Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (17 Viewers)

[Politician Spock]

Not a Hillary supporter.  Is my head also in the sand when I say, stop it? 

Please. You are doing a greater disservice to your causes, to democracy, to the Liberal base, than you recognize, almost to the point of being obtuse. 

You are left of me, but I've always respected your perspective.  Please find a way to take a step back and perhaps reclaim some of that perspective.  Feeding into the "rigged election", especially within the context of Trump and his dangerous rhetoric, does us all harm.  

Both parties are "rigged". I use quotes because the word means different things to different people. Those of us, like myself, that recognize it should come up with a better word because the word does come from a concept of corruption, which is not really what those of us recognizing the problem mean by it (although Trump probably does when he says it).

This country suffers from the fact that people do not get elected to federal offices and even state offices without great branding. Thus our representation in DC (and state governments) is filled with career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and other "celebrities". What this country needs is representation in government by the family doctor who knows every one of the 1500 kids names that he sees every year. We need representation in government by the owner of the one of a kind family restaurant that's been a hallmark of the town for the past two decades. We need representation in government by teacher who has taught 5th grade for the past 25 years. Etc, etc.... But we will never get that because both the republican and democratic parties are branding machines, and know that the family doctor, the restaurant owner, and the teacher, are completely unknown outside of their local circles, and thus lack the basis need for great national branding. The only politicians who ever break through these two branding machines are people with their own established brands, like Jesse Ventura, Donald Trump and even Ronald Reagan (he had a lot of opposition by the republican party before he became president). And while the occasional Reagan makes it look like the system is working, it's the status quo of career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and idiots like Ventura and Trump that should be evidence of just how broken, or "rigged" what we have is. Ultimately the system isn't rigged. The system is fine. It's the fact that the two parties are experts at beating the system that the system does not give us the representation that we need. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Trump's passionate and wrong on a majority of the issues just like Tim.

Also similar is the fact that neither has spent more than 5 minutes giving any serious thought to any important issue.  Tim just spends all his time copying/pasting his takes from other sources.

 

[Sammy3469]

Both parties are "rigged". I use quotes because the word means different things to different people. Those of us, like myself, that recognize it should come up with a better word because the word does come from a concept of corruption, which is not really what those of us recognizing the problem mean by it (although Trump probably does when he says it).

This country suffers from the fact that people do not get elected to federal offices and even state offices without great branding. Thus our representation in DC (and state governments) is filled with career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and other "celebrities". What this country needs is representation in government by the family doctor who knows every one of the 1500 kids names that he sees every year. We need representation in government by the owner of the one of a kind family restaurant that's been a hallmark of the town for the past two decades. We need representation in government by teacher who has taught 5th grade for the past 25 years. Etc, etc.... But we will never get that because both the republican and democratic parties are branding machines, and know that the family doctor, the restaurant owner, and the teacher, are completely unknown outside of their local circles, and thus lack the basis need for great national branding. The only politicians who ever break through these two branding machines are people with their own established brands, like Jesse Ventura, Donald Trump and even Ronald Reagan (he had a lot of opposition by the republican party before he became president). And while the occasional Reagan makes it look like the system is working, it's the status quo of career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and idiots like Ventura and Trump that should be evidence of just how broken, or "rigged" what we have is. Ultimately the system isn't rigged. The system is fine. It's the fact that the two parties are experts at beating the system that the system does not give us the representation that we need. 

I'd take issue with thinking this is a modern phenomenon though.  Historically, most Presidents/Senators were either career politicians or military leaders (the "celebrities" of the day) and the parties had a much more direct control on nominees for most offices via the patronage systems.  I guess you can argue that the historical "famous" generals are somehow better candidates than today's celebrities (though I think there's plenty of evidence out there that the best military leaders aren't necessarily the best political leaders), but celebrity has always been an important component of election success.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'd take issue with thinking this is a modern phenomenon though.  Historically, most Presidents/Senators were either career politicians or military leaders (the "celebrities" of the day) and the parties had a much more direct control on nominees for most offices via the patronage systems.  I guess you can argue that the historical "famous" generals are somehow better candidates than today's celebrities (though I think there's plenty of evidence out there that the best military leaders aren't necessarily the best political leaders), but celebrity has always been an important component of election success.

