***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[DeadsetAce]

i want the demographics of the 47% that did not vote

 

[Maximus Meridius]

White women chose a racist dude that grabs p****.


And those will be the same ones throwing dirt on somebody like Nate Parker.

 

[rolaholic]

White women chose a racist dude that grabs p****.


And those will be the same ones throwing dirt on somebody like Nate Parker.

Reminds me this piece I saw earlier

@mic: White men didn't win the election for Trump, female misogynists did http://bit.ly/2fzfCI4

Guess at least the hypocrisy across the board has been exposed beyond a measure of a doubt and is unarguable at this point

 

[Maximus Meridius]

Hopefully the sistahs see that they were tricked with that whole "feminism" thing. White women showed what they're loyal too.

 

[teamjordan79]

Intolerable thugs protesting democracy.

Haters shouting "Love trumps hate" |I

I thought we were stronger together lol

 

[EddieDoyers]

It was never over to begin with
Just the racists are more emboldened right now

Them weird people is wylin out now fam

People getting told to sit at the back of the bus, having pistols drawn on them and called the N word and all that

Bold people be careful out there

Rosa Parks rolling in her grave
Anyway I'm glad that I haven't witnessed any of that bs in Cali
Although I lately been hearing all the Obama slander from my family
Pops got heated when I told him every administration has flaws
Smh and we are a minority too

 

[kvsm23vs24]

Protests in California right now. Ain't gonna change a nationwide decision...

 

[Proposition Joe]

White women chose a racist dude that grabs p****.


And those will be the same ones throwing dirt on somebody like Nate Parker.

Unfortunately our black "feminist" turned on him too. Black feminist are an interesting bunch considering that they mainly **** on black men while dating a white man [emoji]129300[/emoji]

 

[teamjordan79]

White women chose a racist dude that grabs p****.


And those will be the same ones throwing dirt on somebody like Nate Parker.

Unfortunately our black "feminist" turned on him too. Black feminist are an interesting bunch considering that they mainly **** on black men while dating a white man [emoji]129300[/emoji]

plz stop with this identity politics bs. black women this, white men that....ya'll hear your salty selves? lol

A new day has come!!! Embrace change and spark up

 

[Proposition Joe]

plz stop with this identity politics bs. black women this, white men that....ya'll hear your salty selves? lol

A new day has come!!! Embrace change and spark up

Salty about what

And I said black feminist, have you seen their Twitter and spokes people ? Black feminism is white supremacy with a black face.

 

[equality]

Wow you're ignorance is stunning. White privilege for work and school? Heard of affirmative action? It guarantees blacks who are less qualified than whites get into schools and get jobs they wouldn't be able to get otherwise. Black privilege, it's real. You're completely off your rocker. Tell the poor whites in Appalachia about their white privilege. People of all backgrounds get advantages in different sectors of society based on all kinds of ****. Again, someone else telling a man he shouldn't be allowed to speak on an issue because you don't like what he's saying. Who the hell are you? Take your commie bs somewhere else. This is America, where you have the right to say what you want no matter how unpopular it might be. Civil rights would have never gone anywhere in the 60's with your attitude.

Do you know what white affirmative action looks like?  A normal day in the life of a white person. 

Do you know what months are white history month? January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December.

When you need to come up with plans and systems just to ensure minorities are "included" and their history is celebrated, that's when you know white privilege exists.

And FYI, I HATE Hilary. I'm PRO capitalism, I PRO freedom of speech, I DON'T want to take your guns, i HATE idiotic black feminists online saying Trump is going to start WWIII, but ignorance and denial is toxic.

Edit: Also, I don't think white privilege should be used as any type of excuse for minorities to under perform or not strive to succeed. It's simply the reality of how the world works. Just like how black people are better at basketball. Peace my man, we are all the same.

 

[TURBO UNO]

Protests in California right now. Ain't gonna change a nationwide decision...

Nope. Just mess up my commute time 

 

[cash money 1999]

Also props to ninjahood..aint see no name calling on his end and he fought off the entire site months on end ..lettuce hope your orange papi is as good for the country as you say he is

 

[EddieDoyers]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-washington-20161109-story.html


Now Trump has his chance to change Washington. But it might change him instead

Official Washington grappled Wednesday with an urgent question that few, even in Republican circles, had previously considered seriously: What will a Donald Trump administration actually do?

Democrats were shell-shocked. And many Republicans pondered how to deal with a freestyle chief executive who comes to the office with few well-defined policy positions beyond a hard-line stance on immigration.

As Republican leaders publicly celebrated the shift in power, some in the rank and file, along with allied lobbyists and staffers, worried about how it would play out. They hung on to the reassuring, calm – even gracious – Trump victory speech as a sign he could be more statesmanlike than he was on the campaign trail. Then they recalled his campaign.

“Anyone who thinks he is going to magically change is delusional,” said GOP strategist Kurt Bardella, who refused to vote for Trump in Tuesday’s election. “The confrontational style of Trump and those who have been a part of his team will continue when he assumes the presidency. There are going to be a lot of situations where the Trump administration is at odds with its own party in Congress.”

Trump’s plans on issues such as taxes, the federal budget, healthcare and trade have been vague. Those on Capitol Hill with an expertise in immigration confidently predict that the wall he promises for the Mexican border will never be built. Similar skepticism surrounds his plan to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

Trump has vowed not to touch entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that congressional Republicans have tried for years to cut. The New York businessman’s announcement on election night that he would pursue a burst of infrastructure spending immediately unsettled some of the fiscally conservative lawmakers who endorsed him.

Even the unity that Trump and congressional Republicans displayed on repealing Obamacare seems fragile. Neither has offered a workable plan for replacing it.

“Now that they have all the power in Washington they ever imagined they could get, it is like the proverbial dog chasing the bus,” Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said of Trump and the lawmakers who endorsed him. “They’ve caught it and don’t know what to do with it.”

Still, Trump will be empowered to make good on his promise to erode – if not outright eliminate – many of President Obama’s landmark achievements. He has called global warming a hoax and has promised to reinvest in coal. Trump and Republican leaders are looking to implement deep corporate tax cuts that Obama has resisted. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court will quickly be restored.

The prospect of it all had some Obama staffers in tears as they gathered in the Oval Office on Wednesday morning. Obama scanned their faces for a moment before offering a word of comfort.

“He basically said, ‘This doesn’t undo what you have done,’” said one senior staffer. Obama also urged them not to give into the passions of the moment but rather stay focused on the tasks at hand – hosting Trump at the White House on Thursday and setting in motion a smooth transfer of the levers of government.

“We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country,” Obama said later in remarks to the nation from the Rose Garden. “The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And over the next few months, we are going to show that to the world.”

As he spoke, more than 100 White House staffers filled the colonnade and lawn to hear his pep talk – for them and the country. Obama had begun working on his address before he called Trump about 3:30 a.m.

Progress happens in a zigzag line, he said, not a straight one. “That’s the way politics works sometimes,” he said. “We try to persuade people.... We learn from our mistakes.”

The Obama administration, according to a senior aide, is now focusing on making sure the public and the incoming administration understand what is working — and what Americans may miss if it is taken away.

“In a way, everything changed and nothing changed last night,” said Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.). “We have a new president – one that half the country didn’t want. But let’s be honest: Had Hillary won, we would still have a president that half of America didn’t want.”

The Trump transition is already well underway, and insiders are watching it closely for signs of how he will govern. Trump must reconcile his preference for winging it with the need to quickly fill 4,000 political appointments, forge a close working relationship with Congress and learn the intricacies of how power is wielded across the vast federal bureaucracy.

One of his favorite pledges is to “drain the swamp” that is Washington, but the swamp is not easily drained.

“Every president known to man talks about how they are going to change it,” Bardella said. “They find the institution is more powerful than one man.”

The legions of lobbyists Trump has suggested should be run out of town will probably only multiply in their number and influence. A new administration always brings new opportunities for the “third house” inside the beltway. There are new visions to be implemented, and the people equipped to do that often charge by the hour.

A question looming over lunchtime conversation at Washington’s steakhouses and private clubs is how much sway Trump gives to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, a seasoned lawmaker positioned to smooth relations with Republican leaders. Competing for influence in the Trump administration will be the advisors from the so-called alt-right, who have openly schemed to dethrone the GOP leaders Pence counts as allies.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to wave away any notion that they were worried. McConnell invited Pence to the weekly GOP policy luncheons in the Senate, which former Vice President **** Cheney used to attend as a liaison for George W. Bush.

McConnell also said he told Trump that he’d like them to work out any disagreements in private.

“We are going to be enthusiastically supportive almost all the time,” McConnell predicted. But he also suggested that Trump would be best served by sidestepping Congress altogether and moving through administrative or executive action, when possible.

But when talk turned to Trump’s immigration plans, including building a wall and mass deportations that could require billions of dollars in congressional authorizations, McConnell was circumspect.

“I’m not going to discuss the immigration issue today,” he said.

Welp
Get ready for the theatrics guys

 

[AZwildcats]

Good on the people out there protesting, let it be known they don't like the direction this country just took

 

[equality]

Good on the people out there protesting, let it be known they don't like the direction this country just took

Is it really a good use of time though? It's like a player complaining about a foul and not getting back on D. What a terrible analogy 

 

[IATT]

Whelp

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-national-security-jobs.html?via=twitter_page

 

[EddieDoyers]

Whelp

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-national-security-jobs.html?via=twitter_page

Also to add, the man did say he knew more about war than the generals


oh boy oh boy oh boy

 

[rexanglorum]

@Ninjahood, congratulations on your candidate winning. Thank you for keeping this thread so lively for so long. It is tough to keep up the argument when you don't have the numbers and you kept it up despite us coming from all sides. I hope that you stick around for the riveting political drama that will be a Trump Presidency.

 

[RustyShackleford]

@Ninjahood, congratulations on your candidate winning. Thank you for keeping this thread so lively for so long. It is tough to keep up the argument when you don't have the numbers and you kept it up despite us coming from all sides. I hope that you stick around for the riveting political drama that will be a Trump Presidency.

Welp, that's one way to put it.

 

[Deleted member 42060]

I remember when that mofo billionaire Bloomberg was running NYC post 9-11

Lil dude was repub first then switched to independent? Tf

That mf ran nyc 12 yrs straight bringing in his cronies and letting the rich flourish

The rule was 2 terms only and this one did 3

Korrupt. I wonder if party alignment has any real significance, I think its all about the money and useful connections one has

 

[Deleted member 42060]

And if i remember funny thing was when trump ran in the 2000s he was independent too [emoji]128513[/emoji]

 

[teamjordan79]

And if i remember funny thing was when trump ran in the 2000s he was independent too [emoji]128513[/emoji]

I don't think the party labels will be as relevant anymore tbh. Trump might have KO'd both the Republicans and Dems.

Leftist don't realize orange is the new black when it comes to real change

 

[EddieDoyers]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...aying-groundwork-gutting-net-neutrality.shtml

With Donald Trump now the President elect, all eyes in telecom have turned to what happens now in regards to FCC telecom enforcement generally, and our shiny new net neutrality rules specifically. Trump has proclaimed he opposes net neutrality, despite making it abundantly clear he doesn't appear to actually know what it is (he appears to falsely believe it has something to do with the fairness doctrine). As such most people believe he'll work to gut the current FCC, which as we've noted has, for the first time in arguably twenty years or so, actually been doing a few things to actually help broadband consumers and sector competition.

Trump is said to have appointed Jeffrey Eisenach, "a crusader against regulation," who has consistently criticized current FCC boss Tom Wheeler, to handle his telecom transition team:
In 2012 Eisenach arrived as a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute — and in that role, he’s been an outspoken antagonist of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and his policies. In his research and advocacy, often backed by tech and telecom interests, he's slammed the Obama administration's efforts on net neutrality, broadband investment and more.
As such, any newly-configured FCC is more than a little likely to consist of the kind of revolving door regulators that either will move to strip back net neutrality protections (difficult but not impossible), or (potentially more likely) simply refuse to enforce them. ISPs are already making it clear they see an opportunity to role back "onerous FCC regulations" at the behest of giant ISPs -- likely in the form of a complete Communications Act rewrite courtesy of the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

This enthusiasm includes former Congressman Rick Boucher, who at one point in time was a fantastic crusader for fair use rights, but has since made his living playing parrot for the telecom industry over at Sidley Austin, a law firm that effectively acts as an AT&T policy arm. Not wasting any time, an e-mail dropped into Techdirt's inbox this morning by the Internet Innovation Alliance (also part of AT&T's telecom policy efforts), featuring Boucher proclaiming that it was time to "return to the bi-partisan light regulatory oversight of broadband":
The first order of business for the new FCC should be a return to the bi-partisan light regulatory oversight of broadband launched during the Clinton administration. The decision to treat broadband as an information service unleashed a wave of investment in internet infrastructure that enabled our communications network to become the envy of the world. That progress has been undermined by the Commission's decision to treat broadband as a telecommunications service with regulatory requirements designed for the monopoly era of rotary telephones. Few regulatory changes would do more to promote investment and a stronger U.S. economy than a return to the time-honored light regulatory regime for broadband.
If you're playing along at home and don't speak telecom sock-puppet, Boucher's effectively arguing Trump should back off the FCC's recent decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers (which put the FCC on the proper legal footing to enforce net neutrality) and return to the FCC's earlier mantra of going out of its way to avoid doing much of anything that would hinder incumbent ISP profits. That's unfortunate, given that this was a period during which we pretended that if we let ISPs dictate all regulation they would magically deploy amazing new competitive broadband networks.

Generally speaking, most of you should be able to see how well that worked out for us based on, well, looking at Comcast or your over-priced and slow AT&T DSL line. Meanwhile pay TV providers like Dish, rather unsurprisingly, made it clear they see this being a possible end to net neutrality:

That said, it's worth reminding people that while Democrats were already waffling on the net neutrality rules they helped pass (Clinton was expected to be overly cozy with telecom in her own right), a Trump FCC is likely to be notably, significantly worse for broadband consumers and net neutrality. The FCC's recent decision to pass some basic privacy protections for broadband users is certain to face turbulence, and efforts to bring competition to the cable box and the broadband sector in general will be all-but-certainly derailed.

In other words there's every indication that we're headed back in time -- to a bygone era not that long ago where folks like AT&T and Comcast dictated policy to FCC Democrats and Republicans alike, resulting in a weak-kneed regulator whose sole purpose was to dumbly nod each and every time AT&T, Verizon, Comcast or Charter made a policy proposal.

Our internet is gonna get more crappier and slower unless we pay big bucks

 

[elecrelaxation]

I think the protests are important to have, as long as it's peaceful and people chill out afterwards. I think it's important to have because of the nature of his campaign. There's a lot of "how do I explain this to my kids" type of talk, and it's a real issue in the fact that this guy was running a campaign catered in large parts towards bigots. Protesting the fact that his type of campaign actually won the presidency is important to do cause they're watching and learning.

It's like when we hear things going on overseas, those snippets shape our opinion of that country. People in other countries aren't completely in tune with American politics, they just hear the headlines. Up till now they might have heard all the bigoted statements he's made and then they might have heard that he was elected. It's important that they hear that there was protests as well.

That being said, aside from spreading negative values socially, he hasn't done anything bad politically yet. No need for violence or anything like that.