|
|
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Comrade GroperWhat has Groper done right? He has been unmitigated disaster from day one, as he promised. |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 14-Jul-17, 21:10 |
|
||||||||||
|
Turnout was 59.7%, which is actually the highest since 1968. <<There was nothing evil about Hillary, who would have been entirely good for our country.>> I could make a lengthy list, but I just won't. It's a dead horse. I think Trump is worse, but Clinton was far from being a saint. However, while Trump's team collaborating with the Russians is treasonous, let's not forget the shady crap going on inside the DNC was treasonous as well. Half the registered democratic electorate *knew* this was going on without Russia's hacked e-mails. Just go back and view the footage from Nevada and you'll see how "wholesome" and "good" Hillary and her supporters really were. And today's news that Kamilla Harris just had a private meeting in the Hamptons with Hillary's biggest backers just proves that 2020 is probably going to look a lot like 2016. As much as the dems can't afford a drubbing in 2018, it seems like that might be the only thing that wakes them up and saves us all from 8 years of this idiot. |
||||||||||
|
Compare 2008 and 2016 presidential elections. en.wikipedia.org I don't think K-O-N provide the right statistics. Please check the stats in Wiki above. In 2008 The voter turn out rate was 58.2 % between Obama and McCain but in 2016 it was 54.7% between Trump and HRC. Obama won both electoral and popular votes which was over 69 million. Hillary had over 65 million popular votes. Roughly there is a difference of 4 million popular votes in favor of Obama. IMHO, my previous message still holds true because if all these 4 million people voted, they would vote HRC mainly and she should win. |
||||||||||
|
Just take out Kim Jong-un Martin |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Ace... I didn't follow Wikipedia's source, this is the source I used: www.electproject.org However, just adding up the listed results on the respective wiki pages gives you this result: 2008: 131,313,820 Total Ballots Cast 2016: 135,719,576 Total Ballots Cast (not including votes for "Other") <<Hillary had over 65 million popular votes. Roughly there is a difference of 4 million popular votes in favor of Obama. IMHO, my previous message still holds true because if all these 4 million people voted, they would vote HRC mainly and she should win.>> Those other 4 million votes can be found in Trump's tally. She had 65 mil, he had 63 mil. Remember, in 2008 McCain ended up with 59 mil. And that doesn't even take into account the third party votes. 2008: Nader: 739k Barr: 523k 2016: Johnson: 4.5 mil Stein: 1.5 mil These are all listed on the two wikipedia pages you cited. The media wants you to believe the turnout was low. It wasn't. Whether or not Hillary was guilty of everything or even anything which she was accused, the Republicans have been shredding her in the eyes of the public since ca. 2000. It's not entirely fair. But it's also not completely unfair. She was backed by big money, and the Democratic populace largely rejected that this election cycle. It isn't just here, you can see this happening all over the world. The differences between the haves and have-nots has expanded so much that there is a groundswell demanding change and the Dems continue to ignore it and insist nothing is wrong. We've already blasted Cory Booker, and Kamala is next. They will be forced to listen or they'll continue to lose. Sad but true. |
||||||||||
|
Unless Comrade Groper is Lying Our electorate went with the "big money" candidate this time. It helped he garnered substantial free air time too. I remember one network airing his empty podium in anticipation of his talk, while another popular candidate gave a speech conducted largely absent broadcast. |
||||||||||
|
en.wikipedia.org Hillary Clinton $497,808,791 Raised, $435,367,811 Spent $62,440,979 Cash on Hand Donald Trump $247,541,449 Raised, $231,546,996 Spent, $15,994,454 Cash on Hand It was those huge donations that drove the majority of "have-not" electorates away. People were easily duped, they really believed Trump cared about them. Some still do, some always will. After all, complete denial is easier for some than admitting they were hoodwinked. These are blue collar people who were electing a "boss" and not a Commander in Chief. I have always said and will continue to say that anyone who bought into his rhetoric are/were stupid. I have many stupid family members. Thanksgiving in my house was interesting last year. I don't hesitate to tell them that either. There were three types of Trump voters: 1. Trump supporter from the day he declared; 2. Cruz/Rubio/Kasich/Bush/etc. supporters who backed Trump after he became presumptive; and 3. People who hated Hillary so much they figured they would vote for Trump out of some sort of "protest." #3 is by far the most disappointing. These voters thought they were being sly, but most likely they were the ones that swung the election in Trump's favor. #2 is the biggest problem with party politics. You're pushed to fall into line; last year the DNC screwed their voters so badly that they couldn't get the Sanders supporters back on board in time. In fact, they still haven't. I was a Sanders supporter who voted for Hillary, simply because I am not an idiot. I saw all this crap coming. Trump at least had a fair election to become the presumptive nominee. That's really what baffles me in all this: Clinton was going to beat Sanders anyway, why all the underhandedness to get there? It was too risky and it cost everyone far too much in the end. #1 these are the biggest low life scum bags on the planet, period. They are the racists, the misogynists, the bigots, and the closet and open homophobes. If you were at a rally eating up the "knock the crap out of him" garbage coming out of Trump's mouth, I speculate you're about to get what's coming to you. So cheer loud for Trumpcare, it's like Obamacare, only worse. You'll see. It's the state of our politics today. I said it before, right