When You Can't Vote within the Two Party Framework

My lady is extremely docile and we have never treated each other poorly over the years we have been together.
My first lady was a narcissistic person who over time became to have a very true cluster B personality disorder. "Somatic Narcissistic" Reality can be harsh at times.

I have had a few go rounds with my wife, but I still need to be with her after the greater part of forty years. I can't expect perfection from her when I am so imperfect.

By s vote of 82-67, the Democrats rejected a ban on Wall Street insiders as regulators. Someone in the room shouted, "WHORES!"

At least you are one of US who realizes that we are imperfect.

http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bad-week/
This was supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s best week — How it turned into a total nightmareTom Cahill | July 15, 2016

This was supposed to be the defining week that Hillary Clinton united the Democratic Party around her candidacy and sealed up the nomination two weeks before the Democratic National Convention. But now, Democrats are more fractured than ever, and Clinton’s campaign is in turmoil with months to go before the general election.

Clinton’s nightmare week began with two Congressional committee chairmen requesting the FBI investigate the former Secretary of State for perjury, given that the answers she gave under oath during the Congressional Benghazi hearings contradict the FBI’s official findings. While she avoided indictment the previous week, Clinton is still reeling from the blow dealt to her campaign after Comey called her and her staff’s handling of classified information “extremely careless.”

“The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony,” wrote House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) on Monday. “In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.”

It should be noted that a successful prosecution is unlikely in any potential perjury investigation, as the legal bar to prove perjury is uncommonly high and requires proof that the witness “knowingly and willfully” made false testimony or concealed a falsehood. However, another high-profile case targeting Clinton would undoubtedly hurt her standing in the polls even further.

On Tuesday, Clinton hoped to recover with Bernie Sanders’ highly-publicized endorsement of Clinton in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where Sanders won by a landslide in February, and where Clinton hasn’t appeared since losing the first-in-the-nation primary to the Vermont senator. The endorsement was meant to symbolize the end of a contentious primary, with both factions of the party coalescing around the common goal of defeating Donald Trump.

But as the week went on, it has become clear the endorsement did not have the intended effect.

Shortly after the endorsement, the New York Times published a devastating new poll that surveyed young voters between ages 18 and 30, finding that only about one out of four white millennials and half of Latino millennials had a positive opinion of the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Further compounding Clinton’s woes, Jill Stein — the presumptive Green Party presidential nominee — saw an unprecedented surge of support from Sanders’ “Bernie or bust” contingent in both fundraising and volunteer signups. As The Hill reported, roughly half of Sen. Sanders’ millennial-aged voters plan to vote for a third party candidate if Sanders isn’t the Democratic nominee, and the clear favorite in that demographic appears to be Stein.

Jill Stein’s undeniable new popularity could prove troublesome for Hillary Clinton if Stein is able to reach 15 percent in national polls, as she would then qualify to stand on the same stage as Clinton and Donald Trump in the general election debates this fall. When Ross Perot stood alongside Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in the 1992 debates, he skyrocketed in popularity, eventually winning nearly 20 million votes that year.

When combining Stein’s rising popularity among younger and more left-leaning Democratic voters with Clinton’s flailing approval numbers, the 2016 presidential election could be a nail-biter for the candidate once thought to be a shoo-in to become the 45th President of the United States. Even leading Democrats in Congress are starting to read the writing on the wall according to the Hill, which reported that Clinton’s tanking poll numbers in three of the most important swing states, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, had the Democrats “freaked out” in a private meeting on Thursday.

The new Quinnipiac University poll had showed that Clinton was three points behind Trump in Florida, two points behind in Pennsylvania, and tied in Ohio. According to Quinnipiac, every president since 1960 has won only by securing victories in two of those three states. The Florida poll was particularly alarming to Democratic leaders, as Clinton was eight points ahead of Trump in a June poll of Florida voters.

With all this news coming to light, it would seem that Sanders holding out on his endorsement wasn’t what was hindering Clinton. Hillary Clinton is simply the weakest candidate Democrats have fielded in an open election year in recent history.



Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact him via email at [email protected].

I actually think Stein can win.

Even with the voting fraud?

brief education on Edison Research and fraud, one video is two years old and the other video is from today.

Selective choice of polls there.

In Florida, at the same time, an NBC/Marist poll had Hillary up by 7 points. In Pennsylvania, Marist had Hillary up by 9 points.

Even Quinnipiac, which hasn't been friendly to Democrats this cycle, doesn't actually show Clinton’s poll numbers "tanking in three of the most important swing states, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania". In Florida, yes. But in Ohio, the tie between Clinton and Trump he references in the most recent Quinnipiac poll is exactly the same the pollster found a month earlier. And in Pennsylvania, she lost all of 1 point.

Always annoying when people use polls primarily like a drunk uses lamp-posts— for support rather than illumination.

I saw on Facebook a posting for a "Feel the Johnson" group, promoting the election prospects of Gary Johnson. I don't know where so many get the notion that Bernie Sanders supporters ought to transfer their loyalty to Johnson. He in no way embraces the movement given voice to by Mr. Sanders

This seems to be the most viewed movie today. I am very surprised that Hillary and Bill Clinton could be the stars of a movie that is getting the most views.

