What? My point is that he's complaining about Trump, who he calls a sociopath. The point is that the Clintons are the very definition of such, only worse - there's two of them, and they have a demonstrated history enriching themselves and otherwise abusing the power of public office.
Yeah. In practical terms... in California. This is news how, exactly? The Democrats campaigned for electoral votes, and so did their opponents. They took California for granted as they always do, because Californians - in enough numbers - are loyal servants to people like the Clintons. They were a given, and they were taken as such. That has nothing to do with the ongoing sweeping pummeling that the Democrat party has been feeling for years now, and which came home to roost especially this time around. Reflexively blue places went red. More Latinos, Muslims, and blacks voted against the Democrats this time around than last time around.
Consider California to be your measure of how "the voters" think if you want, please. PLEASE do that. Encourage more maneuvers like we just saw (Pelosi, once again in charge of the Democrat party's fortunes in the congress - fantastic! what a gift for the Republicans!), because that's going to mean even more of those up for grabs Senate seats abandoned by the Dems in just under two years. The "coming heavy" thing has already happened, and will continue to. Your assurance that the Democrats are somehow ready for that has already been proven false, in dramatic fashion.
It sure is nice to see authority mocked again — after eight years of any such mocking being racist.
And we just escaped it becoming sexist for another eight years...
No, it's still the same. Trump will be putting women and minorities in his cabinet, so mocking the administration is still going to be racist and sexist, don't worry.
Hah! Whew. That was funny. The media's standards on this, and hand-wringing-PC-SJW-liberal take on what's offensive or not is already so hysterically flipped around that they're getting mad at themselves. It's fantastic to watch.
stoking the worst bigotry and racial violence in North America in recent history
Out of curiosity, what do you think you're actually achieving by making stuff like that up? Really. I'm curious. I mean, YOU know you're lying, and WE know you're lying, so... who is it, specifically, that you think you're scoring points with? Truly. I've been really wondering what people repeating that meme think they're actually achieving. It's strange behavior, and I'm hoping you can shed some light on it.
And what exactly are you gonna do about that, you fuckwit?
Thank you for reinforcing his point so well.
If you come, you better come heavy.
The country did, including lots of Democrats thoroughly tired of the DNC's BS and the Dem power structure's utter contempt for the people it wants to rule. You know, in the voting booth. That's why the Democrats have lost the better part of a thousand legislative seats, governorships, both houses of congress, the executive branch, and shortly the prospect of a majority in the Supreme Court. Because they, as a party, talk and act just like you.
To paraphrase Trump himself, maybe the second amendment supporters can do something about it.
The second amendment supporters already DID do something about what he was talking about. They and their concern about Hillary Clinton's agenda with regard to the constitution was a huge motivator for that very active, cohesive group of voters. That includes a lot of Democrats who jumped ship of that and similar issues when it came to her platform and her history. That same group would only get together and work against Trump if he completely, 100% backtracked on his list of prospective SCOTUS judges and his specifics on his agenda (with regard to second amendment protections and the prosecution of law breakers). That's unlikely. He's not going to suddenly nominate someone hostile to the constitution.
Considering that Bill Clinton got impeached for not admitting publicly that he'd been cheating on his wife
Ah, some good ol' history being revised. This sort of rampant (still!) attempt at myth-making about the Clintons, and the fact that the rest of us see right through it and always have, is a big part of why the Clinton family wasn't just handed back the executive power to which they felt so entitled.
you don't believe in the 1st Amendment rights of every citizen
Yes, I believe in those rights. Every American is welcome to run a web site and communicate however else they like if they can afford to, or persuade other people to pitch in and help them if they make a good case. You have that right, right now. So do I. What you DON'T have is the right to force me to help you cover the costs you incur while you try to make other people interested in voting for you. Why do you think that other people should be your ideological slaves? Never mind, I think I know. You're a typical liberal/progressive, and think that everyone owes you the part of their day they'll have to work so you can be whatever you want. Why should YOU have to work if you want to be a poet or a politician, right? Right! The government should force other people to fund your Special Snowflake Party, so you don't have to actually convince anyone to support you willingly.
