HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » geek tragedy » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

geek tragedy

Profile Information

Member since: Thu May 13, 2004, 12:50 PM
Number of posts: 68,868

Journal Archives

USA Today: Don't Vote for Trump: Our View

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.


Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.


Evan McMullin, the non-racist Republican

"I think we need a new conservative movement," McMullin told me. That movement "would embrace the cause of individual liberty," "would be inclusive" and "embrace diversity." Case in point, his view on Black Lives Matter. When I asked him what he hears in the phrase, he said, "I hear a statement of fact. ... As a white male, there are certain challenges that African-Americans face that I don't understand because I haven't lived them."


His policies would obviously hurt lots of folks, African-Americans included. But, unlike the Party of Trump, that is not the goal.

There's a reason why an overwhelming majority of white 'conservatives' chose Trump instead of someone like this guy.

Break Up With That Trump Supporter


This is not just a political disagreement, as if one of you supports free trade agreements because you think they bolster the economy and the other believes they’ve wreaked havoc on the American working class. It’s not a difference of political opinion, where you both want to see low-income Americans thrive, but you disagree on how to get there. This is about fundamental values: How should we treat other human beings? Is blatant, aggressive racism acceptable? Are women human?


A vote for Trump is an affirmation of racism, sexism, and bigotry. Even if you personally swear up and down you are not racist, sexist or bigoted, you can’t support putting someone hateful in the highest national office and claim your own innocence—it doesn’t work like that. If you support a racist, sexist bigot, you are supporting a racist, sexist bigot—and that reflects back on you, and suggests you too might be a racist, sexist bigot. If you’re dating someone who supports a racist, sexist bigot, you are either actually dating a racist, sexist bigot, or you’re dating someone who pledges his allegiance racist, sexist bigots. It’s a distinction without a meaningful difference.


If your partner’s response to bigotry is “So what,” that tells you everything you need to know about their character. If you’re a woman, this isn’t some ephemeral idea or hazy theory—it’s about you, and your very humanity. Your partner hears that someone hates women—a category to which you belong—and this person thinks you’re less capable than men and even less than human, and his response is to validate that person’s aspirations to one of the most powerful positions in the world, and shrug off your concerns as “so what.”

So what? Don’t be with someone who thinks it’s ok for people to hate you is what. Don’t be with someone who is willing to support those who would blithely disrespect you. Don’t be with someone who, in his “so what,” renders your existence a political talking point or a funny punch line or some desirable ability to say what he thinks without consequences. There is not value in everyone saying aloud everything that runs through one’s mind, especially when it comes to ugly, uncharitable, prejudiced thoughts; what Trump’s fans are applauding isn’t just that he says the previously taboo, but that he thinks it and seeks to normalize it. They agree with what Trump thinks. And what he thinks is that you don’t matter. Why is that enviable and authentic anti-PC truth-telling instead of the more obvious “Wow, this guy is an authentically sexist jerk”?

When you cast your ballot in November, you aren’t voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. You’re voting for a scared pregnant teenager in Arkansas who doesn’t know how she’s going to make this work. You’re voting for the son of undocumented immigrant parents in California who fears his family will be torn apart. You’re voting for a Muslim family in Oklahoma who thought they knew their neighbors and now aren’t so sure. You’re voting for the single mom in Wisconsin who’s just trying to hold it all together. When you’re voting in November, you’re answering the question: How do these people deserve to be treated in the United States of America?

When your boyfriend or husband supports Trump, he’s answering that question too. Which should lead you to another one: Why is this the man you choose?

Supporting Trump is per se evidence of moral degeneracy and compromised character.

Trump too cowardly to use his harshest attacks against Clinton in person, reminds me of Joe in 2008

Clinton to score another GOP endorsement: former senator John Warner of Virginia

Source: Washington Post

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will score another high-powered Republican endorsement on Wednesday, according to a campaign aide: retired senator John Warner of Virginia, a popular GOP maverick with renowned military credentials.

