lol, what are you doing!? I am guessing the latter.
There's nothing that can be done. All we can do is wait for the boombers to die.
Until then, you can support organizations like Justice Democrats, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.
lol, what are you doing!? I am guessing the latter.Then what are you doing to change it? Are you organizing voters in your area? Are you planning on running for office? Or are you bitching on a tech forum?
Yes we do. We can't have a thread about the election without someone getting all butthhurt about a system that works just fine save for the two outlier and least inspired candidates nominated by the Democrats.The original point under discussion had to do with Clinton winning the popular vote, where it was [stupidly] pointed out that she wouldn't have won the popular vote if California didn't exist or wasn't part of the United States. We all already know that Clinton lost the election because we have an electoral college and her popular vote total was padded with excessive margins in non-swing states. We don't need a lesson in 7th grade civics about how the EC works.
Again, a senate voting record doesn't mean dick.The fact that you actually believe that a dem candidate with one of the most progressive voting records in the Senate is no worse than Trump is precisely why you are an extremist.
Quoted for stupidity.Again, a senate voting record doesn't mean dick.
So to be clear you think you can predict the presidential election by eyeballing yard signs? You can't be serious.
That is amazing.
Says the twat that thought HRC was the superior general candidate, and couldn't possibly lose to Trump.Quoted for stupidity.
This question doesn't even make sense...
She "won" a rigged primary.
That is not evidence that she would have won a fair and open primary.
Liberal, my ass... Voting record doesn't mean dick when your never voting on anything remotely progressive. HRC is one of the biggest sellouts in history. The clintons control the DNC, because of their vast money and connections to money.
Jill Stein isn't incompetent. That's what the man on TV told you to think. HRC is incompetent in most areas. The areas she is competent are the ones that will fuck you over.
Sorry, but worrying about Trump is the shortsighted view. I am thinking several elections in the future, and you are scared shitless of the pussygrabber in chief.
You and everyone like you were dead wrong.
I was right.
Now, you think you are right again, and everyone else is dumb.
When Russiagate is exposed as complete bullshit as the investigation wraps up, then will you stfu and listen to the people that were right or will you keep grasping for straws!?
Russiagate conspiracy theory!
They buy both sides... Seriously, how fucking naive and ignorant are you exactly!?
Insurance isn't healthcare.
Good for you, but that doesn't change anything I said. This legislation hurts just as many people as it helps.
Obama could have passed real healthcare reform, but chose not to, because he is a corporatist tool.
The Constitution is as valid today as the day it was written
Yet CA is sh!tting itself over changes to the federal tax code because the rest of the country is currently subsidizing CA's inflated cost of living.
Yet CA is sh!tting itself over changes to the federal tax code because the rest of the country is currently subsidizing CA's inflated cost of living.
Let's review Jill Stein's voting record in the Senate…Says the twat that thought HRC was the superior general candidate, and couldn't possibly lose to Trump.
If I am stupid, then I would hate to see what that makes you.
Yes we do. We can't have a thread about the election without someone getting all butthhurt about a system that works just fine save for the two outlier and least inspired candidates nominated by the Democrats.
We still have a national guard and reserve. The underlying intent is the protection of private property from military exploitation. That this amendment seems outlandish today is a testament to its effectiveness as originally written.I think this is where you get to tell everyone how thankful you are for the 3rd amendment, and why.
Mmm, no. That was Bush who destroyed the economy, let the House of Saud attack America get away with attacking America, and dragged America into two pointless wars.Bill Clinton. The President who inherited a post Cold War America, uniquely positioned as the world's sole remaining super power, advantageously and economically dominant, and at the dawn of the most disruptive technology in modern history.
And he squandered all of it.
Let me walk you through this. If the primary was ‘rigged’ in her favor that means she had unfair advantages, right? Those advantages must have translated into votes, otherwise they are irrelevant.
So, help us out here. What advantages did she have that if they were not present would have led to Sanders winning? Again, please be specific.
