Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Pornhub Users Downvote Vice Presidential Candidate

I found this image on an IPR article.  It shows what the users of Pornhub think about an image titled “Cheating blond fucks everyone at party,” which normally would be very popular.

As you can see it’s been downvoted 9001 times and upvoted none.

Hillary Clinton supporter Bill Weld, a dumb blonde, fucked everyone in the Libertarian Party and is now intensely disliked.

This image surfaced as a million person poll on the porn site Redtube showed Trump winning the election with 52.1% to 46.3% for Hillary Clinton.

#MakeAmericaFapAgain

Advertisements

Record Bet in US POTUS Race AGAINST Trump

odds

Someone Placed a Record-Breaking Bet That Hillary Clinton Will Win the Election

€615,862 bet has been placed on Hillary Clinton to win the election—the biggest bet ever staked on any U.S. presidential election.

British bookmaker William Hill announced on Friday that the bet had been made for €550,000. A 46-year-old female client placed the amount on Clinton becoming President at odds of 4/11, or a 73% chance of success, in the hope of making a profit of around $224,000.

Editorial to come tonight!

Forecasts/Predictions

odds

DONALD TRUMP SEALS FATE WITH SUBPAR DEBATE

GI has concluded that, after his poor recent debate performance, Donald Trump will lose. We predict an overwhelming Clinton victory in the electoral college and popular vote. A certain betting site had Trump as a 1.8:1 underdog one week ago. That same site has now made him a 2.2:1 underdog the night after the debate.

The establishment will stop at nothing to keep Hilary from obtaining office, and Donald Trump has neither the intellectual or financial capabilities to overpower them.

On a side note, you can see the odds of third party candidates as well. Apologies, Libertarians ; you will not like what Gary Johnson’s odds are #MUH5%

We anticipate 1.7% for Gary Johnson (L)

We anticipate .6% for Jill Stein (G)

We anticipate .13% For Darrell Castle (C)

~GI~

Working Families Party endorses Hillary Clinton

working-families

ATPR: The Working Families Party, a minor political party headquartered and mainly active in New York, officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on August 16th, 2016 in a move that enraged some of the party’s supporters in members who favor Green candidate Jill Stein. The party states that 68% of the its membership, from all over the country, voted to endorse Clinton. Below is the full text of the Working Families Party’s endorsement:

WFP Endorses Hillary Clinton

With the support of 68% of our membership and the backing of our national board, we’re announcing the Working Families Party’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President.

WFP was an early, enthusiastic supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign. He demonstrated the deep hunger of millions of Americans for a “political revolution” — a radical restoration of democracy and participation, an end to the oligarchic power of a wealthy elite, and a new era of economic, racial and climate justice.

But elections are about choices. And when we wake up on November 9th, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will have been elected President. We choose Secretary Clinton, as Bernie did. We make this announcement knowing we’ll need to work to hold her accountable to her campaign’s promises. But we need to elect her first. Here’s why:

First, because we need to not merely defeat Trump — we need to repudiate him and everything he represents. Donald Trump is the most dangerous figure in mainstream American politics since George Wallace. A Trump victory would not only put an unqualified, know-nothing, narcissistic, authoritarian jerk in the White House, it would empower the most malignant tendencies in American society. He offers up a phony, racist populism. He mocks the disabled. He stokes fear and incites hatred of immigrants, Muslims, and women. His rhetoric has generated violence.

We believe that a multi-racial, progressive and genuinely game-changing populism can win back some of his voters over time, especially independents, and that’s a task for the next decade. The task of the next 84 days is to sweep Trump — and Trumpism — off the stage once and for all.

Second, because Secretary Clinton has announced good policies on many issues that are deeply important to the lives and fortunes of the middle-class, working-class and poor:

  • Public Financing of Elections and Voting Rights. Clinton calls not just for tossing Citizens United but also for the creation of publicly financed elections. Not just restoration of the Voting Rights Act, but also automatic voter registration. There’s no chance of saving our democracy without these reforms.
  • Tuition-Free Higher Education. Clinton has adopted the bulk of Sanders’ free college proposal, and that’s something to be enthusiastic about. This will surely be a huge fight for the next two years.
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Sec. Clinton supports a path to citizenship and the DREAM Act, and have called for expanding Obama’s executive action so families can stay together. Trump wants to build a wall and start mass deportations.
  • Jobs and Infrastructure. Clinton has called for enormous (and overdue) investment in public spending on clean energy and infrastructure. Trump favors tax cuts for the rich and the fraud known as trickle down.
  • Mass Incarceration. Clinton calls for ending private prisons, alternatives to incarceration (like drug treatment), and reducing mandatory minimums.
  • Climate Change. Sec. Clinton has announced policies that would make major investments in renewable energy while creating good jobs and protecting communities on the front lines of the global climate crisis. Trump says climate change is a hoax.