I think there are modern attributes that have magnified the problem. Lincoln would never be elected in the modern age. He was just too butt ugly. That was not the "branding" issue back then as it has now become. 

And while I'm responding, since I've pointed out the problem, let me suggest a solution. I think political office should be a process much like jury selection. I think political duty should be similar to jury duty. Obviously I think there should be some qualifying aspects, so that the guy who can't keep a job isn't randomly selected for political duty. Perhaps 20 years in the same field (doctor, teacher, business owner, etc....) puts one into the pool of possible candidates. When an office is up to be filled a few dozen or so are selected as candidates for the office. Then have four or five "elections" to narrow it down to 2 or 3 candidates, and the final election determines the new office holder. As for serving, I don't think relocating the DC or to state capitals is necessary anymore. Technology would allow these people to serve the office without moving their families. That's just a high level solution, and it's not really changing the current system. It's just determining who the candidates are. It's how the candidates are decided currently that is the current problem. And I think the branding problem would return to this system, but would eliminate the prerequisite branding needed with the current system. All candidates would essentially be branding from scratch.

 

[RCon]

Yeah I mean fracking results in earthquakes and tap water you can set on fire not to mention degrading our national groundwater supply and that's before we get into the methane problem. So yeah I can see how it would be hard to decide if fracking is good or bad for the environment.

BTW with the decrease in cost of solar generated electricity there is no longer a need to bridge anything. Solar is competitive today and it will only get cheaper. Batteries have come a long way as well with storage getting cheaper. Once we get mass production the costs will plummet. We don't need natural gas. The only people that need us to use gas for as long as possible are fossil fuel companies and utilities. So they can make a dime. And they sure do pay their politicians well.

Fracking is possibly the worst solution possible to the question of "how do we get off oil".  I've been beating this drum for ages.  timschochet, you don't need to study this issue more.  You know how awful it is.  Here's a refresher, just in case: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/state-emergency-declared-oklahoma-after-magnitude-5-6-earthquake-n642676

I agree with NCCommish here that solar is probably our best way forward.  However, let's not pretend that solar doesn't have its own environmental problems.  Solar panels and batteries require precious metals that aren't necessarily easy to obtain in mass quantities or in an environmentally friendly fashion.  Still, I suspect these problems are easier to solve than the environmental issues surrounding oil and fracking.

 

[Politician Spock]

Fracking is possibly the worst solution possible to the question of "how do we get off oil".  I've been beating this drum for ages.  timschochet, you don't need to study this issue more.  You know how awful it is.  Here's a refresher, just in case: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/state-emergency-declared-oklahoma-after-magnitude-5-6-earthquake-n642676

I agree with NCCommish here that solar is probably our best way forward.  However, let's not pretend that solar doesn't have its own environmental problems.  Solar panels and batteries require precious metals that aren't necessarily easy to obtain in mass quantities or in an environmentally friendly fashion.  Still, I suspect these problems are easier to solve than the environmental issues surrounding oil and fracking.

Fracking also isn't a solution. It's just kicking the can down the road. Fracking minimized the chances that peak oil is near, but just set us up for the eventual peak fracking. 

 

[LittlePhatty]

Both parties are "rigged". I use quotes because the word means different things to different people. Those of us, like myself, that recognize it should come up with a better word because the word does come from a concept of corruption, which is not really what those of us recognizing the problem mean by it (although Trump probably does when he says it).

