I honestly want to hear from a liberal opinion how my logic is flawed in this regard.
Other people responded to your other points, but I feel it's worth pointing out that the United States had a 90% income tax on the wealthiest people after WWII and this did not exactly harm it economically (that is, in fact, a huge understatement). The top marginal tax rate remained at 70% until Reagan cut them dramatically in the 80s, after which they rose again somewhat but not close to pre-1980s rate.
History shows that relatively few rich people are willing to leave a country over taxes, stop investing in it, or what-have-you. Ultimately their own country is what they know, and often where they love. And they still make money there - just not as much as if they weren't taxed.
I agree with you in principal. However, after I learned about the super-high tax rates of those years I looked into it. I can't remember where I found the information but the actual taxes they collected from the wealthy didn't amount to as much as it should have back then. There were many loopholes and outright cheating and fraud. Gee, kinda like now!
Keep in mind that the wealthy also exert a lot of influence on our political system. I seriously doubt they're going to just roll over and allow that kind of taxation to resume. If they do, follow the money and see if it really works as intended. My bet is it'll be a sham...
The government is run by the rich for the corporations. Now more than ever. Drain the swamp? Lol.
Trump is putting millionaires and billionaires in his cabinet and rather than a secretary of state who takes money from big oil, he cut out the middle man and put the ceo of Exxon in charge of foreign policy.
The government is run by the rich for the corporations. Now more than ever. Drain the swamp? Lol. Nice
Trump is putting millionaires and billionaires in his cabinet and rather than a secretary of state who takes money from big oil, he cut out the middle man and put the ceo of Exxon in charge of foreign policy.
The interesting thing about this is all of it will be out in the open instead of behind closed doors with the media turning a blind eye to it because of their being in bed with a certain political party. I'm hoping it'll be a four year wake-up call for the American people. Because Trump isn't a politician this is a unique time in history. Sit back and enjoy the ride (or not)!
For those who were looking for Trump to "drain the swamp"....his cabinet's collective net worth is greater than that of a 1/3 of the entire population of the country. I sense this administration is really going to champion the working-class. If the definition of champion has changed to "screw over royally". Which, given the Newspeak tendencies of the American right, it may have.
The GOP is making a bald faced attempt at trying to make America a one party country like China.
What they are doing in NC is simply a logical extension of what they have been doing for the last 35 years. Much like Trump was the inevitable outcome of feeding your political base nothing but conspiracy theories and nonsense for the same amount of time.
The biggest lie in American politics is that "both sides do it". No, they don't. Democrats have serious problems, no doubt. Republicans moved into the insane asylum decades ago, and double-down every 4 years. We now have the situation we do. I was reading polling results today that 60% of Trump voters believe Trump actually won the popular vote, and that 40% of them believe that the stock market is currently lower than when Obama took office. So their gut feelings are at war with, you know, MATH, and their gut will win every time. There is no reason for Democrats to try to reach these people. You could sooner convince your bedroom wall to vote for you than persuade someone who believes this stuff.
There is no reason for Democrats to try to reach these people.
Like it or not, there is no alternative. Proselytize to everyone, especially the people who disagree with you--not because they're the most likely to listen, but because they're the least likely to have heard.
There is no reason for Democrats to try to reach these people.
Like it or not, there is no alternative. Proselytize to everyone, especially the people who disagree with you--not because they're the most likely to listen, but because they're the least likely to have heard.
It is a waste of time and energy. This article goes a long way to explaining as to why. I've never thought Trump was the biggest problem, incompetent and horrible as he is. The problem is these voters. I don't enjoy this. I don't like the fact that I feel total contempt for 46% of the voting population. But this isn't something I haven't seen coming. It's all been boiling under the surface the entire time.
I think the unreachables number is much lower than 46% of the voting population. The young people that voted trump will see that he pulled a con on them. Some of them will learn. But the older folks who are so set in their ways - they'll never change. These older folks are people that vote.
As I said earlier in this thread hopefully this election is the last hurrah for the baby boomer generation before they get out of the way and hopefully a more enlightened generation takes the reigns.
The biggest lie in American politics is that "both sides do it". No, they don't.