But it’s not just the policy proposals. It’s the enormous power of appointments, and not merely the Supreme Court.

The National Labor Relations Board and Department of Labor can make it harder or easier for workers to form unions, and for gig economy workers to obtain rights in the workplace. The EPA makes critical choices about how clean our water should be, and whether we will fight climate change for real. People facing foreclosure need advocates at HUD. 401(k) account holders need serious regulators atTreasury and the SEC.

This is not to say that Hillary Clinton is perfect. She’s not. No candidate is. The truth is, if she becomes President Clinton, she will only be as good as we — social movements, unions, progressive activists and organizations — make her. History is clear on this. LBJ’s achievements on civil rights and the safety net expansion were unimaginable without the civil rights movement; FDR’s New Deal would have been impossible without the mobilization of millions of unemployed and industrial workers. It’s up to us to set the stage for the future we want to see.

Even if a President Clinton were able to pass all of her policy proposals, it wouldn’t be enough to create the world we want to live in. We have to go much deeper than what the Democratic Party or modern capitalism currently allow. We have to change the rules of the game on the economy, on our democracy and on the planet. In the end we need to change the very questions we ask about what we owe each other and what our history really is. Fundamentally, we need to change the balance of power in the society so that the burdens and blessings of the land are truly shared.


Our staff spent hours and hours reading thousands of comments submitted by WFP members during this process. (It’s humbling to be part of an organization with so many committed people.)

A majority of members voted to endorse Clinton for many of the reasons we lay out above. But we want to recognize the views of a minority of WFP members who opposed the decision. There were two arguments that we heard most frequently. Some argued we should focus on electing down-ballot progressives; others said WFP should remain “outside” in order to continue pressuring her, without endorsing. Both are important points, and in large measure are part of what we intend to do in the years ahead.

In this spirit, I thought it would be helpful to share the party’s four-part plan for the months to come.

  1. Defeat Trump and Elect Clinton. This means working to mobilize every voter to come to the polls in sufficient numbers to elect Clinton, especially in hotly-contested states. We will not give up on working class white voters who are being played for fools by Trump.
  2. Elect the best down-ballot progressives. No President alone can win the change we need. That’s why we are backing candidates for Congress who will be leaders in the fight for Bernie’s agenda, like Zephyr Teachout and Tim Canova. And it’s not just Congress — just as important are State Houses. Just last week, WFP candidate Josh Elliott, a Bernie-backer in Connecticut, won the Democratic primary for a State House seat formerly held by the moderate Speaker.
  3. Hold Secretary Clinton accountable to the promises she made in 2016 by continuing to organize in 2017. We cannot rely on any single candidate to deliver the change we seek, but we can build the power that turns promises into policy. Together with allies, we aim to build a powerful coalition that can keep the pressure high on our progressive priorities. (In the short term, we will mobilize to make sure Sec. Clinton continues to oppose the TPP and stop that bad trade deal in its tracks this year.)
  4. The next generation of progressive leadership. We’re going to double down on our candidate pipeline project. This is perhaps our most important task. We need to recruit, train and elect the next generation of progressive leaders, and work with them to help build the political revolution.

Another argument we heard from a fraction of the “no endorsement” voters was that we should endorse the Green Party’s Jill Stein. Stein’s policy platform has many points to be admired, but her strategy is fatally flawed. You can’t build a new party under our current system by asking voters to cast a vote that is at best meaningless and at worst destructive of progressive possibility.

WFP organizers and activists are deeply dedicated to building a new party. In our experience, the best way to build an independent political movement is to start at the local level, electing progressive leaders to office. It includes taking advantage of Democratic primaries, just as Bernie Sanders did. And it means not running an implausible protest candidacy, especially with a candidate as dangerous as Trump on the ballot.

