Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
WTF? :mad:

White nationalist groups raise millions tax-free after IRS grants nonprofit status

Four of the most prominent white nationalist groups have been allowed to raise more than $7.8 million in tax-deductible donations over the past decade after the federal government recognized them as nonprofit charities.

The groups present themselves as educational organizations and use donor contributions to pay for websites, books and conferences to spread their ideas about white racial supremacy, based on a review of documents obtained by The Associated Press and Raw Story.

For example, the National Policy Institute spent $21,280 in 2012 to hold a Seattle conference on “genetics and the history of science” and another $16,658 to publish a novel and a biannual journal on “cultural matters” and to develop a book on the history of science, according to the group’s 990-EZ filing.

Those tax-deductible donations have also gone to pay the salaries of the groups’ leadership, including NPI president Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor, who heads the New Century Foundation.

The IRS recognized both of those groups, along with the Charles Martel Society and the VDare Foundation, as 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities more than a decade ago — which helps them appear more respectable and also avoid paying taxes on their fundraising operations.

Both the NPI and Charles Martel Society, which publishes the Occidental Quarterly, were founded by William H. Regnery II — whose eponymous publishing company distributes books by Donald Trump, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and other conservative writers.
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
Trump team asked State Department for info on women’s issues programs, sparking fears of another witch hunt

If you want to see what they intend to do, all you have to do is to look at Texas. Their maternal death rate doubled after pulling funding from Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

What is going on in Texas is despicable :(

I do wonder though, if this request has more to do with Ivanka and the things she wants to work on. Don't get me wrong, the man is an insane mysogynistic bully, but I think if we always jump to conclusions it just gives more fodder to the rabid right.
 
Trump’s Nuclear Experience
In 1987, he set out to solve the world’s biggest problem.

It’s a deal with the Soviets. We approach them on this basis: We both recognize the nonproliferation treaty’s not working, that half a dozen countries are on the brink of getting a bomb. Which can only cause trouble for the two of us. The deterrence of mutual assured destruction that prevents the United States and the USSR from nuking each other won’t work on the level of an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange. Or a madman dictator with a briefcase-bomb team. The only answer is for the Big Two to make a deal now to step in and prevent the next generation of nations about to go nuclear from doing so. By whatever means necessary.

“Most of those [pre-nuclear] countries are in one form or another dominated by the U.S. and the Soviet Union,” Trump says. “Between those two nations you have the power to dominate any of those countries. So we should use our power of economic retaliation and they use their powers of retaliation and between the two of us we will prevent the problem from happening. It would have been better having done something five years ago,” he says. “But I believe even a country such as Pakistan would have to do something now. Five years from now they’ll laugh.”

“You think Pakistan would just fold? We wouldn’t have to offer them anything in return?”

“Maybe we should offer them something. I’m saying you start off as nicely as possible. You apply as much pressure as necessary until you achieve the goal. You start off telling them, ‘Let’s get rid of it.’ If that doesn’t work you then start cutting off aid. And more aid and then more. You do whatever is necessary so these people will have riots in the street, so they can’t get water. So they can’t get Band-Aids, so they can’t get food. Because that’s the only thing that’s going to do it—the people, the riots.”

:eek:
 
When does democracy fail? When voters don’t get what they asked for.

Stable democracies, at least in rich countries, are the product of two conditions. The first is that people get what they vote for: that is, the policies they vote for are the policies they receive. The second is that even for citizens on the losing side, the outcomes for society overall are positive. If these conditions are not met — as is the case today, especially in Europe — democracy can become very fragile indeed.

...

But since 1980, outcomes for society overall have not been positive — only for the investor class. Growth in the period 1980 to 2008 was half of what it was in 1950 to 1980. And while productivity has risen and profits have soared, wages for almost everyone outside of the top 10 percent have stagnated. (After all, why should you get a pay raise if prices are stable? And be careful about asking for one: Your job might get moved abroad.)

