Hillary Clinton enjoys "bipartisan support" of the Republican Establishment (1 Viewer)

[Celebrity]

Exclusive: Armitage to back Clinton over Trump - POLITICO

One of the problems I have with Hillary's campaign is that, in conjunction with her strong arm demeanor, she appears to embrace a type of policy which subverts partisan objectives through a system of internal checks and balances... on her own talking points. Now, ordinarily I would not be opposed to coming around to see the opposite side of an issue (at least in theory). If Richard Armitage is a registered Republican throwing his lot in with a registered Democrat, what does that say about her leadership skills? I think it clearly shows that she's in the business of favors, and I don't mean just little political concessions on bills that enjoy bipartisan support. This article and others will list the reason that the Republican nominee is a RINO, and I am not saying that it is not the case.

Should Hillary Clinton risk losing voters on the far-left by acknowledging her Republican endorsements? So far she seems to have been playing it cool and talking down accusations that she is an establishment politician taking bribes. How she managed to motivate African American voters is beyond me.

Should Hillary Clinton risk losing centrist and moderate voters by acknowledging her support for leftist ideals, such as raising the minimum wage? I don't think that she has if a Republican endorsed her.

 

[tres borrachos]

Exclusive: Armitage to back Clinton over Trump - POLITICO

One of the problems I have with Hillary's campaign is that, in conjunction with her strong arm demeanor, she appears to embrace a type of policy which subverts partisan objectives through a system of internal checks and balances... on her own talking points. Now, ordinarily I would not be opposed to coming around to see the opposite side of an issue (at least in theory). If Richard Armitage is a registered Republican throwing his lot in with a registered Democrat, what does that say about her leadership skills? I think it clearly shows that she's in the business of favors, and I don't mean just little political concessions on bills that enjoy bipartisan support. This article and others will list the reason that the Republican nominee is a RINO, and I am not saying that it is not the case.

Should Hillary Clinton risk losing voters on the far-left by acknowledging her Republican endorsements? So far she seems to have been playing it cool and talking down accusations that she is an establishment politician taking bribes. How she managed to motivate African American voters is beyond me.

Should Hillary Clinton risk losing centrist and moderate voters by acknowledging her support for leftist ideals, such as raising the minimum wage? I don't think that she has if a Republican endorsed her.

“If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton,” Armitage told POLITICO in a brief interview. “He doesn't appear to be a Republican, he doesn't appear to want to learn about issues.



And he'd be 100% right on both counts.

To answer your questions about Hillary, of course she should acknowledge them. This stuff only makes Trump look worse (as hard as that may be to imagine given how bad he already looks). She managed to dupe a lot of suckers so far into thinking she's "with us". This **** won't hurt her one iota with her loyal fans.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Of course she does, she is their wet dream. Single-handed hostile takeover of "Democracy's" Party since '93.

The most Partisan states and Clintonites should just GTFO out of the U.S., form their own country, call it "Democracy", have their rigged elections, their corporate-sponsored Politicians, globalist whoredom, military interventionism, imperialism, and crony-capitalism and leave the other 45% of the Independents and the Libertarians and the Greens in the United States the hell alone.

We might as well be under a foreign occupation at this point. Certainly Oligarchs.

(Of course, then there will be a Civil War II between the Union and the Democrats
- ironically enough it would be the Ultra-Capitalist, Ultranationalist 1%'er North seceding this go-round).

 

[Celebrity]

Of course she does, she is their wet dream. Single-handed hostile takeover of "Democracy's" Party since '93.

The most Partisan states and Clintonites should just GTFO out of the U.S., form their own country, call it "Democracy", have their rigged elections, their corporate-sponsored Politicians, globalist whoredom, military interventionism, imperialism, and crony-capitalism and leave the other 45% of the Independents and the Libertarians and the Greens in the United States the hell alone.

We might as well be under a foreign occupation at this point. Certainly Oligarchs.

(Of course, then there will be a Civil War II between the Union and the Democrats
- ironically enough it would be the Ultra-Capitalist, Ultranationalist 1%'er North seceding this go-round).

Hell, I don't like Clinton's policy, either, but I'm from the North! :2wave:

So you think Clinton is making concessions for Republicans in order to exercise a controlling interest over the wealthy? That is truly sneaky and unloyal.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Of course she does, she is their wet dream. Single-handed hostile takeover of "Democracy's" Party since '93.

