JUburton wrote:I have evolved my stance. I still think he dials it back just a little after a massive Hillary victory...he says she won and he won't fight it. He say it might be rigged and everyone was out to get him from the beginning...then he launches his dumb trump streaming service and it fails within a year or two.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Once he realizes he'd have to sue state by state and the RNC isn't paying for it, he'll just return to whining. All talk, no action.

pacino wrote:turns out Ecuador itself restricted Assange's access because he's wading into the current US presidential race by releasing documents from Clinton's campaign. They do not want to be accused of influencing foreign elections.

That's just what Hillary and her insiders what you to think, Hero Rapist Assange is a true patriot.

Soren wrote:

pacino wrote:turns out Ecuador itself restricted Assange's access because he's wading into the current US presidential race by releasing documents from Clinton's campaign. They do not want to be accused of influencing foreign elections.

That's just what Hillary and her insiders what you to think, Hero Rapist Assange is a true patriot.

don't worry, Infowars already has the real scoop. It was Kerry and Clinton together forcing Ecuador at gunpoint.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

thephan wrote:I don't think we can even entertain talk of charges without direct action and involvement. Gum flapping is permissible. If there is any credence given to charges, and the bar is very necessarily high for those charges, it just changes the chant to Jail XXX. That is not what we want, nor is where we want to live.

Inciting a riot or hate crimes is very much illegal. So it's a bit more complicated than what you suggest.

Please make it more explicit. People acting on his dim words, do they meet that standard? At what level? I agree he is a danger, but meeting the standard of treason is very hard. Treason is what we are talking about. Meeting with Putin does not meet that standard.

Sedition is closer, but it takes action, which I think this falls short of.

Legal

Advocating Overthrow seems more plausible, but you can quickly slam in to 'Free Speech" where there is a demand of tolerance no matter how repugnant.

I am not sure how inciting a riot is implemented, but that is closest in my opinion.

Recall that I work in the computer industry, so my legal opinion is darn near null and void.

dying

i never noticed it before but he has andy rooney eyebrows

So promises of surprises in bad taste from Donald. More surprises. Bigger surprises. Devastating. Some is just 'look at me', and some is just something between tacky and a brooding bully. Sadly some percentage of America is completely down with the idea that being a bully is somehow strong.

The Presidential candidate favored by millions:

Why I'm voting Jill Stein:

I really don’t see my vote as a waste. Yes, I am fully aware that either Trump or Clinton will definitely be president. And, yes, I know that I’m in a swing state where the stakes are higher. But that doesn’t mean that my third-party vote doesn’t count for anything.

To me, it is a deliberate stand against the two-party system. It’s a stand against the Democratic Party, a way to communicate to them that they need to address the more progressive wing of this country and shift their policies to the left. It’s just one part of a larger movement that includes electing third-party politicians on a local level, grassroots activism, and change from the bottom. We need to chip away at the system at every level

That’s why I’m standing for Stein. I can cast my ballot without guilt, knowing that she represents who I am as a person. People tell me to compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils — but I cannot compromise when it comes to my beliefs, especially when they involve human rights and systemic oppression. If Stein didn’t happen to fall deeply in step with my views, I would abstain from voting entirely. I vote based on principle, not because of party loyalty.

It is a moral, not a pragmatic, act.

I think this shows the schism between how I view voting and how this person does. I don't view it as something representing how I am as a person but how I want the country to actually be run over the next how many years. Pragmatism is a real thing. And it's a moral thing.

I don't think you change the Democratic Party by refusing to be a part of it (Bernie figured it out). As he states, his vote is against the Democratic Party more than Republicans. And I don't think you skip the grassroots for a single national election to starting pushing. He preaches change from the bottom but his first act will be one to decide who is on top. Choosing who you are fighting against is just as important as deciding what you believe in. Choose someone who you have a chance with.

I doubt I sway anyone unswayable but I had to respond to this piece I read. It infuriates me because I probably have very similar goals to this person.

pacino wrote:Why I'm voting Jill Stein:

I really don’t see my vote as a waste. Yes, I am fully aware that either Trump or Clinton will definitely be president. And, yes, I know that I’m in a swing state where the stakes are higher. But that doesn’t mean that my third-party vote doesn’t count for anything.

To me, it is a deliberate stand against the two-party system. It’s a stand against the Democratic Party, a way to communicate to them that they need to address the more progressive wing of this country and shift their policies to the left. It’s just one part of a larger movement that includes electing third-party politicians on a local level, grassroots activism, and change from the bottom. We need to chip away at the system at every level

That’s why I’m standing for Stein. I can cast my ballot without guilt, knowing that she represents who I am as a person. People tell me to compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils — but I cannot compromise when it comes to my beliefs, especially when they involve human rights and systemic oppression. If Stein didn’t happen to fall deeply in step with my views, I would abstain from voting entirely. I vote based on principle, not because of party loyalty.

It is a moral, not a pragmatic, act.

I think this shows the schism between how I view voting and how this person does. I don't view it as something representing how I am as a person but how I want the country to actually be run over the next how many years. Pragmatism is a real thing. And it's a moral thing.