To keep the illusion of prosperity going, the financial sector has filled the wage gap with credit. Citibank was hardly alone in offering people the chance to “Live Richly” and “open a cravings account” in the mid-2000s, and the 90 percent has leveraged up. Meanwhile, we got so good at controlling inflation that central banks today cannot generate any of it at all no matter how hard they try, which makes it difficult to pay back debts, especially when wages are not growing.

...

Unsurprisingly, people are beginning to realize that they are no longer getting what they vote for. Instead, they are being asked to pay more and more for what they already receive through taxes, taken from stagnant or declining incomes, which also must service their debts. In such a world it’s great to be a creditor and lousy to be a debtor. The problem for democracy is that most people are debtors.

In such a creditor-friendly world, however, democracy is reduced knowing that the menu of policy will never vary. Trump’s win in the Midwest, British voters deciding to leave the European Union, Italy’s referendum and Greece’s revolt against its creditors are all connected in this way.

Looking forward, similar trends are playing out in France, which will hold elections next year. At the moment, the only party that wants to fundamentally break with the policies of the past 30 years is the National Front. Given the pathetic state of the French left parties, leftist voters in France are being asked to turn out to elect a right-wing candidate who wants France to embrace more of the same liberalizing and income-skewing policies that have failed everywhere. But why would they do this? Just to stop the Front, whose economic policies are far closer to what they want? This has Brexit and Trump written all over it.

At the end of the day, when you no longer get what you vote for and when the role of voting is reduced to affirming the status quo, voters will vote for the most undemocratic of options if that is all that is “off the menu.” That’s democracy in action in a world devoid of choice. When you can’t get what you want and most people do not benefit from the economic outcomes of government, it’s also what makes democracy unstable.
Click to expand...
 
Casually Red said:
Clinton supporting couple have a public melt down after discovering Ivanka Trump and the kids are on their flight . First they tweet boasting about harassing her..with her kids.. then they delete that bit and it's they were thrown off the plane just for having an opinion . stay classy .

Ivanka Trump 'aggressively confronted by JetBlue passenger while sitting with her kids | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

What would you do if you bumped into Hillary Clinton on a plane?
 
Yossarian said:
What would you do if you bumped into Hillary Clinton on a plane?
Click to expand...

Say nothing and wait till she goes to the toilet, queue outside. When she leaves, go in and emerge 3 seconds later retching, flapping the air . Say something about a canary in a cage . Sit clutching a sick bag muttering about some people have no consideration for others .
Try and insert the word " broomstick " into a sentence in a manner it can't be directly attributed but everyone knows what it means .

Eta

Feign surprise and innocence when accosted but shrug and admit to a fair cop if that doesn't work .
 
Last edited:
North Carolina is no longer classified as a democracy

In 2005, in the midst of a career of traveling around the world to help set up elections in some of the most challenging places on earth – Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, Lebanon, South Africa, Sudan and Yemen, among others – my Danish colleague, Jorgen Elklit, and I designed the first comprehensive method for evaluating the quality of elections around the world. Our system measured 50 moving parts of an election process and covered everything from the legal framework to the polling day and counting of ballots.

In 2012 Elklit and I worked with Pippa Norris of Harvard University, who used the system as the cornerstone of the Electoral Integrity Project. Since then the EIP has measured 213 elections in 153 countries and is widely agreed to be the most accurate method for evaluating how free and fair and democratic elections are across time and place.

When we evolved the project I could never imagine that as we enter 2017, my state, North Carolina, would perform so badly on this, and other, measures that we are no longer considered to be a fully functioning democracy.

In the just released EIP report, North Carolina’s overall electoral integrity score of 58/100 for the 2016 election places us alongside authoritarian states and pseudo-democracies like Cuba, Indonesia and Sierra Leone. If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table – a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world.

