There are a few reasons that I voted Green in 2016 with the major one being there is no way I would vote for Hillary Clinton: even if ranked choice voting as involved. There would have to be a lot of slots for other options before I would vote for her.
And I have three dogs who I would write in before I would vote for her.
No sexism. Unless the reason you wanted me to vote for her was that she was a woman. Both Kamala and Hillary are pretty bad choices.
I've gotten into them before, but this one needs to be hammered into your head if you think Hillary should have been an option:
Given that health care is a big topic, I think he would have had a lot more appeal. Toss in that he comes from a historically red State (Vermont). The only people he didn't appeal to were the big donors.
OK, maybe you don't give an fcuk about Palestinians, but Israelis live high on the hog with universal health care, nice homes, education, and all sorts of other goodies paid for by the US tax payers.
You don't get the "socialism" and "welfare state", but you pay to support a nation that does not act in the US interest.
Actually, it's more like they blame Russians for interference even though the 2016 election was thrown by the Electoral College, which comes from the US CONSTITUTION! It's called distraction.
The Israel lobby actually does what the Russians have been alleged to do.
And I don't care how pro-Israel you happen to be: that money would be much better spent here.
BC Degraff does a fantastic job of documenting what happened to the Sanders campaign in 2016.
What gets me is that this was so blatant, yet MSNBC and Wretched Madcow never addressed this. Instead the media spent a lot of time on the Russian Interference distraction tactic.
Any "Russian interference" was negligible compared to the internal corruption of the system.
Now, why isn't Adam Schiff spending his time on this?
Oh, yeah, the Democratic party was the perpetrator.
Я не умер, трахая лошадь. И я
определенно не трахал твоего осла после моей смерти. Вы думаете, я
сделаю предложение о шоу ослов, если отцы-основатели добавят коллегию
выборщиков в вашу конституцию?
No, Empress Katherine the Great didn't die fucking a horse. And she couldn't fuck the Democratic Donkey after she died either.
You think she offered to give the founding fathers a donkey show if they added the electoral college to the Constitution?
Anyway, Putin wasn't alive when the Constitution was drafted, but Katherine the Great was Empress of Russia!
Now, drop the partisan bullshit and start working on some serious issues such as climate change.
Kyiv Post has an article on how the Ukrainians see the latest attempt by the "Democrats" to try to harm Donald Trump. Another one that will backfire bigly.
What are Giuliani and Trump alleging?
Specifically, Giuliani alleges that: 1) Biden pressured Ukraine to
fire its prosecutor general in order to hamper an investigation into
Burisma Holdings, the oil and gas company where his son Hunter worked,
and 2) that Ukrainian officials conspired to help Hillary Clinton during
the 2016 election.
The problem with the impeachment nonsense is that the Democrats need to come up with something that won't backfire on them. This one will as the last one did since the underlying claims relate to Democratic corruption.
As the dude said, "let the person without sin cast the first stone".
But this shit beats having to address the US's problems.
Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.
I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.
On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!
We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.
The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.
And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).
I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
or
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?
Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.
It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election". On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.
So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.
The shit will really go down once people start reading the Wikileaked Democratic Party e-mails because the Russians ain't got nothing on the Democratic Party and the Media for pushing Donald Trump.
Which was a strategy that backfired spectacularly!
Not to mention that the Democrats looks set for a replay.
There is a big difference between this and Watergate. The Republicans were the ones responsible for Watergate. 2016 was a joint effort, which was probably more from the Democrats and Media. But don't expect to get any mea culpas from the likes of Rachel Maddow John Oliver, et al.
Naw, they are going to keep beating a dead horse and working to get Trump reelected.
Any luck, there will be a move for impeachment which will blow up in the Dems' faces.
At this point, I am getting even sicker of the Democratic Party than I was after the Philadelphia DNC for their failure to live up to their name.
Like it or not, the Mueller Report said there was no collusion. It's time to drop the matter and move on.
Or maybe the Republicans should start looking into the Democratic Party's shenanigans.
While the Democratic Partisans are upset about obstruction and incorrectly accusing Trump of treason, they seem to be neglecting that one of the casualties of the Mueller Investigation is Gregory Craig, who was a former Clinton and Obama attorney. Craig was charged with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).
DoJ's focus on FARA came about as an off shoot of the Mueller investigation.
Paul Manafort was convicted under this act for his work done for Ukraine's former President. Craig and Manafort worked together to help the Ukrainians, but failed to bother to register under FARA. Their client was Viktor Pinchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian steel-pipe maker. The Clintons and Pinchuk are linked via the Clinton Foundation.
There have long been allegations about the Clinton Foundation being a way to launder funds, if not straight out buy favours from the Clintons. The FBI has been said to have investigated the foundation for alleged “pay-to-play” politics while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.
While the Mueller Investigation might not have been totally bipartisan, I can't help but wonder if it also investigated the Clintons and the Clinton foundation after hearing about the Craig indictment.
Wouldn't it be funny if the redactions about on going criminal investigations related to the Clintons and their campaign? That would really be egg on the face of the Democrats for fucking up the 2016 Election.
Anyway, the Dems should be careful what they wish for, they might get it.
Now if you were an environmentalist group and going to endorse a candidate, which one of these would you choose?
The person with the 100% (or 92%): Bernie Sanders?
Or the person with the 82%: Hillary Clinton?
Bernie Sanders was the highest rated candidate on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard and the Climate Hawks Vote PAC in 2016.
Clinton had the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates using the LCV's standard.
Yet, the LCV chose Clinton.
What the fuck?
LCV's Action Fund took an unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries was cast. That was a big mistake. It was far too early in this primary for the nation’s most powerful environmental political organization to make an endorsement.
Yet they did. And they chose a candidate who was poor by their own standards!
Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline during her tenure as Secretary of State. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond.
Clinton supported the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders had introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and Martin O’Malley actively supported the climate divestment movement, while Clinton , whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists did not taken a position.
This was Clinton's reaction when asked about her connection to the fossil fuel industry by a Greenpeace Volunteer.
Clinton never did the actions necessary to gain the support of the environmentalist movement (other than those establishment groups who are hopeful that change can come through the duopoly regime). On the other hand, climate change had short shrift if it received any attention at all during the campaign.
There are a lot of issues going on here from having a candidate chosen long before the primary process begins, failure to have a serious debate on the issue, and just plain off earning the vote.
The environment is just one of many issues where Clinton just wasn't trustworthy. And she didn't help the situation by antagonising environmental activists. She failed to give straight answers on the issue. I would toss in that she failed to address The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) issue in a meaningful manner.
But this is one of many issues where Clinton demonstrated she wasn't trustworthy.
I really have to question who rigged the election when a group such as LCV essentially declared that
there’s no need for any further discussion of the environment or climate
by the Democratic candidates before the primary process really began. And they decided that in favour of a candidate who was poor by their own standard.
One of the pundits said that the Democrats see the Mueller Report as evidence of collusion and obstruction, while the Republicans see it as a vindication of the president.
And the Independent and Third Party voters?
We see it as neglecting the internal bullshit of the duopoly parties.
We have a document in Wilileaks, which has been confirmed as authentic showing that Clinton wanted a "Pied Piper" candidate to run against.
Trump received a significant amount of free media coverage, which wouldn't have been possible a while back. I remember in 1980 when the Ronald Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" couldn't be shown on TV in the US because it would be free coverage. On the other hand, I've heard estimates of the free publicity received by Trump to be in the billions of dollars.
Never mind that the same media shut out Bernie Sanders. Now, who was it who was trying to meddle in the election.
Of course the media are going to be pushing the Russian collusion thing since it distracts from the far more egregious acts that are happening in the US electoral process.
The Clinton campaign wasn't too bothered by foreign assistance, which turns out to be dodgy. The Steele Dossier is coming up for scrutiny since the release of the Mueller Report. Ukrainians and Russians aren't the same nation (I should know), and there is evidence that the Ukrainians were assisting the Clinton Campaign.
It gets even more amusing since there are also allegations that the Russians tried to assist the Sanders campaign! That went well! I think there is far more evidence that the Democrats rigged the game against Sanders which makes that claim truly laughable.
Especially since it's been shown that Clinton was chosen to be the Democratic nominee in 2015: well before the voting started. Sanders was an inconvenience that showed the primary process for being the farce it is.
One of the reasons I voted for the Greens was that I saw both of the duopoly candidates as being slimey and neither party is willing to take responsibility. One major thing they could do to clear up this is to work on serious election reform.
"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add
debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance,
spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The
League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of
the American public."
Neuman was League of Women Voters President Nancy M. Neuman who said that in October of 1988, which demonstrates that this conspiracy has been ongoing for some time.
And it is internal to the duopoly parties.
But it's a heck of a lot easier to point to countries that use the Cyrillic Alphabet as being the perps since few people can understand what is really happening.
And it's happening at home.
The real takeaway from all this is that the US needs election reform badly.
it seems that Russia's attempt to influence the 2016 election was to exacerbate the political divisions within the US and promote Trump as a presidential candidate.
