I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

A little insight on the Dems as they attempt to rise from their ashes. Ellison, Clinton, et al.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_582e3d52e4b0eaa5f14d4290?timestamp=1479435196853

2 Replies

@Lash,

People don't need to read what the political parties have accomplished or not. Most people understand how their income has been for the past couple of decades. It's remained stagnant. The people with college loans increased, and more college grads are living with their parents. Washington DC is only helping themselves; the rich continues to get richer, while the middle class and poor take it on the chin.
Do you know why Trump won?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Trump won for a few reasons, and yes, I'm aware of what those reasons are.

Primarily, Americans are rejecting the status quo of an elitist ruling class in DC who work to enrich themselves. People are suffering.

I'm grateful that people are fighting back with their votes. I'm one of them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The people with college loans increased, and more college grads are living with their parents. Washington DC is only helping themselves; the rich continues to get richer, while the middle class and poor take it on the chin.
Do you know why Trump won?

The reason is obvious. Government subsidized (and guaranteed) college loans reduced price competition and enabled Universities to rasse their costs and tuitions at a pace that far exceeded wage or economic growth. The cost for this foolishness is borne by the students taking out the loans and the rest of us taxpayers. Federal grants to Universities with strings attached requiring favored social programs have raised University overhead costs and contributed to all the "safe space" nonsense that has recently become so fashionable.

0 Replies

@Lash,

I really hope Ellison gets the job. He seems like a thoroughly good guy, with the right beliefs, and making him the new head of the DNC would set an important marker.

Unfortunately it looks set to be a tougher slog to get him there than it seemed for a bit, as Obama's White House is stepping on the brakes.

Not that one of its favored candidates, Tom Perez, seems like a bad guy. Also on the left, I believe, and a labor man. Granholm I don't know much about. But I worry about the odds that the party will learn the wrong lesson from this election and double down on its Sun Belt dreams, staking it all on a coalition of higher-educated/higher-income whites and optimized minority turnout, and all but shrugging off its losses in key blue-collar swing states.

Purely strategically speaking, with population change going the way it is, that might work eight or twelve years from now, but it doesn't add up yet. And substantively speaking, gambling on suburban upper-middle class Republican swing voters for victories just seems like it would spell doom for left-wing politics. (And abandoning working class white voters to the racist siren song of the far right spells doom for everyone. That's not worked out well, historically.)

But I'm sorry, but I gotta nit-pick here. The author states:

Quote:

The shocking election night victory of the buffoonish Donald Trump came courtesy of a dramatic increase over Mitt Romney in votes earned from African-Americans, Latinos, young people (18-29 years), those without a college education, and those making under $100,000 per year.

Those without a college education did indeed shift dramatically to the Republican candidate. But those other groups?

Romney got 37% of the vote among young people (18-29 years), according to the exit polls. You know how much of their vote Trump got?

37%.

"A dramatic increase over Mitt Romney in votes earned", not so much.

African-Americans? Romney got 6%; Trump 8%.

Latinos? Romney got 27%; Trump 29%.

Those making under $100,000 per year? Romney got 44%; Trump got 45%. (Those under $30,000, on the other hand, did shift markedly to the Republican camp, from 35% to 41%.)

That's important because you can't learn the right lessons from this year's election if you're going on false data. Like, if you believe Trump has some special pull on young people and minorities, that's going to lead you to some misguided strategies. In reality, young voters didn't shift to Trump but to third-party candidates, who got 8% of their vote vs just 3% last time. In reality, Trump did worse with black voters than any Republican going back to at least 1972 who wasn't, you know, running against Obama, and it's probably the drop in black turnout the Dems should worry about more. Etc.

0 Replies

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Quote:

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.

“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”

1 Reply

@revelette2,

I've not personally been affected by Russian propaganda during this election. It was a choice between Hillary and Donald, and there's been enough information on both candidates that determined my choice. Donald is a textbook racial bigot. He also called Mexicans criminals and rapists, and said he would ban all Muslims from entering our country. The choice was easy.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Not exactly. Although he did later qualify his initial statements about muslims (adding some geopolitical factors) he never, to my knowledge, said he would all ban muslims. He merely proposed an immediate, but temporary, suspension of muslim immigration "until we can figure out what's going on." This was in the context of the FBI and other security agencies acknowledging that they did not have a reliable method in place which would weed out potential terrorists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/wild-donald-trump-quotes/3/

Likewise, he never said, or implied, that all Mexicans are rapists. It does indeed sound like you were influenced more by the American media, and their narrative, than by any russian propaganda, eh, Al?

1 Reply

@layman,

wrong

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Back
Next
On Muslims
At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

Quote:

Donald Trump:Mexico sends drugs,criminals and rapists to US

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Hmmm, now I'm kinda confused, Ceili. I listened to every word of the video clip you posted, and, for the life of me, I can't find anything in it that contradicts what I said.

So, I don't know why you say "wrong," eh?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

...until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

Exactly.

1 Reply

@layman,

You don't get it. Our country has the freedom of religion. You don't ban people from entering our country based on race or religion. That's if you understand the US Constitution.

Anybody wishing to enter the US is vetted first, and it's not based on race or religion.

You and Donald Trump still don't understand the US Constitution. You should study it some time. It's very important for your own education.

Vetting of refugees.
http://www.newsweek.com/heres-process-refugees-have-go-through-enter-us-398254

0 Replies

@layman,

He may not have said they were all racists, but he did imply they were all bad.
And that's just plain wrong.

2 Replies

@Ceili,

It's bad because white supremacists and racial bigots applaud Trump's ignorance about our Constitution.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Trump's biggest mistake was, I think, in implying that the Mexican government was "sending" these illegal invaders. That is possible, in isolated cases, I suppose. But I would assume that most of these wetbacks entered on their own individual volition, not on government orders.

That said, the lucrative American market does provide a strong incentive for drug smugglers and dealers to enter. The same would be true of individuals fleeing their own government to escape criminal prosecution there. Trump does also specifically say that some of invaders are "probably" good people. He never said all Mexicans are rapists.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

...he did imply they were all bad.

No, he didn't do that either. Listen to your own video clip.

2 Replies

@layman,

Trump is wrong on "no system to vet refugees."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/wrong-donald-trump-says-theres-no-system-vet-refug/

1 Reply

@layman,

No, he said "and some might be good people."

That's the wrong approach. You assume most people are good, and you vet people to make sure they don't have a criminal background before they are allowed to migrate to our country.

That's the approach we take in this country: you are innocent until proven guilty of a crime. We do not have a police state. We enjoy many freedoms in this country supported by a criminal justice system that works.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Trump is wrong on "no system to vet refugees."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/wrong-donald-trump-says-theres-no-system-vet-refug/

He meant no "effective" system, obviously. Your cite merely says there is, in fact, "a system."

Quote:

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said...

Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging this can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

1 Reply

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know