Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 27, 2017

President Donald Trump made a joke about his nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Pocahontas," during an event honoring Native Americans Monday at the White House. Trump was speaking to recognize Native American Code Talkers who served during World War II when he made a remark about Warren. ″You were here long before any of us were here," Trump said during the event. "Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas." ... Trump made his comments Monday while standing in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the former president who signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that resulted in the tragic Trail of Tears.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Warren responded on MSNBC shortly after Trump made the comments.

"This was supposed to be an event to honor heroes, people who put it all on the line for our country, and people who because of their incredible work saved the lives of countless Americans and our allies," Warren told host Ali Veshi.

"It is deeply unfortunate that the president of the United States cannot even make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without having to throw out a racial slur, but Donald Trump does this over and over thinking somehow he's going to shut me up with it," Warren continued. "It hasn't worked in the past. It is not going to work in the future.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Whatever is eating this man must be one voracious mother.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-27 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The base is gonna love this.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 03:58 PM | Reply

just a bunch of injuns anyway.

trump voters

#3 | Posted by cjk85 at 2017-11-27 04:04 PM | Reply

Stay classy Trumpers...

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-11-27 04:14 PM | Reply

Heil Drumpf!

donaldjdrumpf.com

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 04:16 PM | Reply

Drumpfinator

"Add this app to your Chrome browser and replace all instances of "Trump" with "Drumpf."

chrome.google.com

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 04:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The Code Talkers were heard to respond on a hot mike:

"Orange man speak with forked tongue!"

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 04:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Well, one thing Trump's never been accused of is being a straight arrow.

#8 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-27 04:59 PM | Reply


... They call her Pocahontas. ...

Pres Trump is the only politician I've heard use that name in reference to Sen Warren.

Is he such a small person that he cannot even take responsibility for the insult he hurls at someone?

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-27 05:24 PM | Reply

What a farging ice hole.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-27 06:05 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Dotard likes nicknames.

Dotard is a Pocabuttho.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-27 06:13 PM | Reply

"Making fun of someone that is not of Native American that claimed that they were to gain economic advantages is racist."

Close enough.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 06:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Just trying to keep up with the latest liberal mental disorder.

What a worthless life you must live.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-27 07:01 PM | Reply

Just trying to keep up with the latest liberal mental disorder.

You mean you're just trying to find a way to claim liberals occupy the same moral cesspool you do.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 07:04 PM | Reply

#16 | Posted by MidtownLandlord at 2017-11-27 07:12 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

That train left years ago.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-27 07:16 PM | Reply

Show me please where Elizebeth Warren has been caught lying about anything. As far as I know, her claim is valid. Has she ever been charged with fraud or been reprimanded by any official office or just Fox News?

#20 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-11-27 07:49 PM | Reply

Nowhere in that article does it say she lied or that she was punished or benefitted from doing so. She claims that according to her family history, she has a distant relative that was Indian. Could be true, could not, even the article you linked to says she never tried to use that information to scam anyone. Why does her claim freak people out?

#22 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-11-27 08:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump pretends he is Christian and the wing dings don't bat an eyelash.

#23 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 08:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump, the patron saint of money laundering and rape.
- the prosperity testament

#24 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 08:43 PM | Reply

"It says that she made an unsubstantiated claim that she was Cherokee."

Did it say that she accrued financial gain from her creative use of the First Amendment?
Because you said that.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:00 PM | Reply

"Just so I can understand the next twist in the logic, can you please explain to me the difference between Warren and Rachel Doleazal? "

Can you explain to me the other names you post here with?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:00 PM | Reply

"politicians are never punished for lying so don't be naive."

Bill Clinton has a truth to tell you.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 09:02 PM | Reply

"We are talking about immutable characteristics here that are claimed for economic advantage."

You're talking that. I don't think it happened. Look into it.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:04 PM | Reply

#29 You have a problem with liberals claiming they are something when they are not, but no problem when cons do that. Hypocrite.

.ps We are all Africans if you go back far enough. Race is nonsense.

#31 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 09:13 PM | Reply

Midtownlandlord-

If trump is not racist explain to me why he called venezuelan alicia machado "miss housekeeping".

Thanks.

#32 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-11-27 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pres Trump is the only politician I've heard use that name in reference to Sen Warren.

Remarks like this show beyond any doubt that Donald Trump is a bigoted piece of ----. His followers know this, so if they're still supporting him they're turds of a feather.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-27 09:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Show me please where Elizebeth Warren has been caught lying about anything. As far as I know, her claim is valid.

There has never been any proof she lied. There has never been any proof she sought advantage. All she did was claim Native American heritage based on what her family believed, due to her pride in this aspect of her family lore.

My grandmother believed she had a Cherokee ancestor but never had any proof. According to Republican logic this made her a proven liar.

So Republicans who attack Warren over this can go to hell.

#34 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-27 09:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 12

I am sure all the idiotic trump suckers slapped each other on the ass and did a high five over this.

a bunch of cretin racist dirt bags

#35 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-11-27 10:18 PM | Reply


Native American leaders say Trump's "Pocahontas" remark was "slur"
www.axios.com

...Navajo Nation, the National Congress of American Indians, and John Norwood, general secretary of the Alliance of Colonial Era Tribes, all spoke on President Trump calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" at a Monday event honoring Navajo war heroes, calling the remark insensitive. Norwood said the comment "smacks of racism," and Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said it was "culturally insensitive."

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has said Warren's characterization of the remark as an "ethnic slur" was "a ridiculous response."

Begaye, per the Chicago Tribune: "In this day and age, all tribal nations still battle insensitive references to our people. The prejudice that Native American people face is an unfortunate historical legacy." He noted that the Navajo Nation is still honored by Monday's White House ceremony.

Norwood, per NBC: "The reference is using a historic American Indian figure as a derogatory insult and that's insulting to all American Indians." The President should "stop using our historical people of significance as a racial slur against one of his opponents."

National Congress of American Indians, per NBC: "We regret that the president's use of the name Pocahontas as a slur to insult a political adversary is overshadowing the true purpose of today's White House ceremony. Today was about recognizing the remarkable courage and invaluable contributions of our Native code talkers."...


#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-27 10:32 PM | Reply

"Native American leaders say Trump's "Pocahontas" remark was "slur""

So? Sarah Huckster Sanders said it wasn't.

Who you gonna listen to: actual Native Americans, or the pack of 8th Graders currently running the country?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 10:37 PM | Reply

What a moron. Wow. What a moron!

#38 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-27 10:40 PM | Reply

I am sure all the idiotic trump suckers slapped each other on the ass and did a high five over this.
a bunch of cretin racist dirt bags

#35 | POSTED BY PUNCHYPOSSUM

From the Nooner:

Pocahontas!!! ROTFLMAO!!
God I love Trump!!

#33 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yeup.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 10:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has said Warren's characterization of the remark as an "ethnic slur" was "a ridiculous response."

No, that's not ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that that she-beast was ever let out from under her bridge. God daaaaaaaayyyuuumm.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 10:44 PM | Reply

Stay classy, you orange fool.

#41 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-11-27 11:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"some faux White Privileged "Indian" abusing Affirmative Action and taking a slot from a real native American-Indian."

Do you have proof that happened, other than in your fevered dreams?

"Proving yet again Liberals care more about politics than the underprivileged, poor, and minorities."

Bwahahaha! All that "proves" is you're still willing to barf stuff and pretend it came out of other people's mouths.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 11:09 PM | Reply

"some faux White Privileged "Indian" abusing Affirmative Action and taking a slot from a real native American-Indian."

This is really a thing that happened on Planet Earth?
Please, go on!

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 11:10 PM | Reply

#42 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

And the right's response proves yet again that they're classless shills, for whom no conduct is too low or pathetic.

Stay gropey, my friend.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 11:14 PM | Reply

www.snopes.com

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-27 11:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jesus, WTF was he talking about?

"I like you.....you're special"

What a douchenozzle.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-27 11:29 PM | Reply

Jesus, WTF was he talking about?

It's what his father tells him every night in his dreams.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-28 12:07 AM | Reply

Wow! All these accusations against a sitting senator without one iota of proof? Where's ty he Right's standards to facts of evidence and proof? Diligently treading a thin, Red line? Appears so.

How despicable.

#51 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-28 12:55 AM | Reply

"We are talking about immutable characteristics here that are claimed for economic advantage."
You're talking that. I don't think it happened. Look into it.

#30 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT

Nonsense.

They saw a facebook meme about it.

That makes it gospel.

#52 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-28 05:14 AM | Reply

Show me please where Elizebeth Warren has been caught lying about anything. As far as I know, her claim is valid. Has she ever been charged with fraud or been reprimanded by any official office or just Fox News?

#20 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2017-11-27 07:49 PM | FLAG:

She's repeating something her grandmother told her, with no actual proof beyond hear-say.

The claim itself is not unique to her or her grandmother. It's racist cultural appropriation that was very common to her grandmother's generation.

#53 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 08:55 AM | Reply

"She's repeating something her grandmother told her, with no actual proof beyond hear-say."

And how many things told by our parents would turn out the same way? I've got family stories I've heard and believed over the years: for example, my maternal great grandfather owned the quarry which provided the rock for a famous bridge. Did that really happen? Heck if I know, but I've heard it and repeated it.

Elizabeth Warren is from Oklahoma, which had the largest percentage of Native American descendants than any other state. Hearing (and believing) what she's been told by all her ancestors, repeatedly, seems decidedly...human.

In addition, there are multiple examples of Warren having a chance to claim minority status, and she passed. If gain were her motive, we'd see no passes. Con's don't pass up an easy con.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 09:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There has never been any proof she lied. There has never been any proof she sought advantage. All she did was claim Native American heritage based on what her family believed, due to her pride in this aspect of her family lore.
My grandmother believed she had a Cherokee ancestor but never had any proof. According to Republican logic this made her a proven liar.
So Republicans who attack Warren over this can go to hell.

#34 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-27 09:52 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 10

My grandmother did as well. She says HER grandmother was Cherokee, but all she had as proof was a photo. I have the photo now in a frame in my living room. The lady sure looks Native American, but my dad, who did a genealogical search, was never able to confirm it. Doesn't mean it's not true, but record-keeping in those days left much to be desired.

#55 | Posted by cbob at 2017-11-28 09:12 AM | Reply

But here's the issue: Even if Warren was wrong about her ethnic heritage, Trump's use of the term "Pocahontas" during a ceremony to honor the heroic actions of Native Americans is classless and puerile. As he is every time he opens his mouth. Trump can never pass up an opportunity to get a dig in, to score points on the imaginary scorecard in his grade-school brain.

#56 | Posted by cbob at 2017-11-28 09:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If they were offended they should have walked out. Trump is as dumb as a dog. If you wait to correct him, he probably isn't going to understand what he did.

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 09:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trump is as dumb as a dog."

I have a 6-month old puppy with more brains. And gravitas.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 09:23 AM | Reply

#56 THIS.

A vastly more accurate statement than calling his use of Pocahontas an ethnic slur. I'm sure that there are a lot of native Americans out there who do NOT view Pocahontas (the real one) in a negative light and therefore invoking her name would not be an ethnic slur.

#55 An astonishing number of Americans today believe they have Cherokee in their ancestry. My mom trotted that factoid out like a Christmas turkey every chance she got. It has a lot to do with the westward expansion moving through what was traditional Cherokee territory.

#59 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 09:30 AM | Reply

seems decidedly...human.

#54 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-11-28 09:03 AM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY

Well, yeah. That's how racist myths perpetuate. They are interwoven into the fabric of our society. If you're from South Carolina you'll get the Cherokee myth. If your roots are in NW Texas it's more likely to be a Commanche myth. It's a common myth with regional variations rooted in racial caricature.

#60 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 09:44 AM | Reply

For anybody with a little bit of propriety, this comment was inappropriate and totally un-called for.

But there was laughing in every trailer park in the US.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 09:55 AM | Reply

I voted for Johnson. If you didn't, you can blame yourself for Trump.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 09:56 AM | Reply

So Mustang, it's good to know that you support a rude, classless, jerk. You must feel so proud of helping elect him.

#63 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-11-28 10:10 AM | Reply

I may as well have made up a name for my own car and wrote it on my ballot. My own car had as much chance of winning as the person who I voted for.

#62 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Fixed.

#64 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-28 10:18 AM | Reply

#62

Just curious. How do you figure only Johnston supporters carry no responsibility?

#65 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-11-28 10:22 AM | Reply

#56 pretty much nails it.

Very telling that during a ceremony honoring war vets all he can see, because of their background, is an opportunity to trot out the same tired dig he's been using on Warren.

He puts his petty feuds above all else.

Drives me crazy that ----- cheer him on for going after the NFL players when none of them are as disrespectful towards veterans as he has been. This is another example of his lack of respect for veterans.

#66 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 10:25 AM | Reply

I voted for Johnson. If you didn't, you can blame yourself for Trump.

#62 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-11-28 09:56 AM |

No Buckwheat. Everyone who did not vote for Hillary voted in absentia for Trump

Gary Johnson was just as bad as Trump. Being pro-pot isn't enough to overcome his stupid

#67 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-28 10:42 AM | Reply

Trump can never pass up an opportunity to get a dig in, to score points on the imaginary scorecard in his grade-school brain.

Well said. Giving a broken person like Trump the nukes is the biggest risk humanity has taken in my lifetime.

#68 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 10:49 AM | Reply

No Buckwheat. Everyone who did not vote for Hillary voted in absentia for Trump
#67 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

Explain to us in detail how that werks, Alfalfa.

#69 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-28 10:49 AM | Reply

I voted for Johnson. If you didn't, you can blame yourself for Trump.
#62 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

That's like being told you have cancer and instead of choosing to fight it with chemo, you chose to order some french fries for lunch and then claim its not your fault the cancer killed you.

#70 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No Buckwheat. Everyone who did not vote for Hillary voted in absentia for Trump
#67 | POSTED BY HATTER5183
Explain to us in detail how that werks, Alfalfa.

#69 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Read 70. You can pretend all you want that voting for Johnson didn't help Trump. But you wasted your chance to elect someone else. That's fact.

#71 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 10:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#63 I don't, but I have this thing about not being able to watch hypocrites without saying something, and I have a real bug in my butt about watching 80% of Americans fall for semantically spun hyperbolic bullcrap. Trump is crude, classless, thin-skinned, and a bully - but he's not a fascist and he's right about Liz Warren. Hillary is a war-hawk, professional prevaricator, political profiteer, and has the moral compass of a shrew. I refused to vote for either one of them because I have principles.

#72 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 10:52 AM | Reply

Hillary is a war-hawk, professional prevaricator, political profiteer, and has the moral compass of a shrew.
#72 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Since neither Trump nor Clinton ever invaded anyone, I'm not sure about war-hawk. But otherwise you just described Trump.

Also glad you didn't vote for Trump but all you did was ensure the greater of two evils won. Good job.

#73 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 10:56 AM | Reply

Everyone who did not vote for Hillary voted in absentia for Trump

Using your 'logic', Trump carried all 50 states in a landslide. 40% of American didn't show up to vote, and according to you, that's an additional 40% to Trump.

#74 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nothing says you can be believed and know what you are talking about quite like pretending to know what native Americans are thinking while admitting the only native American they know is -------- faker who spewed "factoids" on holidays.

#75 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-28 11:00 AM | Reply

"That's like being told you have cancer and instead of choosing to fight it with chemo, you chose to order some french fries for lunch and then claim its not your fault the cancer killed you." - #70 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 10:50 AM

I'd be willing to bet that's exactly what Ray's pig farmer "medical" source recommends: French fries instead of chemo.

#76 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-28 11:00 AM | Reply

#73 Only one of them voted to invade Iraq, Syco. See the part about being a professional prevaricator before you claim she was tricked into doing so. If she had NOT been a well-known warhawk, she might have lured some of the Bernie supporters over to her side.

#77 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 11:02 AM | Reply

"Everyone who did not vote for Hillary voted in absentia for Trump"
Using your 'logic', Trump carried all 50 states in a landslide. 40% of American didn't show up to vote, and according to you, that's an additional 40% to Trump.

#74 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

I don't think that's the logic at all.

The logic is that you wasted your chance to stop Trump.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

#78 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"... because I have principles." - #72 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag: Now Comes the Part Where We Throw Our Heads Back and Laugh!

#79 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-28 11:03 AM | Reply

#73 ..and for clarification, Trump is an amateur prevaricator. If he was a professional, he'd be better at it.

#80 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 11:03 AM | Reply

I voted for Johnson. If you didn't, you can blame yourself for Trump.

The only way a vote for Johnson plays a role in stopping Trump is if you always vote Republican. You would be taking a vote away from Trump.

If you don't always vote Republican, you had one shot to stop Trump -- a vote for Hillary -- and didn't take it.

Trump is so much worse than any president in our lifetime that even to her biggest critics, President Hillary Clinton should sound pretty damn good by comparison.

#81 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 11:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re# 71 - #70 is blabber that explains nothing. Math easily disproves your asinine claim. You should vet your silly claims before posting them considering grade school addition proves you wrong.

#82 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 11:03 AM | Reply

"Only one of them voted to invade Iraq...." - #77 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 11:02 AM

If you didn't have mis-characterization you'd have no character at all.

#83 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-28 11:04 AM | Reply

#78 No, that is EXACTLY the logic. Hatter said if you didn't vote for Hillary, you voted for Trump. In addition to those who actually voted for Trump, 40% voted for nobody. Hatter said that's a vote for Trump. That's how logic works.

#84 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 11:06 AM | Reply

#75 Once again, you prove the axiom that 'reading is fundamental'. You have the comprehension skills of a 3rd grader with ADHD.

#85 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 11:07 AM | Reply

Re# 71 - #70 is blabber that explains nothing. Math easily disproves your asinine claim. You should vet your silly claims before posting them considering grade school addition proves you wrong.

#82 | POSTED BY SULLY

Blabber or perfect legit argument. You wasted your vote. You could have voted for Mickey Mouse and contributed as much.

You had a chance to choose a lesser evil. You chose to let the greater evil win.

Good job.

#86 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:09 AM | Reply

#78 No, that is EXACTLY the logic. Hatter said if you didn't vote for Hillary, you voted for Trump. In addition to those who actually voted for Trump, 40% voted for nobody. Hatter said that's a vote for Trump. That's how logic works.

#84 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

I think you are trying to take his argument verbatim... And that's just plain ridiculous.

Is that your only defense?

#87 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The logic is that you wasted your chance to stop Trump." - #78 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:02 AM

Yep:

Only A or B will win a state
✔ Voting for A helps A win that state
✘ Voting for anyone other than A hurts A's chances to win that state and therefore helps B... because
Only A or B will win a state
Logic.

#88 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-28 11:10 AM | Reply

The Cowboys play the Redskins this weekend. I'm going to bet $100 on the Vikings because I don't like either team.

That's the logic behind voting for Johnson.

#89 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Look, if I'm in a room with 100 people and we are choosing what pizza we all have to eat. I know 45 are voting for Cyanide on our pizza. The other two choices are anchovies and pepperoni. I can be damn sure I'm going to vote for pepperoni even if I hate pepperoni because I want to maximize my chances of not having to eat cyanide.

A vote for Johnson is like a vote for anchovies.

#90 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This tribalism is hysterical.

#91 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 11:15 AM | Reply

--The Cowboys play the Redskins this weekend.

They will probably get blown-out, like most games this season.

#92 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-28 11:17 AM | Reply

This tribalism is hysterical.

