretty detailed and a good watch. I think he had a written piece on it as well.

Will edit with the link later if I get a chance.

Trump is, fundamentally, a salesman. He is effective for the same reason David Avocado Wolf and Mercola are effective; people will disregard the vague hand-waving nonsense and obvious bullshit as long as the take-home promises them what they want.


  ...he stil gon bild da wall doe, rite?
      /
 :redneck2:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 04, 2016, 03:10:16 pm
It depends what you mean by build.

If you mean cheap land sales to friends, surprisingly expensive feasibility studies and money going to companies for construction work with nothing to show, etc. Etc. then yes, yes he is.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Da6s on August 04, 2016, 05:26:42 pm
This NYT footage of Trump rally crowds is sort of terrifying. Disclaimer: language and slurs in full effect.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html (http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 05, 2016, 12:41:35 am
I heard an off the wall conspiracy theory that Trump was actually a deep-cover Democrat out to destroy the Republican Party. Even though it's almost certainly not true it might do some good to spread this rumor around; it could weaken his support base if it becomes prevalent enough.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on August 05, 2016, 01:55:31 am
I heard an off the wall conspiracy theory that Trump was actually a deep-cover Democrat out to destroy the Republican Party. Even though it's almost certainly not true it might do some good to spread this rumor around; it could weaken his support base if it becomes prevalent enough.

It's a pretty easy one to believe.  He's been friends with the Clintons for a long time, contributed to Hillary' campaign in 2008, they went to his wedding.  The idea of shenanigans is easy to entertain.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 05, 2016, 02:08:11 am
Called that 6 months ago.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on August 05, 2016, 02:27:36 am
Yeah, my conservative Catholic family was saying that the moment they heard he was running as a Rebuplican. They've been anti-trump the whole time, which makes them not as bad.

I have to say, him being a Democrat aimed at destroying the Repiblicants was my go-to assumption in the beginning, and I wouldn't be too surprised if that was the case come election time.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 05, 2016, 02:37:58 am
It depends what you mean by build.

If you mean cheap land sales to friends, surprisingly expensive feasibility studies and money going to companies for construction work with nothing to show, etc. Etc. then yes, yes he is.

Nailed it!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 15, 2016, 11:08:27 am
So, it's been a week, what's new?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37080909

Quote
Donald Trump's campaign team must disclose all pro-Russia links, Hillary Clinton's manager has said, following new allegations in the New York Times.
The paper said ledgers earmarked $12.7m (£9.8m) in undisclosed cash payments from a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine to Mr Trump's campaign head Paul Manafort between 2007 and 2012.
His lawyer said Mr Manafort had not received any such payments.

Fuck all, I guess apart from lawyers now speaking for Manafort. Which implies he taken legal advice to the effect of "shut the fuck up". This is a less than ideal position for a campaign manager who may want to comment on things from time to time.

Quote
The Times quoted Mr Manafort's lawyer, Richard Hibey, as saying his client had not done so.
"It is difficult to respect any kind of allegation of the sort being made here to smear someone when there is no proof and we deny there ever could be such proof."

"We hid it really well, offshore, in a trusted friends name, good luck finding it because you're not even looking for a US national either"


Hey Cain or others who may be familiar with such things, let's say I had a £10 million bribe sat somewhere and they want to pay me and ensure we both never get caught. What's the standard practice at the moment? I assume you'll sacrifice a percentage but I'm pretty confident there's still a shitload of ways and means to accomplish this.

No points for answers just consisting of "HSBC".

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2016, 12:15:57 pm
But HSBC is the best answer  :sad:  They've raised systemic criminality to a level that there needs to either be a new word for it, or else we have to let all the other commercial banks off the hook for such charges.

Usually you're going to want to play games with shell companies, the real owners hidden through a long chain of paperwork.  Overcharging for real services rendered is still frequently used (the Italian journalist/blackmailer Mino Percorelli used to "invite" his victims to buy one of his paintings, as my favourite example of this) or of course the classic direct donation to a charity or foundation, though strictly speaking that works better to influence the foundation itself than the people who may be running it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2016, 12:19:55 pm
Also, for those who want the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 15, 2016, 01:07:16 pm
But HSBC is the best answer  :sad:  They've raised systemic criminality to a level that there needs to either be a new word for it, or else we have to let all the other commercial banks off the hook for such charges.

Usually you're going to want to play games with shell companies, the real owners hidden through a long chain of paperwork.  Overcharging for real services rendered is still frequently used (the Italian journalist/blackmailer Mino Percorelli used to "invite" his victims to buy one of his paintings, as my favourite example of this) or of course the classic direct donation to a charity or foundation, though strictly speaking that works better to influence the foundation itself than the people who may be running it.

This guy sounds like my kind of people. Were the paintings utterly terrible too?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2016, 01:19:08 pm
Probably, as he wasn't making a living as an artist.  Sadly, he was assassinated in 79...possibly something to do with P2/Gladio/Mafia murkiness.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 16, 2016, 11:52:45 am
Probably, as he wasn't making a living as an artist.  Sadly, he was assassinated in 79...possibly something to do with P2/Gladio/Mafia murkiness.
.

Strangely, at least 1/3 can be directly linked to trump. Would not be surprised if the others turn out to be involved in his campaign.

In other news , there was apparently a roast of trump in 2011. Only jokes allegedly not allowed were ones suggesting he's potless.

Two things are odd about this. The first is that when someone becomes defensive about something, it's often a sore spot and probably too close to the truth for him to deal with. The second is that the writers didn't immediately change the script to hammer that home repeatedly. I really don't get the logic there at all. The worst that could happen was that he walked out which then puts you into TV gold territory.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on August 16, 2016, 01:47:05 pm
potless?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 16, 2016, 01:55:54 pm
potless?

Being without means. IE - "So poor, he does not even own a pot to piss in".


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Da6s on August 19, 2016, 02:45:32 am
warning: auto-play video
http://boingboing.net/2016/08/18/while-eating-mans-face-flor.html (http://boingboing.net/2016/08/18/while-eating-mans-face-flor.html)

Quote
Anyway, turns out young Mr. Harrouff was a Donald Trump fan, and while biting chunks of his victim's face off, the teen was wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 19, 2016, 08:51:36 am
America has gone from being a Ballard novel to a Palahniuk novel.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 19, 2016, 03:43:28 pm
Manafort apparently resigned.

Expected changes include:

1 - Nothing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 19, 2016, 03:56:53 pm
Especially since he was replaced by a guy whose main claim to fame is turning Breitbart.com into a clearing house for "alt-right" (read: overtly racist) material
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: PoFP on August 19, 2016, 05:30:44 pm
America has gone from being a Ballard novel to a Palahniuk novel.

           You take that back
                  /
                /
(http://i.imgur.com/Q5m4exn.png)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 19, 2016, 06:08:41 pm
America has gone from being a Ballard novel to a Palahniuk novel.

 :eek:

I read Haunted.

You're right.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on August 21, 2016, 05:57:54 pm
America has gone from being a Ballard novel to a Palahniuk novel.

 :eek:

I read Haunted.

You're right.

I tried to read Haunted. I agree.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 21, 2016, 09:07:35 pm
warning: auto-play video
http://boingboing.net/2016/08/18/while-eating-mans-face-flor.html (http://boingboing.net/2016/08/18/while-eating-mans-face-flor.html)

Quote
Anyway, turns out young Mr. Harrouff was a Donald Trump fan, and while biting chunks of his victim's face off, the teen was wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap.

The really disturbing thing is that despite being a cannibal killer this guy actually sounds like he's more lucid and less out of touch with reality than the typical Republican, and even moreso compared to extreme Republicans. The article even makes reference to him at one point being "coherent", which is something you almost never get from your average Teapartyer, ever.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 25, 2016, 11:37:56 am
Quote
From the side of the stage Mr Trump smiled and clapped. Mr Farage spoke about when President Obama came to the UK and urged voters to remain in the EU. "He talked down to us," he said, "he treated us as nothing."
Mr Farage said "I can't possibly tell you how you should vote", but added he would not vote for Hillary Clinton "if you paid me".
It was not an endorsement but it came close.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37177938

Trump's campaign spending continues to only use cheap suits.



Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 25, 2016, 11:58:46 am
That Farage is willing to endorse Trump in all but name should put to rest any doubts that he is entirely comfortable with racism and bigotry.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 25, 2016, 12:13:00 pm
Win or lose though, it's still setting the stage for tons of future bigotry. The aftermath of this feels like it's going to be very ugly and in a couple of cycles we'll be referring to these cretins as moderates.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: MMIX on August 25, 2016, 01:01:05 pm
That Farage is willing to endorse Trump in all but name should put to rest any doubts that he is entirely comfortable with racism and bigotry.

There were doubts??????  :eek:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 25, 2016, 01:12:23 pm
"Oh Farage is just appealing to racists for the votes".

Ain't any votes to be had now, though.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 25, 2016, 01:39:28 pm
"Oh Farage is just appealing to racists for the votes".

Ain't any votes to be had now, though.

There is an opening for idiotic talking head though. With any luck he'll go the way of moron and fuck off to the USA until they're sick of his shit.

Still, interesting to see the link this openly so my mind goes to Russia and money. Farage may be angling for a taste of that pie, events from the past couple of weeks seem to support this suspicion.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 25, 2016, 01:43:41 pm
Also, £5 right now on a UKIP member joining trumps campaign team by the end of the month.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 25, 2016, 01:45:10 pm
"Oh Farage is just appealing to racists for the votes".

Ain't any votes to be had now, though.

There is an opening for idiotic talking head though. With any luck he'll go the way of moron and fuck off to the USA until they're sick of his shit.

Still, interesting to see the link this openly so my mind goes to Russia and money. Farage may be angling for a taste of that pie, events from the past couple of weeks seem to support this suspicion.

Maybe he and Piers Morgan could co-host a show?

Also, the main financial backer of UKIP has a Russian wife, and some interesting connections to the Russian secretary/mistress of a certain Lib Dem, who was accused of being a Russian agent of influence.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 25, 2016, 03:25:41 pm
Do not jest about such shows. Someone is likely to take it seriously.

I take it the lib was/is lembit? In either event it's a very odd network of possible influence that's covering a lot of demographics.