Please kill yourself, you're holding back the human race with your faggotry.
Yup, definitely a progressive. It's the only way you people know how to get political power - through hatred, violence, and intimidation. At least you're consistent, you little tyrants.
For this reason I wish that all candidates from all parties were given a set amount of money for their campaigns
But I don't want to give money to a Green Party candidate that is anti-science on matters like vaccinations and homeopathy. Why do you want to force me to spend part of my working year generating money that will be taken from me against my will to further such a cause?
allow voters to hear everyone's message
I don't want to hear from the Vampire Clown Party and their eight supporters. If they can muster enough supporters on their own to raise their media profile enough to get a persuasive message in front of me, I might take note. Regardless: Hillary Clinton and her media and entertainment industry apparatus spent several times as much money as Trump, and failed. Why do you think money is what makes the difference? She hugely out-spent Bernie Sanders, too, but almost lost to him.
In the UK one of the most successful retail chains is a cooperative.
And if a court, in a civil suit, finds that chain liable for some hideous amount of money because of actions (or slander, whatever)... the individual people who work in that chain of stores lose their personal houses, etc? When the chain's trademarks or other intellectual property is challenged, it's a court case involving every single employee of the chain? No. There is a legal entity that handles all such matters, and which shelters employees from financial wreckage because of disasters that occur in the course of doing business.
No, I get it. Those millions of jobs we're both talking about WOULD NOT EXIST without the legal constructs that allow people to form organizations that survive (for example) the death of the person who founds the business. And no... just because individual humans are involved in making (as examples) a highly specialized cancer drug or an advanced modern electric car doesn't mean it could happen without the pooled resources and solid structure of the corporate entity that brings it together (and which makes it possible for investors to be more willing to risk billions of dollars on those ventures).
Still society allows it in return for the money they get from corporations as corporate taxes.
No, society embraces incorporated entities because of all of the benefits such entities bring to the economy and to society. Millions of jobs. The products and services they provide. The enormous economic activity and tax revenue that comes indirectly from all of those employees, sales taxes, income taxes on the employees of the vendors who supply those companies, and so on.
You're also (deliberately, of course) pretending that it isn't just profit-seeking companies that are incorporated. Everything from the Red Cross to the Audubon Society to the NAACP and the NRA are all incorporated. So are trade unions, and that family dry cleaning operation down the street.
But every single racist person I know voted for Trump.
That's funny. Exactly the opposite, here. The absolutely worst racists I've ever met are all diehard Democracts and vote party line every time. I know easily a couple dozen of them. On the other hand, I also know dozens of classical good ol' boy types who are reflexively Republican voters, and they are the least racist people I've ever met.
You don't seem to understand that vetoes can be over ridden.
The Republicans do NOT have a large enough majority in the Senate to produce veto-proof legislation when the Democrats don't want them to. You do understand how that works, don't you? No?
By February of 2015 - just two months into the year - he'd said he'd veto 10 specific Republican pieces of legislation if they actually presented them to him.
In his 2015 State of The Union address, for example, he promised vetos of four different pieces of legislation.
This is typical of right wing lies as of late.
It's always funny when the person doing the lying is trying really hard to be believed by insisting that lies are the truth. But it's so easy to debunk lies like yours - why do you make them? Ah, you're doing it as an anonymous coward, because you know you're lying. Makes sense. The typical liberal response: cowardly and false.
Of course he hasn't issued many vetos. Why would he? When he plainly states that he will veto a bill he doesn't like, the legislature doesn't generally go to all of the trouble to push it through both houses, reconcile the versions, and then send him a completed one that he would then simply put in the trash with a veto. Why would they? They have no reason to think he's lying when he says he'll veto something. It's not exactly complicated.
And where did I use the word "everything?"
He's frequently said, "I'll veto any bill that [fill in the blank]" - as in, defunds ACA implementation, or doesn't approach immigration in the way he wants to, or presents a budget feature that doesn't provide for [thing he insists on X]. How are you not clear on this? He's made such remarks many, many times.
Considering people still voted for Republicans after their approach to governing for the past 8 years
Which approach was that? The one where the president promised to veto any legislation to their liking because the didn't have a veto-proof majority? That approach?
