Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help


T___A

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

 

Is it just me, or was that somewhat vague? I don’t know why, but I feel like there’s more that could have been said, at least to clear up what Rep. Radcliffe stated. 

 

Anyway, this could be quite damning if true. Would put another nail (or 10) into this coffin. 

 

18 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Wow, if true, that's big.  Sessions needs to get off his ass and start firing, and maybe executing these clowns. 

 

FIFY 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Donward said:

The Nixon "Southern Strategy" thing IS a myth.

 

Witness the election results in the South for Carter and Clinton.

 

Lets look at all the elections.  

 

presidential-election-results-1952-2012.

 

With the exception of 1976, which was a year that pitted a Democrat from the Deep South vs a Republican from Michigan who was saddled with post-Watergate baggage, the South has pretty consistently gone red.  The other exceptions predate Nixon and his Southern Strategy.  Clinton, had some success grabbing some of the Southern states had the advantage of 1) being from the South, and 2) having Ross Perrot split off some of the electorate from Bush.  In 1996, you can see that Clinton still was not able to win most of the South, with the notable exception of Florida. 

 

Look at 1952 and 1956.  All red except the deep South, which was Democrat.  By 1964, its the total opposite, the map is a sea of blue other than the deep south.  What was different about 1964?  Well, republican candidate Barry Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

With the exception of 1976, which was a year that pitted a Democrat from the Deep South vs a Republican from Michigan who was saddled with post-Watergate baggage, the South has pretty consistently gone red.  The other exceptions predate Nixon and his Southern Strategy.  Clinton, had some success grabbing some of the Southern states had the advantage of 1) being from the South, and 2) having Ross Perrot split off some of the electorate from Bush.  In 1996, you can see that Clinton still was not able to win most of the South, with the notable exception of Florida. 

 

Look at 1952 and 1956.  All red except the deep South, which was Democrat.  By 1964, its the total opposite, the map is a sea of blue other than the deep south.  What was different about 1964?  Well, republican candidate Barry Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

 

Clinton transitioned to getting more electoral votes from the south between 1992 and 1996, not less, and the Southern states that he won didn't vote less favorably for him, in fact they stayed the same and Louisiana voted more.

1992_mov.png1996_mov.png

 

I think another notable exception is the 1968 election, where Nixon lost the South despite appealing to Southern racists so well. Texas even went blue! It seems to me in studying it that the 1964 election was due to Johnson's Great Society Act, and Southern states didn't like the idea of Government handouts, as well as the fact that it seems Goldwater was a fucking nutcase who couldn't campaign for shit. I think that the presidential elections were completely disconnected from the real political feeling and couldn't indicate a party switch because the Presidential campaigns are so much more dependent on the individual candidate than looking at the Congressional elections. The South kept voting Democrat in the House and Senate until the Republicans started gaining more ground in 1984,  and not a majority until around 1996, though there were still a lot of Democrats being elected in the South even then.

 

1976 Senate election map.svgSenate, 1976

1976 House Elections.pngHouse, 1976

 

1984 Senate election map.svgSenate, 1984

1984 House Elections in the United States.pngHouse, 1984

 

1996 Senate election map.svgSenate, 1996

United States House of Representatives elections, 1996.pngHouse, 1996

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't take that muppet too seriously if I were you:  https://dxczjjuegupb.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1.pdf

 

Haven't you noticed the pattern yet.....The British establishment are fully committed to fighting Russia, right down to the last American.  :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=6c0e52d0f725cd96&from=serp&prevUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indeed.com%2Fm%2Fjobs%3Fq%3Dpolitical%26l%3DPhiladel­phia%2C%2BPA

 

Indeed Mobile Job Search

Conceptualize and design political memes for a large liberal Facebook group

 

 

Occupy Democrats - Philadelphia, PA 19147 
$2,250 a month

We seek a skilled graphics designer to make memes for Occupy Democrats, a large and popular liberal Facebook group. The ideal candidate would be well-versed in politics (preferably obsessed) and have proficiency in Photoshop. Hours are noon to five, working out of my home office in South Philadelphia. Please send link to work samples when applying. Also, please describe your interest in politics and why you'd be uniquely qualified to come up with compelling, high-value-added memes. PLEASE DO NOT APPLY IF YOU'RE NOT OBSESSED WITH POLITICS, it will be a waste of your time and mine.