Warner’s decision not to support his party’s nominee, Donald Trump, is intended to send a signal in the five-term senator’s battleground home state and beyond that mainstream, security-minded Republicans should side with Clinton.


Perhaps best known by some for marrying actress Elizabeth Taylor, Warner, 89, is also known for bucking his party. A World War II veteran, former U.S. Navy secretary and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Warner famously opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork, as well as the 1994 Senate candidacy of Oliver North of Iran-contra notoriety. He endorsed Democrat Mark R. Warner over Republican Jim Gilmore to fill his own seat in the U.S. Senate.

John Warner’s ability to withstand the Republican criticism he endured for those decisions stemmed largely from the gravitas he had built over a lengthy Senate career in which he mastered national security issues and diligently delivered for the state’s military bases and defense contractors.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-to-score-another-gop-endorsement-former-senator-john-warner-of-virginia/2016/09/27/43caf6e6-84cf-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

There are precious few, if any, like him left in the GOP. Which is why we're seeing this endorsement.

When Trump said that not paying taxes ‘makes me smart,’ undecided voters in N.C. gasped

CARY, N.C. — Donald Trump so captured Ron Townley’s attention as “an outsider ready to tear down the system,” just the one who might break the Washington logjam, the doer to build new airports and highways, that he was considering voting for him.

But Trump’s response Monday night when Hillary Clinton accused him of not paying a cent of federal tax left Townley appalled.

“That makes me smart,” Trump said, unapologetic and smiling, during the presidential debate.

That comment caused a gasp in the hotel conference room where Townley and a half-dozen other undecided voters in this battleground state were watching the debate.

“That’s offensive. I pay taxes,” said Townley, 52, a program director for a local council of governments.


The undecided voters gathered here Monday by The Washington Post were from all over the state; they were in Cary to attend a Rural Center conference, where gubernatorial and Senate candidates were among the speakers.

Each of the men and women said they had not yet found a candidate to rally around because they found fault with both. But after the debate, four of the six undecided voters said they now leaned toward Clinton after she showed mastery of the issues and appeared more presidential. A fifth voter declared himself essentially now in the Clinton’s camp: “After tonight, I think I am convinced, I will vote for Clinton,” said Rev. Kelly Andrews, a Baptist pastor from Tarboro.

Hint for Dumbass Donald: smart people don't brag to voters about how smart they are.


I hope he's all right. (Debate video)

What are some good non-poll metrics for measuring the state of the race?

In particular, ones showing that Clinton's ground game is plugged into the electorate and moving votes.

I think it has to be early voting statistics, in states like Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina.

Clinton's team showed themselves very adept at using absentee ballots in the primary against Sanders.

We should see the fruits of that weeks before the actual election day.

Ted Cruz, Dignity Wraith, endorses the man who insulted his wife and father in public

and wipes out his best moment in public life, his showing up Trump at the RNC.

In a way, this is a relief as it nullifies the only two times I've ever felt respect for Cruz as a man.

NBC/WSJ Poll--likely voters--Hillary .... +7!!!!!!!!!! (48-41) in 2 way race


43-37 in 4-way race

Respondents "revealed a hardening of personal dislike and professional uncertainty about Donald Trump," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the NBC/WSJ survey with Republican counterpart Bill McInturff. "Voters see Hillary Clinton as safe and smart. In this year, it looks like a winning hand."


But the poll shows Clinton, a former First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State, with powerful advantages over Trump on "being knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency" (60 percent to 23 percent), and "having the right temperament to be president" (56 percent to 23 percent). Voters prefer Trump on "being honest and straightforward" by 41 percent to 31 percent, down from his 16-percentage point edge on that quality in June.

Voters choose Clinton by a two-to-one margin, 51 percent to 25 percent, on "being in charge of our nuclear weapons," and by 48 percent to 33 percent on "being a good Commander-in-Chief." Though Trump has cast himself as the candidate of change, voters pick Clinton narrowly (44 percent to 38 percent) on "changing the country for the better."
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »