Slashdot Mirror


Hillary Clinton Chooses Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine As Running Mate (go.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine has been chosen as Hillary Clinton's running mate -- a man she called a "relentless optimist" who "devoted his life to fighting for others." Kaine has long been considered to be at the top of Clinton's short list. He was previously vetted for the vice presidency by Barack Obama in 2008. Kaine was an early supporter of Clinton's, appearing at a "Ready for Hillary" breakfast in May 2014 where he urged her to enter the 2016 presidential race. Kaine told NBC in June that he "encouraged her to run in May of 2014, because I could telescope forward and see some of the challenges that this nation would be facing. And I decided that by reason of character, by reason of background, and experience, but also especially by reason of results, she would be the most qualified person to be president in January of 2017." Prior to being elected to the Senate, Kaine served as governor and lieutenant governor of Virginia. In 2009, President Obama picked Kaine to lead the Democratic National Committee. Last week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced Mike Pence as his VP running mate.

262 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Oh boy by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    Anti-reproductive rights, anti-gun, pro-war, pro-globalism. Chuck Todd described him as a "comfort choice," which is a great way to spin boring. Kill me now.

    1. Re:Oh boy by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trump needs Virginia badly. This has nothing to do with the senator, and everything to do with delivering his state.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Oh boy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The democrats need Trump even more. D.C. would be awash with republicans without the fear factor he provides for the dems.

      And the ratings would be in the toilet.

      Win-win...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Oh boy by xx_chris · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kaine supports public abortion funding. (Oct 2012) http://www.ontheissues.org/Sen...

    4. Re:Oh boy by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Everything you just said is completely false. Google is your friend.

    5. Re:Oh boy by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Almost certainly, but it has to piss Bernie Sanders supporters off. This is a guy who supports deregulating banks, who's anti-abortion, who didn't support LGBT rights until 2011.

      The choice makes it clear that any Sanders supporter hoping that at the very least he'd help pull Clinton further left: he failed to do so.

      It's unlikely it'll make any difference in the election, but it'll be interesting to see if this helps Hillary's recent collapse in the polls. (My guess is no - 538 says they expect it to make an 0.7% difference in her chances overall. Sanders supporters were never in swing states so for the most part they simply don't matter.)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    6. Re:Oh boy by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You understand that in the normal course of action about the only thing a VP does is break tie votes in the Senate and, on the very rare occasion, when the President has to be put under for a root canal, temporarily becomes Command in Chief. Other than that, the only purpose of a VP is during an election, to try to ingratiate a President with demographics that might otherwise be fence-sitting. Picking someone with some social conservative views undercuts Trump, a man who though he may ape them from time to time, isn't really a social conservative at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re: Oh boy by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) He tells you the problem with America is with The Other
      2) He tells you he'll kick out The Other
      3) He tells you without The Other, America will be Great Again.

      That's it.

    8. Re: Oh boy by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      5- he says whatever he wants. he does not bow down to the racist SJW haters

      This... I'm a white, rich, Republican, and I'm GLAD that he said that he supports LGBT in his speech last night...

      Regardless of your beliefs, rights are rights and if I can marry a woman, then a guy can marry a guy... And I'm free to think he is a sick fuck, and he is free to think I'm a moron, and that's just fine...

      So long as I don't trample his rights and he doesn't trample mine.

      So as a right-wing white Republican, I stand with the LGBT community for their rights, because if I don't defend them, no one will stand with me for mine...

      Rights are rights, period...

    9. Re:Oh boy by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Like Mr. Clinton and Carter before him, the democrats have confirmed that the party is not nearly so "liberal" as the weenies like to think. About half of them are every bit as conservative as the republicans, more so if you check deeply at all into their past. They keep a "liberal" faction so those people don't go off and form an alternative party and take their money with them. That is what Sanders' function was during this year's primaries, and it works like a charm every time. How many independents do you think will win congressional seats this year? My money is on zero. And if one or two do win, they will do like Lieberman (and Sanders) did and caucus with the party that provides the biggest rewards. The democrats run a much more deceptive game than the republicans do because they have to. And now it takes a man like Trump to push votes their way, because they put forth such weak, even false "opposition".

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Oh boy by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like Mr. Clinton and Carter before him, the democrats have confirmed that the party is not nearly so "liberal" as the weenies like to think.

      I used to be one of those voters: socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and I did vote for Democrats. However, Hillary is unreliable on social liberalism and most of the social liberalism I care about is law anyway. On the other hand, god only knows what Hillary would do on the economy; the only thing that is certain about her is that she is going to use her job to enrich herself. I don't know what I'm going to do in November; the one thing I'm certain about is that I do not want Hillary to become president.

    11. Re: Oh boy by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      he said that he supports LGBT in his speech last night...

      Supports them how?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    12. Re:Oh boy by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      A comment up top from a disgusted liberal says he's pro-life. Which one of you is wrong?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    13. Re:Oh boy by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, Kaine votes far-left almost all the time, and is consistently rated a zero or near-zero by conservative organizations like Eagle Forum or ACU. The media will portray him as some kind of a centrist bridge-builder, as they always do for liberals, but that he is not.

      He made noises against the Iran deal back on the homefront, but in the end was cowed into voting for it, if you believe his reservations were genuine.

      In the end, he's a generic face meant to appease WWC voters who is free of scandal so far as is known, which is probably all they wanted. The Clinton campaign is half about it being 'her turn', and half 'you have to vote for her because you won't dare vote for the other guy', so they didn't need anyone with baggage to distract from that.

    14. Re: Oh boy by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Well, unless of course, the actual citizen happens to be a child of Mexican immigrants, and happens to be the judge in a lawsuit where some of his victims, er, students, are suing him for bilking them out of money.

      And as he will soon discover, if he manages to become President, for all this talk of how bad illegal Mexican immigrants are, the agriculture industry of the border states would collapse without them.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Oh boy by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's 'pro-life' personally but professionally does not impose his beliefs on others.
      Statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America, ""While Senator Kaine has been open about his personal reservations about abortion, he’s maintained a 100% pro-choice voting record in the U.S. Senate. He voted against dangerous abortion bans, he has fought against efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and he voted to strengthen clinic security by establishing a federal fund for it," NARAL President Ilyse Hogue said in the statement. "

    16. Re: Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government should have no right to be involved in marriage in the first place.

      This whole gay marriage thing is a total deflect-and-divide attempt by the establishment.

    17. Re: Oh boy by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's not Trump's strong point either.

    18. Re: Oh boy by Darinbob · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trump didn't send anyone over to push those rights when they were hashing out the Republican party platform this week. So the platform is even more anti-LGBT than last convention despite their "leader" supposedly being pro LGBT. So either Trump is somewhat apathetic about the whole thing or more likely he's just clueless about how political parties operate and didn't know it was part of his responsibility. Which makes me wonder how he'd actually run a country if he's messing up the simple stuff.

    19. Re:Oh boy by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Both are right. He's personally against abortion but is not for legislation against it.

    20. Re: Oh boy by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Peter Thiel got a standing ovation at the homophobic RNC. It's a mistake to assume the GOP hates gay people. They just dislike progressive gay people, which is most of them.

    21. Re:Oh boy by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Kaine supports public abortion funding. (Oct 2012) http://www.ontheissues.org/Sen..

      Horseshit sophistry. Kaine has voted for the Hyde Amendment, who's purpose is to deny the use of public funds for abortion.

    22. Re:Oh boy by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      >Actually, there is -zero- way Trump can win

      I've heard this before. at the pre-elections, yet, Trump is still in game.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    23. Re: Oh boy by Boronx · · Score: 1

      1- he represents not more of the same

      Nobody can argue with that.

      2- he is not a traitor to his country like HRC

      Are we talking Benghazi or Vince Foster?

      3- he has never got an American killed through action or inaction

      Then he's never had real power in this country.

      4- he didn't carpet bag the NY Senate seat

      By which you mean: win a majority of votes in NY.

      5- he says whatever he wants. he does not bow down to the racist SJW haters

      This is only a virtue if what he wants to say is worth while. I'm glad he was able to stand up in a Republican primary and call the Iraq war a stupid, horrible mistake, 13 years late, but still. Most of what he has to say is ignorant bullshit, though.

      6- he has worked in the real world. he is not a life long leach on the tax payers who never held a real job (HRC)

      I'm pretty sure Trump's held fewer "real jobs" than Hillary, and he's apparently a leach on anybody who tries to do business with him.

    24. Re:Oh boy by Boronx · · Score: 1

      So the centrist position.

    25. Re:Oh boy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      He also supports a ban on late term abortions.

    26. Re:Oh boy by LeDopore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For what it's worth, the magazine The Economist deeply prefers Clinton over Trump. Trump seems to make vague, wishful-thinking promises. The few verifiable economic statements he's made, for instance not having to raise the tax rate yet balancing the budget due to an expected surge of growth, are wild products of wishful thinking.

      On this point, I agree with The Economist. Trump makes a lot of noises about big changes because they sound good to the uneducated. On the other hand, Clinton has a much more complete and realistic picture of what she'd do with economic policy; with Clinton at the helm there would be many fewer changes than with Trump. Given that the last 8 years have seen the Dow recover from the Bush-induced lows in the 6000s to today's record highs in the 18000s and unemployment in America shrink below 5%, more of the same sounds much better than trusting that Trump's string of brainfarts will amount to an even bigger improvement.

      --
      Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
    27. Re: Oh boy by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know why people fail to understand the problem with immigration isn't the people who legally come here to work. Almost no one has a problem with that. It's the millions that flood in without any registration that are the problem. The peach packing plant down the road from me employs a lot of legal workers that come here with the full endorsement of the government. They are not the problem and no one has a problem with them, we all know someone has to pick the peaches and no Americans want those jobs when they can sit home and draw a government check while they watch TV.

    28. Re:Oh boy by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      So he's pro-abortion. Actions are louder than words.

    29. Re:Oh boy by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really believe trump won't be worth 20-50 billion by the time he leaves office? Trump will use his position to enrich himself. Tump has to win If he doesn't he has destroyed his most valuable asset. His brand. 70% of Trump's assets, are overseas in Muslim and Chinese countries, where rich people want to live like rich Americans. Trump uses loop holes to allow rich Chinese to immigrants to get instant green cards.

      Yet you think Hillary will be worse than someone who always screws over those who does work for him.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    30. Re:Oh boy by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Picking someone with some social conservative views undercuts Trump

      Nobody with even remotely conservative views will vote for Hillary.

    31. Re:Oh boy by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      "Weenies?" Really? Lets stay focused here, does Kain use Linux? If not, why is this article even existing, other than the fact that he can't spell his family name correctly?

    32. Re: Oh boy by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Right, I forgot about that mandatory government fertility test before they issued me a marriage licenses. That was a fun time, oh wait...

    33. Re:Oh boy by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as pro-abortion. Nobody gets abortions as a fun Saturday afternoon activity. There is only pro-choice.

    34. Re:Oh boy by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Yet you think Hillary will be worse than someone who always screws over those who does work for him.

      Hillary has proven that she is corrupt and that she commands large amounts of political power, both through her own connections, her husband, and the Clinton Foundation.

