The Democratic Party of the USA

[slf]

Just now, dougfir said:

Democrats won the most votes in the election. They should act like it.

Seriously.

[Hanahope]

Seriously.  Wasn't McConnell saying at this time that the Gop was going to make Obama a one term President ?  Why isn't Pelosi doing the same?  Are the dems going to roll over as usual? This is why they are so disappointing so often.

[Padma]

By the way, what is happening in North Dakota is shocking to me. Where is our president while these people are being viciously attacked by law enforcement?  If this were Donald Trump's administration, wouldn't Democrats be all be up in arms and talking about fascism?

It kind of made me sick to see Obama laughing and joking about the turkey "pardoning" today, after I had just seen what happened to the Sioux who are peacefully protesting.  We'd be outraged if this happened under Trump. Are a lot of liberals (and the President) great big hypocrites? Where's the leadership here?

[ari333]

12 minutes ago, Padma said:

By the way, what is happening in North Dakota is shocking to me. Where is our president while these people are being viciously attacked by law enforcement?  If this were Donald Trump's administration, wouldn't Democrats be all be up in arms and talking about fascism?

It kind of made me sick to see Obama laughing and joking about the turkey "pardoning" today, after I had just seen what happened to the Sioux who are peacefully protesting.  We'd be outraged if this happened under Trump. Are a lot of liberals (and the President) great big hypocrites? Where's the leadership here?

What happened? I missed it. TIA

[slf]

13 minutes ago, Padma said:

By the way, what is happening in North Dakota is shocking to me. Where is our president while these people are being viciously attacked by law enforcement?  If this were Donald Trump's administration, wouldn't Democrats be all be up in arms and talking about fascism?

It kind of made me sick to see Obama laughing and joking about the turkey "pardoning" today, after I had just seen what happened to the Sioux who are peacefully protesting.  We'd be outraged if this happened under Trump. Are a lot of liberals (and the President) great big hypocrites? Where's the leadership here?

Yes, many liberals and leftists are hypocrites. The police turned water cannons on the protestors, spraying them with cold water when it was already below 30 degrees out. Combined with the pepper spray there were reports of seizures and people losing control of their bodily functions. People struck by the "rubber" bullets have been seriously injured. At the beginning of the protests the police turned dogs on the protesters, some of whom were minors, and allowed them to bite people. But the people being attacked are the Sioux and you'd be hard-pressed to find people more shat on than Native Americans and that's where many stop caring.

Quote

What happened? I missed it. TIA

You haven't missed it, it's still on-going. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe are attempting to protect land and water from a pipeline (DAPL) being built. Police are using brutal methods to "quell riots." 

Edited November 24, 2016 by slf

[Danny Franks]

11 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Seriously.  Wasn't McConnell saying at this time that the Gop was going to make Obama a one term President ?  Why isn't Pelosi doing the same?  Are the dems going to roll over as usual? This is why they are so disappointing so often.

The Democrats play by the rules, partly due to principles, and partly due to being afraid of being seen as the bad guy. Any misstep they make will be amplified and screamed about by 'outraged' conservative news outlets. This is why Gore caved in 2000, because people were pointing the finger at him and saying he was a bad loser, out to ruin American democracy, and it's what will happen now if Clinton asks for a recount, regardless of the evidence.

The problem is, Republicans have no issue at all with being the bad guys. They're 'win at all costs, throw moral standards out of the window' guys, who will happily gerrymander districts, restrict voting amongst their opponents and lie through their smiles to get the result they want. They'll employ armies of lawyers to overturn results they don't like, on the flimsiest of evidence. And they have come to realise that simply repeating the same lie for long enough and often enough, can make that lie true, even in the eyes of those who don't support them (like Clinton being corrupt, for example). They flat out stopped governing the country for these past four years, just so they could say, 'see, government doesn't work'. And they got away with it.

Democrats need to stop being scared of calling them out on this stuff. They need to stop being afraid that Fox is going to say they're bad people (hint: Fox already says they're bad people). If you think the election might have been stolen, then get it back!

Edited November 24, 2016 by Danny Franks

[dougfir]

Can the Democratic Party rise again? Yes — and here’s the first big thing to watch.

