Politics Former Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich says he's now for impeaching Trump

[MarAzul]

Louisiana and I read Death Valley is as well..there are many places that are close but the point is with underground lakes and low altitude flood plains damage roads, tracks, have regular sinkholes, etc

and that's why corn grows in Iowa! Right, that's cogent.

 

[riverman]

and that's why corn grows in Iowa! Right, that's cogent.

separate issues concerning road conditions in the middle of the country...and underground lakes are why corn grows in Iowa without irrigation..you fishin' for rusty cans again?

 

[The Professional Fan]

LMAO

 

[andalusian]

Congratulations to governor Trump for finally breaking the American democracy - when congressmen think they should storm the rooms of congress committees they do not belong to.

 

[yankeesince59]

So it’s the word “lynching”? I’m assuming you know white people have been lynched?

Can't stand Trump but I'd like to know when the word "lynching" became a racially exclusive term. By definition, a lynching is essentially a mob execution without a trial.
And we'll never know just how many lynchings were never reported/recorded.

 

[tlongII]

Can't stand Trump but I'd like to know when the word "lynching" became a racially exclusive term. By definition, a lynching is essentially a mob execution without a trial.
And we'll never know just how many lynchings were never reported/recorded.

I don't know. I'm saying the same thing.

 

[CupWizier]

Can't stand Trump but I'd like to know when the word "lynching" became a racially exclusive term. By definition, a lynching is essentially a mob execution without a trial.
And we'll never know just how many lynchings were never reported/recorded.

I wouldn't call it a racially exclusive term, but I can see why blacks consider it racially insensitive and it was definitely an improper thing to even say whether it was thought to be racist or just plain stupid. but then again, when has trump ever been sensitive to anyone else but himself? If trump wants to play the game of sensationalizing things that happen to him, then it seems it should be ok for the democrats to turn it back on him.

 

[Lanny]

I think that's part of the problem though. The DNC / GOP have such a stronghold on it that no one pays attention to them, so they'll never be a "factor" because they make sure to tell everyone, hey a vote for them is a "wasted vote".

Can you deny that a vote for a third party candidate would be a wasted vote? No.
A third party can win support but not by voting for it unless there's an overwhelming desire for a third party by, let's say, 30% of the voters.
It happened before when John Anderson and Ross Perot ran for President.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Can you deny that a vote for a third party candidate would be a wasted vote? No.
A third party can win support but not by voting for it unless there's an overwhelming desire for a third party by, let's say, 30% of the voters.
It happened before when John Anderson and Ross Perot ran for President.

I don't believe it is a "wasted vote", that's basically saying well if you don't vote for the winner you wasted it.

Did you ask me a question and then try to answer it for me?

Edit:
I don't think it's a waste of a vote to vote for who you want to win, or what you want to see happen. Especially if my vote is supposedly my voice to those people, if I'm displeased with the DNC / GOP, voting for them essentially tells that I'm supportive of them, which I am not. I will probably always seek a third-party candidate to vote for before voting for either of those two's candidates.

 

[illmatic99]

LMAO

It is absolutely pathetic that these people are not in custody right now for breaking the freaking law.

Even worse that they planned to do this when Pelosi is out her bro's funeral.

 

[Lanny]

I don't believe it is a "wasted vote", that's basically saying well if you don't vote for the winner you wasted it.

Did you ask me a question and then try to answer it for me?

Edit:
I don't think it's a waste of a vote to vote for who you want to win, or what you want to see happen. Especially if my vote is supposedly my voice to those people, if I'm displeased with the DNC / GOP, voting for them essentially tells that I'm supportive of them, which I am not. I will probably always seek a third-party candidate to vote for before voting for either of those two's candidates.

It's not basically saying something, it is saying something.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It's not basically saying something, it is saying something.

So you wasted your vote when you didn't vote for Trump, since he won?

 

[Lanny]

Can't stand Trump but I'd like to know when the word "lynching" became a racially exclusive term. By definition, a lynching is essentially a mob execution without a trial.
And we'll never know just how many lynchings were never reported/recorded.

