[2016 Presidential Election] Vote Early, Vote Often

Atomika

Per HufflePoff:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-military-endorsements_us_580f5406e4b000d0b1586378

Donald Trump claimed Monday that the U.S. armed forces had “conceptually” endorsed his run for the White House and that he had secured the backing of most police departments.

“I’ve been endorsed by virtually every police department and police group. And I’ve been endorsed largely, at least conceptually, by the military. We’ve had tremendous veteran endorsements because the veterans have been treated so unfairly,” the GOP presidential nominee told News4Jax after a meeting with first responders at a county sheriff’s office in St. Augustine, Florida.

CONCEPTION
*bwaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmm*

Trump is once again embellishing the truth about his endorsements.

The National Fraternal Order of Police, a union representing its 325,000 members, endorsed Trump. So, too, did the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a union representing 5,000 immigration officers. Ditto for the National Border Patrol Council, which represents some 16,500 immigration officers. But those groups don’t represent the totality of America’s police or border patrol.

Moreover, federal agencies are prohibited from engaging in political activity. As are active-duty military or civilian personnel, under Department of Defense guidelines.

Despite his veteran endorsements, Trump’s claim that the military supports him “conceptually” also doesn’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. According to a poll of military service members conducted in September by Military Times and Syracuse University’s Institute for Veterans and Military Families, Trump is statistically tied with Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson.

Trump’s disregard for the truth prompted St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, which he visited Monday in Florida, to issue a clarification on Twitter after the GOP nominee claimed the agency had endorsed him.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SJSOPIO/status/790666272145047557




Inmates, you know the rules!

- NO BEING SHITTY!
- NO SPAM OR FEED DUMPS!
- NO SATIRE! LIFE IS RIDICULOUS ENOUGH THESE DAYS!
- NO SHARP OBJECTS!
- LIGHTS OUT AT 9:00 P.M.! NO EXCEPTIONS!

Violators will recieve a day in the hole.




Dismissed.

Preacher

And you thought the Apprentice was bad.

Trump Town Girls? That sounds so awful.

OmnomnomPancake

Not a big fan of this blustering fool saying the military endorsed him, OH AND ALSO THE ELECTION IS RIGGED.

His small, crazy base of fans is nutso enough to take those two ideas and combine them in a terrifying manner.

ArcTangent

OmnomnomPancake wrote: »

Not a big fan of this blustering fool saying the military endorsed him, OH AND ALSO THE ELECTION IS RIGGED.

His small, crazy base of fans is nutso enough to take those two ideas and combine them in a terrifying manner.

The military hasn't though. He barely even has a fraction as many endorsements from former military members as Romney did. He keeps touting these numbers but they only look good in a complete vacuum away from all other facts.

Kind of like everything he says.

Phoenix-D

So, it occurs to me what the GOP will probably do post Trump: the same thing they tried briefly after 2012.

Name!y, using their control of many state legislatures to change the distribution of electors so they follow the gerimandered House districts and not state wide. That way it doesn't matter that the majority of the state voted blue: the GOP will get more EC votes.

Desktop Hippie

Colin Powell has said he's voting for Clinton.

akajaybay

I look forward to Trump's anti-presidency. He'll build his own white house and oval office. Put out press releases, say what he thinks we should do every time a notable decision comes along. Have his own shadow cabinet of cronies who aren't allowed too much spotlight. But no one will actually have to do anything he says. And then either he'll finally start to be ignored, or you know Civil War 2.0. I take it back, I don't look forward to it.
I really really hope he'll just fade away after the election, but that seems improbable.

MuddBudd

They're going to try and say Trump wasn't really a Republican (which is partially true), and then come up with some conspiracy theory as to how he got the nomination.

"If Trump hadn't ruined everything, we could have saved the country!"

And then they'll go right back to their bull.

The real question is, how much of their base will believe them.

Artoria

Last night I voted early. There was a line of over 100 people waiting to vote. I have never in all my years of voting seen anything like it. Now this is something I have agonized over for a while. I’ve had my issues with this election cycle and to be honest I was not hot on either candidate. After a lot of thought on it, right up until I was walking up to the voting machine I voted for Hillary and the other Dems.