If you can’t answer this question than your objection is pointless and irrational.
Non progressive policies.... They're basically voting for Moderate Republican to Right wing Republican policies. Leaning towards the moderate republican side isn't progressive.So now someone’s actual expressed preferences that actually translate into policy don’t matter. You’re just ranting like a lunatic now.
Go read her speeches... Her real position, not the public one.Go read her positions on monetary policy, come back, and tell me she isn’t incompetent. Do you even know what they are?
Good deflection from the fact that you were wrong.Yes of course. Again, you could make a great deal of money with these powers.
I bet a bitcoin.Operationalize this and I’m more than happy to make a bet for real money with you on this.
Huh!? They don't care who wins as long as they're on their side, which they ensure by giving them asinine sums of money.Interesting, so when they deliberately try to defeat someone they are sneakily not trying to defeat them. Does that sound rational to you?
This also provides health care for tens of millions of people. If you think it hurts as many as it helps by all means back this up with facts.
Silicon Valley exists solely because of federal investments in research and technology. The freeway system is the result of Eisenhower's vision. California's entire agriculture foundation is due to federal Corps of Engineers investments. Aerospace in SoCal was essentially subsidized by the Pentagon due to Cold War necessity.You realize the exact opposite is true, right? California subsidizes the rest of the country, not the other way around.
Again, a senate voting record doesn't mean dick.
Obama admitted to being a moderate republican, and he is further "left" on the spectrum than HRC.
So the latter for you. Glad to see your passion is “real”.lol, what are you doing!? I am guessing the latter.
There's nothing that can be done. All we can do is wait for the boombers to die.
Until then, you can support organizations like Justice Democrats, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.
Great post bud. Can you tell us more about how the rest of the county is subsidising California though?Bill Clinton. The President who inherited a post Cold War America, uniquely positioned as the world's sole remaining super power, advantageously and economically dominant, and at the dawn of the most disruptive technology in modern history.
And he squandered all of it.
But because he had swagger, played saxophone at a political event and used a Fleetwood Mac song as his campaign theme, Baby Boomers swoon over him like teenage girls at a boy band concert.
Read the context champ! If you are trying to label someone a progressive based on the senate voting record, then you are talking out of your ass. The most leftwing legislation that goes up for a vote in the senate is center right, just like Obama.Did you really just say it doesn't matter how a Senator votes on legislation? What else is a more valid way to gauge the performance of a US Senator?
He said he would have been considered a moderate republican back in the 1980's, when the GOP was quite a bit farther left than it is now. Next time you quote someone, try quoting them in full context.
Justice democrats.So the latter for you. Glad to see your passion is “real”.
Silicon Valley exists solely because of federal investments in research and technology. The freeway system is the result of Eisenhower's vision. California's entire agriculture foundation is due to federal Corps of Engineers investments. Aerospace in SoCal was essentially subsidized by the Pentagon due to Cold War necessity.
CA is in the position it is in due to federal investments, not anything coming out of Sacramento.
I like Hawaii and New York, they can stay.Well then its simple. Kick California, Hawaii and New York.. the 3 most liberal states in the union out. It's not like you'll miss the states or their population filled with liberals and immigrants anyways.
They are the beneficiaries of disproprortionate federal investments, so they really have no grounds upon which to complain that the rest of the country expects a return on that investment.Your dubious logic aside whaton earth does federal investment have to do with the country ‘subsidizing their high cost of living’?
Rich coastal states like California and New York are some of the largest economic engines in the world. They heavily subsidize the rest of the country. Saying otherwise is nonsense.
I always vote dem now, until there’s a viable alternative that has a chance of winning.Read the context champ! If you are trying to label someone a progressive based on the senate voting record, then you are talking out of your ass. The most leftwing legislation that goes up for a vote in the senate is center right, just like Obama.
The Reagan era personifies the current GOP. A moderate republican in the 1980s is still a moderate republican today.
Justice democrats.
Et vous?