[Jordan27]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 6:55 PM, Ceindreadh said:

I'm sure you don't believe you're a racist. Personally though, I tend to use the KKK as a racism detector. If they say something is good, then more than likely it's racist. So maybe you and Trump and all his supporters aren't actually racist, but guess what, you're racist enough for one of the most racist organisations in your country so it amounts to pretty much the same thing. 

Belief is not necessary.  I knew who I am.  You don't.

And one can find all kinds of extremist groups who support the Dems.  BLM matter did.  Does that make all Dems racist?

And a group may support someone for any reason which may be unrelated to your point.

[Ceindreadh]

4 minutes ago, Jordan27 said:

Belief is not necessary.  I knew who I am.  You don't.

And one can find all kinds of extremist groups who support the Dems.  BLM matter did.  Does that make all Dems racist?

And a group may support someone for any reason which may be unrelated to your point.

Curious.  When was the last time the KKK supported or endorsed somebody for a non-racist reason? 

[Jordan27]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 11:08 AM, DollEyes said:

Not necessarily. Hillary probably had the same opposition research about Sanders that the Republicans did, but she chose not to use it because Sanders wasn't the nominee; otoh, knowing Trump, his temperament, the company he keeps, his fan base and his/their allergic reaction to sanity, if Sanders was the nominee, chances are Trump not only wouldn't have shown such restraint, he would have crushed Sanders and thought nothing of it. 

 

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, while I agree that the Democratic party is in trouble, the Republican party has problems of its own. True, they may be the majority for now, but that also means that when things go wrong, which they inevitably will, it's on them.   As for racism, it's true there are a few extremists in Black Lives Matter, but the vast majority I've seen have been respectful and peaceful. Trump campaigned and won-the Electoral College, anyway-based on exploiting peoples' fears and scapegoating innocent people based on their color and/or their religion because of them and it has gotten even worse since the election, with numerous reports about Muslim women having their hijabs ripped off, Black students being taunted with racist hate speech and Latino children being bullied by their White classmates with "Build that wall!", to literally name a few, but I don't see any of the so-called "non-racist" Republicans complaining too much, if at all, about those incidents, except for Trump's lukewarm response on 60 Minutes: "Don't do it," which was neither constructive, comforting nor Presidential. That some of Trump's supporters voted for President Obama at least once makes their ignorance even worse. 

  Because Trump's campaign/ Electoral victory has not only encouraged hate, it's weaponized it, it's no wonder that people of all ages are literally taking to the streets because of it.  I say, to quote NJ senator Cory Booker, "Thank God for the protesters." Not the idiots who are vandalizing property; I'm talking about the vast majority who are peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.  Because of Trump, his rhetoric and his minions, these people are legitimately scared for their families, their freedom and their lives.  If it wasn't for the constant hate-mongering of Trump and his ilk pandering to the lowest common denominator, these people probably wouldn't be protesting in the first place. The Democrats may have their faults, but the Republicans need to clean their own house before they criticize ours. 

Trump won the election by standing up to libs, the elite media and political correctness.  The racism charge would have been leveled any of our candidates and is a liberal playbook maneuver always used.

And the incidents of so-called bullying by conservatives are isolated and mostly phony.  While pre-arranged liberal protests are violent and viciously divisive and vulgar.

And what are they protesting and what do they hope to achieve?  A legal election that they lost.  Nothing will come of it, so they have no point other than being crybabies.

And the so-called hatemongering pales in comparison to the hateful comments I have seen against Trump and his supporters.

[slf]

13 hours ago, Jordan27 said:

And one can find all kinds of extremist groups who support the Dems.  BLM matter did.  Does that make all Dems racist?

And a group may support someone for any reason which may be unrelated to your point.

Black Lives Matter isn't an extremist group. And even if it were, how would that makes Dems racist when racism doesn't factor into the BLM movement?

A group may support someone for a number of reasons but as a general rule of thumb the KKK won't support anyone, or any organization, that doesn't further their cause. Racism is a requirement.

Quote

While pre-arranged liberal protests are violent and viciously divisive and vulgar.

I'm sorry but I haven't been able to find any credible proof that these protests are pre-arranged. Frankly the charge seems ludicrous. What's so hard to believe about liberals being upset at winning the popular vote but being robbed of the presidency (even if that's an interpretation you don't agree with)? After all, as you said: "And what are they protesting and what do they hope to achieve?  A legal election that they lost." Yes, protesting the election. Not paid. 

Quote

And the so-called hatemongering pales in comparison to the hateful comments I have seen against Trump and his supporters.

Can't say I agree that the protests are hate-mongering or that they in any way compare to swastikas being spray-painted all over playgrounds, to school staff chanting "build that wall" while their Latin@ students cry, with strangers attacking Muslim women. People disliking Trump for the things he's said and done isn't comparable to bigotry.

[Rapunzel]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 5:24 PM, slf said:

Yes, many liberals and leftists are hypocrites. The police turned water cannons on the protestors, spraying them with cold water when it was already below 30 degrees out. Combined with the pepper spray there were reports of seizures and people losing control of their bodily functions. People struck by the "rubber" bullets have been seriously injured. At the beginning of the protests the police turned dogs on the protesters, some of whom were minors, and allowed them to bite people. But the people being attacked are the Sioux and you'd be hard-pressed to find people more shat on than Native Americans and that's where many stop caring.

You haven't missed it, it's still on-going. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe are attempting to protect land and water from a pipeline (DAPL) being built. Police are using brutal methods to "quell riots." 

And guess who owns stock in the pipeline and companies that will benefit from it? That's right - Agent Orange. His holdings aren't huge, but he still stands to profit if it goes through. Let's just add this to the list of conflicts of interest that he has and, if it falls to him to try to help resolve the situation, we can pretty much guess what will happen - he'll do what's best for him and line his pockets.

[Padma]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:31 PM, Jordan27 said:

Trump won the election by standing up to libs, the elite media and political correctness.  The racism charge would have been leveled any of our candidates and is a liberal playbook maneuver always used.

And the incidents of so-called bullying by conservatives are isolated and mostly phony.  While pre-arranged liberal protests are violent and viciously divisive and vulgar.

And what are they protesting and what do they hope to achieve?  A legal election that they lost.  Nothing will come of it, so they have no point other than being crybabies.

And the so-called hatemongering pales in comparison to the hateful comments I have seen against Trump and his supporters.

He insulted the media, and yet they gave him an estimated $2 billion of free coverage in the primaries alone. And CNN hired Lewandowski as their on air "CNN contributer" while he was still in constant touch with Trump (not disclosed to viewers) as his "campaign strategists", per FEC filings. He was never "fired". That was a lie so Trump's buddy, CNN president Jeff Zucker could hire him.   All the insults are just subterfuge.

But I digress. My real question is regarding the aftermath of the election. I remember when Trump was down in Pennsylvania by over `10 pts in October and he told a rally, "The only way I'll lose here is if there's cheating." Do you think that was a fair and honest thing to say?

Also, he spent the last month blasting the rigged system that was conspiring with "global financial intersts, the media and Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim to steal the election for Hillary (this was when every poll, including his own, showed that she would win.)  Do you think that was a fair and honest thing to say?

Finally, the "rigged system" of course is the Electoral College which can subvert the will of voters as it has only four other times in our history.  What if the situation were reversed and Donald Trump had won nationally by 2.5 million votes over Hillary-- 64.5 million to 62 million--BUT she won the presidency thanks to the Electoral College, including a few large states like California and New York.  Do you think Trump and his followers would have just accepted that?

Do you think all those Trump supporters who were threatening to grab their guns and take to the barricades if Hilary even WON, much less became president by the Electoral College alone--would have graciously accepted that loss? Do you think they would have said, "Well Donald Trump beat her nationwide by over two million votes, but of course she should be our president anyway?"  Or do you think from their candidate on down there would have been a steady drumbeat of accusations and threats of violence and speeches about Hillary's corruption and  "theft" and dishonesty"?

Do you think that Trump & Co would hae accepted Hillary's win in the Electoral College even though Trump won  --decisively--in the popular vote? Would they have said, "Of course, she's our president! She won fair and square."

Do you think they would have done that--as they are now claiming is the only honorable response--or are they being a great big bunch of lying hyocrites?                                                                                              

Edited November 27, 2016 by Padma

[Tara]

Quote

Finally, the "rigged system" of course is the Electoral College which can subvert the will of voters as it has only four other times in our history.  What if the situation were reversed and Donald Trump had won nationally by 2.5 million votes over Hillary-- 64.5 million to 62 million--BUT she won the presidency thanks to the Electoral College, including a few large states like California and New York.  Do you think Trump and his followers would have just accepted that?