Please feel free to tell me I'm being horribly stupid and paranoid.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 25, 2016, 03:37:31 pm
Nah, not Lembit.  That was the Romanian twins, and Romania is a staunch NATO ally.  Well, a NATO ally anyway.

I was thinking of  Mike Hancock.  When Arron Banks, the UKIP financier, had problems regarding his wife's visa, it was Hancock who interceded on his behalf.  Hancock had a four year affair with Katia Zatuliveter.  She had close contacts with someone in the Russian Embassy, who MI5 had fingered as an SVR officer.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 25, 2016, 04:26:58 pm
I AM disappointed that Farage cut his mustache off, though.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on August 25, 2016, 04:29:39 pm
I'd actually blocked the existence of that thing from my memory.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 25, 2016, 04:30:31 pm
I'd actually blocked the existence of that thing from my memory.

I am quite sure it happened, but my brain won't tell me about it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 25, 2016, 05:04:23 pm
I AM disappointed that Farage cut his mustache off, though.

I'm more surprised that it wasn't strategically cut to resemble Chaplin's.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on August 25, 2016, 08:57:49 pm
Nah, not Lembit.  That was the Romanian twins, and Romania is a staunch NATO ally.  Well, a NATO ally anyway.

I was thinking of  Mike Hancock.  When Arron Banks, the UKIP financier, had problems regarding his wife's visa, it was Hancock who interceded on his behalf.  Hancock had a four year affair with Katia Zatuliveter.  She had close contacts with someone in the Russian Embassy, who MI5 had fingered as an SVR officer.

Forgot about that one.  It's getting hard to remember all the sleaze in the past few years.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on August 29, 2016, 03:08:58 pm
The possibility that another country could be trying to interfere with the political process of the US is beyond the realms of possibility.
Its laughable.

Furthermore accusations that said countries could be trying to bias opinion in the direction of one candidate over an other with the DNC hacks is not only ridiculous, but a slander against Donand Trump who is clearly representative of America, and American values.

Please, do not click the below link as it is puerile and baseless.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-says-foreign-hackers-penetrated-000000175.html
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Meunster on August 29, 2016, 03:17:12 pm

Furthermore accusations that said countries could be trying to bias opinion in the direction of one candidate over an other with the DNC hacks is not only ridiculous, but a slander against Donand Trump who is clearly representative of America, and American values.



Thought spying was an American value.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on August 29, 2016, 03:40:59 pm
So is selling an election to the highest bidder. Democracy is a communist idea.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 02, 2016, 10:29:52 am
Daily heil reported and retracted allegations that trumps wife used to be a hooker.

Should be some decent aftermath here.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 03, 2016, 03:59:41 pm
While liberals are smugly swapping anecdotes about how great the future Taco Empire will be on Twitter and Facebook, Hillary's lead is dropping

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/

Quote
The race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has tightened. Clinton, whose lead over Trump exceeded 8 percentage points at her peak following the Democratic convention, is ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points today, according to our polls-only forecast.

The tighter margins in the polls, which reflect a loss of support for Clinton along with a modest improvement for Trump, have come gradually over the past few weeks. The evidence of a tightening has become more widespread, however, and it’s particularly clear in polls that surveyed the race just after the conventions and are retaking its temperature now. Fox News’s national poll, for instance, had Clinton up by 9 points just after the conventions (in the version of the poll that included third-party candidates) and has her up by 2 points now.

And now with Clinton being crucified again over the emails, I would not be surprised to see Trump start polling equal with her sometime this month.

I still think Hillary is a fundamentally stronger candidate, in the long run.  But also consider this: there's lots of reports that Trump isn't bothering to even prepare for the debates.

Lets assume for a moment that this is a lie, and Trump is doing nothing all day except prepare for the debates. It could lead to Clinton underestimating him in the debates, and Trump doing surprisingly well - maybe not enough to win in traditional terms, but enough for everyone to go "Trump did surprisingly well" and dominate the media narrative.

Then throw in the October Surprise.  There will be an October Surprise, Roger Stone is too heavily involved in the campaign for there to be otherwise.  And Stone has allegedly been talking with Wikileaks, and Assange hates Clinton like poison.

All I'm saying is, there are some pretty negative signs out there, but people aren't paying attention to the polls so much lately.  And if you can swing the perception, even temporarily, you may even be able to negate Clinton's advantages with minorities and women come election day.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 05, 2016, 06:30:22 am
Interesting thing:  when Obama on his first term, a bunch of neocons I knew turned into conspiracy freaks.  Now I'm watching berners babble about thermite in the 911 attacks, etc.

Makes sense, given that conspiracy freaks most often are people who feel they have no control over their environment. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on September 05, 2016, 07:57:47 am
I feel like conspiracy theories have expiration dates, nobody should really care who killed JFK anymore.  9/11 is getting close to irrelevant, that the Republicans are up to no good is a given, does it matter, at all, if they provoked a war by blowing up a building?  They've already made it clear they don't really need an excuse for wars.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2016, 09:28:51 am
While liberals are smugly swapping anecdotes about how great the future Taco Empire will be on Twitter and Facebook, Hillary's lead is dropping

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/

Quote
The race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has tightened. Clinton, whose lead over Trump exceeded 8 percentage points at her peak following the Democratic convention, is ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points today, according to our polls-only forecast.

The tighter margins in the polls, which reflect a loss of support for Clinton along with a modest improvement for Trump, have come gradually over the past few weeks. The evidence of a tightening has become more widespread, however, and it’s particularly clear in polls that surveyed the race just after the conventions and are retaking its temperature now. Fox News’s national poll, for instance, had Clinton up by 9 points just after the conventions (in the version of the poll that included third-party candidates) and has her up by 2 points now.

And now with Clinton being crucified again over the emails, I would not be surprised to see Trump start polling equal with her sometime this month.

I still think Hillary is a fundamentally stronger candidate, in the long run.  But also consider this: there's lots of reports that Trump isn't bothering to even prepare for the debates.

Lets assume for a moment that this is a lie, and Trump is doing nothing all day except prepare for the debates. It could lead to Clinton underestimating him in the debates, and Trump doing surprisingly well - maybe not enough to win in traditional terms, but enough for everyone to go "Trump did surprisingly well" and dominate the media narrative.

Then throw in the October Surprise.  There will be an October Surprise, Roger Stone is too heavily involved in the campaign for there to be otherwise.  And Stone has allegedly been talking with Wikileaks, and Assange hates Clinton like poison.

All I'm saying is, there are some pretty negative signs out there, but people aren't paying attention to the polls so much lately.  And if you can swing the perception, even temporarily, you may even be able to negate Clinton's advantages with minorities and women come election day.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/

CNN poll has Trump 2 points above Clinton.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2016, 10:06:40 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-community-investigating-covert-russian-influence-operations-in-the-united-states/2016/09/04/aec27fa0-7156-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html?postshare=7941473206496666&tid=ss_fb

Quote
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions, intelligence and congressional officials said.

The aim is to understand the scope and intent of the Russian campaign, which incorporates ­cyber-tools to hack systems used in the political process, enhancing Russia’s ability to spread disinformation.

The effort to better understand Russia’s covert influence operations is being coordinated by James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. “This is something of concern for the DNI,” said Charles Allen, a former longtime CIA officer who has been briefed on some of these issues. “It is being addressed.”

A Russian influence operation in the United States “is something we’re looking very closely at,” said one senior intelligence official who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Officials also are examining potential disruptions to the election process, and the FBI has alerted state and local officials to potential cyberthreats.

The official cautioned that the intelligence community is not saying it has “definitive proof” of such tampering, or any Russian plans to do so. “But even the hint of something impacting the security of our election system would be of significant concern,” the official said. “It’s the key to our democracy, that people have confidence in the election system.”

The Kremlin’s intent may not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos and provide propaganda fodder to attack U.S. democracy-building policies around the world, particularly in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 07, 2016, 10:48:19 am
RE Russia, if disinformation and disruption is the main goal, are there any other upcoming elections/political crap in general that Russia is like to try the same with? Would guess to see some influence in French elections, ex Soviet block territories, probably turkey, Syria and mid east in general to help anti us sentiment.

Suspect solid proof to be a bastard to find so better to predict a pattern of upcoming fuckery as weak proof substitute?


Trump ahead in any poll - concerning. Small bet on Oct surprise being Clinton email based. Question is what trumps will be. Will be amused if Clinton parades the owners of companies he Fucked over and still owes money to. Money is on rent boys though.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2016, 11:11:55 am
Regarding other elections, the Front Nationale in France is extensively funded by Russian sources.  AfD, the German right-wing group which gave Merkel a black eye this week, has extensive links with Putin's United Russia - their youth wings are very interconnected.

The CNN poll has come under fire for...unusual methodology.  However, even when this is taken into account, such as with MSNBC's recalculation, Clinton only has a 2-3% lead.  As Nate Silver has been keen to point out, there a huge amount (20%) of undecided voters, which makes the election extremely volatile and hard to predict.  And like all chaotic systems, it is extremely sensitive to changes in current conditions. 

When the Trump campaign drops their October surprise, they may easily wipe out Clinton's lead entirely.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 07, 2016, 01:07:37 pm
It still bewilders me that someone can be undecided at this point.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2016, 01:23:29 pm
Clinton's got 20+ years of baggage that even reputed "liberal" publications (NYT etc) give an unusual amount of credence to.  Meanwhile, Trump is a better fit for the Constitution Party than the Republicans, many of whom hate Clinton like poison.

Not to mention butthurt Berners, people living in obvious blue/red states where individual votes probably won't matter etc.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 07, 2016, 02:14:44 pm
Well sure, but the lines are drawn.  Unless "undecided" means "I'm probably not going to vote for either", I really don't see someone unsure of who they prefer at this point.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 07, 2016, 02:38:30 pm
Well sure, but the lines are drawn.  Unless "undecided" means "I'm probably not going to vote for either", I really don't see someone unsure of who they prefer at this point.

It should be noted that the terms "smart", "well informed" and "sensible" are ones that I never use when talking about any electorate population. You can't even trust people to vote in their own self interest half the time.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2016, 02:59:39 pm
"I don't really follow the news and I keep hearing Trump say horrible things about Mexicans and stuff...but then I hear Hillary is corrupt and stuff about her emails being hacked..."