This country suffers from the fact that people do not get elected to federal offices and even state offices without great branding. Thus our representation in DC (and state governments) is filled with career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and other "celebrities". What this country needs is representation in government by the family doctor who knows every one of the 1500 kids names that he sees every year. We need representation in government by the owner of the one of a kind family restaurant that's been a hallmark of the town for the past two decades. We need representation in government by teacher who has taught 5th grade for the past 25 years. Etc, etc.... But we will never get that because both the republican and democratic parties are branding machines, and know that the family doctor, the restaurant owner, and the teacher, are completely unknown outside of their local circles, and thus lack the basis need for great national branding. The only politicians who ever break through these two branding machines are people with their own established brands, like Jesse Ventura, Donald Trump and even Ronald Reagan (he had a lot of opposition by the republican party before he became president). And while the occasional Reagan makes it look like the system is working, it's the status quo of career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and idiots like Ventura and Trump that should be evidence of just how broken, or "rigged" what we have is. Ultimately the system isn't rigged. The system is fine. It's the fact that the two parties are experts at beating the system that the system does not give us the representation that we need. 

What's wrong with astronauts?

 

[Politician Spock]

What's wrong with astronauts?

Nothing today. But back in the day they were made into celebrities. That made them good fodder for the two political parties to win offices. 

 

[RCon]

What's wrong with astronauts?

They're a little spacey.

 

[BassNBrew]

Both parties are "rigged". I use quotes because the word means different things to different people. Those of us, like myself, that recognize it should come up with a better word because the word does come from a concept of corruption, which is not really what those of us recognizing the problem mean by it (although Trump probably does when he says it).

This country suffers from the fact that people do not get elected to federal offices and even state offices without great branding. Thus our representation in DC (and state governments) is filled with career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and other "celebrities". What this country needs is representation in government by the family doctor who knows every one of the 1500 kids names that he sees every year. We need representation in government by the owner of the one of a kind family restaurant that's been a hallmark of the town for the past two decades. We need representation in government by teacher who has taught 5th grade for the past 25 years. Etc, etc.... But we will never get that because both the republican and democratic parties are branding machines, and know that the family doctor, the restaurant owner, and the teacher, are completely unknown outside of their local circles, and thus lack the basis need for great national branding. The only politicians who ever break through these two branding machines are people with their own established brands, like Jesse Ventura, Donald Trump and even Ronald Reagan (he had a lot of opposition by the republican party before he became president). And while the occasional Reagan makes it look like the system is working, it's the status quo of career politicians, actors, athletes, astronauts and idiots like Ventura and Trump that should be evidence of just how broken, or "rigged" what we have is. Ultimately the system isn't rigged. The system is fine. It's the fact that the two parties are experts at beating the system that the system does not give us the representation that we need. 

Well said but you'll get the argument that it takes a career politician to have enough experience to be successful in gov't.  I'm hugely in favor of term limits if for no other reason it puts a different set of eyes on the issues.  If we need experienced politicians running things then they can run for different jobs and share their experience in different positions.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Well said but you'll get the argument that it takes a career politician to have enough experience to be successful in gov't.  

There is also the argument that having a king is better for the same reason. 

I don't feel the need to stay silent for fear some will counter with dumb arguments. I'm glad American revolutionists felt the same. And yes, we need a revolution here... a revolution away from the republican and democratic parties. That revolution shouldn't need guns. It just needs the voters to stop being lemmings. 

 

[BustedKnuckles]

And every day if you can count, Hillary still has 3,700,000 more votes than Bernie.

dude....stick to quoting tweets ...dont use your brain...seriously, its embarrassing 

 

[BassNBrew]

dude....stick to quoting tweets ...dont use your brain...seriously, its embarrassing 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

There is also the argument that having a king is better for the same reason. 

I don't feel the need to stay silent for fear some will counter with dumb arguments. I'm glad American revolutionists felt the same. And yes, we need a revolution here... a revolution away from the republican and democratic parties. That revolution shouldn't need guns. It just needs the voters to stop being lemmings. 

So the system is obviously flawed, but after the voters "just stop being lemmings", what exactly would be the next step in the plan? Should we be waiting until 22 days before the election for these conversations?

 

[The Commish]

There is also the argument that having a king is better for the same reason. 

I don't feel the need to stay silent for fear some will counter with dumb arguments. I'm glad American revolutionists felt the same. And yes, we need a revolution here... a revolution away from the republican and democratic parties. That revolution shouldn't need guns. It just needs the voters to stop being lemmings. 