Hillary was ahead by a few hundred thousand the day after the election.  Late California votes are keeping her total rising.  She won California by almost 4 million votes.  She won New York by about 1.5 million votes.  Without the Electoral College, those two states, which ALWAYS go Democratic, would pretty much control the elections.  That is why our Constitution created the Electoral College-- to give the people in the middle states a fair chance at having their interests fairly represented.  

People who live in urban areas have different interests than those in rural areas.  People tend to vote for the party they believe would best serve their interests....usually meaning on which interests is the government going to spend money.

Sorry, the urban areas of California and New York don't get to control the elections.  

[slf]

53 minutes ago, Tara said:

Without the Electoral College, those two states, which ALWAYS go Democratic, would pretty much control the elections.  That is why our Constitution created the Electoral College-- to give the people in the middle states a fair chance at having their interests fairly represented.  

That's not the reason, though? I mean, no one was shy about admitting why they created the Electoral College: to protect the interests of slaveholders.

Edited November 27, 2016 by slf

[KIMBERLYANN11]

And what different interests would the red states have than the blue states that Trump would be able to help them with?

Edited November 27, 2016 by KIMBERLYANN11

[Tara]

Quote

That's not the reason, though? I mean, no one was shy about admitting why they created the Electoral College: to protect the interests of slaveholders

That sounds like BS, being said by people because everything is being spun as racist-driven these days.

 

Quote

And what different interests would the red states have than the blue states that Trump would be able to help them with?

I would have to research current interests of the states, but it doesn't matter. Our Presidental elections are state-driven, and every state is given a share of the vote based on their population.  

[KIMBERLYANN11]

3 minutes ago, Tara said:

 

I would have to research current interests of the states, but it doesn't matter. Our Presidental elections are state-driven, and every state is given a share of the vote based on their population.  

It matters to me because I have some intellectual curiosity and I am interested to know.  Let me know what you find out!  

But here, I'll try.  People in middle America with all the forests and open grasslands would care more about the environment and wouldn't want a president that would rape the environment .... no wait.  Huh.

People near the big cities would want to get rid of immigrants because, being around them they can see that they are harmful to the country.  And Trump would be soft on immigration .... oh, wait.

Middle America votes for the person who will help them obtain quality health care because they have less access to begin with.  Oh - damn.

I got nothin'.  (I kinda think I know the answer anyways - there are two parts to the equation, but I am interested if others have any thoughts).

Please note - I am not asking anyone here why they voted the way that they did or to defend their vote.  I am curious about wide swaths of America and how their interests would differ from others and lead to the wide disparity between the popular and electoral votes.  

[fishcakes]

3 hours ago, Tara said:

She won California by almost 4 million votes.  She won New York by about 1.5 million votes.  Without the Electoral College, those two states, which ALWAYS go Democratic, would pretty much control the elections. That is why our Constitution created the Electoral College-- to give the people in the middle states a fair chance at having their interests fairly represented.  

California and New York do not always vote Democratic. In the presidential races since 1789, Democrats have won New York 26 times and Republicans 20 times. Since 1852, Democrats have won California 18 times and Republicans have won 23 times.

And the Electoral College was not created to give "the middle states a fair chance." The middle states did not exist at the time the EC was created, only the original 13 states.

1 hour ago, Tara said:

Quote

That's not the reason, though? I mean, no one was shy about admitting why they created the Electoral College: to protect the interests of slaveholders

That sounds like BS, being said by people because everything is being spun as racist-driven these days.

No, it's long-settled American history, which most people learn no later than high school.

Edited November 27, 2016 by fishcakes

[slf]

49 minutes ago, Tara said:

That sounds like BS, being said by people because everything is being spun as racist-driven these days.

We have access to historical documents that say otherwise, though. This is very easily looked up.

Edited November 27, 2016 by slf

[windsprints]

Quote

Without the Electoral College, those two states, which ALWAYS go Democratic, would pretty much control the elections.

I disagree. The top 5 states by population are California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois (2013 census). Texas is larger in population than NY popular so without the EC Texas has more control than NY.  Florida is close to NY in population. Also, there are many,many counties in NY that are NOT urban areas and vote Republican.  

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists - its a Time article but the information is on history/reference websites all across the internet and easily looked up.

