wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

I don’t mind if its politics by algorithm as long as its used by a candidate I think is better suited than the other guys. Campaign machinery and demographic targeting has always been part of a general election. But I’m in no mood to begin any type of argument over this election. Been doing that for a couple of years and I’m tired. I will say that I agree with parts and don’t agree with other stuff in the article. I do think we need to revisit the electoral college issue given the reason for it being part of our Constitution simply no longer exist. Would I feel that way if my chosen candidate lost the popular vote and won the electoral “college” vote? Probably not.

————
The pollsters are usually right. They were almost all wrong this time. Why do u think that is?

Do you think Bernie would have won?

w
v

YES!!! Bernie would have won. The OVERWHELMING issue among the ex-urban voters who repudiated politics as usual in the rust belt was the embrace of bad trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA and the up coming TPP that have decimated the working middle class of all races and genders.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/presidential-election-donald-trump-would-have-lost-if-bernie-sanders-had-been-the-candidate-a7406346.html
And as Trump proved…RALLIES MATTER!!!

Bernie had a real message.

And here’s a real point on that.

The Republicans actually put their money where their mouth was in believing in democracy…so much so that they were willing to let their party burn down. NO ONE rigged any process or did anything to impede any candidate. They…LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. Contrast that with Debbie Wasserman Schultz who essentially acted like a Campaign Chair for Clinton while DNC Chair. She allowed the campaigning for super delegates prior to Clinton announcing. She restricted the debates to 4, initially, and then had them on the weekends when fewer would watch. She worked with media insiders to plant stories against the candidate and essentially rig the nomination process. Donna Brazille lost her job at CNN because she showed questions for the debate to the Clinton campaign prior to the debate. Guess she never stopped working for the Clintons or the DNC.

Had the Dems had as much faith in democracy as the Republicans… We’d be talking about President-Elect Bernie Sanders right now.

And I’m gonna pound on THAT every single fucking time some pseudo-liberal wants to cry about Hillary losing. Fuck that. She never should have been on the ticket.

And now we have a totally unified Republican Congress, White House and old Supreme Court.

Fuck the DLC/corporate DNC and Clintonistas for abandoning democracy when we needed to fight for it most.

But hey. At least now, hopefully, that corporatist Clintonista bullshit is dead and we can go back to work on the progressive agenda. Hopefully.

Tulsi Gabbert 2020.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Mackeyser.

Oh I imagine the damage will be substantial. Worse than under Clinton. Thing is that there won’t be a ton of STFU from the Dems for Progressives to not upset the corporate apple cart.

Progressives will have a chance to get on the vanguard and lead.

Hey, why’d this thread get merged???

It’s incoherent now… /sadface

Just voted in Florida…

I gotta say… At least around the Tampa area where the Florida pundits are saying the this election will swing, Hillary is getting her ass handed to her. She just had a rally in a Dem county north of my county which is Manatee county and she couldn’t draw 300 people. I haven’t seen a single full Hillary bumper sticker. I’ve seen 2 Jill Stein and bunches of Bernie stickers even in conservative Manatee cty.

Don’t be surprised if Trump wins Florida or if it’s SUPER close. Republican vote by mail was up over Dem vote by mail by 600k to 400k. They don’t know who anyone voted for, obviously…

Edit: as of 9:02pm, I’m calling Florida for Trump. Moreover, if you look at so many states… Virginia, NC, Georgia, Ohio… they ALL look like they will go Trump… and that will put him over the 270.

I’m aghast…

President Trump…

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Mackeyser.

She scares me more than Nixon… At least Nixon had his Quaker upbringing as a bulwark of sorts.

She is pathologically ambitious.

Once President, I honestly think we’ll see something truly remarkable and frightening. I don’t believe her for a second.

Trump has so little interest in being a functioning head of state that he offered to put John Kasich in charge of domestic and foreign affairs. When asked what Trump would do since those are the duties of the President, he reportedly said, “Make America great again.” You can’t make this stuff up.

