#IMP45CH #LOCKHIMUP

[Innula Zenovka]

Not in the US

Trademark, maybe, since the distinctive typography is also copied?

ETA:

 

[Ishina]

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

I was thinking that, if anything, this escapade might suggest to people that it's rather more difficult that they might think to concoct a false, though credible, allegation of rape or sexual assault and then to sustain it in the face of sceptical questioning.

One would think so. But no. It'll just be used to prove that "The right is too inexperienced at doing corrupt/criminal/evil things because the rare times they try it, they -always- get caught. The left is more evil because they -never- get caught doing stuff like this, despite the widely popular alt-fact that proves they do it ALL THE TIME."

 

[danielravennest]

Extra:

This is what you get when you have a Philander in Chief, instead of a Commander in Chief.

 

[danielravennest]

Is that close enough for a copyright claim?

No copyright, but HBO's trademarks for Game of Thrones, which includes their custom font. HBO is duly pissed, and probably a lot of GoT fans too. It's like Donnie wants to piss off every constituency he can think of.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Michael Cohen Says Trump Repeatedly Used Racist Language in Private

Any other president, this would hurt. Not this guy; it just makes his cultists love him more. As much as I loathe Trump, and I do with every fiber, the huge wake up call I have received in regard to my fellow countrymen and women hurts even more. I wasn't a pie-in-the-sky, "racism is dead" kind of person, I just didn't realize how many there were and how they actively choose to put a guy in the white house who is all but wearing his white hood.

During our conversation, Cohen recalled a discussion at Trump Tower, following the then-candidate’s return from a campaign rally during the 2016 election cycle. Cohen had watched the rally on TV and noticed that the crowd was largely Caucasian. He offered this observation to his boss. “I told Trump that the rally looked vanilla on television. Trump responded, ‘That’s because black people are too stupid to vote for me.’

This conversation, he noted, was reminiscent of an exchange that the two men had engaged in years earlier, after Nelson Mandela’s death. “[Trump] said to me, ‘Name one country run by a black person that’s not a shithole,’ and then he added, ‘Name one city,’”

Cohen also recounted a conversation he had with Trump in the late 2000s, while they were traveling to Chicago for a Trump International Hotel board meeting. “We were going from the airport to the hotel, and we drove through what looked like a rougher neighborhood. Trump made a comment to me, saying that only the blacks could live like this.”

After the first few seasons of The Apprentice, Cohen recalled how he and Trump were discussing the reality show and past season winners. The conversation wended its way back to the show’s first season, which ended in a head-to-head between two contestants, Bill Rancic and Kwame Jackson. “Trump was explaining his back-and-forth about not picking Jackson,” an African-American investment manager who had graduated from Harvard Business School. “He said, ‘There’s no way I can let this black f-g win.’”

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I knew my thesis would be controversial, so here are now the reasons why I think so.

What we have been witnessing in the last 2-3 decades is an erosion, up to destruction what in many countries before was the center to left consensus about the welfare state. The welfare state was demolished, markets/banks were deregulated, unions busted, worker's rights reduced, taxes for the rich and big companies lowered en masse and so on and on...

And this is for me the real problem: the center to left have no answer to what a renewed consensus for welfare, work rates etc.pp. should look like; instead they are working for diversity and minority stuff, while the workers and poor feel left alone in the rain. Since years, decades. they do feel getting poorer and poorer, are unhappy, unsatisfied, don't have access to basic things while others have.

Trump without doubt is a disaster area. But he's not part of the poltiical establishment, he's more like an accident, that happened. So he's now the shock therapy, the wake up call that probably America needs. Either the political competitors are now finally putting their act together, and find an answer to the real problems of America, or they are going to face distinction.

So this is why for me Trump is not the problem, but an indication of the real problem.

I see. I think you are unintentionally carrying water for the idea that only white males matter. and that economic anxiety was the prime reason they voted for him. Yes, Clinton and to a lesser degree Obama weren't able to reverse decades of Republican grind toward devaluing workers but let's put the blame where it lies in totality; right on those who actively bought our political system and actively encourage racism and worse so that they may win elections and then put into effect their draconian economic goals. Let's also give a whole lot of blame to those voters who chose to keep voting for these people. They voted for it, consistently and they still are in Trump.