Remember, only 50-60% of the public reliably vote in elections at all.  People who aren't engaged, who only skim headlines or catch the half-hourly roundup at 6pm on CNN, who don't talk about politics on Facebook or debate political news online, are basically getting a barrage of clickbaity and misleading bullshit all day long, and chances are they know it's bullshit in some way or another, but that doesn't help when you have little frame of reference for politics in the first place.

This election has seen an exceptional amount of bullshit and an exceptional amount of social media driven, epistemic-closure style political warfare.  Curated feeds, disinformation (possibly being perpetuated by nation-states), standard political ratfuckery, people attempting to be as sensationalist as possible to get that advertising revenue...it's a bad mix.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 07, 2016, 03:37:48 pm
Fuck it, imma move to Iceland.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on September 07, 2016, 04:08:28 pm
Fuck it, imma move to Iceland.
That's a much better choice than the "I'm moving to Canada" I've been seeing a lot of, in fact its a good plan regardless of what else is going on in the world. Valhalla I am coming.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on September 07, 2016, 04:10:57 pm
Ok say we get the October surprise, served steaming on a plate from Putin by way of Assange or others, what are the chances the Democrats can pull something similar out of their ass, and if so, could it have any impact either way, is there any debasement of Trumps that he hasn't already flaunted himself left to use?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2016, 04:23:10 pm
Fuck it, imma move to Iceland.

Gonna moonwalk on the smoking ruins like Scipio.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 07, 2016, 04:28:00 pm
Ok say we get the October surprise, served steaming on a plate from Putin by way of Assange or others, what are the chances the Democrats can pull something similar out of their ass, and if so, could it have any impact either way, is there any debasement of Trumps that he hasn't already flaunted himself left to use?

It would depend on how big the remaining warchest is and how much effort they're going to put into attack ads. However you could release a picture tomorrow of Trump in a room with a dead girl and live boy and he'll still get 30-odd% of the vote regardless.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2016, 06:13:52 pm
Ok say we get the October surprise, served steaming on a plate from Putin by way of Assange or others, what are the chances the Democrats can pull something similar out of their ass, and if so, could it have any impact either way, is there any debasement of Trumps that he hasn't already flaunted himself left to use?

It would depend on how big the remaining warchest is and how much effort they're going to put into attack ads. However you could release a picture tomorrow of Trump in a room with a dead girl and live boy and he'll still get 30-odd% of the vote regardless.

That's the way I see it.

The impending court issues regarding Epstein and sex slaves would be helpful...but Bill Clinton also flew on Epstein's personal plane and went to his island (Clinton is not named in any of the witness statements...but it's a sufficiently close relationship to the muddy the waters and with the rumours of rape and Bill Clinton, could do more harm than good).

I suspect if anything they'll go for mob connections, or something on his accounts.  But either way, I don't see it making as big a difference.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 07, 2016, 06:57:02 pm
Crime connections cut both ways, so I'm guessing that gets avoided.

My money's on his (lack) of money. Shout about how skint he is until he releases records and then dig through them for dirt or use lack of disclosure as a kicking point.

Problems Clinton's campaign has is they're used to dealing with rational opponent. Trump has no real platform or policies so difficult to attack there.

Also not ruling out Putin leaking something tasty to Clinton so she starts in office owing a favour or two.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2016, 07:01:38 pm
TBH I don't think the Russians care as much as who gets into power as they do about creating generalised chaos in the US political system.

That Trump is pro-Russia on a few issues is a nice bonus, but I think they'd just rather create the perception of a rigged election, in any direction, then sit back and let the US political system paralyse itself.  This is the assumption most intelligence services are working from as well, with a couple of exceptions.

Interestingly, someone in London wants some Russia experts, ASAP.  Paying up to £250 a day, knowledge of Russian policy, economics and language necessary prereqs.  All done via the usual exclusive end recruitment firms, so names aren't named.  Maybe that May is serious about trade deals with Russia...or could be the Americans are making their Russia investigation a joint NATO effort.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 07, 2016, 09:48:22 pm
This was my thinking. Why not help Clinton out of a hole with a handy tip or two. 40 odd % of the country will hate whoever wins and Clinton's still the more stable option for Putin. Favour in the pocket is a bonus and you still achieve disruptive goals.

And 250/day seems very low for that skill set. Suspiciously low.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 08, 2016, 12:35:02 am
That is £1250 a week.  I can't remember the contract length, but it was at least a few months, I think.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 08, 2016, 02:23:32 pm
#WhatIsAleppo is now trending, thanks to Gary Johnson

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Freeky on September 08, 2016, 07:46:17 pm
Aleppo?  Sounds like an upscale dogfood brand.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 08, 2016, 09:45:50 pm
#WhatIsAleppo is now trending, thanks to Gary Johnson

 :lulz:

OMG I saw that!  :lulz:

What a great Presidential candidate. I'm sure he would have NO trouble getting up to speed...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 08, 2016, 10:37:51 pm
He's a libertarian, so the first year would be arguing about what speed to be, followed by 3 years of trying to determine how to get "up" to it.

Are we taking bets on future candidates yet? I'm trying to think of people that would be more absurd than this crowd so I've got a tenner on Clooney vs el chapo in 2020. Guess which I picked for the republicans.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 08, 2016, 10:42:26 pm
Seriously though, el chapo is probably better presidential material than either. Successful businessman in a tough industry, plenty of contacts and clout worldwide, can easily produce us birth certificate, able to execute covert ops regularly and with ease, strong ties in financial sector, etc. Etc.

You could do worse.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 09, 2016, 02:42:46 am
Kanye has said he will run in 2020, so...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 09, 2016, 03:20:29 am
He's a libertarian, so the first year would be arguing about what speed to be, followed by 3 years of trying to determine how to get "up" to it.

Are we taking bets on future candidates yet? I'm trying to think of people that would be more absurd than this crowd so I've got a tenner on Clooney vs el chapo in 2020. Guess which I picked for the republicans.

Kanye has said he will run in 2020, so...

OMG this is my dream election.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 09, 2016, 04:20:29 am
BTW  Nigel Farage is in talks with Russia Today to become a "roving reporter" covering the US election.

I am not making this up.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2016, 04:34:36 am
BTW  Nigel Farage is in talks with Russia Today to become a "roving reporter" covering the US election.

I am not making this up.

 :lulz:

This is fucking awesome.  He goes into exile after WINNING, then comes over to this side of the pond to win some more.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 09, 2016, 05:00:49 am
Link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/07/kremlin-backed-broadcaster-rt-offers-nigel-farage-his-own-show/

Quote
RT, the Kremlin-backed broadcaster formerly known as Russia Today, has offered Nigel Farage his own television show, as part of a major revamp of the channel's programming.

The former Ukip leader is one of a number of outspoken public figures, including the columnist Katie Hopkins, who is understood to have held talks with the pro-Moscow broadcaster.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 09, 2016, 06:54:35 am
"I don't really follow the news and I keep hearing Trump say horrible things about Mexicans and stuff...but then I hear Hillary is corrupt and stuff about her emails being hacked..."

I never really understood that mindset, since even if we assume that Hillary is indeed every bit as corrupt as the Republicans say she is, Trump is still equally corrupt, plus also crazy and racist on top of it, so it's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black (or possibly calling the kettle a ****** given the pot's position of minorities)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trippinprincezz13 on September 09, 2016, 06:10:00 pm
#WhatIsAleppo is now trending, thanks to Gary Johnson

 :lulz:

OMG I saw that!  :lulz:

What a great Presidential candidate. I'm sure he would have NO trouble getting up to speed...

At first I thought it was some statement from him meant to point out how people are ignorant of/turn a blind eye to situations that don't involve them (or at worst some weird "Who is John Galt" reference).

Apparently I give people too much credit sometimes, because then I watched the news yesterday and  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: wow....
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 12, 2016, 11:30:01 pm
OK, LMNO, you wanted to know about undecided voters?

Here are some undecided voters (http://www.gq.com/story/inside-the-mind-of-the-undecided-voter).
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 13, 2016, 12:21:43 am
Huh. Two things stood out:

1. They say there's only 7% undecided. I'm thinking that's statistically neutral.

2. Most of them had the response of "Trump is atrocious, and would be a terrible world leader, but Clinton... I dunno. Don't like her, for reasons."

I don't feel as wtf about this anymore.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 13, 2016, 12:37:08 am
Yeah, I'm with you there.

Quote
So for me, four years of Trump, selfishly, sounds a lot more enticing, just because it's going to be a dumpster fire. And a Clinton administration would be more of what we're seeing now...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 13, 2016, 12:57:14 am
Huh. Two things stood out:

1. They say there's only 7% undecided. I'm thinking that's statistically neutral.

2. Most of them had the response of "Trump is atrocious, and would be a terrible world leader, but Clinton... I dunno. Don't like her, for reasons."

I don't feel as wtf about this anymore.

what kills me is libertarian voters.  They're mostly embarrassed Trump voters.  If you see a pro-Clinton thread, they're all over it, hollering the usual pack of lies.  But they don't bother with Trump threads.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on September 13, 2016, 06:41:41 am


2. Most of them had the response of "Trump is atrocious, and would be a terrible world leader, but Clinton... I dunno. Don't like her, for reasons."




Quote from: Cory Crowley, 34, GOP political consultant and former operative for John Kasich’s presidential campaign
There are some days I wake up and read Twitter and read the news and I think, "Oh, my god, Hillary Clinton's awful, maybe I could vote for Donald Trump...

#CrookedHillary amirite
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on September 13, 2016, 08:32:41 am
This pneumonia thing has reignited the Bernie crowd, in the very unlikely event that Clinton pulls out in the next few weeks, what kind of chance do you think Bernie would have of 1) Getting the Transferred nomination and 2) Getting voted in instead of Trump?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on September 13, 2016, 08:54:14 am
I'd say (1) extremely unlikely, the Democratic administration is not likely to get behind Sanders (2)  Pretty good, the Clinton supporters would get behind him and a lot of people on the left who don't generally vote would as well. 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 13, 2016, 11:00:56 am
This pneumonia thing has reignited the Bernie crowd, in the very unlikely event that Clinton pulls out in the next few weeks, what kind of chance do you think Bernie would have of 1) Getting the Transferred nomination and 2) Getting voted in instead of Trump?