Now I don’t like her and I am not high on the Dems either but this election cycle, for me, was about the blatant hate that has been coming from the right this year. Some directed at me even. I’m hoping that a big loss will, hopefully, make the GOP moderate their positions on social issues. They can’t go on bashing LGBT people and talking down POC then eating their own when someone dare step out of line and say “umm no, this is wrong”.

I’m not proud but I did what I had to.

Priest

As someone who is a member of a major union, I gotta say that I absolutely loathe when unions endorse candidates. Even though I support the democratic ticket, my union never once asked me who I supported, they just somehow decided on one and then looked at their 500k members and said "join or die."

If my workplace is expected to be non-partisan, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that my union be non-partisan as well. I can only imagine there's a large portion of my union who supports people other than Hillary, be it Bernie, Trump, or otherwise. And even though I checked the little box on my paperwork that prevents my national union from using my dues for political activity, it still torques me that they presume to speak for me in that capacity without at least taking an internal vote first.

The Raging Platypus

dragonsama wrote: »

Last night I voted early. There was a line of over 100 people waiting to vote. I have never in all my years of voting seen anything like it. Now this is something I have agonized over for a while. I’ve had my issues with this election cycle and to be honest I was not hot on either candidate. After a lot of thought on it, right up until I was walking up to the voting machine I voted for Hillary and the other Dems.

Now I don’t like her and I am not high on the Dems either but this election cycle, for me, was about the blatant hate that has been coming from the right this year. Some directed at me even. I’m hoping that a big loss will, hopefully, make the GOP moderate their positions on social issues. They can’t go on bashing LGBT people and talking down POC then eating their own when someone dare step out of line and say “umm no, this is wrong”.

I’m not proud but I did what I had to.

IIRC, you've been one of the more conservative posters on this board, so good on you, man.

Tofystedeth

I +1ed Hillary in Kansas last night. A decent number of people were there.

Hevach

akajaybay wrote: »

I look forward to Trump's anti-presidency. He'll build his own white house and oval office. Put out press releases, say what he thinks we should do every time a notable decision comes along. Have his own shadow cabinet of cronies who aren't allowed too much spotlight. But no one will actually have to do anything he says. And then either he'll finally start to be ignored, or you know Civil War 2.0. I take it back, I don't look forward to it.
I really really hope he'll just fade away after the election, but that seems improbable.

Last election someone here posted a weird article about a fringe Republican going full sovereign citizen and dropping out of the election to run for office in some kind of "real unincorporated US government." I can't find the group's website anymore, but they had many empty seats, including the presidency, that nobody was running for.

He can just join that and go play government with other weirdos who reject the legitimacy of the elections they lost.

HamHamJ

Priest wrote: »

As someone who is a member of a major union, I gotta say that I absolutely loathe when unions endorse candidates. Even though I support the democratic ticket, my union never once asked me who I supported, they just somehow decided on one and then looked at their 500k members and said "join or die."

If my workplace is expected to be non-partisan, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that my union be non-partisan as well. I can only imagine there's a large portion of my union who supports people other than Hillary, be it Bernie, Trump, or otherwise. And even though I checked the little box on my paperwork that prevents my national union from using my dues for political activity, it still torques me that they presume to speak for me in that capacity without at least taking an internal vote first.

Alternatively: Isn't union leadership elected? And having elected them, isn't their job to support the candidates who will best look after the interests of union workers in terms of compensation, safety, etc? Not support Trump because half the members are racists willing to vote against their own self-interest?

Gyral

Okay, we've apparently hit bedrock on October Bombshells. How do I know? Hannity interviewing a sci-fi writer and regular contributor to National Enquirer and WNN about his time as "story fixer" for the Clintons.

“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”

He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”

Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?

Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.

Atomika

Phoenix-D wrote: »

So, it occurs to me what the GOP will probably do post Trump: the same thing they tried briefly after 2012.