#91 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Why do you assume we like Hillary? Is it your tribalism speaking? Everyone who disagrees with Trump like Hillary?

#93 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:17 AM | Reply

"This tribalism is hysterical." - #91 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 11:15 AM

Tribalism?

Is this your attempt at humor in light of Trump's "Pocahontas" comment?

#94 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-28 11:23 AM | Reply

#81 Rcade: I'm disappointed that you chose to play the angle that if a person did not vote for your chosen candidate they are therefore responsible for Trump. That argument both cheapens and misrepresents through gross simplification so much about Trump's rise to power. Too bad that HRC supporters are choosing to pursue that line. Whatever.

#95 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-28 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Is that your only defense"

its purpose is to tire you into submission via an avalanche of --------

#97 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-28 11:26 AM | Reply

#94 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-11-28 11:23 AM | FLAG:

If you have to ask, you won't get it.

#98 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 11:33 AM | Reply

You silly-willies.
Tang has never supported Trump, he just makes excuses for everything he does and repeats the talking points verbatim

It's sort of like being a "not racists" while constantly spewing racists garbage.

#99 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-28 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#99 You realize there isn't going to be a Christmas payment for that space I occupy in your watery noggin, right?

#101 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 11:50 AM | Reply

Why do you assume we like Hillary?

#93 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 11:17 AM

Maybe because you posted this in defense of Hillary on the Susan Sarandon Thread:

No no, she's taking heat for saying something ridiculously stupid.

#2 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-27 05:44 PM

And then failed to specify what Susan said about Hillary that you considered "ridiculously stupid."

#102 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-28 11:56 AM | Reply

"Just curious. How do you figure only Johnston supporters carry no responsibility?"

I was being facetious...I guess sarcasm doesn't convey well over the internet. GJ was my fave as a candidate, but I would have voted for Hillary, twice, had I thought that Trump had any real chance of getting elected.

#103 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 11:59 AM | Reply

#85 Moder8- My chosen candidate did not win the primary. On the eve of the election, it became clear (to both me and you) via polling that only one candidate was capable of preventing a Donald Trump presidency. As repugnant as I found that candidate to be, the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency was so hideous to me (and is proving to be even worse than imagined). Based on that information, I voted for the only candidate with a chance of preventing a Trump presidency. You did not.

I have always argued in favor of "voting your conscience" and rejected the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils. However, Donald Trump is quite easily the worst thing to happen to America in the 35 years i've spent on this earth. I sacrificed my principals to prevent this embarassment. You did not.

You can go to bed with your "principals" intact. But Donald Trump is now president, and you also have to go to bed with that. I tried to stop it. You did not.

#104 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Gary Johnson was just as bad as Trump."

Was he a ----- Grabber too?

#105 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 12:01 PM | Reply

You can go to bed with your "principals" intact. But Donald Trump is now president, and you also have to go to bed with that. I tried to stop it. You did not.

#104 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-11-28 12:01 PM | FLAG:

The horror of.. not making a moral compromise over a short term political appointment that's constrained by multiple branches of government.

#106 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You can go to bed with your "principals" intact. But Donald Trump is now president, and you also have to go to bed with that. I tried to stop it. You did not.
#104 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-11-28 12:01 PM | FLAG:
The horror of.. not making a moral compromise over a short term political appointment that's constrained by multiple branches of government.

#106 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

What constraint? The President has a ton of power and Congress is letting him do what he wants.

Next argument?

#107 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why do you assume we like Hillary?
#93 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 11:17 AM
Maybe because you posted this in defense of Hillary on the Susan Sarandon Thread:
No no, she's taking heat for saying something ridiculously stupid.
#2 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-27 05:44 PM
And then failed to specify what Susan said about Hillary that you considered "ridiculously stupid."
#102 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

The idea we'd be at war with Hillary right now is ridiculous. The idea that I like her just because I don't think we'd be at war is equally ridiculous.

#108 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 12:14 PM | Reply

Is it that you like her, or did you just regard her as the best of the available?

#109 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 12:18 PM | Reply

What constraint? The President has a ton of power and Congress is letting him do what he wants.

#107 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:13 PM | FLAG:

Congress can't even repeal ACA, or pass tax reform. Stop being hysterical. The separation of powers exist. If Trump is doing anything, it's what he didn't want to do, make that separation great again.

#110 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm disappointed that you chose to play the angle that if a person did not vote for your chosen candidate they are therefore responsible for Trump.

Votes have consequences. Why do you pretend otherwise? Would you prefer that your vote instead be meaningless?

I've admitted many times that by choosing Hillary over Bernie in the primary, I might have stopped a candidate who could have beaten Trump. I don't know Bernie would have won, but I take responsibility for choosing a candidate who didn't beat Trump. My primary vote had consequences.

You had a shot to cast a vote that could have prevented Trump from becoming president. You didn't take it.

You wanted something to happen when you cast a third party vote over Hillary.

Either you wanted Hillary to lose, in which case you got what you wanted, or you wanted Hillary to win and be rejected by a lot of third party voters, in which case you miscalculated.

#111 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 12:27 PM | Reply

What constraint? The President has a ton of power and Congress is letting him do what he wants.
#107 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:13 PM | FLAG:
Congress can't even repeal ACA, or pass tax reform. Stop being hysterical. The separation of powers exist. If Trump is doing anything, it's what he didn't want to do, make that separation great again.
#110 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

If Congress can't do anything, what makes you think they can agree to stop Trump?

#112 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 12:32 PM | Reply

You had a shot to cast a vote that could have prevented Trump from becoming president. You didn't take it.

#111 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-28 12:27 PM | FLAG:

Moder8 is in California. You can't compare it to your vote in Florida.

"In most voting systems in most elections that are nationally run, individual inputs don't make a difference either way. There's debate among economists and political scientists about how to calculate the probability that your vote will be decisive. On one of the models that people use -- it's called the Brennan-Lomasky model -- the chances that your vote would be decisive in a major national election in the US are vanishingly small. They're on the order of the chances that your phone is going to spontaneously quantum tunnel through your desk. On another model, called the Gelman-Kaplan model, you have a higher chance depending on what state you're in. Living in northern Virginia, I have something like a one-in-20-million chance of being decisive in the next presidential election. But you being in New York, you have no chance at all. So it's certainly harmless to vote for a third party."

#113 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 12:34 PM | Reply

Either you wanted Hillary to lose, in which case you got what you wanted, or you wanted Hillary to win and be rejected by a lot of third party voters, in which case you miscalculated.

#111 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-28 12:27 PM

I think that is a very valid point, I voted for Johnson for the very same reasons as your second point and yes, I didn't think Trump was going to win.

That being said, my situation was markedly different in that I wouldn't have voted for Hillary because I don't trust her and think we would be in a similarly difficult and contentious situation, just with different underpinnings and circumstances.

#114 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 12:35 PM | Reply

If Congress can't do anything, what makes you think they can agree to stop Trump?

#112 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:32 PM | FLAG:

You're loaded on false premises, and clearly slept through civics. They just have to not do anything. They've proven excellent at it.

#115 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 12:36 PM | Reply

#113

The Gelman-Kaplan model is very applicable here in CA, which is the Bluest State of all. My vote for Johnson (or Trump, if I could have lived with myself) was totally harmless since Hillary was going to win California no matter what I did.

#116 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 12:38 PM | Reply

If Congress can't do anything, what makes you think they can agree to stop Trump?
#112 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:32 PM | FLAG:
You're loaded on false premises, and clearly slept through civics. They just have to not do anything. They've proven excellent at it.

#115 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

I don't think it was me that slept through civics...

The President presides over almost all enforcement of law and bodies developing regulations. Congress has little power there.

So tell me again how the almighty Republican Congress both cares enough to do something and has the power to do something.

#117 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 12:42 PM | Reply

Stop being hysterical. The separation of powers exist. If Trump is doing anything, it's what he didn't want to do, make that separation great again.

#110 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Well said, but as we see here daily, hysteria is all the DR Left have right now.

If Congress can't do anything, what makes you think they can agree to stop Trump?

#112 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:32 PM

If not Congress, then the Courts...who have been particularly adept in the last year in putting the brakes on a number of Trump actions.

Calm down, take a breath and channel your misplaced energy into helping your local candidate get elected/reelected...Tip O'Neill wasn't wrong.

#118 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 12:42 PM | Reply

#113
The Gelman-Kaplan model is very applicable here in CA, which is the Bluest State of all. My vote for Johnson (or Trump, if I could have lived with myself) was totally harmless since Hillary was going to win California no matter what I did.

#116 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

That is a fair point.

#119 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 12:43 PM | Reply

If Congress can't do anything, what makes you think they can agree to stop Trump?
#112 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:32 PM
If not Congress, then the Courts...who have been particularly adept in the last year in putting the brakes on a number of Trump actions.
#118 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

The Courts only if it violates an existing law. That's a fairly limited jurisdiction.

#120 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 12:44 PM | Reply

The horror of.. not making a moral compromise over a short term political appointment that's constrained by multiple branches of government.
#106 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Trump embarasses and degrades America on a daily basis. We are lucky that much of his visible agenda has not been accomplished as of yet, but you appear to be ignoring his appointments who have already begun senselessly dismantling agencies, incompetently running them, attacking federal employees, ignoring science, etc. This is in addition to the overtly racist, imbecilic, provocative garbage Trump does and says on a daily basis.

I'm sure you'll claim not to care about any of that. Oh well.

#121 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 12:48 PM | Reply

#117 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:42 PM | REPLY | FLAG

For 4 years in a term, 2 terms max, constrained by regulatory framework congress empowered those agencies with, subject to judicial review. You know that. Can we please stop pretending like Trump is a dictator running amok? He's just a failed presidency. We'll very likely have a new one in 2020. The world will not end.

#122 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 12:54 PM | Reply

"#73 Only one of them voted to invade Iraq"

That's some seriously brain-dead rationalization, MUSTANG.