The most Partisan states and Clintonites should just GTFO out of the U.S., form their own country, call it "Democracy", have their rigged elections, their corporate-sponsored Politicians, globalist whoredom, military interventionism, imperialism, and crony-capitalism and leave the other 45% of the Independents and the Libertarians and the Greens in the United States the hell alone.

We might as well be under a foreign occupation at this point. Certainly Oligarchs.

(Of course, then there will be a Civil War II between the Union and the Democrats
- ironically enough it would be the Ultra-Capitalist, Ultranationalist 1%'er North seceding this go-round).

Hahahahaha! We are taking over! We're a-gonna take away all yer guns, and we're gonna force everybody in the Dee South to gay-ray-ization!!!! And we're gonna make 'em all Muslim, too, so they'll all be Muslim gays...and THEN they'll all be assigned a same-sex partner to marry, and every one will be of the race y'all like the least! The jackbooted Hillaryraisers are a-just standin' by! We're gonna take every Confederate flag and convert 'em to toilet paper so she can wipe her ass with yer flag!

FFFFFEEEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRR!

Or, of course, you could do something completely different and have a bit of common sense and see that she's a heck of a lot better for the nation than the one that the GOP has nominated to have his finger on the nuclear button...

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Hell, I don't like Clinton's policy, either, but I'm from the North! :2wave:

I didn't mean the entire North. I should have been more clear. I'm thinking along the lines of the Northeastern megalopolis (if I recall correctly, Vermont is not part of this region).

So you think Clinton is making concessions for Republicans in order to exercise a controlling interest over the wealthy? That is truly sneaky and unloyal.

I was thinking it is more along the lines of the other way around.

Think of the way the Democrats capitulated to the Bush regime over Iraq.

The entire government has failed us on Iraq.

Now take the positions and exchange them, with President Clinton II going even further. The Bush's will remain silent as this happens. Of course, the rest of the U.S. and international community will finally stand up to this, and the 'Democracy' will be established, and at long last the Partisans/Democrats will be seen as the next Confederates.
Of course, instead of physical slavery, the subject will be economic slavery.

Bernie Sanders will lead the rebellion.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Hahahahaha! We are taking over! We're a-gonna take away all yer guns, and we're gonna force everybody in the Dee South to gay-ray-ization!!!! And we're gonna make 'em all Muslim, too, so they'll all be Muslim gays...and THEN they'll all be assigned a same-sex partner to marry, and every one will be of the race y'all like the least! The jackbooted Hillaryraisers are a-just standin' by! We're gonna take every Confederate flag and convert 'em to toilet paper so she can wipe her ass with yer flag!

FFFFFEEEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRR!

Or, of course, you could do something completely different and have a bit of common sense and see that she's a heck of a lot better for the nation than the one that the GOP has nominated to have his finger on the nuclear button...

1) I'm not talking about the Deep South, I'm talking about the Northeastern Megalopolis which, spearheaded by Manhattan and Wall Street, has essentially become a nation unto itself. Calling itself the 'Democracy of America' is just me facetiously mocking them for behaving like the 'Confederacy of America' (and Democrats like Confederates and vice-versa).
2) Wtf does this have to do with gay people?
3) Wtf does this have to do with Islam?
4) I think you're trying to distract from the fact that "your" Party has sold out to the elite.
5) These so-called "Hillaryraisers" have hijacked your party and sold it to the establishment/Republican elites.
6) How ironic the very people you're defending with your childish sarcasm are more like the Confederacy than the other half of the country being ripped off by a corrupt campaign-finance system.

I await to see how you pick yourself up after (unwittingly) insulting nearly 200 million people and rabidly defending an authoritarian minority that has shamelessly and carelessly thrown them under the Dynasty bus and ran them over to sate the appetite for power of imperialists, crony-Capitalists, Wall Street and the Democrat establishment.