Indeed, North Carolina does so poorly on the measures of legal framework and voter registration, that on those indicators we rank alongside Iran and Venezuela. When it comes to the integrity of the voting district boundaries no country has ever received as low a score as the 7/100 North Carolina received. North Carolina is not only the worst state in the USA for unfair districting but the worst entity in the world ever analyzed by the Electoral Integrity Project.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/u...on-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

It is entirely possible, as many have argued, that Hillary Clinton would be the president-elect of the United States if the F.B.I. director, James Comey, had not sent a letter to Congress about her emails in the last weeks of the campaign.

But the electoral trends that put Donald J. Trump within striking distance of victory were clear long before Mr. Comey sent his letter. They were clear before WikiLeaks published hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. They were even clear back in early July, before Mr. Comey excoriated Mrs. Clinton for using a private email server.

It was clear from the start that Mrs. Clinton was struggling to reassemble the Obama coalition.

At every point of the race, Mr. Trump was doing better among white voters without a college degree than Mitt Romney did in 2012 — by a wide margin. Mrs. Clinton was also not matching Mr. Obama’s support among black voters.

This was the core of the Obama coalition: an alliance between black voters and Northern white voters, from Mr. Obama’s first win in the 2008 Iowa caucuses to his final sprint across the so-called Midwestern Firewall states where he staked his 2012 re-election bid.

The countryside of Iowa or the industrial belt along Lake Erie is not the sort of place that people envision when they think of the Obama coalition. Yet it was an important component of his victory.

Campaign lore has it that President Obama won thanks to a young, diverse, well-educated and metropolitan “coalition of the ascendant” — an emerging Democratic majority anchored in the new economy. Hispanic voters, in particular, were credited with Mr. Obama’s victory.

But Mr. Obama would have won re-election even if he hadn’t won the Hispanic vote at all. He would have won even if the electorate had been as old and as white as it had been in 2004.

...

He excelled in a nearly continuous swath from the Pacific Coast of Oregon and Washington to the Red River Valley in Minnesota, along the Great Lakes to the coast of Maine. In these places, Mr. Obama often ran as strong or stronger than any Democrat in history.

In 2016, Mr. Trump made huge gains among white working-class voters. It wasn’t just in the places where Democratic strength had been eroding for a long time, like western Pennsylvania. It was often in the places where Democrats had seemed resilient or even strong, like Scranton, Pa., and eastern Iowa.


It was a decisive break from recent trends. White voters without college degrees, for the first time, deviated from the national trend and swung decidedly toward the Republicans. No bastion of white, working-class Democratic strength was immune to the trend.

For the first time in the history of the two parties, the Republican candidate did better among low-income whites than among affluent whites, according to exit poll data and a compilation of New York Times/CBS News surveys.

According to exit polls, Mr. Trump did better than Mr. Romney by 24 points among white voters without a degree making less than $30,000 a year. He won these voters by a margin of 62 to 30 percent, compared with Mr. Romney’s narrow win of 52 percent to 45 percent.
Click to expand...

According to this data, the class revolt (of a sort) thesis looks a lot stronger than it did in the primaries.

This is just incredible though, I truly think that the Clinton campaign will go down in history as one of the worst major campaigns in modern political history.

Mr. Trump’s gains among white working-class voters weren’t simply caused by Democrats staying home on Election Day.

The Clinton team knew what was wrong from the start, according to a Clinton campaign staffer and other Democrats. Its models, based on survey data, indicated that they were underperforming Mr. Obama in less-educated white areas by a wide margin — perhaps 10 points or more — as early as the summer.

The campaign looked back to respondents who were contacted in 2012, and found a large number of white working-class voters who had backed Mr. Obama were now supporting Mr. Trump.

The same story was obvious in public polls of registered voters. Those polls aren’t affected by changes in turnout.

The best data on the effect of turnout will ultimately come from voter file data, which will include an individual-level account of who voted and who didn’t. Most of this data is only beginning to become available.

But the limited data that’s already available is consistent with the story evident in the pre-election polling: Turnout wasn’t the major factor driving shifts among white voters.

The voter-file data in North Carolina, where nearly all of the state’s jurisdictions have reported their vote, shows that the turnout among white Democrats and Republicans increased by almost the exact amount — about 2.5 percent. The same appears to be true in Florida.

Nationally, there is no relationship between the decline in Democratic strength and the change in turnout. Mr. Trump made gains in white working-class areas, whether turnout surged or dropped.

The exit polls also show all of the signs that Mr. Trump was winning over Obama voters. Perhaps most strikingly, Mr. Trump won 19 percent of white voters without a degree who approved of Mr. Obama’s performance, including 8 percent of those who “strongly” approved of Mr. Obama’s performance and 10 percent of white working-class voters who wanted to continue Mr. Obama’s policies.

Mr. Trump won 20 percent of self-identified liberal white working-class voters, according to the exit polls, and 38 percent of those who wanted policies that were more liberal than Mr. Obama’s.

It strongly suggests that Mr. Trump won over large numbers of white, working-class voters who supported Mr. Obama four years earlier.
Click to expand...

How the fuck did Clinton lose these people?

The notion that Mr. Trump could win over so many people who voted for Mr. Obama and who still approved of his performance is hard to understand for people with ideologically consistent views on a traditional liberal-conservative spectrum. Mr. Trump, if anything, was Mr. Obama’s opposite.

But the two had the same winning pitch to white working-class voters.

Mr. Obama and his campaign team portrayed Mr. Romney as a plutocrat who dismantled companies and outsourced jobs. The implication was that he would leave middle-class jobs prey to globalization and corporations.

The proof of Mr. Obama’s commitment to the working class and Mr. Romney’s callousness, according to the Obama campaign, was the auto bailout: Mr. Obama protected the auto industry; Mr. Romney wrote “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” in The New York Times.

There was one place where Mr. Romney was able to effectively argue that he could protect the industrial economy and the people who worked in it: coal country. There he made big gains after the Obama administration pushed climate-change policies that would reduce the production and use of coal.

In retrospect, the scale of the Democratic collapse in coal country was a harbinger of just how far the Democrats would fall in their old strongholds once they forfeited the mantle of working-class interests.

Mr. Trump owned Mr. Obama’s winning message to autoworkers and Mr. Romney’s message to coal country. He didn’t merely run to protect the remnants of the industrial economy; he promised to restore it and “make America great again.”

Just as Mr. Obama’s team caricatured Mr. Romney, Mr. Trump caricatured Mrs. Clinton as a tool of Wall Street, bought by special interests. She, too, would leave workers vulnerable to the forces of globalization and big business, he said.

According to Mr. Trump’s campaign, the proof of his commitment to the working class wasn’t the auto bailout but the issue of trade: Mr. Trump said free trade was responsible for deindustrialization, and asserted that he would get tough on China, renegotiate Nafta and pull out of the trans-Pacific Partnership — two trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton supported or helped negotiate (she later rejected the trans-Pacific deal).
Click to expand...

If only the Democrats had a candidate who could run on a class-antagonistic platform?
 
Honestly, besides the electorate suddenly all deciding to write in 'J Posadas' for president it's hard to imagine a more thorough vindication of left critique of liberal technocratic politics.
 
CRI said:
Trump’s Nuclear Experience
In 1987, he set out to solve the world’s biggest problem.
:eek:
Click to expand...
Trump expands on his attitude about nukes. :eek: Sure glad he beat that warmonger Hillary.
“Let it be an arms race,” the president in waiting was reported to have told Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe programme, in an early phone call on Friday....he went on to say: “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”...The incendiary comment followed a tweet on Thursday....“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,”
Click to expand...
'Let it be an arms race': Trump appears to double down on nuclear expansion
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
DONALD TRUMP
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Kevbad the Bad
K
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
503
frogwoman
frogwoman
editor
  • Locked
  • Poll
Merging the two Trump threads yes/no?
Replies
27
Views
737
editor
editor
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
Back
Top Bottom