Name!y, using their control of many state legislatures to change the distribution of electors so they follow the gerimandered House districts and not state wide. That way it doesn't matter that the majority of the state voted blue: the GOP will get more EC votes.

regardless, I see this being far more likely than them emplementing the actual core reforms that they've need for the last 20 years

Atomika

akajaybay wrote: »

He'll build his own Gold House . . . .

override367

dragonsama wrote: »

Last night I voted early. There was a line of over 100 people waiting to vote. I have never in all my years of voting seen anything like it. Now this is something I have agonized over for a while. I’ve had my issues with this election cycle and to be honest I was not hot on either candidate. After a lot of thought on it, right up until I was walking up to the voting machine I voted for Hillary and the other Dems.

Now I don’t like her and I am not high on the Dems either but this election cycle, for me, was about the blatant hate that has been coming from the right this year. Some directed at me even. I’m hoping that a big loss will, hopefully, make the GOP moderate their positions on social issues. They can’t go on bashing LGBT people and talking down POC then eating their own when someone dare step out of line and say “umm no, this is wrong”.

I’m not proud but I did what I had to.

Trump has for me, more than anything (if this was possible), make me lose some respect for the GOP

I disagree with basically all of them but I felt some were more or less consistant with their principles, and then I see them giving Trump half hearted "no... don't say that...i still am endorsing u tho" and it's just sickening

Stand up for yourselves you cowards, you're not going to save the white house or even the senate at this point, have some dignity

Atomika

Gyral wrote: »

Okay, we've apparently hit bedrock on October Bombshells. How do I know? Hannity interviewing a sci-fi writer and regular contributor to National Enquirer and WNN about his time as "story fixer" for the Clintons.

“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”

He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”

Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?

Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.

I'm actually a little surprised that Fox isn't taking this whole "Ailes departure/Kelly ascendant" phase to clear house a little (i.e., get rid of hacks like Doocy and Hannity, et al) and try to win back some industry respectability, but then again I don't honestly know how "respectible" they have the potential to be. My guess is not very.

GnomeTank

override367 wrote: »

dragonsama wrote: »

Last night I voted early. There was a line of over 100 people waiting to vote. I have never in all my years of voting seen anything like it. Now this is something I have agonized over for a while. I’ve had my issues with this election cycle and to be honest I was not hot on either candidate. After a lot of thought on it, right up until I was walking up to the voting machine I voted for Hillary and the other Dems.

Now I don’t like her and I am not high on the Dems either but this election cycle, for me, was about the blatant hate that has been coming from the right this year. Some directed at me even. I’m hoping that a big loss will, hopefully, make the GOP moderate their positions on social issues. They can’t go on bashing LGBT people and talking down POC then eating their own when someone dare step out of line and say “umm no, this is wrong”.

I’m not proud but I did what I had to.

Trump has for me, more than anything (if this was possible), make me lose some respect for the GOP

I disagree with basically all of them but I felt some were more or less consistant with their principles, and then I see them giving Trump half hearted "no... don't say that...i still am endorsing u tho" and it's just sickening

Stand up for yourselves you cowards, you're not going to save the white house or even the senate at this point, have some dignity

Their base doesn't want dignity, it wasn't obstruction. Trump's base would prefer to watch the world burn over democrats being allowed to do anything useful. The good of the country doesn't matter if a dirty liberal is in charge. It's run away identity politics and the GOP is trapped by it (of their own doing of course, they didn't have to court those voters, they could have modernized their platform 20 years ago).

WordLust

override367 wrote: »

dragonsama wrote: »

Last night I voted early. There was a line of over 100 people waiting to vote. I have never in all my years of voting seen anything like it. Now this is something I have agonized over for a while. I’ve had my issues with this election cycle and to be honest I was not hot on either candidate. After a lot of thought on it, right up until I was walking up to the voting machine I voted for Hillary and the other Dems.

Now I don’t like her and I am not high on the Dems either but this election cycle, for me, was about the blatant hate that has been coming from the right this year. Some directed at me even. I’m hoping that a big loss will, hopefully, make the GOP moderate their positions on social issues. They can’t go on bashing LGBT people and talking down POC then eating their own when someone dare step out of line and say “umm no, this is wrong”.

I’m not proud but I did what I had to.

