TheCid

2018 Elections

622 posts in this topic

Andy CampbellVerified account @AndyBCampbell 4h4 hours ago

 
 

Nathan Larson is a Congressional candidate in Virginia. @JessReports and I uncovered his online manifesto, detailing his predilection for pedophilia and rape, so we called him.

Without hesitation, he admitted to everything.

Warning: this is disturbing

--------------------------------------

Nathan Larson, a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia, is running for Congress as an independent candidate in his native state. He is also a pedophile, as he admitted to HuffPost on Thursday, who has bragged in website posts about **** his late ex-wife....

“A lot of people are tired of political correctness and being constrained by it,” he said. “People prefer when there’s an outsider who doesn’t have anything to lose and is willing to say what’s on a lot of people’s minds.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824?vf5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Gay Kentucky man loses bid to challenge Rowan County clerk Kim Davis

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/22/rowan-county-clerk-primary-election-results/635263002/

 

She's going nowhere unless the voters says otherwise.

 She doesn't have to go anywhere; she's absolutely unimportant.

Gay couples are getting their marriage licenses in her office and she can't do anything to stop it.

If she tries to interfere, she'll be sent back to jail for contempt of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

 She doesn't have to go anywhere; she's absolutely unimportant.

Gay couples are getting their marriage licenses in her office and she can't do anything to stop it.

If she tries to interfere, she'll be sent back to jail for contempt of court.

She's not going to interfere, it has to do with HER not issuing them. Solution found, problem solved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://apnews.com/dfa9d361e24a4cb0a593ebfceb08cde2

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Republicans and Democrats alike appear to have escaped calamity in a crucial day of coast-to-coast primary battles as they fight to shape the political battlefield for the fall. There was an especially big sigh of relief from the GOP Wednesday after the party avoided being entirely shut out of California’s November election of a new governor.

Republicans had feared that Democrats would win both of the governor’s spots in California’s unique top-two primary system. With no one to support at the top of the state ticket, the concern was that GOP voters would sit the election out, giving Democrats a big advantage in House races across the state that could help swing control of Congress.

There was less Democratic talk of a November “blue wave” on Wednesday. And President Donald Trump, crediting “the Trump impact,” said there might be “a big Red Wave” instead. But that seemed to be more of a typical presidential boast than a realistic analysis of the California results.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.rt.com/usa/428722-facebook-google-sued-seattle/

 

Facebook & Google sued over election ads in Washington state

 

Silicon Valley social media giants may face millions of dollars in penalties from two lawsuits filed in Seattle, Washington, arguing that they have failed to comply with state and local laws on election advertising.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued Facebook and Google on Monday, saying they have not produced documents requested by the media and members of the public related to political ads for local and state elections since 2013.

“We can’t have a world here in Washington State where we’re transparent on radio buys, we’re transparent on TV buys, but we’re not transparent when it comes to ads on Facebook and Google,” Ferguson told The Stranger, a Seattle newspaper. “That’s not okay.”

 

The lawsuit is apparently not related to the claims of 'Russian online interference' in the 2016 US presidential election, though Ferguson called them a “backdrop” showing how important transparency was. Instead, the case relates to the state and local laws adopted in the 1970s, long before Google or Facebook were in existence.

Washington State Initiative 276, passed in 1972, includes the section called “Commercial Advertisers' Duty to Report.” A nearly identical ordinance was passed in 1977 by the City of Seattle. The definitions of “commercial advertiser” and “political advertising” in the laws are so broad, the authorities say, they apply to digital platforms that have since been established, such as Google and Facebook.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Schram has an interesting opinion on what the Dems need to do.  Channel Robert Kennedy.  His theory is that the independents and dissatisfied who voted for Trump would have voted for RFK in '68. Also that the people who voted for George Wallace in '68 would have voted for RFK if he had not been assassinated.  

Basically Robert Kennedy, George Wallace and Donald Trump were appealing to the "forgotten voter."  I have pointed this out before, but not the RFK, GW, DT connection.

In 2015 Schram predicted that Trump would win the nomination and the presidency.

Lesson is that the Dems better get their act together.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sns-tns-bc-schram-column-20180606-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

Basically Robert Kennedy, George Wallace and Donald Trump were appealing to the "forgotten voter." 

Lesson is that the Dems better get their act together.

So how, specifically, do the Democrats appeal to these "forgotten voters"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

So how, specifically, do the Democrats appeal to these "forgotten voters"?

Good question.  Schram bases his column on his talks with union workers in '68 who supported RFK and then Wallace.  They had "guts" and "were talking about people like me."  Even after Schram pointed out Wallace's blatant racism, the people said race was not an issue with them.  

Just as I have pointed out before, Hillary Clinton didn't talk to me - older, white male.  And she didn't speak much to blue collar workers, middle class white males, etc.

I think the "blue collar/working class" voters of the pre-1970's are very much diminished in numbers.  But Trump and the GOPers found enough of them to win lots of elections.  They have been replaced with a new group of workers.  The DNC needs to find out who these people are and what appeals to them.  While still not ignoring the blue collar workers.

