HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » FSogol » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 119 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Northern VA
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 10:34 AM
Number of posts: 33,107

Journal Archives

Indy... the Nazis are back again

From Kris Straub

Not sure where it came from, but I laughed.

If you haven't voted yet: What are you waiting for? Get off your ass and go vote.

We need your vote, even in Blue states.


Vote Report: Northern VA

Arrived 6:45, approx 50 people in line, line moved very quickly. Entire process took 10 minutes. My precinct had 3 optical scanners that our written vote is fed into. I was voter 209 (which means approximately 600 people voted before me.)

The crowd was in a good mood and was made up of about 70% women and minorities. Only 2 obvious Trump supporters (a man and wife wearing camo, clutching the Republican sample ballot, and scowling at everyone). The Democrats usually win 55-65% in my area.

There were 2 official poll watchers (one from each party, sitting quieting behind the check in station).

Outside the girl scouts sold baked goods. There were 3 tables, one staffed with Democrats giving out sample ballots. The second was a Trump table with the Republican sample ballot and no volunteers. The 3rd table was "Republicans for Clinton" It was also un-staffed with copies of the Democratic sample ballot.

My commute took me past 1 other Fairfax County voting area and 2 Fairfax City voting areas. Lots of signs, cars, and people at all stations.

Overall, I observed no problems.


Driving to work today, I passed an intersection outside of GMU w/ 4 Trump supporters* waving signs

asking supporters to honk. Sitting thru 2 cycles of the red light of the busy intersection**, there were zero honks.

* All elderly white women wearing red coats. 3 seemed angry and 1 seemed like she was undergoing rapture.
** Braddock Rd and Rt 123

Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?

In the heat of a presidential campaign, you’d think that a story about one party’s nominee giving a large contribution to a state attorney general who promptly shut down an inquiry into that nominee’s scam “university” would be enormous news. But we continue to hear almost nothing about what happened between Donald Trump and Florida attorney general Pam Bondi.

I raised this issue last week, but it’s worth an update as well as some contextualization. The story re-emerged last week when The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold reported that Trump paid a penalty to the IRS after his foundation made an illegal contribution to Bondi’s PAC. While the Trump organization characterizes that as a bureaucratic oversight, the basic facts are that Bondi’s office had received multiple complaints from Floridians who said they were cheated by Trump University; while they were looking into it and considering whether to join a lawsuit over Trump University filed by the attorney general of New York State, Bondi called Trump and asked him for a $25,000 donation; shortly after getting the check, Bondi’s office dropped the inquiry.


That’s important, because we may have reached a point where the frames around the candidates are locked in: Trump is supposedly the crazy/bigoted one, and Clinton is supposedly the corrupt one. Once we decide that those are the appropriate lenses through which the two candidates are to be viewed, it shapes the decisions the media make every day about which stories are important to pursue.

And it means that to a great extent, for all the controversy he has caused and all the unflattering stories in the press about him, Trump is still being let off the hook.

I recommend checking out the entire opinion piece. Paul Waldman has a huge list of Trump's corruption and it is pretty mind boggling.

Polls and Uncertainty - concerned, worried, anxious? Here's the only solution:


O'Malley goes on Fox News and destroys the sputtering Pro-Trump hosts


Despite the three-against-one set up, O’Malley continued laying into Trump’s fascist policies without much effective pushback from any of the cohosts.

My favorite moment:

O’MALLEY: It’s interesting that Donald Trump doesn’t have the balls to talk about the wall when he’s in Texas because even conservative people down there don’t want a giant wall built across their state.

…He might even lose Texas because people don’t like those sort of white, racist appeals.

Article here:


The lap dogs of democracy who didn’t bark at Trump

A must read from Dana Milbank in today's Washington Post. Milbank tears into Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin

...This is not to pick solely on Halperin, with whom I have clashed over the years. Trump exploited a profession dominated by process journalism, and the entire cable news industry irresponsibly gave Trump unfiltered and uncritical coverage as he mounted his assaults on democracy and civility — the equivalent of millions of dollars of free ads that propelled him to the nomination.

In an ordinary presidential campaign, press neutrality is essential. But in Trump we have somebody who has threatened democracy by talking about banning an entire religion from entering the country; forcing Muslims in America to register with authorities; rewriting press laws and prosecuting his critics and political opponents; blacklisting news organizations he doesn’t like; ordering the military to do illegal things such as torture and targeting innocents; and much more. In this case, attempting neutrality legitimized the illegitimate.

It’s not just a concern of the “elites” — nor a dismissal of the real grievances of Trump’s followers — to condemn a candidate’s reluctance to accept a bedrock principle of democracy. There’s nothing “brilliant” about a campaign for the presidency that makes scapegoats of women, immigrants and racial and religious minorities. It’s not “impressive” to consort with white supremacists. It’s not “fair and even” to ignore that much of what Trump has done is a threat to democratic institutions.

And it is absolutely appropriate to “take sides” in a contest between democracy and its alternative.

Whole article at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lap-dogs-of-democracy-who-didnt-bark-at-trump/2016/10/24/26ba3418-9a28-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.2504007cac36

x-posted from GD2016
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 119 Next »