I don't think you change the Democratic Party by refusing to be a part of it (Bernie figured it out). As he states, his vote is against the Democratic Party more than Republicans. And I don't think you skip the grassroots for a single national election to starting pushing. He preaches change from the bottom but his first act will be one to decide who is on top. Choosing who you are fighting against is just as important as deciding what you believe in. Choose someone who you have a chance with.

I doubt I sway anyone unswayable but I had to respond to this piece I read. It infuriates me because I probably have very similar goals to this person.

This type of attitude is far more common in younger people and tends to fade with age. Some never lose it. Good for them--the world does need some Don Quixotes, I guess.

Conway: Obama's half-brother invited to debate because 'we’re inclusive'

Read more

Smell the WOW.

Clinton's first list for VP (Thanks, Julian!):

Here's the full list as organized by Podesta:

Xavier Becerra
Julian Castro
Eric Garcetti
Tom Perez
Ken Salazar

Tammy Baldwin
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Claire McKaskill
Jeanne Shaheen
Debbie Stabenow
Elizabeth Warren
Michael Bennet
Sherrod Brown
Martin Heinreich
Tim Kaine
Terry McAuliffe
Chris Murphy
Tom Vilsack

Steve Benjamin
Corey Booker
Andrew Gillum
Eric Holder
Deval Patrick
Kasim Reed
Anthony Foxx

John Allen
Bill McCraven
Mike Mullen
Mary Barra
Michael Bloomberg
Ursula Burns
Tim Cook
Bill Gates
Melinda Gates
Muhtar Kent
Judith Rodin
Howard Schultz

Bernie Sanders[/quote]
Bernie was in his own category

Bill Gates! lol.

The problem isn't as much principle over pragmatism, but rather the idea that principle is enough by itself. Occupy Wall Street accomplished exactly nothing--it did not identify left candidates who could challenge established Democrats in primaries, it paid no attention to state politics, and in general was a stupid waste. Just like voting for Jill Stein is a stupid waste. This young person ought to run for something, or encourage some other idealistic person to run for something in a Democratic primary and then actually have a chance of winning an office. That's how the system works, that's how change happens.

The other thing about young people in addition to idealism is they are impatient. The strategy that will work will take time and effort.

Also, if you pay any attention to who Jill Stein actually is, she is not Bernie Sanders. She's a lunatic and as unqualified for Potus as Trump.

this article speaks to that, TV. The Green Party in Germany is much more successful because it has focused on local politics and compromise for a generation.

And there are probably local offices that could be targeted by a third party, but I still think the more effective strategy would be through the Democratic party. That's how the Tea Party succeeded in moving the Republican Party far to the right--if nothing else, the Tea Party showed how tenuous the establishment's grip on the party apparatus really is.

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem isn't as much principle over pragmatism, but rather the idea that principle is enough by itself. Occupy Wall Street accomplished exactly nothing--it did not identify left candidates who could challenge established Democrats in primaries, it paid no attention to state politics, and in general was a stupid waste. Just like voting for Jill Stein is a stupid waste. This young person ought to run for something, or encourage some other idealistic person to run for something in a Democratic primary and then actually have a chance of winning an office. That's how the system works, that's how change happens.

The other thing about young people in addition to idealism is they are impatient. The strategy that will work will take time and effort.

I am on the Environmental Advisory Council of my home town with somebody who really needs this advice.

Problem is he is 80 plus years old.

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem isn't as much principle over pragmatism, but rather the idea that principle is enough by itself. Occupy Wall Street accomplished exactly nothing--it did not identify left candidates who could challenge established Democrats in primaries, it paid no attention to state politics, and in general was a stupid waste. Just like voting for Jill Stein is a stupid waste. This young person ought to run for something, or encourage some other idealistic person to run for something in a Democratic primary and then actually have a chance of winning an office. That's how the system works, that's how change happens.

The other thing about young people in addition to idealism is they are impatient. The strategy that will work will take time and effort.

I am on the Environmental Advisory Council of my home town with somebody who really needs this advice.

Problem is he is 80 plus years old.

Well, I think an 80 year at least has an excuse for his impatience.

Paul LePage doesn't trust the system he's in charge of:

“I’m not confident of a clean election in Maine,” LePage said in an interview on WVOM radio, sidestepping a comment by the show’s hosts, Ric Tyler and George Hale, that he was twice elected governor under the same election system he was questioning – and also elected mayor of Waterville twice. “The Democrat Party insists on not having IDs. Will people from the cemetery be voting? Yes.”

He was elected GOVERNOR via this system.

Dunlap said improperly cast votes are almost always the result of unintentional errors. Maine’s statewide master voter list is connected to databases maintained by the Social Security Administration, so that people who die are removed from the voter rolls. Another connection, with the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles, allows election officials to determine if a voter moves and changes a driver’s license to reflect a new address.

Dunlap said he knows of only two cases in his 10 years as the state’s top election official in which voters cast more than one ballot, and in both cases the acts were caught, deemed unintentional and didn’t lead to prosecution.

I have never seen a polling place in a cemetery but maybe that's just me.