I hope this video helps some of the folks I know who think Johnson and Stein are great candidates (ok thats a lie I dont personally know anyone who thinks Stein is a great candidate.. I knew she was a doctor but christ.. she did internal medicine that makes it even worse regarding the vaxx shit. Do you like HARD science, then internal medicine is the focus for you. )
as for Johnson... eye roll. Go home you moron.
I think Dr. Jill Stein is a great candidate...
I do not think Dr. Jill Stein is a great candidate
glithert on
+1
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
I REALLY hope she grills him on the "Rigged" thing in the next debate, and here's why.
It's the Fox debate. It's stacked in what little favor he has left. His hardcore racist militant fans are going to be watching intensely.
She needs to flat out ask him. "Donald, why, EXACTLY, do you think this election is rigged, and just what exactly are your plans after it's over and I've won?"
Because then he's got two options. First, he makes basic claims that he's going to investigate and call for fraud and blah blah blah she wins, or second, he finally ups the crazy ante and does one of his subtle "Well there's a lot of 2A supporters behind me" kind of comments, which will all but seal it for her honestly (imo) and hopefully set him up for a bigger fall
edit: also, for those that remember my conversation with my mom, she's STILL voting for Trump.
She said that there isn't a single man who doesn't talk like that. I told her I don't because she raised me better.
her reply.
Well um yeah I guess I did, but women do it too. Whatever I'm voting for him.
We've got these Johnson billboards all over Nashville now, it's just him next to the words "Presidential" or "Not Trump"
They're hilarious.
Yeah, I hear Johnson/Weld ads a lot on the radio and it's literally just "There's a third option! Vote for me it'll be great! Johnson Weld!" without mentioning any of his policies, saying why you should vote for him, or even mentioning which party he belongs to.
New James O'keefe video is up on reddit and claims that a SuperPAC coordinated with the campaign to incite violence at Trump rallies.
Someone complains that Google has an autocorrect option for "O'keefe video fake" and no one points out that it's probably referring to the last time he made a literally fake video.
I hope this video helps some of the folks I know who think Johnson and Stein are great candidates (ok thats a lie I dont personally know anyone who thinks Stein is a great candidate.. I knew she was a doctor but christ.. she did internal medicine that makes it even worse regarding the vaxx shit. Do you like HARD science, then internal medicine is the focus for you. )
as for Johnson... eye roll. Go home you moron.
Lately I've found left wing independents who don't want to vote for for Hillary among my friends, despite agreeing with many of her opinions, have really started clinging to the theory that Trump is setting this up so Hillary can win. I can't even.
Yup that is pretty much the ones at work are doing too. The sad thing is this election season is so darn crazy off into the twilight zone I can't 100% dismiss it because there is a non zero chance trump is just trolling the hell out of everybody.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
We've got these Johnson billboards all over Nashville now, it's just him next to the words "Presidential" or "Not Trump"
They're hilarious.
Yeah, I hear Johnson/Weld ads a lot on the radio and it's literally just "There's a third option! Vote for me it'll be great! Johnson Weld!" without mentioning any of his policies, saying why you should vote for him, or even mentioning which party he belongs to.
That's because he has no policies, and I don't think he knows which party he belongs too. I mean I guess if Snoop Dog were throwing a party he'd be there, but...
Monmouth has LV 50 Clinton-38 Trump in the 4 way race nationally
Currently, 50% of likely voters support Clinton and 38% back Trump, with 5% supporting Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2% backing Jill Stein of the Green Party. Clinton held a much slimmer 46% to 42% lead just three weeks ago.
The vote choice among all registered voters is 47% Clinton and 38% Trump.
what has wikileaks put out that we know was fake? I have only followed them in as much as you can't follow this election without being somewhat aware who they are
I REALLY hope she grills him on the "Rigged" thing in the next debate, and here's why.
It's the Fox debate. It's stacked in what little favor he has left. His hardcore racist militant fans are going to be watching intensely.
She needs to flat out ask him. "Donald, why, EXACTLY, do you think this election is rigged, and just what exactly are your plans after it's over and I've won?"