The simple fact your knee-jerk assumption of me being a Republican just because I called out a political royalty goes to show how you've been brainwashed into believing anything and everything "your" Party tells you to.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

1) I'm not talking about the Deep South, I'm talking about the Northeastern Megalopolis which, spearheaded by Manhattan and Wall Street, has essentially become a nation unto itself. Calling itself the 'Democracy of America' is just me facetiously mocking them for behaving like the 'Confederacy of America' (and Democrats like Confederates and vice-versa).
2) Wtf does this have to do with gay people?
3) Wtf does this have to do with Islam?
4) I think you're trying to distract from the fact that "your" Party has sold out to the elite.
5) These so-called "Hillaryraisers" have hijacked your party and sold it to the establishment/Republican elites.
6) How ironic the very people you're defending with your childish sarcasm are more like the Confederacy than the other half of the country being ripped off by a corrupt campaign-finance system.

I await to see how you pick yourself up after (unwittingly) insulting nearly 200 million people and rabidly defending an authoritarian minority that has shamelessly and carelessly thrown them under the Dynasty bus and ran them over to sate the appetite for power of imperialists, crony-Capitalists, Wall Street and the Democrat establishment.

The simple fact your knee-jerk assumption of me being a Republican just because I called out a political royalty goes to show how you've been brainwashed into believing anything and everything "your" Party tells you to.

I'll ignore most of what you said and just point out that no, the Dems are nothing like your Confederacy. I was raised in the very deepest of the Deep South - down in the Delta about 100 miles south of Memphis - and I've got very deep roots there indeed, seeing as how my entire family line (including my mother and brother) are all buried in the same cemetery at a certain Southern Baptist church out in the boonies in Sunflower County all the way back to the mid-1800's. I know the life in the Deep South very well indeed.

So when I say that by comparing the Dems to the Confederates, you apparently don't have a clue about what the Confederacy was, I do have a clue whereof I speak. Oh, and one more thing - for half my adult life, I was also a strong conservative - I happily voted for Reagan and Bush 41. But today's conservatives have gotten drunk on the wine of hateful rhetoric and gone off the far right side of the political map...where there be monsters indeed. You should ask yourself why it is that every living former Republican president has refused to endorse the current GOP nominee...because AFAIK, never before in all American history have the former presidents in a party ALL refused to endorse that party's nominee in an ongoing election. I tear into Bush 43 on a regular basis, but I have ZERO bad things to say about Bush 41 - he was a doggone good president - better than Clinton, mind you - and if he's refusing to endorse the GOP nominee, that should be telling you a great deal indeed.

 

[Chomsky]

I didn't mean the entire North. I should have been more clear. I'm thinking along the lines of the Northeastern megalopolis (if I recall correctly, Vermont is not part of this region).



I was thinking it is more along the lines of the other way around.

Think of the way the Democrats capitulated to the Bush regime over Iraq.

The entire government has failed us on Iraq.

Now take the positions and exchange them, with President Clinton II going even further. The Bush's will remain silent as this happens. Of course, the rest of the U.S. and international community will finally stand up to this, and the 'Democracy' will be established, and at long last the Partisans/Democrats will be seen as the next Confederates.
Of course, instead of physical slavery, the subject will be economic slavery.

Bernie Sanders will lead the rebellion.

I remember once asking you if you read the real-life (Noam) Chomsky, because so often when I read one of your posts I'm left with a similar feeling to when I read him.

That feeling is often that of being torn between trying to decide as to whether I'm reading fascinating iconoclastic insight, or hyperbolic irrationality? (please do not take this last term personally, that's not my intention)

But regardless, I'm always glad to read your stuff and think for the most part you present interesting ideas that often have merit, or at the least are thought provoking. Just like Chomsky.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I'll ignore most of what you said and just point out that no, the Dems are nothing like your Confederacy. I was raised in the very deepest of the Deep South - down in the Delta about 100 miles south of Memphis - and I've got very deep roots there indeed, seeing as how my entire family line (including my mother and brother) are all buried in the same cemetery at a certain Southern Baptist church out in the boonies in Sunflower County all the way back to the mid-1800's. I know the life in the Deep South very well indeed.