Job Type: Part-time

Salary: $2,250.00 /month

Education:

  • Bachelor's

Location:

  • Philadelphia, PA 19147
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2018 at 7:56 AM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

 

Please tell me you just found this on Facebook or something and that you don't know who Bill Browder actually is.  Because that would be way more forgivable than actually supporting the man.

The article describes him as a "British-American investor and rights activist," which is a hell of a way to describe someone that slimy.

 

Here's the deal; everyone that the official US government actually likes who deals with Russia in any official or quasi-official capacity is scum.  You can take that to the bank.  While Russian organized crime was probably more than capable of looting post-Soviet Russia without any help, they had lots of help.  This article gives a good summary.  The rape and pillage of Russia in the 1990s wasn't just overseen by men in Adidas tracksuits.  There were a fair number of well-connected Harvard men.  And I do mean well-connected.  The Larry Summers mentioned in that article?  Yeah, it's that Larry Summers.

 

Once these assholes were done helping gangsters strip-mine Russia of anything valuable, they peddled their "expertise" on Russia to a credulous audience in the US government so they could gain juicy sinecures in various Russia-related posts.  And so it came to pass that Michael McFaul, who can't fucking speak Russian, became the US ambassador to Russia.  With predictably disastrous results.

So, who is William Browder, this man that Putin wants offed?  Well, it might surprise you know that fourteen years ago he was firmly on Team Putin.  You see, he used to be a Putin stooge, and then he probably stole a fuckload of money, and now he's become a successful lobbyist and tax-non-payer who has managed to rebrand himself as a human rights advocate.  Does Putin want him dead?  Yeah, and the fact that he used to be a Putin cheerleader, won't testify in court about his finances, and probably lied about the basis for the law that he successfully lobbied for is enough to give you a rough idea of how that came to be.  Don't steal from the boss!  Don't even steal from the capo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Here's the deal; everyone that the official US government actually likes who deals with Russia in any official or quasi-official capacity is scum.  You can take that to the bank.  While Russian organized crime was probably more than capable of looting post-Soviet Russia without any help, they had lots of help.  This article gives a good summary.  The rape and pillage of Russia in the 1990s wasn't just overseen by men in Adidas tracksuits.  There were a fair number of well-connected Harvard men.  And I do mean well-connected.  The Larry Summers mentioned in that article?  Yeah, it's that Larry Summers.

 

Funny how total free market advocates, once in power, always end up balls deep in authoritarian corruption and anti-competitive oligarchy. I imagine that plasmodia have similar problems every time they try to end up in non-resistant hosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Please tell me you just found this on Facebook or something and that you don't know who Bill Browder actually is.  Because that would be way more forgivable than actually supporting the man.

The article describes him as a "British-American investor and rights activist," which is a hell of a way to describe someone that slimy.

 

Here's the deal; everyone that the official US government actually likes who deals with Russia in any official or quasi-official capacity is scum.  You can take that to the bank.  While Russian organized crime was probably more than capable of looting post-Soviet Russia without any help, they had lots of help.  This article gives a good summary.  The rape and pillage of Russia in the 1990s wasn't just overseen by men in Adidas tracksuits.  There were a fair number of well-connected Harvard men.  And I do mean well-connected.  The Larry Summers mentioned in that article?  Yeah, it's that Larry Summers.

 

Once these assholes were done helping gangsters strip-mine Russia of anything valuable, they peddled their "expertise" on Russia to a credulous audience in the US government so they could gain juicy sinecures in various Russia-related posts.  And so it came to pass that Michael McFaul, who can't fucking speak Russian, became the US ambassador to Russia.  With predictably disastrous results.

So, who is William Browder, this man that Putin wants offed?  Well, it might surprise you know that fourteen years ago he was firmly on Team Putin.  You see, he used to be a Putin stooge, and then he probably stole a fuckload of money, and now he's become a successful lobbyist and tax-non-payer who has managed to rebrand himself as a human rights advocate.  Does Putin want him dead?  Yeah, and the fact that he used to be a Putin cheerleader, won't testify in court about his finances, and probably lied about the basis for the law that he successfully lobbied for is enough to give you a rough idea of how that came to be.  Don't steal from the boss!  Don't even steal from the capo!