Quote

 

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by windsprints

[Rae Spellman]

2 hours ago, fishcakes said:

California and New York do not always vote Democratic.

From '91 to '99 the Governor of CA was Republican. Just over a dozen years ago California recalled a Democrat Governor to elect a Republican movie star! The Republican movie star was re-elected.

Also, there was a Republican president who won California twice. That President was Governor of the Golden State from '67-75. 

Edited to add: From '52-60 and again from '68 to '88 the Republican nominee for President won California.

Edited November 27, 2016 by RaeSpellman

[windsprints]

23 minutes ago, RaeSpellman said:

From '91 to '99 the Governor of CA was Republican. Just over a dozen years ago California recalled a Democrat Governor to elect a Republican movie star! The Republican movie star was re-elected.

Also, there was a Republican president who won California twice. That President was Governor of the Golden State from '67-75. 

Thanks, I just looked up NY:

NY voted for a Republican President in 1972, 1980 & 1984 (prior to that as well but I didn't go back past the 60s). 

Republicans have been mayor of NYC in 1966-1973, 1994-2001 & 2002-2013. However, Bloomberg did switch to Independent 2 years into his second term.

Republican NY Governors - Nelson Rockefeller 1959-1973, Malcolm Wilson 1973-1975, George Pataki 1995-2007

[Rapunzel]

Nearly every other country in the world goes by popular vote. Who wins is not "controlled" by the most populous areas per se. The popular vote ensures everyone's vote counts equally, regardless of whether or not they are Dems or Republicans or where they live. The entire country elects the President, not just a few key states, which can happen with the EC. Once the President is in power, how is it exactly that these larger states would "control" the government? If the election is based on the popular vote, the American people as a whole elected the President with all of their votes counting, regardless of where they live, and those in CA have no more power than those in NE, for example. The President would govern as usual, the House and the Senate would operate as usual. The big difference is that everyone's vote will have counted if we go to a popular vote system. To say that everyone's vote counts now, under the EC, is a lie.

The EC is antiquated and archaic and was put in place when white males who owned land were the only people allowed to vote. In case people haven't noticed, a lot has changed since then. Every vote should count and if we keep moving ahead with the EC, it means it doesn't and it's a slap in the face to those who stand in line for hours to vote and those who fought so everyone eligible could vote, knowing that everything is up to some bullshit antiquated system anyway. In addition, if the EC votes by state are set by population, in many states those counts are no longer correct. CA, for example, should technically have more than 55 EC votes based on its population today. The people made it clear who they wanted President with the popular vote. We were robbed, in large part, due to the EC, which means many people were essentially robbed of having a voice and say in who becomes President all because they live in a certain state.  

Popular voting works pretty much everywhere else - there is no reason it can't work here as well. That's really the only fair way to elect a President. That way it doesn't favor red states vs. blue states, it's just based on the entire country as a whole and no state is given more weight over another. It doesn't matter where you live if you go on popular vote - the population of the US is what it is.  

Whatever errors the Dems made in this election, the EC contributed to this because, without it, Hillary would be our President Elect. Instead, we get some monster with no moral compass and who has no interest other than lining his own pockets. The man is not even a true Republican and that party knows it. I'm glad this recount is happening and that Hillary and many of the Dems are supporting it (I'm trying not to get my hopes up too high, but at least the Dems are fighting back thanks to help from Jill Stein). To think that we could have had Russia select our President for us is just way too scary. Even if the recount doesn't change anything, Russia still played a huge role by hacking the e-mails and the DNC. Why did they only do this to the Dems and not hack Trump and the Republicans as well? I don't want a President who likely owes piles of money to Putin and Russian banks and who has business interests with foreign governments and refuses to separate the two. It's just dangerous all the way around.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Rapunzel

[slf]

1 hour ago, windsprints said:

I disagree. The top 5 states by population are California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois (2013 census). Texas is larger in population than NY popular so without the EC Texas has more control than NY.  Florida is close to NY in population. Also, there are many,many counties in NY that are NOT urban areas and vote Republican.  

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists - its a Time article but the information is on history/reference websites all across the internet and easily looked up.

Thanks for the link! I knew we studied this in school.

[Tara]

California and New York have not voted for a Republican President  in about 30 years and you're bringing that up as an example of they do vote Republican?