This retconning of Clinton serves no purpose other than to give validity to the both sides did wrong narrative; that it was the poor American worker who voted for Trump and other means of washing away why they really voted for him.

Who voted for Trump and why:

Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
White and wealthy voters gave victory to Donald Trump, exit polls show
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?utm_term=.bcd8d20a4593
Economic Anxiety Didn’t Make People Vote Trump, Racism Did
Why Did People Vote for Trump? - The Atlantic
The Five Types of Trump Voters | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Seems to me that there must be several different cohorts of voter to study. The two that would interest me most are "People who voted for Obama in 2012 but didn't vote in 2016" and "People who voted for Obama in 2012 but voted for Trump in 2016".

OK, we can safely say that if someone's main reason for voting for Trump was he favoured the racist candidate then he probably didn't vote for Obama last time round. Similarly, if he was a dyed in the wool Republican anyway, or wanted to alleviate the plight of struggling, overtaxed, wealthy Americans he probably voted for Romney.

But what happened, and why, to change the allegiances of the folks who voted for Obama and not for Clinton, and especially those who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump? If I were a Democratic Party strategist, that's something that would preoccupy me, I think.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

But what happened, and why, to change the allegiances of the folks who voted for Obama and not for Clinton, and especially those who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump? If I were a Democratic Party strategist, that's something that would preoccupy me, I think.

Quite simple: Hillary Clinton is as popular as an athlete's foot. I've not yet so far met an American who really likes her.

When looking at the last two democrat presidents, Clinton and Obama, what do they have both in common? Charisma, intelligence, rhetoric experience, an air of authority around them, a vibrant appearance, and they seem like quite nice people. Per my understanding - it might be wrong - the possible voter camps of the Democrats are quite some and diverse, and have sometimes not much in common, so you do need a charismatic candidate for your campaign, who can appeal to all of those and glue them together through his personality if you want to have a real chance to win. This is what Bill Clinton and Obama did. Now enter Hillary Clinton, who has the charisma of a folder, and you get the idea why not.

The voter camps of the GOP instead are lesser, and have much more in common. So it's much easier for a Republican candidate to motivate his camps to vote for him compared to the Democrats.

Clinton was by far means not the ideal candidate for the Democrats, Trump not for the Republicans but in the end Clinton was worse for her party than Trump for his. The interesting thing is that Hillary Clinton received almost three million more votes than Trump had - but due to the voting system being what it is, Trump had way more presidential electors than Clinton.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Quite simple: Hillary Clinton is as popular as an athlete's foot. I've not yet so far met an American who really likes her.

When looking at the last two democrat presidents, Clinton and Obama, what do they have both in common? Charisma, intelligence, rhetoric experience, an air of authority around them, a vibrant appearance, and they seem like quite nice people. Per my understanding - it might be wrong - the possible voter camps of the Democrats are quite some and diverse, and have sometimes not much in common, so you do need a charismatic candidate for your campaign, who can appeal to all of those and glue them together through his personality if you want to have a real chance to win. This is what Bill Clinton and Obama did. Now enter Hillary Clinton, who has the charisma of a folder, and you get the idea why not.

The voter camps of the GOP instead are lesser, and have much more in common. So it's much easier for a Republican candidate to motivate his camps to vote for him compared to the Democrats.

Clinton was by far means not the ideal candidate for the Democrats, Trump not for the Republicans but in the end Clinton was worse for her party than Trump for his. The interesting thing is that Hillary Clinton received almost three million more votes than Trump had - but due to the voting system being what it is, Trump had way more presidential electors than Clinton.

Earlier you were saying that

And this is for me the real problem: the center to left have no answer to what a renewed consensus for welfare, work rates etc.pp. should look like; instead they are working for diversity and minority stuff, while the workers and poor feel left alone in the rain. Since years, decades. they do feel getting poorer and poorer, are unhappy, unsatisfied, don't have access to basic things while others have.

Now you seem to be saying it's not so much a question of policies as it is of having a sufficiently charismatic candidate. Of course people are going to be swayed by several factors, and different people will be influenced by each factor to a different extent, but I'm still left wondering about the reasons people who voted for Obama didn't vote for Clinton, or in sufficient numbers in the right places to get her elected.

There's all sorts of reasons and permutations of reasons I can think of -- I just wondered what research has been done into the question, since I'd rather have some facts and numbers than speculation about this.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

Sexism and racism were large factors sure, but I think the thing that really got Trump elected?

Americans crave entertainment almost as much as they hate government. And because they've been conditioned to believe that government has completely failed them, they felt like they had nothing to lose by voting for someone that would make a mockery of our entire system of government.

 

[Kaimi Kyomoon]

Seems to me that there must be several different cohorts of voter to study. The two that would interest me most are "People who voted for Obama in 2012 but didn't vote in 2016" and "People who voted for Obama in 2012 but voted for Trump in 2016".

OK, we can safely say that if someone's main reason for voting for Trump was he favoured the racist candidate then he probably didn't vote for Obama last time round. Similarly, if he was a dyed in the wool Republican anyway, or wanted to alleviate the plight of struggling, overtaxed, wealthy Americans he probably voted for Romney.

But what happened, and why, to change the allegiances of the folks who voted for Obama and not for Clinton, and especially those who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump? If I were a Democratic Party strategist, that's something that would preoccupy me, I think.

A Trump voter recently told me she voted for Trump because Hillary once defended (in court) rapists and she also laughed at the victim and some other horrible stuff. Now this young person hates Trump.

 

[Brian]

Quite simple: Hillary Clinton is as popular as an athlete's foot. I've not yet so far met an American who really likes her.

When looking at the last two democrat presidents, Clinton and Obama, what do they have both in common? Charisma, intelligence, rhetoric experience, an air of authority around them, a vibrant appearance, and they seem like quite nice people. Per my understanding - it might be wrong - the possible voter camps of the Democrats are quite some and diverse, and have sometimes not much in common, so you do need a charismatic candidate for your campaign, who can appeal to all of those and glue them together through his personality if you want to have a real chance to win. This is what Bill Clinton and Obama did. Now enter Hillary Clinton, who has the charisma of a folder, and you get the idea why not.

The voter camps of the GOP instead are lesser, and have much more in common. So it's much easier for a Republican candidate to motivate his camps to vote for him compared to the Democrats.

Clinton was by far means not the ideal candidate for the Democrats, Trump not for the Republicans but in the end Clinton was worse for her party than Trump for his. The interesting thing is that Hillary Clinton received almost three million more votes than Trump had - but due to the voting system being what it is, Trump had way more presidential electors than Clinton.

You contradict that favorite, popular talking point with facts you present.
Hillary Clinton had more attacks in over 25 years because everyone saw her coming. As for popularity or best candidate - you pointed out how vast of a majority her popular votes were.

The fact is - even though she had the face of politics like almost everyone who ever ran did, she was the most popular candidate and still might be. There's not going to be a candidate on the left that won't be hit hard by the right if they are anywhere near center stage.

Winning or losing the EC is always what you have to deal with. That was around 100,000 votes total in 3 states, with another 100,000 in 1 or 2 more for the same reverse huge margin.

That's not an unpopular candidate issue.

 

[Salome]

OK, we can safely say that if someone's main reason for voting for Trump was he favoured the racist candidate then he probably didn't vote for Obama last time round. Similarly, if he was a dyed in the wool Republican anyway, or wanted to alleviate the plight of struggling, overtaxed, wealthy Americans he probably voted for Romney.

But what happened, and why, to change the allegiances of the folks who voted for Obama and not for Clinton, and especially those who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump? If I were a Democratic Party strategist, that's something that would preoccupy me, I think.

M I S O G Y N Y. Yes, also the decades-long smear campaigns against the Clintons were a factor, but white supremacy and misogyny are bedfellows. I understand that for some reason many people think it just can’t be that simple, but it really, really is.

 

[Salome]

Quite simple: Hillary Clinton is as popular as an athlete's foot. I've not yet so far met an American who really likes her.