 

I don't care how much a scum bag he may or may not be.  NOT THE POINT.  The president is seriously entertaining an offer for let a hostile foreign power interrogate American citizens, including a former ambassador.   You all keep arguing that Trump is not some sort of Russian stooge.   Let me ask you this.  If he was, how would his behavior be any different?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I don't care how much a scum bag he may or may not be.  NOT THE POINT.  The president is seriously entertaining an offer for let a hostile foreign power interrogate American citizens, including a former ambassador.   You all keep arguing that Trump is not some sort of Russian stooge.   Let me ask you this.  If he was, how would his behavior be any different?

 

 

1)  Point of order, William Browder is not a US citizen.  As the links above explain, he renounced his US citizenship to lower his taxes.

 

2)  The US allows foreign countries to interrogate and even imprison its citizens semi-regularly.  It's called an extradition treaty.

3)  The US and Russia currently have no extradition treaty, so it would make sense that anyone that Putin really really wanted to have dangled into his shark tank would need to be negotiated on a case by case basis with someone high in the US government.

And if I were Putin and I'd mind-raped Trump into being my psychic catamite, I'd be pretty pissed right now.  Complete waste of time thus far.  The sanctions punishing Russia for its intervention in Ukraine are still in place.  The US is still planning on putting THAAD in Germany and South Korea.  Trump has ordered air strikes on Russia's ally Syria, twice in fact.  The US military still maintains a ground presence in Syria, and has no immediate plans to leave.  The US still does not recognize South Ossetia.  Ukraine is still considered an official NATO aspirant.

 

Basically all the items of contention between the US and Russia lingering from the Obama era are still the same as they were before.  If Trump is a Russian puppet sent to D.C. to give Putin everything he wants on a silver platter, he's pretty fucking useless at that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I don't care how much a scum bag he may or may not be.  NOT THE POINT.  The president is seriously entertaining an offer for let a hostile foreign power interrogate American citizens, including a former ambassador.   You all keep arguing that Trump is not some sort of Russian stooge.   Let me ask you this.  If he was, how would his behavior be any different?

 

 

To add to what everyone else has said: 

 

1. If papa Trump (or “Putin’s slave”) really wanted this guy gone, he’d be fucking gone. Some (not-so-) nice men in ski-masks would have taken him to where ever and beaten him numb. Since this scum is still around (for now), it should be questionable whether Trump is Putin’s bitch. 

 

2. So it’s ok for the US to seek justice for appearant “Russian spying”, that has questionable evidence I might add, but it’s not ok for Russia to seek justice for this guy pillaging their country, and they have all the evidence to prove it? Totally not hypocritical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

1)  Point of order, William Browder is not a US citizen.  As the links above explain, he renounced his US citizenship to lower his taxes.

 

2)  The US allows foreign countries to interrogate and even imprison its citizens semi-regularly.  It's called an extradition treaty.

3)  The US and Russia currently have no extradition treaty, so it would make sense that anyone that Putin really really wanted to have dangled into his shark tank would need to be negotiated on a case by case basis with someone high in the US government.

And if I were Putin and I'd mind-raped Trump into being my psychic catamite, I'd be pretty pissed right now.  Complete waste of time thus far.  The sanctions punishing Russia for its intervention in Ukraine are still in place.  The US is still planning on putting THAAD in Germany and South Korea.  Trump has ordered air strikes on Russia's ally Syria, twice in fact.  The US military still maintains a ground presence in Syria, and has no immediate plans to leave.  The US still does not recognize South Ossetia.  Ukraine is still considered an official NATO aspirant.

 

Basically all the items of contention between the US and Russia lingering from the Obama era are still the same as they were before.  If Trump is a Russian puppet sent to D.C. to give Putin everything he wants on a silver platter, he's pretty fucking useless at that job.

 

As you have pointed out yourself, Trump is up against a good deal of bureaucratic inertia and is limited in what all he can do.  Many of the things you listed are contingent on Congress being on board. As to his strikes in Russia, they were for show and I believe we gave the Russians advance warning.  Regardless, Trump's actions causing tension within NATO, the G7 and with the EU all help advance Putin's agenda.  As to THAADs, it seems that China is the one that is really upset about it being in South Korea, and Trump obviously likes picking fights with them right now.  