Because then he's got two options. First, he makes basic claims that he's going to investigate and call for fraud and blah blah blah she wins, or second, he finally ups the crazy ante and does one of his subtle "Well there's a lot of 2A supporters behind me" kind of comments, which will all but seal it for her honestly (imo) and hopefully set him up for a bigger fall
That would be a horrible line of attack for her with him already trotting out the "BERNIE WAS ROBBED" narrative at every possible chance. Best to steer clear of opening that wound and let him rant like a slavering moron.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
I hope this video helps some of the folks I know who think Johnson and Stein are great candidates (ok thats a lie I dont personally know anyone who thinks Stein is a great candidate.. I knew she was a doctor but christ.. she did internal medicine that makes it even worse regarding the vaxx shit. Do you like HARD science, then internal medicine is the focus for you. )
as for Johnson... eye roll. Go home you moron.
I think Dr. Jill Stein is a great candidate...
I do not think Dr. Jill Stein is a great candidate
I'm sure there has been a candidate called "Jill Stein", who had either the title, first name, or nickname of "Dr.", who ran in an election somewhere in the world at some level of government at some point in history, and who could arguably be considered to have been a great candidate.
Dr. Jill Stein running in this year's US federal election is most definitely not that individual.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
So I like to say I am surprised, but I'm not. So 4+ years of an increasingly smaller SCOTUS? How short handed can it get before its not valid?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Huh somehow I forgot about this. I almost tried to go to this but I'm fleeing the country for 2 weeks starting the weekend and didn't have the vacation time. But apparently its being streamed on the youtubes and such
Lin Manuel Miranda, Neil Patrick Harris, Helen Mirren, and less likely stars like Hugh Jackman and Julia Roberts doing songs and such to raise money for HRC
The event will also answer the age old philosopher’s question: can Jon Hamm sing?
We’ll find out the answer tonight when the “Mad Men” star duets with, of all people, Jake Gyllenhaal, on the Frank Zappa song “It Can’t Happen Here” as part of the fund-raiser.
Other duos include Sienna Miller and Joel Grey belting out “Wilkommen/Cabaret” from “Cabaret,” a show that won Grey a Tony, and “Get Happy/Happy Days Are Here Again,” courtesy of new mom Anne Hathaway and Kelli O’Hara.
Jackman is set to belt out “Oh What a Beautiful Morning” from “Oklahoma,” while Josh Groban will croon “Over the Rainbow.”
Polling is being a bit weird again. Add it to the average and we still see Obama v McCain numbers.
Josh has a post about this and there are really shitty posters (Rasmussen, Morning Consult, Gravis) bringing the average down.
Clinton upside on the uncertainty, seeing as those polls are worse for her?
Yes. Also if the Clinton team (by which we mean the Obama team) is expanding the map we can probably trust them, they had the best polling outfit in 2012, including all the aggregators.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
what has wikileaks put out that we know was fake? I have only followed them in as much as you can't follow this election without being somewhat aware who they are
Of the recent Clinton-related documents, none.
There's a couple different things going on which can confuse/confound. Part of Wikileaks's past email leaks of the DNC had janky Russian metadata showing that they had been edited, or were created AFTER the leak was closed, but specific fabrication wasn't 100% verified.
There's also the Russian propaganda machine that is taking the seemingly accurate leaks, modifying the documents on their own, and then THOSE are being fed back through Russian channels like Sputnik into The_Donald/InfoWars/Wherever, which are then being repeated by Trump himself. That's what happened here most notably. Wikileaks released some e-mails. Within an hour or two, Sputnik was publishing a modifying version of a leaked e-mail as true, which Trump then held up and read as true later that day.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
McCain is an idiot. Does he think the GOP can refuse to look at any SCOTUS nominees for the next 4 or more likely 8 years?
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
+14
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I'm sure it was said over the weekend but I LOVE that Trump bashed SNL. Just the pure hypocrisy of that.
are YOU on the beer list?
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
McCain is an idiot. Does he think the GOP can refuse to look at any SCOTUS nominees for the next 4 or more likely 8 years?
I suspect he means to try.
+34
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
So I like to say I am surprised, but I'm not. So 4+ years of an increasingly smaller SCOTUS? How short handed can it get before its not valid?