      Trump is an incompetent, pompous ass and a political newcomer, hated by both Democrats and Republicans. He is lucky if Congress doesn't cut the White House kitchen budget just out of spite. What Trump wants is pretty much irrelevant since he isn't going to get it.

      So, yeah, on balance, I think Hillary will be worse.

    35. Re:Oh boy by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Trump makes a lot of noises about big changes because they sound good to the uneducated. On the other hand, Clinton has a much more complete and realistic picture of what she'd do with economic policy; with Clinton at the helm there would be many fewer changes than with Trump.

      Let me paraphrase you. You are saying that Clinton is preferable to Trump because she would make fewer economic changes than Trump. Yet at the same time, you're saying that Trump has made virtually no concrete proposals for changes, while Clinton already has a long list of concrete changes lined up. It seems to me that you should conclude that Trump is preferable based on their proposals alone.

      Of course, Trump has another advantage when it comes to the economy: Trump is a bumbling idiot with no support in Congress, so he couldn't get Congress to pass gas, let alone legislation.

      Given that the last 8 years have seen the Dow recover from the Bush-induced lows in the 6000s to today's record highs in the 18000s and unemployment in America shrink below 5%, more of the same sounds much better than trusting that Trump's string of brainfarts will amount to an even bigger improvement.

      The unemployment rate is low only because so many people have dropped out of the labor force entirely. The labor force participation rates among 16-54 year olds have all fallen; the only group that labor force participation has risen in is among the 54+, indicative of an inability to retire. Post-recession economic growth has been poor as well compared to other recessions. And Obama's massive crony capitalist handouts have utterly failed to live up to the economic promises he made for them while making the fiscal situation even worse.

      So, if the promise is that Clinton will continue Obama's record on the economy, I'm not interested; as far as I'm concerned, even a bumbling idiot like Trump doing nothing for four years is likely better than that.

    36. Re: Oh boy by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why people fail to understand the problem with immigration isn't the people who legally come here to work. Almost no one has a problem with that.

      Well and H1B's which I guess you can argue are a way for companies to get the perks of illegal immigrants but do so in a technically legal but morally reprehensible manner. (If people on H1B's are really that good and that necessary they should be able to enter with no strings attached. Otherwise it's simply a scam to depress wages.) Admittedly I don't know if Trump gives a shit about that but I seriously doubt Hillary does.

      --
      Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    37. Re:Oh boy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What, you mean his name is really... Khan?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    38. Re: Oh boy by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's easier to come out as LGBT* than it is to come out afterwards as not being a faithful worshiper of the progressive movement...and it's very much a secular religion in its behaviors sometimes. I've have open religious fundamentalists be more okay with you questioning the dogmas they subscribe to... (On the other hand, sometimes the irony of things like people who decry Eurocenticism depending on Eurocentric definitions or very...ignorant assumptions about non-Western lands, is something I can appreciate. I just wish that pointing out the irony was safer.)

    39. Re:Oh boy by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Picking someone with some social conservative views undercuts Trump

      Nobody with even remotely conservative views will vote for Hillary.

      She's also bleeding off people who are definitely democrats. This might be an election where "None of the above" would just need to be on the ballot to win the Presidency.

    40. Re: Oh boy by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It takes time to move people along, he also needs the hard core right wing who still hasn't figured out that the SCOTUS ruled gay marriage is legal and it isn't going away.

      At this point, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change it and there is exactly zero chance of that happening.

      They would be wise to move on, but they behave emotionally rather than logically, so he has to walk a fine line. Of all the people to run for office on the Republican side, he has the best chance over the next 8 years to move the party towards the center and get them to accept new social norms.

    41. Re: Oh boy by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Supports them how?

      Really? That requires an explanation? Or are you just choosing to be difficult?

      Yea, probably that last one...

    42. Re: Oh boy by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The fact that Congress would be hostile to a Trump Presidency is partly what worries me. If very little gets done then whatever damage is caused by Trump's election will potentially be blamed on an obstructionist Congress rather than his ridiculous policies and incompetent political leadership. It would almost be better for Congress to give him everything he wants so the blame would fall squarely on his shoulders

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    43. Re:Oh boy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Remember that the majority of voters - probably the vast majority, I'd expect - made up their mind before the primaries. They are going to vote for the D or the R, regardless of candidate.

      Winning the election is about winning the few undecided voters, and making sure your supporters turn out to vote at a higher rate than the opposing party's supporters.

      That means Trump could easily win, not because Republican voters really support him, but because they really hate Hillary - and he knows that. He is using it. That's why his acceptance speech was full of attacks upon her. My favourite was the bit where he claimed she had taken bribes from foreign governments. If he can stir up a powerful enough hate among Republicans, and inspire enough dislike of Hillary among Democrats that many do not bother to vote, he could easily win on turnout alone.

      And let's face it: Hillary does not have the personality of a cult leader. She is bland. She does not inspire fanatical mobs the way Trump can.

    44. Re: Oh boy by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Why do you care if two guys or two girls want to get married?

      Marriage is a legal contract in the eyes of the state, it has to do with property rights, healthcare rights, and so on.

      The other option was to remove government from marriage completely and to call them ALL civil-unions and then let people who want to use the term marriage to do so on their own, privately...

    45. Re: Oh boy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There are a few dirty tricks that can be tried yet. One idea is to pass state 'religious freedom' acts that say no government official may be required to recognise gay marriage, or penalised for not doing so.

      You can go to get married, but if none of the clerks will process your paperwork... well, Jesus says 'Fuck you.' And then every time you want to do your taxes or claim benefits you again have to hunt down someone who will feel sympathetic enough to help.

    46. Re:Oh boy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Or "pro-least-worst-option."

      Abortion rights supporters also generally support access to and education on contraception. They really wish abortion were not sometimes required, but they also don't live in some fantasy land where every fetus is perfectly healthy and God will put food on the table with the power of love.

    47. Re:Oh boy by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      You really believe the money will change his life? Hillary on the other hand certainly thinks she deserves to live more like a queen

    48. Re:Oh boy by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Wow. . Just wow..

      You sure got a load there. It sounds like your full of the same too.

      First, i am not a trump supporter. I will likely vote for him due to my dislike of Hillary though.

      With that out of the way, i have to ask if the "uneducated" is the new meme being pushed by Hillary supporters who are wrong about a lot of things and want to address crap they do not themselves understand? You see, every single government budget I have read going back to Carter's as well as purposed tax cuts and or increases in spending rely on future growth to increase revenue so the numbers balance. Trump was doing nothing different than what other politicians including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have done. You can disagree with the ability for the plan to materialize but to claim it appeals only to the uneducated only shows how uneducated you actually are.

      Next, the dow lows were not induced by Bush. He was president when it happened but if you are going to try to pin it on him, you have to acknowledge that he tried to fix it back in the early 2000s and was stopped by a democrat controlled congress. He specifically attempted to address the subprime lending and regulate Fannie and Freddie in their default credit swaps which would have spilled over to the banking industry. But instead, he was shut down and wall street bankers paid Hillary huge sums of money to give speeches before and after their induced financial crisis which dropped the dow.

      You go out to talk about unemployment being 5%. That is the U-3 number and doesn't count a lot of long term unemployed. The U-6 number is more accurate and due to changes in the reporting over the years is more accurate to historical comparison. As of may 2006, the U-6 number was at 9.7%. So if changing the rules because policy doesn't work is what you want, then by all means support whoever you think will do that. But don't act like you are the only educated person in the room when all you have to do is say something and the world knows you have a lot to learn.

    49. Re: Oh boy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know why people fail to understand the problem with immigration isn't the people who legally come here to work.

      A bunch of people complaining about H1B visas (or Indians right before claiming it's not racism) all are worried about legals.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    50. Re: Oh boy by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Peter Thiel got a standing ovation at the homophobic RNC. It's a mistake to assume the GOP hates gay people. They just dislike progressive gay people, which is most of them.

      Yep, this... the bulk of Republicans have moved on and don't care one way or another, so long as gay people aren't trying to convert them (yes, I know it doesn't work that way), then they don't really care.

      But there is a small group of hard core right wingers who just can't get out of the 19th century, they'll all die off from old age soon enough...

    51. Re: Oh boy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Here's the section from the speech, notice the reactions from the crowd, too. Trump says the letters "LGBTQ" rather awkwardly, but he also opposed the bathroom bills in Carolina, for example. Whether he is or not, being "anti-gay" is a losing proposition for a national politician these days, so he has to at least pretend he is in favor.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    52. Re: Oh boy by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Very true.

    53. Re:Oh boy by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      i'm pro abortion. we should abort most babies.

    54. Re:Oh boy by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the vice president is to be the shoe in on the next round of elections if the presidency goes even reasonably well. If you think chairing the senate only allows you to break ties you are sorely mistaken. You'd be amazed what being the lord of procedure allows.

      It's hard for anyone within the party to beat out an 8 year running VP for the nomination and hard for the other party to beat them for the presidency. All else being equal the only thing more challenging is beating the actual sitting president.

    55. Re: Oh boy by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now substitute "The Jews" for "The Other"

    56. Re: Oh boy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      If very little gets done then whatever damage is caused by Trump's election will potentially be blamed on an obstructionist Congress

      That makes no sense. If Trump can't do anything because Congress blocks him, then what is he to be blamed for?

      rather than his ridiculous policies and incompetent political leadership

      Trump's policies and leadership are no more or less ridiculous than Hillary's. That is, Hillary may be a better politician, but she is no better as an executive.

      It would almost be better for Congress to give him everything he wants so the blame would fall squarely on his shoulders

      Obama had a Democratic Congress for the first two years, and Democrats are still blaming Republicans for obstructing him in addressing the recession.

      No, in fact, the best outcome would be for Congress to block either president. That seems more likely with Trump than with Hillary. Hillary has too many political connections and dirt on people so that she can exert pressure on Congress to get what she wants.

    57. Re:Oh boy by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      I think parent post is correct in saying that about half the Democrats are conservatives. However this statement is wrong:

      The democrats run a much more deceptive game than the republicans do because they have to.

      Change "deceptive" to "reasoned" or "intelligent" and I would agree with the statement. Most Democrats are more aware of the complexity of the issues than is true of the GOP base, which tends to vote by litmus tests.

      I also disagree with the following:

      And now it takes a man like Trump to push votes their way, because they put forth such weak, even false "opposition".

      While Trump and the sixteen other GOP wannabees were in that dog fight with each other, the Democrats did the smart thing by letting them alone. It was not the case that the Dems "put forth such a weak opposition"; it was instead that the Dems held themselves back while the GOP tore itself to pieces.

      The USA functions at its best when there are two healthy political parties. Unfortunately there has only been one healthy party for the last ten years or so. The GOP has been in failing health for longer than Obama has been in office, and the events of the last couple of years suggest that it is on its deathbed.

    58. Re:Oh boy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Winning the election is about winning the few undecided voters, and making sure your supporters turn out to vote at a higher rate than the opposing party's supporters.

      Yes, and as a former registered Democrat and now independent, there is no way in hell that I'm going to go vote for Hillary.

      And let's face it: Hillary does not have the personality of a cult leader.

      Correct: she is uninspiring, divisive, and grating. Hillary has the personality of a greedy and corrupt politician.

