It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid.
This also:
But, hey, everyone got to make their protest vote, which is what's most important. After all, there's absolutely no difference between Donald and Hillary.
Last edited:
The greatest short term danger, it strikes me, is to immigrants in this country. And we're going to have to figure out ways to protect very vulnerable people from harm. But the longest-term impact—the thing that will have turned out to have been the biggest deal over the next several thousand years—is what it means for the rate at which the planet warms.
You talk about privilege all the time, but you're blind to it in yourself.
It is a privilege to pressure those for whom violence will rain down unimpeded, regardless of who occupies the mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to do something that may benefit you but won’t do anything for them."
Bill Clinton signed DOMA and DADT into law. He also signed a racist crime bill into law, putting more Black and Brown people behind bars (guess who can't vote in elections?), gutted welfare and did nothing during the Rwandan genocide. Oh, and goodbye Glass-Steagall Act.This is just plain silly. If you can't differentiate between these individuals and their policies, then no wonder we're in the pickle we're in.
It's all Obama's fault.And let's not forget who gave Donald Trump the idea to run for president in the first place.
Uh, what? Bill Clinton called Donald Trump, believing that it would easier for Hillary Clinton to defeat him in a general election. The DNC then did everything in its power to elevate his candidacy and instructed corporate media to take him seriously, to normalize him.It's all Obama's fault.
Have you read the article you apparently think you're quoting?Uh, what? Bill Clinton called Donald Trump, believing that it would easier for Hillary Clinton to defeat him in a general election. The DNC then did everything in its power to elevate his candidacy and instructed corporate media to take him seriously, to normalize him.
Yes, and I'll save you the trouble of quoting the part of the article that you think I didn't read.Have you read the article you apparently think you're quoting?
...Clinton never urged Trump to run...
Yes, and I'll save you the trouble of quoting the part of the article that you think I didn't read.
Okay.Not just that.
The Salon article, and what you take from that. It's actually in direct contradiction to the WP article
Motivation is only meaningful to the extent that it allows someone to learn from their mistakes, and to not repeat them in the future.
A cop who shoots an unarmed black man because a heightened sense of fear engendered by a racist society caused him to imagine a gun where there was none may feel deep remorse, which might lead him to re-examine his assumptions and worldview and not repeat his mistake.
A cop who shoots an unarmed black man because he's angry that the man "disrespected" him by not obeying orders quickly enough is highly unlikely to feel remorse, and will continue victimizing people over whom he has power.
However, if the first cop feels no remorse, if he instead continues to justify the rightness of his decision to himself, he's going to continue to be as much of a danger as the second cop.
The victims themselves will be dead either way; their killers' motivations are meaningless to them.
Yes, that's when neoliberalism gained prominence in the United States. H.W., Clinton, W. and Obama all continued the same neoliberal policies. Trump will, too. Hillary Clinton would have.
My question is: why would you ever, in a million years, vote for someone who you knew had absolutely no chance of winning?
Okay.
Still think Clinton was a good president for marginalized and working-class people?
Power of Progressive Economics: The Clinton Years – Center for American ProgressPresident Clinton presided over one of the most impressive economic turnarounds in modern history. By the end of his term, 22.7 million new jobs had been created, unemployment dropped to a 30-year low, and gross domestic product grew by 35 percent overall through the longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.
What’s more, the growth was broadly shared and unemployment plummeted across the board, including those groups for whom the economy never worked very well. Average hourly wages increased by 6 percent after accounting for inflation, and median household income grew by 14 percent, the highest increase for a two-term president. The median income of African American families increased by a third and Hispanic families saw their median incomes rise by almost $7,000. Poverty rates dropped to near record lows. And of course the federal budget went from enormous deficits to enormous surpluses, with the federal government on track to becoming effectively debt free by 2009—for the first time since Andrew Jackson was president.
Household income growth under four American presidents | Brookings InstitutionShapiro then looks at income growth by age for the past five presidents and finds that the “…largest average annual gains in median household income occurred during the Clinton and Reagan administrations, with a clear edge to Clinton.” As figure 2 illustrates, young people in the Reagan and Clinton years saw their incomes grow right into middle age.
Neoliberalism is a type of economic policy that both the Republicans and Democrats have embraced since Ronald Reagan first took office.Good grief. Spang, I love hearing from you, you're a smart guy, but honestly, what is this even supposed to mean?
If you think Ronald Reagan's policies were anything resembling neoliberalism, I'm really not sure there's anything else to say to you on the subject, because you will reject logic in favor of your own political narrative surrounding your own policy grudges. Of course there's no defending some of the things done under the Clinton and Obama administrations, but to group together the totality of the actions of someone like Obama with someone like Reagan is blatantly ahistorical and irresponsible.
One reason I voted for him was because if he reached 5% of the popular vote, the party would qualify for minor party status and all the good things that come from that. I was thinking of 2020 and beyond. And even if I hadn't voted for him, I would not have voted from Trump or Clinton. Couldn't stomach either one. And that is a common view among Johnson supporters.
Some here have said they wouldn't vote Johnson because they don't believe in his views. Fine. I wouldn't expect them to vote for him then. So why do the Hillary supporters think we in Johnson's camp owe them our vote when we don't agree with her?
By the way, Stein was more likely to pull voters from Hillary and Johnson more likely to pull voters from Trump. So quit crying.
My vote didn't lose the election for Hillary. Far from it, in fact.
My state always goes blue, even if it means people vote from the grave to make sure of it.
People have every right to be upset their candidate lost, but they don't have a right to command how the rest of us should have voted.
Why are people screaming for his impeachment? Now that the votes over, trump is our best defense against a total takeover with Pence as successor.
Neoliberalism is a type of economic policy that both the Republicans and Democrats have embraced since Ronald Reagan first took office.
He's already looking into keeping much of what Obamacare created.