EXCLUSIVE: John Podesta May Have Violated Federal Law By Not Disclosing 75,000 Stock Shares

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

You're right. Chelsea Manning is the traitor. 

Bradley.

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

Quote Donald Trump all you want it remains a fact that the investigation continues and the hole is getting deeper for the so called president. This has nothing to do with losing the election, I wasn't running, and while Hilary Clinton would have been a much better President I really don't care about her loss, I very much care about the moron that won.

 

Chuckles the Clown would have been a much better president than Trump. 

[Dakine10 5,452]

8 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

well the MDL predicted lots of butt hurt after the election,  for once they nailed. Just had no idea the ferocity and length of it 

  Still surprised the most of it is coming from the WDR. Going back and forth from sore losers to sore winners. What a life.

[IAMX 3,055]

41 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

  Still surprised the most of it is coming from the WDR. Going back and forth from sore losers to sore winners. What a life.

I can't see how not only conservatives but other independents aren't giddy with delight watching liberals throw hissy fit after hissy fit about Trump that puts the birthers tantrums to shame.

 

It's interesting because over the years my views haven't changed whatsoever.. it's the parties and their sycophants who have.

 

Edit: actually I take back that comment about not changing whatsoever.. my views on global warming and environmentalism have changed. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by SRVT

[Dakine10 5,452]

1 minute ago, SRVT said:

I can't see how not only conservatives but other independents aren't giddy with delight watching liberals throw hissy fit after hissy fit about Trump that puts the birthers tantrums to shame.

 

It's interesting because over the years my views haven't changed whatsoever.. it's the parties and their sycophants who have.

  Just watching the response from the WDR after the election, they weren't really acting like happy winners. I don't think much has changed in the interim. I'll leave it at that. 

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Dakine10 said:

  Just watching the response from the WDR after the election, they weren't really acting like happy winners. I don't think much has changed in the interim. I'll leave it at that. 

The animosity is pretty deep. And the beneficiaries of such polarization are the very politicians that are getting elected. It's a psychological war they're winning with armies of political/marketing analysts. It should be no surprise how much both main parties work at trying to prevent third parties and write-ins from being on a ballot. Not to mention for us Californians who registered DTS how the parties suddenly wanted to shut us out in voting in primaries. No will for independent voices.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

8 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Actually Podesta admitted he had Russian ties but said there was nothing illegal which remains to be seen.

Which Podesta? 

[Dakine10 5,452]

4 minutes ago, SRVT said:

The animosity is pretty deep. And the beneficiaries of such polarization are the very politicians that are getting elected. It's a psychological war they're winning with armies of political/marketing analysts. It should be no surprise how much both main parties work at trying to prevent third parties and write-ins from being on a ballot. Not to mention for us Californians who registered DTS how the parties suddenly wanted to shut us out in voting in primaries. No will for independent voices.

  Agree 100% with that. We really need a third alternative. It does keep the other two parties from just waiting each other out for 4 years.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Dakine10 said:

  Agree 100% with that. We really need a third alternative. It does keep the other two parties from just waiting each other out for 4 years.

Even funnier to watch them blame others for not voting with them LOL.

 

- "Perot helped Clinton!"

- "Nader helped Bush!"

- "Stein/Johnson helped Trump!"

 

Be a party drone, or else.

[bcking 3,157]

6 hours ago, SRVT said:

Even funnier to watch them blame others for not voting with them LOL.

 

- "Perot helped Clinton!"

- "Nader helped Bush!"

- "Stein/Johnson helped Trump!"

 

Be a party drone, or else.

I completely agree that we need third parties.

 

However we don't need them in the Presidential election. Not yet. There is no point. A vote for one of them is literally throwing away your vote. I believe there is some truth to the idea that certain third party candidates hurt certain main candidates. All depends on who you would predict more of the third party's constituency would vote for if their tiny insignificant candidate wasn't an option.

 

The only way a legitimate third party will grow is through the legislative branch first. They need a foothold in the house or senate, and shape things there. Then more people will join them and then once they have backing, and some political clout, they may have a chance in the election.

 

That or we should have no parties. As Washington wanted.