      That means Trump could easily win, not because Republican [and independent] voters really support him, but because they really hate Hillary - and he knows that

      FTFY.

      Which part of "on balance, I think Hillary will be worse" did you have problems with?

    59. Re: Oh boy by kenh · · Score: 1

      And as he will soon discover, if he manages to become President, for all this talk of how bad illegal Mexican immigrants are, the agriculture industry of the border states would collapse without them.

      Do the immigrants have to be illegal to work in agriculture? Why can't the positions be filled with the tens of thousands of legal immigrants we take in every year?

      The reason Americans don't want those jobs is they don't pay what most Americans consider "living wages" (though, oddly millions of immigrants manage to live off them...), if you remove the low-wage illegal workers farmers will raise wages, legal immigrants will take the positions, and while your food may get more expensive, every worker will be legal. The availability of low-wage workers keep wages depressed, remove the low-wage worker and wages go up.

      --
      Ken
    60. Re:Oh boy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the only reason the stock market is up so high is because those trillions of QE dollars had to go somewhere... With banks not lending it out, it sat in big investment firms to use for their bigger clients to invest in each other - stock prices. There's a reason that income inequality has skyrocketed under President Obama - the Federal Government and the Fed have given trillions of dollars to the richest of the rich - and let everyone else swim for it.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    61. Re: Oh boy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And the price of produce will go up, meaning Americans on low incomes will be worse off.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    62. Re: Oh boy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And hopefully that would mean, with Congress getting blamed for the failure, some turnover on the Capitol. With something like a 96% re-election rate, perhaps Congress needs a good sweeping...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    63. Re:Oh boy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So your fear is that Trump may double or quadruple his net worth. How about Hillary! increasing hers 200 fold?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    64. Re:Oh boy by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Trump is an incompetent, pompous ass and a political newcomer, hated by both Democrats and Republicans. He is lucky if Congress doesn't cut the White House kitchen budget just out of spite. What Trump wants is pretty much irrelevant since he isn't going to get it.

      And yet Trump won the primary and got the Republican nomination. When the Rancor goes down, maybe it's time to stop underestimating the weird kid with a lightsaber?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    65. Re:Oh boy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I see deception as a perfectly logical and even reasonable and quite intelligent strategy, within the context of the business of course. They don't work under the same rules we do. Remember, victory is not really the goal. The object is to keep the match running. I forget where I heard that, but it is true. And it's not really complex at all. The underlying motivation is rooted in plain old socciopathy, the very same thing that makes Wall Street so famous. The democrats and republicans really are indistinguishable, using the very same litmus tests. This I have seen personally. Right now the democrats are pushing the guilt trip more than ever. They really do need Trump, and it shows, to the point it makes me suspect they hired him for the gag. With his "billionaire" status being very doubtful, he probably needs the money. His friendship with the Clintons is well documented. And it is very clear that Hillary always makes money for her partners. She is the dominatrix of Wall Street.

      And this year, the nobody is even hiding behind the facade any more. This is why we have Trump and Clinton at the top. They are the next level, little else, of a game that became readily apparent to me with Humphrey, and it has been played that way since. That is when I discovered what it was about. They threw the election back then also. I call this election Nixon's 13th term, regardless which of these two win. They learned the lessons of Watergate and now just *burn the tapes*, and the machine has been running much more smoothly since then, effectively demonizing any and all real opposition. And it's all with the voters' full consent, minus about one and a half percent, as tallied by the 2012 election.

      The power to turn our backs is ours alone, the campaign money issue, and bribery are pure distractions (one aimed at repealing the 1st amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, something Hillary has already threatened), but as long as most of them are reasonably well fed this will go on indefinitely. Look around the world and see how bad it has to get before people get off the couch. And when they do, it always seems to go in the opposite direction it should, towards more nationalistic fascism. Witness what is happening in Europe, and Russia, and now in the US. Canada was sucked in during the Reagan/Thatcher years, but finally they appear to be on the road to recovery to a small extent, though I really don't expect that to last. Somebody will gum up the works, and they too will once again swing the other way.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    66. Re:Oh boy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the second reply, but:

      Right now the democrats are pushing the guilt trip more than ever.

      That is not really correct. Here also it is not possible to distinguish them from the republicans, as evidenced right here. They are all in the same boat.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    67. Re:Oh boy by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      "The USA functions at its best when there are two healthy political parties."
        I think you've been well indoctrinated there comrade. It's damned hard to pigeon-hole 300 million humans into just 2 categories and label it "healthy".

      "Change "deceptive" to "reasoned" or "intelligent" and I would agree with the statement."
      Really? In light of the server scandal, paid internet trolls, DNC emails showing the placement of various disinformation, and "it depends on what the meaning of is, is", reasoned and intelligent are not the first descriptives that come to my mind concerning the DNC at large.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    68. Re: Oh boy by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      But then those Americans with wages that low can get decent paying work in agriculture again. I agree that the claim that Americans won't do some jobs has much more to do with the wages available than a lack of work ethic.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    69. Re:Oh boy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      And yet Trump won the primary and got the Republican nomination. When the Rancor goes down, maybe it's time to stop underestimating the weird kid with a lightsaber?

      I hope I don't underestimate him; if Trump actually had political skill and power, as well as executive competence, he'd be much worse, because like Hillary he could then put his bad ideas into practice. And make no mistake about it: his bad ideas are not all that different from her bad ideas.

    70. Re: Oh boy by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      Well said. I don't have to agree with, or approve of the activities of someone else to coexist peacefully with them. Everyone keep your hands to yourself and mind your own business every chance you get and we'll be OK.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    71. Re: Oh boy by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      Lip service isn't support. It's action that matters. Read the platform for your party to see how they really feel about the LGBTQ community.

    72. Re: Oh boy by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      At this point it is overwhelmingly obvious that the "social norm" includes gay marriage, so that argument doesn't hold any weight. A large majority of people in the US support gay marriage, making it the new norm.

    73. Re:Oh boy by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      I never said shameful. I would probably go with 'unfortunate'. There is opportunity cost to having an abortion. Many women might want to have a child but can't support it economically or are not at the right point in their lives. Having an abortion is still a choice that is rejecting that possible baby. Maybe later you will not be able to get pregnant and this was your best chance? It is not shameful or immoral, but still can be a hard decision with a lot of emotions involved. Not to mention it is an uncomfortable procedure.

    74. Re:Oh boy by Zxern · · Score: 1

      This is not a normal election though. We have 2 of the most hated candidates ever. I'd say there is a better than average chance that the VP could end up serving a partial term as president.

    75. Re: Oh boy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Do you understand what "their" means?

      The vast majority of people in the U.S. don't care about gay marriage one way or another. They see no valid reason to deny it like the subset of people I already mentioned. Don't confuse that with support. They simply didn't care enough to change the norm. It took court orders to change it. Every state but two lost court battles before changing their laws and then the recent supreme court case made it universal. None of that would have been necessary if they supported gay marriage. It would have already been legal.

    76. Re:Oh boy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I believe that Hilary still supports the TPP. I accept that she's willing to (paraphrase)"put a bill before congress to undo the Citizens United decision", but there are an awful lot of bills that could do that, and she didn't even promise to fight to get it passed..

      I'm just extremely dubious that I'll be able to convince myself to vote for Hillary, even with Trump as the Republican candidate.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    77. Re: Oh boy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you substitute "Jews" for "the Other", either that tells us more about you than about anything else, or you are referring to Trump's bedside reading.

      The legitimate reason for saying that is that Trump is modeling much of his campaign on the campaign of Hitler. This is true, and he is reported to be explicitly inspired by Hitler. And Hitler was predominately against the Jews. (Though also against all other manifestations of "the Other", e.g. Gypsies.)

      The illegitimate reason for saying that is that when you read the grandparent post, or listen to Trump's speeches you hear him campaigning against Jews. Actually he's primarily campaigning against Muslims and Latinos. (And to the person who says I'm ignoring nuance, that's the appropriate action to take when listening to a rabble-rousing speech.)

      One important thing to note is that despite the official recovery from a recession, most of the population isn't seeing much recovery. And this is a characteristic that was true in Italy and Germany during the 1930's...though I'm not sure that at that point much of anyone was seeing a recovery.

      I'd be a lot happier if Trump were basing his plans around Mussolini.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    78. Re: Oh boy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's only a part of the answer. Urbanites don't like, and actually can't usually do, a reasonable job of replacing field workers. To do so they'd need a pre-training similar to boot-camp. My mother tries to work in a cotton field once. She gave up after a day, not because the work didn't pay enough (that wasn't why she was doing it), but because it was too physically demanding. Her life as a school teacher, "single" mother*, etc. hadn't prepared her. She was in her early 30's at the time.

      *"single" mother: My father was in the navy, stationed where dependents were not welcome. Sometimes on a ship, sometimes in the Aleutians.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    79. Re: Oh boy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, why did Regan cut off the bracero program then? He *preferred* that the immigrants be illegal so they wouldn't have any rights.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    80. Re: Oh boy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, a bit of research shows that Regan only "amended" the bracero program. Since I remember it as "canceling the program" that must have been quite an amendment.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    81. Re: Oh boy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'd take that more seriously if he wasn't on both sides of just about every issue. One side normally gets the most press, but if you go looking you can also find where he staked a claim on the other side.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    82. Re:Oh boy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's not news, if you didn't know that months ago you weren't paying attention. This, of course, doesn't mean it's not important.

      FWIW, my evaluation is that Sanders was picked to run as the designated loser, and accepted that role in order to promote his ideas. I believe that he knew from the start that he didn't have much of a chance, and that the deck had already been stacked against him. Certainly that was my evaluation at the time of the televised Democratic Candidates Debate, and I've seen no reason to change my mind.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    83. Re:Oh boy by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Almost certainly, but it has to piss Bernie Sanders supporters off. This is a guy who supports deregulating banks, who's anti-abortion, who didn't support LGBT rights until 2011.

      Whereas Trump insisted on putting Glass_Stegal into the GOP plank.
      Trump is Main Street wealthy. He made his money by building things. Hillary OTOH like Wall Street make her money by stealing it.

      Trump policies favor main street and disfavor Wall Street. Hillary's policies support Wall Street.

      Is there any more to be said/?

    84. Re:Oh boy by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Really? In light of the server scandal, paid internet trolls, DNC emails showing the placement of various disinformation, and "it depends on what the meaning of is, is", reasoned and intelligent are not the first descriptives that come to my mind concerning the DNC at large.

      Above written by someone who has just demonstrated that he is capable of absorbing and truthifying all the reporting that Fox News delivers.

      --

      Without Ailes, what is going to happen to all the people for whom Trump is their voice? Will they wither away? Will they be consigned to the state of permanent, terminal confusion?

    85. Re: Oh boy by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And if a clerk refuses to recognize straight marriage? Refuses to recognize interracial marriage? Refuses to recognize marriage of anyone not done in a church of the proper denomination? If someone's beliefs get in the way of doing their job then they need a new job. A vegan shouldn't work in a butcher shop.

      They don't have to recognize gay marriage, the job does not require that. The job only requires that they process the paperwork. Of all the sins listed in all the religious texts, they pick this one to get all uppity about.

    86. Re: Oh boy by legRoom · · Score: 1

      But there is a small group of hard core right wingers who just can't get out of the 19th century, they'll all die off from old age soon enough...