I would've thought her VP pick would take precedence in any such situation.  It's what the VP pick is for, after all.

Though Sanders polls better than Clinton against Trump, I suspect the reason Trump's attacks were so focused on Clinton is that Sanders is the weaker candidate when it came to smears, and that they intended to make hay with the socialism/Communism stuff if he did win the nomination.  It'd be the whole Tea Party circa 2010 playbook all over again.  Hashtag "creeping communism".
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 13, 2016, 11:02:39 am
BTW, just thought I should mention Tila Tequila, she of minor fame before she had brain damage and started to worship Hitler and worry about the Illuminati, is going to be a keynote speaker at an alt-right conference.

Yes, you've read right: the alt-right is politically compatible with the kind of paranoid, racist nonsense one spews due to literal brain damage.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 13, 2016, 01:12:22 pm
That's amazing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 13, 2016, 02:31:39 pm
The thing that amazes me is that it seems that the media has only just realised the ages of the candidates. This was relevant a year ago and now people question putting an elderly person in a high profile/stress role? Seriously?

The scary thing is trump could do well out of this.

Neither can point at their VP for replacement candidates in a worst case as they're non entities and both campaigns have been built on person not platform.

Best case situation for the USA as I can see it is they both drop dead shortly and you decide to start again properly without the jokes.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 13, 2016, 02:34:14 pm
That's amazing.

Tequila/Clooney vs kayne/el chapo 2020.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 13, 2016, 02:38:06 pm
Yeah, I'm with you there.

Quote
So for me, four years of Trump, selfishly, sounds a lot more enticing, just because it's going to be a dumpster fire. And a Clinton administration would be more of what we're seeing now...

It's incredible because people never seem to realize that the flaming dumpster is next to your fucking house. In a few cases it IS your fucking house
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on September 13, 2016, 02:53:35 pm
Good job Hillary's campaign is focussing on the important issues (http://"https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/")

I mean, fair enough pointing out the links between Trump and white supremacy but that article doesn't really hit any salient points. It ends too soon before actually drawing conclusions.

Also I don't like the way the large, bolded headlines feel like they're presupposing what the reader should be thinking.

It is interesting to see how the Trump campaign has successfully embraced memes from various online forums (You can't stump the Trump etc.) How are they able to do this so successfully? Is it because the memes are 'custom-made' (by those nefarious Russian trolls) or are they taken and reimagined as the above link claims.. or are they just better at interacting and harnessing the chaotic output of the internet?

When people finally get sick of the term 'alt-right' I will be glad.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 13, 2016, 03:56:40 pm
Quote
When people finally get sick of the term 'alt-right' I will be glad.

The next 4+ years are going to be shitty for you then. Whichever way this goes, I'm putting money on far right style shit continuing to rise. Both in the US and elsewhere.

In the US example, Clinton wins, 49% unhappy, that increases over her term and 2020's a shitshow. Or Trump wins and you've basically given a huge group of people license to be fucking horrible (see hate crimes in EU vote aftermath in UK writ much, much larger, with guns) and these people will get pandered to. Cue a horrible shitshow again in 2020 where someone has to be more extreme than this to get the win.

It's horribly fucked.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on September 13, 2016, 04:56:43 pm
Sounds like the next 4+ years are gonna be shitty for almost everyone one way or another.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 13, 2016, 04:58:16 pm
Welcome to the Prophet club.

Membership card is in the post, your guild fee is overdue and we are hiring goons to attend to the matter.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on September 13, 2016, 05:09:02 pm
Please go easy on the crowbars  :sad:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 13, 2016, 05:10:31 pm
Please go easy on the crowbars  :sad:

Then you won't learn.

All prophets have to go through this.  Hell, I had to do it to MYSELF back in the old days.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 13, 2016, 07:52:22 pm
Speaking of prophecy, it was exactly a year ago today I said Trump would get the nomination.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 13, 2016, 08:29:45 pm
Speaking of prophecy, it was exactly a year ago today I said Trump would get the nomination.

 :cainftw:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 13, 2016, 08:47:57 pm
Speaking of prophecy, it was exactly a year ago today I said Trump would get the nomination.

Please explain to Xaz how that feels.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 13, 2016, 09:14:10 pm
A multitude of crowbars at extreme velocity.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 13, 2016, 11:21:03 pm
SAVE US VERMIN SUPREME!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 13, 2016, 11:25:12 pm
BTW, just thought I should mention Tila Tequila, she of minor fame before she had brain damage and started to worship Hitler and worry about the Illuminati, is going to be a keynote speaker at an alt-right conference.

Yes, you've read right: the alt-right is politically compatible with the kind of paranoid, racist nonsense one spews due to literal brain damage.
Amd she's not just crazy but also ignorant.

She was quoted as saying "You know what will help Asians earn respect? An Asian version of Adolf Hitler..." which was already a thing (Tojo, Hirohito, etc) concurrently with the original Hitler
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 13, 2016, 11:31:53 pm
A multitude of crowbars at extreme velocity.

If it's any consolation, the next 4 shirty years are on xaz.

Whose fee is still overdue.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 13, 2016, 11:44:08 pm
I saw the Donald rising out of the sea and on its head were seven toupees, and the Donald was wounded in the brain and was given a mouth speaking proud words and platitudes, but the people worshipped the Donald saying, "Who is like the Donald? Who can stand against it?"
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 14, 2016, 02:27:56 am
A multitude of crowbars at extreme velocity.

If it's any consolation, the next 4 shirty years are on xaz.

Whose fee is still overdue.

Guess we gotta break out the pink glove.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 14, 2016, 03:15:28 am
Just sitting back and watching actual Nazis hoot and holler across the country.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 14, 2016, 03:58:56 am
BTW, just thought I should mention Tila Tequila, she of minor fame before she had brain damage and started to worship Hitler and worry about the Illuminati, is going to be a keynote speaker at an alt-right conference.

Yes, you've read right: the alt-right is politically compatible with the kind of paranoid, racist nonsense one spews due to literal brain damage.

WAT

Tila Tequila, who got trash thrown on her at the Gathering of the Juggalos until she left the stage, because even Juggalos find her racist homophobic garbage intolerable?

Perfect fit for Donald Trump!

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 14, 2016, 03:59:40 am
It never occurred to me before now, but I bet Clinton is getting the Juggalo vote.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 14, 2016, 04:02:39 am
Good job Hillary's campaign is focussing on the important issues (http://"https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/")

I mean, fair enough pointing out the links between Trump and white supremacy but that article doesn't really hit any salient points. It ends too soon before actually drawing conclusions.

Also I don't like the way the large, bolded headlines feel like they're presupposing what the reader should be thinking.

It is interesting to see how the Trump campaign has successfully embraced memes from various online forums (You can't stump the Trump etc.) How are they able to do this so successfully? Is it because the memes are 'custom-made' (by those nefarious Russian trolls) or are they taken and reimagined as the above link claims.. or are they just better at interacting and harnessing the chaotic output of the internet?

When people finally get sick of the term 'alt-right' I will be glad.

Yeah, I mean, racism isn't really important or culturally relevant or historically relevant or a major issue right now. Pssssshhht why are they wasting their time?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 14, 2016, 04:06:59 am
Speaking of prophecy, it was exactly a year ago today I said Trump would get the nomination.

I am pretty sure I laughed, blew it off, and my mind immediately blocked out the horror of such a possibility. Why, that's impossible. It could never happen here...

 :lol:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 14, 2016, 04:10:51 am
What I find most amusing and yet also frustrating about this election is how shockingly many white men can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that the votes of women and minorities actually matter. Let alone that they matter enough to potentially render white male votes irrelevant.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 14, 2016, 05:58:49 am
BTW, just thought I should mention Tila Tequila, she of minor fame before she had brain damage and started to worship Hitler and worry about the Illuminati, is going to be a keynote speaker at an alt-right conference.

Yes, you've read right: the alt-right is politically compatible with the kind of paranoid, racist nonsense one spews due to literal brain damage.

WAT

Tila Tequila, who got trash thrown on her at the Gathering of the Juggalos until she left the stage, because even Juggalos find her racist homophobic garbage intolerable?

Wait? Why is that unusual? Aren't all of ICP's songs about people going to hell (and/or getting tortured by ghostly carnies) because they were racist in life?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on September 14, 2016, 06:41:39 am
Good job Hillary's campaign is focussing on the important issues (http://"https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/")

I mean, fair enough pointing out the links between Trump and white supremacy but that article doesn't really hit any salient points. It ends too soon before actually drawing conclusions.

Also I don't like the way the large, bolded headlines feel like they're presupposing what the reader should be thinking.

It is interesting to see how the Trump campaign has successfully embraced memes from various online forums (You can't stump the Trump etc.) How are they able to do this so successfully? Is it because the memes are 'custom-made' (by those nefarious Russian trolls) or are they taken and reimagined as the above link claims.. or are they just better at interacting and harnessing the chaotic output of the internet?

When people finally get sick of the term 'alt-right' I will be glad.

Yeah, I mean, racism isn't really important or culturally relevant or historically relevant or a major issue right now. Pssssshhht why are they wasting their time?

Point taken.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 14, 2016, 03:43:28 pm
What I find most amusing and yet also frustrating about this election is how shockingly many white men can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that the votes of women and minorities actually matter. Let alone that they matter enough to potentially render white male votes irrelevant.

TBH, it's been the case that since the 1950s, the Democrats have not had at least 50% of the white vote.  And it doesn't seem to have harmed their electoral prospects any.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 14, 2016, 04:47:16 pm
What I find most amusing and yet also frustrating about this election is how shockingly many white men can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that the votes of women and minorities actually matter. Let alone that they matter enough to potentially render white male votes irrelevant.

USA politics has been a long example of white people doing crazy things due to fear of other races. The black/American Indian/Chinese/Japanese populations have plenty of history. The exact reasons vary but the common theme is white people being terrified of passing any political control to others. Probably because there's a bit of comeuppance due for a lot of shady shit.