So when I say that by comparing the Dems to the Confederates, you apparently don't have a clue about what the Confederacy was, I do have a clue whereof I speak. Oh, and one more thing - for half my adult life, I was also a strong conservative - I happily voted for Reagan and Bush 41. But today's conservatives have gotten drunk on the wine of hateful rhetoric and gone off the far right side of the political map...where there be monsters indeed. You should ask yourself why it is that every living former Republican president has refused to endorse the current GOP nominee...because AFAIK, never before in all American history have the former presidents in a party ALL refused to endorse that party's nominee in an ongoing election. I tear into Bush 43 on a regular basis, but I have ZERO bad things to say about Bush 41 - he was a doggone good president - better than Clinton, mind you - and if he's refusing to endorse the GOP nominee, that should be telling you a great deal indeed.

And you continue to accuse me of being a Republican and a Confederate, of which I am neither. Apparently, you have no idea the role Democrats played in the Confederacy.

Southern Democrats

In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jeffersonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election, 1860 formalized the split, and brought war. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some Appalachian mountain districts.

Once again, I am not defending the Confederacy. So you can go ahead and wave goodbye to your straw man. I am saying that by allowing a minority elite to hijack their Party, in stead of allowing Progressive ideals to take hold and a natural evolution of the political process, they are disenfranchising an entire generation, the largest generation in American history. Along with the other 60-70 million Americans who either identify as Independent, Green, Libertarian, or Republican (the latter for equally-partisan reasons which will likely defect to the Libertarians once they realize that the Democrat and Republican establishments are one and the same). Do you contest these facts? By all means, continue to enable a Second American Civil War, because the more you regressive old farts continue to shove your regressive ideologies down our throats, the more you are just going to continue to piss us off, reinforce our arguments of defiance, revolution, and disobedience to your Corporatism Party.

 

[Tigerace117]

And you continue to accuse me of being a Republican and a Confederate, of which I am neither. Apparently, you have no idea the role Democrats played in the Confederacy.

Southern Democrats



Once again, I am not defending the Confederacy. So you can go ahead and wave goodbye to your straw man. I am saying that by allowing a minority elite to hijack their Party, in stead of allowing Progressive ideals to take hold and a natural evolution of the political process, they are disenfranchising an entire generation, the largest generation in American history. Along with the other 60-70 million Americans who either identify as Independent, Green, Libertarian, or Republican (the latter for equally-partisan reasons which will likely defect to the Libertarians once they realize that the Democrat and Republican establishments are one and the same). Do you contest these facts? By all means, continue to enable a Second American Civil War, because the more you regressive old farts continue to shove your regressive ideologies down our throats, the more you are just going to continue to piss us off, reinforce our arguments of defiance, revolution, and disobedience to your Corporatism Party.

Yeah......while I agree with some of what you said, frankly, my generation has shown little to no ability to stay interested and motivated for much of any length of time. Remember when Occupy Wall Street was supposed to shake the country to its foundations?

People only care about things until the next big fad comes along. The idea that there's going to be a Second American Civil War is laughable at best.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Yeah......while I agree with some of what you said, frankly, my generation has shown little to no ability to stay interested and motivated for much of any length of time. Remember when Occupy Wall Street was supposed to shake the country to its foundations?

People only care about things until the next big fad comes along. The idea that there's going to be a Second American Civil War is laughable at best.

And yet, history does repeat itself...

...because mother****ers don't listen.

 

[Tigerace117]

And yet, history does repeat itself...

...because mother****ers don't listen.

The other problem, of course, is what's the cause---not something vague, but a concrete, non utopian, achievable goal; whose in charge; and how exactly a rebellion is supposed to succeed in the first place.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

The other problem, of course, is what's the cause---not something vague, but a concrete, non utopian, achievable goal; whose in charge; and how exactly a rebellion is supposed to succeed in the first place.

I was just using the American Civil War as an example. The Democrat political establishment has swung to the right and become a force for America's political elite. Slavery and White Supremacy were the modus operandi of the Democrat elite prior to the Civil War happening. The Democrats are notoriously rogue, after Reaganomics, the Bush dynasty took over the Republican Party and swung to the Centre. Likewise, the Clinton dynasty has taken over the Democratic Party and swung to the Right. I'm not presenting any blueprint for resisting this (although I probably should), but casually, and somewhat humourously, speculating as to what form history repeating itself could take if we continue down the road that our Establishment is poised to drag us (if we let them).