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
McCain is an idiot. Does he think the GOP can refuse to look at any SCOTUS nominees for the next 4 or more likely 8 years?
At this point I'm pretty sure Republicans believe the role of Congress is to approve everything a Republican president wants to do and block everything a Democratic president wants to do.
Not to mention, if the GOP continues to be a dumpster fire 4, 8, 12, 16 years from now, what's the end-game?
It doesn't look like there is going to be a GOP president unless something crazy happens, will the SC just die out after 3 dem presidents? Or do we have to just wait until the dems can take the house+senate?
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
So I like to say I am surprised, but I'm not. So 4+ years of an increasingly smaller SCOTUS? How short handed can it get before its not valid?
I think we're going to see!
It'll be pretty fucking atrocious.
To us sure, but seeing as the rest of the country hasn't really gave a shit about almost a year of it, I doubt it'll move the needle any for democrats no matter how long and how many justices they don't seat. This will become the new normal for government dysfunction.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I hope this video helps some of the folks I know who think Johnson and Stein are great candidates (ok thats a lie I dont personally know anyone who thinks Stein is a great candidate.. I knew she was a doctor but christ.. she did internal medicine that makes it even worse regarding the vaxx shit. Do you like HARD science, then internal medicine is the focus for you. )
as for Johnson... eye roll. Go home you moron.
Lately I've found left wing independents who don't want to vote for for Hillary among my friends, despite agreeing with many of her opinions, have really started clinging to the theory that Trump is setting this up so Hillary can win. I can't even.
Trump sexually assaulted women in the 80s so that Hillary could win in 2016.
Yep. Makes sense.
This is where a few of my third party friends are also going. I think the latest was that Hillary rigged the republican primary to have Donald win.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
McCain is an idiot. Does he think the GOP can refuse to look at any SCOTUS nominees for the next 4 or more likely 8 years?
If the Senate Judiciary Committee keep moving the goalposts, and keep getting re-elected, they have no reason not to keep moving the fucking goalposts.
In other words, do your research and if there's anybody on the Committee who is up for re-election in your area, vote against them.
At what point does the fillibuster nuclear option become worth it?
Also why can't we just go back to the traditional filibuster?
The filibuster has been involved in exactly zero of the Garland delay.
Also, January 2nd?
Edit: Oh yeah, traditional filibuster would probably mean single track for legislation which is like odds on going to lead to the collapse of our effective government. If they hadn't gone dual track back in the 90's(?) we would have run into issues with crazy folks already.
So far most of the WikiLeaks stuff hasn't been faking the content, just radically overselling the importance of it. Staffers doing debate prep = they knew what the questions were! Saying nice things about Bernie = dire plot to manipulate voters opinions! If you believe everything that Hillary does is a dark plot, then it's evidence of that. Otherwise it's just a bunch of actually pretty boring work emails.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Posts
I think Dr. Jill Stein is a great candidate...
It's the Fox debate. It's stacked in what little favor he has left. His hardcore racist militant fans are going to be watching intensely.
She needs to flat out ask him. "Donald, why, EXACTLY, do you think this election is rigged, and just what exactly are your plans after it's over and I've won?"
Because then he's got two options. First, he makes basic claims that he's going to investigate and call for fraud and blah blah blah she wins, or second, he finally ups the crazy ante and does one of his subtle "Well there's a lot of 2A supporters behind me" kind of comments, which will all but seal it for her honestly (imo) and hopefully set him up for a bigger fall
edit: also, for those that remember my conversation with my mom, she's STILL voting for Trump.
She said that there isn't a single man who doesn't talk like that. I told her I don't because she raised me better.
her reply.
Well um yeah I guess I did, but women do it too. Whatever I'm voting for him.
I tried guys.
The Lizardmasons play a very long game.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They're hilarious.
I can't wait for this election to be over so the lizardmasons will finish building me my house made entirely out of lizards.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, I hear Johnson/Weld ads a lot on the radio and it's literally just "There's a third option! Vote for me it'll be great! Johnson Weld!" without mentioning any of his policies, saying why you should vote for him, or even mentioning which party he belongs to.
