The Clinton Victory Thread

[purplerat]

For all Trump's unsavory bluster, he's not likely to make things worse for "dark-skinned people" in the USA.
Were he to win office, the outrageous proclamations he has made in the course of his campaign would be tempered by existing realities. He's as good as admitted that himself...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/20/what-does-donald-trump-really-believe-about-immigration/

Fuck that. Is Trump going to actually build a wall or pass racist laws. Probably not. But everything we know about Trump tells us that without a doubt he'll be scapegoating people of color every time something goes wrong in the country while he's president which will likely be a daily occurrence to begin with.

Unemployment rises - "it's the illegals taking US jobs", a terrorist attack - "Muslims need to go", civil unrest "it's those lazy blacks who don't want to work for a living" and so on.

I would fully expect a significant rise in racially motivated violence under a Trump presidency. I certainly wouldn't want to be a minority while Trump is attempting to "Make America Great Again".

I won't go full Godwin but take a hint...

[GT2211]

I can only imagine that Hillary's camp is taking great humor in this vp thing.

Some sources are telling us its down to the safe choices of Kaine and Vilsack

Others are saying Corey Booker is still in consideration.

NBC says its between Perez Kaine and Vilsack
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... st-n614051

Reports seem to be that Warren is out and Castro is out(and he has gotten himself into hot water for mixing politics with his public position).

Orlando seems like an odd place to announce Vilsack, a white governor of Iowa who was born in PA. Kaine speaks Spanish but you would think VA would be the obvious choice... But I seen on Twitter Warren is scheduled to speak in Orlando this weekend at a La Raza event.....

[Teague]

At least Clinton believes in climate change...

Given her inclinations, she'll probably change it to a nuclear winter!

If you can't be arsed to support a revolution, STFU - you have NOTHING to say anymore. What credibility does a lazy ass have if he can't get off his ass and get invloved in something that is depserately needed over there

Oh ur in SA- pissed on my fireworks....

Trump is the revolution... or as close as the US will get to it, short of actual in-the-streets revolution (which, in the US, would last about as long as a day or two before a massive crackdown).

Clinton may believe climate change us real, but she is completely unprepared to crack down on the oil and military industries to make a meaningful difference. Insight without behaviour change is meaningless,

More than Trump is going to do. I think the state of the planet trumps who wins an insignificant election.

[WayOfTheDodo]

WikiLeaks is leaking again. This time the DNC is getting the shitty end of the deal:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

MSM coverage:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/polit ... ks-emails/

Nice one, DNC. No corruption there. No siree!

If only Clinton was good enough to be elected without cheating...

[proudfootz]

It just proves that if Sanders ever became President, both the Republicans and Democrats would be sandbagging him.

It'd be a bi-partisan effort - evidence that Sanders is the one candidate who could've united the country.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Lolz, because those Republicans would totally get behind Sander's policies.

[proudfootz]

Lolz, because those Republicans would totally get behind Sander's policies.

Just like they got behind Obama's.

...and presumable, Clinton's.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Neither of which they have or ever would have gotten behind.

Sanders would have had no more unifying an influence on the US than Clinton will or Obama has. Republicans don't even eat at the grownups table. There needs to be a cultural shift in the US before any such thing can occur. Jesus himself couldn't unite the country as it stands and virtually all American politicians claim to love that guy.

There is no amount of skill or sound policy that can unite the USA because Americans are fundamentally opposed to it at this time (and I don't even blame them.) Obama couldn't do it and Sanders couldn't have either.

[Boyle]

I honestly think Sanders may have been a bit more unifying than Clinton (a soulless woman) or Obama (a black man who's obviously a transgender gay atheist Muslim).

[igorfrankensteen]

Neither of which they have or ever would have gotten behind.

Sanders would have had no more unifying an influence on the US than Clinton will or Obama has. Republicans don't even eat the the grownups table. There needs to be a cultural shift in the US before any such thing can occur. Jesus himself couldn't unite the country as it stands and virtually all American politicians claim to love that guy.