Of the 4,743 people lynched in the United States from 1882 to 1968, 3,446 were Black folk. You could understand why Black Americans might be a little sensitive about the subject.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Biden said years ago that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a political lynching.

 

[yankeesince59]

Of the 4,743 people lynched in the United States from 1882 to 1968, 3,446 were Black folk. You could understand why Black Americans might be a little sensitive about the subject.

I'm well aware of the numbers, which is why I pointer to the fact that there's no way of knowing the exact number of "lynchings"...and the term is not predicated on being hung by a rope.

I'm also aware that some blacks are "sensitive" about it and many other things, and IMO, over-sensitive sometimes. Not everything has to be racial, how many black on black murders have there been since the last lynching of a black by a white? People don't want to talk about that.

Until I was in my teens I believe the only time I heard the term "lynching" was on TV watching Westerns.

 

[barfo]

I don't believe it is a "wasted vote", that's basically saying well if you don't vote for the winner you wasted it.

Did you ask me a question and then try to answer it for me?

Edit:
I don't think it's a waste of a vote to vote for who you want to win, or what you want to see happen. Especially if my vote is supposedly my voice to those people, if I'm displeased with the DNC / GOP, voting for them essentially tells that I'm supportive of them, which I am not. I will probably always seek a third-party candidate to vote for before voting for either of those two's candidates.

I've voted for a third party candidate in the past, but I no longer believe that it's a useful tactic. You might as well just not vote. No one cares about the 3% who voted for Gary Johnson last time, and no one is going to care about the 1% who vote for Tulsi or whomever this time. If you are displeased with both major parties, that's just fine with them. They'll know it's safe to ignore you and concentrate elsewhere. Much more important are the people who would vote for their party but might not vote at all, and the people who are genuinely persuadable to vote for either party.

The only way that will ever change is if there is an actual, viable third-party candidate that tens of millions of people are genuinely excited about. I don't see any possibilities for that anytime soon. You need a hero, and heroes are in short supply these days.

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I've voted for a third party candidate in the past, but I no longer believe that it's a useful tactic. You might as well just not vote. No one cares about the 3% who voted for Gary Johnson last time, and no one is going to care about the 1% who vote for Tulsi or whomever this time. If you are displeased with both major parties, that's just fine with them. They'll know it's safe to ignore you and concentrate elsewhere. Much more important are the people who would vote for their party but might not vote at all, and the people who are genuinely persuadable to vote for either party.

The only way that will ever change is if there is an actual, viable third-party candidate that tens of millions of people are genuinely excited about. I don't see any possibilities for that anytime soon. You need a hero, and heroes are in short supply these days.

barfo

Apparently Hillary cares... Since she's saying that those third parties are why she lost (basically) and that the GOP / Russia is grooming another third party to keep them from winning, so someone cares.

I could be persuaded that an individual running for one of those parties may be worth my vote, but I'll readily admit that they have an uphill climb with me, as I don't trust the two-party system or the two parties themselves all that much.

For the record, you're probably right that's just fine with them, but that's a problem of democracy isn't it. Were told our vote is important to go vote, "be heard", but in reality, they really don't care unless were voting for them. They don't care about our voice if it's not in line with what they want to hear, they'll just ignore it.

 

[barfo]

Apparently Hillary cares... Since she's saying that those third parties are why she lost (basically) and that the GOP / Russia is grooming another third party to keep them from winning, so someone cares.

Do you think the Democrats are doing a lot of outreach to make sure that Jill Stein voters are motivated to vote Democratic this time? I don't think so. I think they rightly view those voters as lost causes.
It is true that if everyone who voted for Jill voted for Hillary instead, she would have won. And it is certainly frustrating for the candidate who loses by a narrower margin than the 3rd-party votes. But reducing third party votes to zero isn't realistic and many third party voters are like you - unlikely to vote for D or R regardless of what the party or candidate does.

For the record, you're probably right that's just fine with them, but that's a problem of democracy isn't it. Were told our vote is important to go vote, "be heard", but in reality, they really don't care unless were voting for them. They don't care about our voice if it's not in line with what they want to hear, they'll just ignore it.

They'll also care if you vote against them. Voting for a third-party isn't really voting against them though, it's closer to not voting at all.

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Do you think the Democrats are doing a lot of outreach to make sure that Jill Stein voters are motivated to vote Democratic this time? I don't think so. I think they rightly view those voters as lost causes.
It is true that if everyone who voted for Jill voted for Hillary instead, she would have won. And it is certainly frustrating for the candidate who loses by a narrower margin than the 3rd-party votes. But reducing third party votes to zero isn't realistic and many third party voters are like you - unlikely to vote for D or R regardless of what the party or candidate does.



They'll also care if you vote against them. Voting for a third-party isn't really voting against them though, it's closer to not voting at all.

barfo

It is also true that if everyone who voted for Jill voted for Hillary, Hillary would've still lost... I think you touch on an interesting point though when you say unlikely to vote for D or R regardless of what the party or candidate does. I'm not totally sure what they could do to get my trust, but it's worth thinking about.

I think your last line is pretty debatable.

 

[barfo]

It is true that if everyone who voted for Jill voted for Hillary instead, she would have won.

It is also true that if everyone who voted for Jill voted for Hillary, Hillary would've still lost...

How can those both be true? For the record, it looks like your statement is correct and mine was wrong - unlike MI and WI, Trump's margin in PA was greater than the number of Stein votes, and Hillary would have needed PA.

I think your last line is pretty debatable.

Well, I'm here if you want to debate it

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

How can those both be true? For the record, it looks like your statement is correct and mine was wrong - unlike MI and WI, Trump's margin in PA was greater than the number of Stein votes, and Hillary would have needed PA.



Well, I'm here if you want to debate it

barfo

Sorry I misspoke (typed?), I meant to say if everyone voted for Trump, Hillary would've lost.

 

[barfo]

How can those both be true? For the record, it looks like your statement is correct and mine was wrong - unlike MI and WI, Trump's margin in PA was greater than the number of Stein votes, and Hillary would have needed PA.

I have to take this back. I'd looked too quickly and found something posted shortly after election day that wasn't final. It looks like the final count in PA had Hillary + Jill > Donald.

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Do you think the Democrats are doing a lot of outreach to make sure that Jill Stein voters are motivated to vote Democratic this time? I don't think so. I think they rightly view those voters as lost causes.
It is true that if everyone who voted for Jill voted for Hillary instead, she would have won. And it is certainly frustrating for the candidate who loses by a narrower margin than the 3rd-party votes. But reducing third party votes to zero isn't realistic and many third party voters are like you - unlikely to vote for D or R regardless of what the party or candidate does.



They'll also care if you vote against them. Voting for a third-party isn't really voting against them though, it's closer to not voting at all.

barfo

I'd say many people voted in the last election as a vote that was against the other candidate/s winning. It's been a pretty common theme that I hear frequently, "I voted for Trump, because Hillary" or vice versa, so I guess I believe often times our votes for, ARE a vote against. In the case of voting third party for someone like me, my vote is against both. Whether that's closer to not voting at all, I'm not sure. Now I did spend most of my education in PPS's, but I remember being taught that you vote so you can get your opinion's out, and so you have a voice and because if you don't in a lot of ways you void your own argument when you have problems with how things turned out because you didn't do anything. It seems to me, voting no matter how you vote is at least doing something...

 

[yankeesince59]

I'd say many people voted in the last election as a vote that was against the other candidate/s winning. It's been a pretty common theme that I hear frequently, "I voted for Trump, because Hillary" or vice versa, so I guess I believe often times our votes for, ARE a vote against.

^^^This...and it's a pretty said state of affairs and in general, somewhat of an indictment of the state of our country as a whole. I mean, I cannot believe our choices were Hillary f'n Clinton and Donald f'n Trump. Seriously, is this the best we have to offer? That's tantamount to having to choose between a gun to the head or a knife in the back. And sadly, it's also a barometer as to how badly disconnected we are as a nation.

 

[barfo]

I'd say many people voted in the last election as a vote that was against the other candidate/s winning. It's been a pretty common theme that I hear frequently, "I voted for Trump, because Hillary" or vice versa, so I guess I believe often times our votes for, ARE a vote against. In the case of voting third party for someone like me, my vote is against both. Whether that's closer to not voting at all, I'm not sure. Now I did spend most of my education in PPS's, but I remember being taught that you vote so you can get your opinion's out, and so you have a voice and because if you don't in a lot of ways you void your own argument when you have problems with how things turned out because you didn't do anything. It seems to me, voting no matter how you vote is at least doing something...

It's doing something, but it's not necessarily doing much.

Suppose you write in Damian Lillard for President. Does anyone, anywhere, notice that you voted for Dame? Is it any different in effect than not voting?

Other people decide the election, your vote for Dame is completely irrelevant.

The situation is not so different if you vote for a minor party candidate.

barfo

 

[riverman]

It's doing something, but it's not necessarily doing much.

It's giving numbers to another political party that really needs the support...in my case it has value if you think the election won't be close...which was my take last time. I want third party exposure in campaigns so I valued that vote....this time it would be a waste. I never dreamed the popular vote would be at all close against Trump

 

[Lanny]

I'm well aware of the numbers, which is why I pointer to the fact that there's no way of knowing the exact number of "lynchings"...and the term is not predicated on being hung by a rope.

I'm also aware that some blacks are "sensitive" about it and many other things, and IMO, over-sensitive sometimes. Not everything has to be racial, how many black on black murders have there been since the last lynching of a black by a white? People don't want to talk about that.

Until I was in my teens I believe the only time I heard the term "lynching" was on TV watching Westerns.

Hard to be oversensitive about a trembling fear of waking up in the middle of the night to a bunch of men in white garb with their heads and faces hidden who have a burning cross in your front yard and a rope hanging over a large branch in a near by tree.

Even as late as 1966 I remember a crew of workmen who told me how as volunteer firemen in their town of Rome, Georgia, they delayed their departure to the burning home of the only Black family to move in to their fair haired city such that the home burned down before they got there. And then they laughed.

Blacks have been terrorized for a century after slavery with the pinnacle being getting dragged out of bed at night just to be lynched. Yeah, they're a little sensitive.

Edit:
Fixed minor spelling error.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It's doing something, but it's not necessarily doing much.

Suppose you write in Damian Lillard for President. Does anyone, anywhere, notice that you voted for Dame? Is it any different in effect than not voting?

Other people decide the election, your vote for Dame is completely irrelevant.

The situation is not so different if you vote for a minor party candidate.

barfo

I think that voting for someone who actually ran a campaign, from a party that is trying to earn its legitimacy is different then writing in someone who wasnt running, didn't go through any of the process, didn't lay out their policy.

 

[yankeesince59]

Hard to be oversensitive about a trembling fear of waking up in the middle of the night to a bunch of men in white garb with their heads and faces hidden who have a burning cross in your front yard and a rope hanging over a large branch in a near by tree.

Even as late as 1966 I remember a crew of workmen who told me how as volunteer firemen in their town of Rome, Georgia, they delayed their departure to the burning home of the only Black family to move in to their fair haired city such that the home burned down before they got their. And then they laughed.

Blacks have been terrorized for a century after slavery with the pinnacle being getting dragged out of bed at night just to be lynched. Yeah, they're a little sensitive.

And when was the last time that happened?...when was the last time a black was born into slavery?...when was the last time a black was denied a seat on a bus?...or been denied to vote?...or denied the right to an education?

Sorry, but whitey can no longer be blamed for every calamity a black person may encounter.

 

[ABM]

I'd say many people voted in the last election as a vote that was against the other candidate/s winning....

Very true statement for me. Look, had I known Trump was gonna pull these number of shenanigans we're all witnessing these days, I may very well have re-thunk that strategy. But, at the time, I was so bent on Hillary NOT becoming our President, I HAD to vote for Trump. Any vote for a 3rd party candidate would have lessened his chances of beating her. We can debate the single-issue voting stance all day long, but in the grand scheme of things, my vote at that point in time was truly against Hillary. I SO wanted Kasich, though.