Trump would have voted to invade Iraq had he been in a position to do so. He said as much at the time.

You fell, or are trying to pull, not sure which, one of the oldest tricks in the book, which is talk about your opponent's record to deflect from the fact that you don't have any experience to speak of.

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 01:00 PM | Reply

Also, you're sounding like Trump railing about Obama's EOs during the campaign.

Moderately funny, but Obama wasn't a dictator nor destroying the world with this checked & balanced executive power, even though I personally favor eroding those powers and weakening the Fed. Trump is a great advertisement for smaller government.

#124 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 01:00 PM | Reply

The lesser evil arguments are beyond idiotic.

There were non evil options so why vote for either evil unless you like evil?

#125 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#121 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-11-28 12:48 PM | FLAG:

I've watched it all. If regulations are easily changed by installing a leader, they're easily changed again by installing a different one in 3 years. Maybe 7, depends on the economy.

#126 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 01:03 PM | Reply

The Courts only if it violates an existing law. That's a fairly limited jurisdiction.

#120 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:44 PM

Now you sound like a strict constructionist, which smacks of more than a little irony.

Creative lawyers and activist judges have pretty wide latitude to challenge Executive Orders as we have seen repeatedly in the past 12 months. Since it can take two years or more for a challenge to wend its way to SCOTUS, the Courts can have a distinct impact on overreaching by the Executive Branch.

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 01:08 PM | Reply

I've watched it all. If regulations are easily changed by installing a leader, they're easily changed again by installing a different one in 3 years. Maybe 7, depends on the economy.

#126 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Does changing the regulations back to where they were undo all the toxins dumped into the environment, all the poor people who got scammed by banks, all the kids who got poisoned by corporations during the "deregulation" era?

#130 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 01:22 PM | Reply

There were non evil options so why vote for either evil unless you like evil?

On the eve of the election, you had to be aware that either Trump or Hillary, and nobody else, would win the election. If you lived in a state that was remotely close and didn't vote for the only candidate with a chance to stop Trump, you contributed to his victory. If you think Hillary and Trump would have been equally bad, this may not be a problem for you, but it is reality.

#131 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Moder8 is in California. You can't compare it to your vote in Florida.

If Moder8 wants to say he would have voted for Hillary in a swing state, then let him say that. I haven't gotten that impression.

#132 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 01:23 PM | Reply

#126 Sitzkrieg - I'm not just talking about regulations, which you should know if you read my post. Don't bother responding to me with irrelevancies, thanks.

#133 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 01:24 PM | Reply

The lesser evil arguments are beyond idiotic.

There were non evil options so why vote for either evil unless you like evil?

#125 | Posted by Sully

Refusing to vote unless you have the perfect candidate is MORE idiotic.

If you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil wins.

If everyone consistently votes for the lesser evil, we gradually get a less evil government. Same way we got the largest prison population by capita in the world - years of people voting for "tough on crime" candidates.

Apply that same principle to any other area of policy and years of consistent voting can have the same effect.

#134 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re #131 - sorry but you can't just pull a new way of doing addition out your bum expecting me to accept it.

That is not how counting works.

Re#134. - nobody said anything about perfect. Cram that straw man .

Also your lesser evil logic is demonstrably false. Always justifying evil as the lesser evil makes things worse over time. That is how we got here.

Find a new excuse, evil fans.

#135 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 01:32 PM | Reply

"If everyone consistently votes for the lesser evil, we gradually get a less evil government. Same way we got the largest prison population by capita in the world - years of people voting for "tough on crime" candidates."

One of the best arguments I've read on that topic.

#136 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 01:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil wins.

Apparently voters saw Trump as the lesser of the two evils.

#137 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-28 01:33 PM | Reply

The idea we'd be at war with Hillary right now is ridiculous.

#108 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 12:14 PM

Not as ridiculous as you think, a number of Foreign Policy wonks read her platform to suggest exactly that:

Foreign Policy: Hillary the Hawk: A History "From Haiti to Syria, the Democratic candidate's long record suggests she's looking forward to being a war president on day one."

#138 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 01:37 PM | Reply

If everyone consistently votes for the lesser evil, we gradually get a less evil government.

BS, if you are handed an Excrement Sandwich and a Feces Sandwich and told to bite into one, you are still eating ----.

#139 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 01:41 PM | Reply

Using a platform to claim she's a warmonger is incredibly weak. Party platforms are a tired old tradition that only get taken seriously once every four years during the convention and are then all-but-forgotten.

#140 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 01:43 PM | Reply

One of the best arguments I've read on that topic.

#136 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-11-28 01:32 PM | FLAG:

It's better when it's framed as "Do you want to vote for Hitler or Mussolini?"

#141 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 01:45 PM | Reply

#135 Sully - Who said anything about addition? Are you aware that by not voting for the only person who could defeat Trump, you therefore turned down an opportunity to help defeat Trump? It doesn't require addition (i.e. an affirmative act by you) to impose some level of responsibility; the act of omission is an act nonetheless.

You're like a doctor who performs surgery on someone's finger when they're dying of a heart condition and then claims not to be responsible for the outcome. That is, of course, unless you believe Clinton and Trump were equally bad, which you've yet to opine on here.

#142 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#139 and #141 - More arguments that only work if you legitimately believe Clinton and Trump would be equally bad. If that's your opinion, come out and say it so we can finally see how stupid you are.

#143 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 01:49 PM | Reply

#142 - that silly argument fails under the easiest test

You could literally use the same logic to say by not voting for Trump, I helped Hillary. I should not need to point that out.

My reference to addition was a reference to how votes are actually tabulated, which you seem to have a shaky grasp on......

Spend less time on lane analogies and more time thinking through those talking points

#144 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 01:59 PM | Reply

Also your lesser evil logic is demonstrably false. Always justifying evil as the lesser evil makes things worse over time. That is how we got here.

Find a new excuse, evil fans.

#135 | Posted by Sully

No we got here by conservative media convincing morons that the lesser evil was the greater evil, so the ACTUAL greater evil got elected.

#145 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 02:06 PM | Reply

#139 and #141 - More arguments

#143 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-11-28 01:49 PM | FLAG:

You don't understand the reference, here's what it's from:

www.vice.com

"When you're voting, you can either decide, I want to express my fidelity to what I really care about, or you can say, I'm just going to contribute to making this a little better than it otherwise would be. If you're having an election between Mussolini and Hitler, and you decide, Mussolini's awful, but I'd much rather have him than Hitler and you vote for Mussolini, you're part of the group that's making the world less unjust than it otherwise would be. It's hard to see why that's really blameworthy.

People who do vote for a third party will say things like, "You're reinforcing the two-party system," and I just don't think that's the case, because [a major party winning] is going to happen anyways. People will claim, "If enough of us defect and go to the other party, we're giving them a viable threat -- if we're on the left-leaning side, they'll have to move a little leftward to keep us... We're preventing them from being moderate, that's our strategy." The problem with that is, empirically when you try to test whether that works, it doesn't look like it really matters much because of the type of voting system we have. People who threaten to leave and go to a third party in effect become irrelevant, because you don't have to get the majority of votes, you just have to get the most votes."

-Jason Brennan, PhD, author of The Ethics of Voting, being interviewed on Vice. It's actually one of the arguments against voting third party.

#146 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 02:07 PM | Reply

BS, if you are handed an Excrement Sandwich and a Feces Sandwich and told to bite into one, you are still eating ----.

#139 | Posted by Rightocenter

Terrible analogy displaying the depth of conservative intellectualism.

The better analogy would be if you are given a chance to pick between 2 cooks, one of them makes you a sandwich with 90 percent feces, and the other makes one with 50 percent feces, you take the one with less feces.

In the next hiring, all the cooks know that to get a job from you, making a sandwich with less feces is the way to go, so they tries to make one with only 30 percent feces. You keep hiring the cook who puts the least feces in his sandwich, until there's no feces at all.

#147 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 02:10 PM | Reply

#147 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That is a pretty good analogy.

#148 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 02:12 PM | Reply

The professor's analogy fails to include options other than Hitler and Mussolini on the ballot. Because it would not make sense if he did.

#149 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 02:13 PM | Reply

"You could literally use the same logic to say by not voting for Trump, I helped Hillary. I should not need to point that out."

Whatever choice you needed to make should have been shaped by keeping the worst candidate out of the WH.

#150 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 02:16 PM | Reply

You could literally use the same logic to say by not voting for Trump, I helped Hillary.

Except in this case, only Trump won. So the most accurate way of describing what you did is that you allowed one of the two viable candidates to win. That person was Donald Trump. Happy?

#151 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 02:18 PM | Reply

Hitler and Mussolini

I acknowledge Clinton was a terrible candidate. But do you really think this is an apt analogy?

#152 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 02:19 PM | Reply

"Jason Brennan, PhD, author of The Ethics of Voting, being interviewed on Vice. It's actually one of the arguments against voting third party."

I've presented that same argument here at least 50 times. It's the "not Ralph Nader" argument.

#153 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 02:20 PM | Reply

#147 - horrible analogy. You are neglecting that both are being paid by outside forces to feed you feces. And that you could hire any idiot who is not corrupted by outside forces off the street and he will not put feces in your food.

#154 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 02:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I acknowledge Clinton was a terrible candidate. But do you really think this is an apt analogy?

#152 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-11-28 02:19 PM | FLAG:

It's the logical extreme of the lesser of two evils argument.

Where I live, it's irrelevant. Add up every 3rd party vote, turn out the Bernie Bros that stayed home and disillusioned Democrats, and Trump still wins by a landslide and Republicans clean up the down ballot elections.

#155 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 02:23 PM | Reply

If my vote had mattered, I'd suck it up and vote for a foreign policy I don't agree with, in exchange for the financial benefits of the trade deals Hillary supports.