These voters are still frustrated, but are the Democrats speaking to them or will Trump pull it out again in 2018 and 2020?  A friend of mine voted for Trump because he wanted somebody who would shake things up.  I don't think the Dems have found the right message yet.  And going further to the left is not going to help.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have no problem voting for Kennedy and Wallace, maybe you should be

forgotten. :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

If you have no problem voting for Kennedy and Wallace, maybe you should be

forgotten. :)

Humorous, but sort of misses the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheCid said:

Humorous, but sort of misses the point.

I get the point that both were seen as anti-establishments types speaking on behalf of

just plain folks, though why a former AG and current Senator and a governor were seen

as anti-establishment types is another question. But beyond that, there is not much in

common between the two as far as political positions goes. Why would anyone who

backed RFK due to his policies then turn around and back Wallace for his? Sort of like a

billionaire con artist like Trump speaking for blue collar types. Hint--he's not really into

you.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I get the point that both were seen as anti-establishments types speaking on behalf of

just plain folks, though why a former AG and current Senator and a governor were seen

as anti-establishment types is another question. But beyond that, there is not much in

common between the two as far as political positions goes. Why would anyone who

backed RFK due to his policies then turn around and back Wallace for his? Sort of like a

billionaire con artist like Trump speaking for blue collar types. Hint--he's not really into

you.

On target, but both appealed to same something in the blue collar, working class, lower middle class, whatever groups.  The voters believed both would have improved their lives economically.  As with all candidates, you have to ignore some aspects if the others are more important to you.  This is probably why the pro-Vietnam War people could still support RFK.  Many of them probably also did not consider the race/segregation issue as important to them.

They also would have seen them as anti-existing establishment.

I think the difference between RFK and Wallace and Trump is that the first two actually did believe they spoke for the blue collar, etc. types.  Trump never did and never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

On target, but both appealed to same something in the blue collar, working class, lower middle class, whatever groups.  The voters believed both would have improved their lives economically.  As with all candidates, you have to ignore some aspects if the others are more important to you.  This is probably why the pro-Vietnam War people could still support RFK.  Many of them probably also did not consider the race/segregation issue as important to them.

They also would have seen them as anti-existing establishment.

I think the difference between RFK and Wallace and Trump is that the first two actually did believe they spoke for the blue collar, etc. types.  Trump never did and never will.

There are different types of voters. Some have an emotional connection to a certain

candidate, others are policy wonk types, and there are others who are in between.

Some voters who felt that personal connection likely saw Kennedy and Wallace as

standing up for them. I can't see many of the policy wonk types who supported

RFK switching to Wallace, though some might have. I do agree that Kennedy and

Wallace had a more sincere attachment to working class issues than Trump has

or ever will have. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mr6666 said:

anyone liking THIS guy for 2020??

:unsure:

Ted Lieu
劉雲平
Congressman Ted W. Lieu Official Photo.jpg
 

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from California's 33rd district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Lieu

Well, he's under 75, so he has THAT going for him! Seriously, though, he has a compelling personal story, and among those personal facts is the one about him not being born in the U.S., precluding him from being POTUS.   Also I was concerned about this little statement in his Wikipedia writeup - " On March 8, 2017, Lieu introduced H.R. 1437 - No Money Bail Act of 2017. The bill proposes eliminating the money bail system for holding suspects in pretrial proceedings". I decided to do further investigation to see EXACTLY what he was saying, and he is in fact saying that suspects should not be kept in jail because they don't have money for bail. How far does this go? Does this mean gang members are free to roam the streets, and we just HOPE they turn up for trial, while they retaliate against the folks who put them there in the first place? Sounds like a non starter to me. He also sponsored first in the nation legislation to ban minors from being subject to sexual conversion therapy, which generally doesn't work anyways, and then they are minors after all. I hear Cali was trying to ban the same therapy for adults, and I'd like to know how he comes down on that.  I think adults should get to choose any kind of therapy that they want, they are adults after all.. I mean there's no law banning adults from giving money to scam artist camouflaged (not well) as televangelist Mike Murdock.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mr6666 said:

anyone liking THIS guy for 2020??

:unsure:

Ted Lieu
劉雲平
Congressman Ted W. Lieu Official Photo.jpg
 

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from California's 33rd district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Lieu

James has made a number of comments about this congressman, he may even be in his district.

 James seems to know a lot about him, so he could be a source of information on Lieu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Associated PressVerified account @AP

 

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court: States can purge voter rolls by targeting people who haven't cast ballots in a while.

-----------------------------------------------------

Bernie SandersVerified account @SenSanders 3h3 hours ago

 
 

Bernie Sanders Retweeted The Associated Press

It's a travesty that the Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s voter suppression efforts.

Instead of making people jump through hoops to vote, states should pass automatic voter registration and same-day registration.

