Democrat Convention Thread

[Aquapod770]

(07-26-2016, 04:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fact Check for Day 1:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/democratic-convention-day-1/

Kinda wish they would have mentioned Warren spouting off about the wage gap myth. What's the old saying? Tell a lie enough that it becomes truth? 

[Millhouse]

(07-27-2016, 10:11 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like any of you guys weren't going to vote for her.  No offense, but we will see a lot of how both candidates suck on this board, but in the end, all you guys who normally vote D are voting for her.

I'm a an independent moderate overall with a sway to the right a tad. Some things I lean left on, and others more to the right. At this point I am probably voting Hillary, and trying my best to keep that bit of upchucking hitting my throat when I say that. I will take the lesser of two evils at this point, and with a Republican Congress, the last thing I want to see is Trump in there. If it was Romney or McCain, I'd vote for them over Hillary. But Trump and his rhetoric has gone too far for me, and I look at him as a billionaire reality tv star that is a blowhard that will do jack for me when it comes down to it but will help out his fellow billionaires and millionaires instead.

[Belsnickel]

(07-27-2016, 01:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I'm a an independent moderate overall with a sway to the right a tad. Some things I lean left on, and others more to the right. At this point I am probably voting Hillary, and trying my best to keep that bit of upchucking hitting my throat when I say that. I will take the lesser of two evils at this point, and with a Republican Congress, the last thing I want to see is Trump in there. If it was Romney or McCain, I'd vote for them over Hillary. But Trump and his rhetoric has gone too far for me, and I look at him as a billionaire reality tv star that is a blowhard that will do jack for me when it comes down to it but will help out his fellow billionaires and millionaires instead.

At this point in my life I tend to be center to center-left with regards to the geo-political spectrum. That means that in US terms I am a filthy commie liberal since the DNC would be center-right.

It's interesting, I have been sliding left for several years. I think learning more about global politics and governmental administration has pushed me a bit further left as I have seen how these policies can, and do work. I was very much a libertarian minded person for some time but after learning more about how it all works I can't roll that way anymore. I was so very wrong when I was younger about those things.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-27-2016, 01:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I'm a an independent moderate overall with a sway to the right a tad. Some things I lean left on, and others more to the right. At this point I am probably voting Hillary, and trying my best to keep that bit of upchucking hitting my throat when I say that. I will take the lesser of two evils at this point, and with a Republican Congress, the last thing I want to see is Trump in there. If it was Romney or McCain, I'd vote for them over Hillary. But Trump and his rhetoric has gone too far for me, and I look at him as a billionaire reality tv star that is a blowhard that will do jack for me when it comes down to it but will help out his fellow billionaires and millionaires instead.

(07-27-2016, 01:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: At this point in my life I tend to be center to center-left with regards to the geo-political spectrum. That means that in US terms I am a filthy commie liberal since the DNC would be center-right.

It's interesting, I have been sliding left for several years. I think learning more about global politics and governmental administration has pushed me a bit further left as I have seen how these policies can, and do work. I was very much a libertarian minded person for some time but after learning more about how it all works I can't roll that way anymore. I was so very wrong when I was younger about those things.

I would have voted McCain in 2000 if he had made it out of the Republican primaries. IIRC, he was one of the first in general, and possibly the only one in 2000 to talk about campaign finance reform, which I honestly believe is the first and foremost thing needed to bring about real change and more honest politics back (not sure what time in the 20th century they left, but maybe someone with a keen knowledge of U.S politics in the 20th century as a whole can enlighten me). I would have voted anyone but George Bush in 2004, and by the time McCain ran in 2008, he seemed to be a completely different person than the one I remembered in 2000, or maybe I have just matured quite a bit over the years. I still lean more libertarian when it comes to personal freedoms, but vacillate between liberal and conservative when it comes to fiscal matters . I feel that the impoverished communities of the nation should be given a helping hand, especially when it comes to equal access to QUALITY education, but am leery of a gov't backed bureaucracy here. I would prefer some innovative ideas where the private sector can somehow offer quality education, possibly making a profit by directly affiliating with corporate America which can then hire the workforce coming from these communities, with competition within the private sector (no monopolies), ensuring that stagnation doesn't occur, but to bring this about would require some subsidization by the gov't (which may be taken from current inefficient spending). Admittedly this is not a comprehensive idea and would need many things to be ironed out, but it could be a start. There is always the vacillation between wanting to help the impoverished vs. gov't is inefficient and at times corrupt, therefore these people unfortunately have to find their own way somehow by accident. But to have any real innovation take place, I maintain that the first and foremost prerequisite is to remove lobbyists from gov't influence by enacting meaningful campaign finance reform.
Slick Willie's great command of the crowd and speech notwithstanding, I still cannot -I say it with 95% confidence-vote for HRC, simply based on the incompetence that she has shown.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2016, 09:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Don't worry folks!