It is a very good experience when two people are able to realize this reality and try very hard to make the relationship work.
Reality can sometimes pitch you a curve ball and have you fall in love with someone who has never been told by their mother that she loved them. Strange thing is that my daughter told me that my ex never told her either but yet my daughter seems to be a very loving mother of three wonderful children.
I wonder if it was because of the many times I told my daughter that I loved her and how special I thought she was.

Here is Jill Stein's VP pick

Jill Stein Selects Human Rights Activist Ajamu Baraka as Vice-Presidential Running Mate
http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_selects_ajamu_baraka_as_vp

Interesting choice.

From his own website.






snip;

The rest of the page, while historically accurate, carries an element of opinion. Worth a read, regardless.

From PDiddie:
SCOTUS premise, beaten like a rug previously here but this time we take a look from a more nuanced perspective. In 2000, Barbra Streisand hosted a gala fundraiser for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in Los Angeles and raised what at the time was reported as a record-breaking amount of money, $5.1 million. I remember watching at least part of the event, though not live, perhaps on YouTube or as part of some other documentary some years later. Tommy Lee Jones, Gore's old college roommate, did the introductions. Streisand and several other prominent artists of the time performed, and Barbra gave a short speech, calling for Gore's election to "reform campaign finance regulations, strengthen gun control laws, improve education and healthcare, safeguard a woman's right to choose, and control homophobia".

Isn't it fascinating how little things change in our presidential politics?

Streisand's brief mention of the Supreme Court's importance in the 2000 election was direct and blunt (I can still see her holding up her fingers with a determined look on her face): "The first three reasons to vote for Al Gore are the Supreme Court... the Supreme Court... and the Supreme Court." You can read the rest here.

At the beginning of this primary season about a year ago, I polled a handful of Democratic activists about their choice for nominee and why, and a couple of them, sadly, named 'Clinton, because of the Supreme Court'. Leaving aside the question of picking a party nominee on this uncareful logic, it seems obvious even to your average Democrat fifth-grader that electing a Democrat and not a Republican because of the SCOTUS makes sense for the same reason that it does for a Republican to vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat.

Having cleared that up, let's return again to the year 2000 and Gore and W. Bush and the infamous circumstances that occurred in Florida that year. The myth that Ralph Nader is to blame for the outcome has been thoroughly refuted, but let's look closer at the numbers laid out by Jim Hightower in the oft-cited Salon piece from November 27, 2000 -- a full two weeks before Gore actually quit, on December 12. Bold emphasis is mine.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.

If the Supreme Court was such a vital part of the message to Democrats to elect Gore, why did over 300,000 registered Florida Democrats vote for Bush instead? Did they miss the memo? Did they defy the exhortations of thousands of their fellow Democrats, from Barbra Streisand on down? Were they just, as so many people have delighted in saying about Florida Democrats in 2000, stupid?

What about those 191K who self-identify as 'liberal" Democrats? What in the world was going on inside those people's brains?

I've not been able to track down -- in a decade of searching -- a single solitary response from the Blame Nader crowd, or anybody else for that matter, as to why these folks cast a ballot for Bush and not Gore. I know they've never been appropriately held to account for Gore's defeat, while Nader's 90,000 or so votes always are. Which begs the next question: how is it that Nader's votes are assumed to belong to Democrats, when more than triple that number of Ds can run off the reservation and vote Republican without consequence? Whatever conclusions we might draw, one thing seems certain: "SCOTUS" was obviously not a important enough reason for them to vote for their own party's nominee, no matter what Barbra Streisand said.

(Sidebar: "SCOTUS" is a tenuous argument also because so many Justices have not turned out to be the "slam dunks" John Sununu, to use one example, predicted David Souter would be. Hillary Clinton will likely appoint judges whom she believes most closely resemble her own mushy middle, corporate-styled centrism: Merrick Garland, Sri Srinivasan, Amy Klobuchar. We're more likely to see those political types grow more conservative than liberal as the years pass.)

I suspect to the chagrin of Hillary supporters everywhere that history may be repeating itself in 2016. It might be that the old and tired arguments to vote for the moderate Democrat against the freak-right fascist might carry even less weight than they have in elections past. Let's establish clearly that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for all of us, irrespective of our class and/or privilege.

But it is still not a good enough reason for progressive Democrats -- who have been bullied and defrauded from start to finish in the just-completed primary -- to abandon their principles, pinch their noses, and avert disaster on behalf of others. If Clinton is to win the Sanders bloc, she's going to have to do so without the standard guilt and shaming. She and her supporters are going to have to come up with some more intelligent reasons for people to vote for her.

I don't see it happening, but they have a few final shots at it. If they want to take them, that is.

He answered his own question just the paragraph before:

I don't credit American voters with too much brain power. The obvious rhetoric coming out of Trump's mouth should scare them sh...less, but that's not happening. According to the latest polls, there's only a very small margin between Hillary and Donald.
Trump doesn't even know our Constitution. Ban all Muslims from coming to the US?
It's scary.

Jill Stein cannot win. But I wonder if Gary Johnson might.

All it would take would be for him to win one state. If if the other states split 50-50 between Trump and Clinton it would throw the election into the House. Would the House GOP rally behind Trump or behind Johnson?

Personally, I don't see Johnson as more worthy than Clinton. In fact, I think his positions have been more conservative.