 

As to Seth Rich, I don't traffic in conspiracy theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

As you have pointed out yourself, Trump is up against a good deal of bureaucratic inertia and is limited in what all he can do.  Many of the things you listed are contingent on Congress being on board. As to his strikes in Russia, they were for show and I believe we gave the Russians advance warning.  Regardless, Trump's actions causing tension within NATO, the G7 and with the EU all help advance Putin's agenda.  As to THAADs, it seems that China is the one that is really upset about it being in South Korea, and Trump obviously likes picking fights with them right now.  

 

As to Seth Rich, I don't traffic in conspiracy theories.

 

How does pushing NATO to spend more on defense or arming Ukraine fit in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

To add to what everyone else has said: 

 

1. If papa Trump (or “Putin’s slave”) really wanted this guy gone, he’d be fucking gone. Some (not-so-) nice men in ski-masks would have taken him to where ever and beaten him numb. Since this scum is still around (for now), it should be questionable whether Trump is Putin’s bitch. 

 

2. So it’s ok for the US to seek justice for appearant “Russian spying”, that has questionable evidence I might add, but it’s not ok for Russia to seek justice for this guy pillaging their country, and they have all the evidence to prove it? Totally not hypocritical. 

 

I don't give a fuck about "fairness" when we are dealing with adversary states lead by dictators.  The US is supposed to be the top dog, and instead our president is acting like a little bitch in front of every shitty ass dictator while treating our friends like garbage.  It's a disgrace.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

 As you have pointed out yourself, Trump is up against a good deal of bureaucratic inertia and is limited in what all he can do.  Many of the things you listed are contingent on Congress being on board. As to his strikes in Russia, they were for show and I believe we gave the Russians advance warning.  Regardless, Trump's actions causing tension within NATO, the G7 and with the EU all help advance Putin's agenda.  As to THAADs, it seems that China is the one that is really upset about it being in South Korea, and Trump obviously likes picking fights with them right now.  

 

As to Seth Rich, I don't traffic in conspiracy theories.

 

The sanctions on Russia I linked are executive orders.  Trump can reverse those with a pen stroke.  Russia is plenty upset about THAAD in South Korea.  Trump is the CinC of the entire US military; it's one of the few areas where he has absolute, unquestioned authority if it comes down to it.  It might cost him some political capital to exercise this authority, but then if he's a Russian puppet who is controlled by blackmail and/or installed by Russian meddling, why would that matter?  Recognition of countries is also another rare area where the US president has a large degree of unilateral authority.

 

Trump is causing tension in NATO by asking them to increase defense spending.  How does that help Putin?  Trump is causing tension in the G7, which favors free trade, and simultaneously asking Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.  Russia's economy is 2/3 dependent on oil production.  That clearly doesn't help Putin either.  As for the EU, they're Russia's largest oil and gas export market.  They're insanely dependent on Russia.  Trump pointed this out and mocked them for it.  Again, this does not help Putin.

 

I like Russia a lot.  I think the country has been unfairly vilified, and I find much of their history and technology fascinating.  But let's be fucking real here; Russia is not a strategic peer to the USA.  Russia has a GDP somewhere between Spain and Italy.  Russia used to have enormous industrial capacity; this was looted in the 1990s and will need to be reconstituted from scratch if they ever want it again.  This further means that the relatively large number of technical specialists Russia has in certain high-tech fields (aerospace, nuclear engineering, some medicine) can't really be utilized domestically.  At this very moment, Russia just doesn't matter all that much.  Russia isn't trying to manipulate US politics from the top down.  Russia has just gotten down with narrowly avoiding disintegration and implosion, and is now working in building itself back up to where it was decades ago.  By what means exactly, is Russia supposed to be able to manipulate US presidential elections?

 

Thus far, the Mueller investigation has discovered a few thousand ads that Russian front companies purchased for a grand total of $100,000.  The entire Trump campaign cost more than half a billion dollars.  The Russian contribution is rounding error.  It's a lot like how voter fraud verifiably does happen.  It does occur, but it's generally considered so rare that it doesn't threaten the integrity of the election.  Did the Russians run some intentionally divisive ads during the election?  Sure looks like it, but nobody should care.  Mexico and Australia try to do it too, but it's not really considered significant.  Unless you're telling me that Russian memes are orders of magnitude more dank than American ones, I don't see how this is a major concern.

 

Now, that's not saying that Russian companies and the Russian government weren't above a bit of old-fashioned pay for play, but you'd be stupid not to.  The price of bribes for minor favors is ridiculously low.  But actually controlling the US president on high-level matters?  When he's already a billionaire?  Again, by what means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...