I'm not seriously asserting that the Democrat establishment is intent on forming its own country, but it is fun to think about how comedic and (somewhat) idiotic American politicians are in comparison to their more level-headed British counterparts.
I certainly wouldn't put it past them in the wake of the (likely) mass-exodus the Democrats are about to experience when they piss off an entire generation.

 

[Chomsky]

The other problem, of course, is what's the cause---not something vague, but a concrete, non utopian, achievable goal; whose in charge; and how exactly a rebellion is supposed to succeed in the first place.

Yep, when I repeatedly heard in interview after interview with OWS demonstrators that there was no leadership nor spokesman, and that none were desired - I knew they were going nowhere!

Sad in a way, 'cuz I would've liked to see them grow.

I suspect nearly all of them have been assimilated into Berners, where they now do have a leader and defined movement!

 

[Tigerace117]

I was just using the American Civil War as an example. The Democrat political establishment has swung to the right and become a force for America's political elite. Slavery and White Supremacy were the modus operandi of the Democrat elite prior to the Civil War happening. The Democrats are notoriously rogue, after Reaganomics, the Bush dynasty took over the Republican Party and swung to the Centre. Likewise, the Clinton dynasty has taken over the Democratic Party and swung to the Right. I'm not presenting any blueprint for resisting this (although I probably should), but casually, and somewhat humourously, speculating as to what form history repeating itself could take if we continue down the road that our Establishment is poised to drag us (if we let them).

I'm not seriously asserting that the Democrat establishment is intent on forming its own country, but it is fun to think about how comedic and (somewhat) idiotic American politicians are in comparison to their more level-headed British counterparts.
I certainly wouldn't put it past them in the wake of the (likely) mass-exodus the Democrats are about to experience when they piss off an entire generation.

Interesting times that's for sure.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yep, when I repeatedly heard in interview after interview with OWS demonstrators that there was no leadership nor spokesman, and that none were desired - I knew they were going nowhere!

Sad in a way, 'cuz I would've liked to see them grow.

I suspect nearly all of them have been assimilated into Berners, where they now do have a leader and defined movement!

Quite possibly, yeah. The question is what's going to happen after Bernie dies. He's not going to live forever, after all.

 

[Celebrity]

Yep, when I repeatedly heard in interview after interview with OWS demonstrators that there was no leadership nor spokesman, and that none were desired - I knew they were going nowhere!

Sad in a way, 'cuz I would've liked to see them grow.

I suspect nearly all of them have been assimilated into Berners, where they now do have a leader and defined movement!

Yep, I don't agree with everything Bernie says, but he's damn near the best candidate I've ever seen run for office.

 

[JANFU]

“If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton,” Armitage told POLITICO in a brief interview. “He doesn't appear to be a Republican, he doesn't appear to want to learn about issues.



And he'd be 100% right on both counts.

To answer your questions about Hillary, of course she should acknowledge them. This stuff only makes Trump look worse (as hard as that may be to imagine given how bad he already looks). She managed to dupe a lot of suckers so far into thinking she's "with us". This **** won't hurt her one iota with her loyal fans.

Same thing Repubs did when McGovern was the Dem nominee. Democrats for Nixon. Ton of moneys directed at Dems to only vote for Nixon on the Pres ballot, which worked quite well, knowing that many would also vote for other Republicans listed on the ballot

 

[nota bene]

Yep, I don't agree with everything Bernie says, but he's damn near the best candidate I've ever seen run for office.

I don't know about "best," but he's certainly the most genuine grassroots candidates running in a long, long time.

 

[Chomsky]

Quite possibly, yeah. The question is what's going to happen after Bernie dies. He's not going to live forever, after all.

I can't answer as to who will rise to take Bernie's mantle, but I'm hoping Bernie keeps his movement as his only, and only agrees to help Hillary as much as pledging his movement's support for this election only, and only after extracting reasonable concessions from her.

I see no need for him to share his email lists and pledge (financial) base! He's built a movement, he's not a Democrat, and his life is getting shorter - he has no reason to let his life-long dream die at this election, when I believe he can carry on with it! I hope he see things the way I do.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

And you continue to accuse me of being a Republican and a Confederate, of which I am neither. Apparently, you have no idea the role Democrats played in the Confederacy.

Again, there's not many who know the Deep South as well as I do. You just made another wrong assumption.