      I'm 28 years old, and have many friends around the same age. We are not Republicans (nor Democrats), but we still care about the Law of God which was revealed to man a long, long time before the 19th century. Our people have weathered worse storms than this in the past, and we will remain long after yours are forgotten.

      "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." - The Lord Jesus Christ, circa 30 A.D.

      "But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." - The Apostle Peter, circa 65 A.D.

    87. Re: Oh boy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      " If someone's beliefs get in the way of doing their job then they need a new job."

      You mean you are going to deny them employment for their religious beliefs? PERSECUTION!

      Christian culture in the US has developed a really severe persecution complex. Every time their demands for special exemptions are not met, it's persecution. A good example is the recent case is that of Javier Chavez, a former security guard at Macy's, who took it upon himself to kick a transgender person off of store property - even though they had commited no crime or action in violation of store policy, and he had previously been made aware that the store owners had no objection to people using whatever restroom they felt comfortable in. He has now commenced legal action against his former employer, while the head of the Catholic League Bill Donohue has written a most annoying column accusing Macy's of "thought control." As he puts it, "For merely holding beliefs that are contrary to the store's policy, Chavez was fired. This is what totalitarian regimes do, not American commercial establishments."

      That's the way they think: They have a right to expel whoever their God dislikes from their employer's property, and if they are fired then they are the victims of persecution.

    88. Re: Oh boy by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true member of ISIS...

    89. Re:Oh boy by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      No, I said he doesn't spell his name correctly. His problem, not mine.

    90. Re:Oh boy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I had no idea this was a "problem"... Sorry 'bout that

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    91. Re: Oh boy by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And I don't see anyone trying to run off Milo, either... except the 'progressives' who try to prevent him from speaking at conservative events.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    92. Re: Oh boy by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Or ban him from Twitter.

    93. Re: Oh boy by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But that's how it's =supposed= to work. As someone once pointed out, the Founders *designed* the system to promote legislative gridlock, under the theory that the less legislation gets passed, the less *stupid* legislation gets passed.

      My feeling is that even if Trump sucks, it's better to have someone who will argue with Congress, rather than a rubberstamp for every lunacy that comes down the pike, as I expect would happen with Clinton in the office.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    94. Re: Oh boy by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Haha, yes. Boy, has that been a circus.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    95. Re:Oh boy by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Prediction... As a Virginian, I'll tell you that Kane won't bring additional VA votes with him. He had unremarkable terms in office here, and I believe will be a net zero as far as VA voters are concerned. The state will continue to be a swing state because of the blue areas (No. VA, Richmond and Norfolk), vs. the remainder of the state.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    96. Re:Oh boy by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The democrats run a much more deceptive game than the republicans do

      This (and previous) Democratic primary was really a simple coronation. There was no election. Your vote didn't mean squat. The republicans tried to play the same game, but just aren't as good at it, or you wouldn't have seen 17 people on stage. The D's have a pipeline and groom their candidates...the R's were trying to do that with Jeb, but when it was clear he was on the outs, they floated other trial balloons. Trump just beat them because the media couldn't take their eyes off of the train wreck that he is, and gave him $2B in free advertising.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    97. Re:Oh boy by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I used to be one of those voters: socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and I did vote for Democrats

      Welcome to my world, only I've stuck mostly to the other side, while holding my nose as the radical religious types have just about ruined it. I don't want either Trump or HRC, but those are the realistic options at this point. If it becomes obvious that my vote won't count, I'll likely go 3rd party.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    98. Re:Oh boy by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      He gets a F rating from http://progressivepunch.org/sc...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    99. Re:Oh boy by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      What, you mean his name is really... Khan?

      Kublai or Genghis?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    100. Re:Oh boy by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The VP needs to be just as presidential. Here's a list of those who had to step in...

      John Tyler, after Harrison's death
      Millard Fillmore after Taylor's death
      Andrew Johnson after Lincoln's assassination
      Chester Arther after Garfield's assassination
      Teddy Roosivelt after McKinley's assassination
      Calvin Coolidge after Harding's death
      Harry Truman after Roosevelt's death
      LBJ after Kennedy's assassination
      Gerald Ford after Nixon's resignation

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    101. Re: Oh boy by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "The legitimate reason for saying that is that Trump is modeling much of his campaign on the campaign of Hitler."

      Exactly. I don't believe Hitler was sincere any more than I believe Trump. Both exploited flaws in human nature.

      "One important thing to note is that despite the official recovery from a recession, most of the population isn't seeing much recovery."

      Yes. We are seeing a new shiny bubble.

    102. Re: Oh boy by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Really? That requires an explanation?

      Yeah it does. "Support" can mean a lot of things I saw not mentioned in his speech.

      The funny part is, out of all these replies, no one has managed to answer the question yet.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    103. Re: Oh boy by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      "white privilege" is their devil, and their altar of worship is universal egalitarianism. (rednecks and welfare cowboys need not apply)

      Apparently, I'm a born sinner in more ways than one. To not unconditionally accept their dogma can only be met with browbeating and ad hominems, because there really is no right way to answer their intellectual equivalent of 'have you stopped beating your wife'.

    104. Re: Oh boy by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      " It's the millions that flood in without any registration that are the problem."

      Proof please: that it is A) actually a flood of millions coming from Mexico illegally every years, and B) that they are a drain on the economy or otherwise a 'problem'.

      Because all the data I've seen on 'A' says illegal immigration is down and that the net is negative with Mexico. More Mexicans leaving than coming. The number one source of illegal immigrants right now are students over staying visas, primarily from asian countries.

      And on B, all the data I've found says that illegal immigrants are actually a boon to the economy. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc.., but don't get a lot of the benefits because they don't have the right paper work to claim them.

    105. Re:Oh boy by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Your vote didn't mean squat.

      It's always a reflection of personal character. So in theory, it should mean something to yourself. The media side show does mean squat, however. It is easy to tune out.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. I know where I stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "devoted his life to fighting for others."

    Liberal: "I want someone who'll fight for me."
    Conservative: "I want someone who'll leave me the fuck alone."

    1. Re:I know where I stand by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Liberal: "I want someone who'll fight for me."

      As in, "Make America safe again," right?

      Oh, wait...

    2. Re:I know where I stand by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Liberal: "I want someone who'll fight for me."
      Conservative: "I want someone who'll leave me the fuck alone."

      Liberal: Someone who wants the government to leave people alone unless they are trying to use their wallet.
      Conservative: Someone who wants the government to leave people alone unless they are trying to have sex or go to the bathroom.

    3. Re:I know where I stand by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Leave people alone? Are you delusional? Liberals believe in the power of government to affect people's lives. They want you to have a "relationship with your government", like it's a girlfriend or something. They expand, expand, expand the power of government because they believe it to be positive and NOT subject to corruption or any of those yucky things. If We The People were left to our own choices, we'd just choose wrong! Look at Brexit! The people were presented with a clearly correct choice and a clearly wrong choice, and they screwed it up! How can you trust people like that?

      In reality, giving the government more and more power just leads to corruption. Example #1: Hillary Clinton, and we need look no further. Clearly corrupt, clearly belongs in prison, the evidence is overwhelming. She cuts a deal with the Attorney General to keep her on after she's elected and the charges go away, POOF!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:I know where I stand by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Liberal: "I want someone who'll fight for me"

      ...fight for me, against my neighbors and fellow Americans, over money someone else earned.

    5. Re:I know where I stand by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Liberal: "I want someone who'll fight for me."
      Conservative: "I want someone who'll leave me the fuck alone

      ...but will regulate the heck out of all the people I don't like or who have different religions or who want to use birth control or something.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    6. Re:I know where I stand by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Leave people alone? Are you delusional? Liberals believe in the power of government to affect people's lives. They want you to have a "relationship with your government", like it's a girlfriend or something. They expand, expand, expand the power of government because they believe it to be positive and NOT subject to corruption or any of those yucky things. If We The People were left to our own choices, we'd just choose wrong! Look at Brexit! The people were presented with a clearly correct choice and a clearly wrong choice, and they screwed it up! How can you trust people like that?

      The neat thing here is that everything you just whined about doesn't describe liberalism, at at all.

      You're talking about capitalism, money and power.

    7. Re:I know where I stand by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Conservative: "Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!"

      I suppose what they like best about him is that he's not going to do anything..

      Or are those chanters not conservative?

    8. Re:I know where I stand by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Preventing ovulation is now baby killing?

    9. Re:I know where I stand by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The neat thing here is that everything you just whined about doesn't describe liberalism

      That depends on where you live. In Europe, a "liberal" is a libertarian. In America, a "liberal" is a progressive, or what Europeans would call a social democrat. In Australia, a "liberal" is a conservative.

    10. Re:I know where I stand by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      "Viable human beings" being ... parasites, am I correct?

    11. Re:I know where I stand by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought Conservatives in the US might say "I want someone to force my version of Christianity on this country".

    12. Re:I know where I stand by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Conservative: "Small government and personal freedom! Except for drugs, and pornography, and dirty words on TV - those all need to be illegal. Oh, and we need the government to keep the restrooms segregated. And to issue proclamations telling every American that Jesus is Lord and that it is their patriotic duty to worship him. Also a favourable tax structure to make sure people get married. But other than that, small government and personal freedom!"

    13. Re:I know where I stand by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      What Europeans call liberal, Americans call Communist.
      What Americans call conservative, Europeans call insane.

    14. Re:I know where I stand by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      A lot of pro-life organisations oppose hormonal contraception because it can, under some circumstances, prevent implantation after conception.

      It's not supposed to work that way, but it can. If a dose is missed, or hormones naturally fluctuate in the right way, ovulation can still occur. But there's no uterine lining in place to accept the blastocyst. The women wouldn't even be aware conception occurred. So the only way to be sure is not to use hormonal contraception.

      They also oppose condoms, but for another reason: Condoms make casual fornication possible, and as the pro-life movement is almost entirely composed of religious groups they frown heavily upon anything that enables sin.

    15. Re:I know where I stand by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Until I left her body, yes, she had the right to "kill" me.

      And Im doing fine thanks, married and living in a different country to my parents. How about you? Does your mom mind when you steal her rent money?

    16. Re:I know where I stand by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      There isn't rent on a grave.

    17. Re:I know where I stand by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      But anyway. So your mom had the right to kill you when you were 1, 5, 10 ?

    18. Re:I know where I stand by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      A ridiculous argument since thats not what we are discussing - a parasite and a dependent are different things.

    19. Re:I know where I stand by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try making a case instead of just assertions.

    20. Re:I know where I stand by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That depends on where you live. In Europe, a "liberal" is a libertarian. In America, a "liberal" is a progressive, or what Europeans would call a social democrat. In Australia, a "liberal" is a conservative.

      That's some nice pedantry, but it's a non-response to the cross-eyed Randianism being called out in your first post:

      Liberals believe in the power of government to affect people's lives. They want you to have a "relationship with your government", like it's a girlfriend or something. They expand, expand, expand the power of government because they believe it to be positive and NOT subject to corruption or any of those yucky things.

      Liberals in America are right-wing conservatives who spend a lot of time lying to themselves about the positions and politicians they support. Phil Ochs wrote a little ditty about them that still applies to this day.