Carlin says it best

 

[The Commish]

There is also the argument that having a king is better for the same reason. 

I don't feel the need to stay silent for fear some will counter with dumb arguments. I'm glad American revolutionists felt the same. And yes, we need a revolution here... a revolution away from the republican and democratic parties. That revolution shouldn't need guns. It just needs the voters to stop being lemmings. 

So the system is obviously flawed, but after the voters "just stop being lemmings", what exactly would be the next step in the plan? Should we be waiting until 22 days before the election for these conversations?

of course not...which is why several of us talk about it all the time...

The next step in the plan is getting a grass roots education of people and getting them more active/involved so they can learn about how things are working and how they can impact them.  That is 100% on the electorate who wants actual change.  The establishment and it's supporters don't want any part of that and will do nothing to help foster a genuine discussion.

 

[pantagrapher]

There is also the argument that having a king is better for the same reason. 

I don't feel the need to stay silent for fear some will counter with dumb arguments. I'm glad American revolutionists felt the same. And yes, we need a revolution here... a revolution away from the republican and democratic parties. That revolution shouldn't need guns. It just needs the voters to stop being lemmings. 

Because of the way our elections work, there will always be two dominant political parties. If you replace one or the other, it will still be made up by and large of the same people who make up the current parties. Your revolution will basically be a rebranding effort. The Tea Party tried that, but then they realized they're all still just republicans. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

of course not...which is why several of us talk about it all the time...

The next step in the plan is getting a grass roots education of people and getting them more active/involved so they can learn about how things are working and how they can impact them.  That is 100% on the electorate who wants actual change.  The establishment and it's supporters don't want any part of that and will do nothing to help foster a genuine discussion.

All the time, like after the candidates were decided? Look, I'd love to see political reform, especially when it comes to presidential politics. The gerrymandering of districts is also a joke. Let's get a thread started November 9th. But don't show me a piece of ####, and then when I don't like it, tell me we have to change the system 3 weeks out or 3 months out. 

 

[The Commish]

of course not...which is why several of us talk about it all the time...

The next step in the plan is getting a grass roots education of people and getting them more active/involved so they can learn about how things are working and how they can impact them.  That is 100% on the electorate who wants actual change.  The establishment and it's supporters don't want any part of that and will do nothing to help foster a genuine discussion.

All the time, like after the candidates were decided? Look, I'd love to see political reform, especially when it comes to presidential politics. The gerrymandering of districts is also a joke. Let's get a thread started November 9th. But don't show me a piece of ####, and then when I don't like it, tell me we have to change the system 3 weeks out or 3 months out. 

Seems like you might want to be in political threads more or pay closer attention when you're in them if this is the first you've seen these issues being talked about.  These issues are talked about all the time in just about every political thread we have here.

 

[renesauz]

Fox is making a big deal tonight out of emails from 2008 that reveal that Hillary's campaign looked at Obama's possible Muslim background and former cocaine habit.

This is called opposition research. Every campaign does it. The leadership of the campaign then decides whether or not to use it. Hillary also had Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres to play with. In the end, she used very little of any of it- not because she was above it, or pristine in some way, but because she figured out it wouldn't have worked.

Trump's defenders, and a lot of conservatives in general, are using this stuff to somehow suggest that Trump's Birther stuff wasn't really that bad, that he was only continuing what Hillary started. This is completely false. Trump spent a year making false and blatantly racist claims about Obama's citizenship, religion, and college records- he did it openly, publicly, and in front of whatever media he could find.

You can bet that Hillary would have use it if her campaign found any evidence against Obama.  Talk about going high... Nothing is beneath her.

I'm having a really hard time seeing how this is a bad thing. It sounds like HRC does much of her own legwork, and only uses negative info if it's verifiable, IE; TRUE. She's not afraid to go low, but when she does she tries to ensure she's got the facts correct.

How is that remotely on the same level as someone who goes low WITHOUT getting the facts straight? Or worse, pulls s&&& straight out of his butt and tosses it out there to see if it will fit (she's on DRUGS!!!!!)