I'm still waiting for the Mavic Pro after ordering it over a month ago. Shouldn't they get their crap together before announcing another one?
Totally different products aimed at different users. Should GM's Chevy division hold off on Malibu deliveries because GMC is rolling out some new commercial truck bodies? Right.
If the topic is interesting to you, you'd already know.
It's no different than typically cryptic slashdot posts that, without any other context, do things like referring to Intel chipsets by their code names. "Throughput lag drop in Okefenokee completely eclipses last year's Salt Lake, turning all eyes towards upcoming Atchafalaya."
Because they also decided to disagree with things that Obama hadn't even said yet.
Because they very reasonably concluded that someone who highlighted as his policy priorities a laundry list of unacceptable (to them) agenda items was not someone behind whom they wanted to provide their political support - exactly the opposite. You'll also notice that there were many legislative areas where they DID get some collective work done, because that was the basic housekeeping stuff that had to be done. They said they'd work to put the breaks on his entire partisan political agenda because he (Obama) spelled out what his agenda looked like, and his willingness to "use his pen" to get around working with the legislature on matters about which he knew they were and would remain at odds. It's not complicated. He said he was opposed to them, their party, and their agenda - he RAN on that assessment - and they said exactly the same thing. Why the hand wringing?
I'm a Republican. But that doesn't prevent me from criticizing my Party when they do stupid things, like meet on Pres Obama's Inauguration Day and decide to Say No to everything he does or tries to do. That was verified by the Republican strategist who called that meeting.
And why shouldn't they have? Obama told them what he wanted to do, and they disagreed with essentially all of it. Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government. Obama said he was going to transform everything and do everything he could to steer policy and legislation away from his political opponents' wishes. But you're apologizing that your own party basically said, "Too bad, it's a two way street."
Slashdot Mirror
What? My point is that he's complaining about Trump, who he calls a sociopath. The point is that the Clintons are the very definition of such, only worse - there's two of them, and they have a demonstrated history enriching themselves and otherwise abusing the power of public office.
Except more voters chose the Democrat.
Yeah. In practical terms... in California. This is news how, exactly? The Democrats campaigned for electoral votes, and so did their opponents. They took California for granted as they always do, because Californians - in enough numbers - are loyal servants to people like the Clintons. They were a given, and they were taken as such. That has nothing to do with the ongoing sweeping pummeling that the Democrat party has been feeling for years now, and which came home to roost especially this time around. Reflexively blue places went red. More Latinos, Muslims, and blacks voted against the Democrats this time around than last time around.
Consider California to be your measure of how "the voters" think if you want, please. PLEASE do that. Encourage more maneuvers like we just saw (Pelosi, once again in charge of the Democrat party's fortunes in the congress - fantastic! what a gift for the Republicans!), because that's going to mean even more of those up for grabs Senate seats abandoned by the Dems in just under two years. The "coming heavy" thing has already happened, and will continue to. Your assurance that the Democrats are somehow ready for that has already been proven false, in dramatic fashion.
It sure is nice to see authority mocked again — after eight years of any such mocking being racist.
And we just escaped it becoming sexist for another eight years...
No, it's still the same. Trump will be putting women and minorities in his cabinet, so mocking the administration is still going to be racist and sexist, don't worry.
Hah! Whew. That was funny. The media's standards on this, and hand-wringing-PC-SJW-liberal take on what's offensive or not is already so hysterically flipped around that they're getting mad at themselves. It's fantastic to watch.
stoking the worst bigotry and racial violence in North America in recent history
Out of curiosity, what do you think you're actually achieving by making stuff like that up? Really. I'm curious. I mean, YOU know you're lying, and WE know you're lying, so ... who is it, specifically, that you think you're scoring points with? Truly. I've been really wondering what people repeating that meme think they're actually achieving. It's strange behavior, and I'm hoping you can shed some light on it.
And what exactly are you gonna do about that, you fuckwit?
Thank you for reinforcing his point so well.
If you come, you better come heavy.
