Burn the witch!

[ASUG8]

Oh, man. How great would this be?

I'm thinking she already enjoys scissoring, so it probably wouldn't be a big deal for her.

I just threw up a little.

[andy7171]

I'm channeling Spandos...

What if the Democrat Convention turns into a real shit show, like violent anger from the Sanders followers when Hillary is pronounced the candidate.
Pandemonium, everywhere.
Trump vs Hillary keeps moving forward, with Sanders follower continuing to fuck shit up everywhere along the trail. BLM and the Occupy crowds join in.
Someone demands that this needs to end and Obama declares martial law and stays President until the unrest is settled....

You just blew my mind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdUVtEeg9I4[/youtube]

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm channeling Spandos...

What if the Democrat Convention turns into a real shit show, like violent anger from the Sanders followers when Hillary is pronounced the candidate.
Pandemonium, everywhere.
Trump vs Hillary keeps moving forward, with Sanders follower continuing to fuck shit up everywhere along the trail. BLM and the Occupy crowds join in.
.

The funny thing is that Clinton and the media called Trump's rallyies out for the so-called violence and anger. Trump should turn it around and point to the Nevada caucus, and any other anger and violence that the Dems bring to the Dem convention...of course, all due to Hillary's blatant attack on the working class people and her racist rhetoric that ignores the plight of half of America.

Play it up, because it is true.

[kalm]

Another reason Hillary is in trouble:

I saw this article by comedian Sara Benincasa posted by a couple of friends on Facebook this morning. It's an aggressive rant on how liberals who don't support Hillary are wrong. Here's the ending salvo...

You think this is condescending? I’m using small words to help you understand what many, many, many of us get: your assertion that you can’t in good conscience vote for Hillary is an insult to me and women and queer folks and all the people who benefit and even have a chance to thrive under Democratic policies. You’d consign us to 4 years of Trump and two or three decades of a disgusting, vile Supreme Court because you have a sad feelz in your tum-tum?

You’re goddamn right I’m condescending to you. You deserve this.

Get with the fucking program.

The comments section was mostly filled with mindless Hillarybot support but then there's this fine screed.

Glad you care so much about democracy.

Seriously though, I’ve been following this election from its birth more than a year ago. In that time, not one Hillary supporter has ever tried to convince me to vote for her based on her policies (though, to be fair to supporters, why would they? Hillary is all “identity politics” and they know it). Instead, it has been constant sanctimonious browbeating. When that didn’t work, what was your response? To make it more condescending and toxic.

Here’s a news flash for you: we wouldn’t be in this position if people like you had supported an actual progressive to begin with. Bernie mobilized the largest single wing of the Democratic Party: disenchanted progressives, he then brought in enough independents to look like a stronger general election candidate. The DNC’s response? Deliver Hillary the nomination with low information voters from the south (who represent no strength in the general election), the technicalities of the closed primary system (otherwise known as disenfranchising independents), and outright cheating in a few key states. Now you expect progressives to reward not only that behavior, but decades of neglect? Wow. That’s every bit as powerfully stupid as you accuse progressives who won’t vote for Hillary of being.

Honestly, you should also know that you’re a pretty terrible messenger for the point you’re trying to make. Myopic (or maybe just selfish, I haven’t decided yet, but we know that the white-collar professional class that the Democratic establishment really serves doesn’t give a shit about the true “working class”) people who tow the line for the establishment like you are the reason the Democratic Party ever became so alienated from working class causes in the first place.

Now you want us to line up behind someone who embodies everything that is wrong with our political system in order to stop someone who embodies everything wrong with the economy because the latter is supposedly so much worse than the former? Sorry, we’ve heard that before, it got us free trade, deregulation, the prison industrial complex, low taxes for the rich, and sluggish movement on everything but token social issues with no socioeconomic implications. We’ll need better arguments from more credible people this time.

And no, I’m not blind about what Trump is or in any way being hyperbolic. Trump is a far more incoherent embarrassment and far less capable statesman than Clinton. He shoots off at the mouth, saying intolerant things and has so far appealed to the scummiest impulses of the Republican Party. But I also don’t think any of the things he has said will translate into policy. For instance, I don’t think he gives a shit about an actual wall with Mexico.

The idea of Clinton having a better administration than Trump assumes a functioning political system. We don’t have one of those. Hillary is better at working our system, but the system itself is much better at creating benefits for insiders than producing meaningful legislation for the citizens of this country. So who would Hillary do better for? Herself? Well, that doesn’t really make her competence a virtue.

Furthermore, when weighing the total outcome of a presidential administration, don’t forget to factor reactions to that administration in your metric of how it affects the country. Does 4 years of motivating citizens to become more involved in government, galvanizing grassroots movements to protest everything Trump ever tries to do (all but ensuring his crazy policies don’t really go anywhere), and priming the country for a real progressive in 2020 put the country in a better or worse place than extending the middle class’s stagnation by another 4–8 years under a reasonable but special interest-laden politician who at best maintains the status quo? That’s a complicated question, and the answer is not as immediately clear as you make it out to be when you sanctimoniously scream about how we all owe Hillary our vote.