I'm absolutely amazed by the non-issues being brought up by the hard core Trumpkins lately. There's nothing surprising or damning in the wikileaks, but ya'll are screamin media bias because the media would rather talk about Trump's 15th accuser in less than a week. Then this garbage? HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THROUGH THIS!?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THROUGH THIS!?

You know the answer to this. You're probably just too polite to say it directly, though.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Seems like you might want to be in political threads more or pay closer attention when you're in them if this is the first you've seen these issues being talked about.  These issues are talked about all the time in just about every political thread we have here.

I've been here, and I'll be here November 9th looking forward to the system discussion. In the meantime, there's one outcome I have to actively campaign to avoid. First thing's first.

 

[Politician Spock]

So the system is obviously flawed, but after the voters "just stop being lemmings", what exactly would be the next step in the plan? Should we be waiting until 22 days before the election for these conversations?

There is no better time than right now to be talking about this, because we've seen years and years of people "voting for the lesser of two evils", and what happens is after every election people quickly forget about this problem until it's time to do it again, when they ask "why do we always have this problem". We will continue to have this problem until there is a tipping point, and that tipping point is the year that people DON'T quickly forget about the problem after the election. The only way that tipping point is going to happen is if people talk about it ad nauseum for the next month. Again, there is no better time than right now for these conversations!!!

 

[Politician Spock]

Because of the way our elections work

I stopped reading right there. I have never been a person who believed there are problems that cannot be fixed. To those of you who say those words, I speak for all revolutionists when I say "#### YOU!"

 

[renesauz]

- Million dollar birthday gifts through the Clinton Foundation for 5 minutes of their time.  Oh and to make sure you don't add our country to the Terrorist list.  Hundreds of thousands for Wall-Street speeches and the banks are lined up to be part of these.  All part of getting mega-TARP deals so why blame them.  They see the game and are eager to play.

- Sell off 20% of US Uranium for 100s of millions of donations to the Clinton Foundation.  Did not key members of the board of directors of Uranium One donate to the Clinton Foundation hundreds of millions of dollars?  This was because they love Haiti?  Is that what everyone believes here?

- Leaked "EXACTLY WORDED" question at CNN Town Hall to HRC team in advance.  Countless emails leaked showing articles PLACED into papers.  Others where they were completely re-written after Podesta's team went through them.  Sorry, I prefer investigative journalism over state-sponsored propaganda.

- HRC team hating on Catholics, Southerners, Needy Latinos, and every one else.  Own staff admitting she does not connect well with normal people. 

- Clear public and private positions on Wall Street oversight (talk tough and let them do what they want, make sure to get TARP kickbacks to key dems though), Fracking (loves it except when trying to woo Bernie voters, Trade Proposal (Is she for or against TPP.  Pay-to-Play kicks in so she now loves the TPP), Health-care (All aboard Obama plan and now hates it).

- Clinton team knowingly did not turn over thumb-drive and emails to State Department.  Massaged message so everyone knew the correct talking points here.  Worked with the State Department so they could manage the criminal activity to not hurt her politically.

- HRC has multiple emails talking about her disdain for Assange and Snowden.  They have lifted the veil and show how the NSA is spying on all US citizens.  It's her life mission to wreck these people and any other potential whistle-blowers.  If you think she is not going to task the NSA to privately wreck with opponents, you are the one with your head in the sand.  It's what people with power and no ethics do).

- Her blaming of Russia on all leaks (even when it looks like some of these hacks were inside jobs), has essentially ratcheted up the tension between Russia and us.  She constantly ratches up the tension with China as well.  McCarthyism all over again.  You are either with her or you are a Terrorist.

I get this. Don't particularly agree with much of it, but I get it. What I DON'T get, is how anyone can come to these conclusions and use these standards, and yet somehow convince themselves that Trump is the antidote. How anyone can call foul on her charity yet give Trump a pass on his. HOw anyone can be angry at Hillary's "lies" yet ignore Trump's constant exaggeration and constant talking out of his butt on every topic.