Yes, they do - when Dems were in control of the senate, they changed filibuster rules to suit their own whims. Some of them now even publicly admit that this was wrong, well after the fact:
Then of course you have an entire slew of hacked e-mails showing how Hillary and the DNC deprived their own voters of a fair primary election (which grows increasingly ironic in light of Hill and Obama's subsequent efforts to accuse everyone else on the planet of "interfering" in the election).
I was reading polling results today that 60% of Trump voters believe Trump actually won the popular vote, and that 40% of them believe that the stock market is currently lower than when Obama took office.
Were those "polls" from the same sources that said Trump didn't have enough supporters to win the election in the first place?
Dems' supporters have just donated more than $7 million to a recount cause because they believe that voting machines that weren't even connected to the internet had been "mass hacked" by Russians. I'd say if you want to talk about voters who should be "ignored," start with them.
The biggest lie in American politics is that "both sides do it". No, they don't.
Yes, they do - when Dems were in control of the senate, they changed filibuster rules to suit their own whims. Some of them now even publicly admit that this was wrong, well after the fact:
Then of course you have an entire slew of hacked e-mails showing how Hillary and the DNC deprived their own voters of a fair primary election (which grows increasingly ironic in light of Hill and Obama's subsequent efforts to accuse everyone else on the planet of "interfering" in the election).
I was reading polling results today that 60% of Trump voters believe Trump actually won the popular vote, and that 40% of them believe that the stock market is currently lower than when Obama took office.
Were those "polls" from the same sources that said Trump didn't have enough supporters to win the election in the first place?
Dems' supporters have just donated more than $7 million to a recount cause because they believe that polling machines that weren't even connected to the internet had been "mass hacked" by Russians. I'd say if you want to talk about voters who should be "ignored," start with them.
The emails showed nothing of the sort. There was nothing in those emails that deprived Sanders of the nomination. Furthermore, nearly all the "actions" taken in those emails occurred long after the race was mathematically over. I was a Sanders supporter. He lost because he got in the race too late. His own Director of African-American Outreach has said on record that, though the DNC certainly FAVORED Hillary, it had nothing to do with the outcome. Sanders himself said, if you had looked at his campaign emails, you would have found similar stuff written about Clinton. There is nothing in those emails that isn't rudimentary American political activity. Unless you think Donna Brazile tipping off the Hillary camp that there was going to be a question on the death penalty (who could ever guess??) swing the primary.
The polls, much as they were ripped in the days after the election, have turned out to be generally correct, outside of those few states. The good aggregates had Hillary winning by about 2%. She won the national vote by 2%. There are quibbles to be had with some in-state polling in a handful of states, but the national polls were, again, pretty much right on the money. It simply isn't being reported.
Most liberals had nothing to do with that recount, certainly nowhere near HALF of all who voted. It was a waste of time and, in the end, nothing but a Jill Stein vanity project, much like her Presidential run. It was a complete waste of time and effort. You can say Democrats all you want. It's just as likely Stein supporters throwing her money because they felt guilty about how their vote affected the result in those states. Jill Stein, to most Democrats, is Ralph Nader 2.0. Most of the criticism of Russia, again, isn't claiming that they physically hacked the machines to change votes. It's what the slow "drip, drip" of Tiger Beat level gossip they inserted into the bloodstream of the American media did to the overall narrative of the race, combined with the unprecedented sabotage of the FBI, that they have a problem with. And the fact that a hell of alot of people seem to think foreign espionage against one particular political party is just peachy.
While I agree that Obama's biggest flaw was spending 6 years trying to convince people trying to destroy him to like him, I think the idea that he was Bush's next term is absurd. He 's the one who had to clean up (to the extent possible) the biggest foreign policy blunder in half a century and worst economic crash in 80 years. He's conducted himself as a total gentleman in the face of irrational vein-popping hatred on the right, and hasn't had a whif of what would typically be viewed as a scandal. The fact is, Barack Obama, by virtue of being black, intrinsically knew that he'd have to be twice as statesmanlike and twice as clean scandal-wise to really get the acceptance of THIS country. And while I lament how many things turned out, I also absolutely understand the calculation that went into why.
