$40-$60 million more in undisclosed payments to Manafort surfaced last week....but Trump has nothing to do with the Trump for president campaign, does he?....and did I say collusion, or even Trump? Nope, but a guilty conscience hears accusations that never happened.
The Russians today are doing exactly what you do, pretending to be right wing nutjobs on left leaning sites, and lefty snowflakes on right leaning sites, pushing the narrative to all that the other guy is a total nut by making ridiculous, ignorant claims like you do. If you aren't being paid by Putin, you're working for him for free.

Jesus fucking Christ, Bob. Can you be more deluded and ignorant? Once again, your Russian text book of American history is 100% ass backwards.

Southern strategy: In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
Not Nixon courting the black vote.

Troll: Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Definitely you, Dimitri. It's almost time to have lucky investigate your ip address to see if you're in Kiev or Moscow.

I think it's safe to say that in 2020 the Democratic party will not be running her up the flagpole again. The last time they did that half the party saluted and the other half, kinda saluted, but it's not kind of salute one would find encouraging.

Arpaio is a great sheriff and OBAMA and his DOJ wanted to fuck with him... Well Trump got the last laugh.


The democrat party is dead being drag into the sewer by radical liberalism.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

It's easy to agree with you, because your not wrong.

I would add the caution though that oversimplifying things risks underestimating this threat to us all. This level of hatred, division, anger and violence doesn't cease to exist if we could go back and make Clinton president. It might move it down a notch, but just as good of odds it would have set it off sooner and stronger.

The threat from identity politics, nationalism and hatred is much worse than just Trumps failures as a president. The divide between people has been growing for long before even Obama was in office. It used to be that a push from the extreme left or extreme right was met by a push to more centrist ideas. Lately though the political parties and media have started taking the opposite approach and it's destroying our society.

The Republicans pushed in the direction of the extreme right with the tea party. The left push back though wasn't to woo moderate right-leaning folks, but instead pushed out to the extreme left with SJW movements like BLM. The right then pushed back again not wooing the moderate left, but doubling down the tea partiers. Then the pinnacle of this insanity was Hillary Clinton's campaign arrogantly believing she could win without wooing the moderates because who in their right minds would follow the extreme right leanings that Trump represented?

The end result has become not only less choice for all us moderates on election dates. The sinister part is it has bled off the number of moderates and made them more extreme.

The Nazi's used the brutal reparations against Germany to rise to power. The Neo-Nazi's and nationalists in america are able to similarly use the SJW policies of the left, even affirmative action, to similarly expand their base. A former coal mining town filled with young, unemployed white people that start feeling like affirmative action is making them second pick for what few jobs remain is BAD.

The situation is MUCH worse than anybody is giving credit to. The problem isn't this crowd of neo-nazis that we can outnumber, push into a corner and beat up or throw behind bars. The real threat is the tipping point were a dangerously meaningful number of folks decide joining the likes of them is in their own self interest. It ALREADY went as far as that number voting Trump. The fact the democratic party and members still don't see this threat and still don't realise they need to stop chasing this base of people away and start trying to reach out and appeal to them is baffling, and terrifying.

They need to play this at every University, especially at every occasion where a rally or speech has been shouted down or banned from occurring because some other group doesn't like what they have to say.

Dividing people into groups has been the MO of the Democrat party for quite a long time now...

SPD (Germany): 23%
PSOE (Spain) : 22.6%
SPÖ (Austria): 26%
PS (France): 10%
PvdA (Netherlnds): 5.7%

Those are just some of the latest election/polling results of social-democratic parties in continental Europe. Corbyn's Labour came in at 40.1%. Yet somehow, Corbyn (and Sanders) is painted as the destroyer of his party's electability.

Watch all the trolls come out of the woodworks again, after claiming for months and months that Corbyn would be the ruin of Labour. And keep track of all the hacks who will still maintain that neoliberal party apparatchiks are the only option to win elections. The mental gymnastics will be hilarious, and the smear campaigns against Corbyn will be even more ferocious. They cannot let anyone challenge the neoliberal consensus and get away with it.

Edit: https://twitter.com/TKMarx/status/873157244967432192

Russia involvement in the USA election and Russians and Trump working together to win the election are two different things.

Russia was involvement with the election. Putin despised Clinton.

The Clinton election was to be a landslide in the eyes of the Democratic party and its biased media. They held this believe up until 9pm ish election night when everything started to fall apart.
They were dead wrong, shocked to the core and befuddled. Weeping and gnashing of teeth began and a Scapegoat was needed.

A quick blame of why Hillary did not win had be be made.


Russian in bed with Trump was a convenient story invented to hide the truth that Hillary ran a bad election campaign.

The firing of Comey was a shock. But the left also wanted him gone. Careful what you wish for.

This is just a continuation of the Anti Trump story line that was the media have pushed from day 1.

Russia did not favor Trump they just hated Clinton more.

USA meddles in other countries elections also.Obama meddled in the Israeli elections. It happens.

@bobknight33
you literally just repeated things that i,and pretty much everyone on the sift already know.

and has NOTHING to do with what i was asking.

i stated,quite clearly,that on a philosophical and political level,you would disagree with the justice democrats.there is no confusion here,and no reason for you to have gone down the line the things you disagree with.

the question i asked is how is the justice democrats breaking away from the dominant corporate democrats any different from the tea party breaking away from the mainstream republicans?

hint:there is no difference.

i may disagree with the tea party on many political issues,but i admired and respected their integrity to challenge the monolithic political domination of the republican party.even though i may disagree with them politically.to start their own branch WITHIN the republican party.

which is exactly what the justice democrats are doing.

the main reason why i asked is because you down-voted THIS video promoting the justice democrats,and yet had posted a video by kyle,from secular talk and who is a founding member of the justice democrats.criticizing the corporate democrats for their addiction to big campaign donors.

so i appreciate that you took the time to check out their platform,but are we really surprised that you disagree with the majority of what they are trying to accomplish?

of course not,which is why my question was not "do you agree with the justice democrats?"

because you down-voting this video,promoting justice democrats,and then posting a video FROM the justice democrats is a tad confusing.

i was really just asking you to clarify.

do you respect and admire a grass roots movement within the democratic party that seeks to challenge the status quo? even though you may disagree politically?

or are you SO partisan that anything that has "democrat" in the label is automatically to be admonished,criticized and ultimately ridiculed?

bonus question:were you aware the video you posted was from a founding member of justice democrats?

i guess i am just trying to understand,because the downvote along with you posting a video from the very people you just downvoted is philosophically inconsistent.

i really do not understand you bob.
i get that you are republican,and lean towards the philosophy of the tea party.

i have absolutely no issue with that,but didn't you admonish my post which was promoting the "justice democrats" as not being a grass roots anti-corporate establishment democrats,but rather a tool for outlets like the young turks? whose FIRST order to address.the FIRST thing they are going after is:money in politics.which is exactly what kyle is talking about.

kyle is also talking about giving the boot to not only all the corporate donors,but the very politicians that have LOST,consistently,because they are more interested in dialing for donors than doing their job.pelosi did not retain her position due to her political acumen and ability to pass progressive legislature,but because that woman is a money funding machine.

kyle even mentions the justice democrats!!!!
as a viable option to combat the corruption in the democratic party due to the corrosive influence of corporate money in politics.

you literally just posted a video by secular talk,which is a founding member of justice democrats!

so which one is it bob?

do you respect and admire a small group of democrats who are part of independent media and are creating a group to combat the corporate,establishment democrats? a group who is already
growing in size,and have already got some politicians on the ballot?

or are you sticking to your position you took on my justice democrat video,which was dismissive and critical?

please help me understand bob,because as of right now you are playing two positions that are philosophically inconsistent.

*promote bob's support of the democrats new caucus "the justice democrats",which i am fairy sure is the seventh sign of the apocalypse.

Lets see ....grass roots movement or TYT making you believe it is a grass roots movement.

We have a " fan" who sent in this video and I love it... It is his own organization.


The Justice Democrats are a political action committee[1] founded on January 23, 2017, by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks,

Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, and

former leadership from the 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.

Its stated goal of reforming the Democratic Party by running "a unified campaign to replace every corporate-backed member of Congress and rebuild the [Democratic] party from scratch" starting in the 2018 Congressional midterm elections.[2][3]

The Justice Democrats have been described as attempting to create a left-wing populist movement analogous to the right-wing Tea Party movement.[4]


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

this could not have come at a more perfect time.this week i have been accused of being a:racist,misogynist pig,cis gendered white privileged meat sack,republican tool,trump supporter(seriously?),christian nutter...the list has been long.

all because i had the audacity to point out that:obama is not a progressive,trump has actually attempted to some decent things,the ANTIFA movement is an ill-thought and hypocritical movement,the DNC is a corrupt and failing institution,the left is dead politically in america,the democratic party is one election away from being left in obscurity and that both trump and obama should be tried for war crimes.

i was seriously struggling why people refused to examine or scrutinize their own beloved political figure,but had no issue ridiculing the most inane activities of the person they hate.

i had sincerely asked how a morally justified movement could even fathom that fighting oppression and fascism,with oppression and fascism could ever be considered a solid and positive tactic.

i had people i admired and respected perform mental gymnastics so impressive that they were truly convinced that obama not indicting a single wall street CEO,was not obama bowing to the financial industry,but rather supporting his constituency.

and the presumption of some of these people,basing their opinions on so little,was staggering.even when i attempted to clarify that their assumptions were wrong,and that i was simply asking for the reasons why someone would ignore the mountain of damning evidence.they held on to their assumptions like a small child with a candy bar...

i am pretty thick skinned,and do not take much personally,but many of these people are people i like,admire and respect.that is a bitter pill that is far harder to swallow.

so thanks for that mate,it really put things in perspective for me.time for me to just go do my thing and not get hung up on other peoples biases and prejudices.they can think what they want,i will not let their narrow mindedness dictate how i feel.

that is their deal.

I think that by standing with Hillary instead of with Bernie, she signaled that she's willing to play ball with the party establishment that Hillary was a product of. That is, a party that would prop up a candidate who would "say anything, and change nothing," and govern for corporations and the wealthy, etc.

The Democratic Party imploding in on itself over Bernie's popularity was a major factor in getting Trump elected. In a way, Trump could never have become president without Hillary....

I really like Warren, but I worry that the DNC would neuter everything they can from what she's stood for and spoken out about during her political career; I worry that they would make her words hollow.

Your are wrong.

The racist policies of the democrat party i do not subscribe to.

Enoch nailed this in the second post.

Trump is NOT the problem. The extreme right is the problem. The extreme left is the problem. BOTH the extreme left and the extreme right WANT both sides to become more extreme. Both the extreme left and right want a fight because they deeply believe their holy crusade is right, to facilitate their fight they need the moderates to fade away. Poisoning both parties so they are unpalatable to the moderates is what they want.

The Alt-Right doesn't want moderate right leaning voters in the republican party. They are so far right those moderates are traitors to their cause and enemies to their ideals.

OWS, BLM, and the SJW's don't want moderate left leaning voters in the democratic party. They are so far left those moderates are traitors to their cause and enemies to their ideals.

Trump is just a symptom of the two extremes successful campaigns of growth. The only upside to Trump being president is that at least their is some glimmer of the republican party itself questioning the wisdom of the direction it's being dragged along. The democratic party meanwhile is doubling down on an absolute refusal to try and lure away or court moderates that voted republican, because after all, they are the enemy.

If the parties can't be forced to try courting moderate voters, this just keeps getting worse. Don't delude yourself into thinking the answer is to get a Democrat in next time. Without moderating the underlying extremes this just keeps getting worse.