There's no logical consistency in such a position. I have far more respect for those who truly ARE terrified of the terrorists and immigrants, who truly believe trade deals are killing the middle class and that Mexicans are stealing our jobs. At least those folks are buying into what little policy Trump has actually espoused. Anyone who has honestly DQ'd Clinton for the reasons you've outlined above yet has NOT DQ'd Trump....well...let's just say I find that to be far less than intellectually honest. (And yes....I'm being a bit more....careful....in my criticism here.)

ETA: There are parts of your post I absolutely agree with....and are a large part of the reason I went Sanders in the primaries. Hillary is NOT my preferred candidate by far, but she's far far more qualified than Trump IMO, and while those parts I agree with are troubling, they aren't DQing.

 

[cstu]

There is also the argument that having a king is better for the same reason. 

I don't feel the need to stay silent for fear some will counter with dumb arguments. I'm glad American revolutionists felt the same. And yes, we need a revolution here... a revolution away from the republican and democratic parties. That revolution shouldn't need guns. It just needs the voters to stop being lemmings. 

What's your platform for the Non-Lemming Party?

 

[BassNBrew]

I get this. Don't particularly agree with much of it, but I get it. What I DON'T get, is how anyone can come to these conclusions and use these standards, and yet somehow convince themselves that Trump is the antidote. How anyone can call foul on her charity yet give Trump a pass on his. HOw anyone can be angry at Hillary's "lies" yet ignore Trump's constant exaggeration and constant talking out of his butt on every topic.

There's no logical consistency in such a position. I have far more respect for those who truly ARE terrified of the terrorists and immigrants, who truly believe trade deals are killing the middle class and that Mexicans are stealing our jobs. At least those folks are buying into what little policy Trump has actually espoused. Anyone who has honestly DQ'd Clinton for the reasons you've outlined above yet has NOT DQ'd Trump....well...let's just say I find that to be far less than intellectually honest. (And yes....I'm being a bit more....careful....in my criticism here.)

Plenty of us out there who may be voting Johnson, leaving the top of the ticket empty, or not showing up.

 

[Politician Spock]

What's your platform for the Non-Lemming Party?

Let the jury decide. 

 

[pantagrapher]

I stopped reading right there. I have never been a person who believed there are problems that cannot be fixed. To those of you who say those words, I speak for all revolutionists when I say "#### YOU!"

Power the the non-lemmings. I'm so jealous of you free-thinkers!

 

[renesauz]

I will be marching with the hackers in the Million Mask March.  I will write in Bernie Sanders for President.  He was at least honest.

I needed to scoll down a bit I guess. Apologies

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Power the the non-lemmings. I'm so jealous of you free-thinkers!

You should be, seriously.  Life is much more pleasant when you're not tied to a party and don't compelled to carry water for somebody who you know in your heart is an #######.  The air you breathe is fresher, the color of the fall foliage are brighter, and your cereal tastes better in the morning.

 

[renesauz]

It appears you have bought into the very hype forced upon us by propogandist media that has made her "hated" - not disliked.  Not someone to have concerns about. Not someone to remain skeptical towards.

HATED.

You say you will write in ol' honest Bernie - who fed into those same fear mongering tactics about Hillary, hurting his own "cause" for personal political gain.  And he's your hero?

I'm no Hillary fan. I'm voting Libertarian, as I did four years ago.  But each of us needs to really take responsibility for the role we have played in this dichotomous election.  It's not as if I'm not guilty myself. It's just I recognized a few months back, at the height of bernie mania, what was really going on. And while I did not like Hillary personally, rooted not only in questionable POLICY decisions (not the ancillary dirt they've been trying to dig up for 20+ years now) but her carpetbagging to my damn state, I recognized that my approach was doing a disservice to my nation, the causes I believed in, the beliefs upon which this country was founded and, ultimately, myself. From then on I've actively recanted my "hate" for Hillary, recognizing it was not only over the top and unsubstantiated, but actually fueled by the very forces I felt are most dangerous for this nation (the hard nationalist right, with a lack of caring and even concern for those not like them, be it religiously, culturally, ethnically, racially, politically). Fox news and their minions got to me and I became a bit of a parrot of that same viscerally dangerous and intellectually shallow #### show. 