The Green Party is a perfect example of why we need a modern progressive party in the US focused on progressive policies and not getting lost on distractions like the quackery that is homeopathy. Ugh.

Billy and bnw, enjoying the exchange.

One thing, Billy that you got wrong. Comedy did NOT state that Hillary didn’t break the law. If you listened carefully, he articulated almost word for word 18 USC 793 (f) and made what would have been the strongest case ever brought under that statute…which would have made it…two.

We simply don’t have a history of prosecuting negligence and so the career politicians didn’t want to own an election based on setting a precedent. What’s complete bullshit is that Recently, an ambassador was relieved from his post for having a private email server and the State Department used 18 USC 793 (f) as the citation to remove him. The Secretary of State at the time was Hillary Clinton. And if anyone thinks the removal of an ambassador happens without the SoS being involved… No.

James Comey saying what he said was the status quo circling the wagons against Trump and Sanders. They know they are getting a sellout career politician in Clinton and is as deeply rooted in the status quo as anyone. Both other candidates want to create change (very different kinds of change, but still)

Don’t be misled into thinking this is in any way an endorsement of Trump, but Comey punted this one. You can’t say there is not enough to indict because there is no intent when the statute in question specifically doesn’t require intent. The moment he said the word, intent, I knew exactly what he was doing.

His sober analysis is likely that Trump is too dangerous and Sanders is too much an unknown. So punt and let the chips fall where they may.

That doesn’t mean she didn’t commit the crime. She most certainly did. It just means that those who would prosecute her have a vested interest in not prosecuting her.

The smartest dog is likely the Jack Russell Terrier. So if you’re looking for the smartest…you could always get one and name him Wolfie or some clever association with wolf (native name, actor who played a wolf… Kevin…)

I’m just lurking on the GoT convo. It’s good reads…

Ford isn’t before my time, so Carter’s fine. Nixon would be stretching it a smidge. LBJ is before my time.

I’m so lost. Are you saying that there should be no income tax on business because private individuals pay an income tax? And some of those private individuals invest in publicly held companies?

Also, I guess we agree that the bankruptcy laws are abused for monetary gain. They are MUCH more robust for corporations than for individuals now. But that’s not really the point. There’s no individual law or even a thousand laws or huge monolithic government that can stop avarice, which is the well font of all of this.

SHOULD we reform or even replace things like our bankruptcy laws and a host of other laws that govern how we see corporations, their legal standing and how they should be allowed to interact within markets, with each other, with legal persons, with the government and be held to account under the law? ABSOLUTELY!!! If you’re saying THAT, then I guess we agree. Otherwise, I’m still lost.

here’s a video that puts building 7 to rest in less than 4 minutes. It’s concise and scientifically accurate. NO BS, very tight and to the point. Origin, progression and termination (collapse) are all covered. As for the molten steel, it very well may have come because the building was left to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours… With limited air intake, the inside of that place became an oven. I dunno how hot it got inside, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it got hot enough to melt steel well before 7 hours.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Mackeyser.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

No I’m not. I’ve noticed too many times over the years where when the heat is being applied to the establishment that something else distracts the MSM to allow the roaches to return to their happy homes. In the case of Hildabeast this horrific crime will have her and her House of Representatives sit in disruptors again working to deny americans their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Okay, bnw. I appreciate your clarification. Our views on this issue couldn’t be farther apart.

It’s not that I think our government is incapable of false flag operations. LBJ did one to help ramp up the war in Vietnam, for instance. But you have to look at who benefits, who holds power, what the likely effects are, and weigh all of that with the risks of discovery.

Given that these shootings may well help Trump, rather than Clinton, it doesn’t at all make sense she would be involved. And the possible benefit to her of leaving the front page for a day or two hardly makes the risks worth it.

It’s similar to the reasoning of the 9/11 truthers. I had too many arguments with them at the time — which I now regret as a major waste of that time. The thing in that case is what possible benefit could it be for the government to blow itself up, along with a major center of capitalist power.

