Truly? You actually believe what you write? Where do you live that the people who vote (R) fit that caricature?
Congress.
Enrollment period starts Nov 1, I believe.
Knoxville, TN
San Antonio, TX
I though this was kind of funny. In response to Trump’s claims that the election is rigged, Mark Cuban taunted him:
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/10/24/trump-says-election-rigged-mark-cubans-response-perfect/
I saw in the Times paper this morning that the spouse of one of the people responsible for the decision to not prosecute Clinton received a significant ($100K?) donation to her political campaign from the Clinton foundation, so that may blow up all over again.
I’m pretty sure the Clinton Foundation hasn’t made any political contributions (that’s the Trump Foundation). Are you sure that’s what the story said? I’m trying to find out what you’re referring to and can’t.
I think the Clinton foundation making a political donation would be bad news in and of itself. I think you must be misremembering.
This is what I saw – it wasn’t the Clinton foundation (which would indeed be a big story), it was a PAC run by Terry McAuliffe, governor of Virginia and a friend and associate of the Clintons. There’s nothing that unusual about a donation by the Virginia governor to a same-party political candidate’s campaign in the state. It might look a little shady for McAuliffe, but I don’t see how it looks bad for Clinton except for people who are already inclined to interpret everything they see in the worst way regarding her.
For those on the alt-right, the very fact that someone donated to a Democratic candidate’s campaign is enough to be a scandal in itself.
It’s like the revelation from WikiLeaks that the Clinton campaign actually thought of policies that might appeal to voters is a SCANDAL and cheating!
“Democratic operative” in Project Veritas video coordinated his activities with Breitbart
So, this implies Breitbart and Trump were coordinating activities before August.
Hah! That reminds me of old arguments with creationists on the internet. At one point an argument ended with a creationist protesting something like “That’s not fair! You guys change your mind every time there’s new evidence!”
Yes. Yes we do. That’s called science.
A politician that changes their position to match popular opinion? That’s the closest damn thing we have to *democracy *in this system.
The problem isn’t that she thought of policies that might appeal to voters so much as they are just positions and strategies, designed to be jettisoned for what she actually wants to do at the first convenient moment.
Heck, even her allies are saying she’ll support TPP once elected. And that’s just one example. So many of her stances were just to get her past Bernie Sanders.
“That’s not fair! You guys change your mind every time there’s new evidence!”
Yes. I know that’s confusing for you.
tip o’ the hat to lazybratsche
Suburban St. Louis, MO.
New evidence. Please, I know you’re smarter than that. Her positions will change when she senses that there won’t be much consequence to changing it. As in, right after she takes the oath of office. No one knows how this works better than the Clintons. They can do whatever they want and Democrats will accept it because they want to win and Republicans are worse. That gives Democratic voters pretty much zero bargaining power after they’ve cast their votes.
On the other hand, the most recent “Issues” numbers I saw (late Sept) had Clinton leading Trump 42-29 on “Who do you trust to handle health care?”. Even if people are unhappy with the ACA, they don’t seem to believe that Trump is equipped to fix/replace it.
Why Colorado is becoming bluer: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/election-2016-colorado-battleground-swing-state-trend/index.html
The GOP in general has failed to offer better ideas, just the tired old ones that won’t cover many more people than pre-ACA law.
If the GOP was bold, they’d offer single payer on the cheap: expand Medicaid to those making up to 250% of the poverty line, call it a day. The CBO would have to do the math, but it sounds to me like that covers about as many people as ACA, and is a lot cheaper than subsidies for exchange insurance.
The hubbub is because the candidate McAuliffe’s PAC donated to was the wife of the guy who would go on to be Deputy Director of the FBI.
But he wasn’t actually promoted until well after the election (his wife lost). So the WSJ’s headline and opening paragraphs are misleading – no doubt intentionally if only for the clickbait. Also, his donations to her weren’t excessive; he actually donated more to a couple other candidates so, again, the “Over half a million!” looks damning on its own and much less so in context. He just put a lot of money into trying to get those people elected.