  3. Yea right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He sounds as deluded and Obama if he thinks Hilary has a record of result, that anything about her character is good, her backgound as an elitist who thinks she is above the law (since she can do whatever she wants without punishment), and she does not have the kind of experience that is good.

    But I guess he has to push the narrative no matter how false it is as part of the deal of gaining power.

  4. Am I that out of touch? by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    90% of his votes in the last 6 months have been, IMHO, wrong. Guy wants more H1-Bs. Guy likes TPP. Guy likes longer copyrite protection for big companies. And he voted against abortion?

    This is the Democrat "safe" nomination to both innoculate HRC against her transgressions, and help her attack Trump?

    dafuq?

    1. Re:Am I that out of touch? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So we have a democratic VP that is pro TPP and has no problem with Americans that can't find jobs.

      We have a GOP candidate's daughter that more or less pitched parental rights, and they applauded it. Then a GOP candidate that came out against TPP. WTF is going on with this race.

    2. Re:Am I that out of touch? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, it's hard to find someone who is a safe bet but still is in sync with the interests of the owners, ya know...

      But we certainly can talk about that abortion bit, I'm sure he can change on this really, really, REALLY important issue.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Am I that out of touch? by guises · · Score: 1

      The only one of those things which could effect an election is the abortion one. If he's a democratic candidate who votes against abortion, that puts him further towards the right - so it's a choice to possibly appeal to some on the right who are anti-Trump. Virginia is also a swing state, so that's another plus, although 538 says it only boosts her election chances by 0.7%.

      The choice of vice prez only marginally effects the overall election odds, unless it's a really interesting choice like Palin, and this guy is in no way interesting. This gets an emphatic "meh" from me.

    4. Re:Am I that out of touch? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      Your side

      My "Side"? I don't believe I ever stated how I was voting or how I leaned. In fact my entire post was pointing out how candidate positions are opposite from what one would think.

    5. Re:Am I that out of touch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you just hate it when real life doesn't fit the "my team is good in every way and the other team is bad in every way" narrative?

    6. Re: Am I that out of touch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That person is named Gary Johnson.

    7. Re:Am I that out of touch? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Don't you just hate it when real life doesn't fit the "my team is good in every way and the other team is bad in every way" narrative?

      That depends on the purpose of the team. If the team exists for the sole purpose of wearing red then suddenly it looks very strange when someone gets let on wearing blue.

      That's party politics for you.

    8. Re:Am I that out of touch? by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      Conservatives tell people whatever they want to hear, and then vote the opposite. Fool me once.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    9. Re:Am I that out of touch? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      WTF is going on with this race.

      Easy. You have two candidates. One is the status quo( pro-big business) doing whatever the fuck it wants, while fucking you over, and telling you exactly what and how you're going to do things while supporting things like safe spaces and pushing for censorship and the banning of particular forms of speech via hate crime laws. While being a lying piece of shit that has such a shady past and more scandals then you can shake a hairy cat at.

      Then, you've got the other that's ridden on the back of populist support(aka the people), who's against big business fucking people over. Is against trade agreements that put America at a disadvantage and is against the importation of workers to the US when there are people who are willing to do the jobs but companies don't want to pay the wages that Americans would want.

      Personally as a Canuck? Trump is the better choice and is more likely to ensure US wealth growth then Clinton. Also with that a prosperous US is good for Canada always has been. It's very rare that we don't have serious economic problems when the US slows down. If you don't think wages aren't depressing in the US you're not paying attention. Without a parity conversion, the average Canuck now makes more then an American. And the average US wage has decreased by $3-4k in the last few years, while the prices of goods, services, energy have all gone through the roof. Whether you want to believe it or not, the US is on the verge of a deflationary spiral and it needs to be fixed fast.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Am I that out of touch? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's just politicians in general. They'll say whatever it takes to get elected, even if they know they can't deliver. There are many honest politicians, they just never make it past local politics - you can't win in the big leagues if you won't play by their rules.

  5. Candy Kaine by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    is not good for you

  6. Tim Kaine & TPP by CanEHdian · · Score: 5, Informative
    And our friend Tim Kaine is a big supporter of the TPP (with the exception of dispute resolution) as of hourse before the news broke.

    " I think it’s an upgrade in intellectual property protections,”

    Just the guy we need, another Joe Biden. Source

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:Tim Kaine & TPP by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Will Mike Pence's position on TPP make any difference on who you'll vote for?

      Depends--are we supposed to assume that we're not just picking whose impeachment we'd rather get to watch? If so, then it definitely matter what the possible VP's positions are on issues are because the VP will get the job once the show is over...

  7. Re:Who cares? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Both are iron fists.. hillary's just has a felt cloth around hers.

  8. Thank god for Trump! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, who would vote for this ticket if not for him? Trump is Hillary's biggest asset in this election.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Thank god for Trump! by schwit1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Trump is Hillary's biggest asset in this election."

      And vice versa.

    2. Re:Thank god for Trump! by quenda · · Score: 2

      But what happened to all the good Republican candidates?
      I'm a long way away from the US, but trying to make sense of it. There there did not seem to be one Republican contender of the calibre of John McCain or Mitt Romney.
      The party was able to select those two strong contenders in previous elections, but now the best they could find was Jeb Bush!?
      I know the party has capable intelligent leaders in state politics, so why did none of them run for the presidential nomination this time?

    3. Re:Thank god for Trump! by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But what happened to all the good Republican candidates?

      They got starved out by the press because Trump sucked all the air out of the room. The same thing happened on the other side of the Ruling Party. Their last reasonable prospect was Jim Webb, but he couldn't get any attention with the press all working for Hillary to sink Bernie.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Thank god for Trump! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There there did not seem to be one Republican contender of the calibre of John McCain or Mitt Romney.

      Are you kidding me? McCain and Romney were clowns. It's like the Republicans said "okay, who's turn is it to lose next?", just like they did with Bob Dole. They constantly choose the weakest candidates. The only time they manage to win is when the Dems pick someone even worse.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Thank god for Trump! by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it appears to be that way by design. I believe the intention there is to keep congress as close to 50/50 as possible to make it easier to pass blame back and forth in a game that is called "rotating villain", which came to the forefront during passage of "Obamacare" and removal of the single payer option. In other words, the democrats threw the 2010 midterm elections, and they are doing the exact same thing now.

      Regardless of the results for the presidency, congress should be able to maintain their 95% reelection rate. SNAFU

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Thank god for Trump! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Their last reasonable prospect was Jim Webb

      Jim Webb is basically a Republican in the Democrat party. He is heavily focused on process and protocol, but those aren't going to solve the problems of the nation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Thank god for Trump! by guacamole · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Romney was not a clown. A moderate conservative politician whose Massachusetts "Romneycare" was used as a blueprint by Obama. The problem with the Romney's campaign in 2012 is that it was derailed by the radical wing of the Republican party, which threatened to mow down every candidate who dared not to oppose Obamacare and everything else the incumbent president stood for.

    8. Re:Thank god for Trump! by guacamole · · Score: 1

      It's indeed a fine question.

      I can't believe the establishment couldn't find anyone besides Jeb Bush. It just shocking that they thought somebody with this toxic name was still electable.

    9. Re:Thank god for Trump! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Their last reasonable prospect was Jim Webb

      The "reasonable" guy is the one who wrote the Birth of a Nation for middle eastern peoples?

    10. Re:Thank god for Trump! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There there did not seem to be one Republican contender of the calibre of ... Mitt Romney

      Setting the bar pretty low there!
      Dan Quale, come back, all is forgiven!
      Spiro Agnew we need you!

    11. Re:Thank god for Trump! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      But what happened to all the good Republican candidates? I'm a long way away from the US, but trying to make sense of it.

      The short summary: The primaries are extremely dominated by special interest groups (SIGs), because if they can get a sympathetic candidate the actual election will be a coin flip of who people dislike the least. So what happens is that a lot of moderates get caught in no man's land because the SIGs support their hardline candidate and if you can't get any momentum out the gate the chances of recovering 5-10 states down the line as people realize their favorite won't make it is slim and none. It's hard to find a moderate that many people would be happy with, until it's clear they'd lose and would rather compromise.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Thank god for Trump! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You mean given Western Exceptionalist Bullshit? For every drop of western blood spilled by "isliamic terrorists", entire swimming pools are filled with the blood of muslims, from predator drones and imperialist wars. The same month as the attack on Nice, a single U.S. attack slaughtered 85 innocent people in Syria.

      If the rest of the world responded to western imperialism the same way western imperalists respond to their own blowback, the United States, France and the UK would be radioactive craters carved deep into bedrock.

  9. Re:AND GOD CREATED THE EATHER AND by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Considering the state this place is in, he should've taking a bit more time. I mean, look at this lemon of a planet!

    Not to mention the time management of this guy. I mean, think about it, he fucked about with this insignificant pebble orbiting a not really noteworthy sun in a rather plain region of a nondescript arm of a rather standard spiral galaxy in a not really remarkable galaxy cluster for six days and the whole rest, those other planets in our system, the stars and their plants, galaxies, galaxy clusters and whatnot, all that took less than a fucking paragraph!

    Look around you again and notice just how fucked his place is.
    And now imagine how the rest of the creation has to be if THIS is what he spent about 99% of his time on!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Excuse me but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This was uncalled for. Really. I'd expect an apology. In the name of all sluts, cunts, butches and whores.

    There are limits, ya know?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:A FAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You'd think since Slashdot has been posting important political stories for over a decade, dipshits like the above would stop asking stupid questions.

  12. Re:Slight Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Idiot: People that attempt to summarize a group of people with one sentence.

  13. The "so what?" heard around the world! by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Informative

    Milktoast centrist put in vice president status. Courage required: 0

    WIkipedia entry

    At least the guy is well educated and experienced.

    Not a dramatic choice - but a solid guy all the same. Would be justly called pretty conservative most places outside the US.

    I'd have much preferred an Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren emotionally - but see the virtue in a low-key centrist technocrat.

    Perhaps he's exciting by virtue of being boring in this environment. Get the guy training with some comedians before the debate, and a few good lines with low expectations could have OK results.

    In other news: No news is news, in this news cycle. Which isn't news, with 24 hour news.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:The "so what?" heard around the world! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Milktoast centrist put in vice president status. Courage required: 0

      WIkipedia entry

      At least the guy is well educated and experienced.

      Not a dramatic choice - but a solid guy all the same. Would be justly called pretty conservative most places outside the US.

      I'd have much preferred an Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren emotionally - but see the virtue in a low-key centrist technocrat.

      Perhaps he's exciting by virtue of being boring in this environment. Get the guy training with some comedians before the debate, and a few good lines with low expectations could have OK results.

      In other news: No news is news, in this news cycle. Which isn't news, with 24 hour news.

      I think it's fine, do you think Franken or Warren would really bring that much influence over Hillary? She'd most likely put VP Franken or Warren in an closet to twiddle their thumbs for four years.

      Kaine is probably on the same page so can act as a surrogate in office, and if Clinton died in office then Kaine would probably be fine to govern more or less how she would have governed.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:The "so what?" heard around the world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey Fenton, the correct spelling is milquetoast.