Trump has for me, more than anything (if this was possible), make me lose some respect for the GOP

I disagree with basically all of them but I felt some were more or less consistant with their principles, and then I see them giving Trump half hearted "no... don't say that...i still am endorsing u tho" and it's just sickening

Stand up for yourselves you cowards, you're not going to save the white house or even the senate at this point, have some dignity

It's easy to ignore certain realities when it is basically literally your job to do so.

Gyral

Atomika wrote: »

Gyral wrote: »

Okay, we've apparently hit bedrock on October Bombshells. How do I know? Hannity interviewing a sci-fi writer and regular contributor to National Enquirer and WNN about his time as "story fixer" for the Clintons.

“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”

He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”

Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?

Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.

I'm actually a little surprised that Fox isn't taking this whole "Ailes departure/Kelly ascendant" phase to clear house a little (i.e., get rid of hacks like Doocy and Hannity, et al) and try to win back some industry respectability, but then again I don't honestly know how "respectible" they have the potential to be. My guess is not very.

I fully expect some talent bleed when TrumpTV is launched and contracts expire. Like, in a year, all the worst on-screen talent will be with Trump and maybe Fox starts slowly creeping back from the brink of madness.

Knight

Atomika wrote: »

Gyral wrote: »

Okay, we've apparently hit bedrock on October Bombshells. How do I know? Hannity interviewing a sci-fi writer and regular contributor to National Enquirer and WNN about his time as "story fixer" for the Clintons.

“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”

He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”

Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?

Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.

I'm actually a little surprised that Fox isn't taking this whole "Ailes departure/Kelly ascendant" phase to clear house a little (i.e., get rid of hacks like Doocy and Hannity, et al) and try to win back some industry respectability, but then again I don't honestly know how "respectible" they have the potential to be. My guess is not very.

Where's the money in that?

MuddBudd

dragonsama wrote: »

Last night I voted early. There was a line of over 100 people waiting to vote. I have never in all my years of voting seen anything like it. Now this is something I have agonized over for a while. I’ve had my issues with this election cycle and to be honest I was not hot on either candidate. After a lot of thought on it, right up until I was walking up to the voting machine I voted for Hillary and the other Dems.

Now I don’t like her and I am not high on the Dems either but this election cycle, for me, was about the blatant hate that has been coming from the right this year. Some directed at me even. I’m hoping that a big loss will, hopefully, make the GOP moderate their positions on social issues. They can’t go on bashing LGBT people and talking down POC then eating their own when someone dare step out of line and say “umm no, this is wrong”.

I’m not proud but I did what I had to.

You absolutely should be proud. Not because you voted for Hillary, but because you made an informed decision about what was best for the country.

Obviously many of us here like Hillary but you don't HAVE to like her to know that she'll be a good president. Or at least and adequate one, depending on your policy views. And by all means this doesn't mean people can't criticize her when she makes mistakes. Republicans should take her to task about stuff they disagree with, and Progressives will be pushing her to be more liberal. In the end, we'll probably get something in the middle that works for as many people as possible. At least, that's the hope.

Also, as a Democrat, I also hope the GOP gets it's house in order. You and the entire country deserve a better GOP.

Priest

HamHamJ wrote: »

Priest wrote: »

As someone who is a member of a major union, I gotta say that I absolutely loathe when unions endorse candidates. Even though I support the democratic ticket, my union never once asked me who I supported, they just somehow decided on one and then looked at their 500k members and said "join or die."

If my workplace is expected to be non-partisan, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that my union be non-partisan as well. I can only imagine there's a large portion of my union who supports people other than Hillary, be it Bernie, Trump, or otherwise. And even though I checked the little box on my paperwork that prevents my national union from using my dues for political activity, it still torques me that they presume to speak for me in that capacity without at least taking an internal vote first.

Alternatively: Isn't union leadership elected? And having elected them, isn't their job to support the candidates who will best look after the interests of union workers in terms of compensation, safety, etc? Not support Trump because half the members are racists willing to vote against their own self-interest?

Local leadership is a direct election, but state and national are chosen by local leadership.

Conversely, how many police officers are there right now who are having to deal with the heat of their union endorsing Trump when they emphatically do not? I'd be willing to bet more than 50% of Police Officers do not support Trump, but because the FOPO does, they have to lockstep and follow. And it's something that many of these police officers feel powerless to change, because the leadership of their union, like many unions, is almost always predetermined behind closed doors before the local leadership even "votes." And as a result, the Police feel trapped, because if they leave the organization, they lose all of the employment protections they've had, but to keep them, they have to go against their conscience.

Einzel

Working in a poll booth
votin' dem down, down.
Working in a poll booth
Trump about to get drowned.

Aridhol

8 million early votes cast. Sounds high? Is this high, historically?

Edit: google of 2012 tells me just over 30 million.
I guess time will tell with 2 weeks to go.

WordLust

Atomika wrote: »

Gyral wrote: »

Okay, we've apparently hit bedrock on October Bombshells. How do I know? Hannity interviewing a sci-fi writer and regular contributor to National Enquirer and WNN about his time as "story fixer" for the Clintons.

“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”

He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”

Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?

Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.

I'm actually a little surprised that Fox isn't taking this whole "Ailes departure/Kelly ascendant" phase to clear house a little (i.e., get rid of hacks like Doocy and Hannity, et al) and try to win back some industry respectability, but then again I don't honestly know how "respectible" they have the potential to be. My guess is not very.

Didn't they already announce who was replacing ailes and it was basically Boys' Club 2: Electric Boogaloo?

This was some time ago, so I'll have to try some google-fu to find that again

MuddBudd

As part of Shepard Smith coming out recently, he claims that Fox is trying to go a bit more news and a bit less 'opinion'.

In a more grounded Fox, Shep would take on a much greater role. In his most recent meeting with Rupert Murdoch, he asked where Murdoch felt the center of gravity was going to move post-Ailes, whether toward news or toward the opinion side. “He said, ‘I’m a newsman. I want to be the best news organization in America,’” Shep recalled.

Murdoch, he said, has big plans. “He wants to hire a lot more journalists, he wants to build us a massive new newsroom, he wants to make more commitments to places like this [studio], to hire reporters to work on beats, just enlarge our news-gathering,” Shep said. “When the biggest boss, who controls everything, comes and says ‘That’s what I want to do,’ that’s the greatest news I’ve heard in years. And he didn’t mention one thing about our opinion side.”

I'll believe it when I see it, but we can always hope.

ArcTangent

.

Knight_ wrote: »

Atomika wrote: »

Gyral wrote: »

Okay, we've apparently hit bedrock on October Bombshells. How do I know? Hannity interviewing a sci-fi writer and regular contributor to National Enquirer and WNN about his time as "story fixer" for the Clintons.

“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”

He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”

Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?

Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.

I'm actually a little surprised that Fox isn't taking this whole "Ailes departure/Kelly ascendant" phase to clear house a little (i.e., get rid of hacks like Doocy and Hannity, et al) and try to win back some industry respectability, but then again I don't honestly know how "respectible" they have the potential to be. My guess is not very.

Where's the money in that?

The Murdoch boys are a lot more liberal and generally global in attitude. James especially is big into the environment. I wouldn't be shocked if Fox News continued to be right wing nutcaseville, but I can absolutely see some things, like "global warming is a hoax" getting quashed from high above as soon as the election is over and they really consolidate power, especially if Trump and Ailes accelerate the process by starting their own alt-right thing.

nexuscrawler

akajaybay wrote: »

I look forward to Trump's anti-presidency. He'll build his own white house and oval office. Put out press releases, say what he thinks we should do every time a notable decision comes along. Have his own shadow cabinet of cronies who aren't allowed too much spotlight. But no one will actually have to do anything he says. And then either he'll finally start to be ignored, or you know Civil War 2.0. I take it back, I don't look forward to it.
I really really hope he'll just fade away after the election, but that seems improbable.

I'm split
I don't want Trump to get further attention but frankly the members of the GOP who have supported him don't deserve to get off so easily.

ArcTangent

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/791019122364653576

Bad news, guys. Syria is Russia and the new Iran.

...I have no idea what that means.

Calica

I voted this afternoon. There were two other people there, which actually surprised me considering it was 3:15 pm on a Tuesday.

Republicans running unopposed from state senator on down, but whaddyagonnado.

DevoutlyApathetic

Priest wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

Priest wrote: »

As someone who is a member of a major union, I gotta say that I absolutely loathe when unions endorse candidates. Even though I support the democratic ticket, my union never once asked me who I supported, they just somehow decided on one and then looked at their 500k members and said "join or die."

If my workplace is expected to be non-partisan, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that my union be non-partisan as well. I can only imagine there's a large portion of my union who supports people other than Hillary, be it Bernie, Trump, or otherwise. And even though I checked the little box on my paperwork that prevents my national union from using my dues for political activity, it still torques me that they presume to speak for me in that capacity without at least taking an internal vote first.

Alternatively: Isn't union leadership elected? And having elected them, isn't their job to support the candidates who will best look after the interests of union workers in terms of compensation, safety, etc? Not support Trump because half the members are racists willing to vote against their own self-interest?

Local leadership is a direct election, but state and national are chosen by local leadership.

Conversely, how many police officers are there right now who are having to deal with the heat of their union endorsing Trump when they emphatically do not? I'd be willing to bet more than 50% of Police Officers do not support Trump, but because the FOPO does, they have to lockstep and follow. And it's something that many of these police officers feel powerless to change, because the leadership of their union, like many unions, is almost always predetermined behind closed doors before the local leadership even "votes." And as a result, the Police feel trapped, because if they leave the organization, they lose all of the employment protections they've had, but to keep them, they have to go against their conscience.

That's just as much democracy as the entire country has on the national level.

It's also less the unions who pushed them into being like 90% democratic supporters. It turns out when one party tries to eliminate your existence then you pretty quickly align with the other choice.

BlindPsychic

I am amused by the scenario presented in Keepin' it 1600 where Paul Ryan is ousted as Speaker and the House GOP install Trump.

The Constitution does not require that the Speaker be an elected House Representative, though every Speaker so far has been an elected Member of the House. The Speaker is second in the United States presidential line of succession, after the Vice President and ahead of the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. -wikipedia

PantsB

I also think it's very very likely 50% of police do support Trump.

Edit
To expand, police in the US are 80% male, 75% nonhispanic white roughly. Most don't have college degrees and police tend to attract more authoritarian personalities.

RMS Oceanic

ArcTangent wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/791019122364653576

Bad news, guys. Syria is Russia and the new Iran.

...I have no idea what that means.

A strange game of EU4

Jazz

Phoenix-D wrote: »

So, it occurs to me what the GOP will probably do post Trump: the same thing they tried briefly after 2012.

Name!y, using their control of many state legislatures to change the distribution of electors so they follow the gerimandered House districts and not state wide. That way it doesn't matter that the majority of the state voted blue: the GOP will get more EC votes.

Now THAT'S rigging.

akajaybay

I don't think Trump wants any consolation prize position, especially not one where he may have to work a lot.
It's full on shadow presidency. Along with crazies who declare they don't have to obey that law, because President Trump repealed it. He'll create his own special taxes supporters can send him. Meanwhile they then try and claim they don't have to pay their federal taxes because they're citizens of Real America TM.

Ok I'm done scaring myself with speculation.

Cog

BlindPsychic wrote: »

I am amused by the scenario presented in Keepin' it 1600 where Paul Ryan is ousted as Speaker and the House GOP install Trump.

The Constitution does not require that the Speaker be an elected House Representative, though every Speaker so far has been an elected Member of the House. The Speaker is second in the United States presidential line of succession, after the Vice President and ahead of the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate.

Zero fucking chance.

AngelHedgie

https://twitter.com/mateagold/status/791023841246150658

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has effectively shut down his high-dollar fundraising operation for the rest of the campaign, a highly unusual move that deals another serious blow to the GOP's effort to finance its get-out-the-vote operation before Election Day.

Steven Mnuchin, Trump's national finance chairman, said in an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday that Trump Victory, a joint fundraising committee between the party and the campaign, held its last formal fundraiser on Oct. 19. The luncheon was in Las Vegas on the day of the final presidential debate.

"We’ve kind of wound down," Mnuchin said. "But the online fundraising continues to be strong."

...holy fuck. Trump just neutered the GOP downticket.