Why I left the Democratic Party

...by allowing Trump to win, Democrats lost much more than the presidency

Putting aside whether the things you fear have come to pass are not actually positives, do you imagine that everything HRC might have done as president would have been honky-dory?

Clinton would have been a lame duck for the first two years at least, because the Dems lost seats instead of gaining any.

Fact remains. ALL serious efforts in gun grontrol (laws, executive orders, etc) at the state and federal level have come from Democrats. Republicans have undone everything they’ve been able to undo when in power.

Choices have consequences Lash. Your choice of Bush helped end the assault weapons ban that may have made it more difficult for this most recent kid to get an AR15.

Your choice of Trump will help delay any possible remedy.

One of us is a piece of ****, not sure it’s me.

You aid and abet war, murder, and attacks on the poor.

Republicans who refuse to consider any common sense measures that enjoy national support. I stated that explicitly.

I'm also blaming people who voted for Bush and who allowed letting the assault weapons ban expire. Do you know any of those people?

And probably you are a secret pro-gun person.. anything to avoid talking about some sensible gun laws.

No tax bill
No Judge Gorsuch
No repealing of Obamacare mandate
No gutting of EPA
No gutting of CFPB
No appelate court Judges

So many things would have been better under Clinton. You’ll feel the consequences of your choices until you die Edgar (assuming you’re indeed 75 years old)

What was the issue?

Two FBI agents interviewed the caller, Mississippi bail bondsman Ben Bennight, the next day. The bureau checked public and law enforcement databases for anyone by Cruz’s name who might be of concern, the FBI said, but could not identify the person who left the comment.

Five months later, police say, Nikolas Cruz, 19, walked into the Florida high school from which he had been expelled and opened fire, killing 17 people in one of the nation’s deadliest school shootings.

On Thursday, horrific images from the previous day’s attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High — students huddled in classrooms and parents tearfully waiting to hear from their children — intensified a now-familiar national debate about gun laws and the safety of young people at school.

Speaking at the White House, President Trump pledged that his administration would help “tackle the difficult issue of mental health” but made no mention of gun control. In court papers, authorities said Cruz admitted to carrying out the Valentine’s Day rampage.

And the FBI faced questions about its near-brush months earlier with the alleged gunman after law enforcement officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing probe, said they believe the 19-year-old from Florida was the author of the troubling remark on YouTube.

“Did they do enough in this case? Quite clearly, if you see what happened yesterday, presumably tied to this killer, the easy answer to that is no,” said Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director. Hosko, however, said that the bureau receives a torrent of tips and must make difficult decisions about which to pursue.

Law enforcement officials noted that nothing about the YouTube comment pointed to a Florida resident, and the comment did not include the kind of specificity — indications of when or where an attack might occur — that tends to raise greater alarms.

That is because the Democrats hate civil rights and the Republicans love civil rights.

Perhaps, however once the primaries was over and the logical choice was Trump or Hillary, Bernie supporters should have considered the progressive goals which would be hurt by a Trump win. I only hope they don't make the same mistake in the mid-terms or the next election.

What kinds of Sanders voters supported Trump?

Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with.


Of course, we know that many Sanders voters did not readily identify with the Democratic Party as of 2016, and Schaffner found that Sanders-Trump voters were even less likely to identify as Democrats. Sanders-Trump voters didn’t much approve of Obama either.

In fact, this was true well before 2016. In the VOTER Survey, we know how Sanders-Trump voters voted in 2012, based on an earlier interview in November 2012. Only 35 percent of them reported voting for Obama, compared with 95 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters. In other words, Sanders-Trump voters were predisposed to support Republicans in presidential general elections well before Trump’s candidacy.

Schaffner found that what distinguished Sanders-Trump voters from Sanders-Clinton voters wasn’t their attitudes about trade, but their attitudes about race. When asked whether whites are advantaged, Sanders-Trump voters were much more likely to disagree than were Sanders-Clinton voters.

The same thing is true in the VOTER survey — and, again, this was evident well before 2016. When originally interviewed in December 2011, Sanders-Trump voters were actually more likely to favor increasing trade (59 percent said so) than Sanders-Clinton voters (48 percent said so).

And, again, the bigger cleavage involved race. For example, in December 2011, 75 percent of Sanders-Trump voters agreed with this statement: “If blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.” Only 16 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters agreed.

Similarly, when how they felt about whites and blacks on a 0-100 scale, Sanders-Trump voters rated blacks 9 points lower than Sanders-Clinton voters. But Sanders-Trump voters rated whites 8 points higher.

The same thing was true for other minority groups. Compared with Sanders-Clinton voters, Sanders-Trump voters rated Latinos 11 points less favorably, Muslims 20 points less favorably, and gays and lesbians 31 points less favorably.

In short, it may be hard to know exactly how many Sanders-Trump voters there were, or whether they really cost Clinton the election. But it doesn’t appear that many of them were predisposed to support Clinton in the first place.

A2K knows your IP address

There is one big exception to being found. If you were to participate in illegal activities then a law enforcement agency can get a court order and submit it to your ISP to request your information. This is one way you can be found.

In the end, the simple answer is no. If someone was to get your IP address they can not find you. There are other ways you can be located but this isn't one of them. You're more likely to be tracked by posting your name and town online via social media than by your IP address.

When you connect to the internet through your Internet Service Provider(ISP) you are assigned an IP address. Your IP address is similar to your mailing address, but for your computer, on the internet. While this address is used to route internet traffic to your computer it does not reveal your location. If someone was able to get your IP address they could learn a bit about your internet service, such as which provider you use to connect to the internet, but they really can't locate you, your home, or your office. In some circumstances they may locate the city you are in, or perhaps a nearby city, but they will not have your physical address. Once they trace you back to your ISP they will lose your trail. While strangers may not be able to find you, your ISP knows where you are. ISPs will generally go to great lengths to protect you and your privacy but they do keep logs of your connections.

There is one big exception to being found. If you were to participate in illegal activities then a law enforcement agency can get a court order and submit it to your ISP to request your information. This is one way you can be found.

In the end, the simple answer is no. If someone was to get your IP address they can not find you. There are other ways you can be located but this isn't one of them. You're more likely to be tracked by posting your name and town online via social media than by your IP address.