    3. Re:The "so what?" heard around the world! by tomhath · · Score: 2

      I'd have much preferred an Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren emotionally

      They're the Democrat's attack dogs; they can't be on the ticket because they're so obnoxious. Plus Franken has all the baggage of a stolen election.

      Kaine won't attract any votes, but he won't drive away any donors.

    4. Re:The "so what?" heard around the world! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Milktoast centrist put in vice president status. Courage required: 0

      Hillary doesn't need to make a display of courage. She wins: that is what matters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  14. It is true, your vote has no meaning by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    But remember that it does reflect your character.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  15. Re:Slight Correction by Tawnos · · Score: 3, Funny
  16. Liberal bias?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where is Slashdot when Trump announced pence?

    Uh, right here?

    If the froth coming out of your mouth wasn't foaming up over your eyes for just a minute, you may have even seen it listed in the "Related Links" for this very article, right below the summary!

    Is there anything on earth that qualifies as "unbiased" to you?

    1. Re:Liberal bias?? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Probably the Trump campaign website.

  17. Re: Who cares? by meerling · · Score: 3, Funny

    I suspect it's more likely Bills scrotum.

  18. Standard Ruling Party shit. by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Vote for (Trump | Hillary) because (Hillary | Trump)! A vote for any other candidate is really a vote for (Trump | Hillary)! Don't throw your vote away because (Hillary | Trump) is too horrible to contemplate!"

    Fuck that noise. I want a clear conscience, so it's Gary Johnson/William Weld for me.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I want a clear conscience, so it's Gary Johnson/William Weld for me.

      So you're voting for Hillary. How does that leave your conscience clear? She's a corrupt, lying, sociopath. And you're doing a little two-step dance as you support her quest for power.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      FEEL THE JOHNSON!

    3. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Only a weatherman can be as wrong as you are and still keep his job. Homey don't play your guilt trip. So, throw that shit into the can. It's pure rubbsh.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      So you're voting for Hillary. How does that leave your conscience clear? She's a corrupt, lying, sociopath. And you're doing a little two-step dance as you support her quest for power.

      You could replace "Hillary" with "Donald" in the paragraph above and it would be equally valid. Which proves jcr's point.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So you're voting for Hillary.

      Maybe he favors Hillary over Trump. Did you think of that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you're voting for Hillary.

      NO, dumbass. I'm voting for Johnson. Fuck you and your guilt-peddling.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Don't mind him. He's still crying about Perot (like the democrats over Nader). They'll never get over Macho Grande. Those wounds run, pretty deep.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I always enjoy the substance-less, ad hominem retorts that demonstrate how right I am. Thanks!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm voting for Johnson. Fuck you and your guilt-peddling.

      Guilt-peddling? I'm not trying to make you feel guilty. I'm just pointing out the reality of the matter, that's all. If you feel guilty for having helped Clinton win, that's entirely up to you.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We'll be stuck with that racist, mysoginist, xenophobe for 4 years.

      Ah, I see you're one of the people pretending to actually think that, while also pretending you don't know anything about Hillary Clinton. If you're going to stay that uninformed, please don't do anything dangerous to those around you, like voting.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Here we go with the trite dismissal of third party votes again.

      I'm not dismissing those votes at all. They have a very real effect on the election. Such as helping the Clinton Machine back into executive power.

      The only person being dismissive is YOU (in your assertion that those votes impact both of the larger parties in the same way, and thus don't really change anything .. THAT is dismissive).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, thank you! Your vote is your character. In your case it is not a good reflection. Read the link before dismissing out of hand the things that reveal the truth.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hey, look! Still no substance, and more ad hominem! I do admire consistency and dedication, but less so when it's in the service of a demonstrably corrupt person like Hillary Clinton. But hey, if you're going to support her, go all the way with it, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm voting for Johnson. Fuck you and your guilt-peddling.

      Guilt-peddling? I'm not trying to make you feel guilty. I'm just pointing out the reality of the matter, that's all. If you feel guilty for having helped Clinton win, that's entirely up to you.

      Voting according to conscience is never wrong.
      Consider this, if Clinton loses because a huge portion of independents vote third party maybe maybe the Democrats will finally understand that you need a left wing that has a voice, and real influence in american politics. And if the D party won't give that space then the third party will. Lessons even painful ones can be learned in defeat.
      Unfortunately such a painful lesson will give Trump the presidency. But 4 years pass quickly, moreso if the Senate has a blue majority.

    15. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Too bad you didn't read the link. It has you pegged to the tee. Sorry, your attempted guilt trip just doesn't work. As always, thanks for the affirmation!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hey look! More! Keep it up. Your illiberal masters thank you for your tireless forum trolling.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      :-) You epitomize everything you just said in that last post. You are perfect! Projection and everything.

      Still won't read the link, eh? Yeah, I know, the truth is a scary animal, and oh so ugly!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Guilt-peddling?

      :-) Yes, you are.. still trying to blame Perot for your loss. Don't even try to deny it. I believe you know where to stuff that nonsense.

      Your fly is open...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Nope, just watching you unable to string together a single coherent defense of Hillary Clinton in your own words. It's pretty fun, actually.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Still won't read the link. Whassa matter? You chicken?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just pointing out the reality of the matter,

      The reality of the matter is that you can go fuck yourself. If the Republicans wanted my vote, they should have nominated Rand Paul.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    22. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by jcr · · Score: 1

      That fucking CIA spook Bush should have bowed out. Perot would have made a far better president than any Republican since Eisenhower.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    23. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      All in a day's work. If enough people wanted Bush, he would gotten the job, simple math, you need a majority to win, and his kid did. Why? Not because of Nader, but because he got enough votes. There is nobody to blame for his victory but the people who voted for Bush, period. Both sides are playing this game to the max this time. Can't tell them apart. Each working for the other's campaign to keep everything divided right down the middle. This is the working strategy of our times. It actually illustrates a very serious flaw in the concept of majority rule, but can still run indefinitely as long as starvation doesn't reach that critical tipping point. I linked to a very nice article on voting your conscious in my first response to that guy, but he has his own agenda, simply trying to poison the forum, so he won't read it. The best thing to do with these types is to mock (more fun than ignoring) them until they finally go away.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    24. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Me? No. I'm watching you unable to express a single salient point on your own. Here's one you can work from: Hillary Clinton, if she were anyone else, would now at the very least be unable to get a security clearance, and she's been steadily lying to you about the circumstances around her handling, hiding and destruction of government records. This pleases you. You like that she lies to you, because you're smug enough to think that even though you know better, you're hoping that everyone else in the world is too dumb not to fall for it. Your own response, rather than being your own factual rebuttal of that characterization of her actions, will be to say that I haven't sufficiently read other material.

      This is because you know she's indefensible, and you know that if you use your own words here to say that she (for example) hasn't been lying about such things, you'll be confirmed as a fool. So, of course you're deflecting and attempting to avoid going on the record. Predictable, typical, nothing new. But still entertaining in its transparency.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      That's why the link. Much more elegant. The point is precise. That you won't read it speaks volumes, and confirms what it says about people like you. I suspect you know that and are only in denial. You are just being a whiny little bitch about Perot, identical to the democrats on Nader. Strange birds the bunch of you. You can blab all you want about Clinton. She is not on my radar, and neither is Trump. She is your obsession, not mine. And you sure are obsessed, to the point of it being clinically pathological. All you are saying is somebody that doesn't vote for Trump is voting for her. And is a load of bull. Too simple, just like me. You will just have to live with it. Complain all you want, it's just an unintelligible angry barking dog. I don't care that Hillary lies, I'm not voting for either of those two just to play your silly game. Take all your guilt trip bullshit with you on your way to hell, or leave at the airport for the TSA to dispose of. It is not going to play here, ever.

      Your entire shtick is so revealing. Thanks for letting other people see and confirm it. And man! you are such a baby! I thought the other guy was bad. I really wish you could step out and see yourself. It would make you gag. i can't you are serious, and I won't. You're just wearing the red nose

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    26. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1
      Hey, look! Leading off with more deflection and ad hominem! At least you're right on track with with not caring that she lies, though. Any guilt you may feel about helping her to get elected, though - that's entirely on you. Your phony umbrage isn't very convincing. You want her to be elected, and you're just faking it with the noble third party nonsense. You know perfectly well that the alternatives are completely unelectable. So you are taking actions that will put Hillary Clinton in power. Simple as that. If you actually have the ethics to feel guilty about that, perhaps you have some redeeming qualities after all and just need to work out your baked-in mixed premises and contradictions. Otherwise, your delusion that voting for a guaranteed loser will somehow help things is, well, delusional.

      I take all of your vitriol and ad hominem in the context of that delusional perspective, of course. If you're going to be irrational with your vote, it's not surprising that you have an irrational understanding of how to persuade others embrace your world view.

      Your entire shtick is so revealing. Thanks for letting other people see and confirm it. And man! you are such a baby! I thought the other guy was bad. I really wish you could step out and see yourself. It would make you gag.

      Hey, look! More substance-less ad hominem that lacks even one example of what's "revealed" or any specificity of any kind. Just more hand-waving vague distraction in an attempt to get away from the matter at hand. Thanks for wrapping up the same way you started, just for consistency's sake.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why should I care what she does? I'm not voting for her. She can go nuts for all I care. It doesn't mattah!

      So you are taking actions that will put Hillary Clinton in power.

      Yes, that is the simple lie on your part. Don't know why you keep pressing it. Well, I do, but don't care. Spreading lies is your prerogative and perfectly within your rights.

      You know perfectly well that the alternatives are completely unelectable.

      Not my problem. Go talk with the people who are voting for Hillary. I am not, so with me you are only wasting your time, unless you are using some chatbot, which just occurred to me, that is what you sound like... I will accept that as your excuse

      You are weird, man! But I like you...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Not my problem.

      But it IS your problem. You know that the person you are voting for will not get the job. That isn't even debatable. Not voting for a person who can realistically prevent her from getting the power she wants IS voting for her.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    29. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Wrong again. Not gonna waste my keyboard on the obtuse. Wake me when you read the link.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    30. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when you summon the intellectual courage to form a single sentence of your own that is anything other than lazy, craven ad hominem designed to avoid speaking to the facts. Guess I'll get a good night's sleep, since your only response is to punt to someone else. Your lack of backbone in that area is right in keeping with your unwillingness to face the consequences of deliberately wasting your vote in the general election. But you just carry on, throw some more juvenile personal bile - you clearly think that's what best expresses your character and convictions.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    31. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm letting the link speak for me. Browse at your convenience. To paste it here would be redundant.

      I'll leave the puerility to you and your democrat counterparts. You all are perfectly matching bookends.

      ... Don't let the bedbugs bite

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    32. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm letting the link speak for me

      No you're not. You're unable to speak for yourself, even in a single coherent sentence that explains how you think your wasted vote will constructively work in this upcoming election. Why aren't you saying words of your own? Because you know it will sound like the nonsense it is, and you're trying to use someone else as cover so you can pretend you're not part of that craven charade. You're putting on a transparent veneer of condescending smugness in an attempt to avoid explaining your position, and greatly annoyed that someone isn't falling for the lazy theatrics.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    33. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Fascinating, like totally.. I really hit nerve with this one.

      Folks, this is why the race is between Trump and Clinton.