What I've been finding funny lately is you guys also used to treat Australians the same way in the gold rush eras. I guess if there's a disadvantaged migrant population to kick it must be worth about 25% of the total vote to do so. Which means more pandering to crazy people in the future.

 
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 14, 2016, 04:48:45 pm
Unrelated note, a friend was trying to work out which actor he's putting money on. He's gone for Charley sheen. I nearly paid him on the spot.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 14, 2016, 06:02:14 pm
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-clinton-s-lead-narrows-among-independents-voters-nationally-n646911

Quote
Hillary Clinton's national lead over Donald Trump continues to narrow. Clinton now leads Trump 48 percent to 44 percent, a decline of 2 points since last week, according to results from the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll.

Quote
In a four-way match-up, Clinton leads Trump by just 2 points — 42 percent to 40 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson maintains 11 points, essentially unmoved even after his "Aleppo" campaign gaffe, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein maintains 4 points.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 14, 2016, 09:15:29 pm
It's funny how the greens never end up grabbing a significant share, even in protest vote situations. It must be tough to stomach when you see the competition. I would have thought they would be doing better against a field that is essentially the far right, the centre right and the crazy right. Just running ads on that basis should get you 10%.



Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on September 15, 2016, 12:23:01 am
It never occurred to me before now, but I bet Clinton is getting the Juggalo vote.

I dunno, the Juggalos I know are going for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.  Not being a winner is part of the whole juggalo thing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on September 15, 2016, 12:26:51 am
It's funny how the greens never end up grabbing a significant share, even in protest vote situations. It must be tough to stomach when you see the competition. I would have thought they would be doing better against a field that is essentially the far right, the centre right and the crazy right. Just running ads on that basis should get you 10%.

The left is more scared of Republicans than the right is of Democrats.  Also the Greens are a bunch of hippies.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 15, 2016, 02:00:24 am
Meanwhile, the press and Hillary Clinton are discussing Pepe the Frog.

Just when you thought this election cycle couldn't get more surreal...
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 16, 2016, 09:48:20 pm
It gets better:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37381452

Quote
Donald Trump, the main supporter of false claims about Barack Obama's birthplace, has finally said he accepts that the president was born in the US, "period".
But Mr Trump also falsely accused Hillary Clinton's team of starting the so-called "birther" campaign in 2008.

How much of the USA is on meth now? A lot, right?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pæs on September 17, 2016, 12:17:28 am
It gets better:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37381452

Quote
Donald Trump, the main supporter of false claims about Barack Obama's birthplace, has finally said he accepts that the president was born in the US, "period".
But Mr Trump also falsely accused Hillary Clinton's team of starting the so-called "birther" campaign in 2008.

How much of the USA is on meth now? A lot, right?

That full Trump statement was an amazing read just for the levels of "fuck reality" it demonstrated:

Quote
"Hillary Clinton’s campaign first raised this issue to smear then-candidate Barack Obama in her very nasty, failed 2008 campaign for President. This type of vicious and conniving behavior is straight from the Clinton Playbook. As usual, however, Hillary Clinton was too weak to get an answer. Even the MSNBC show Morning Joe admits that it was Clinton’s henchmen who first raised this issue, not Donald J. Trump.

In 2011, Mr. Trump was finally able to bring this ugly incident to its conclusion by successfully compelling President Obama to release his birth certificate. Mr. Trump did a great service to the President and the country by bringing closure to the issue that Hillary Clinton and her team first raised. Inarguably, Donald J. Trump is a closer. Having successfully obtained President Obama’s birth certificate when others could not, Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States.

Mr. Trump is now totally focused on bringing jobs back to America, defeating radical Islamic terrorism, taking care of our veterans, introducing school choice opportunities and rebuilding and making our inner cities safe again." – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 17, 2016, 03:31:03 am
When this centuries propaganda is s studied in the future this is going to be a fantastic example of the big lie.

Doubly so if it works. I have a horrible feeling it might. It's just stupid and crazy enough.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on September 18, 2016, 02:24:29 pm
Meanwhile, the press and Hillary Clinton are discussing Pepe the Frog.

Just when you thought this election cycle couldn't get more surreal...

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 20, 2016, 01:52:08 am
When this centuries propaganda is s studied in the future this is going to be a fantastic example of the big lie.

If there is a future
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on September 20, 2016, 02:12:23 am
When this centuries propaganda is s studied in the future this is going to be a fantastic example of the big lie.

If there is a future
its recognition is not guaranteed
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LuciferX on September 20, 2016, 02:27:06 am
Meanwhile, the press and Hillary Clinton are discussing Pepe the Frog.

Just when you thought this election cycle couldn't get more surreal...

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

And this is what happens when hypersigils intersect said cycle by way of dChan
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 20, 2016, 04:52:07 am
https://medium.com/@aaronloeb/on-your-way-to-the-camps-i-just-want-you-to-know-92a6dbf7c0ac#.pst5hd1tz
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: MMIX on September 20, 2016, 04:46:22 pm
^^^^^^^^^ Loved this,but if its TL;DR try

Quote
She’s Flawed, He’s Psychotic
by Michael Tomasky
full article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/20/an-open-letter-to-swing-voters-still-considering-donald-trump.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on September 20, 2016, 06:05:12 pm
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 20, 2016, 06:07:36 pm
"Goebbels realm" was nice too.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 20, 2016, 06:14:57 pm
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.

For what it's worth, that's standard practice in the UK. Most visits, particularly to troubled countries by officials are often just a pretense to an arms deal or 6. There's at least 3 dedicated cabinet posts were selling arms gets you a gold star. Good for the economy, see?

In this context, think "would trump make better or worse arms deals than clinton?". That should tell you everything.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on September 20, 2016, 07:44:16 pm
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.

For what it's worth, that's standard practice in the UK. Most visits, particularly to troubled countries by officials are often just a pretense to an arms deal or 6. There's at least 3 dedicated cabinet posts were selling arms gets you a gold star. Good for the economy, see?

In this context, think "would trump make better or worse arms deals than clinton?". That should tell you everything.

Yeah, it's still "shit sandwich vs. shit sandwich with ebola," but it would be nice if she was a little less of a shit sandwich.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 20, 2016, 08:11:18 pm
It also displays some of the lobbying issues that have been ongoing for a while now too. But again then question and context is "would trump be more or less of a tool than Clinton?". The cronyism under trump would make bush blush.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 20, 2016, 08:18:31 pm
As far as I can tell, no proof of quid pro quo is there.  It's shady, but I have the feeling it's politics as normal.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: MMIX on September 20, 2016, 08:48:37 pm
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.

I would be more tempted to give it credence if the guy who wrote the piece didn't have a stint working for Bernie Sanders on his cv. Facts never speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 21, 2016, 01:19:24 am
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.

US has been selling significant levels of arms to Bahrain for years.  The Fifth Fleet is also positioned there, poised to strike against Iran if there is ever anything approaching a reason.  I don't like it much, but Bahrain, it's strategic naval position and its not inconsiderable financial sector are of key interest to the Americans.  The House of Khalifa will not be allowed to fall.

Also, while the State Department set the policy parameters for sales, the actual details are hammered out by the Pentagon, with input from the White House and then passed onto the House and Senate (with prior imput from their select committees on foreign affairs, intelligence and arms) before they're agreed.  As we can see from this, Congress did indeed kill the deal, in the end.

I think people are vastly overestimating the influence of the State Department in these proceedings.  Clinton made State less of a lame duck...but it's been the case since the Cold War that if you want shit done, you speak to the CIA Station Chief, the NSC and the local US Army commander, not the State Department.  State's for baby-kissing photo ops, lame cultural events and uninteresting trade deals.

And lets not forget that there was not insiginificant arm-twisting by the House of Saud in this whole scenario.  The Saudis sent a full on invasion force into Bahrain...American arms may have been intended to reduce Bahraini reliance on Saudi arms...or may have been asked by Saudi Arabia fearful of overseas commitments when trouble was brewing on their own borders.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2016, 01:40:21 am
As far as I can tell, no proof of quid pro quo is there.  It's shady, but I have the feeling it's politics as normal.

Saints preserve us from non-shady politicians.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2016, 05:53:21 am
I am noticing a similarity between die hard berners and spousal abusers.

"I will never vote for Clinton, but if you don't kiss my ass, I won't vote for Clinton."

I am brain-farting and unable to remember the term for this sort of statement.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on September 21, 2016, 06:54:25 am
If they are tools Clinton is a screwdriver and Trump is a nailgun with accuracy issues.  Clinton is a better tool for the opressors, but she also results in less holes in people that don't belong there.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 21, 2016, 07:19:03 am
I am noticing a similarity between die hard berners and spousal abusers.

"I will never vote for Clinton, but if you don't kiss my ass, I won't vote for Clinton."

I am brain-farting and unable to remember the term for this sort of statement.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 21, 2016, 06:28:50 pm
For the sake of reference

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/trump-supporters-neo-nazis-white-nationalists-kkk-militias-racism-hate

Quote
With his many appeals to nativism, bigotry, and bitter discontent, Donald Trump has enthralled far-right extremists with his campaign for president. According to an investigation by Mother Jones and the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute, since Trump officially announced his bid in June 2015 he has drawn effusive praise and formal backing from some of the country's most virulent neo-Nazis, white supremacists, militia supporters, and other extremist leaders. They include the head of the American Nazi Party, three former Ku Klux Klansmen, four people involved in a recent armed standoff against federal authorities at an Oregon wildlife refuge, and at least 15 individuals affiliated with organizations described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.

Trump has disavowed none of them.

Article goes on to quote actual endorsements from many of the leading lights of the far-right.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2016, 09:34:10 pm
If they are tools Clinton is a screwdriver and Trump is a nailgun with accuracy issues.  Clinton is a better tool for the opressors, but she also results in less holes in people that don't belong there.

I am having problems with this whole "Clinton is an oppressor" thing.

She is offering us what we have traditionally asked for. 

Trump is a Nazi on bath salts.