#156 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 02:24 PM | Reply

#151- who wins does not mitigate that your argument is illogical for the reason I stated.

If you can't make a logical argument don't bother.

In reality my vote did not help Trump. Only votes for Trump helped him. That is how addition works. Flaunting your foolishness can't change that.

#157 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Apparently voters saw Trump as the lesser of the two evils." - #137 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-28 01:33 PM

"Voters"?

Considering 3,000,000 more voters voted for Hillary than for Trump, I'd say that voters saw Hillary as the lesser of the two evils.

#158 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-28 02:31 PM | Reply

#147 - horrible analogy. You are neglecting that both are being paid by outside forces to feed you feces. And that you could hire any idiot who is not corrupted by outside forces off the street and he will not put feces in your food.

#154 | Posted by Sully

But they dont GET to feed you feces unless you hire them. And they know in order to get hired, they need to use less feces than their competitors.

Yes if there is someone who is using NO feces, hire them. But if that's not a choice, then you have to go with the least feces, which will eventually lead to less and less feces in your food. Because if you don't vote for LESS feces, then you WILL get MORE feces.

#159 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 02:33 PM | Reply

Cry me a river. Run a better candidate next time. It's not hard to figure out people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#160 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 02:34 PM | Reply

#159 - but your analogy assumes no other options, which is not the case.

You people have this circular logic where the majority of us voting for failed parties is ok because because the majority of us vote for failed parties.

Sorry but that doesn't make sense. Voting behavior could change very quickly. But first voters have to stop clinging to nonsensical excuses like security blankies.

#161 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 02:48 PM | Reply

In reality my vote did not help Trump.

Yet you had an opportunity to hurt him, and declined to act on that opportunity. And he ended up winning. Feel good?

If you didn't care whether or not Trump became president, more power to you. I did, so i did what i could to stop it. You didn't.

#162 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

162- I've demonstrated that your logic is crap and you obviously can't refute me. Repeating yourself under such circumstances is not smart. We both voted for candidates who were not Trump and who lost.

That you've been suckered into not only voting for Clinton but gloating over it doesn't speak well for you.

#163 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 03:39 PM | Reply

Who's gloating? If my statements make you feel inferior then maybe you should examine your actions.

You've refuted nothing. Have a nice day.

#164 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 03:40 PM | Reply

Your statements make me think less of you and a tiny bit of pity.

And yes I did rub your nose in your little doggie pile of an argument. But that isn't saying much since you are just regurgitating arguments that were destroyed here a year ago.

#165 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 04:32 PM | Reply

162- I've demonstrated that your logic is crap and you obviously can't refute me.
#163 | POSTED BY SULLY

The only person who believes this statement is you. I understand you have to believe it so as not to feel like an idiot and part of the problem, but it doesn't make it true.

#166 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:33 PM | Reply

Cry me a river. Run a better candidate next time. It's not hard to figure out people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#160 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

So you are okay with Trump over Hillary?

#167 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:33 PM | Reply

So you are okay with Trump over Hillary?

Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:33 PM | Reply

I wanted neither.

#168 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The feeling is mutual, Sully. Have a nice day. :)

#169 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-28 04:41 PM | Reply

So you are okay with Trump over Hillary?
Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:33 PM | Reply
I wanted neither.
#168 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

That's nice. But you were getting one. So I assume you were okay with Trump beating Hillary.

#170 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:42 PM | Reply

That's nice. But you were getting one. So I assume you were okay with Trump beating Hillary.

Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:42 PM | Reply

Someone had to teach the arrogant Hillary and her supporters a lesson. Trump being elected I hope does that. If not then. Cry me a river.

#171 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 04:45 PM | Reply

"I like you.....you're special"

What a douchenozzle.

#47 | Posted by eberly

I saw that, too. It was especially creepy coming from Trump.

#172 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-28 04:48 PM | Reply

I wanted neither.

#168 | Posted by LauraMohr

Not to beat this dead horse into bloody pulp...

But, you DID know you were going to get one or the other... didn't you?

#173 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-28 04:49 PM | Reply

That's nice. But you were getting one. So I assume you were okay with Trump beating Hillary.
Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:42 PM | Reply
Someone had to teach the arrogant Hillary and her supporters a lesson. Trump being elected I hope does that. If not then. Cry me a river.
#171 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

So that's a yes. You were okay with Trump being President instead of Hillary.

#174 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 04:53 PM | Reply

Hillary was the lesser of 2 evils? Good thing Charlie Manson wasn't running, Hansjob.

#175 | Posted by wisgod at 2017-11-28 04:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Not to beat this dead horse into bloody pulp...

But, you DID know you were going to get one or the other... didn't you?

Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-28 04:49 PM | Reply

Yep but I didn't have to be complicit into voting for either one. You know they say vote always because your vote always counts up until this year where the electorate went batscat crazy and said something else.

#176 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 05:02 PM | Reply

Yep but I didn't have to be complicit into voting for either one. You know they say vote always because your vote always counts up until this year where the electorate went batscat crazy and said something else.

#176 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

No, but you were complicit in letting the greater of two evils win then.

#177 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:09 PM | Reply

Sycophant is such a brainwashed rube that he thinks people should be afraid to say they still don't want Hillary to be president.

Poke your head out of the echo chamber once in awhile.

Most people still disapprove of Hillary and for good reason.

#178 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 05:09 PM | Reply

No, but you were complicit in letting the greater of two evils win then.

Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:09 PM | Reply

Liar

#179 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 05:11 PM | Reply

#177 - your attitude is why we end up with garbage running the country. Demonizing people who want a real improvement. You're a shill for a failed system. You are why we can't have nice things.

#180 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-28 05:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, but you were complicit in letting the greater of two evils win then.
Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:09 PM | Reply
Liar
#179 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Sorry. You had a chance to help stop him. You didn't because the lesser of two evils wasn't good enough for you. You are complicit.

I hate Hillary too. But I hate Trump far more. I held my nose and tried to stop him.

#181 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#177 - your attitude is why we end up with garbage running the country. Demonizing people who want a real improvement. You're a shill for a failed system. You are why we can't have nice things.

#180 | POSTED BY SULLY

No, I'm a shill for allowing the least damage possible. You're an impossible idealist who lives in a fantasy world while the country burns down around you.

#182 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:15 PM | Reply

^^ that's why we need more than 2 parties.

#183 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 05:16 PM | Reply

Voting third party is like betting on a horse to show.

We only vote for the winner. That's why betting on candidates with no chance of winning is really no different than not voting at all. You didn't vote for, or against, the horses that can actually win. Yet somehow, it seems like you think you did something more, something other than the equivalent of writing in Mickey Mouse.

#184 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 05:17 PM | Reply

^^ that's why we need more than 2 parties.

#183 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Won't happen until we get rid of the Winner Take All system of the electoral college.

Read up on Duverger's Law.

But yes, I agree.

#185 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:18 PM | Reply

What's burning? Jobs, GDP, the Stock Market? Quit being a talking point bitch and maybe you'll be taken seriously. The only thing that's burning is Health Care, chuckle- head

#186 | Posted by wisgod at 2017-11-28 05:20 PM | Reply

What's burning? Jobs, GDP, the Stock Market? Quit being a talking point bitch and maybe you'll be taken seriously. The only thing that's burning is Health Care, chuckle- head

#186 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Taxes. The budget. Federal agencies. Education. Privacy. Foreign Policy. Gun Laws. The environment. Basic human rights. Labor laws. The Supreme Court. Voting rights. Racial equality. The American Dream. etc. etc.

You should leave the discussion for those who do more than listen to Hannity.

#187 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"that's why we need more than 2 parties."

We have more than two parties.

You identify with a particularly clueless and hopeless one that's never won anything.

You're like a lot of other right-wingers this election.

Unfortunately, no amount of histrionics, by you angry white males or otherwise, changes the fact that our government is a two party system.

#188 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 05:22 PM | Reply

HATE, that's a powerful word folks. That's a word worth killing for.

#189 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-11-28 05:24 PM | Reply

#177 - your attitude is why we end up with garbage running the country. Demonizing people who want a real improvement. You're a shill for a failed system. You are why we can't have nice things.

#180 | Posted by Sully

And you are why we have things that are WORSE than what we had last year.

The world isn't black and white. Not to adults anyway.

People who demand perfection or nothing are children.

I HATE hillary. I HATE that the DNC rigged the primary for her. But none of that blinds me to the fact that most life on earth would be better off if she were president than trump. That's simply a fact. Saying you are willing to harm life on earth because you weren't offered the perfect candidate is like dramatic teenage girl behavior.

#190 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 05:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

We have more than two parties.

#188 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-28 05:22 PM | FLAG:

Might be the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

#191 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 05:42 PM | Reply

Speaking of dumb, you're a libertarian!

I believe I had seven parties fielding a Presidential candidate on my 2016 ballot.

You? Tell me there were only two for you, so I can point and laugh at the stupid, clueless libertarian.

Wait, I'm kinda already doing that, nevermind.

P.S. you're stupid.

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 05:50 PM | Reply

Sycophant was smart enough to figure it out. You aren't. I'm not surprised.

#193 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 05:54 PM | Reply

"is like dramatic teenage girl behavior."

Finally, a topic that Shreek knows intimately.

#194 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 05:55 PM | Reply

Sycophant was smart enough to figure it out. You aren't. I'm not surprised.

#193 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Hey, I even threw you a funny flag on the Lena Dunham page. "I seen it." I laughed out loud at that one.

#195 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 05:59 PM | Reply

You see Sitz, you said we need more than two parties.

Buy what you were hoping to convey is that we need a multi-party system.

Owing to your low predisposition for thorough cognition, you didn't say what you meant.

Just like a libertarian, to start an argument based on the desired outcome, not based in the current reality. Essentially, lazy thinking.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 05:59 PM | Reply

#196 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-28 05:59 PM | FLAG:

The horror of colloquialism. I bow to you, oh lord of the flip phone. Please set me straight in all things in life.