I’m not saying that progressives are on Trump’s side. That would be ridiculous, they pretty much hate him too. But it is not enough to act like the fact that she isn’t Trump earns her progressive support. There’s more to it than that. For instance, conventional wisdom may say that Hillary is more reasonable than Trump, but of the two of them, only one has resorted to dishonest electoral tactics to secure the nomination. It’s not Trump. There are more differences between the two than progressives may acknowledge, but there is still a two party system at work here, and they are much closer together than you are willing to admit. Trump is actually to the left of Hillary on a few of the key issues that Democrats usually carry over the Republicans. That could be a problem.

Here’s the bottom line: If you want progressives to vote for what they see as a warmonger in the pocket of Wall Street (and they’re not wrong about that), convince them her policies are worth voting for. Stop standing one fucking inch to the left of conservatives and counting on the fact that progressives have no options, it’s abusive.
The Democratic Party has ignored the progressive base for far too long. Now the stakes are dire and you need their support? Guess you shouldn’t have taken them for granted for 30 years. Not their fault. Time to start listening to what they want instead of telling them what you’re willing to try. That’s called democracy.
We’ll see what her platform looks like coming out of the convention. If she earns progressives’ votes, she’ll get them. In the mean time, you REALLY REALLY need to stop fucking telling people that they owe that piece of garbage a damn thing. Every word you say turns people more against her.

https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/im-v ... .p9am3m5ux

[Ibanez]

Another reason Hillary is in trouble:

I saw this article by comedian Sara Benincasa posted by a couple of friends on Facebook this morning. It's an aggressive rant on how liberals who don't support Hillary are wrong. Here's the ending salvo...

You think this is condescending? I’m using small words to help you understand what many, many, many of us get: your assertion that you can’t in good conscience vote for Hillary is an insult to me and women and queer folks and all the people who benefit and even have a chance to thrive under Democratic policies. You’d consign us to 4 years of Trump and two or three decades of a disgusting, vile Supreme Court because you have a sad feelz in your tum-tum?

You’re goddamn right I’m condescending to you. You deserve this.

Get with the fucking program.

The comments section was mostly filled with mindless Hillarybot support but then there's this fine screed.

Glad you care so much about democracy.

Seriously though, I’ve been following this election from its birth more than a year ago. In that time, not one Hillary supporter has ever tried to convince me to vote for her based on her policies (though, to be fair to supporters, why would they? Hillary is all “identity politics” and they know it). Instead, it has been constant sanctimonious browbeating. When that didn’t work, what was your response? To make it more condescending and toxic.

Here’s a news flash for you: we wouldn’t be in this position if people like you had supported an actual progressive to begin with. Bernie mobilized the largest single wing of the Democratic Party: disenchanted progressives, he then brought in enough independents to look like a stronger general election candidate. The DNC’s response? Deliver Hillary the nomination with low information voters from the south (who represent no strength in the general election), the technicalities of the closed primary system (otherwise known as disenfranchising independents), and outright cheating in a few key states. Now you expect progressives to reward not only that behavior, but decades of neglect? Wow. That’s every bit as powerfully stupid as you accuse progressives who won’t vote for Hillary of being.

Honestly, you should also know that you’re a pretty terrible messenger for the point you’re trying to make. Myopic (or maybe just selfish, I haven’t decided yet, but we know that the white-collar professional class that the Democratic establishment really serves doesn’t give a shit about the true “working class”) people who tow the line for the establishment like you are the reason the Democratic Party ever became so alienated from working class causes in the first place.

Now you want us to line up behind someone who embodies everything that is wrong with our political system in order to stop someone who embodies everything wrong with the economy because the latter is supposedly so much worse than the former? Sorry, we’ve heard that before, it got us free trade, deregulation, the prison industrial complex, low taxes for the rich, and sluggish movement on everything but token social issues with no socioeconomic implications. We’ll need better arguments from more credible people this time.

And no, I’m not blind about what Trump is or in any way being hyperbolic. Trump is a far more incoherent embarrassment and far less capable statesman than Clinton. He shoots off at the mouth, saying intolerant things and has so far appealed to the scummiest impulses of the Republican Party. But I also don’t think any of the things he has said will translate into policy. For instance, I don’t think he gives a shit about an actual wall with Mexico.

The idea of Clinton having a better administration than Trump assumes a functioning political system. We don’t have one of those. Hillary is better at working our system, but the system itself is much better at creating benefits for insiders than producing meaningful legislation for the citizens of this country. So who would Hillary do better for? Herself? Well, that doesn’t really make her competence a virtue.

Furthermore, when weighing the total outcome of a presidential administration, don’t forget to factor reactions to that administration in your metric of how it affects the country. Does 4 years of motivating citizens to become more involved in government, galvanizing grassroots movements to protest everything Trump ever tries to do (all but ensuring his crazy policies don’t really go anywhere), and priming the country for a real progressive in 2020 put the country in a better or worse place than extending the middle class’s stagnation by another 4–8 years under a reasonable but special interest-laden politician who at best maintains the status quo? That’s a complicated question, and the answer is not as immediately clear as you make it out to be when you sanctimoniously scream about how we all owe Hillary our vote.

I’m not saying that progressives are on Trump’s side. That would be ridiculous, they pretty much hate him too. But it is not enough to act like the fact that she isn’t Trump earns her progressive support. There’s more to it than that. For instance, conventional wisdom may say that Hillary is more reasonable than Trump, but of the two of them, only one has resorted to dishonest electoral tactics to secure the nomination. It’s not Trump. There are more differences between the two than progressives may acknowledge, but there is still a two party system at work here, and they are much closer together than you are willing to admit. Trump is actually to the left of Hillary on a few of the key issues that Democrats usually carry over the Republicans. That could be a problem.

Here’s the bottom line: If you want progressives to vote for what they see as a warmonger in the pocket of Wall Street (and they’re not wrong about that), convince them her policies are worth voting for. Stop standing one fucking inch to the left of conservatives and counting on the fact that progressives have no options, it’s abusive.
The Democratic Party has ignored the progressive base for far too long. Now the stakes are dire and you need their support? Guess you shouldn’t have taken them for granted for 30 years. Not their fault. Time to start listening to what they want instead of telling them what you’re willing to try. That’s called democracy.
We’ll see what her platform looks like coming out of the convention. If she earns progressives’ votes, she’ll get them. In the mean time, you REALLY REALLY need to stop fucking telling people that they owe that piece of garbage a damn thing. Every word you say turns people more against her.

https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/im-v ... .p9am3m5ux

Wow. What a rational explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

"The Republican Party has ignored the conservative base for far too long. Now the stakes are dire and you need their support? Guess you shouldn’t have taken them for granted for 30 years. Not their fault. Time to start listening to what they want instead of telling them what you’re willing to try. That’s called democracy."

Hmm. This statement still works, apparently.

[kalm]

Lee Fang strikes again. Chelsea's hubby, sets up a hedge fund with backing from Lloyd Blankfein and Hillary doesn't want to talk about it. Shocker!

If you support the Democratic Party, this is why you would have hoped that Bernie went on the attack more. It remains to be seen whether pro-Republican establishment media will want to connect the Wall Street dots even further (they have their own warts to hide) but progressive media like the Intercept isn't going to shill for her.

That's a big problem if you're trying to eventually court Bernie supporters.

WHEN HILLARY CLINTON’S son-in-law sought funding for his new hedge fund in 2011, he found financial backing from one of the biggest names on Wall Street: Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein.

After repeated attempts on the rope line, I asked the Clinton campaign traveling press secretary Nick Merrill, who said, “I don’t know, has it been reported?” and said he would get in touch with me over email. I sent the question but have not received a response back.

The decision for Blankfein to invest in Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law’s company is just one of many ways Goldman Sachs has used its wealth to forge a tight bond with the Clinton family. The company paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 in personal speaking fees, paid Bill Clinton $1,550,000 in personal speaking fees, and donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. At a time when Goldman Sachs directly lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the company routinely partnered with the Clinton Foundation for events, even convening a donor meeting for the foundation at the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan.

Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea in 2010, previously worked at Goldman Sachs and started his fund along with two other former employees of the investment bank. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosures show that Eaglevale required new investors to put down a minimum of $2 million.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/27/hil ... on-in-law/

[SDHornet]

Lee Fang strikes again. Chelsea's hubby, sets up a hedge fund with backing from Lloyd Blankfein and Hillary doesn't want to talk about it. Shocker!

If you support the Democratic Party, this is why you would have hoped that Bernie went on the attack more. It remains to be seen whether pro-Republican establishment media will want to connect the Wall Street dots even further (they have their own warts to hide) but progressive media like the Intercept isn't going to shill for her.

That's a big problem if you're trying to eventually court Bernie supporters.

WHEN HILLARY CLINTON’S son-in-law sought funding for his new hedge fund in 2011, he found financial backing from one of the biggest names on Wall Street: Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein.

After repeated attempts on the rope line, I asked the Clinton campaign traveling press secretary Nick Merrill, who said, “I don’t know, has it been reported?” and said he would get in touch with me over email. I sent the question but have not received a response back.

The decision for Blankfein to invest in Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law’s company is just one of many ways Goldman Sachs has used its wealth to forge a tight bond with the Clinton family. The company paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 in personal speaking fees, paid Bill Clinton $1,550,000 in personal speaking fees, and donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. At a time when Goldman Sachs directly lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the company routinely partnered with the Clinton Foundation for events, even convening a donor meeting for the foundation at the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan.

Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea in 2010, previously worked at Goldman Sachs and started his fund along with two other former employees of the investment bank. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosures show that Eaglevale required new investors to put down a minimum of $2 million.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/27/hil ... on-in-law/

It's too bad none of this is going to make a lick of difference...

[Ivytalk]

Lee Fang strikes again.

That's Lee "Cardinal" Fang to you!