There is no amount of skill or sound policy that can unite the USA because Americans are fundamentally opposed to it at this time (and I don't even blame them.) Obama couldn't do it and Sanders couldn't have either.

I think that the greatest impediment to unity here, is that most of the leadership in the country, whether it's of an organized political party, or of a relatively vague "movement," have ALL chosen a course to make headway by blaming one chunk of Americans or another.

It's made even worse, by the fact that in order to cover their butts for having lied to their own supporters for decades, at least one of the major parties has designed their ENTIRE platform around what they are OPPOSED TO. They have no positive plans of any kinds at all.

That meant that when Obama made the silly mistake of trying to design legislative agendas to build a rapport (i.e. making them similar to previous GOP proposals), they not only rejected the very things that they had specifically said they wanted previously, they declared openly that they would work to destroy the US itself if need be, just to annoy Obama.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I honestly think Sanders may have been a bit more unifying than Clinton (a soulless woman) or Obama (a black man who's obviously a transgender gay atheist Muslim).

He does have the old white man thing working for him, which Republicans love.

[quas]

It just proves that if Sanders ever became President, both the Republicans and Democrats would be sandbagging him.

It'd be a bi-partisan effort - evidence that Sanders is the one candidate who could've united the country.

If Trump or Hillary becomes president, the same shit would happen too.
Political parties like to get behind the current regime, whoever that is, as long as it consolidates their power base.
Speaking of this unification, it wasn't too long ago that Bush got the entire nation behind him for the war on terror. How could you forget that?

[Byron]

So, in the face of rampaging populism, conducted by an opponent openly using the phrase "America first," Clinton Veeps a man with "Washington insider" stamped through his bone marrow.

And sad thing is, I can totally believe it.

[Briton]

For all Trump's unsavory bluster, he's not likely to make things worse for "dark-skinned people" in the USA.
Were he to win office, the outrageous proclamations he has made in the course of his campaign would be tempered by existing realities. He's as good as admitted that himself...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/20/what-does-donald-trump-really-believe-about-immigration/

Fuck that. Is Trump going to actually build a wall or pass racist laws. Probably not. But everything we know about Trump tells us that without a doubt he'll be scapegoating people of color every time something goes wrong in the country while he's president which will likely be a daily occurrence to begin with.

Unemployment rises - "it's the illegals taking US jobs", a terrorist attack - "Muslims need to go", civil unrest "it's those lazy blacks who don't want to work for a living" and so on.

I would fully expect a significant rise in racially motivated violence under a Trump presidency. I certainly wouldn't want to be a minority while Trump is attempting to "Make America Great Again".

I won't go full Godwin but take a hint...

I wonder though if the rest of the world would be better off with Trump than with war hawk Clinton? If he is more isolationist than Clinton then that could be the case. Probably not in reality I guess; he'll probably fall into line with the war for profit machine.

[Willie71]

I honestly think Sanders may have been a bit more unifying than Clinton (a soulless woman) or Obama (a black man who's obviously a transgender gay atheist Muslim).

He does have the old white man thing working for him, which Republicans love.

A bullshit mysogynistic insult. He has the "lets get money out of politics " thing going, which has bipartisan support. Of course criticizing Clinton's corruption and big industry donors couldn't be about legitimate issues, but only anti woman gate. Fucking idiots who bought into that.

Of course Clibton is unifying the country, with supreme negative approval.

Call me a mysogynist. I support Stein.

[Mike_L]

For all Trump's unsavory bluster, he's not likely to make things worse for "dark-skinned people" in the USA.
Were he to win office, the outrageous proclamations he has made in the course of his campaign would be tempered by existing realities. He's as good as admitted that himself...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/20/what-does-donald-trump-really-believe-about-immigration/

Fuck that. Is Trump going to actually build a wall or pass racist laws. Probably not. But everything we know about Trump tells us that without a doubt he'll be scapegoating people of color every time something goes wrong in the country while he's president which will likely be a daily occurrence to begin with.