      Such a spectacle! Can hardly wait for 2020 to see you top this! And I'm sure you will!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    34. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I really hit nerve with this one

      Hey, look! More lazy ad hominem and STILL no ability to articulate a single salient point! The only person with a sore nerve here is the person who can't address the subject matter using his own words. The cowardice is strong in this one.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    35. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Good morning to you too!

      Hey, look! I found a picture of you. I don't draw so well either, had to use someone else's, but it's a perfect characterization of everything about you. Enjoy, and peace!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    36. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hey, look! He still can't put together a coherent thought on the subject matter, and is still deflecting with juvenile ad hominem. Carry on! The party you're working for happens to be exhibiting a great display of just your sort of incoherence already in Philadelphia - I'm sure you're tuned in for marching orders. Have fun!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    37. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Hey man, let us all in on your reverse-aging secret.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    38. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      When you post, and then smile at yourself, does some little voice in your head say, "There! I've finally managed to explain my position on supporting Hillary Clinton while managing to avoid saying anything concrete!" And then you go and pat yourself on the back? Is that how it goes?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    39. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    40. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, you're finally able to respond to a comment or question with your own actual thoughts on the matter. Progress! Let's try this one:

      Can the person for whom you will be casting your vote actually win the election? Use your new-found Yes/No skills to simply answer that with a yes or a no.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    41. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    42. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by jcr · · Score: 1

      you have trouble finding others that resonate with your world view

      I know thousands of them. They're quite easy to find, as it happens.

      you're just a jerk

      Project much?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    43. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant

      So you consider your actions in relation to the election to be irrelevant? Then why are you telling people that you're going to vote? Why do something you consider to be irrelevant, or why say it's irrelevant if you don't actually think that?

      Oh, I get it ... you think that the fact you know your vote is going to be thrown away as a way to help Hillary Clinton is irrelevant, because talking about it means you have to justify your support for her. That makes more sense, and fits your previous pattern of evasion.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    44. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      also irrelevant.

      Until you read the link, I can only take your comments as mere offtopic trolling, not a serious thought in the lot. At the same time I also can understand why you are scared of it and will stick to your infantile petulance. This is SOP for your type, and explains perfectly your political proclivities that you put up on such magnificent display these last few days. Like minds(being very generous there), and all that... Your vote and general demeanor are a perfect match, indistinguishable from one another.

      Please, continue...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    45. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Ah, good, we're back to you displaying your own inability to explain your actions without admitting the consequences, and thus once again deflecting and dishing out juvenile insults. SOP for "my type?" What, pointing out your inability to so much as answer a direct question in your own words? Wow, that is just awful, isn't it? Of course anyone with the intellectual courage to stand behind their position to support Hillary Clinton would have no trouble using their own words, or at least doing the usual Shillary cut-and-paste. But no, you don't want to be seen typing out those words - it's embarrassing, I know, being unable to form your own sentences to explain yourself. Perhaps your next Hillary campaign workshop can help you out with that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    46. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You are in a monkey trap... Let go....

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    47. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hey look! Another failure to utter even a single sentence on the subject matter at hand! Fascinating. Someone so dedicated to his cause, and so unable to muster the wit and energy necessary to construct sentences about it. OK, so it's some sort of cognitive problem. That's a shame, I feel for you. Since you can't form sentences to express your thoughts, I'll make it easier for you by giving you multiple choice. Just pick the one that describes your thinking.

      1) Fustakrakich knows that voting for a third party cannot possibly result in that third party candidate actually being elected, but does know that depriving one of the actually viable candidates of votes will result in that candidate's opponent being more likely to win. Thus Fustakrakich is actively choosing to support the person most likely to benefit from his action: Hillary Clinton. This is a conscious choice. Because Fustakrakich has to maintain his slashdot street cred by pretending he doesn't really support Hillary Clinton's long career display of lying and massive corruption, he's using this back-channel way of supporting her. His inability to simply say all of this reflects the depths of his embarrassment over his poor choice and his growing awareness that his entire philosophical stance is based on badly mixed premises and contradictions, and that saying anything out loud in his own words will expose him to having to reconcile his broken world view with reality - a process he finds too painful, which causes him to regress to juvenile insults and painfully bad ad hominem and hissy-fit foot stamping in order to distract from that dawning realization on his part. And so he childishly tries the "Well, just talk to my daddy! He'll explain what I mean!" tactic of refusing to articulate his own thoughts, and attempts to steer any expectations that he might be clear on the subject over to another person's writings, in hopes that that will somehow spare him from having to examine the fragile, self contradictory constructs on which he's built his thinking.

      2) Nah, there's no number two.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    48. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Let goooo...

      You better call your guru and tell him you forgot your mantra.

      I may (or may not) leave the last word to you, as you are merely becoming tiresome and repetitious.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    49. Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you wouldn't rather tell me you can't talk to strangers until they promise they've read a link that Hillary told you to show to people whenever they ask you questions? I mean, you've put in all this effort to avoid ever backing up your own position with thoughts of your own, so why stop? Unless it just feels good to you to admit you really don't have anything coherent to say about pretending to throw away your vote.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  19. Re:Slight Correction by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? It seems a lot of 'conservatives' have in the past found ways to avoid military service, even when the draft was active.

  20. How does he say this with a straight face? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And I decided that by reason of character, by reason of background, and experience, but also especially by reason of results, she would be the most qualified person to be president in January of 2017.

    What the fuck? Seriously? Anyone else who said this would burst out laughing. Hillary has zero character. Her background is rotten. Her results? Like what? Starting an undeclared war in Libya so her buddies could make money? This just doesn't pass the giggle check. How can educated people DO these things?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:How does he say this with a straight face? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      I had exactly the same reaction. Character? None. Background? She married Bill, carpetbagged her way into a New York senate seat, and got paid a bazillion dollars for "making speeches" to one percenters. Results? A middle east in flames.

      What? Boy, I sure wouldn't go with that list!

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    2. Re:How does he say this with a straight face? by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  21. Straight to the point. by meerling · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let's face it, your candidate sucks balls/ass/dick/like a $2 whore/whatever!
    They're all liars and politicians.
    One small caveat. Trump isn't a politician, he's a wannabe politician, which I rate even worse than an actual politician, but even if you don't, it's certainly in no way better.

    You wanna get upset and flame and troll and vent? I don't care, just realize that if you resort to name calling or making unverifiable or flatly false statements, you will be called out for it and prove yourself an unthinking fool for all the internet to know.

    If you stick to actual facts, I for one won't fault you for that. Facts are facts. But the B.S. flying around is really just making this whole place like a trailer park getting hit with a tornado that just went through the sewage plant. After all, you're supposed to be intelligent geeks, not foaming at the mouth rabid political sheep.

    Just so you know, I shall now ignore all threads on this subject now, as I expect the only thing that will be posted in reply to mine are either agreements, or more likely more rabid foam & spittle from the toxic sheep. Thanks for reading.

  22. I can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    He had to urge her to enter the presidential race?

    She hadn't been chomping at the bit and planning it since before her hubby was prez?

    Well knock me down with a feather.

  23. I never thought I would say this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about that libertarian candidate Gary Johnson guys?

    1. Re:I never thought I would say this... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, if you're looking for what is actually a lesser evil.

      He may or may not be an actual libertarian, but he got himself on the ballot in all 50 states. The anti Trump people can make good use of that without sacrificing their character by voting for Clinton. And if he gets enough votes, they can't lock the party out of future debates. I mean, they can, but suddenly changing the rules would be a pretty bad PR move.

      Let's hope he starts raising his voice once the conventions are finished and the two bettas start going after each other, and then like SPECTRE, he strikes.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Re:Who cares? by ZipK · · Score: 1

    Trump will restore law and order! He will Make America Safe Again!

    Who will make it safe from Trump? Who watches the Watchmen?

  25. Re:Who cares? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

    "No controlling legal authority" -- Al Gore "No one would prosecute"--James Comey Welcome to our new nobility!

  26. The political machine rewards its own ... by drnb · · Score: 1

    ... it has to piss Bernie Sanders supporters off ...

    Well, maybe because he's part of the political machine that rigged things in favor of Hillary and now he gets his reward for doing so. From the summary:
    "Kaine was an early supporter of Clinton's, appearing at a "Ready for Hillary" breakfast in May 2014 where he urged her to enter the 2016 presidential race ... In 2009, President Obama picked Kaine to lead the Democratic National Committee."

    He's just being paid for services rendered.

  27. Bold Move by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So she chose an anti-gun, pro-globalism, anti-women's civil rights, pro-collectivism candidate. Basically an Anti-Bernie Sanders.

    Yet she still expects Sanders' supporters to fall in line and kiss the ring in November.

    ... That's a bold play, lets see how it works out for her.

  28. Congradualations BeauHD! by phizi0n · · Score: 1

    You finally made a RELEVANT reference.

  29. Thanks, jerk! by felrom · · Score: 2

    Kaine told NBC in June that he "encouraged her to run in May of 2014, because I could telescope forward and see some of the challenges that this nation would be facing."

    A little warning of all of the terror attacks would have been nice.

  30. Your choice is absurd by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

    The libertarians are totally clueless on immigration. Even among Anglo-culture whites, their is limited enthusiasm for their ideas. Amongst non-Anglo non-whites there almost no support whatsoever.

    The libertarians are apparently content to ensure they remain marginal by being all in favor of importing an endless stream of folks who don't agree with them on anything.

    Wake up and smell the biodiversity! The evidence is right in front of you.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    1. Re:Your choice is absurd by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not all of us.

      https://mises.org/library/open...

      Or if you prefer to listen,

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      One suspects the support of "open borders" got into the supposed-libertarian platform by way of a metasticized "You can't tell me what to do!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  31. Re: Slight Correction by Type44Q · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm only seeing one sentence there, smart guy.

  32. Re:Who cares? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    That's not a fist it's a cankle

  33. Re: Who cares? by geekforhire · · Score: 1

    Easy to talk smack on someone you don't agree with but the Nazi comment is used when you got nada or you are just retarded.

    Saying you want to know who is entering your nation is not racist. Saying illegal immigration is a problem is not racist. Saying we have made horrible 'trade' deals that made Americans suffer isn't racist. Saying that we need to bring manufacturing jobs back from China isnt racist. Etc.

    But please...keep the eloquent commentary coming.

    I am old enough to see things from a different prospective, my father was in WWII, so I don't toss around 'nazi' lightly. Having a different opinion does not make you a nazi and to compare what happened not that long ago with someone that says things are out of control and we need to get a handle on it does not make them evil. I live close to the border with Mexico and shit is out of control. As in 'I cant go into that area of land I own or I will be shot at' put of control. And not just for Americans...for the poor souls that get treated like modern slaves since we have not enforced our laws, allowed them to come here and be underpaid and poorly treated by employers, and just look the other way while the businesses that abuse them avoid all scrutiny. But it wasn't always like that. Under Bush ICE actually went afyer the business and not the workers. But screw Bush, let the indentured servants just get fucked 'cus it sounds good on The Daily Show. Right? And lets just ignore the fact that we have a very open immigration policy in place. Think ours sucks? Try damn near anywhere else. Unless you bring something special to the table nearly everyone else will tell you to look elsewhere.