Why? Pull up a chair and grab yourself a cup of coffee - you're about to get a lesson in the political history of the Deep South.

One of our family acquaintances was U.S. Senator John O. Eastland, who lived about five miles down the road from us - which in local terms meant he was pretty much our neighbor, too. He once offered to get me into the Naval Academy...but I said no. I don't know why I turned it down, but now that I look back, I'm glad I said no...because I would never want to be beholding to him for anything.

Eastland was a very powerful Democratic senator - he was twice president pro tem. He was also very, very conservative (as were all the Democrats of the "Democratic Solid South" - he hated liberalism with a passion. He was also for a generation the most powerful racist in America. You may have heard of the "segregation academies" that were started throughout much of the South in response to Brown v. Board of Education - I went to one. It was Indianola Academy, which was - and still is - an all-white school in a county that's 72% black. Senator Eastland was a driving force behind beginning that system of "segregation academies".

Yeah, I know very well what the Democrats did Down South...but what YOU did was assume that Democrats have always been the same (and by extension, that Republicans have always been the same)...and your assumption is flat wrong. Why? Because in the time of the Civil War all the way through the first World War, the Democrats were the CONSERVATIVE party and the Republicans were the LIBERAL party. It was in the first two decades of the 1900's that the change began...and even then it was glacially slow. While the rest of the nation's Democrats slowly became liberal in the 1920's and 30's, the Dems in the Deep South remained staunchly conservative...and it remained that way through the 1960's.

But something happened in the 1960's - the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Bear in mind, now, that the Deep South has always, ALWAYS been strongly conservative, regardless of which party they supported. Nixon ran in 1968, and what helped him to win was his campaign manager's "Southern Strategy":

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

That, sir, is how the Deep South switched from being the Democratic Solid South to today's strongest base of the Republican party. That is also how the Republicans lost the black vote...and eventually, by extension, the general support of all minorities. Look at what's going on with most-whites-for-Trump and doggone-near-all-minorities-for-Dems today...it's all thanks to the unintended consequences of Nixon's Southern Strategy. The Deep South was once solidly Democratic and is today solidly Republican, but it has always, always been strongly conservative.

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas, the old saying goes. The GOP under Nixon decided to deliberately attract the "negrophobes" of the Deep South in order to win the presidency...and it worked. But what Nixon didn't realize as those negrophobes of the South switched from the Dems to the GOP was just how much of an influence they would eventually have on the entire party - not only the dog-whistle racism, but also the power of the Bible-belt evangelicals...which enabled to rise of the Religious Right. Eventually, it became as if it were an actual sin to work with Democrats on issues - some candidates on the Right began claiming (even during the 2016 GOP primary) that it was God's Own will that they seek and win the presidency. The Religious Right, thankfully, has finally been losing power and influence over the past few years...but the effects of Nixon's Southern Strategy still course through so much of today's political climate.

In summary, just because someone is not living in the Deep South and is of a political lean that you despise, doesn't mean that person doesn't know the Deep South and its political history better than you do. *drops mic*

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Once again, I am not defending the Confederacy.

Where did I say that you were defending the Confederacy?

So you can go ahead and wave goodbye to your straw man.

Seeing as how I never said you were defending the Confederacy, who, then, built a straw man? I did say the Dems are nothing like your Confederacy...but I referred to your apparent idea of the Confederacy, what you seem to believe the Confederacy was. But to give you your due, I can see how you might have felt I was somehow accusing you of defending the Confederacy - I should have been clearer in my writing. So I'll take the hit on that.

I am saying that by allowing a minority elite to hijack their Party, in stead of allowing Progressive ideals to take hold and a natural evolution of the political process, they are disenfranchising an entire generation, the largest generation in American history. Along with the other 60-70 million Americans who either identify as Independent, Green, Libertarian, or Republican (the latter for equally-partisan reasons which will likely defect to the Libertarians once they realize that the Democrat and Republican establishments are one and the same). Do you contest these facts? By all means, continue to enable a Second American Civil War, because the more you regressive old farts continue to shove your regressive ideologies down our throats, the more you are just going to continue to piss us off, reinforce our arguments of defiance, revolution, and disobedience to your Corporatism Party.