[Dashinka 24,492]

10 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

You're right. Chelsea Manning is the traitor. 

I don't dispute that.

[IAMX 3,055]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

I completely agree that we need third parties.

 

However we don't need them in the Presidential election. Not yet. There is no point. A vote for one of them is literally throwing away your vote. I believe there is some truth to the idea that certain third party candidates hurt certain main candidates. All depends on who you would predict more of the third party's constituency would vote for if their tiny insignificant candidate wasn't an option.

 

The only way a legitimate third party will grow is through the legislative branch first. They need a foothold in the house or senate, and shape things there. Then more people will join them and then once they have backing, and some political clout, they may have a chance in the election.

 

That or we should have no parties. As Washington wanted.

What's the criteria for this?

[bcking 3,157]

53 minutes ago, SRVT said:

What's the criteria for this?

The Presidential election is a "One winner" game. There is nothing for a runner up, and certainly nothing for the "3rd place finisher". You have nothing to show for it when you vote for someone who will never win, and we can absolutely say with certainty that right now no "third party" candidate will ever win. 

So you are knowingly marking down a vote on a sheet of paper that will amount to absolutely nothing. I would ask why did you even bother? The Libertarians or Green Party don't get any bigger just by getting slightly more votes for President. Gary Johnson got 3%. Is that going to change anything? Not really. They still hold no power in any branch of government. They have some "local/state" government positions but that isn't going to propel them to a Presidency. 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

The Presidential election is a "One winner" game. There is nothing for a runner up, and certainly nothing for the "3rd place finisher". You have nothing to show for it when you vote for someone who will never win, and we can absolutely say with certainty that right now no "third party" candidate will ever win. 

So you are knowingly marking down a vote on a sheet of paper that will amount to absolutely nothing. I would ask why did you even bother? The Libertarians or Green Party don't get any bigger just by getting slightly more votes for President. Gary Johnson got 3%. Is that going to change anything? Not really. They still hold no power in any branch of government. They have some "local/state" government positions but that isn't going to propel them to a Presidency. 

Then by your logic voting for Hillary was pointless. Either vote Trump or wasted vote.

 

Except your criteria is vote how everyone else votes/you believe they are gonna vote. Not exactly the exercise of an independent right if one is going to defer that right for others to decide.

 

Seems like pretty silly logic. But it's nothing new to me, I first registered to vote when I was 18 in 2000 and I've been told this nonsense ever since. I don't see myself buying it any time soon.

Edited April 4, 2017 by SRVT

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, SRVT said:

Then by your logic voting for Hillary was pointless. Either vote Trump or wasted vote.

 

Except your criteria is vote how everyone else votes/you believe they are gonna vote. Not exactly the exercise of an independent right if one is going to defer that right for others to decide.

 

Seems like pretty silly logic. But it's nothing new to me, I first registered to vote when I was 18 in 2000 and I've been told this nonsense ever since. I don't see myself buying it any time soon.

Voting for Hillary wasn't pointless because she had an actual chance to win. Heck she won more total votes.

 

I'm just distinguishing between being "theoretical" and being "practical". In the case of Presidential elections I choose to practical. I see no benefit if pretending that anyone other than a Republican or Democrat can be elected President in the foreseeable future. I also see no point in pretending that an Independent, if they did ultimately get elected President would somehow "come from behind" to such a degree that they had <10% support prior to the election and then somehow won. 

 

Trump was behind for sure, but he wasn't an independent. That is a whole different level of "You are going to lose". Even the candidates themselves will talk about it knowing they will lose. The problem is they think that having a "good run" will do something for their party, and I just don't think it does. Expanding their role in local government will do a lot more to help them grow.

 

I'm also not telling anyone to vote in any way. You are free to continue to vote Independent if it pleases you. I was just stating my opinion on the matter. No matter how much I may dislike the two primary candidates, I won't vote independent. I'll just abstain. That is theoretical though because so far there have been cases where I have disliked both, but I have always disliked one far more than the other. I'm a pragmatist so I'll support the lesser of two evils since practically speaking we are going to end up with 1 of the 2.