Unemployment rises - "it's the illegals taking US jobs", a terrorist attack - "Muslims need to go", civil unrest "it's those lazy blacks who don't want to work for a living" and so on.

I would fully expect a significant rise in racially motivated violence under a Trump presidency. I certainly wouldn't want to be a minority while Trump is attempting to "Make America Great Again".

I won't go full Godwin but take a hint...

I wonder though if the rest of the world would be better off with Trump than with war hawk Clinton? If he is more isolationist than Clinton then that could be the case. Probably not in reality I guess; he'll probably fall into line with the war for profit machine.

This is my way of thinking on the matter.
Trump is an unknown quantity in this regard, but Clinton isn't. Under her it'll be increased involvement in Syria, Iran in the crosshairs and escalating tensions with Russia... perhaps China as well.
Trump? There's at least a chance that he would "dial it down" a bit.

[Willie71]

WikiLeaks is leaking again. This time the DNC is getting the shitty end of the deal:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

MSM coverage:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/polit ... ks-emails/

Nice one, DNC. No corruption there. No siree!

If only Clinton was good enough to be elected without cheating...

All those claiming this primary was above board can eat shit now.

Conspiracy theory, my ass.

[Macdoc]

As much as I approve of the notion ..... the strength of this statement aligns too much of the fossil fuel money with Trump

This month, the full Democratic Platform Committee approved the strongest statement about the urgent need for climate action ever issued by a major party in this country.
The platform makes for the starkest possible contrast with a party that just nominated Donald Trump — a man who has called climate change a hoax invented by and for the Chinese, who has denied basic reality such as the drought in California, and who has vowed to (try to) scuttle the unanimous agreement by the world’s nations in Paris to take whatever measures are necessary to avert catastrophic warming and keep total warming “well below 2°C.”
In contrast, one party in this country has finally embraced the blunt — and scientifically accurate — language of climate hawks as to what those measures actually entail:

We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II. In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/0 ... ilization/

With oil and gas driving much of the economic rebound - this kind of platform plank might work against the Dems. It's too much preaching to the converted and offers an attack point for the Dumf brigade.

It's the kind of policy statement a president should make AFTER winning the presidency....cue Machiavelli

[GT2211]

I honestly think Sanders may have been a bit more unifying than Clinton (a soulless woman) or Obama (a black man who's obviously a transgender gay atheist Muslim).

He does have the old white man thing working for him, which Republicans love.

A bullshit mysogynistic insult. He has the "lets get money out of politics " thing going, which has bipartisan support. Of course criticizing Clinton's corruption and big industry donors couldn't be about legitimate issues, but only anti woman gate. Fucking idiots who bought into that.

Of course Clibton is unifying the country, with supreme negative approval.

Call me a mysogynist. I support Stein.

Are you a Republican?

[GT2211]

For all Trump's unsavory bluster, he's not likely to make things worse for "dark-skinned people" in the USA.
Were he to win office, the outrageous proclamations he has made in the course of his campaign would be tempered by existing realities. He's as good as admitted that himself...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/20/what-does-donald-trump-really-believe-about-immigration/

Fuck that. Is Trump going to actually build a wall or pass racist laws. Probably not. But everything we know about Trump tells us that without a doubt he'll be scapegoating people of color every time something goes wrong in the country while he's president which will likely be a daily occurrence to begin with.

Unemployment rises - "it's the illegals taking US jobs", a terrorist attack - "Muslims need to go", civil unrest "it's those lazy blacks who don't want to work for a living" and so on.

I would fully expect a significant rise in racially motivated violence under a Trump presidency. I certainly wouldn't want to be a minority while Trump is attempting to "Make America Great Again".

I won't go full Godwin but take a hint...

I wonder though if the rest of the world would be better off with Trump than with war hawk Clinton? If he is more isolationist than Clinton then that could be the case. Probably not in reality I guess; he'll probably fall into line with the war for profit machine.

If there is one thing Trump has shown, it's a cool, calm demeanor and sound foreign policy.