about this time last year... BC was touting that Hillary was going to name Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. Then she turned around and picked Tim Kaine. Pure arrogance; she thought she could win even if she chose Bobcat Goldwaith as her running mate. Warren would have gained her a sizable chunk of votes that inevitably went to Trump. But Wall Street said no to Warren and in the end, so did Hillary. This was a time when Bernie supporters wanted a reason to vote for her, and she screwed them over once again. The DNC later "elected" Tom Perez to the chair position, despite the wildly popular Keith Ellison. WE can't afford to lose the seats we're about to lose in 2018, but it's going to happen. You mostly have Schumer and Pelosi to thank for that, with an honorable mention to "bad penny" Debbie Wasserman-Shultz who just keeps turning up. And the outlook for 2020 is grim: Kaine: NO Booker: Nope Harris: No Any other sketchy candidates out there? |
||||||||||
|
Don't forget about the swing voters. ---------------------------------------------------------- en.wikipedia.org A swing vote is a vote that is seen as potentially going to any of a number of candidates in an election, or, in a two-party system, may go to either of the two dominant political parties. Such votes are usually sought after in elections, since they can play a big role in determining the outcome. A swing voter or floating voter is a voter who may not be affiliated with a particular political party (Independent) or who will vote across party lines. In American politics, many centrists, liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats are considered "swing voters" since their voting patterns cannot be predicted with certainty. While the swing voter is ostensibly the target of most political activity during elections, in countries without compulsory voting the political parties know that the shift from one party to another is dependent only to a limited extent on swing voters. Another, arguably larger factor is the success of one party in comparison to another in getting out its core support. In a two-party system, those who become disillusioned with their favored party are more likely to vote third-party or abstain than cross over. Smaller groups with voting powers, such as chambers of parliament and supreme courts, can also have swing voters. Due to these groups' smaller size, an individual swing voter can hold more power. (For example, on a court of seven judges, of which three are committed to each side of a case, the seventh judge may be seen as single-handedly deciding the case.) |
||||||||||
|
2020 Democratic Presidential Nominee. Can HRC come back in 2020 and seek another bid for White House ? I am doubtful but how do you think ? --------------------------------------- Since Hillary Clinton’s unexpected loss to Donald Trump, her donors have strategized with Democratic leadership about how to revive the failing party. Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to “take back power” and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. On the weekend of Trump’s inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to “kick Donald Trump’s a--.” On July 15, Page Six reported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons. Many figures in Clinton’s inner circle attended, including Clinton’s 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also attended a separate luncheon hosted by one of Clinton’s top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins. Harris’ meetings with Clinton’s donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump Resistance; Politico reported that the hearings regarding Trump’s connections to Russia have enabled the Democratic Party to frame her as Trump’s most aggressive critic. In response to one of the hearings she was involved in, she launched the slogan “courage not courtesy.” |
||||||||||
|
I really like Tulsi Gabbard and this year she positioned herself to be the "Bernie" prototype in 2020 by denouncing Pac money: www.votetulsi.com She's young, so if she doesn't win she'll be around through 2040. I just hope we're able to survive the next 3 1/2 years and have the opportunity to hold another election. |
||||||||||
|
Tulsi is the kind of president we need "How much is it for me?" It would certainly be refreshing to find an honest man or woman with integrity which is what we have now lost. Trump drools every time he thinks about how much money he will be taking from the taxpayers, by building the wall which will cost billions, and he will take as much as he can, by granting the contractors the chance at bidding, and making sure they will give him as much of the money as he wants in return for accepting the bids. The country is going to the dogs, and soon we will run out of social security, because Trump will take money from there too. People should be given a fair deal, when they pay their taxes, and should not be cheated out of money that they work so hard to earn. The sad part of the problem with getting a good president that will be on the side of the people, and not willing to help republicans, those money hungry bastards will have someone like that killed, and blame it on the Russians. I remember when Mexico had a candidate that was benevolent, generous, good natured, and honest, who pledged to help the poor, and make Mexico a better place for the people. His name was Donaldo Colloso. The rich politicians in Mexico saw that he was not going to cooperate with them, so the payed some unknown to shoot him in the back of the head in front of thousands that had gathered around him to show support. Of course the man was arrested, but who is to know how much he got paid and the pardoned by decree. Another incident that happened right before our eyes, was when Henry B. Gonzales was appointed to head the investigation of the JFK assassination. He was run out of Washington by the fat cats, because they did not like his impeccable demeanor. So God bless America, and I hope this does not happen if we get a good president that will be for the people as it should be. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Even if it IS Illegal |