Politicians afraid of large voter turnouts are political cowards.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges

"...Alito said that the two factors show that Ohio “does not strike any registrant solely by reason of the failure to vote.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, countered in his dissent: “In my view, Ohio’s program does just that.” Breyer said many people received mailings that they discard without looking at them. Failure to return the notice “shows nothing at all that is statutorily significant,” he wrote.

In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Congress enacted the voter registration law “against the backdrop of substantial efforts by states to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters.”

The court’s decision essentially endorses “the very purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against,” Sotomayor wrote.......

https://apnews.com/36f57577445a4486b1c76b02a247ce72?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges

"...Alito said that the two factors show that Ohio “does not strike any registrant solely by reason of the failure to vote.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, countered in his dissent: “In my view, Ohio’s program does just that.” Breyer said many people received mailings that they discard without looking at them. Failure to return the notice “shows nothing at all that is statutorily significant,” he wrote.

In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Congress enacted the voter registration law “against the backdrop of substantial efforts by states to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters.”

The court’s decision essentially endorses “the very purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against,” Sotomayor wrote.......

https://apnews.com/36f57577445a4486b1c76b02a247ce72?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

I have mixed feelings about this one.  As I understand it, the voter has to have NOT voted for six years and then failed to respond to a written notice regarding being removed from voter list.    If you haven't bothered to vote in six years, that says something. 

Read an article where North Dakota essentially has no voter registration process.  You show up, present valid photo ID with address and you vote.  They do have a list of voters for poll workers to check based on previous elections but I think you still get to vote even if not on the list.  But ND is a small state, about 750,000 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial reports on June 12 primaries show that the GOP has abandoned itself completely to Trumpism.  If you did not support Trump, you lost.  Mark Sanford (S.C.) never lost a race, until yesterday.  He was expected to win until Trump endorsed his opponent day before the election.

I believe something similar happened in Virginia as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/09/slap-face-progressive-outsiders-dnc-adopts-rule-forcing-presidential-candidates-be#

'Slap in the Face' to Progressive Outsiders as DNC Adopts Rule Forcing Presidential Candidates to Be Members of Democratic Party

"I'm just stunned that the Democratic Party’s rules committee would want to try to make the Democratic Party an exclusive club, for which we want to exclude voters and large segments of the American electorate."

"The DNC has learned nothing."

That was how the advocacy group People for Bernie reacted to reports late Friday that the rules and bylaws arm of the Democratic National Committee has moved ahead with a new resolution that, according to Yahoo News, would "force candidates in Democratic presidential primaries to state that they are Democrats" and "to 'run and serve' as a member" of the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/09/slap-face-progressive-outsiders-dnc-adopts-rule-forcing-presidential-candidates-be#

'Slap in the Face' to Progressive Outsiders as DNC Adopts Rule Forcing Presidential Candidates to Be Members of Democratic Party

"I'm just stunned that the Democratic Party’s rules committee would want to try to make the Democratic Party an exclusive club, for which we want to exclude voters and large segments of the American electorate."

"The DNC has learned nothing."

That was how the advocacy group People for Bernie reacted to reports late Friday that the rules and bylaws arm of the Democratic National Committee has moved ahead with a new resolution that, according to Yahoo News, would "force candidates in Democratic presidential primaries to state that they are Democrats" and "to 'run and serve' as a member" of the party.

Don't disagree with that.  If you want to run on the Democratic ballot, you should be a Democrat.  It does not mean voters have to be Democrats.  NO one is being excluded.

Sanders has already refused to be a member of the Party as he is still an Independent.  Why should he be allowed to run on Dem. ballot?

Why didn't Sanders run for the Republican nomination???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Don't disagree with that.  If you want to run on the Democratic ballot, you should be a Democrat.  It does not mean voters have to be Democrats.  NO one is being excluded.

Sanders has already refused to be a member of the Party as he is still an Independent.  Why should he be allowed to run on Dem. ballot?

Why didn't Sanders run for the Republican nomination???

From the article-

Following his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders—who is now far-and-away the most popular politician in the country—repeatedly emphasized the importance of creating a more inclusive party organized around the needs of the poor and working class, not corporate donors.

"If the Democratic Party is going to succeed... it's gonna have to open its door to independents," Sanders said in an interview last April. "There are probably more independents in this country than Democrats or Republicans. It's got to open its doors to working people and to young people, create a grassroots party."

I agree with this statement. While they should ideally be members of the Democrat party, being so exclusive isn't going to win elections. The Dems should open their door to more than just corporate donors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/12/the-democratic-partys-2018-view-of-identity-politics-is-confusing-and-thus-appears-cynical-and-opportunistic/

The Democratic Party’s 2018 View of Identity Politics Is Confusing, and Thus Appears Cynical and Opportunistic

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton’s potential status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders.

In February 2016 — at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle — former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory Booker cheered: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” she announced.

Though Albright apologized in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did reaffirm her central point: “When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits. They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or oppose.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us