I don't know what you mean when you say "typically viewed as a scandal," but Obama's Admin. was probably THE most scandal-ridden since Nixon. The NSA's massive internal data-collection network (which his appointed director lied about under oath), "Fast & Furious," the illegal release of Taliban prisoners, illegal Cabinet appointments, and assassinations of US citizens without trial, are just a few of the many examples.
Under Obama, we also saw even more money pissed away than under Bush, more US deaths in Afghanistan than under Bush, and more whistleblowers prosecuted than by every other president in history combined. Reporters for the AP also had their phone records seized. Bush was criticized for his massive Medicare overhaul, but Obama overhauled our entire health care system and made a colossal mess in many ways - plus he flagrantly lied about it beforehand, in order to win support for it. He did pull us out of Iraq, but has since sent THOUSANDS of troops back in, while basically lying about (insisting that there would be no mass return of troops, and just "a few advisors" would be sent).
In many ways, Obama was more like Bush than Bush himself, but got (and continues to get) a free pass from many of the same people who had (rightfully) criticized Bush, solely because he happens to have a "D" next to his name.
was probably THE most scandal-ridden since Nixon. The NSA's massive internal data-collection network (which his appointed director lied about under oath), "Fast & Furious," the illegal release of Taliban prisoners, illegal Cabinet appointments
This is where I tuned out. "Fast and Furious", the right-wing fake scandal that says the Obama administration was trying to create violence in Mexico to create a climate of fear to push strict gun control measures in the US. Where are all these gun control measures?? All the guns Obama confiscated?? I heard about it for 8 years, never happened. This entire story is on the level of the supposed FEMA camps. Nixon?? Wow. Did Obama PERSONALLY approve a slush-fund for a cover-up of breaking into the opposing Party's headquarters and stealing documents?? Who were these illegal cabinet appointments??
You can talk about what Obama did in Afghanistan and Iraq all you want. The fact will forever remain that we NEVER would have been there in the first place if not for Bush. There is zero chance Obama would have sent or kept (or had to have sent or kept) troops to these countries if not for the foreign policy disaster of the Bush Administration.
You are correct about both the use of drones and whistleblowers. The problem there is that it has simply become such an accepted part of the national security apparatus to act this way that I don't believe ANY President will do things differently in this regard. Bush did it, Obama did it, Clinton would have done it, and Trump sure as hell will as well.
The emails showed nothing of the sort. There was nothing in those emails that deprived Sanders of the nomination. Furthermore, nearly all the "actions" taken in those emails occurred long after the race was mathematically over. I was a Sanders supporter. He lost because he got in the race too late. His own Director of African-American Outreach has said on record that, though the DNC certainly FAVORED Hillary, it had nothing to do with the outcome. Sanders himself said, if you had looked at his campaign emails, you would have found similar stuff written about Clinton. There is nothing in those emails that isn't rudimentary American political activity. Unless you think Donna Brazile tipping off the Hillary camp that there was going to be a question on the death penalty (who could ever guess??) swing the primary.
Whether or not Hillary "would've" won in the end regardless (and I don't doubt that she may well have) is irrelevant - the FACT remains that the DNC acted in flagrant violation of its own rules and actively undermined someone who was simply trying to challenge an "establishment" candidate and offer voters another choice in the election.
And yes, I DO think that enabling one candidate to be better prepared for a televised debate than the other could potentially swing an election, or at least go a long way toward that goal. But what's really most disturbing about Brazile's e-mail on the death penalty question is the bold parts that I highlighted below:
From:donna@brazileassociates.com To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com CC: balcantara@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, Minyon.Moore@deweysquare.com Date: 2016-03-12 19:54 Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Jennifer Palmieri > wrote:
Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it.
Betsaida - can you send her answer on death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Donna Brazile > wrote:
Here's one that worries me about HRC.
DEATH PENALTY
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
You can say Democrats all you want. It's just as likely Stein supporters throwing her money because they felt guilty about how their vote affected the result in those states.