BillO is fact checking things fo ya!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/27/bill-oreilly-michelle-obama-white-house-slaves-speech/87604632/

Cringe worthy. "Yea, we used slaves, but they were treated better than other slaves!"

Still slaves, Bill...

[GMDino]

(07-27-2016, 02:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Cringe worthy. "Yea, we used slaves, but they were treated better than other slaves!"

Still slaves, Bill...

All day online with my RW friends saying "that's not what he meant" and eventually "there were white slaves too".

All day.

[Rotobeast]

(07-27-2016, 02:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Cringe worthy. "Yea, we used slaves, but they were treated better than other slaves!"

Still slaves, Bill...

Aren't we all, in some capacity ?

Granted most are by choice, taking on debt at high interest and whatnot.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[McC]

(07-27-2016, 02:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Never thought about voting Donald. Definitely considered a 3rd party. Jim Webb runs 3rd party tomorrow and he has my vote. 

Female running my country has honestly been a major concern. Emotionally i dont think women would deny the fact they are different than men. 

I havent really done the research. Wouldnt say Germany is happy with their female leader. I dont know historically how women leaders have done though. 

Call me sexist. But the 240G i carried there are not many females that could do what I did. When I think of the President I think commander in chief. And when i think of war I dont think of women on the front lines. 

We are not one of the species on earth where the female is the dominant sex. The history I know doesnt have many civilizations that thrived when led by a woman. 

Having said that. I would rather give Hillary a chance to run this ship than Richie Rich

Neither one of them will accomplish a damn thing, so it matters very little who wins.  They are both sorry ass individuals who can lie through their teeth with a straight face.  It will be business as usual in Washington, where the idea is that, rather than trying to really get anything done, job one is to stop the other party from doing anything.

[JustWinBaby]

That "glass ceiling" montage was as cheesy as it gets....like a combination WWE meets Chris Matthews' "tingling".

[GMDino]

(07-27-2016, 05:36 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Aren't we all, in some capacity ?

Granted most are by choice, taking on debt at high interest and whatnot.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

No...no one owns you.

Sorry.

Oh, and then there's this:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/27/1553247/-Abigail-Adams-DEBUNKS-Bill-O-Reilly-s-claims-slaves-who-built-the-White-House-were-Well-Fed?detail=facebook

Quote:Abigail Adams has the distinction of being the first First Lady to reside in the White House. Construction was ongoing when the Adamses moved into the place. This is an excerpt from a letter Mrs. Adams wrote to Cotton Tufts upon taking up residence in the newly opened White House.

Quote:“The effects of Slavery are visible every where; and I have amused myself from day to day in looking at the labour of 12 negroes from my window, who are employd with four small Horse Carts to remove some dirt in front of the house. the four carts are all loaded at the same time, and whilst four carry this rubish about half a mile, the remaining eight rest upon their Shovels, Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it istrue Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, or fit for [Mayfa<, i,>]re, to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast, Such is the case of many of the inhabitants of this place.”

founders.archives.gov/...

[url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-0799][/url]

[Millhouse]

Joe B. basically just summed up how I think of Trump. Wants to divide the country for his own personal gain. Giving a good speech so far.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-27-2016, 10:25 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Joe B. basically just summed up how I think of Trump. Wants to divide the country for his own personal gain. Giving a good speech so far.

From what I heard, I didn't know if he was talking about Hillary or Donald.

I changed it just like I changed the GOP convention because it is all crap and if you agree with anything said by any speech during either convention then you were going to vote that way anyway.

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2016, 10:43 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Kinda wish they would have mentioned Warren spouting off about the wage gap myth. What's the old saying? Tell a lie enough that it becomes truth? 