And you are throwing in governors and senators and congressmen that have been voted in for in these states that are Republicans, as a reason why we should not have the electoral college?

Hillary Clinton has a popular vote as high as she does because of California.  

 I think Trump should demand a recount of California. :)

[slf]

48 minutes ago, Tara said:

California and New York have not voted for a Republican President  in about 30 years and you're bringing that up as an example of they do vote Republican?

Well, you did say that they "always" go Democrat. People are just pointing out that California and New York have voted for both. They might go through periods of voting for one over the other but they're not like Texas, which pretty much always votes Republican.

Quote

I think Trump should demand a recount of California. :)

Given that he's now endorsing the viewpoint that there was election fraud, why not? We should recount all the states at this point.

Edited November 27, 2016 by slf

[windsprints]

Quote

And you are throwing in governors and senators and congressmen that have been voted in for in these states that are Republicans, as a reason why we should not have the electoral college

Nope. I was only pointing out that NYers will vote for Republican candidates in various offices.  

NY may have voted republican for president a few elections ago but the fact that they did proves that its they don't always vote for the Democrat, as you claimed.  I was replying to a post about how CA has voted and made no mention or claim that it had anything to do with the EC. I didn't even mention the EC in that post.

Quote

Given that he's now endorsing the viewpoint that there was election fraud, why not? We should recount all the states at this point.

Agree.  If the integrity of the election is in question I'm all for a recount.

Edited November 27, 2016 by windsprints

[stormy]

The political pundit "experts' pretty much agree a recount should go on simply because that's how our democracy works.

However, they all insist that nothing will change because Hillary cannot overcome the deficit.

Well these are same people that insisted that Hillary would win the election.  Why should we listen to or believe anything they say now?

[Rae Spellman]

1 hour ago, Tara said:

California and New York have not voted for a Republican President  in about 30 years and you're bringing that up as an example of they do vote Republican?

And you are throwing in governors and senators and congressmen that have been voted in for in these states that are Republicans, as a reason why we should not have the electoral college?

Hillary Clinton has a popular vote as high as she does because of California.  

 I think Trump should demand a recount of California. :)

My point wasn't that we should get rid of the electoral college. My point was that it is false that Californians always vote for Democrats or never vote for Republicans.  

For 16 of the past 25 years the Govenor of California has been a Republican. The fact that Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney, and DJT are Republicans isn't the only reason they didn't win California.

Orange County voted for Hillary. They have voted for the Republican candidate for the past 80 years. Maybe DJT should demand those Orange County votes be recounted!

[Jordan27]

On 11/25/2016 at 5:29 PM, Ceindreadh said:

Curious.  When was the last time the KKK supported or endorsed somebody for a non-racist reason? 

How would you know why a group supports someone?

And is the support of BLM racist?

 

On 11/26/2016 at 7:10 AM, slf said:

Black Lives Matter isn't an extremist group. And even if it were, how would that makes Dems racist when racism doesn't factor into the BLM movement?

You must have forgot the chanting BLM group..."burn them like bacon" about white cops.   Dems supported them.

Trump doesn't support any racist groups.

[windsprints]

Chicago Tribune: Which Democrats will run for president in 2020?

Really, really early but I could definitely get behind Kirsten Gillibrand.

[Ceindreadh]

2 hours ago, Jordan27 said:

How would you know why a group supports someone?

And is the support of BLM racist?

 

You must have forgot the chanting BLM group..."burn them like bacon" about white cops.   Dems supported them.

Trump doesn't support any racist groups.

Yeah, sure he may not openly support racist groups, he just hires racist people, incites racial hatred, and doesn't disavow racist endorsements. 

[partofme]

10 hours ago, windsprints said:

Chicago Tribune: Which Democrats will run for president in 2020?

Really, really early but I could definitely get behind Kirsten Gillibrand.

I'm from NY, I could never get behind Gillibrand.  She is or was a member of the NRA.  She was appointed my senator, I believe if she had been primaried she never would have won.

[Duke Silver]

3 minutes ago, partofme said:

I'm from NY, I could never get behind Gillibrand.  She is or was a member of the NRA.  She was appointed my senator, I believe if she had been primaried she never would have won.

I get a DINO vibe.  Pretty sure she also defended big tobacco back in the day.

[choclatechip45]

10 hours ago, windsprints said:

Chicago Tribune: Which Democrats will run for president in 2020?

Really, really early but I could definitely get behind Kirsten Gillibrand.

It's funny I just saw a picture on twitter with Corey Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris together they all seem friendly. It would be interesting if they all ran against each other. 

Page Six reported this about Gillibrand over the weekend http://pagesix.com/2016/11/24/kirsten-gillibrand-reaching-out-to-hillarys-donors/.

Over the weekend my dad and I had a debate over Gillibrand he feels that people will see her as a Hillary clone because she's a junior senator from New York and replaced her.   I disagree because I think she has more charisma than Hillary. I also think the fact she's not from the NYC area and her views on protecting hunters rights with guns will help her. The only negative I see is views/voting record changed once she became senator. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by choclatechip45

[stormy]

For God's sakes Chicago Tribune, could we not think about 2020 and concentrate on 2018?

The dems have lost control of most states in the way of govenerships and state legislatures and the 2018 senate and congressional races will be important.

[choclatechip45]

9 minutes ago, partofme said:

I'm from NY, I could never get behind Gillibrand.  She is or was a member of the NRA.  She was appointed my senator, I believe if she had been primaried she never would have won.

I remember when she was appointed it was an unpopular choice. Patterson made that whole thing a mess due to Caroline Kennedy who  probably would have won the primary if it were a special election based off of her name alone.

Edited November 29, 2016 by choclatechip45

[windsprints]

She's been re-elected since being appointed. I'm from NY and she fights for many of the issues that are important to me.  Who knows where we'll be as we get near 2020 and who will even want to run.  I posted the link mainly because I found it interesting that its already starting to be discussed.

Edited November 29, 2016 by windsprints

[partofme]

She's re-elected because she has a D after her name.  She's never been my choice, I'm just not stupid enough to vote for her Republican opponents.

[slf]

16 hours ago, Jordan27 said:

You must have forgot the chanting BLM group..."burn them like bacon" about white cops.   Dems supported them.

Trump doesn't support any racist groups.

No, I didn't forget. Perhaps you can explain how BLM protestors protesting police violence against the black community and chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" is racist against white people? We can certainly debate whether or not it was helpful or ugly, but racist against white cops?

Do you consider instances of unarmed black men being shot and killed by white cops to be racist? 

Trump included William Johnson, the head of a white nationalist party, on his list of California delegates until bad press made him exclude the guy. Trump's campaign lied and said that it was just a database error that included Johnson but that was exposed as false.

[stormy]

The House dems voted today and Nancy Pelosi won and will be the minority leader.

OK great.  Now she needs to surround herself with some fresh, young talent.

[Nysha]

So, the DNC apparently (who knows these days) emailed me a survey to rank the top 12 issues and added a comment section. I told them to stop being the poor man's Republican Party and stand up to the Trump & the Republican's, and to start working for their voters, not their corporate overlords. Not that I think they'll actually listen, but it made me feel better for a minute or two.

[Padma]

Democrats don't even have to do much different, despite all this talk about "aiming a message at the white working class."  Just get out the message of things Dems have traditionally stood for--affordable health care, worker's rights and unions, well-funded public education, fiscal prudence rather than bloated defense budgets, low inflation which benefits lower income people, job creation by spending at home. Protecting the environment. Reducing--not worsening--income inequality.  Regulating the banks, not turning the country over to Goldman Sachs et al.  Standing up for civil liberties and constitutional protections for ALL Americans.

Transparency and honesty in the White House.

Trump, the fake populist wolf in sheep's clothing, is creating an excellent opportunity to contrast the party of wealthy and privileged elites with the party that actually works in the interest of a majority of Americans.

[stormy]

   Yesterday, on the Morning Joe board, I replied to a post about the dems.  You can read it over there.

It's amazing we were able to elect President Obama twice because otherwise the party was pretty much steam rolled over and now it just looks like the dems are gasping for breath. 

[partofme]

10 hours ago, Padma said:

Democrats don't even have to do much different, despite all this talk about "aiming a message at the white working class."  Just get out the message of things Dems have traditionally stood for--affordable health care, worker's rights and unions, well-funded public education, fiscal prudence rather than bloated defense budgets, low inflation which benefits lower income people, job creation by spending at home. Protecting the environment. Reducing--not worsening--income inequality.  Regulating the banks, not turning the country over to Goldman Sachs et al.  Standing up for civil liberties and constitutional protections for ALL Americans.