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 13:54 |
|
||||||||||
|
so is it... The same process occurs in jail, in gangs... USA aren't worse neither better than the others (alas !), (their justification, that their law is the right one has already been used by all of the dominating nations). Why should it be otherwise ? and, more interresting (for me, at least ) How could it be otherwise ? |
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 19:39 |
www.actionnewsjax.com ptitroque, are you suggesting that the USA is responsible for this tragedy? |
||||||||||
|
Good bad news But if the ones killed were the ones that were involved in planning to kill millions of people by starting a war, then I believe some kind of justice can be found. It may also be a blessing to the many innocent citizens in North Korea, who have nothing to say, or do with what their leaders say, or plan to do. They may also be feeling happy that there will be no war. It is just unfortunate that the NK leader was not in the center of the collapse, but at least that might leave him powerless to make any more threats to the world. Maybe he will die of a heart attack. |
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 22:18 |
|
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 31-Oct-17, 22:28 |
<But if the ones killed were the ones that were involved in planning to kill millions of people by starting a war, then I believe some kind of justice can be found.> I don't think that is fair. This was a work site accident and just happened to be a site alledgedly involved in the nuclear programme. Surely, the victim workers had nothing to do with that. |
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 22:59 |
I suspect international intrigue. Ptitroque could be right. China might have finally agreed to collude with the US to undermine NK. |
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 23:00 |
www.newsweek.com 4 days ago |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 31-Oct-17, 23:04 |
|
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 23:15 |
|
||||||||||
|
stalh |
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 23:37 |
This was reported 4 days ago "Chinese geologists have warned North Korea that the consequences could be catastrophic if it conducts another test at the mountainous Punggye-ri nuclear facility, the South China Morning Post reports. " Today hundreds of people died in the exact way warned against. It seems suspicious. |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 31-Oct-17, 23:37 |
|
||||||||||
|
winslowhightower 31-Oct-17, 23:55 |
I do find it noteworthy that the article I posted above was only a few days before the news reported today. I had to point that out. |
||||||||||
|
Sir, I am very shocked at the mere suggestion, especially coming from you. I really expected you to be the last person to suggest this, with you being very left and quite liberal, at your own admission. I would much rather expect such a statement from myself. Nonetheless, I disagree with your post. I understand the rationale behind it, it really does make sense, but if we arbitrarily decide who is right and who is wrong and act upon such a decisions with extreme prejudice, this planet will quickly descend into chaos. You must remember that for almost all the people in North Korea the USA is evil and must be destroyed. The point of view is held, I am sure, by many people who we would find decent and quite likeable, but for their political convictions and point of view. I sincerely don't believe that we can cause misery and suffering for millions on both sides (or should that be all sides?) just because their leader is- form our point of view- in the wrong. Such a decision and judgement can be viewed from the other side as well, and North Korea may just decide to take out President Trump, the Queen of England, the French President, the Dutch Prince, or even my own president, because from their convictions any of these people might be evil. (Let's not debate here how some of them are indeed evil.) lord_shiva; 09-Jul-17, 09:09 adds more to my sentiments as well, and the following witty posts by him rings true. stalhandske; 09-Jul-17, 19:43- Yes, we may think that the North Korean regime are evil and cruel, but millions of their citizens don't think so. It is a matter of perception. ace-of-aces; 10-Jul-17, 06:49: "...Develop and Arm Japan and S Korea themselves with their own Nuclear Weapons...." Now that is a very interesting proposal, except for the objection below. stalhandske; 10-Jul-17, 21:21: "...What rights does USA (or "the West") have to prevent development of rockets and even nuclear bombs in a sovereign country?..." A just question. If we have the physicists and engineers capable to design a successful nuclear capability, ostensibly to protect us from aggression by other countries, why does some of the big dogs object to this? Especially since they themselves already possess such capability? We may just need such a capability to defend ourselves from the big dogs! chaz-; 11-Jul-17, 08:34: "...it is conceivable that the US may become the "real enemy" of the rest of the world..." Well, that is exactly what happened to South Africa after we took control of Namibia and before UN Resolution 435 was finally implemented. We knew better how to govern Namibia than Namibia herself, and we pushed thousands of soldiers into a battle to protect Namibia from terrorists (or now called freedom fighters- see what I mean about perception?) whose only intention was to see the end of Apartheid rule by a foreign country. We didn't invade Namibia, we simply helped Namibia to protect herself. With our soldiers on her soil, and often deep into Angolan soil as well. Riiiiiight..... And then we degenerate into a lengthy and repeated discussion of the pro's and con's of the last US election, the merits or lack thereof of the presidential candidates, and arguments that are really sounding like old and oft repeated rhetoric that has been put forward in most other threads. Thank you all kindly for that. |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