There really isn't a comparison at all.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 21, 2016, 09:59:48 pm
I think what Pergamos is trying to say is Clinton is a better tool for keeping the status quo as it is, with all that entails.  Just with some weird wording "oppressors" = ruling class/status quo individuals and groups).
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2016, 10:25:48 pm
I think what Pergamos is trying to say is Clinton is a better tool for keeping the status quo as it is, with all that entails.  Just with some weird wording "oppressors" = ruling class/status quo individuals and groups).

Thing is, I am opposed to rapid changes to the status quo, because Boris Johnson.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Don Coyote on September 21, 2016, 11:04:26 pm
I think what Pergamos is trying to say is Clinton is a better tool for keeping the status quo as it is, with all that entails.  Just with some weird wording "oppressors" = ruling class/status quo individuals and groups).

Thing is, I am opposed to rapid changes to the status quo, because Boris Johnson.

Ditto. I've gotten to the point that when I read someone's "vote me for" spiel and it goes on about "changing or fighting the status quo" my eye's glaze over.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2016, 11:38:41 pm
I think what Pergamos is trying to say is Clinton is a better tool for keeping the status quo as it is, with all that entails.  Just with some weird wording "oppressors" = ruling class/status quo individuals and groups).

Thing is, I am opposed to rapid changes to the status quo, because Boris Johnson.

Ditto. I've gotten to the point that when I read someone's "vote me for" spiel and it goes on about "changing or fighting the status quo" my eye's glaze over.

Then I urinate on their fans.  As you just saw.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 22, 2016, 03:03:24 pm
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.

US has been selling significant levels of arms to Bahrain for years.  The Fifth Fleet is also positioned there, poised to strike against Iran if there is ever anything approaching a reason.  I don't like it much, but Bahrain, it's strategic naval position and its not inconsiderable financial sector are of key interest to the Americans.  The House of Khalifa will not be allowed to fall.

I blame the anti-imperialist sentiment in this country (and the world). It's because of that that we have to rely on shitty puppets like house khalifa, house saud, and the nation of israel instead of just taking over these places and making them territories (even if we had to divide them up with the other significant powers to keep the peace)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 22, 2016, 08:05:09 pm
That may just be the stupidest thing I've seen written on this forum, and I'm including Kaienne's "J is my personal pronoun" in that.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 22, 2016, 08:23:44 pm
That may just be the stupidest thing I've seen written on this forum, and I'm including Kaienne's "J is my personal pronoun" in that.

I've given up on Shandor completely. I initially thought that he could learn, but he's been going backward ever since he joined and the level of stupid he generates just keeps amplifying.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2016, 09:33:35 pm
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.

US has been selling significant levels of arms to Bahrain for years.  The Fifth Fleet is also positioned there, poised to strike against Iran if there is ever anything approaching a reason.  I don't like it much, but Bahrain, it's strategic naval position and its not inconsiderable financial sector are of key interest to the Americans.  The House of Khalifa will not be allowed to fall.

I blame the anti-imperialist sentiment in this country (and the world). It's because of that that we have to rely on shitty puppets like house khalifa, house saud, and the nation of israel instead of just taking over these places and making them territories (even if we had to divide them up with the other significant powers to keep the peace)

Yes.  Because adding very unstable areas to our already unstable interior is fucking brilliant and we should do that.

You should get a fucking Nobel Prize or some shit.  Do they give one for being a fucking idiot?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on September 22, 2016, 10:22:02 pm
Cain, can I get some perspective on this shit? http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Quote
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

I'm still not gonna stop supporting Hillary, because the alternative is unthinkable, but this seems really bad.

US has been selling significant levels of arms to Bahrain for years.  The Fifth Fleet is also positioned there, poised to strike against Iran if there is ever anything approaching a reason.  I don't like it much, but Bahrain, it's strategic naval position and its not inconsiderable financial sector are of key interest to the Americans.  The House of Khalifa will not be allowed to fall.

I blame the anti-imperialist sentiment in this country (and the world). It's because of that that we have to rely on shitty puppets like house khalifa, house saud, and the nation of israel instead of just taking over these places and making them territories (even if we had to divide them up with the other significant powers to keep the peace)

I don't even have a clever retort, you're just a complete fucking idiot.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Trivial on September 23, 2016, 04:43:41 am
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270)

???

I can't even.  Trump is the pro-peace president?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 23, 2016, 04:45:43 am
Nuking ISIS isn't an act of war, you see.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 23, 2016, 04:53:04 am
As is encouraging war by stating you may not fulfill your mutual defence treaty obligations.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on September 26, 2016, 04:30:43 pm
I read an interesting theory (on Quora) on what might happen after President Trump wins...

The theory went that the GOP will wait for/push Trump into doing something impeachable and then impeach him, putting Mike Pence in the hotseat.

Sound likely?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 26, 2016, 07:56:06 pm
Who's got the betting pool on tonight's debate?

I have one theory. Trump will do a classic sitcom bit: Hillary will describe a policy position, and then Trump will immediately parrot it, then take credit.  Since apparently the moderators are prevented from correcting anyone, Hillary will be forced to complain that Trump stole her idea, which he'll deny, then lie about her stealing [/i] his[/i] idea, because they're so great.  And then he gets elected.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: notloki on September 26, 2016, 08:14:59 pm
You know what, fuck this Country.

Lets all write in "The Good Reverend Roger" and be done with it.

Then we can all die laughing.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 26, 2016, 08:40:06 pm
You know what, fuck this Country.

Lets all write in "The Good Reverend Roger" and be done with it.

Then we can all die laughing.

You don't want to do that.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trix on September 26, 2016, 08:47:54 pm
Well I certainly don't want a Trump presidency but sometimes we have to choose the funnier of two evils.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trix on September 26, 2016, 08:57:25 pm
Besides, you and Trump do have at least one thing in common:

You attract all the crazies.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Pergamos on September 26, 2016, 09:29:38 pm
Who's got the betting pool on tonight's debate?

I have one theory. Trump will do a classic sitcom bit: Hillary will describe a policy position, and then Trump will immediately parrot it, then take credit.  Since apparently the moderators are prevented from correcting anyone, Hillary will be forced to complain that Trump stole her idea, which he'll deny, then lie about her stealing [/i] his[/i] idea, because they're so great.  And then he gets elected.

That's pretty much what Clinton did to Sanders.  I suspect that  Trump will mostly say nothing of consequence.  He will also do some lying and grand proclaiming.  Clinton meanwhile will have a lot of stuff to say that actually makes sense, but it won't be as exciting as Trumps grand nonsense.  I doubt the polls will move much one direction or the other afterwards because Clinton's supporters already know enough to dismiss Trump's nonsense and Trump's supporters already think she is too crooked to do anything but lie.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trix on September 26, 2016, 09:45:09 pm
So in a way it's almost down to a coin toss.

Heads, we lose.  Tails, we lose extra hard.

What a great time to be alive
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 12:08:05 am
Trump's going to gish gallop his way to victory.  The journos will call it for Hillary but the public polls will say otherwise.  And it'll be hard to tell whether that's the public eating it up, or /pol/ and The_Donald brigading the shit out of every online poll in sight.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 27, 2016, 12:27:35 am
Trump's going to gish gallop his way to victory.  The journos will call it for Hillary but the public polls will say otherwise.  And it'll be hard to tell whether that's the public eating it up, or /pol/ and The_Donald brigading the shit out of every online poll in sight.

Yeah, I'm probably gonna watch Saints/Falcons, instead.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 12:38:14 am
I'm watching, but I'm at work. 

On my own.

With a broken printer and a broken shutter system.

Waiting for a late student.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trix on September 27, 2016, 12:42:17 am
I'm watching, but I'm at work. 

On my own.

With a broken printer and a broken shutter system.

Waiting for a late student.

Set a trap.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 27, 2016, 12:56:35 am
Trump's going to gish gallop his way to victory.  The journos will call it for Hillary but the public polls will say otherwise.  And it'll be hard to tell whether that's the public eating it up, or /pol/ and The_Donald brigading the shit out of every online poll in sight.

Last two elections, the polls said McCain and then Romney were going to win.

Frankly, the polls are not an indicator either way, IMO.  I do believe that Trump is a threat, because the left is dumb in all the wrong ways.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 12:58:40 am
Oh I just mean informal online polls anyway, things that can shape the narrative for a couple of hours but no-one actually believes.  That said, I think the best polls in 2012 were predicting a roflstomp for Obama (the ones I were watching were consistent on that point at least).

That aside, this doesn't sound natural:

Quote
On Monday, Mr Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC that the "natural connective tissue he has with people" will be on show. "I can see that this man is ready for tonight," she added.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 01:06:32 am
BBC's aggregate of the polls has Clinton 1 point ahead of Trump, btw.  If Trump gish gallops well and doesn't actually sound like a complete fascist, he may actually get a "win", as pity points and for "improving" his behaviour more than actual merit of ideas.  You know how the press can be.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on September 27, 2016, 02:15:40 am
I'm watching, but I'm at work. 

On my own.

With a broken printer and a broken shutter system.

Waiting for a late student.

Set a trap.

Cain is the trap.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 02:55:00 am
k, 1 hour in and this is a cockstomping by Hillary.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: MMIX on September 27, 2016, 03:24:28 am
k, 1 hour in and this is a cockstomping by Hillary.

 but the Donald has a Winning Temperament, he just said so
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 04:04:24 am
And 200 Admirals.  And #stamina.  And The Cyber

All Hillary has is 400lb hackers sitting on their beds.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 27, 2016, 04:54:27 am
Trump was ripped to the tits on cocaine.  That was AMAZING.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Goddess Eris on September 27, 2016, 05:41:24 am
Trump is ALWAYS ripped to tits, what else is new? I haven't even seen this yet and I know Hildawg ground his balls into the floor with her sensibly-heeled shoe, just like she planned to years ago. Yawn. Wake me up a year into her shitty Presidency.

Hooray for feminism!!!!!  :lulz:  :lulz:  :kingmeh: :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: SuuCal on September 27, 2016, 05:45:19 am
TERRAAAAAWR.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: trix on September 27, 2016, 06:45:03 am
Wow.

I'm only 1/2 hour in and holy shit.  Trump is definitely on drugs and completely insane.

I've paused a few times to check both of their websites and whoever made Trump's website must have learned Web Design from Trump University.

And never learned to proofread.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 27, 2016, 12:54:01 pm
Taking bets on which news team is going to call Hannity first.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 07:38:18 pm
Taking bets on which news team is going to call Hannity first.

(http://i.imgur.com/r4cKq87.jpg)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: LMNO on September 27, 2016, 07:38:39 pm
Yoinked.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 27, 2016, 07:42:12 pm
Many many terrible memes

Also this:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKnxwpUqCkdb5Li/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: SuuCal on September 28, 2016, 01:19:31 am
She had this consistent look of utter bemusement on her face the entire evening, and it was fantastic. She barely opened the flood gates and he just rushed at her like an orangutan on acid, reaching for invisible shit in the air.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: SuuCal on September 28, 2016, 07:17:08 pm
Hey, look what the internet found!

https://web.archive.org/web/20060507011645/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=98255
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on September 28, 2016, 08:55:10 pm
Hey, look what the internet found!

https://web.archive.org/web/20060507011645/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=98255

(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/119/046/a84.jpg)
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on October 01, 2016, 12:22:18 am
Wow.

I'm only 1/2 hour in and holy shit.  Trump is definitely on drugs and completely insane.

I've paused a few times to check both of their websites and whoever made Trump's website must have learned Web Design from Trump University.

And never learned to proofread.

I'm starting to suspect an aide has been giving him bath salts or bicarb and the power of suggestion is doing the rest.

As far as I can tell the rest of the week has just been more lunacy. Clinton seems notably more on the offensive, possibly realising that regardless of how close or not it is, it's a Fucked situation for her. She wins and the level of open hostility from within will prevent much of consequence to her agenda being done. Trump wins and everyone loses.

Nice system.


Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on October 04, 2016, 05:00:05 am
October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on October 04, 2016, 10:54:43 am
Any guesses on what to expect. Surely something Clinton and email related, but what?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on October 04, 2016, 11:08:25 am
Clinton is an alien-android and the deleted emails are software patch notes.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 04, 2016, 12:52:58 pm
Assange is doing a very good job these days making me ashamed to have ever supported him. I hope this is just mental stress leading to piss poor judgment, and not who he's been the whole time and I was just too much of an idiot to see it.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Faust on October 04, 2016, 12:58:17 pm
Assange is doing a very good job these days making me ashamed to have ever supported him. I hope this is just mental stress leading to piss poor judgment, and not who he's been the whole time and I was just too much of an idiot to see it.
I wouldnt be surprised that as a captive audience everything and everyone around him have been primed to give him information that will lead to a desired outcome.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on October 04, 2016, 01:12:45 pm
Assange is doing a very good job these days making me ashamed to have ever supported him. I hope this is just mental stress leading to piss poor judgment, and not who he's been the whole time and I was just too much of an idiot to see it.

In either event, it's an important lesson and reminder for the strange times: always question the source, particularly when that source provides evidence that supports your views.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 04, 2016, 03:29:26 pm
Assange is a sell out, just like any successful rockstar or actor. Used to be hip until he signed a multi album deal with the FSB
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 04, 2016, 03:49:58 pm
So Assange was a hero until he went after Clinton?

October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.

Source? All I can find is Stone claiming that he "communicated" with Assange.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-ally-claims-he-communicated-with-wikileaks-founder/article/2598931

Because thats totally not all it takes to make the leap that Assange is working for Trump right?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 04, 2016, 03:57:49 pm
So Assange was a hero until he went after Clinton?

October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.

Source? All I can find is Stone claiming that he "communicated" with Assange.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-ally-claims-he-communicated-with-wikileaks-founder/article/2598931

Because thats totally not all it takes to make the leap that Assange is working for Trump right?

Well, there's also the bit where he's already released info on Clinton, but hasn't made a move on Trump at all.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on October 04, 2016, 04:09:45 pm
Worth noting that I suspect Assange isn't acting directly for trump, but rather indirectly for Russia and related interests. The winner is inconsequential compared to the shit stirring and unrest that will follow either. I would assume Russian interests are best served with a US populace that is as divided as possible.

I'm going for Russia because they seem to be involved with everything else so it would just be sloppy to not have a hand in this somewhere.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 04, 2016, 04:14:45 pm
So Assange was a hero until he went after Clinton?

October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.

Source? All I can find is Stone claiming that he "communicated" with Assange.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-ally-claims-he-communicated-with-wikileaks-founder/article/2598931

Because thats totally not all it takes to make the leap that Assange is working for Trump right?

Well, there's also the bit where he's already released info on Clinton, but hasn't made a move on Trump at all.

1) Assange doesnt have a network of spies doing his bidding, he publishes what people bring to him. He said himself that he hasnt been given anything interesting on Trump.

2) What exactly is there to leak about someone who already has such well documented Mob connections, as well as to Epstein's Lolicon Resort? Of course so does Clinton, but those are all paranoid theories propagated by the Putin controlled, Silicon Valley funded, vast right wing conspiracy.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 04, 2016, 04:29:03 pm
Worth noting that I suspect Assange isn't acting directly for trump, but rather indirectly for Russia and related interests. The winner is inconsequential compared to the shit stirring and unrest that will follow either. I would assume Russian interests are best served with a US populace that is as divided as possible.

So this is the Democratic party in 2016? McCarthyism? Ive yet to see ANY source for the Russian State being behind this besides someone using a Russian proxy and the Dems loudly proclaiming that it was KGB super-hackers instead of admitting that they didnt follow basic info-sec and got owned by skids.

Guccifer was Romanian. Is Romania influencing the US election too?

Quote
I'm going for Russia because they seem to be involved with everything else so it would just be sloppy to not have a hand in this somewhere.

You know who else seems to be involved in everything else?
Israel, Saudi Arabia, China... And you want to know something else? It isnt new. It isnt new at all. Why would it be? RUSSIA GONNA STEAL OUR ELECTIONZ!!!1 only became a meme once Democrats started losing.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.561218

Notice Obama did not make this incident a battle cry of his election, because he was up against a wet paper bag.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 04, 2016, 04:37:24 pm

1) Assange doesnt have a network of spies doing his bidding, he publishes what people bring to him. He said himself that he hasnt been given anything interesting on Trump.

2) What exactly is there to leak about someone who already has such well documented Mob connections, as well as to Epstein's Lolicon Resort? Of course so does Clinton, but those are all paranoid theories propagated by the Putin controlled, Silicon Valley funded, vast right wing conspiracy.

1.  Of course not.

2.  His taxes.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on October 04, 2016, 05:15:52 pm
So Assange was a hero until he went after Clinton?

October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.

Source? All I can find is Stone claiming that he "communicated" with Assange.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-ally-claims-he-communicated-with-wikileaks-founder/article/2598931

Because thats totally not all it takes to make the leap that Assange is working for Trump right?

Assange hasn't confirmed it, but he's also not rushed to deny it (and given how quick the Wikileaks Twitter account is to respond to some accusations, I find that curious in and of itself).

I don't think I ever claimed Assange worked for Trump.  I said Assange worked with Stone. But you clearly want to play word games, so OK, whatever.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 04, 2016, 05:18:59 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/04/wikileaks-to-publish-presidential-election-docs-every-week-for-next-10-weeks.html
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Cain on October 04, 2016, 05:19:19 pm
Anyway, Wikileaks confirmed it had some documents it intends to release before the 2016 elections

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idUSKCN1240UG

Quote
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said on Tuesday the group would publish about one million documents related to the U.S. election and three governments in coming weeks, but denied the release was aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton.

Assange, speaking via a video link, said the documents would be released before the end of the year, starting with an initial batch in the coming week.

Assange, 45, who remains at the Ecuadoran embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012 to avoid possible extradition to Sweden, said the election material was "significant" and would come out before the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.

He criticized Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, for demonizing his WikiLeaks group's work after a spate of releases related to the Democratic National Committee before the Democratic political convention this summer.

Assange said her campaign had falsely suggested that accessing WikiLeaks data would expose users to malicious software.

But he denied the release of documents relating to the U.S. election was specifically aimed at damaging Clinton, saying he had been misquoted.

"The material that WikiLeaks is going to publish before the end of the year is of ... a very significant moment in different directions, affecting three powerful organizations in three different states as well as ... the U.S election process," he said via a video link at an event marking the group's 10th anniversary.

He said the material would focus on war, weapons, oil, mass surveillance, the technology giant Google and the U.S. election, but declined to give any details.

"There has been a misquoting of me and Wikileaks publications ... (suggesting) we intend to harm Hillary Clinton or I intend to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don't like Hillary Clinton. All those are false," he said.

Assange had told Fox News in an interview conducted by satellite in August that the group would release significant information related to Clinton's campaign.

Assange also signaled changes in the way WikiLeaks is organized and funded, saying the group would soon open itself to membership. He said the group was looking to expand its media ties beyond the 100 outlets it already works with.

He told journalists gathered at a Berlin theater that the group's work would continue, even if he had to resign in the future, and he appealed to supporters to fund its work. He also held up copies of several forthcoming books.

Assange and his attorney said Britain's vote to leave the European Union could complicate his situation by limiting his ability to appeal to the European Court of Justice or the Council of Europe, a European human rights body.

Asked how he felt after four years in the embassy, he said "pale" and joked he would be a good candidate for medical study since he was otherwise healthy but had not seen the sun in over four years.

Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning about allegations that he committed rape in 2010. He denies the charges, and says he fears subsequent extradition to the United States, where a criminal investigation into the activities of WikiLeaks is underway.

In 2010, WikiLeaks released more than 90,000 secret documents on the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, followed by almost 400,000 U.S. military reports detailing operations in Iraq. Those disclosures were followed by the release of millions of diplomatic cables dating back to 1973.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on October 04, 2016, 08:12:10 pm
Worth noting that I suspect Assange isn't acting directly for trump, but rather indirectly for Russia and related interests. The winner is inconsequential compared to the shit stirring and unrest that will follow either. I would assume Russian interests are best served with a US populace that is as divided as possible.

So this is the Democratic party in 2016? McCarthyism? Ive yet to see ANY source for the Russian State being behind this besides someone using a Russian proxy and the Dems loudly proclaiming that it was KGB super-hackers instead of admitting that they didnt follow basic info-sec and got owned by skids.

Guccifer was Romanian. Is Romania influencing the US election too?

- technically, yes. And McCarthy never left, we just keep changing his face. See the Jews and labour fuckups and ongoing idiocy.

Quote
I'm going for Russia because they seem to be involved with everything else so it would just be sloppy to not have a hand in this somewhere.

You know who else seems to be involved in everything else?
Israel, Saudi Arabia, China... And you want to know something else? It isnt new. It isnt new at all. Why would it be? RUSSIA GONNA STEAL OUR ELECTIONZ!!!1 only became a meme once Democrats started losing

-this cycle has had a lot more obvious Russian influence though. To the point that national news has had to acknowledge it. With the results disputed every year anyway, it's hard to seen this as anything other than either perpetuating or instigating a shit show.

Anyway, Israel and Saudi are a lot more blunt and open in their lobbying and threats/demands. I don't see much gain for Russia beyond the strife and division but the line of logic of "divided USA = strong Russia " fits with Putin's general attitude

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.561218

Notice Obama did not make this incident a battle cry of his election, because he was up against a wet paper bag.

Who are you going with? Aleppo guy?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 04, 2016, 08:33:30 pm
So Assange was a hero until he went after Clinton?

October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.

Source? All I can find is Stone claiming that he "communicated" with Assange.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-ally-claims-he-communicated-with-wikileaks-founder/article/2598931

Because thats totally not all it takes to make the leap that Assange is working for Trump right?

Assange hasn't confirmed it, but he's also not rushed to deny it (and given how quick the Wikileaks Twitter account is to respond to some accusations, I find that curious in and of itself).

I don't think I ever claimed Assange worked for Trump.  I said Assange worked with Stone. But you clearly want to play word games, so OK, whatever.

Sorry, he isnt working for Trump he is working with Trump's Adviser Stone. Whats the source on that?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 04, 2016, 08:50:06 pm

1) Assange doesnt have a network of spies doing his bidding, he publishes what people bring to him. He said himself that he hasnt been given anything interesting on Trump.

2) What exactly is there to leak about someone who already has such well documented Mob connections, as well as to Epstein's Lolicon Resort? Of course so does Clinton, but those are all paranoid theories propagated by the Putin controlled, Silicon Valley funded, vast right wing conspiracy.

1.  Of course not.

2.  His taxes.

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/08/08/wikileaks-founder-says-currently-attempting-get-trumps-tax-returns/

The leaker went to someone other than Wikileaks. Its not like they gave them to him and he refused to publish them or something.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: East Coast Hustle on October 04, 2016, 10:55:23 pm
So Assange was a hero until he went after Clinton?

October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.

Source? All I can find is Stone claiming that he "communicated" with Assange.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-ally-claims-he-communicated-with-wikileaks-founder/article/2598931

Because thats totally not all it takes to make the leap that Assange is working for Trump right?

Assange a hero?

I mean, sure, if rape is heroic.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on October 05, 2016, 12:09:45 am
Anyway, Wikileaks confirmed it had some documents it intends to release before the 2016 elections

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idUSKCN1240UG

Quote
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said on Tuesday the group would publish about one million documents related to the U.S. election and three governments in coming weeks, but denied the release was aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton.

Assange, speaking via a video link, said the documents would be released before the end of the year, starting with an initial batch in the coming week.

Assange, 45, who remains at the Ecuadoran embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012 to avoid possible extradition to Sweden, said the election material was "significant" and would come out before the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.

He criticized Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, for demonizing his WikiLeaks group's work after a spate of releases related to the Democratic National Committee before the Democratic political convention this summer.

Assange said her campaign had falsely suggested that accessing WikiLeaks data would expose users to malicious software.

But he denied the release of documents relating to the U.S. election was specifically aimed at damaging Clinton, saying he had been misquoted.

"The material that WikiLeaks is going to publish before the end of the year is of ... a very significant moment in different directions, affecting three powerful organizations in three different states as well as ... the U.S election process," he said via a video link at an event marking the group's 10th anniversary.

He said the material would focus on war, weapons, oil, mass surveillance, the technology giant Google and the U.S. election, but declined to give any details.

"There has been a misquoting of me and Wikileaks publications ... (suggesting) we intend to harm Hillary Clinton or I intend to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don't like Hillary Clinton. All those are false," he said.

Assange had told Fox News in an interview conducted by satellite in August that the group would release significant information related to Clinton's campaign.

Assange also signaled changes in the way WikiLeaks is organized and funded, saying the group would soon open itself to membership. He said the group was looking to expand its media ties beyond the 100 outlets it already works with.

He told journalists gathered at a Berlin theater that the group's work would continue, even if he had to resign in the future, and he appealed to supporters to fund its work. He also held up copies of several forthcoming books.

Assange and his attorney said Britain's vote to leave the European Union could complicate his situation by limiting his ability to appeal to the European Court of Justice or the Council of Europe, a European human rights body.

Asked how he felt after four years in the embassy, he said "pale" and joked he would be a good candidate for medical study since he was otherwise healthy but had not seen the sun in over four years.

Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning about allegations that he committed rape in 2010. He denies the charges, and says he fears subsequent extradition to the United States, where a criminal investigation into the activities of WikiLeaks is underway.

In 2010, WikiLeaks released more than 90,000 secret documents on the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, followed by almost 400,000 U.S. military reports detailing operations in Iraq. Those disclosures were followed by the release of millions of diplomatic cables dating back to 1973.

That bit about "exposure to malicious software" may just be right, just not in the intended sense. I don't think Clinton was actually implying that the nsa and similar are monitoring wiki leaks and the various people and entities that access it but it would be silly to assume that's not the case at a minimum. Can't help but wonder what the latest incarnation of prism is but I'll have easy money on it being more intrusive and wide ranging thanks to the lone wolf shit so far this year.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Junkenstein on October 05, 2016, 12:12:20 am
Also, hocking books. Worth noting as at least one is going to be crazy Jesus martyr stuff from his recent announcements.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on October 05, 2016, 01:18:24 am
I'm with Q.G. There was a time I REALLY liked what Assange seemed to represent to me, that is to say a rather brazen light upon shadowy matters. Fuck I even ranted publicly and used to have recordings posted. Certain folks of my then-acquaintance were of the opinion he was... gonna sink some of the wrong ships and was reckless AF, so it could get really bad.

I stand corrected. That is all.

P.S.  :lulz: ISRAEL? RLLY?RONPAULOL! Wooo!
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on October 05, 2016, 01:28:53 am
Assange is doing a very good job these days making me ashamed to have ever supported him. I hope this is just mental stress leading to piss poor judgment, and not who he's been the whole time and I was just too much of an idiot to see it.
I wouldnt be surprised that as a captive audience everything and everyone around him have been primed to give him information that will lead to a desired outcome.

Strategically I think that he should have just allowed himself to be arrested and risk the US getting it's piece of him if he was seriously committed to A Good Time.
A nice, public look at the duties of the journalist and right of citizens to know is long overdue, precisely what we REALLY need if we're to be any good a role model worldwide... he had a LOT of initiative back then, but he chose to castle-up early... why?

On a possibly unrelated note,
Some of the stuff around the rape case is pretty weird IIRC, like kooky breeder-cult weird. Just saying.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 05, 2016, 11:36:30 pm
So Assange was a hero until he went after Clinton?

October Surprise on its way.

Wikileaks is gearing up on some "big reveal" they've been working on with Trump campaign operative (and Nixon-era dirty trickster) Roger Stone.  It looks like they'll be revealing it alongside a press conference tomorrow in Berlin to celebrate 10 years of Wikileaks.

Source? All I can find is Stone claiming that he "communicated" with Assange.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-ally-claims-he-communicated-with-wikileaks-founder/article/2598931

Because thats totally not all it takes to make the leap that Assange is working for Trump right?

Assange a hero?

I mean, sure, if rape is heroic.

Vaguely suspect Im being Poe's lawed here.

http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/

The gist Im getting here is you all support "a brazen light upon shadowy matters" until it shines on the wrong shadowy matters.

Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Salty on October 05, 2016, 11:38:44 pm
Yeah, cuz we're all SHILLS.

Did you not get put on the payroll? Am I posting this on the secret board? Shit.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 06, 2016, 12:27:24 am
Yeah, cuz we're all SHILLS.

Did you not get put on the payroll? Am I posting this on the secret board? Shit.

>You dont agree with our paranoid conspiracy theories about Trump and Putin so you must be a paranoid conspiracy theoriest!

(http://i.imgur.com/BfgzHWR.jpg)

You got off easy this time pupper. Keep this up and Ill bust out the smug anime girls.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Salty on October 06, 2016, 02:03:13 am
Yeah, the paranoid bit is 169% correct. Dunno about the rest.

Don't let me stop you. Here, let me help.  :lolchix:

Is that better?
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Salty on October 06, 2016, 02:07:12 am
I don't want you to feel like you can't be smug. That wasn't my intention and I apologize. Be as smug as you please. Please.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Salty on October 06, 2016, 02:08:30 am
PLEASE.
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on October 06, 2016, 02:57:51 am
Yeah, cuz we're all SHILLS.

Did you not get put on the payroll? Am I posting this on the secret board? Shit.

Wait a minute.... Eris' 'effing PAYING you, like ALL of you! ? And here I am getting bubkus! Well... I guess being a stooge with non-sexual benefits ain't too bad.

Certainly beats being a brazenly bland parody of a dead political movement with just a bit too much saltyness for my taste. Like dried-out ludafisk leftover from sitting out after a holiday party that ended..... what 4 years ago now almost?

Blaze up,
snacktime,
begin R3loveutin'
or whatever,
naptime,
repeat until out
of "grassroot" support

Fun to watch,
3xcept not
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 06, 2016, 03:21:02 pm
Yeah, cuz we're all SHILLS.

Did you not get put on the payroll? Am I posting this on the secret board? Shit.

Wait a minute.... Eris' 'effing PAYING you, like ALL of you! ? And here I am getting bubkus! Well... I guess being a stooge with non-sexual benefits ain't too bad.

Nah, man, we get the checks from Pfizer
Title: Re: Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2016, 04:04:43 pm


The gist Im getting here is you all support "a brazen light upon shadowy matters" unti