It seems some people are conspicuously absent from the Mueller report. Why aren't the Russian operatives responsible for Exhibit 1 being mentioned?
I think that is prime evidence that the General Counsel's report was a witch hunt.
Let's face it, the entire thing is based upon leaked Democratic Party internal communications.
Next, it seems that the Russians wanted to use social media to turn people against Hillary Clinton.
Was that really necessary? Hillary Clinton was one of the most unpopular candidates to run: EVER!
The only candidate more unpopular was Donald Trump!
On the other hand, that seems to mean that you have to be some kind of Russian bot if you posted anything that was remotely critical of Hillary Clinton. I mean who else would dare criticise the party's chosen candidate?
Those Bernie Bros were Russian stooges as was anyone else who dared not vote for Hillary. And don't you dare to criticise her.
The reality is that there is more than enough documentation of Clinton acting like an asshole without anyone's assistance. She didn't need the Russians to make her look bad. She did a great job on her own.
So far, I have yet to see any remotely plausible reason for Clinton's loss other than the Electoral College, but some people want to go on like a bunch sore losers hoping that Trump will be impeached.
Aside: Do you think they would be happy with Pence?
Personally, I saw a lot more internal US actions that violated the concept of a free and fair election. The ironic thing was those actions came from the Democratic Party.
But who is investigating how independents who tried to reregister as Democrats were denied the opportunity to vote in closed Primaries?
And the Democratic Parties violation of its internal rules to favour Clinton over Sanders are an open secret. It's the elephant in the room about all this.
I mean the e-mails in question are internal Democratic Party Communications which have been confirmed to be authentic.
As a criminal defence attorney, I would be hammering on that one if my client were accused of this shit.
This is like my desire to post that he was going to win in 2016 when I saw early on that the Electoral Votes were being tallied, instead of the popular vote. That was because I knew the popular vote wouldn't matter.
I am saying this early on because I am hoping maybe a warning might reach the right eyes since I am already seeing the same trends that led Trump win in 2016 happening again.
Of course, this presupposes that Trump will be the 2020 Republican nominee. Which is fairly certain unless someone comes in and does what Bernie Sanders did in 2016. That was to offer a choice to the Republican voters who don't want to run one of the most unpopular candidates ever.
But unpopularity doesn't matter which is something neither party has learned since they don't have to. They are the duopoly and the sheep will keep voting for the lesser evil.
So, as in 2016, the Democrats will end up with a candidate who is unpopular. Sanders will face some of the same shit he had in 2016 less the media blackout. But I am sure that the Democratic Party "members" won't want him running based on his "not being a democrat".[1] Of course, they will support Liz Warren.
Liz Warren is another story. Her brand was tarnished in 2016 when she went with Clinton instead of Sanders. She was heckled at the 2016 DNC with shouts of "We trusted you." UMass Amherst released a poll of the 2020 Democratic primary in
Massachusetts, and Warren garnered just 11 percent of the sample. That
is not good in a state where her name recognition is already high and
Democrats are as intimately familiar with her record as any 2020 voter
is going to get.
Liz is one of many Sanders clones running which will give him competition, but there is only one Bernie. Although, I just learned about Sanders signing the Democratic loyalty oath which would mean that he is now a Democratic party member and one of the complaints about him is gone.
But, I don't think some of the party members will forgive Sanders for 2016.
The main things that bother me about the Democratic Party: that they failed to be honest about what happened in 2016 and that they will run another unpopular candidate are the real bottom line here.
I agree with Camille Paglia who said:
If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats
(my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no
coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of
potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge.
While I supported Sanders in 2016. I'm not sure I would do it now. I think Bernie's time was in 2016. The Democratic party brand is tarnished beyond repair (and the Republicans are way too far out).
In fair disclosure, I am an independent who voted with the Democrats since I vote in a jurisdiction where there is a closed primary. I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary. Then I voted for Jill Stein.
My vote for Jill Stein in no way influenced the outcome of the election. Clinton still would have lost even if all the people who voted for Jill Stein where I am registered to vote. An aside here: people who voted for Jill Stein weren't very likely to vote for either duopoly candidate.
Still even if my state had voted for Hillary Clinton, that wouldn't have made too much of a difference where the voting really counted: the Electoral College. It might have shifted a few votes, but it wouldn't have given Clinton the 270 votes needed to win.
The popular vote is irrelevant to the outcome of the election as I have pointed out. It has nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with the constitution.
I find it liberating to know that I am able to vote my conscience knowing that the popular vote is meaningless.