    Regardless of anyone's opinion of Trump I think that the fact that both sides are scared of him says a lot. Both sides are full of crap, corrupt, and don't give a shit about the people. And I will take that option over Clinton all day long.

    And frankly anyone that wants to shout down people that they disagree with are just useful idiots to politicians that make a fair living but retire with insanity levels of wealth.

    Disagree. It is good and needed, and frankly the issues we have today are the result of people not having civil discussions about our nation. But if your talking points are comments taken out of context, flat out lies, or 'fuck you nazi'....you are a fucking moron. And bonus 'fuck you' if you live with your parents, had zero or few jobs, and have never tried to start a business. Things start to look a lot different with experience.

    So make a point or fuck off. Sound bites and questionable 'quotes' are not a point. And if you think someone saying we need to fix a few things that are legitimate issues makes them a "Nazi" you need to read up on history a bit 'cus you are not participating. You are a pawn. See the DNC email leaks for examples. They talk about you a lot.

  34. "centrist" == right wing corporatist tool of MIC by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    At least the guy is well educated and experienced.

    So is the world's worst living war criminal.

    Not a dramatic choice - but a solid guy all the same.

    Solidly pro-life, which will undercut demagoguery from Stepford Democrats that ermagurd you must vote D to protect a woman's right to choose.

    but see the virtue in a low-key centrist technocrat

    The virtue of having his lips sewn to the sphincter of Goldman Sachs? He wants more deregulation of the banks, and (like Hillary) is pro-TPP.

  35. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see that a local member of the local National Socialist Deutch Arbeit Party has decided to make his obligatory appearance.
    Where would the internet be if not for you NSDAP boys?
    If you're looking for a socialist workers party to vote fo this election, your closest match is Hillary; she's not just in favor of the usual socialist workers party priorities, but she's aven in favor of uniting all of Europe under a german boot, and building up the agencies that spy on citizens. She thought she had her own personal enigma machine, but she misunderstood the instructions for how to wipe it.

  36. Re: have reasonable gun laws like New York City... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...have reasonable gun laws like New York City

    “Possession of a handgun within New York City requires a New York City handgun license or a special permit from the city police commissioner validating a state license within the city,” the NRA-ILA said. “Even New York state licenses are generally not valid within New York City unless a specific exemption applies, such as when the New York City police commissioner has issued a special permit to the licensee or 'the firearms covered by such license are being transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city of New York is continuous and uninterrupted.'"

    You need medical help. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.

    CAP === 'industry'

  37. Re:Who cares? by Z80a · · Score: 1

    That's actually an artificially grown skin to blend in better with the general population.

  38. Re:Slight Correction by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Absolutely right. Always have hypocrites in every walk of life. Like the southern baptist girls who get a "D&C" while mommy and daddy rant about abortion. And anti-gun columnists that shoot trespassers with their pistols. Plenty of do as I say not as I do on both sides.

  39. Re:Slight Correction by tomhath · · Score: 1

    George W. Bush was a fighter pilot, even though he well understood the dangers after his father (a bomber pilot) was shot down over the Pacific in WWII.

  40. Re:Running Mate? by lolococo · · Score: 1

    At first I thought they were going to mate while running. Oh, the horror!

  41. VP's are a Impeachment Shield anymore. by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

    The only reason the last few VP picks existed was for impeachment shields.

    No one would dare impeach Bush or Obama because the VP would be worse.

    It wouldn't surprise me if she gets an impeachment charge before her first year of office ends with Kaine as the VP. If she Chose Pelosi or Warren the Republicans would at least think about it before going forward. Even Bernie would have been a better shield and at least his followers would vote Clinton in the hopes that Bernie gets in through the back door instead of sitting back at home or voting Trump out of spite.

  42. This pick is a big middle finger to Bernie voters by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

    I knew she wouldn't PICK Bernie (as if he would have accepted), and had a strong feeling she wouldn't go with Warren (wouldn't want another woman with better progressive bonafides sharing her spotlight). But to go with Someone as pro-TPP and pro-establishment as Tim Kaine is an obvious sign that she is just assuming that the progressive wing of the electorate will just fall in line anyway, and that any concessions given to Sanders in the platform process will be tossed aside immediately after the election. Trying to court moderate repugs who dislike Trump is more important to her than solidifying her own party, especially when it might make the big $$$ donors uneasy.

    Between her VP pick and the latest Guccifer document dump detailing the DNC's program of sabotaging the Sanders campaign, I am hoping that Bernie takes a page from Ted Cruz' playbook and uses his keynote speech at the convention to urge progressive voters to vote their conscience, and go for Jill Stein!

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  43. Re:AND GOD CREATED THE EATHER AND by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Four days to make one star system, then copy-paste the rest?

  44. What's going on is reality is entering your bubble by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Many GOP candidates have been against TPP. A large number of Republicans re pro gay marriage.

    Basically Republicans have been on the right side of many arguments for some times, but that fact has been obscured by the media so you don't understand the true party of fascism really is. This election season, in large part because Trump is not afraid of the media disliking him, the mask is slipping, the Democrats think that power is so assured they no longer fear showing you just what they really support...

    After all, Hillary supports all of the same things her VP pick does.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  45. She's balancing out Bernie by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Bernie got _lot_ of concessions in the party platform. Like it or not she's got to balance that with the party's right wing. There's not enough left wing voters to get her in office. Also speaking of "Like it or not" there's Wall Street to consider. You can't just pretend those guys don't exist. You'll lose.

    Hilary's biggest problem is the same one Obama has: She's actually planning on governing. That means she has to compromise, form alliances and work within the system. The only way to really "tear down" the system is with horrible, horrible violence. That sounds nice when it's happening somewhere in the Middle East. Not so much when it's in your own city.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  46. Re:Hillarity by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    They has to be one of the most incoherent conspiracy theories ever. Seek psychiatric help.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  47. Re:This pick is a big middle finger to Bernie vote by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

    You seriously expected Hillary to pick a more progressive VP? Pandering to the progressive left wing will not work for Hillary. The ones that are still holding out, after $15 min wage (which as some one living in the midwest, I think is a huge mistake), and tuition-free education at state univ for those making under $125K, will never be satisfied by however far Hillary's pick is to the left. Also, a pro-establishment and part of the establishment candidate, will obviously pick a pro-establishment and part of the establishment running mate. That is the definition of establishment. Tell me you are not surprised by that.

    DNC's program of sabotaging the Sanders campaign

    Really? DNC worked with Hillary, and favored Hillary. Why should they not, when they dont decide the candidate, and the people do. Being part of the establishment does mean you get help from the establishment.

  48. The harvest isn't a make-work job. by westlake · · Score: 1

    we all know someone has to pick the peaches and no Americans want those jobs when they can sit home and draw a government check while they watch TV.

    This is ladder work, kids, in 95 degree heat.

    What you need to succeed in harvesting high-value perishables is a gentle touch, speed, stamina and experience.

    That makes it a young man's game. Migrant labor. You cannot do this part time and get any good at it at all. Oh, and you'll need a willingness to work for sub-minimal wages without meal breaks or other amenities which were common in industrial work about one hundred years back.

    Which is why seasonal recruitment from the urban welfare rolls never really works.

    ''For agriculture, one of our real differences if the country goes that way [increasing the minimum wage] is that exemptions really don't do us much good because we're competing in the marketplace with jobs that will be paying $15 an hour.''

    Presently, agriculture employees [in California] are exempted from labor code provisions regarding wage, hour, meal break and other working conditions. Known as the Phase-In Overtime for Agricultural Works Act of 2016, the new bill would remove this exemption and would create a schedule that would phase in overtime requirements for agricultural workers over the course of four years, beginning in 2017.

    Under the proposed legislation, beginning July 1, 2017, agricultural workers would receive overtime for all work after nine and one-half hours daily, or in excess of 55 hours in one work week. The thresholds for daily and weekly overtime would be further reduced each subsequent year until January 2020, at which point agricultural employees would receive overtime for work beyond eight hours a day or 40 hours weekly.

    Minimum wage brings headaches for growers

    1. Re:The harvest isn't a make-work job. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a job that's ripe for a pay increase, then.

  49. Bravo! Exactly correct! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am with you 100%. Here we have an election with two candidates, neither of whom I would trust to take out the trash at night, and both of whom should be in jail. And each of them has only the "Well I'm better than the alternative" as an argument in their favor.
    Well excuse me for noticing that there is a third alternative who is better than either. My Johnson/Weld signs are proudly displayed on my front Lawn and the bumper stickers are on the cars. I'm a lifelong Republican who at 57 is abandoning the party for the sinking ship it is and going with something better. Go Libertarian!

  50. Re: The Supreme Court of Sodom by denny_deluxe · · Score: 1

    So when your space boogeyman turns you to salt, can I have all your stuff?

  51. Re:This pick is a big middle finger to Bernie vote by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    DNC worked with Hillary, and favored Hillary. Why should they not, when they dont decide the candidate, and the people do.

    Why shouldn't they? Their own bylaws and rules (Article 5, Section 4) , for starters...

    http://www.demrulz.org/wp-cont...

    âoeThe Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.â

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  52. Nice strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    He DOES NOT say the problem is "the other".

    He says the problems are:

    1. Incompetent politicians making stupid, bad, thousand-page-long trade bills.

    2. Politicians and big businesses cooperating to import ILLEGAL laborers into America to push down wages

    3. Corrupt politicians not upholding their oaths and actually enforcing the laws on the books that require illegal aliens to be deported, and worse they actively unleash illegal alien criminals back into US society over and over and over again where thousands of aAmerican CITIZENS of ALL ethnicities have been killed, raped, mugged, etc

    4. Incompetent or corrupt politicians who have admitted there is no way to properly screen people from parts of the world currently ensnared in radical jihadi violence, are nonetheless importing thousands of people from those very ares into the country. Trump insists this must be stopped until governmenr becomes competent at screening them. Anybody claiming this constitutes a "permanent ban" are either lying or are admitting that politicians and bureaucrats will NEVER become competent, in which case all their talk about it already being safe to import these people with the current admitted phony screening is exposed as a lie.

    Since when did screening to block entry of jihadi whackos (people with a toxic and dangerous BELIEF system) constitute either racism or a general ooposition to "the other"?

    Since when did wanting to follow the law and eject people who ILLEGALLY enter a place (something people of all races do) while supporting LEGAL immigration constitute either racism or a general opposition to "the other"?

    The modern left appears to have no honest winning arguments and must always erect strawman arguments to knock down. People who do this might well have a great commitment to their opinions, but they have no confidence in the validity of their opinions.

    1. Re:Nice strawman argument by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are all about your fear of The Other. Number 1 too, once you go into it a layer.

  53. Just stop it. by PJ6 · · Score: 2

    Liberal: "I want someone who'll fight for me."
    Conservative: "I want someone who'll leave me the fuck alone."

    Dividing everything into 'liberal' versus 'conservative' is highly corrosive substantive discussion.

    And you could easily switch those quotes and have them work, by the way.

  54. I was half asleep and thought she picked McCain by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

    It was on the radio here, at 5am, and I was still half asleep. I only heard Clinton, running-mate and Cain, and I thought she had picked John McCain as running mate.

    I thought that was terribly terribly clever of her...

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?