"Corporatism party"? Really? Which party strongly supports the "Citizens United" position, and which party has as part of its platform overturning "Citizens United"?

And you're referring to a "minority elite disenfranchising an entire generation" - again, really? In the political primary, do the candidates run to attract those from OUTside the party, or do they run to attract those from INside the party? Hillary won the greatest number of DEMOCRATIC votes in the DEMOCRATIC primary. That's not disenfranchising anyone, for everyone else will get their chance to vote for their own choices for president in the GENERAL election. Seems to me that your real beef isn't with the Dems at all, but with America's small-d democratic process as it is currently designed.

Don't get me wrong - I've got real complaints about it too...but when it comes to your rant about Hillary somehow "disenfranchising" an entire generation...sir, I suggest you sit back and really contemplate the process a bit more deeply.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I did say the Dems are nothing like your Confederacy...but I referred to your apparent idea of the Confederacy, what you seem to believe the Confederacy was. But to give you your due, I can see how you might have felt I was somehow accusing you of defending the Confederacy - I should have been clearer in my writing. So I'll take the hit on that.

It seems you are still unwilling to accept the fact that the Democrats were instrumental in the Confederacy's existence.

Seems to me that your real beef isn't with the Dems at all, but with America's small-d democratic process as it is currently designed.

Yes.

Wednesday's big question: How many uncounted California ballots? - LA Times
California Primary: Millions Of Vote-By-Mail Ballots Are Still Uncounted, Will Alter The Final Count
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...html]Voter turnout may take days to determine
5 million Californians are expected to vote by mail, a new record for a statewide primary - LA Times
Placebo Ballots: Stealing California From Bernie Using an Old GOP Vote-Snatching Trick
At least 800,000 ballots still uncounted in California
Placebo Ballots: Stealing California from Bernie Using an old GOP vote-snatching trick
California's Uncounted Vote-By-Mail Ballots: Identifying Variation in County Processing
http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-election-fraud-primary
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...e_confirms_fraud_during_primary_vote_20160401
INVESTIGATE THE VOTER FRAUD AND VOTER SUPPRESSION IN ARIZONA 3/22/2016 DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/the...lection_fraud_occurred_in_the_states_primary/
Allegations of voter fraud follow Hillary Clinton campaign across nation
It’s Not Just Arizona: Election ‘Shenanigans’ Have Defined the Democratic Primaries - and Benefit Hillary Clinton
Phoenix Mayor Calls for Investigation Into Voter Fraud in Arizona Primary
Justice Department Opens Inquiry Into Arizona Election Debacle
Officials investigating why 126,000 voters were purged from NY rolls
Audit for NYC Elections Board Called Amid Polling Problems, Report of Voter Fraud
Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary
New Yorkers unleash rage over alleged primary voter fraud at Board of Elections hearing
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-voter-fraud-exposed-new-york-primary-whoa/
NYC Board of Elections Suspends 2nd Official, Delays Hillary Clinton v. Bernie Sanders Results Certification
Elections Board Certifies Primary Vote, Rejects 91,000 Provisional Ballots

It is.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Exclusive: Armitage to back Clinton over Trump - POLITICO

One of the problems I have with Hillary's campaign is that, in conjunction with her strong arm demeanor, she appears to embrace a type of policy which subverts partisan objectives through a system of internal checks and balances... on her own talking points. Now, ordinarily I would not be opposed to coming around to see the opposite side of an issue (at least in theory). If Richard Armitage is a registered Republican throwing his lot in with a registered Democrat, what does that say about her leadership skills? I think it clearly shows that she's in the business of favors, and I don't mean just little political concessions on bills that enjoy bipartisan support. This article and others will list the reason that the Republican nominee is a RINO, and I am not saying that it is not the case.

Should Hillary Clinton risk losing voters on the far-left by acknowledging her Republican endorsements? So far she seems to have been playing it cool and talking down accusations that she is an establishment politician taking bribes. How she managed to motivate African American voters is beyond me.

Should Hillary Clinton risk losing centrist and moderate voters by acknowledging her support for leftist ideals, such as raising the minimum wage? I don't think that she has if a Republican endorsed her.

The ACA had bipartisan opposition. Should we repeal it? If bipartisanship is the gold standard, then we'd have to repeal the ACA.