That’s it. I want to thank you all, no matter how you voted, for helping us make this important decision. We’ll need every single one of you with us in the months and years to come. That’s the only way we might make real our vision of a more just and humane society.

Dan Cantor
National Director, Working Families Party

Why I have not felt the Bern – Reflections on perspectives for American left

Jill bernie or bust

Jill Stein addressing the “Bernie or Bust” crowd outside the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia (photo: philly.com)

The Democratic National Convention of Philadelphia is now in the history, but the most iconic event of the entire meeting has been the Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against all the odds, even after the scandal of DNC leaked emails. Even after a year of unfair treatment from media outputs, officials and representatives of the Democrats. Even after Clinton pushed the rhetoric of primaries to the limit, accusing him to be a socialist loony, unfit for power and negotiations and without tangibly rewarding him after a very narrow defeat in the race. Even after garnering an amount of grassroots supporters and donors that party moguls could only dream to have last summer. These facts will not matter, and Bernie will be remembered as the idealistic but chivalric opponent of Hillary that did not hesitate to stand behind her after the nomination before vanishing from the news.

Honestly, I don’t care about what the fuss from Sandersites was all about at the convention, and sincerely I struggle to understand why they feel so enraged and betrayed. It was inevitable. This is the game of the primaries, this is the game of the duopoly, this is the game of the “lesser evil”. And the “lesser evil”, since democracy was born, lies in the centre of the spectrum. That is the putative home of the Democrats, and Sanders, accepting to endorse Clinton (and the even more centrist VP candidate Tim Kaine), told the last truth of his campaign: there is no room for progressivism in this party, completely immersed into the business of corporate finance and industrial lobbies and with a tendency to autocracy which is probably bigger than the GOP’s. Take down your banners, stay quiet and remember to “vote Blue, no matter who”.

Sanders caught a lot of international attention, particularly from Europe, where thousands of youngsters involved in politics (those so called “millennials” which fell in love so hardly with the Vermont senator) started to follow him because of his peculiarities in regards of other Democratic past candidates and hoped that a relevant change in the presidential campaign could shake up also the centre-left in Europe. But it did not happen, because nowadays, in the Union, institutional left is dominated by parties of the S&D group (Socialists and Democrats), which, after the decennial leadership of Martin Shulz, have turned into the most affordable allies of European Popular parties, in a model of government that mirrors the German “Grosse Koalition” led by Angela Merkel since 2005; a deeply moderate group so far from the values of Jaurès, Hardie and Turati, fathers of continental social democracy, and heavily influenced by the “American third way” (and consequentially firm in endorsing Clinton). Those values are left over for parties of the smaller and more radical GUE/NGL group (United European Left + Nordic Green Left), whose are growing today as the only left-wing answer to the uprising of far right movements in the continent, and were in fact the lone coherent Sanders supporters in Europe.

If today personal charisma is more efficient than party structures in politics, in Europe it is only partially true. As usual, the most fitting comparison is between United States and United Kingdom and, particularly, between Sanders and the British Labour Party leader since 2015, Jeremy Corbyn. Both Sanders and Corbyn are over-65, professional politicians since 30 years to date and have a long-standing record on issues like pacifism, environmentalism and equal redistribution of national wealth. But Corbyn emerged as the leader of his party because of its members, which in these years have felt a growing detachment from their parliamentary counterparts and, when asked to choose a leader, elected the more radical in the race, reacting to their continued weakening from Conservative majority and other growing oppositions. Without the direct involvement of the membership, probably Labour would still have a faceless party official as leader, cheered by its MPs and international political venues (unlike Corbyn), but disliked by its historic electorate and unnoticeable for the general public.

Sanders, even at the highest point of his campaign, could have never achieved a similar result. The answer lies in the history: Corbyn fought (and won with a landslide) for the leadership of a socialist party, with more than a century of tradition and socialist platform, which partially lost track in the last twenty years during the leaderships of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, but never abandoned its original roots. Sanders fought for the presidential ticket of the Democratic Party, a party which, only sixty years ago, still endorsed segregation policies, a party which is still bonded to conservative Christian communities, just like the GOP, a party which still suffers a massive anti-socialist bias, as underlined by the lack of democracy of its leadership selection process, still handed to a battalion of superdelegates who tends to erase the will of popular vote, as exactly happened with the Vermont senator. The electorate of the Democrats is not and will never be the electorate of a social democratic party, and the results of primaries in key blue states like New York, Michigan and California widely demonstrated it. But what really confirmed these personal doubts about Sanders was the final endorsement for Clinton itself. What in the world could bring a self-described democratic socialist to endorse the most neoliberal candidate of the entire election? I don’t think, as many former Bernie supporters do, that the senator “sold his soul” to Hillary, but surely that it was the worst bet he could have done. A more logical output would have been giving freedom of conscience to his supporters “à la Ted Cruz”, maybe remaining silent in Philadelphia and addressing them in a separate venue, avoiding all the criticism that he received both in and out of the convention.

So someone else did it in his place: Jill Stein, just a week before being nominated as the official Green Party candidate, obtained a considerable media attention for participating to the protests outside the Wells Fargo Center, and, since those days, her chances to gain a decent result as a third party ticket have become finally realistic. Probably both Sanders and Stein have the profile of a left-wing leader like European ones (with Sanders more similar to yet cited Corbyn or France’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Stein more resembling to Germany’s Ziska Keller, Spain’s Pablo Iglesias and Greece’s Alexis Tsipras), but only the latter, refusing to surrender to the so called “left shift” of the Democratic platform, has preserved her integrity, reaching a small but relevant goal for future developments for the American left. The retired Massachusetts physician is the most relevant option to choose among other passionate candidatures, like the long-standing socialist activist Gloria La Riva or the sadly small-scale campaign of Mimi Soltysik of the US Socialist Party, but her pragmatism is a breath of fresh air in a year where being “over the top” is being considered worryingly normal.

My most sincere political hope in America is that someday a left coalition will prevail in the progressive horizon. Only a broad and plural alliance of greens, socialists, left-leaning libertarians and civil activists will be able to bring a real change to national politics, whose deeply conservative nature is justified and protected by the two-party system. Jill Stein ticket could be the beginning of an interesting perspective if anyone who is truly interested in fulfilling a peaceful and fairer society would ditch forever the unamendable Democrats and start to widen the criteria of ballot access and electability, working specifically on state and local candidatures and thickening the membership of parties, on sight of a future merger of all left parties in a single one. American voters are ready and experienced enough to accept other options, and a unified and principled left-wing subject can be the right answer to their desires.

Thomas L. Knapp: “Clinton Presidency vs. Trump Presidency: How I See It “

Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp is an IPR contributor, libertarian activist and writer currently seeking the Reform Party’s vice-presidential nomination. He published the following commentary on his blog, Knappster, earlier today:

Disclaimer: I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do not support Donald Trump. I’m not going to vote for either one of them, especially not just to stop the other one from winning, nor am I going to encourage anyone else to do so. That said, I do think that their presidencies would be bad in different ways.

For purposes of metaphor, let’s pretend that “the country” is an individual man or woman and that “the presidency” is that person’s daily activities.

Here’s what Mr. or Ms. America looks like as a Clinton presidency (in my opinion):

Every day, seven days a week, he or she sits down at a table, puts his or her right hand on the table, palm down, fingers spread, and then with his or her left hand uses a ball peen hammer to hit the right hand, sharply and with vigor, for eight straight hours. Presumably after four or eight years of that, every bone in the right hand will be not just broken but irreparably pulverized.

So to put it a different way: A Clinton presidency will be routinely ugly and painful and damaging and permanently disfiguring, but only suicidal on a freak accident basis (e.g. he or she accidentally hits herself hard right between the eyes on the backswing).

Here’s what Mr. or Mrs. America looks like as a Trump presidency (in my opinion):

He or she has an apartment, and an office, on the 100th floors of adjacent buildings with a very narrow alley (3 or 4 feet wide) between them. Instead of taking an elevator down 100 floors down, then 100 floors up, every morning and every night, he or she decides it makes more sense to just jump across that alley twice a day. The office and the apartment both have balconies, and to make it more exciting, every morning and evening he or she dips his or her hands and feet in grease before climbing up on the balcony railing for the jump.

So to put it a different way: A Trump presidency won’t be nearly as routinely ugly and painful as a Clinton presidency. It will be exciting and exhilarating … until, one morning or evening, the jump becomes a 100-story fall followed by a terminal velocity encounter with hard asphalt.

I don’t really care much for either prospect.