The country did, including lots of Democrats thoroughly tired of the DNC's BS and the Dem power structure's utter contempt for the people it wants to rule. You know, in the voting booth. That's why the Democrats have lost the better part of a thousand legislative seats, governorships, both houses of congress, the executive branch, and shortly the prospect of a majority in the Supreme Court. Because they, as a party, talk and act just like you.
To paraphrase Trump himself, maybe the second amendment supporters can do something about it.
The second amendment supporters already DID do something about what he was talking about. They and their concern about Hillary Clinton's agenda with regard to the constitution was a huge motivator for that very active, cohesive group of voters. That includes a lot of Democrats who jumped ship of that and similar issues when it came to her platform and her history. That same group would only get together and work against Trump if he completely, 100% backtracked on his list of prospective SCOTUS judges and his specifics on his agenda (with regard to second amendment protections and the prosecution of law breakers). That's unlikely. He's not going to suddenly nominate someone hostile to the constitution.
Because Donald Trump is technically a sociopath?
Then you must be REALLY relieved that the Clintons didn't get the executive power they were hungry to regain.
Considering that Bill Clinton got impeached for not admitting publicly that he'd been cheating on his wife
Ah, some good ol' history being revised. This sort of rampant (still!) attempt at myth-making about the Clintons, and the fact that the rest of us see right through it and always have, is a big part of why the Clinton family wasn't just handed back the executive power to which they felt so entitled.
Hey, look! Another deluded, crazy, violent liberal!
you don't believe in the 1st Amendment rights of every citizen
Yes, I believe in those rights. Every American is welcome to run a web site and communicate however else they like if they can afford to, or persuade other people to pitch in and help them if they make a good case. You have that right, right now. So do I. What you DON'T have is the right to force me to help you cover the costs you incur while you try to make other people interested in voting for you. Why do you think that other people should be your ideological slaves? Never mind, I think I know. You're a typical liberal/progressive, and think that everyone owes you the part of their day they'll have to work so you can be whatever you want. Why should YOU have to work if you want to be a poet or a politician, right? Right! The government should force other people to fund your Special Snowflake Party, so you don't have to actually convince anyone to support you willingly.
Please kill yourself, you're holding back the human race with your faggotry.
Yup, definitely a progressive. It's the only way you people know how to get political power - through hatred, violence, and intimidation. At least you're consistent, you little tyrants.
For this reason I wish that all candidates from all parties were given a set amount of money for their campaigns
But I don't want to give money to a Green Party candidate that is anti-science on matters like vaccinations and homeopathy. Why do you want to force me to spend part of my working year generating money that will be taken from me against my will to further such a cause?
allow voters to hear everyone's message
I don't want to hear from the Vampire Clown Party and their eight supporters. If they can muster enough supporters on their own to raise their media profile enough to get a persuasive message in front of me, I might take note. Regardless: Hillary Clinton and her media and entertainment industry apparatus spent several times as much money as Trump, and failed. Why do you think money is what makes the difference? She hugely out-spent Bernie Sanders, too, but almost lost to him.
In the UK one of the most successful retail chains is a cooperative.
And if a court, in a civil suit, finds that chain liable for some hideous amount of money because of actions (or slander, whatever) ... the individual people who work in that chain of stores lose their personal houses, etc? When the chain's trademarks or other intellectual property is challenged, it's a court case involving every single employee of the chain? No. There is a legal entity that handles all such matters, and which shelters employees from financial wreckage because of disasters that occur in the course of doing business.
Citation: Open your damn eyes. It's self evident.
No, I get it. Those millions of jobs we're both talking about WOULD NOT EXIST without the legal constructs that allow people to form organizations that survive (for example) the death of the person who founds the business. And no ... just because individual humans are involved in making (as examples) a highly specialized cancer drug or an advanced modern electric car doesn't mean it could happen without the pooled resources and solid structure of the corporate entity that brings it together (and which makes it possible for investors to be more willing to risk billions of dollars on those ventures).
Still society allows it in return for the money they get from corporations as corporate taxes.
No, society embraces incorporated entities because of all of the benefits such entities bring to the economy and to society. Millions of jobs. The products and services they provide. The enormous economic activity and tax revenue that comes indirectly from all of those employees, sales taxes, income taxes on the employees of the vendors who supply those companies, and so on.