When you feed into a two decades old effort to undercut Hillary, you are part of the problem, not the solution.  I was part of that problem. Hopefully not not so much, but I wish everyone would reflect upon themselves to determine the real motivations and basis for their "hatred" of Hillary.  Don't be the pawn of those who stand against the very values you wish to see once again permeate this nation in an effort to usurp control, freedom and liberty from any and all who do not abide by their way of life.  Be strong, be reflective, be independently minde, and rise above it.

Then cast your vote.  And be proud of it. 

This crap that those that don't vote for Hillary are part of the problem has to stop. It's ridiculous.

Talk about poor reading comprehension

 

[pantagrapher]

I think the best way forward is to keep building a stronger democratic party on every level. If we can get eventually get sweeping majorities in Congress, we can start making large moves on a progressive agenda. We can establish national voting standards to vastly increase turnout. This will strengthen the footing of the party while making individual members increasingly accountable. The tyranny of an obstructionist party will gradually broken down. Government will be back in business and working in the right direction.

 

[Politician Spock]

Power the the non-lemmings. I'm so jealous of you free-thinkers!

You're welcome to shop at the farmers market too. You don't have to continue buying all that processed branded food at the grocery store. 

 

[pantagrapher]

You should be, seriously.  Life is much more pleasant when you're not tied to a party and don't compelled to carry water for somebody who you know in your heart is an #######.  The air you breathe is fresher, the color of the fall foliage are brighter, and your cereal tastes better in the morning.

I've been a fan of Hillary Clinton for a long time. She'll be a good president. And the democratic party largely shares my views on issues and priorities, so I have no shame in promoting it.

 

[pantagrapher]

You're welcome to shop at the farmers market too. You don't have to continue buying all that processed branded food at the grocery store. 

I love farmers markets.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another round of FBI notes has been posted.

- Pages 8-9 - It is discussed that Hillary may have been indeed hacked and her data posted to the dark web.

- Blumenthal and Drumheller were working with Libyan opposition and may have written at least one of his memos as a 'shake and bake' tactic, whatever that means (but interested to find out).

 

[Politician Spock]

I love farmers markets.

So do I. I'm tired of being fed processed branded crap, both nutritionally and politically. 

 

[whoknew]

I think the best way forward is to keep building a stronger democratic party on every level. If we can get eventually get sweeping majorities in Congress, we can start making large moves on a progressive agenda. We can establish national voting standards to vastly increase turnout. This will strengthen the footing of the party while making individual members increasingly accountable. The tyranny of an obstructionist party will gradually broken down. Government will be back in business and working in the right direction.

You want the Democrats to have unfettered power? 

That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Seems its much better to have a healthy, normal Republican party.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

You should be, seriously.  Life is much more pleasant when you're not tied to a party and don't compelled to carry water for somebody who you know in your heart is an #######.  The air you breathe is fresher, the color of the fall foliage are brighter, and your cereal tastes better in the morning.

No offense, but opting out so you can feel better about yourself isn't some sort of noble cause. You're abdicating responsibility and placing yourself in the catbird position of "I told you so" no matter what the realistic outcome is on November 9th. Hope that cereal tastes good while the rest of us take care of things for you, and then you can come on here and complain some more.

 

[renesauz]

Not at all. The ones who have were caught. But the NSA is a different animal altogether. 

Wow Tim...I've been in agreement with you often in here, but this is absolutely naive.

 

[Koya]

Seems its much better to have a healthy, normal Republican party.

I believe those ships may have already sailed.  Or that it is now called the Libertarian ticket.  Either way, not sure it's an option as you present it to be.

 

[pantagrapher]

You want the Democrats to have unfettered power? 

That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Seems its much better to have a healthy, normal Republican party.

I would love a healthy, normal Republican party. But I'm not a republican and I don't share their views on pretty much anything, so I'm not going to have anything to do with that reclamation project.

