General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chevy
(1,063 posts)
JI7
(89,244 posts)If it was the other way around we would never stop hearing about it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)putting her in her place.
Never.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)Not all western countries have gone batshit insane. Thank god. There's some hope left!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ashtonelijah
(340 posts)But she, having won 3 million more than Trump, is supposed to shut up? The unending stream of sexism makes me want to see her run again just to give them all hell.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
iluvtennis
(19,843 posts)...to shut up cuz she lost. Why is there never any outrage that Russia interfered in the elections and more broadly the democracy of this country. I just can't believe the GOP'ers who claim to me the ultimate patriots aren't outraged at the Russian interference. Instead of being patriots, they put party over country. I'm so disgusted with their response to the Russian interference. True, US patriots would have thrown the "tainted by Russia" election results out and had a new election. But instead, the GOP'ers leave Dumpty in place and do take every opportunity to say that the Russian didn't happen. I'm really fed up with the BS.
stevepal
(109 posts)As long as the voting machines count the votes and the computers are used to keep track of legal (or suppressed) voters, nobody knows what the results actually were.
I'm convinced that Bernie beat Hillary in MA by a pretty good margin. He won in the precincts where the vote was counted by hand by 17 pts according to reports I read and the chances of the difference between the result in the hand-counted precincts vs the computer counted precincts being what it was said to be are astronomically small I'm sure. In other wds, the results were not correct. Bernie almost certainly won MA in the primary. And I suspect he won some other states as well.
And Hillary got a lot more votes than she supposedly won in her battle w/ Trump. Here in Wichita KS a statistician working at the NIAR has been investigating the computer counting in elections and she decided to do her own exit polls (the polling companies "adjust" their results in a red direction, i.e., to fit the computer results so that they won't look so bad and lose customers). She found that the results were statistically more or less impossible to have happened. That is, the exit polls were statistically too different from the so-called official results for the count to have been done correctly. Hillary probably still would have lost here, but she would have gotten a lot more votes here than the voting machines gave her. I'm absolutely certain the same held true in many other states. I wouldn't be surprised if in fact HRC got as many as a million more votes than what the voting machines gave her.
I'm afraid until the Dems and the Dem Party start at least mentioning the voting machines as an outright abomination and vow to VERIFY THE VOTE, there's really not much chance for Dems to make any inroads in the Republican majority across the country. Wish it weren't so, but it is.
calimary
(81,179 posts)Yes! And that's another thing.
I've not paid attention to those stories all that much but there seem to be quite a few of them by now that document some funky stuff going on with the voting machines and the vote counts AND multiple ways to suppress votes.
We have to grab a few more governor's races and state legislatures as the Year of the Census approaches (2020) so that WE can be the ones supervising Congressional district reapportionment in 2021.
Gothmog
(145,046 posts)You may want to provide links to your supposed or claimed proof. There is no proof or evidence backing up your amusing but wrong assertions
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)For one thing, Hillary's victories over Sanders were generally predicted by polls. If you are looking at the Primary, it is Sanders who mysteriously outperformed the polls in one or two states (Michigan comes to mind), not Hillary. I suspect he didn't actually win those states.
In the general election, Hillary performed similar to poll predictions nationally, but in a few key states she underperformed just enough for Trump to win. That is suspicious. Hillarys fairly significant victory over Sanders which in just about every state was poll predicted was not suspicious at all.
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)NO truer words were ever spoken ^^^^^^ Bernie most certainly could have gotten more votes than Hillary in Mass. and possibly some other states during the primaries and the same goes for Hillary vs the fascist, orange menace during the GE in Pa, WI and MI. I always feel queasy about Florida and Dems chances there since 2000 and same goes for Ohio since 2004 with Kenneth Blackwell/Diebold--Oh yeah, Missouri that one year in 2004 as well.
WOULDN'T matter if we had a combination of FDR, Pres. Obama along with the good/positive traits from Bernie/Hillary all rolled up into one and presented in the body of the late, and when he passed, youthful John Kennedy Jr.
UNTIL AND UNLESS Dems somehow work now to try to verify the vote--and I'll go a step further--somehow deal with the GOP voter suppression that's coming our way on steroids before 2018 & 2020, there may be no voting those nasty, vile, hateful, murderous thuglican bums OUT, especially if tRumputin's buddies over there in russia are allowed to meddle again (Like they ever stopped--per Clint Watts FBI/Cyber-security expert).
calimary
(81,179 posts)I'm so damn sick of this shit. SO sick of the double standard and the damn freakin' sexism.