Someone complains that Google has an autocorrect option for "O'keefe video fake" and no one points out that it's probably referring to the last time he made a literally fake video.
Yup that is pretty much the ones at work are doing too. The sad thing is this election season is so darn crazy off into the twilight zone I can't 100% dismiss it because there is a non zero chance trump is just trolling the hell out of everybody.
That's because he has no policies, and I don't think he knows which party he belongs too. I mean I guess if Snoop Dog were throwing a party he'd be there, but...
They were just hanging fliers in pot dispensaries, until they realized that the existence of those basically killed his only pitch in a given state.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Clinton 50
Trump 38
Johnson 5
Stein 2
Polling is being a bit weird again. Add it to the average and we still see Obama v McCain numbers.
Monmouth has LV 50 Clinton-38 Trump in the 4 way race nationally
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Of the recent Clinton-related documents, none.
Josh has a post about this and there are really shitty posters (Rasmussen, Morning Consult, Gravis) bringing the average down.
That would be a horrible line of attack for her with him already trotting out the "BERNIE WAS ROBBED" narrative at every possible chance. Best to steer clear of opening that wound and let him rant like a slavering moron.
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
I'm sure there has been a candidate called "Jill Stein", who had either the title, first name, or nickname of "Dr.", who ran in an election somewhere in the world at some level of government at some point in history, and who could arguably be considered to have been a great candidate.
Dr. Jill Stein running in this year's US federal election is most definitely not that individual.
Clinton upside on the uncertainty, seeing as those polls are worse for her?
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
So I like to say I am surprised, but I'm not. So 4+ years of an increasingly smaller SCOTUS? How short handed can it get before its not valid?
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/star-studded-night-broadway-raises-money-hillary-clinton-article-1.2833738
Lin Manuel Miranda, Neil Patrick Harris, Helen Mirren, and less likely stars like Hugh Jackman and Julia Roberts doing songs and such to raise money for HRC
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes. Also if the Clinton team (by which we mean the Obama team) is expanding the map we can probably trust them, they had the best polling outfit in 2012, including all the aggregators.
There's a couple different things going on which can confuse/confound. Part of Wikileaks's past email leaks of the DNC had janky Russian metadata showing that they had been edited, or were created AFTER the leak was closed, but specific fabrication wasn't 100% verified.
There's also the Russian propaganda machine that is taking the seemingly accurate leaks, modifying the documents on their own, and then THOSE are being fed back through Russian channels like Sputnik into The_Donald/InfoWars/Wherever, which are then being repeated by Trump himself. That's what happened here most notably. Wikileaks released some e-mails. Within an hour or two, Sputnik was publishing a modifying version of a leaked e-mail as true, which Trump then held up and read as true later that day.
McCain is an idiot. Does he think the GOP can refuse to look at any SCOTUS nominees for the next 4 or more likely 8 years?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I suspect he means to try.
I bet he hasn't bragged about being on the cover of Time lately.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think we're going to see!
It'll be pretty fucking atrocious.
Also why can't we just go back to the traditional filibuster?
At this point I'm pretty sure Republicans believe the role of Congress is to approve everything a Republican president wants to do and block everything a Democratic president wants to do.
It doesn't look like there is going to be a GOP president unless something crazy happens, will the SC just die out after 3 dem presidents? Or do we have to just wait until the dems can take the house+senate?
To us sure, but seeing as the rest of the country hasn't really gave a shit about almost a year of it, I doubt it'll move the needle any for democrats no matter how long and how many justices they don't seat. This will become the new normal for government dysfunction.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is where a few of my third party friends are also going. I think the latest was that Hillary rigged the republican primary to have Donald win.
If the Senate Judiciary Committee keep moving the goalposts, and keep getting re-elected, they have no reason not to keep moving the fucking goalposts.
In other words, do your research and if there's anybody on the Committee who is up for re-election in your area, vote against them.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The filibuster has been involved in exactly zero of the Garland delay.
Also, January 2nd?
Edit: Oh yeah, traditional filibuster would probably mean single track for legislation which is like odds on going to lead to the collapse of our effective government. If they hadn't gone dual track back in the 90's(?) we would have run into issues with crazy folks already.
pleasepaypreacher.net