I thought this one was pretty interesting:

[fredtoast]

(07-27-2016, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought this one was pretty interesting:

I thought it was pretty interesting that Cummings quotes about the Voters Rights Act of 1965 could be twisted to make it apply to the 15th Amendment.  But I guess anything is possible in the echo chamber.

Plus the facts on the meme are wrong.  There were Republicans that voted against the ratification of the 15th amendment, but again, who cares about the truth in the echo chamber.

[*bfine32*]

(07-28-2016, 12:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought it was pretty interesting that Cummings quotes about the Voters Rights Act of 1965 could be twisted to make it apply to the 15th Amendment.  But I guess anything is possible in the echo chamber.

Plus the facts on the meme are wrong.  There were Republicans that voted against the ratification of the 15th amendment, but again, who cares about the truth in the echo chamber.

So black folk couldn't vote until 1965?

Twisting is a funny thing isn't it? 

[Rotobeast]

(07-27-2016, 08:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: No...no one owns you.

Sorry.

Oh, and then there's this:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/27/1553247/-Abigail-Adams-DEBUNKS-Bill-O-Reilly-s-claims-slaves-who-built-the-White-House-were-Well-Fed?detail=facebook


[url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-0799][/url]

But..... you're wrong.

I gave myself to Jesus.


Anyway, I wasn't defending that loudmouth O'Reilly, or anything.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2016, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought this one was pretty interesting:

(07-28-2016, 01:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So black folk couldn't vote until 1965?

Twisting is a funny thing isn't it? 

Most could not, no. The 15th amendment wasn't enforced for nearly 80 years. After the Compromise of 1877 and the end of Reconstruction, there were no black politicians elected to Congress from the South for over 70 years. If over 90% of blacks lived in the South, effectively 90% were unable to vote. 

By the end of the great migrations in the early 1900's, that number fell to 60%, so only 60% were effectively unable to vote. Not surprisingly, the number of blacks who voted for president after the Voting Rights Act passed rose from 5 million (29% turnout) to 12 million (59% turnout). 

Cummings never said that Democrats were responsible for giving blacks the right the vote. He said "[The Democratic Party fought for] civil rights and voting rights". So you have to decide if he is talking about the 15th Amendment or the Voting Rights Act. Given the fact that he cites New Deal and Great Society programs prior to his statements, it safest to say that he was referring to the Voting Rights Act which was responsible for enfranchising more black voters than the 15th Amendment. He wasn't 100% clear what he was referring to, though I think we can use context clues to figure out he was referring to the Voting Rights Act. Twisting would be saying "Elijah Cummings just told the world that Democrats were responsible for giving blacks the right the vote". 

Of course, Republicans were heavily in favor of the Voting Rights Act, arguably more so than Democrats.

[BURROWorBUST]

We're watching the possible collapse of one of the most power political parties in the history of our species. We might also be watching the next stage in what Bernie promised if we all stood together – a Revolution.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-28-2016, 04:45 AM)Shady Wrote: We're watching the possible collapse of one of the most power political parties in the history of our species. We might also be watching the next stage in what Bernie promised if we all stood together – a Revolution.

Ha!  Ross Perot took almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992 - his charts made people concerned about the deficit way back when the debt was - wait for it - 1/5th of what it is today.  The Libertarian party has been around for close to 40 years.  The Green party has been around about half that and almost no one has heard of them.

Voters still by and large complain terribly about Congress, yet continue to re-elect their own incumbents year after year.  Republicans are quite upset with their Reps and Senators, but instead went with Trump rather than [watch] replace their Congressperson.

I'll believe a "Revolution" when I see it.  Smart money is a return to the status quo by 2024.  Unless the wheels come off and we have another bad recession (which is entirely possible).

Because the thing is....most Americans just don't care about politics all that much.  Like 6M people watch cable news, and you're here posting in the politics section of a message board which makes you part of an even smaller segment.  I'd contend most people supporting Trump (or Hillary, for that matter) just jump on the bandwagon - probably why so many candidates are eliminated after just a few no-name primary states.

[BoomerFan]

Obama's speech tonight was amazing. It really did stir something in me and made me think. The man is an amazing orator.

The convention is pulling in better ratings than the RNC. And I think this is probably a good sign for the Dems as well:




North Carolina Republican tries to call out Tim Kaine for wearing a Honduras flag, ends up making a fool of himself:

https://twitter.com/BenAmeyTV/status/758488023302565889