8 years of hard right-wing Obama rule made them flip out and nominate a progressive white female.
Honest mistake.
.
Some people believe the country is more progressive than it really is. They can't even get very progressive governors in so-called progressive states elected. Why they think one would be electable on the national stage is a mystery.
Of course as evident by the millions of people who didn't vote for any other candidate but her in the primary. So yeah, anyone else could have won! /s
Like I said, dumb as shit!
Its funny you say that but the rules are the ones that're dumb.
I was/ am an independent. I wanted to vote for him in the primary, and changed my party registration to democratic in early 2017 only to be told, it would not happen till the next senate primary cycle in 2018.
I think I'm far from alone. There were a lot more votes for Bernie that just weren't heard because of the bureaucracy.
You can say I can cry a river all you want but this is a serious problem with our democracy. Tomorrow if Hillary runs as Republican you'll be fucked since you can't vote in the primary for her depending on your state rules..
On what charges?
Charity exists so people won't raid the fortunes of billionaires. The world could have more effective philanthropists than Bill Gates, a guy who apparently thought it made good sense to put money into cutting off the foreskins of African men.Bill Gates used to be completely despised from many people at one time, but he has done much work to promote the general welfare.
Three words? Don't you think that's too much effort for you?Troll harder troll.
He certainly acts entitled.You're entitled to your opinion
Maybe. I honestly don't think even Trump knows what we are getting with Trump.And, remember how she chose a pro-TPP Kaine instead of someone else, because she supposedly no longer supported gold standard bills? (Maybe she was too busy rewarding Debbie with an "honorary" position in her campaign after she was kicked out of the DNC of all places for corruption.)
Just want to remind people what they're not getting with Trump.
Regardless, though, the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton was hardly a great alternative.Maybe. I honestly don't think even Trump knows what we are getting with Trump.
Agreed.Regardless, though, the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton was hardly a great alternative.
We were given two very poor candidates by the elite money that bankrolls presidential races. We're told that says everything about us but nothing about that money and its agenda.
Um, Trump won on a shoestring, with most of his spending being his own money. Hillary raised and spent record level amounts of cash. I'd say she's the one who should be termed a useful idiot for elite money. Not as useful as they had hoped, certainly, but still.I'm not convinced Trump's nomination and election are really an example of anything breaking through. He's clearly a useful idiot for elite money, especially the GOP. He's an easy excuse for the establishment. They'll say "See, look at how benevolent we actually are. And, you thought you wanted someone anti-establishment..."
Aside from his misbehavior, so far he hasn't done much of anything to counter the establishment GOP policy either. His administration is packed with people like Pence and Priebus who are as establishment as you can get. If he had truly been any sort of breaththrough he would have nominated very different people to his cabinet, not a bunch of GOP establishment venerables (like Sessions) and a few industry crooks.
Both parties will use Trump for their marketing pitch that the claims that our government is corrupt just isn't true. "Look at him; he's worse!" Meanwhile, research will show things like 90% of the public don't exist to Congress and haven't for as many decades as the research went back to.
Trump is president elect because elite money backed both. If the GOP hadn't considered Trump acceptable he wouldn't have been nominated. Moreover, if the elite money that backs the Democratic brand had wanted to make sure the public wouldn't have someone like Trump they wouldn't have force-fed us Clinton, a candidate who was one of the most disliked in history.Um, Trump won on a shoestring, with most of his spending being his own money. Hillary raised and spent record level amounts of cash. I'd say she's the one who should be termed a useful idiot for elite money. Not as useful as they had hoped, certainly, but still.
When will people stop parroting the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) section, that shit has been around for over 2 decades. Can anyone point to disastrous results from corporations suing gov't using ISDS? No? Then STFU.
Alt-left has some true retards.
I do shitpost a bit but i found an article i found interesting, and i hate starting new threads.I found this one talking about ISDS and how it's allowing corporations to sue governments from passing laws that will hurt the most precious thing in the world 'their profits'Spammer necro?
I do shitpost a bit but i found an article i found interesting, and i hate starting new threads.I found this one talking about ISDS and how it's allowing corporations to sue governments from passing laws that will hurt the most precious thing in the world 'their profits'
The following just popped up in my feeds, anytime you sign a free trade deal you seem to be ceding a bit of sovereignty to the dominant economic power
LNG firm’s $20-billion lawsuit against Canada exposes NAFTA’s toxic legacy
There's a growing conflict between ambitious climate action and retrograde investment treaties that indemnify foreign investors from government decisions that cut into their future profits.www.nationalobserver.com
~An American company wanted to build a massive fossil fuel project in Quebec. After full public debate, the provincial and federal governments rejected the plan based on environmental concerns. The company launched a record-breaking NAFTA lawsuit against Canada — confirming the dire threat that investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) poses to bold climate action.
The case — the largest in NAFTA’s history — drives home the growing conflict between forward-looking, ambitious climate action and retrograde investment treaties that indemnify foreign investors from government decisions that cut into their future profits.
Ruby River Capital, a Delaware-registered corporation owned and controlled by two U.S. venture capital firms, proposed to build a natural gas liquefaction plant and maritime terminal on the Saguenay Fjord near the mouth of the St. Lawrence River.
The firm is seeking compensation of “no less than” US$20 billion (just over $27 billion Canadian) — the largest amount ever claimed by an investor under NAFTA’s ISDS provisions and among the highest current investor-state claims globally.
Ruby River’s inflated demands are based on the investor’s speculative estimate of the profits the project supposedly would have made over its lifetime. It is many, many times the costs actually incurred in seeking project approval (US$120 million by the investor’s estimate).
A/78/168: Paying polluters: the catastrophic consequences of investor-State dispute settlement for climate and environment action and human rights
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd, chronicles the compelling evidence that a secretive international arbitration process called investor-State...www.ohchr.org
I believe that the new revised NAFTA treaty limit's these types of lawsuits and it goes into affect next yearDeserves its own thread really.. how we've gone from NAFTA to protectionist in just 5-6 years and would anyone be surprised if we started targeting NAFTA?