You're also (deliberately, of course) pretending that it isn't just profit-seeking companies that are incorporated. Everything from the Red Cross to the Audubon Society to the NAACP and the NRA are all incorporated. So are trade unions, and that family dry cleaning operation down the street.
Not all Trump voters are racists.
But every single racist person I know voted for Trump.
That's funny. Exactly the opposite, here. The absolutely worst racists I've ever met are all diehard Democracts and vote party line every time. I know easily a couple dozen of them. On the other hand, I also know dozens of classical good ol' boy types who are reflexively Republican voters, and they are the least racist people I've ever met.
You don't seem to understand that vetoes can be over ridden.
The Republicans do NOT have a large enough majority in the Senate to produce veto-proof legislation when the Democrats don't want them to. You do understand how that works, don't you? No?
Obama never said that.
By February of 2015 - just two months into the year - he'd said he'd veto 10 specific Republican pieces of legislation if they actually presented them to him.
In his 2015 State of The Union address, for example, he promised vetos of four different pieces of legislation.
This is typical of right wing lies as of late.
It's always funny when the person doing the lying is trying really hard to be believed by insisting that lies are the truth. But it's so easy to debunk lies like yours - why do you make them? Ah, you're doing it as an anonymous coward, because you know you're lying. Makes sense. The typical liberal response: cowardly and false.
he also has not vetoed much of anything
Of course he hasn't issued many vetos. Why would he? When he plainly states that he will veto a bill he doesn't like, the legislature doesn't generally go to all of the trouble to push it through both houses, reconcile the versions, and then send him a completed one that he would then simply put in the trash with a veto. Why would they? They have no reason to think he's lying when he says he'll veto something. It's not exactly complicated.
And where did I use the word "everything?"
He's frequently said, "I'll veto any bill that [fill in the blank]" - as in, defunds ACA implementation, or doesn't approach immigration in the way he wants to, or presents a budget feature that doesn't provide for [thing he insists on X]. How are you not clear on this? He's made such remarks many, many times.
If the RNC had done their job we wouldn't have a fascist in the White House.
You're kind of foggy on the whole what-words-mean thing, aren't you.
Considering people still voted for Republicans after their approach to governing for the past 8 years
Which approach was that? The one where the president promised to veto any legislation to their liking because the didn't have a veto-proof majority? That approach?
I'm still waiting for the Mavic Pro after ordering it over a month ago. Shouldn't they get their crap together before announcing another one?
Totally different products aimed at different users. Should GM's Chevy division hold off on Malibu deliveries because GMC is rolling out some new commercial truck bodies? Right.
am I expected to know what this is about?
If the topic is interesting to you, you'd already know.
It's no different than typically cryptic slashdot posts that, without any other context, do things like referring to Intel chipsets by their code names. "Throughput lag drop in Okefenokee completely eclipses last year's Salt Lake, turning all eyes towards upcoming Atchafalaya."
Because they also decided to disagree with things that Obama hadn't even said yet.
Because they very reasonably concluded that someone who highlighted as his policy priorities a laundry list of unacceptable (to them) agenda items was not someone behind whom they wanted to provide their political support - exactly the opposite. You'll also notice that there were many legislative areas where they DID get some collective work done, because that was the basic housekeeping stuff that had to be done. They said they'd work to put the breaks on his entire partisan political agenda because he (Obama) spelled out what his agenda looked like, and his willingness to "use his pen" to get around working with the legislature on matters about which he knew they were and would remain at odds. It's not complicated. He said he was opposed to them, their party, and their agenda - he RAN on that assessment - and they said exactly the same thing. Why the hand wringing?
I'm a Republican. But that doesn't prevent me from criticizing my Party when they do stupid things, like meet on Pres Obama's Inauguration Day and decide to Say No to everything he does or tries to do. That was verified by the Republican strategist who called that meeting.
And why shouldn't they have? Obama told them what he wanted to do, and they disagreed with essentially all of it. Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government. Obama said he was going to transform everything and do everything he could to steer policy and legislation away from his political opponents' wishes. But you're apologizing that your own party basically said, "Too bad, it's a two way street."