This says a lot about the kind of Americans you’re getting your information from.

Now enter Hillary Clinton, who has the charisma of a folder, and you get the idea why not.

I’ve met lots and lots of people that Hillary inspired. The difference is they had to choose to hear her speak because the way she’s been presented in the press, for decades, is as the wet blanket. It’s true, she’s not an electrifying speaker and she doesn’t go for the jugular, but thst is only one kind of charisma. I did not support Hillary in the primary, but she had more than earned my vote long before election day. She. Also handily won every debate.

The voter camps of the GOP instead are lesser, and have much more in common. So it's much easier for a Republican candidate to motivate his camps to vote for him compared to the Democrats.

They’re not just fewer. They’ve also largely been brainwashed by decades of an aggressive right wing propaganda machines. Those that aren’t brainwashed have had to dig into the GOP as part of their identity because they supported and/or excused war crimes and torture and there’s no room for self-reflection that sidesteps that reality.

but in the end Clinton was worse for her party than Trump for his.

There is no basis for this conclusion.

The interesting thing is that Hillary Clinton received almost three million more votes than Trump had - but due to the voting system being what it is, Trump had way more presidential electors than Clinton.

It’s almost like all the Hillary hate propaganda you regurgitated through your posts are betrayed as nonsense when you crunch the numbers.

Also, you left out a few things regarding how she lost an election:
Interference by a hostile foreign nation
Reversal of the Voting Rights Act
Unprecedented voter suppression efforts
A bothsidesism addicted media cycle that blew many key stories
An opponent willing to toss aside dog whistles and openly embrace white nationalism
Unpopular decisions by the Obama administration in the last few months of the election regarding Hispanic voters

I could go on. But despite a mountain of things she had no/little control over she still won the popular vote and got more votes than any presidential candidate not named Obama.

This “she was so unpopular” narrative only sticks because the misogyny that sells it is effective on those that want to hear it that they can ignore the reality.

PS: It really takes a special kind of ignoring facts to claim that Bill Clinton won because of his “charisma” and pretend that Ross Perot didn’t exist.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

You know, I find it interesting that someone who obviously doesn't know American politics is trying to explain american politics to americans. I'd never dream of doing the same in reverse, just saying. Instead, I'll ask questions.

 

[Salome]

You know, I find it interesting that someone who obviously doesn't know American politics is trying to explain american politics to americans. I'd never dream of doing the same in reverse, just saying. Instead, I'll ask questions.

Since 2016 I’ve learned that when it comes to hating on HRC, certain men don’t let pesky things like facts hinder them.

 

[Brian]

Unprecedented voter suppression efforts

What's at stake in Florida, with both a felony voting rights restoration constitutional amendment on the ballot and Gillum hopefully our next governor, there's likely a heavy shift to the left in how the state swings.

She lost the state by 113,000 votes. I don't see that repeating if 1.5 million more are suddenly able to vote.
This change alone drops considerably what would have been needed to not have Trump. She lost Pennsylvania by only 20,000 votes.
These two states alone would have changed 2016.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

What's sad is my mom is so skeptical that Abrams or Gillum can win; I think she's just too used to the racists winning.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Quite simple: Hillary Clinton is as popular as an athlete's foot. I've not yet so far met an American who really likes her..

I did not vote for her in the primary, but by the general election, she had my full support. I am old enough to have been around for the last 30 years that she has been smeared by Fox News and other right wing outlets, so none of that factored into my decision-making, nor did any of her attributes regarding charisma and the like. I looked at her solely on her voiced policy decisions. She impressed me by being willing to listen to what Sanders voters had been telling her that she had been lacking and making moves toward fulfilling their wishes. Was she perfect in that regard? Probably not, but she was listening and learning.

One video made an impact on me during the campaign. She took an interest in Ryan Moore when he was a young man during her failed bid to reform health care when Clinton was president. She went on to care about him/take an interest in him when the cameras were far away and she gained nothing personally by doing it. It gave me an insight into her private and understated concern for people. It humanized someone who has been vilified for so long that sometimes it was hard to see past that noise. So...now you've spoken to someone who actually likes her.