#197 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 06:02 PM | Reply

"Won't happen until we get rid of the Winner Take All system of the electoral college."

How would getting rid of the EC change it? If a third party took all the primary votes in a state (with a few exceptions) they would recieve all the EC votes as well. In fact the strongest arguuments against third parties by the majority of people is that it will split votes within the two primary parties. Dems don't want greens to run against their candidate. It's less pronounced with Repubs, but look at what Ross Perot did. Many credit him with handing a 2nd Bush term to Clinton.

The problem with the existing third parties is that they focus almost solely on the presidency, foregoing smaller offices. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party (the 2 top thrid parties) aren't going to enjoy much success until they establish a solid presence in lower offices at the state and federal level.

Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders for that matter, would have almost been useless as presidents due to the fact that they lacked a broad-based party to support them. They need to be able to build coalitions if they want to succeed.

#198 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 06:02 PM | Reply

"is like dramatic teenage girl behavior."

Fortunately for American, Trump was taking copious notes and maybe even pictures too when he was hanging out in the girls locker room.

We picked the right man for the job.

#199 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 06:03 PM | Reply

"Won't happen until we get rid of the Winner Take All system of the electoral college."
How would getting rid of the EC change it?

#198 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Pretty easily actually. Any time its not a winner take all system in a country, third, fourth and fifth parties pop up immediately.

#200 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 06:05 PM | Reply

"Won't happen until we get rid of the Winner Take All system of the electoral college."

How would getting rid of the EC change it? If a third party took all the primary votes in a state (with a few exceptions) they would recieve all the EC votes as well. In fact the strongest arguuments against third parties by the majority of people is that it will split votes within the two primary parties. Dems don't want greens to run against their candidate. It's less pronounced with Repubs, but look at what Ross Perot did. Many credit him with handing a 2nd Bush term to Clinton.

The problem with the existing third parties is that they focus almost solely on the presidency, foregoing smaller offices. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party (the 2 top thrid parties) aren't going to enjoy much success until they establish a solid presence in lower offices at the state and federal level.

Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders for that matter, would have almost been useless as presidents due to the fact that they lacked a broad-based party to support them. They need to be able to build coalitions if they want to succeed.

#201 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 06:05 PM | Reply

Somebody Lefty SnowFlake leads a post with "taxes"? You can't make this Lefty logic up.

#202 | Posted by wisgod at 2017-11-28 06:08 PM | Reply

Electoral worked until we lost. More Lefty Logic. History proves it!!!!

#203 | Posted by wisgod at 2017-11-28 06:10 PM | Reply

"Pretty easily actually. Any time its not a winner take all system in a country, third, fourth and fifth parties pop up immediately."

I still don't follow.

Getting rid of the EC would effectively reduce the United States of America to the State of America, at least when it came to electing a president, but it wouldn't inherently do a thing to increase a third party influence in a presidential election. nothing meaningful anyway. Jill Stein getting one or two electoral votes in CA or OR isn't going to get her any closer to the presidency than getting zero CE votes.

Regardless of party, there needs to be braod public support for those parties. Altering the EC construct isn't going to make that happen.

#204 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 06:10 PM | Reply

Electoral worked until we lost. More Lefty Logic. History proves it!!!!
#203 | POSTED BY WISGOD

The electoral college has never helped the lefties. It's made sure we had two republican presidents even though the democratic nominee won the popular vote.

The EC was a conservative construct created to help them win elections.

#205 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-28 06:15 PM | Reply

Somebody Lefty SnowFlake leads a post with "taxes"? You can't make this Lefty logic up.

#202 | POSTED BY WISGOD

You think that skewing taxes in favor of the rich shouldn't be an issue?

Also, snowflake only works when someone is offended.

How about you go back on your meds?

#206 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 06:16 PM | Reply

"Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders for that matter, would have almost been useless as presidents due to the fact that they lacked a broad-based party to support them."

I agree.
It's only slightly less true for Trump.
Exhibit A: Obamacare repeal

Obama faced similar headwinds too, for that matter. It's easy to forget but 2008 was also supposed to be Hillary's year.

#207 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 06:18 PM | Reply

"Pretty easily actually. Any time its not a winner take all system in a country, third, fourth and fifth parties pop up immediately."
I still don't follow.
Getting rid of the EC would effectively reduce the United States of America to the State of America, at least when it came to electing a president, but it wouldn't inherently do a thing to increase a third party influence in a presidential election. nothing meaningful anyway. Jill Stein getting one or two electoral votes in CA or OR isn't going to get her any closer to the presidency than getting zero CE votes.
Regardless of party, there needs to be braod public support for those parties. Altering the EC construct isn't going to make that happen.

#204 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

We are talking about two different things. The Winner Take All system isn't the EC. It's the way we do Senate and Representative races. Change it at that level and you get multiple parties.

Sorry, my bad for not being clearer.

#208 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 06:23 PM | Reply

Uh oh. Wisgod is here.

The right feels the need to bring out the intellectual, ahem, "big guns".

#209 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-28 06:26 PM | Reply

What always makes me chuckle is the "CLINTON GOT 3 MILLION MORE VOTES" argument, given the fact that her margin of victory in California alone was 4.3 million votes. If you throw out the largest State for each of Trump (TX) and Hillary (CA), Trump is two votes shy of a win in the EC and has 1/2 Million more votes than Hillary nationwide. Take this for what you will, but IMO this shows the need for the EC, otherwise California would have been the only state that mattered in the 2016 election.

#210 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 06:30 PM | Reply

It's the way we do Senate and Representative races. Change it at that level and you get multiple parties.

Sorry, my bad for not being clearer.

#208 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-28 06:23 PM

Actually, here in CA we have open primaries for state level offices, which is making us slowly a one party state. Case in point, our last Senatorial election pitted Kamala Harris (D) against Loretta Sanchez (D) and our next Gubernatorial race will probably pit two Democrats against each other.

#211 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 06:36 PM | Reply

"If you throw out the largest State for each of Trump (TX) and Hillary (CA)"

You have created a universe that isn't this one.

#212 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-28 06:39 PM | Reply

Take this for what you will, but IMO this shows the need for the EC, otherwise California would have been the only state that mattered in the 2016 election.

Not in its current iteration. It gives too much power to fly over country plains states with a fraction of the residents of the larger states. Most people who want it to stay the same do so only because they want any help they can get for the GOP.

What's a more appropriate system, IMO, is to split a states EC votes proportionally based on that states popular vote. Not assigning them by Congressional district, which makes them susceptible to gerrymandering interference, but a straight up split according to vote percentages.

It would give people a reason to get out and vote (vote isn't wasted if a minority party member), it would be closer tied to the popular vote sentiment and it would still give incentive for people to campaign in smaller states, probably even more so as 100% of the EC votes from big states like NY, CA or TX isn't a given anymore.

#213 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-28 06:40 PM | Reply

"Actually, here in CA we have open primaries for state level offices, which is making us slowly a one party state."

That's not open primaries, that's "Top Two advance." Open primaries is when the party primary is not closed to everyone but party members.

It's like a Democrat voting for Trump in the GOP primary, thinking Trump is the weakest candidate, and therefore the one you want to face in the general election. Which is a thing in many states.

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 06:45 PM | Reply

Take this for what you will, but IMO this shows the need for the EC, otherwise California would have been the only state that mattered in the 2016 election.

#210 | Posted by Rightocenter

Sure. In your mind you need protection from democracy, since the majority of the people don't agree with your policies.

#215 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 07:16 PM | Reply

#81 | POSTED BY RCADE

I'm getting soooo tired of this argument. I did't vote for Hillary. But even if I had, it would have made no difference. Hillary still won my State. I had no shot at stopping Trump, at all.

Laura had no shot at stopping Trump. Kansas still would have gone for Trump no matter what.

You know who had a shot at stopping Trump? Florida, Wisconsin, PA, MI. Look at the mirror for the reasons for Hillary's failure. Most of us who didn't vote for either do not live in those places.

#216 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-11-28 07:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#210 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

If the EC was actually representative of population, as it should be, California would have quite a few more EC votes.

#217 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-11-28 08:00 PM | Reply

#214

Open primaries and top two advance go hand in hand here in CA, sorry you needed to clarify.

#215

I live in a State where my politics are in the distinct minority on many issues, it doesn't bother me and I still vote the way I see fit.

The point, which clearly escaped you, is that you get rid of CA and a majority of 1.5M people don't agree with your policies. I just threw TX into the mix to defang the inevitable "well, what about Texas" retort that comes every time I point this fact out.

#218 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 08:00 PM | Reply

216

Dead on. It comes down to narrow margins in the same 6-8 states.

#219 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-28 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Fortunately the founders were psychic enough to foresee the dictatorship of big states like Cali and NY, and distributed power geographically as is appropriate for a federal republic.

#220 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-28 08:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Take this for what you will, but IMO this shows the need for the EC, otherwise California would have been the only state that mattered in the 2016 election."

What you really mean is that the people of California should have their votes count less than yours. So much for one man one vote. Basically, the deal with the devil made by the founders, to bring the slave states into the union. Hey I know, let's count each vote on the coast as only 3/5 of a vote. Y'all would love that, right?
But hey, let's tax us folks on the coasts at 3/5 of the amount that y'all pay so the federal government won't be able to let y'all receive more in federal dollars than your states pay in.

#221 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The point, which clearly escaped you, is that you get rid of CA and a majority of 1.5M people don't agree with your policies. I just threw TX into the mix to defang the inevitable "well, what about Texas" retort that comes every time I point this fact out.

#218 | Posted by Rightocenter

Sure and if you get rid of CA the US economy isn't nearly as impressive, the populace isn't nearly as educated or productive, and the tax base is a lot smaller.

If you need to make up fantastical concepts to make your point, you don't have a point.