If war were the object, that could have been accomplished without any loss of American life prior to the invasion, or any loss of financial power, or government buildings and staff. Just rig up something IN Iraq, pin it on Saddam, and bam!! War fever!

Seriously, this is Alex Jones territory, and he’s easily one of America’s most despicable people, along with being a sociopath.

Well we both have our opinions. Regarding 9/11 Truth, something caused molten steel to pour out of those buildings and within the dust generated from the destruction of those buildings were the unmistakable trace of thermite. More than enough reason to immediately destroy the crime scene and ignore health and safety laws in order to destroy that crime scene and to hell with the cleanup workers health. USA! USA! USA! USA!

I’m a former network engineer. I went to Lehigh. I still keep up on all sorts of science and engineering in all fields because it interests me.

The original explanations for why the towers fell were bullshit. I’ll grant you that, especially the original government explanations. They lacked even basic scientific credulity. It’s why even on this board with this crew, I said I had doubts because the science didn’t match what I had seen. Then the engineering dept at Purdue demonstrated the exact conditions including why there would be “possible thermite residue”. The Twin Towers (I’ll be brief because I REALLY don’t want to go into it and won’t be relitigating this) were built like a soda can. It had almost no internal support other than the elevator shafts. The ENTIRE support was based on the exoskeleton, a unique design for a skyscraper. Moreover, it allowed for zero supporting walls and that’s why all the traders liked to be in there because they could have an entire open floor. You can see that in the movie Wall Street. The jet fuel didn’t melt the internal supports, but weakened them which the UL underwritten steel would weaken within the burn temperature of jet fuel. If you look at pics taken just before the collapse, the external structure was buckling outward significantly. Once the initial floor collapsed, the pressure of that collapse created a pressure wave that from the outside looked like a set of controlled explosives. If you want to experience this phenomenon, stand on a soda can with one foot, then reach down and tap the edges with both fingers at the same time. Your weight coupled with the deflection will cause the aluminum to fail and the soda can will crush and you’ll fall the six inches at basically the speed of gravity. It’s how we used to crush soda cans for fun when the kids were little and how I used to teach the kids various aspects of science (gravity, structural integrity, deflection, etc).

The issue with building 7 is less resolved because other buildings in the same radius while sustaining significant damage did not have a massive failure as building 7 did and building 7 wasn’t of the same construction type as the two towers.

I will agree that the lack of forensic analysis on the remains of the buildings was unconscionable and only fuels conspiracy theories.

However, as we saw time and again with the Bush Administration, rather than complicated conspiracies, they were rarely capable of simple incompetencies. Can’t have both.

Aaaaaaaand….that’s why Hillary Clinton’s not the 80% shoe in that Nate Silver thinks…

I think Brexit shows there’s a different dynamic in play that has constantly been wrongly modeled this entire election (even if we don’t account for the rampant voting fraud…and no, I don’t mean by voters trying to vote twice…ugh)

zn wrote:

canadaram wrote:

Impressive transformation from May to June. Also, an impressive display of firewood both in volume and organization.

Thanks

When firewood comes along
You must stack it
Before summer goes on too long
You must stack it
When splitting’s all been done
You must stack it

Now Stack It!
In the shade
Shape it up
Get straight
Go forward
Move Ahead
It’s not to late
To Stack it
Stack it Good!

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

I think an indictment after the convention would have been much more beneficial . Anyone not against Hillary at this point is not likely to be swayed by this.Clinton is crushing the Tiny fingered Cheetos faced Ferret wearing Shitgibbon in the poles and will simply manufacture any additional votes needed.Basically it all boils down to we’re fucked.

She’s crushing Trump in BLUE states.

She’s EVEN with Trump in North Carolina. She’s LOSING in Florida. Slightly ahead in PA.

I would bet the house that Clinton will win the popular vote. But the Electoral College?

Yeah, that will be really a different matter this election…

waterfield wrote:

I suppose when it comes to politics and religion we all become “dogmatic”. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe that those on the “left” and those on the “right” tend to follow what has been called a process of “group think”. Meaning there is a far greater consensus on political issues than one might find in a group of so called centrists. At it’s worst there can be the “let me know what my group thinks of this so I can be consistent and won’t ruffle the feathers of those I know”. By definition a “moderate” or “centrist” does not have a “group” to measure his views on issues. I suspect when it comes to abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc there is far more divergence among moderates than you would find on the “left” and the “right”, especially as one approaches the polar ends of both these bodies.

As far as “socialism” goes-your right it’s far more complicated than what we give it. Growing up in the 50s words like “communism”, “socialism” were dirty words that few of us knew anything about other than these were the bad guys. Today with globalization we see bits and pieces of socialism everywhere including here in the U.S. The word doesn’t carry with it the stigma it once did-although talking to some of my friends my age you wouldn’t know that.
My problem with it is the ideology not the end game. To me the weakness in the system is in the “planners”. A collectivist planned economy means there must be central planners. And the only way that will work is if there is total commitment to the “plan”. And how does that exactly work in a society of free people. What do you do with the dissenters or those who are not on the same page? Who will choose the planners and what plans take priority when there are competing legitimate interests? Who will make these decisions. And those dissenters cannot get in the way if the system is to work. Would there be debate or would that be look upon as subversion? Would dissenters be eliminated? (not an entirely shocking expectation) Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.

I get the second paragraph, but that first paragraph was so…offensive that I had to leave my perch and actually post.

That entire first paragraph was what? stream of consciousness mixed with random anecdote? I’ve followed this crew on various boards for 17 years now and I can tell you that there’s no meetings. There’s PLENTY of disagreements. Hell, I used to be a moderate conservative (slightly upper right quadrant, iirc the first time I took that test). I’ve moved to and seemingly deep within the Left as I better learn how to align my ideals, beliefs and principles within the political biosphere.

If anything, this is the LEAST dogmatic place I’ve ever encountered online with people being willing to challenge their own biases as well as challenge one another. And often, that’s WITHIN matters that would be wholly on the left. Like, in conversations about Single Payer, we can have significant disagreements in principle about how best to achieve that and THAT conversation can only happen HERE because… you sure as hell ain’t gonna see it in the MSM or allowed to be fully explored the way we have.

Moreover, I would challenge that the dogma is much more prevalent in the “centrist”. You speak of derision and yeah, there is plenty and often for good reason.

A person on the right may be for or against a policy because of the merits of a policy.

A person on the left may be for or against a policy because of the merits of a policy.

All too often (not everytime, of course), a person in the center is for or against a policy because of the person they like or admire who’s for or against the policy.

The Center doesn’t protest. The Center doesn’t advocate. The Center doesn’t push for change. Why? Because the Center lives…in the damn center. And even if the Center isn’t great, it’s not on the fringes and in succumbing to fear where success is a zero sum game (as politics is always played), why would anyone in the Center advocate for anything OTHER than the Status Quo?

Of course centrists want Hillary and Jeb. Of course they do. Why should it matter that even as we sign treaties that ban targeted assassination and if we tied a man to the bottom of a helicopter with a sniper rifle, that our killings would be illegal, but with terribly faulty intelligence, we can indiscriminately kill people in sovereign countries (according to DoD estimates between 6-9 out of 10 people killed in drone strikes are completely innocent)? Why should it matter to a Centrist that we kill innocent people for no reason? Why should it matter that we’re STILL overthrowing democratically elected governments? I mean it’s not like the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 had any blowback… oh wait. Why would any of that matter? It’s not like we can choose someone else. The two wings of The Party have their candidate and you’re either Gryffindor or Slytherin. Team Jacob or Team Edward. You’re not allowed to say, “I don’t trust a magician” or “I don’t want mythical creatures.”

I mean President Obama was responsible as Commander in Chief for the targeted killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocents via the drone program in sovereign nations outside of our jurisdiction and outside of International Law. Why is that not a war crime? Why are Centrists of principle not standing up about the killing in innocents? Wrong fucking team?

So, yeah. There’s derision because there’s so much magical, team-first, unprincipled nonsense in the center that the Daily show had fodder for 15 years. Worse, rather than shame anyone, the problem only got worse because not enough people in the Center gave enough of a damn to want to change it.

Dogma? really? A rigid adherence to an ideal or belief? Of every “leftist” on this board, I can’t think of anyone who’s in total agreement with any other, not even on a single topic. Moreover, I can’t think of a single topic where one person would wait to ask someone else what they thought prior to forming an opinion. Further, when presented with challenging evidence or argument, we’ve seen time and again people move their thoughts and ideas based on those exchanges. That isn’t the same as having an unwavering support for a principle or ideal. Like unequivocally, I don’t support slavery in any form. It’s not dogma for me to not listen to arguments FOR slavery. And I run into that a LOT online with Clinton apologists who run into issues on principle where she has significant problems. It’s not dogma to be unyielding about Climate Catastrophe. It’s not dogma to be unyielding about human rights abuses in countries where she’s taken money from their dictators. It’s not dogma… , I could go on for days. Principle is not dogma. Politicos like to conflate the two because politicos don’t have principles. We, outside of the Beltway, have the option of having principles. Apparently, it’s not an option inside, based on all available evidence.

I dunno that this is a dogma free zone, but I’d say that if we’re not allergic to dogma, we’ve built up a terrible intolerance to it.

On principle, as the Huey Lewis song goes, “sometimes bad is bad”. And both candidates are that.

Again, I could go on for days.

Now, it’s one thing to passionately have moderate views and promote those. The Center hasn’t been doing that. The Center has been the the most culpable of the abdication of the single biggest part of our responsibilities as citizens, democracy, be it voting, participating in government or holding our government accountable. Our government was designed and implemented to be of, by, and for the people. It was ALWAYS meant to require an engaged citizenry. Well, the periphery has always been engaged. It’s sort of a necessity. It’s anathema to hold passionate views and be casual about it. Which is why you see partisans on both the right and left working hard to get their messages out.

The Center? The center has treated our democracy like it’s just another part of our service economy, like they can order it with their morning Starbucks. It’s taken those with money and power taking it from them bit by bit for SOME waking up… I mean enough that only 29% register now as Dems and only 21% register as Reps according to the latest data… so SOME have woken up that we now live in a functional corporate oligarchy. We don’t even live in a functional democracy anymore.

That Princeton Study essentially proved that the will of the people means nothing. Irrespective of voter approval of a bill, the chances of it passing were 30%. Represent.us has a great 5 minute short video on it that lays it all out. It’s super.

I don’t know how to address how you see left and right because they’re just not…that. I’ve been on both. I may be one of the only ones here who has. I’ve NEVER been in the Center… Even as moderate Conservative, I was a social liberal and fiscal conservative. That made me a nicer asshole on the Right… It’s true, I know. But what you say about how you see left and right just so don’t match with what the actual Left and Right represent that… I dunno where to even begin.

I’m sorry if this was overly harsh. If it helps, much harsher stuff was deleted in attempts to appear more evenhanded. Maybe that’s less helpful, I dunno.

I’ve thought about it and the ONLY answer is going to involve some measure of radical change in some fashion.

In this heavily polarized environment, there is no incremental change coming nor is any incremental change possible that can’t be overcome by persistence.

Insofar as that goes, there is no way for this to be solved where everyone is happy. This is NOT a case where Solomon can ask for a sword to split the baby in two and the real mother will reveal herself by surrendering her interest.

I’ll vote later. Point of this post is to say that I have no faith in any “middle ground” solutions. Even things like registrations are unlikely to happen because of the mythology that registration is how the government will eventually disarm the population once the One World Government comes to power. Thus, it’s NOT about any individual “right” or even the Constitution.

Many of these gun rights proponents are steeped very concretely in this prophetic One World Order and Biblical Prophecy orientation.

Thus, there is nothing rational possible to be had in any conversation about “gun rights”. Even the slightest restrictions must be fought because any impediment will be equated as a brick on the pathway to disarmament, an untenable situation for the coming trials ahead.