 

[cstu]

You should be, seriously.  Life is much more pleasant when you're not tied to a party and don't compelled to carry water for somebody who you know in your heart is an #######.  The air you breathe is fresher, the color of the fall foliage are brighter, and your cereal tastes better in the morning.

This will be the first time in 3 elections I've voted for Hillary so I don't 'carry water' for her.  She's the best choice in this election by a mile, the two candidates who have a chance of winning are not even in the same ballpark.

Here's my opinion on a 3rd party - as long as the two Parties keep splitting the electorate the way they have a 3rd party will never be able to win.  The best way to change things is to get behind a candidate like Bernie and change the party from the inside. 

 

[Politician Spock]

No offense, but opting out so you can feel better about yourself isn't some sort of noble cause. You're abdicating responsibility and placing yourself in the catbird position of "I told you so" no matter what the realistic outcome is on November 9th. Hope that cereal tastes good while the rest of us take care of things for you, and then you can come on here and complain some more.

Let's not forget that just prior to the American revolution, there were three sides: 1) Britain; 2) Americans who wanted to keep the status quo; and 3) Americans who wanted to revolt.

We celebrate the third every July. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No offense, but opting out so you can feel better about yourself isn't some sort of noble cause. You're abdicating responsibility and placing yourself in the catbird position of "I told you so" no matter what the realistic outcome is on November 9th. Hope that cereal tastes good while the rest of us take care of things for you, and then you can come on here and complain some more.

I'm not opting out.  I'm voting for the person who most closely shares my worldview (Johnson).  

And yes, if "taking care of me" means sticking me with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will freely complain about it, because you guys are ####### up.

 

[timschochet]

Let's not forget that just prior to the American revolution, there were three sides: 1) Britain; 2) Americans who wanted to keep the status quo; and 3) Americans who wanted to revolt.

We celebrate the third every July. 

There was also a need for a revolution. A guy named Thomas Paine wrote a brilliant little book spelling it out. 

If there is an equally compelling reason for a revolution in 2016, I haven't seen it. Certainly you have failed to provide it. 

 

[The Commish]

Seems like you might want to be in political threads more or pay closer attention when you're in them if this is the first you've seen these issues being talked about.  These issues are talked about all the time in just about every political thread we have here.

I've been here, and I'll be here November 9th looking forward to the system discussion. In the meantime, there's one outcome I have to actively campaign to avoid. First thing's first.

Not sure why you feel that these things have to be discussed in a serial manner, but ok.

 

[mquinnjr]

This will be the first time in 3 elections I've voted for Hillary so I don't 'carry water' for her.  She's the best choice in this election by a mile, the two candidates who have a chance of winning are not even in the same ballpark.

Here's my opinion on a 3rd party - as long as the two Parties keep splitting the electorate the way they have a 3rd party will never be able to win.  The best way to change things is to get behind a candidate like Bernie and change the party from the inside. 

And on the other side as far as checks and balances against long-time one party rule, it's someone like Kasich who is a moderate Republican, among other viable examples that were suppressed by Donald Trump in 2016. You don't have to agree with Kasich's views at all to realize that someone like him as the opposition is better for the country than freaking Trump. The GOP as we now know it is probably over after this election, Trump is an embodiment of how far off the rails things have gotten over there. Will be interesting to see if they decide an internal shake up in hopes of a future bounce back is worth the time and effort to take two steps backward to take 3 forward, or they will change nothing and shift further towards 3rd party general election status. Insanity is repeating something over and over and expecting differing outcomes.

 

[renesauz]

The key word being 'people'.  I believe CU should be overturned on the basis that corporations are not people.

They did not rule corporations are people.  The Court ruled that speech is what is protected by the First Amendment.  

It's a difficult conversation. A large part of the problem is that the ruling makes it so that those WITH more money have far easier access to that speech. It's not unreasonable to argue that unlimited ability to spend money spreading "free" speech drowns out the free speech of those with less funds. In other words, it can quickly become control of speech by elites, as opposed to truly free.

In the end, reasonable limits on money spent to disseminate speech make sense to me. But I recognize the difficulty in determining where that line is crossed between free speech and reasonable limitations to prevent drowning out the free speech of others.