Transparency and honesty in the White House.

Trump, the fake populist wolf in sheep's clothing, is creating an excellent opportunity to contrast the party of wealthy and privileged elites with the party that actually works in the interest of a majority of Americans.

This is why I don't give a crap about what white working class people want(and I'm white).  They didn't vote based on the economy.  If they did they would have voted Democratic.   It's obvious they voted on other factors whether they were racism, sexism, abortion, guns or some combo there of.

[DollEyes]

On 11/25/2016 at 6:31 PM, Jordan27 said:

Trump won the election by standing up to libs, the elite media and political correctness.  The racism charge would have been leveled any of our candidates and is a liberal playbook maneuver always used.

And the incidents of so-called bullying by conservatives are isolated and mostly phony.  While pre-arranged liberal protests are violent and viciously divisive and vulgar.

And what are they protesting and what do they hope to achieve?  A legal election that they lost.  Nothing will come of it, so they have no point other than being crybabies.

And the so-called hatemongering pales in comparison to the hateful comments I have seen against Trump and his supporters.

  Again respectfully disagreeing. For one thing, Trump "won" because of the Electoral College, not because of the popular vote-which Hillary is still winning by 2 million and counting. As for your claims about bullying incidents being isolated and phony, according to what? Fake news on Facebook? I saw the stories about Muslims being attacked, about kids chanting "White power" in a school hallway and the video of White kids taunting Latino kids with "Build that wall!" and they were all too real and it's only getting worse. If the shoe were on the other foot and Trump won the popular vote and lost the EC, IMO, Trump suporters would not only protest, I wouldn't put armed insurrection past some of them. What those who spoke out against bigotry hope to achieve is standing up for their rights and not letting the ignorance, fear and hate personified by Trump/the Republican party define them nor destroy them.  

[Hanahope]

/sigh.

I get this call from the DNC, trying to raise money for the run-off election for Senate in Louisiana.  The Republican is leading, but they are trying to elect the Democrat to at least make it a closer 50-50 split in the senate (basically 51-49 as opposed to 52-48).  The woman on the phone is telling me the Dem needs to win to prevent a filibuster proof Senate.  I want to tell her that its already there.  2/3 of 100 is 67.  Of course, the question is whether there are enough Dems with a spine to do the filibuster.

[slf]

1 hour ago, DollEyes said:

  Again respectfully disagreeing. For one thing, Trump "won" because of the Electoral College, not because of the popular vote-which Hillary is still winning by 2 million and counting. As for your claims about bullying incidents being isolated and phony, according to what? Fake news on Facebook? I saw the stories about Muslims being attacked, about kids chanting "White power" in a school hallway and the video of White kids taunting Latino kids with "Build that wall!" and they were all too real and it's only getting worse. If the shoe were on the other foot and Trump won the popular vote and lost the EC, IMO, Trump suporters would not only protest, I wouldn't put armed insurrection past some of them. What those who spoke out against bigotry hope to achieve is standing up for their rights and not letting the ignorance, fear and hate personified by Trump/the Republican party define them nor destroy them.  

Yeah, even Trump's own campaign clearly thought he was going to lose when they were interviewed on election day because they knew he wouldn't have the numbers; he is the PEOTUS because of the EC. Sadly, the number of reported hate crimes since his election is over 800, a fairly sharp increase, with crime experts saying that increase is worse than what we saw after 9/11. Bear in mind that understandably most people who suffer a hate crime don't report it (many people don't know they have a right to report harassment, menacing, etc.). W/r/t how many Trump supporters would've reacted, I remember seeing coverage prior to the election of over a dozen heavily-armed 'militia' groups saying they were prepared to take back the country if Trump lost to 'crooked' Hillary.

[peacheslatour]

What I don't get is people saying Hillary didn't connect with rural voters, so that's why Trump won. O.k. I can see that, but how in the holy hell did a billionaire from New York City (get a rope) weasel his way into their good graces? He doesn't have the slightest notion about what their lives are like. I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings here, but do they really like being lied to? I mean the rust belt is not ever going to see those manufacturing jobs come back nor is coal mining ever going to be the main industry in West Virginia. Should Hillary have lied like Trump did? Is that what people really want in a president?

Edited December 1, 2016 by peacheslatour