Old Thread About Election Consequences

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:  As a result, the real anti-Hillary obsessions have been seen, since even the Supreme Court consequences aren't important enough for them.

What you call "anti-Hillary obsessions" are actually self-fulfilling prophesies that result from your obsessive / OCD haranguing of what some people allegedly (in your mind) did in 2016.
The obsession is yours, not of those defending themselves against your baseless and irrational allegations.

I can't even begin to untangle that, so won't bother.

 Just put some marinara sauce on it.

sbenois said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
………..

I can't even begin to untangle that, so won't bother.

 Just put some marinara sauce on it.

Or mustard. 

Is that the album with Vladi Don't Lose That Number?

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

 Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.

 In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this. 

 Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering."  They are supposed to stick to the facts.  Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights. 

sbenois said:
Is that the album with Vladi Don't Lose That Number?

I have never met Vladimir 

But I plan to find the time 

I think the only Vladimir influence for Steely Dan was Nabokov, not the election infiltrator. 

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

 Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.

 In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this. 

 Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering."  They are supposed to stick to the facts.  Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights. 

Snopes is fact check for lightweights only in the eyes of people who look under every rock for conspiracy theories.   So when these people don't get the answer they are looking for, they denigrate Snopes.   Makes sense.   

This is what should be happening to all Democrats who colluded with Trump on the obscene "defense" bill, squandering massive resources needed for human needs and to fight climate change

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/04/adam-smith-sarah-smith-military-affairs-challenged-over-pro-war-votes-support-from-defense-lobby/

sbenois said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

 Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.

 In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this. 

 Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering."  They are supposed to stick to the facts.  Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights. 

Snopes is fact check for lightweights only in the eyes of people who look under every rock for conspiracy theories.   So when these people don't get the answer they are looking for, they denigrate Snopes.   Makes sense.  

Nothing in Snopes contradicts Jill Stein's support for vaccinations and her concern about undo influence on the FDA by corporate lobbyists.  If there's any "pandering" it's to all Americans because those positions are good for the whole country.

sbenois said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur

 Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers. 

 Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?

 Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.

 In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this. 

 Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering."  They are supposed to stick to the facts.  Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights. 

Snopes is fact check for lightweights only in the eyes of people who look under every rock for conspiracy theories.   So when these people don't get the answer they are looking for, they denigrate Snopes.   Makes sense.   

 Snopes agreed with me on this one, and you believe Snopes so I guess you believe FAKE NEWS!

paulsurovell said:
This is what should be happening to all Democrats who colluded with Trump on the obscene "defense" bill, squandering massive resources needed for human needs and to fight climate change

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/04/adam-smith-sarah-smith-military-affairs-challenged-over-pro-war-votes-support-from-defense-lobby/

Please tell us what other bill was available for Dems to vote on which would address your concerns for human needs, et al.

nan said:

gerritn said:

Red_Barchetta said:

nan said:

 No because of years of neoliberal austerity...

 What's neoliberal austerity?  Serious question. 

It sounds like something that Jill Klein or Assange made up on behalf of Putin. There are always people that are yelling the skies are falling. It's mostly noise.

 You think Jill Stein or Julian Assange made up that that JIll Stein is a Russian spy for Putin??????  Like, are you not embarrassed to say something that crazy?  Where is the evidence for this?  Why do you just state obvious BS without evidence?  If you are coming to conclusions like this, you probably need new news sources too.  Definitely. 

Chill. If you had read my previous post you would have read that I do not believe at al Jill Stein is a Russian spy. She was clearly played by putin with this moscow trip/dinner thing, but I do not believe bad intent on her part, just naivete. Assange is a bit of a different case I am afraid. He clearly interfered with our elections for one thing, and he should be brought to justice for that. I think you could argue Jill Stein interfered in our elections too, but like I said it was out of ignorance, not because she was a bad actor.

Nan,

Will you be writing in Jill Stein for the NJ Senate seat?   

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:
This is what should be happening to all Democrats who colluded with Trump on the obscene "defense" bill, squandering massive resources needed for human needs and to fight climate change

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/04/adam-smith-sarah-smith-military-affairs-challenged-over-pro-war-votes-support-from-defense-lobby/

Please tell us what other bill was available for Dems to vote on which would address your concerns for human needs, et al.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4759148/bernie-sanders-speech-defense-bill-june-12-2018

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s987/BILLS-115s987is.pdf

Good description of defense bill here.

Here's an interview with Sarah Smith, the Democratic antiwar candidate mentioned above:

https://therealnews.com/stories/democratic-socialist-congress-candidate-sarah-smith-anti-war-activism-is-essential-for-progressives

Part of the reason we as a species are at an historic low point for deaths in wars is linked to our massively outspending everyone else on the military and associated R&D (science, NASA, etc.), which makes war unthinkable.  The downside is less money for domestic spending.  Need to find a middle ground.

mrincredible said:

And in the meantime there will be another hard right conservative Supreme Court justice.  And another if Ruth Bader Ginsburg (86) retires.

The next oldest Justice after Ginsburg is Steven Breyer (79).

Here in NJ the Bernie supporters didn't do much to swing the national election.  I can't say what they did to submarine Hillary in states like Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, or the people who voted for Johnson or Stein in those states.  It's impossible to know.  But what we're faced with now is a Supreme Court that's going to be solidly packed with conservatives, some of whom are pretty young, for some time to come.  

So if we end up seeing Roe V Wade overturned, I hope the Bernie backers will at least be able to admit that in this situation it would have been better if Hillary won.  

It's no longer a hypothetical.

Hypothetically, if Gore had won 

Would there have been a 9/11

The Iraq invasion 

The Great Recession 

Further along in the fight against climate change???