No it isn't, because Jill was only able to raise less than half that amount of money from her own supporters over the entire span of her actual presidential run. Aside from which, many, if not most people who vote for third-party candidates (and I say this as someone who has typically done so in the past) don't give a rat's a$$ about which of the main party candidates eventually wins - certainly not enough to piss away more than twice the amount of money as they contributed to the actual presidential run. That's precisely why they vote for those candidates in the first place.
This is exactly the kind of theory that you would (and have) criticized if it came from someone on the right.
Most of the criticism of Russia, again, isn't claiming that they physically hacked the machines to change votes.
Maybe that's the case NOW after $3 million or more has been spent, only to show that Trump actually won about 100 more votes in Wisconsin, but it was certainly not the case when the waves of money were pouring in a few weeks ago.
The emails showed nothing of the sort. There was nothing in those emails that deprived Sanders of the nomination. Furthermore, nearly all the "actions" taken in those emails occurred long after the race was mathematically over. I was a Sanders supporter. He lost because he got in the race too late. His own Director of African-American Outreach has said on record that, though the DNC certainly FAVORED Hillary, it had nothing to do with the outcome. Sanders himself said, if you had looked at his campaign emails, you would have found similar stuff written about Clinton. There is nothing in those emails that isn't rudimentary American political activity. Unless you think Donna Brazile tipping off the Hillary camp that there was going to be a question on the death penalty (who could ever guess??) swing the primary.
Whether or not Hillary "would've" won in the end regardless (and I don't doubt that she may well have) is irrelevant - the FACT remains that the DNC acted in flagrant violation of its own rules and actively undermined someone who was simply trying to challenge an "establishment" candidate and offer voters another choice in the election.
And yes, I DO think that enabling one candidate to be better prepared for a televised debate than the other could potentially swing an election, or at least go a long way toward that goal. But what's really most disturbing about Brazile's e-mail on the death penalty question is the bold parts that I highlighted below:
From:donna@brazileassociates.com To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com CC: balcantara@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, Minyon.Moore@deweysquare.com Date: 2016-03-12 19:54 Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Jennifer Palmieri > wrote:
Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it.
Betsaida - can you send her answer on death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Donna Brazile > wrote:
Here's one that worries me about HRC.
DEATH PENALTY
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
You can say Democrats all you want. It's just as likely Stein supporters throwing her money because they felt guilty about how their vote affected the result in those states.
No it isn't, because Jill was only able to raise less than half that amount of money from her own supporters over the entire span of her actual presidential run. Aside from which, many, if not most people who vote for third-party candidates (and I say this as someone who has typically done so in the past) don't give a rat's a$$ about which of the main party candidates eventually wins - certainly not enough to piss away more than twice the amount of money as they contributed to the actual presidential run. That's precisely why they vote for those candidates in the first place.
This is exactly the kind of theory that you would (and have) criticized if it came from someone on the right.
Most of the criticism of Russia, again, isn't claiming that they physically hacked the machines to change votes.
Maybe that's the case NOW after $3 million or more has been spent, only to show that Trump actually won about 100 more votes in Wisconsin, but it was certainly not the case when the waves of money were pouring in a few weeks ago.
So of the 65 million people who voted for Hillary, exactly how many do you think contributed to Jill Stein's useless recount effort?? Even assuming everyone who gave contributed gave only ONE DOLLAR, it would still be, according to my calculator, 10% of Democratic voters. Since that isn't the case, it is certainly less than 5%, and probably lower than that. So even if we are accepting the premise that contributing to Stein's recount is the same as believing Trump won the popular vote or that the stock market is lower than when Obama took office, the percentage of people on either side who ascribe to these (supposedly) equally crazy theories isn't even in the same universe.
You can talk about what Obama did in Afghanistan and Iraq all you want. The fact will forever remain that we NEVER would have been there in the first place if not for Bush. There is zero chance Obama would have sent or kept (or had to have sent or kept) troops to these countries if not for the foreign policy disaster of the Bush Administration.
Every president in history has had to inherit sh!t from the prior president, as well as deal with a whole new bundle of sh!t that comes their way. No one is doubting that Obama didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but he still has to answer for how he conducts matters under his watch, whether it be the number of troop deaths or a decision to increase troop activity, such as in this case.