Ask yourself about ANYTHING that the trump assholes are doing these days - the lies, the conflict of interest, the corruption, the lies, the nepotism, the NON-transparency, the lies, the continuing refusal to release tax returns, the jerk-ass statements and wee-hours tweets, and oh yes, did I say - the lies? Ask yourself, if Hillary were doing ANY of this, what would Congress be doing now? In THIS permutation with the GOP with these majorities in both houses? What do YOU think they'd be doing? They'd be all over her. She'd be locked up already, before even having formal accusations. They'd be building a gallows in the Washington Mall. But trump & comp gets away with it. They're barely touching him.
progressoid
(49,961 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)The sexism has never been clearer, yet we have some folks still yammering on about optics.
Sick to death of it myself.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I have yet to see a Corporate News outlet portray Bernie in a positive light.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,168 posts)You are angry (envious maybe) about Sanders being in the news and Hillary not so much? Could it be because he has been shirt-sleeves-rolled-up fighting Trump along with Democrats from day one of the Orangatangs term? And Hillary has been hiding licking her wounds? How is that Sanders fault?
I for one welcome Hillary's added voice. It's not a school yard competition. The primaries are long over. Why are some here still fomenting a perpetual pissing contest between the two?
mindfulNJ
(2,367 posts)Give 'em hell Hill.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
iluvtennis
(19,843 posts)
Kath2
(3,074 posts)And I hope she keeps speaking out.
oasis
(49,365 posts)Smh.
onetexan
(13,033 posts)
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts) lunamagica
(9,967 posts)She's an inspiration!
ffr
(22,665 posts)CNN's loving the ratings, playing both sides of the fence. Won't have been nearly as profitable had HRC won.
We now have to consider what influence and motives are behind every news story.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I'm glad for France, and happy that Hillary is calling out the media. At last, she can do it.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)got to mend fences! What utter bullshit in declaring a false equivalence between the two.
One is an ignorant, lazy, uncaring, greedy POS and the other is a learned, dedicated, empathetic heroine who would never ask anyone to do anything she wouldn't do.
The NY Times said that she was blaming her lose on the Comey letter and on the Russians -- Well, yes. She was asked for the reasons she was defeated and she spoke the truth.
JHan
(10,173 posts)since their Safire days,.. dowd.. etc.
dalton99a
(81,426 posts)
Cha
(297,029 posts)Justin.. Mahalo!
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)Was enjoying the thread until I got to #6. Geez, give it a rest.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Looking forward to your talking on anything, everything.
I MISS HER!
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Macron is an anti-worker corporate stooge.
Of course, Clinton's congratulatory words are not particularly surprising in this context...
A French-national professor (Michael Behrent) at my local public university (Appalachian State) has this to say about Macron:
The very serious problem with Emmanuel Macron is that he is so closely, so fundamentally tied to these (previously-described, anti-worker) policies. I find it painfully ironic that we celebrate a politician who embraces these policies as the emblem of “youth,” but not the less polished, less flashy, less presentable young people who assembled at the Place de la République to press their demands. Matters are only made worse by the fact that Macron was an advisor to a “socialist” president and a minister to a “socialist” government. Consider what it is that he has proposed (I’m copying here what I posted earlier). Macron wants to:
- Reform the labor market: these reforms would be aimed at making the labor market more “flexible” (i.e., less subject to a single set of labor regulations) by allowing contracts to be negotiated on a company-by-company basis, rather than an industry-by-industry basis, thus lessening the bargaining power of unions.
- Implement these labor market reforms by decree: presuming he gets a majority in parliament in next month’s parliamentary elections, Macron would carry out the above reforms by a kind of parliamentary-sanctioned executive order, sparring his proposals from lengthy and potentially obstructive legislative vetting.
- Reduce corporate taxes from their current rate of 35% (continuing the current “Socialist” president’s policies, whose supply-side economics provided numerous tax exemptions through a policy known as the CICE [credit d’impôt compétitivité emploi]).
- Reduce France’s budget deficit (currently at about 3.5% of GDP) in order to comply with European norms requiring that it be no more than 3% (also continuing Hollande’s policies in this respect).
- Cut 120,000 civil service jobs, 70,000 in local entities and 50,000 at the national level.
- Encourage local governments to provide services through contracts with private entities.
- Reform the French wealth tax (created by Mauroy/Mitterrand in the 1980s) by exempting from it certain capital investments that are deemed productive.
- Terminate the system whereby French unions (in conjunction with management organizations) manage the French unemployment insurance system (UNEDIC) and bring this system directly under state control.
- Put pressure on jobseekers to accept jobs, by requiring them to undertake an “assessment of competencies” at the state employment agency (Pôle Emploi) and to accept employment after a second job offer.
Professor Behrent's full discussion is a public Facebook post which can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-behrent/why-i-dont-like-emmanuel-macron-frances-new-president/1661851420522054/
-app