Think of your position objectively for a moment: "Well most people agree with me if you don't count a huge group of people who don't agree with me.... ADURRrrrr!"

#222 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 08:13 PM | Reply

If the EC was actually representative of population, as it should be

It actually is, but since the small states automatically get three votes no matter what, it skews their importance relative to the larger states, but you knew that.

#223 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 08:14 PM | Reply

Fortunately the founders were psychic enough to foresee the dictatorship of big states like Cali and NY, and distributed power geographically as is appropriate for a federal republic.

#220 | Posted by nullifidian

How is an educated hick on a farm having thousands of times more voting power than a doctor in a city "appropriate?"

#224 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 08:15 PM | Reply

What you really mean is that the people of California should have their votes count less than yours.

I live in California.

#225 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 08:15 PM | Reply

How is an educated hick on a farm having thousands of times more voting power than a doctor in a city "appropriate?"

And you continue to wonder why the so called deplorables won't vote Democratic.

#226 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 08:16 PM | Reply

So, what would happen if those smaller states got together and voted themselves benefits, military bases, etc. to benefit themselves at the expense of the majority who live in the hated big states? Oh wait, they already are doing that. Ungrateful welfare bums.

#227 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 08:17 PM | Reply

--If the EC was actually representative of population, as it should be, California would have quite a few more EC votes.

And Jerry Moonbeam and his likely successor, Gavin NewBeam, could govern the country.

#228 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-28 08:19 PM | Reply

Sure and if you get rid of CA the US economy isn't nearly as impressive, the populace isn't nearly as educated or productive, and the tax base is a lot smaller.

Looks like you are ready to sign the Calexit 3.0 petition.

#229 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 08:20 PM | Reply

Oh wait, they already are doing that. Ungrateful welfare bums.

#227 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-11-28 08:17 PM

Including Florida, and they have been doing it for decades.

#230 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 08:21 PM | Reply

And you continue to wonder why the so called deplorables won't vote Democratic.

#226 | Posted by Rightocenter

I don't wonder. Democrats aren't ignorant, homophobic, and racist enough for them.

#231 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 08:22 PM | Reply

I don't wonder.

#231 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-11-28 08:22 PM

You should have stopped there.

#232 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 08:24 PM | Reply

It is remarkable and depressing that so many HRC supporters are so dimensional in their thinking that they believe if you didn't vote for HRC that means you helped Trump. Really revolting. Take a step back for a moment. Consider what pathetic view of democracy you are espousing.

#233 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-28 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It is remarkable and depressing that so many HRC supporters are so dimensional in their thinking that they believe if you didn't vote for HRC that means you helped Trump. Really revolting. Take a step back for a moment. Consider what pathetic view of democracy you are espousing.

#233 | Posted by moder8

If you live in a swing state, it's true. And that's coming from one of the biggest liberal hillary haters on this site.

If you don't live in a swing state, you don't matter in presidential elections so do whatever you want. Because the electoral college is terrible.

#234 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 08:41 PM | Reply

"Not in its current iteration. It gives too much power to fly over country plains states with a fraction of the residents of the larger states."

That's the whole point, dude.

Without the individual states having a weighted say, they have no localized ability to legislate.

Land grabs are often accomplished via executive order. And let's be honest here, there are millions and millions of coastie urbanites who would have no problem turning millions and millions of square miles into wilderness areas, thus shutting it off from those who live in the local area. And there would be nothing that the people in those states could do about it.

Get rid of the EC, and you're one step closer to getting rid of the United States. maybe states secede...maybe it's just renamed the State of America. I don't know. But those plains states would be the equivalent of Kazakhstan SSR under the Soviet Union. A separate power in name only.

Your proportionality idea has merit. Two states already do that. Maine and Nebraska.

#235 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 08:42 PM | Reply

Get rid of the EC, and you're one step closer to getting rid of the United States. maybe states secede...maybe it's just renamed the State of America. I don't know. But those plains states would be the equivalent of Kazakhstan SSR under the Soviet Union. A separate power in name only.

#235 | Posted by madbomber

I hope you see the irony is that the EC is what allowed russia to actually seize control of the white house.

#236 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-28 08:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Take a step back for a moment. Consider what realistic view of democracy you are espousing."

FTFY and hey, we're only one year into the Trump Presidency. Give it time, you'll be regretting your vote soon enough.
That said, Hillary won the election, she just didn't win the voter suppression war in certain swing states. To her discredit, she hasn't even been brave enough to call out the Republicans on election theft, just like Al Gore. They use pretend platitudes about protecting the belief in the system by the voters; they need to grow a pair and call a spade a spade. Republicans steal elections and will continue to do so until Democrats do something about it.

#237 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 08:57 PM | Reply

"If the EC was actually representative of population, as it should be, California would have quite a few more EC votes."

Or....several states like Montana would have fewer EC votes.

#238 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-28 09:00 PM | Reply

"Including Florida, and they have been doing it for decades."

Florida ought to be two states, S. Florida and N. Florida. N. Florida is like Alabama, S. Florida is more like New Jersey. Don't blame south Florida for the sins of the red necks in N. Florida who live off the rest of the states while bitching about taxes they don't even pay.

#239 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 09:02 PM | Reply

Laura had no shot at stopping Trump.

Laura bashed Hillary all year long in 2016. Laura would not have voted for Hillary if she lived in a swing state.

Laura deserves some of the blame for Trump winning. She did everything she could to make that happen.

#240 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 09:14 PM | Reply

Look at the mirror for the reasons for Hillary's failure.

I voted for Hillary in the primary and in the general election. How did voting for Hillary cause her to fail?

#241 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 09:15 PM | Reply

Laura bashed Hillary all year long in 2016. Laura would not have voted for Hillary if she lived in a swing state.

Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 09:14 PM | Reply

Damned skippy and we aren't talking about peanut butter either.

#242 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 09:35 PM | Reply

"Get rid of the EC, and you're one step closer to getting rid of the United States. maybe states secede...maybe it's just renamed the State of America."

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the people in the big states. You don't seem to think that they are smart enough to understand that we need states that grow grain, cattle, etc. If you really look at the history of the last fifty years, the big states have happily voted to clean up industrial waste in red states, have happily helped red states with agricultural subsidies. It is disturbing that, after Donald Trump gets elected (because of cheating by the Republicans) he is trying to harm the very red state voters who supported him by taking away healthcare and raising txes on them, taking away per diem for over the road truck drivers, doing all sorts of things to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires who don't give a crap about red state voters. Life for the average red state voter would be much harder had not progressives, starting with FDR, done things specifically designed to benefit them and it was continued by every single successive Democratic President and opposed by all but one of the successive Republican Presidents, that one would be Dwight D. Eisenhower. The right learned long ago that slogans, talking points, a few devisive issues like abortion and gay marriage could get red state voters to vote against their own interests and they do, over and over and over. And then they are offended when we suggest that is stupid. It is stupid. They are stupid. They should be thankful that we have succeeded as much as we have been able to, to protect them from their own stupidity and that is where we are again today. If they can win on certain issues, they all lose. Up is down, down is up. Right wing politics is a weird mix of lies mixed with emotional issues and stirred with pretend patriotism and religious belief. Don't notice that the stirrers are getting rich while the rest of y'all are working two jobs.

#243 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Damned skippy and we aren't talking about peanut butter either.

By now, you should be able to see beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hillary would have been a much better president than Trump. If you can't you're as blind as the Trump voters who still support him. Hillary could have been a below-average president and be far better than the dumpster fire we elected.

#244 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Life for the average red state voter would be much harder had not progressives, starting with FDR, done things specifically designed to benefit them and it was continued by every single successive Democratic President and opposed by all but one of the successive Republican Presidents, that one would be Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama did more to help people in red states than the last five Republican presidents combined. The GOP likes to stoke cultural resentment in rural voters against the "elites" but doesn't do a damn thing in power to help. All it does is move money from working people to their fat cat donor class.

#245 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 10:56 PM | Reply

That's the whole point, dude.

I'm aware of the reason for the EC, that's why I phrased it as "too much power".

Giving the electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote of the state balances things out to a truer representation of the populace without handing control entirely over to the west coast and New England. It would also mean that our map would appear as the true purple it is instead of the absurd blue-coated US with red filling.

Two states already do that. Maine and Nebraska.

They both appropriate according to Congressional districts, which I'm not a fan of.

The only tough issue I can think of is in states with only 3 EC votes, would such a system basically mean the losing candidate always gets one and the winner always gets 2? Voters in said states may not be pleased with that, but the minority voters surely would be.

#246 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-28 11:06 PM | Reply

By now, you should be able to see beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hillary would have been a much better president than Trump. If you can't you're as blind as the Trump voters who still support him. Hillary could have been a below-average president and be far better than the dumpster fire we elected.

Posted by rcade at 2017-11-28 10:54 PM | Reply

She was equally as bad if not worse. While Trump is an idiot conman Hillary is a professional conwoman. They are the worst my dear. I realize you can't see this now. Some day I hope that you will.

#247 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 11:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"She was equally as bad if not worse."

Merrick Garland on line one. Neil Gorsuch on line two.

#248 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#247

The blind leading... no one at all.

#249 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-28 11:42 PM | Reply

Merrick Garland on line one. Neil Gorsuch on line two.

#248 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.bloomberg.com

Clinton Says She May Not Choose Garland for Supreme Court

www.usnews.com

Clinton Refuses to Commit to Merrick Garland as Her Supreme Court Pick

OOPSIE DAISY. Better luck next time.

#250 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 11:44 PM | Reply

"While Trump is an idiot conman Hillary is a professional conwoman. "

You don't think you have an idea as to the respective cons they're trying to run, who's going to come out ahead, and who's going to come out behind?

This is the part I don't understand. It doesn't matter that they are con men. It matters what con they're gonna run.

#251 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 11:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"OOPSIE DAISY. Better luck next time."

Stop with the meaningless bu!!shiite.

Would you prefer Gorsuch, or HRC's pick?

#252 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:46 PM | Reply

Would you prefer Gorsuch, or HRC's pick?

Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:46 PM | Reply

We don't know who she would have picked and therein lies the rub for you.

#253 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 11:48 PM | Reply

lol... Clinton was saying she might pick someone more liberal.... and maybe more female, than Garland.

But I see Trump has failed, try as he might, to ruin the careers of LGBTs in the Military. That must make Laura... sad!

#254 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-28 11:49 PM | Reply

"We don't know who she would have picked and therein lies the rub for you."

Stop playing stupid.

#255 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:51 PM | Reply

Stop playing stupid.

Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:51 PM | Reply

Stop talking out of your keister.

#256 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-28 11:57 PM | Reply

"Stop talking out of your keister."

If you don't believe HRC would've appointed a better Justice than Gorsuch, you're an idiot.

For Christ's sake, nobody is that stupid.

#257 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#241

I think you over estimate the amount of influence Laura might have on America, from this website.

#258 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-11-29 09:08 AM | Reply

#241

Perhaps you should have spent more time on the streets in your fair state, convincing others to vote like you.

#259 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-11-29 09:12 AM | Reply

"You don't seem to think that they are smart enough to understand that we need states that grow grain, cattle, etc."

You're kind of making my point for me. The big states will make decisions on what's good for the big states...even if it's at the expense of the population of the smaller states. Like turing BLM land in the rocky mountain states into wilderness, and putting it out of reach for those who have been using the land for decades. Decisions made with the support of people who will never step foot in that state, much less on the land they just took from those who would use it.

#260 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-29 10:25 AM | Reply

It's kind of like the Capital of Panem needing the various goods and services provided by the different districts, but the residents of those districts were little more than the means to supply those goods and services.

#261 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-29 10:26 AM | Reply

Eric Trump defended his dad saying its not a slur or racist because Disney made a movie about Pocahontas....

This is the level of thinking that goes on in Conservative heads.

#262 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-29 10:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You're kind of making my point for me. The big states will make decisions on what's good for the big states...even if it's at the expense of the population of the smaller states."

Yeah, that's why subsidies for crops go to farming states which are supported by the big states. Residents of NY understand that the food they eat probably came from a low population state and that for the farmer there to survive they have to help them with subsidies and other legislation that doesn't benefit big states. You have such a low opinion of Americans that you can't even recognize the reality of the last 80 years. REalize that the first real assistance to farming states was created by FDR, the former Democratic Governor of NY. Today, Trump, who was "elected" with the assistance of red states will harm their residents significantly over the objections of the Senators and Representatives from the very big states you think would be their enemies. Your thoughts are controlled by unthinking ideology instead of reality.

#263 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-29 10:39 AM | Reply

"Like turing BLM land in the rocky mountain states into wilderness, and putting it out of reach for those who have been using the land for decades."

Yeah, by requiring them to pay the grazing fees they owe which are costs far lower than owning the land themselves. Can't even believe you bring that old nonsense up, those yahoos who aimed rifles at BLM agents are going to prison where they belong. Say bye to them, you won't be seeing those creeps for a while.

#264 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-29 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Warren commits fraud and makes a living by claiming that she's was an Indian and Trump is to blame for pointing it out?"

Warren does not claim she's an Indian and she was elected to the Senate so where's the fraud. Do you believe everything Trump says?

#266 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-29 11:24 AM | Reply

"and makes a living by claiming that she's was an Indian"

You win Dumbest Internet Post of the Day.

#267 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

She was equally as bad if not worse.

You're as bad as the Trumpers. You refuse reality and tell yourself a convenient fiction. Our country is controlled by a madman and you're still enabling it, even after there's indisputable evidence of how crazy, corrupt and incompetent he is.

#268 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-29 11:33 AM | Reply

There are millions of Americans with native American heritage who cannot prove it on paper... I'm one of them and so apparently is Warren. But the heritage is obvious in pictures of my father's mother and he and his brother, and I remember them well myself.

#269 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 11:38 AM | Reply

Don't forget she plagiarized her cook book as well!

#270 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-29 11:46 AM | Reply

Trump is a madman yet Hillary is the one with all the blood on her hands. Not only a hawk but an incompetent one who ends up helping our enemies. This idea that we'd be safer with her isn't supported by her record.

#271 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-29 11:50 AM | Reply

The Dumbest Plagiarism Scandal Ever

www.outsidethebeltway.com

#272 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 11:52 AM | Reply

We don't know who she would have picked and therein lies the rub for you.

#253 | Posted by LauraMohr

We know it wouldnt have been some super conservative bible thumper activist like trump selected. Stop acting stupid.

#273 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-29 11:52 AM | Reply

Trump is a madman yet Hillary is the one with all the blood on her hands. Not only a hawk but an incompetent one who ends up helping our enemies. This idea that we'd be safer with her isn't supported by her record.

#271 | Posted by Sully

Yeah remember when hillary colluded with our enemies to get elected, in exchange for appointing our enemies' puppets into the cabinet and removing sanctions on our enemies?

Wouldn't want anyone who helps our enemies, would we?

#274 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-29 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Elizabeth Warren who fabricated her Indian heritage

And your proof that it is a fabrication?

#276 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 12:05 PM | Reply

And your proof that it is a fabrication?
#276 | POSTED BY CORKY AT

Donald Trump said so. What else would a down the middle, fair and square Joe like of Jeff "I thought you were better than that" J need???

#277 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-29 12:08 PM | Reply

And it was a racial slur in front of native Americans.

#278 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 12:09 PM | Reply

it's not a racial slur

Not in the same way the "n word" is. But it's similar to calling someone who claims to be african american "Leroy" or someone who claims to be hispanic "Jose." If you don't see the racism there, you're truly a dense person.

#279 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-29 12:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#274- I remember when Hillary colluded with Al Qaeda in Libya and lied every step of the way. You seem to be ignorant to her record.

#280 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-29 12:23 PM | Reply

On topic....This is Trump taking a swipe at Elizabeth Warren who fabricated her Indian heritage.
It's not a racial slur, it's poking fun at a fraud.

#275 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That depends how you use it.

In this context, yeah, it's a racial slur.

Whats funny is she never used her native american heritage for anything besides listing herself on a minority professors group as having native american heritage. That's literally the only time it was every used by her.

#281 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-29 12:24 PM | Reply

And I should add...she is part Native American.

#282 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-29 12:25 PM | Reply

Trump is a madman yet Hillary is the one with all the blood on her hands.

The Secretary of State does not decide war policy. The president does.

#283 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-29 12:33 PM | Reply

She pushed for the policy. She is responsible for her part in it just like a real adult. But yes, Obama deserves more blame.

#284 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-29 12:40 PM | Reply

#283

Chronic HDS sufferers have made her The Source of All Evil in their scrawny little minds. They even blame their jock itch on her.

#285 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 12:43 PM | Reply

Deranged would be a 70+ year old man who calls people names for referencing facts that contradict his purposefully ignorant world view.

#286 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-29 01:02 PM | Reply

- 70+ year old man

You must mean Ray, lmao.

- referencing facts

You mean like how Hillary ordered Obama to use force in Libya? Those kind of facts?

What a joke.

#287 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 01:09 PM | Reply

"She was equally as bad if not worse. While Trump is an idiot conman Hillary is a professional conwoman. They are the worst my dear. I realize you can't see this now. Some day I hope that you will."

Trump is a professional conman. That's what The Art of the Deal and the whole of his life work has been about. Only someone blinded by love of The Donald and/or hatred of Hillary can't see that.

#288 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-29 01:26 PM | Reply

Trump Mocks Warren's Native American Heritage Claim, But Falsely Claimed His Family Was Swedish

In his first book, The Donald said his grandfather immigrated to the United States from Sweden. As pointed out in multiple biographies of The Donald and as a BuzzFeed News review of immigration records show, the claim isn't true.

Trump wrote about his father and grandfather in The Art of the Deal, which Trump falsely claimed was the best-selling business book of all time.

"His story is classic Horatio Alger. Fred Trump was born in New Jersey in 1905. His father, who came here from Sweden as a child, owned a moderately successful restaurant, but he was also a hard liver and a hard drinker, and he died when my father was eleven years old," Trump wrote.

According to census records obtained by BuzzFeed News, Trump's grandfather and great-grandfather were actually born in Germany.

www.buzzfeed.com

#289 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-29 01:31 PM | Reply

- In his first book, The Donald said his grandfather immigrated to the United States from Sweden.

Make Trump Drumpf Again!

#290 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 01:45 PM | Reply

According to David Cay Johnston's biography "The Making of Donald Trump", Trump's grandfather made his money running a string of whore houses in San Francisco during the gold rush. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

#291 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-29 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He's turned the WH into a policy bordello... the more you pay, the more you get.

#292 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 03:23 PM | Reply

I find it mildly amusing the level of hypocrisy that allows a 3rd generation immigrant and others like him to be ok with allowing people who are 15th generation to be pulled over pased on skin color and the assumption that "those people" are illegal.

Until they start puling over every white person and making them prove they aren't illegal immigrants from Russia I don't have a minute to listen to them trying to justify the papers please BS

#293 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-29 05:13 PM | Reply

"Trump is a madman yet Hillary is the one with all the blood on her hands."

I guess the period blood on Trump's grabbin' hand doesn't count?

#294 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-29 07:23 PM | Reply

I voted for Bernie in the primary because he was the best candidate CAPABLE OF WINNING. Then I voted for Hillary because she was the best candidate CAPABLE OF WINNING.

If Johnson had somehow managed to con enough people into voting for pro-pot Trump and won the primary I still would have voted for Hillary because Johnson was just Trump with legalized pot. If Bernie had won the primary I would have voted for him in the General. I believe he could have beat Trump but we will never know

#295 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-30 05:24 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort