Categories
off topic open thread trump

Hillary’s Big Win: A Politics Open Thread and Meme Contest or Something

And now it's time to Stump the Trump
Now it’s time to Stump the Trump

And then there were two. Now that the Democrats have a Presumptive Nominee of their own, I’m thinking we could use an open thread to talk about Hillary’s big win, Bernie’s future, and how to derail the Trump Train (figuratively speaking).

Also, Little Green Footballs has a nice little Trump poster generator. Check it out.

Here are a couple of mine, all of them making use of Trump’s actual words. Post your own! Let’s have a little meme contest or something!

trump.3bfb00b6352c

trumptwitterpow

trumpkrist

trumptaco

trumpblood

trump.bc43e9f74e4fclosing

trumphands

trumpfngers

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

Latest from Bernie Sanders

“I look forward to meeting with her in the very near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump”

Wonder if that means he’s going to insist on the VP slot?

Hambeast, Social Justice Legbeard
Hambeast, Social Justice Legbeard
4 years ago

For those stinging after Bernie’s presumptive defeat, consider this: Bernie Sanders is still a sitting U.S. senator who is overwhelmingly popular in his home state of Vermont. There is a whole lot he can do there, as he has done in the past. It’s not like he’s doomed to doing nothing but shouting at clouds from now on!

ETA – Alan, eep! I think I’d rather see him stay in the senate!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ hambeast

My understanding is that originally the Veep position was intended to be taken up by the runner up in the presidential election. Now that would be an interesting situation to say the least.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

My understanding is that originally the Veep position was intended to be taken up by the runner up in the presidential election. Now that would be an interesting situation to say the least.

That is actually in the original US Constitution. The procedure was changed with the 12th Amendment in 1804, when it became super-apparent that having a pres and veep who had become bitter enemies during the election didn’t work well together.

Now, given that the Constitutional duties of the veep are to break ties in the Senate and stay alive, and that nobody thought that elections would be acrimonious (until they were), Madison et. al. probably didn’t think it would be a big deal for the veep to be the first runner-up. But of course it was, so the procedure was changed by amendment.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
4 years ago

Although the conversation has moved on, I guess when people say things along the lines “the American political system sucks and here’s why you should never be remotely satisfied with or optimistic about a candidate” it feels like a lecture on how we’re doing progressivism all wrong from an outsider who’s never experienced what it’s like to be a progressive USian. It’s frustrating. We’re fully aware of the problems and we’re trying to make do with what we have. A lecture on how terrible all of the political system is is just not helpful. Why you want to instill despair in the minority of people here who are willing to try and change things? What good does that do?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ POM

Cheers. You’re an education as always.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

@WWTH

To me, it always sounds like someone who can’t be fucked to learn how the system actually works and how people have been working with it, within it, and against it. Politics and activism are hard and they look complicated from the outside; it’s certainly easier to just throw up your hands and curse the whole structure than to learn and get involved.

We all live in society, and so every schmoe thinks they are automatic social experts and their off-the-cuff judgements are completely accurate 100% of the time. No. Social sciences are sciences.

Nick Gotts
Nick Gotts
4 years ago

One little known fact about the war though is that on the eve of the attack an overture was made to the Iraqis that if they allowed private inspections of the WMD facilities (thus allaying Allied fears but allowing Saddam to maintain his ambiguous position for his own purposes), cooperated with the work against AQ and supported Allied affords against Iran, they would call off the invasion. Tariq Ali [sic] initially accepted the deal but was over-ruled by Saddam (Ali was offered asylum for even trying). – Alan Robertshaw

What’s your source for this? In the run-up to the war, the UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix were in Iraq, looking for WMDs. They were reporting good cooperation from the Iraqi authorities. I think Blix is much too kind to Bush and Bliar in the linked interview – if they had really believed Saddam Hussein had a serious chemical weapons capability, they would have been much more cautious in the build-up to the invasion. Bliar, for example, was claiming Iraq could launch chemically-armed missiles at 45 minutes notice – yet was building up troops in Cyprus without any sign whatever of precautions against chemical attack. They were determined to invade and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and occupy Iraq, and did not want to allow Blix’s inspections to go ahead, for fear he would find nothing, and deprive them of their best excuse. As for “private inspections of the WMD facilities”, pfft! What sane government – let alone a tyrant with a considerable degree of paranoia – is going to trust that a great power already threatening invasion is not going to be spying out as many of its conventional military dispositions as it can if allowed to send in its own inspectors?

Millions of us could see that no case for invasion had been made out. The UNSC refused to authorise it, so as it was clearly not a case of self-defence, it was illegal under international law – and hence under US law, which incorporates the relevant treaties. Clinton went along with it because it was politically expedient.

And yes – she’s still a vastly better prospect than Trump. But that’s a very low bar.

littleknown
littleknown
4 years ago

@Alan

I’m a little late, and obviously things have changed since his meeting with President Obama at the White House, but my two cents are: I think being so close to the presidency can play with anyone’s ego, and I think he got lost in the fervor of his supporters and the head-to-head poll that showed him doing better against some of the Republican candidates. I do think it’s possible that he really believed he could convince superdelegates to switch to him, but if so, it was really bizarre, given how much grief he gave to the idea of superdelegates trumping the popular vote as expressed by the regular delegates (and it had been clear for a while that he was going to lose those by a clear margin).

Politics is largely about coalition-building, and I think over the last few months he showed that he doesn’t have the temperament for negotiation. Clinton has a wealth of experience in matters of state, and her working with people like Farah Pandith for years as Secretary of State gives me confidence that she has a much greater understanding of what kind of governance it takes to combat extremism and encourage positive peace than the other candidates. When she was running against Obama, she seemed too simplistically hawkish to me when the chips were down, but now she seems to have a much cooler head.

@Axecalibur

You can put me in the camp that doesn’t understand the fixation with drones. To me, an airstrike is an airstrike. A pilot conducting an airstrike from a fighter or bomber tens of thousands of feet in the air is every bit as dependent on technology and intelligence on the ground to hit the right targets as is a pilot remotely controlling a drone. And every bit as much under orders to do so — yes, both have a choice whether or not to execute the strikes, but in reality, the decision is really made by someone who is sitting a comfortable distance away. Drones have the advantage of being able to hover and observe for longer periods, which is a potential reducer of civilian casualties. What really matters is how air support of any kind is used. There is nothing inherently immoral about drones that I know of — their weapons systems have the same accuracy as those of manned aircraft.

A candidate who says we should never use drones strikes me as naive, unless that person also thinks we should never supply air support (which I suppose I also find naive). I think the key to saving lives is putting someone in the job who best understands how to fight extremism; how to fight the information war; how the powers, cultures, and ethnic groups in the various regions fit together; how to keep troubled states from failing; and how to stay friendly with allies and not turn adversaries into enemies.

littleknown
littleknown
4 years ago

My contribution to the Trump bumper stickers (I hope these embed):

http://i.imgur.com/hveR410.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/HrwUh5d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/tOCbvtB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XTc4T5N.jpg

Credit on the last one to user (((Real GOP Spokesperson))) on this comment thread about Ashleigh Banfield’s coverage of the Stanford Rape case.

Lagoon
Lagoon
4 years ago

@ Axecalibur was that an actual conversation you had with someone re: supreme court???

I, like Vampy one page over, was not really aware during the pre-9/11 years. It might be because of this that at this point I genuinely believe that Clinton is what makes sense now and why her vote on the war (which a lot of people are hung up on it would seem) means not so much to me. As someone who would be heavily affected by an anti-abortion vote from the supreme court, I need a Dem or other progressive in the white house. I hate that Obama’s nomination couldn’t have just gone through, of course, but there a whole lot hanging in the balance right now. And, as others have mentioned, she sure knows how to weather a storm. She also knows how to compromise, and I think that’s a valuable characteristic of a presidential candidate.

Anyways, I feel like I’m talking in circles. On the topic of bombing other countries, I don’t think there’s a single candidate in our present or near future who actually wouldn’t do that. I really don’t know if the American people as a whole would elect someone who swore to never bomb ever. I could be totally wrong tho.

Axecalibur
Axecalibur
4 years ago

@Lagoon
Not exactly. They don’t literally say ‘doesn’t matter’. They just deflect and change the subject to some other thing. Like I didn’t just answer their whole question. Like if they keep throwing shit at the wall, eventually they’ll find a legit reason to vote 3rd party in Ohio. Triflin ass internet people, yo…

Agreed on the bombing thing, but also:
I was born American. In my (of, by, and for) democracy, that means I am responsible for thousands of deaths. Because of America’s global standing, we each hold an absolute responsibility for much of the world’s suffering. And that shit is heavy. I care
However, I can’t just shut down. When people like me don’t get a just little bit glad that we have a Democratic nominee with a path to victory and an agenda not born of ignorance, braggadocio, and bigotry, we stay home on Tuesday and the bigotry wins. 2010
Hillary Clinton will cause suffering as President. A shit ton of it. She will also do good, for Americans and people around the world. Either I psych myself up and make the choice of decreasing world suck, or I wallow and allow the fascists to triumph. A or B, I’m still responsible. That’s what all Americans need realize come November

Aqua
Aqua
4 years ago

I come from the UK like our host and grew up in the 70s in an old school misogynistic racist family/community. Sometimes it was politely disguised or alluded to. At others, it was so blatant it made my heart hurt.

I came out of the womb reeling at the bigotry around me. As soon as I was able, the word ‘why’ was constantly on my lips.

Why do you talk about women/other races like this – why is this happening to them – why cant they do this, that or the other, be this, that or the other, go to this that or the other, or say this, that or the other.

Two of the responses I got at age seven where ‘A black man will never be President of the USA’ and ‘A woman will never be President of the USA.’

Well fuck you sideways, you blinded fools. And yet, despite my incredulous heartstopping joy at Obamas election, now when as a woman I should be more than ebullient, I feel flattened by the hate and resentment and sour grapes and despair, and the thought of four years of increasingly insane conspiracy theories.

At any rate, my anxieties aside, congratulations and celebrations are in order, you are one determined individual Hilary, but also I suspect more sensitive than you are given credit for.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

And yet, despite my incredulous heartstopping joy at Obamas election, now when as a woman I should be more than ebullient, I feel flattened by the hate and resentment and sour grapes and despair, and the thought of four years of increasingly insane conspiracy theories.

And yet it’s nothing new. Clinton’s been dealing with all of this for the last quarter-century, and they haven’t beaten her down yet. They’re not going to beat her down now.

I’m delighted that she’s the nominee – and I’m not apologizing for it, either.

Wetherby
Wetherby
4 years ago

@Imaginary Petal

British Prime Ministers from Churchill onwards:

Winston Churchill (1940-45, 1951-55) – 65
Clement Attlee (1945-51) – 62
Anthony Eden (1955-59) – 57
Harold Macmillan (1959-64) – 62
Alec Douglas-Home (1964) – 60
Harold Wilson (1964-70, 1974-76) – 48
Edward Heath (1970-74) – 53
James Callaghan (1976-79) – 64
Margaret Thatcher (1979-90) – 53
John Major (1999-97) – 47
Tony Blair (1997-2007) – 43
Gordon Brown (2007-10) – 56
David Cameron (2010- ) – 43

So all of those, even Churchill, were younger than Clinton/Sanders/Trump on assuming office, and ever since then there’s been a general trend downwards – we haven’t had a PM starting out in his sixties since Jim Callaghan.

Axecalibur
Axecalibur
4 years ago

I think i have an explanation for the age thing, if anyone’s interested:

David Cameron 1st became an MP in 2001. From there to party leadership in ’05 and then PM in ’10. That’s an expedient track
In Murcia, on the other hand, Bill Clinton became AK Attorney General in ’77, then Governor in ’79 (2 interrupted terms), and President in ’92
The difference? A federal, presidential system. State Legislature to Mayor to US Rep to Senate to VP. There are so many more levels, checks, and balances. Or you could spend decades in the military making grade. You can’t sweep into Head of State (or equivalent, you monarchist dogs 😛), just cos your party won. YOU have to run, so you need more than ‘I’m with them other guys you like’. And that takes time

lamuella
lamuella
4 years ago

here’s something I kind of see as a missed opportunity:

Sanders did a great job in gathering together a progressive movement, bringing together people who felt disenfranchised from politics.

However I didn’t get the impression that this movement extended down the ticket. There were more than just presidential primaries taking place in the last few months: candidates for congress, senate, statewide, and local government were being selected by major parties. A mobilisation of people who agree with Sanders’ politics could have involved selection of more progressive candidates at all levels and seen some new blood and fresh ideas come into the legislative process, but I don’t feel like there was much emphasis on this, which is a shame from a grassroots candidate.

The Tea Party are morally and intellectually bankrupt, but one thing they did RIGHT was to recognise the influence that occurs at local and regional levels politically. The people put onto the Republican ticket by the Tea Party often made it into congress, where they will continue to have (in this case malign) influence for years to come. I’d like to see an organised left wing movement to do something similar.

Aqua
Aqua
4 years ago

@ Hippodameia

‘I’m delighted that she’s the nominee – and I’m not apologizing for it, either.’

I think you might have misread my post.
Who is apologising? Not me. Its the behaviour of all the misogynists and Bernie bros that have soured it.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

Aqua,

No, and I’m sorry. It’s the bros and the misogynists who want the apologies, and I apologize for not making that clear in my post.

Josh
Josh
4 years ago

@Axecalibur

I don’t mean to stop drones from being used as military technology, in fact I think the idea of precise strikes with minimal casualties is good. It’s just the way they’re currently being used that I want to stop. I suppose I do more mean regulate than full on stop so my bad for using the wrong words.

No, I’m not new, though I don’t comment very often. I appreciate the greeting all the same. 🙂

hugseverycat
hugseverycat
4 years ago

I’m delighted that she’s the nominee – and I’m not apologizing for it, either.

Me, too. Hillary will be a great president. She’s my #1 choice and I’m beyond thrilled and heartened and glad that we nominated her.

That being said, I, too, am a little bummed that so many of my friends who were so excited to nominate the first black person seem so sad to nominate the first woman. But I suppose I’m not terribly surprised.

Cupcakes 4 Hitler
Cupcakes 4 Hitler
4 years ago

My only real misgiving about Hilary is that she has had a lot of campaign funding from health insurance firms. It disgusts me that the US is so anti Universal Healthcare. They consider it to be tantamount to Communism. Even in my country, Jeremy Hunt is actively trying to undermine the NHS so it will eventually collapse. If Hilary becomes president I really hope and pray she will do something to improve healthcare for people who can’t afford top notch insurance or are refused health insurance due to pre existing health conditions.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

I’m quite excited that there’s talk of Elizabeth Warren getting the Veep slot.

I appreciate there’ll no doubt be political advisors advising against that but what possible arguments can people really have about it being two women on the ticket? I mean, I know people will raise them but it’s going to be so much fun asking them why it wasn’t a problem to have two men.

Snowberry
Snowberry
4 years ago

There’s also talk that having Elizabeth Warren as VP will cause her anti-Wall Street crusade come to a screeching halt, and that is exactly why some people want her there… and also why she’ll refuse.

hugseverycat
hugseverycat
4 years ago

Wait, wasn’t Hillary Clinton one of the first modern national figures to make a real push for universal healthcare in the US? It’s like, what she’s known for.

I mean yeah, to everyone outside the US, we’re all just so backwards and stupid, but wishing we weren’t the country we are doesn’t actually change anything, and in the country we are, Hillary Clinton has a damn awful lot of credibility on moving healthcare in the “universal” direction.

Zyvlyn
Zyvlyn
4 years ago

Another reason Warren is unlikely to be VP is that it would cause a loss of a senate seat which would be filled by the republican governor.

I’m not even sure Warren actually wants the spot, despite what she may say publicly, given how little power the VP actually has. She can do much more for people by staying right where she is. Although, Treasury Secretary Warren has a very nice ring to it…

Wanda
Wanda
4 years ago

Way back in 2015, I was torn between Bernie and Hillary, but once the Bernie camp started up the full-blown conpsiracy theories and overall nastiness, I started to waver. Oddly enough, it was something relatively minor that started my drift toward Hillary: the fact that NONE of Bernie’s top ten highest-paid staffers were female or people of color. (Even TRUMP had a few women!) It spoke of a serious blind spot in his campaign, and as someone who holds feminist principles very near and dear, I couldn’t see how he could talk about income inequality when he couldn’t even address the biggest problem with income inequality– that the poorest are most often female and people of color. It’s pretty easy to diversify your staff. If you can’t even address diversity within your own staff, how can you address it on a large scale? If he were president, what would his cabinet look like? White and male, most likely. Great. Just what we need: more old white dudes telling us what’s best for us.

I’m just really really sick of men legislating for women and totally missing the point. Hillary has fought for women’s rights since her inception as a politician. She wants to repeal the Hyde amendment, which forbids any federal funding of abortions, and she has always been an advocate for reproductive rights and health care.

We all have issues that we care the most about: for some, it’s the economy. For others, it’s social issues, or foreign affairs. For me, it’s women’s issues. If Hillary becomes president, it gives me some comfort to know that girls growing up during her presidency will see her running the country and know that it’s possible for them too.

Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
4 years ago

Since this is an open thread, I’d like to say that Thursday I finally pulled the trigger (so to speak) and got that bob I mentioned in the last open thread. The next comment I make on here will have the new look as my avatar.

Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
4 years ago

Oh! It appears my avatar changed faster than I expected it to. Sorry if it looks bad-I’m crap at selfies and my kitchen doesn’t have great lighting.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

For me, I only see three reasons to be happy about Hillary as President:

1. Woman.
2. Tons of experience.
3. Not Trump.

These are all fine reasons.

Elizabeth Warren is almost definitely not going to be VP. And I say that as someone who has never been wrong about anything before.

@Nikki

Nice!

guest
guest
4 years ago

‘And I say that as someone who has never been wrong about anything before.’

You are adorable. I used to work with a guy who, whenever he made any kind of mistake, would say in shocked tones, ‘this is the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE I have EVER made a mistake!’

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

@guest

I’m gonna guess that guy was a Simpsons fan, as am I. :p

It’s pretty similar to something Homer has said in an episode somewhere.

Axecalibur
Axecalibur
4 years ago

@Nikki

my kitchen doesn’t have great lighting

Yeah, I was wondering who the person made of solid brass was. Then I figured it out, what with the hair and all. Pulling. It. Off!😁
http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net/uri/mgid:file:http:shared:mtv.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Tyra-ANTM-Adore-1438189897.gif

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

That’s a cool bob, Nikki.

I can’t see Warren being VP either, and I say that as someone who absolutely adores her and wants her to go on forever. I’ve heard some rumours that she and Clinton have a personal animosity, but have never read anything reputable on it.

Let’s hope for a Republican collapse in Congress. Warren, Pelosi and Clinton would make for a government worth watching.

Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
4 years ago

@IP, Axecalibur, EJ (the Other One)
Thanks so much! The hair just felt right. I can’t really think of a better way to come back from a digital detox (it also felt right-sorry to not announce it in advance) than receiving some compliments on it.
The hair’s also a much-needed mood booster, especially today-the main air conditioner (a window unit, but “main” in that it cools the living room/kitchen area) in our house crapped out today. On what here is the first day of summer. In 90-some degree heat. My dad just ran out to get a new one, and the handy neighbor’s installing it now. I’m pretty sure I’m typing this instead of lying in a miserably hot, whiny puddle on the couch partly because of this new hair, and mostly because we also have a window AC in the bedroom.