You are correct about both the use of drones and whistleblowers. The problem there is that it has simply become such an accepted part of the national security apparatus to act this way that I don't believe ANY President will do things differently in this regard. Bush did it, Obama did it, Clinton would have done it, and Trump sure as hell will as well.
Again, even if it wasn't Obama who invented this "national security apparatus," it was still his decision to expand it to an extent that, in some ways, even far-exceeded what his predecessor had done.
So of the 65 million people who voted for Hillary, exactly how many do you think contributed to Jill Stein's useless recount effort?? Even assuming everyone who gave contributed gave only ONE DOLLAR, it would still be, according to my calculator, 10% of Democratic voters. Since that isn't the case, it is certainly less than 5%, and probably lower than that. So even if we are accepting the premise that contributing to Stein's recount is the same as believing Trump won the popular vote or that the stock market is lower than when Obama took office, the percentage of people on either side who ascribe to these (supposedly) equally crazy theories isn't even in the same universe.
So how many of the 62 million people who voted for Trump were actually asked questions by these pollsters?
So of the 65 million people who voted for Hillary, exactly how many do you think contributed to Jill Stein's useless recount effort?? Even assuming everyone who gave contributed gave only ONE DOLLAR, it would still be, according to my calculator, 10% of Democratic voters. Since that isn't the case, it is certainly less than 5%, and probably lower than that. So even if we are accepting the premise that contributing to Stein's recount is the same as believing Trump won the popular vote or that the stock market is lower than when Obama took office, the percentage of people on either side who ascribe to these (supposedly) equally crazy theories isn't even in the same universe.
So how many of the 62 million people who voted for Trump were actually asked questions by these pollsters?
I think we all know this is not how polling works. Now, the polling was SLIGHTLY worse this cycle than previously (when it's been remarkably accurate). But that is all on the state level. As I mentioned before, the national polls were, essentially, correct. Now, most polls have a plus/minus of 3%. I personally never feel comfortable unless it's closer to 5 in one direction, but that's just how I am. In this case, even if you're going to make the argument that the 60% of Trump voters thinking he won the popular vote is wrong, it can only be wrong to a certain extent, based on everything we know about the science of polling. And hell, I'm willing to essentially TRIPLE the margin of error for you, and say, hypothetically, that it could be as high as 10%, just so we cover the extreme margins. That would still mean that HALF of Trump voters looked at the total number of Hillary Clinton votes and the total number of Trump votes, and decided that having 3 million more is not, in fact, a higher overall number. Which is something most people learn how to discern when they are 4 years old. It's only slightly more complicated than telling the difference between whether something is hot or cold.
Now, you can say that these people are saying this because they think those 3 million votes were "illegals" (which, frankly, is nearly as nuts). Or you can say that we can't take polling seriously. Which is a position one can take. But that essentially means we might as well never try to gauge public opinion on an issue ever again, because there really isn't any other way to do it.
Wow, it's good to know I generally put more effort into proofreading my posts on an internet forum for a 2 decade-old RPG than the President-Elect does with his tweets. Or maybe he just really is this dumb:
Wow, it's good to know I generally put more effort into proofreading my posts on an internet forum for a 2 decade-old RPG than the President-Elect does with his tweets. Or maybe he just really is this dumb:
Most humans are stupid: the fundamental flaw in democracy.
The only cure: eugenics.
No. Castration. A cheaper and easier alternative.
Everyone gets to keep their balls until they do something stupid.
Stupid actions could include placing metal cutlery in the microwave, doing drugs, looking at your wristwatch when talking about what you want to do next year, voting for the wrong person, having contempt for people who do not have the same opinions as you, labelling people racist by age and ethnicity, taking forum posts by @Anduin seriously and last but not least, expecting sunshine holidaying in Wales.
We would need a sensible and strong leader to hold the office of Lopping.
I nominate myself.
Of course we would need an office of Ball keeping to handle complaints but I believe we should castrate first, procrastinate later...
...
Women would suddenly get more power and influence... But should never be allowed to gain the office of lopping as the list of possible stupid things men could do would grow incrementally and result in the end of mankind...
...voting for the wrong person, having contempt for people who do not have the same opinions as you...
Classic.
Classic?
First. A thank you for your vague approval in nominating me, as lopper in waiting, your balls are safe in my hands.
As for classic... This system was not practised by the Romans or Greeks...
However decimation, the practise of killing every tenth soldier when an army runs in cowardice was practised by the Romans, most notably by Crassus fighting Sparatacus's slave rebellion.
Perhaps America could do something similar?
...
Oh wait... The american government does it far more severely with lax gun controls...
Comments
Keep in mind that the wealthy also exert a lot of influence on our political system. I seriously doubt they're going to just roll over and allow that kind of taxation to resume. If they do, follow the money and see if it really works as intended. My bet is it'll be a sham...
Trump is putting millionaires and billionaires in his cabinet and rather than a secretary of state who takes money from big oil, he cut out the middle man and put the ceo of Exxon in charge of foreign policy.
The GOP is making a bald faced attempt at trying to make America a one party country like China.
The biggest lie in American politics is that "both sides do it". No, they don't. Democrats have serious problems, no doubt. Republicans moved into the insane asylum decades ago, and double-down every 4 years. We now have the situation we do. I was reading polling results today that 60% of Trump voters believe Trump actually won the popular vote, and that 40% of them believe that the stock market is currently lower than when Obama took office. So their gut feelings are at war with, you know, MATH, and their gut will win every time. There is no reason for Democrats to try to reach these people. You could sooner convince your bedroom wall to vote for you than persuade someone who believes this stuff.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
As I said earlier in this thread hopefully this election is the last hurrah for the baby boomer generation before they get out of the way and hopefully a more enlightened generation takes the reigns.
The only cure: eugenics.
Then of course you have an entire slew of hacked e-mails showing how Hillary and the DNC deprived their own voters of a fair primary election (which grows increasingly ironic in light of Hill and Obama's subsequent efforts to accuse everyone else on the planet of "interfering" in the election).
Were those "polls" from the same sources that said Trump didn't have enough supporters to win the election in the first place?
Dems' supporters have just donated more than $7 million to a recount cause because they believe that voting machines that weren't even connected to the internet had been "mass hacked" by Russians. I'd say if you want to talk about voters who should be "ignored," start with them.
The polls, much as they were ripped in the days after the election, have turned out to be generally correct, outside of those few states. The good aggregates had Hillary winning by about 2%. She won the national vote by 2%. There are quibbles to be had with some in-state polling in a handful of states, but the national polls were, again, pretty much right on the money. It simply isn't being reported.
Most liberals had nothing to do with that recount, certainly nowhere near HALF of all who voted. It was a waste of time and, in the end, nothing but a Jill Stein vanity project, much like her Presidential run. It was a complete waste of time and effort. You can say Democrats all you want. It's just as likely Stein supporters throwing her money because they felt guilty about how their vote affected the result in those states. Jill Stein, to most Democrats, is Ralph Nader 2.0. Most of the criticism of Russia, again, isn't claiming that they physically hacked the machines to change votes. It's what the slow "drip, drip" of Tiger Beat level gossip they inserted into the bloodstream of the American media did to the overall narrative of the race, combined with the unprecedented sabotage of the FBI, that they have a problem with. And the fact that a hell of alot of people seem to think foreign espionage against one particular political party is just peachy.
Under Obama, we also saw even more money pissed away than under Bush, more US deaths in Afghanistan than under Bush, and more whistleblowers prosecuted than by every other president in history combined. Reporters for the AP also had their phone records seized. Bush was criticized for his massive Medicare overhaul, but Obama overhauled our entire health care system and made a colossal mess in many ways - plus he flagrantly lied about it beforehand, in order to win support for it. He did pull us out of Iraq, but has since sent THOUSANDS of troops back in, while basically lying about (insisting that there would be no mass return of troops, and just "a few advisors" would be sent).
In many ways, Obama was more like Bush than Bush himself, but got (and continues to get) a free pass from many of the same people who had (rightfully) criticized Bush, solely because he happens to have a "D" next to his name.
This is where I tuned out. "Fast and Furious", the right-wing fake scandal that says the Obama administration was trying to create violence in Mexico to create a climate of fear to push strict gun control measures in the US. Where are all these gun control measures?? All the guns Obama confiscated?? I heard about it for 8 years, never happened. This entire story is on the level of the supposed FEMA camps. Nixon?? Wow. Did Obama PERSONALLY approve a slush-fund for a cover-up of breaking into the opposing Party's headquarters and stealing documents?? Who were these illegal cabinet appointments??
You can talk about what Obama did in Afghanistan and Iraq all you want. The fact will forever remain that we NEVER would have been there in the first place if not for Bush. There is zero chance Obama would have sent or kept (or had to have sent or kept) troops to these countries if not for the foreign policy disaster of the Bush Administration.
You are correct about both the use of drones and whistleblowers. The problem there is that it has simply become such an accepted part of the national security apparatus to act this way that I don't believe ANY President will do things differently in this regard. Bush did it, Obama did it, Clinton would have done it, and Trump sure as hell will as well.
And yes, I DO think that enabling one candidate to be better prepared for a televised debate than the other could potentially swing an election, or at least go a long way toward that goal. But what's really most disturbing about Brazile's e-mail on the death penalty question is the bold parts that I highlighted below:
From:donna@brazileassociates.com
To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
CC: balcantara@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, Minyon.Moore@deweysquare.com
Date: 2016-03-12 19:54
Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Jennifer Palmieri > wrote:
Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it.
Betsaida - can you send her answer on death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Donna Brazile > wrote:
Here's one that worries me about HRC.
DEATH PENALTY
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?
Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
No it isn't, because Jill was only able to raise less than half that amount of money from her own supporters over the entire span of her actual presidential run. Aside from which, many, if not most people who vote for third-party candidates (and I say this as someone who has typically done so in the past) don't give a rat's a$$ about which of the main party candidates eventually wins - certainly not enough to piss away more than twice the amount of money as they contributed to the actual presidential run. That's precisely why they vote for those candidates in the first place.
This is exactly the kind of theory that you would (and have) criticized if it came from someone on the right.
Maybe that's the case NOW after $3 million or more has been spent, only to show that Trump actually won about 100 more votes in Wisconsin, but it was certainly not the case when the waves of money were pouring in a few weeks ago.
I meant to say illegal non-cabinet, referring to the labor relations board.
Every president in history has had to inherit sh!t from the prior president, as well as deal with a whole new bundle of sh!t that comes their way. No one is doubting that Obama didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but he still has to answer for how he conducts matters under his watch, whether it be the number of troop deaths or a decision to increase troop activity, such as in this case.
Again, even if it wasn't Obama who invented this "national security apparatus," it was still his decision to expand it to an extent that, in some ways, even far-exceeded what his predecessor had done.
Now, you can say that these people are saying this because they think those 3 million votes were "illegals" (which, frankly, is nearly as nuts). Or you can say that we can't take polling seriously. Which is a position one can take. But that essentially means we might as well never try to gauge public opinion on an issue ever again, because there really isn't any other way to do it.
Serves him right for attempting to google "How to Unpresident yourself"
Everyone gets to keep their balls until they do something stupid.
Stupid actions could include placing metal cutlery in the microwave, doing drugs, looking at your wristwatch when talking about what you want to do next year, voting for the wrong person, having contempt for people who do not have the same opinions as you, labelling people racist by age and ethnicity, taking forum posts by @Anduin seriously and last but not least, expecting sunshine holidaying in Wales.
We would need a sensible and strong leader to hold the office of Lopping.
I nominate myself.
Of course we would need an office of Ball keeping to handle complaints but I believe we should castrate first, procrastinate later...
...
Women would suddenly get more power and influence... But should never be allowed to gain the office of lopping as the list of possible stupid things men could do would grow incrementally and result in the end of mankind...
First. A thank you for your vague approval in nominating me, as lopper in waiting, your balls are safe in my hands.
As for classic... This system was not practised by the Romans or Greeks...
However decimation, the practise of killing every tenth soldier when an army runs in cowardice was practised by the Romans, most notably by Crassus fighting Sparatacus's slave rebellion.
Perhaps America could do something similar?
...
Oh wait... The american government does it far more severely with lax gun controls...