Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Rebel HQ" channel.

  1. America didn't pick her. That's why Trump is president. The Democrats could have pushed to amend election procedures while they had power (supermajority), but they didn't. Instead, they chose to retain not only the antiquated electoral college but also their own superdelegates and undemocratic primary procedures (closed primaries, caucuses, etc.). No sympathy. The DNC and Clinton knew what game they were playing and they still lost, in part by their own machinations, to the least favored candidate in the post-war era of polling. Also, yes, Obama in '12 did get about 60 thousand more votes than Clinton in '16. The numbers I cited were accurate, from the Federal Election Commission, linked below. The fact that you can't be bothered to look up information that is a google search away speaks volumes about how blinkered you are. Ironic that someone caviling about "fake stories" is out here spreading fake information. Raw numbers are one way to gauge election success, but if you're trying to make a historical comparison, even to races on 4 or 8 years ago, it's much better to compare vote share. Populations can change a lot in that window. In that regard, in Obama's worst election (2012) he got 51% of the vote compared to Clinton's (2016) 48%. All of this has to also be placed in the miserable light of American electoral politics in general, since a president—even saying Clinton did win—is often elected by a minority of the country. If Clinton had won with 48% of the vote and only 54% of voters turned out, she would have won with only about a quarter of the country's support. More Americans did vote for her over Trump (one can only wonder what would have happened had the Republicans had a less polarizing candidate), but many more voted for no one at all, which speaks to the disillusionment of the population with the political system, which is unable or unwilling to cajole them into civil obedience. That is nothing to gloat over. And guess what, in 2020 it's possible that the winning candidate will receive the most votes ever just by sheer dint of there being more people to vote. Moreover, all of this is just nitpicking. The bigger issue, which you have failed to address, is what you meant by "fake stories" given that by all accounts, the content of the emails is accurate. No specific claims have been made and stood up to scrutiny. https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf
    2
  2. Make a claim, get refuted, tac away from the claim, make a new claim, get refuted again, make a new claim...the tactics of a dissembler... This race should have been an easy layup—the easiest for a D-nominee potentially ever. It should never have been anywhere close. For the third time, everyone's dying to know, what were the "fake stories." I feel like I'll be waiting a while. Clinton communications advisor Mandy Grunwald on a Jeb Bush economics speech: "Very little in this that HRC wouldn't say." I think says it all.
    2
  3. Listen, troll, because I'm now convinced that what you are, your original claim was that the media propagated "false stories" based on the hacks. It doesn't matter that you think they're a big deal or not; the question is, are they true stories or false stories. You say false yet  refuse to cite a single instance. You're dishonest and not worth talking to. The story I cited was true and accurate. Donna Brazile handed off questions not once but twice. It got her fired from CNN. Moreover—and this speaks to the degree of your dishonesty—the transcript you provided isn't even the correct one.  One email was on March 12 for a March 13 town hall. That concerned the death penalty.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/roland-martin-cnn-email-donna-brazile-wikileaks-229673 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/13/full-rush-transcript-hillary-clinton-partcnn-tv-one-democratic-presidential-town-hall/ The other was for the debate in Flint. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478  And that question and questioner showed up in the debate. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/us/politics/transcript-democratic-presidential-debate.html You make false claims, move the goal posts, and this extra example only further proves it.
    2
  4. She's got a lot of people feeding her delusions. I remember in one interview she held up a Nate Silver article as proof that losing the election wasn't her fault; it was Comey's. But if you read the article it only says that Silver can account for 2% at most, but more realistically <1% of the vote. So Clinton is left claiming that out of all the major factors that could have affected the election, Comey's letter, maybe having a 0.1-2% effect on the vote, is what made the difference in the easiest lay-up in election history against an orange, sexist, racist buffoon. Nothing else mattered, nothing else could have been done, in the deranged minds of Clintonites.
    2
  5.  @luisreyes1963  Was that directed at me? I was being sarcastic.
    2
  6. The first time as tragedy, the second time as whatever kind of sick person's idea of comedy this is.
    2
  7. " the dude in the brick wall spandex" I wonder if that was a Pink Floyd reference, because Roger Waters has a slightly—slightly—different interpretation of what that song's about. Being a socialist (socdem) and all.
    2
  8. Everyone remember that Rick James sketch? Of course you do. That's what always comes to mind when I hear about this "Unity" meeting. The DNC is Rick James https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toAEQTsidvg "Uni-teeeee!"
    2
  9. Check out this interview with her back in May. Exactly as Mkl 01 said. Everyone else's fault. https://youtu.be/XjPbPMdr5Ds?t=2m13s
    2
  10. I see your point, but Allah is still technically different, just like the Mormon god or Catholic god aren't the same as, for instance, the Protestant one.
    2
  11. This is literally what every protestor has said since this happened.
    2
  12. First the 14th, then 13th, then the 1st. Watch it happen.
    2
  13.  @nautilusstopmotion8304  Oh cool. We all made it through high school civics too. Thanks.
    2
  14. Politics in this country are so partisan. It's not about issues. It's about loyalty to the team. How many times have we seen Republicans and Democrats complain about something when the other side is doing it and then reverse course when they're the culprit? Obama installs a bunch of Wall Street insiders? It's the swamp. Trump overloads his cabinet with Wall Street insiders, Big Oil executives, bankers, etc., he's just hiring the best people for the job. You can't argue principles with people that don't have any.
    2
  15. Who's this Melon Cone I keep hearing about?
    1
  16. ***** Sorry, my reply was to Richard Schroepfer.
    1
  17. Bernie's about as far left as my right nut.
    1
  18. Tulsi Gabbard? The same person who, when asked about Trump's cabinet picks, said, "I find it offensive for people to discriminate against veterans," that is, Kelly, Flynn, and Mattis. Mattis thinks we need to have a war with Iran, and made some comments years ago about how fun it is to shoot Afghanis. Flynn is another notorious Islamophobe. She went on to say that, "People are discriminating against them. Just because [they] served as a general previously [they] are disqualified." That Tulsi Gabbard? Is this the best we can do for a progressive voice in American politics?
    1
  19. She knows why the Left is alarmed by people like Mattis and Flynn. I'd bet that she also realizes that, while merely having military personnel in the cabinet is not itself a major cause for concern, the stacking of the cabinet with the military is, especially when the incoming president displays authoritarian tendencies. The military has civilian oversight (POTUS, Congress) so that we don't risk our government devolving into a junta. But that's just one issue. Overall, she's far from progressive. For example, Progressive Punch ranks Gabbard as the 130th most progressive member of Congress. Not 3rd or 10th or 20th—130th. Punch labels her a "Strong Dem," but one who fails to be as progressive as her district would allow her to be. Govtrack ranks her as the 19th most conservative Democrat. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tulsi_gabbard/412532/report-card/2015 Gabbard has plenty of good, even progressive positions, but in a lot of other ways she's more like the kind of center-left Democrat that we've all come to dislike. John Bickel, who works with Progressive PAC in Hawaii, has said, “I am a little skeptical about how deep her progressive roots run. Tulsi Gabbard shows up in places and gets in front of the camera, spinning herself as a progressive-- but I’m not sure her record backs up what she’s created as a public persona.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/the-bernie-endorsing-congresswoman-who-trump-fans-can-love.html While you may not like the tone of Hit Stoner's comment (or the obnoxious copy-paste) there is some substance to it, namely her ties to right wing Hindu organizations and leaders, like Modi. https://socialistworker.org/2016/12/08/an-islamophobic-progressive She tends to the right on military issues, though she does oppose military expansion and intervention in general. However, she has voted in favor of the NDAA several times, including in 2013 when the bill contained the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which essentially allows the US government (specifically the State Dept. and BBG) to deploy the same psyops, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public as it uses against foreign countries. I fail to see how that "protects democracy." She also used to be vociferously opposed to marriage equality, a stance she's since flipped on completely. This could be a case of a child overcoming the prejudices of her parents (her father was notorious for his homophobia) or it could be opportunism. I'd like to think the former, but we just got done having the same conversation about Clinton and her flip-flops on marriage equality, and Clinton was never as passionate as Gabbard. If Gabbard hews progressive from here on out, that's great. I can support that. But that's not quite the picture I'm seeing, which is more complicated. The fact that she's being seen as THE progressive in the country is 1) a tremendous PR success and 2) a bit troubling for the progressive movement. We've already seen how much disappointment can come when enough people rally around a young, charismatic "progressive" who can't or won't live up to that expectation.
    1
  20. Or what about this absolute fucking gem... https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7796 There are two tweets from DeBlasio. He says that he's still waiting to hear about Clinton's vision for income inequality but that he's always liked what he'd heard from Bernie Sanders. Robby Mook: "Wow. What a terrorist."
    1
  21. Daniel Gilbert She isn't mentioned in that one, but she is in others. Granted, the ones that do mention her--that I can see--quote from her book Hard Choices. News articles rarely cite sources the way an academic paper or column would. It's likely she was there, but she could be inflating the account.
    1
  22. * quantitative
    1
  23. Erik F I don't know where you're getting the idea that the bail out cost the taxpayer nothing, but it's wrong. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-bailout-by-the-actual-numbers Stein's claim is that like the Wall Street bail out, a buy out of student loan debt would return the govt's investment through economic growth. More people would be able to get degrees. Those with degrees would be able to seek better employment. And so on.
    1
  24. Erik F Well, we rejected the principle of personal responsibility when it came to those other things--wall street bailout, auto bailout. You're right: the cancellation of student debt by itself won't do anything. What's more important is that we provide ways for people to have a tuition-free 4-year public education. A BS or BA is the new high school diploma, and the richest country in history can afford it if it wants to. Personally, even as someone with student debt, I don't care all that much about a blanket cancellation. Perhaps there could be a cancellation for people in select fields who meet a certain threshold of debt, say medical students or teachers with $50,000+ in debt.
    1
  25. Erik F I couldn't get that page to load before so I apologize for the mistake. One interesting thing, if I'm reading the page correctly, is that the profits are not the result of companies simply repaying the loan. For instance: "Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $621B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned." Instead, the gov't has made a profit from the bailout through dividends, warrants, interest, etc.
    1
  26. Their voting record is already available to the public. Easy to find.
    1
  27. +Waxifari Back in the Jim Crow era where it belongs.
    1
  28. +Dona Why do you pretend to know what my political opinions are regarding the government?
    1
  29. I can link to sources, but they're pretty easy to find.
    1
  30. "Russia undermined our democracy." I wish the same politicians and citizens clamoring to denounce Russia and Trump had attacked with the same fervor Citizens United, campaign finance law, super PACs, corruption, bribery, and the oligarchy. Where were these same people, with their rallies and marches and twitter hashtags, when Clinton laundered money through a joint committee to get around campaign finance limits, a tactic that is unscrupulous, to be sure, but, thanks to the fact that the laws in this country are made by the people who own the country, technically legal? Where were they when the news media effectively undermined democracy through subtle and not-so-subtle propaganda campaigns, e.g. WMD in Iraq? Where were they when the NSA undermined democracy by spying on every single US citizen? Where were they when the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act, which was then renewed under Obama? Where were they when Obama undermined democracy by executing US citizens without due process? People did protest those things, but I cannot remember the Democratic establishment coming out so vehemently and relentlessly against them, nor the corporate media giving them so much airtime.
    1
  31. I know. Wasn't that the video we just watched?
    1
  32. Exactly!
    1
  33. 2:50 The irony of Trumpers singing along with a song, written by a communist, that advocates for equal, social ownership of the land.
    1
  34. "Be careful what you pray for, because you might ultimately end up getting it. And that kind of revolution could be far more damaging to the entire country." Getting rid of Citizens United and reducing the ability of large financial institutions to hold the nation (and world) hostage could be...more damaging? How?! Pulling the "left" political party back to the Left is damaging? Making sure we have an educated citizenry is damaging? Bernie Sanders is not a radical. This is some common sense shit.
    1
  35. I've always liked TYT Politics, but Emma seems to be trying to push an anti-establishment story that's more about perpetuating outrage rather than assessing the facts. Tulsi's voting record places her as a centrist. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tulsi_gabbard/412532 As recently as last year she's railed against radical islamic terrorism, on Fox News of all places. She's said that terrorism in the Middle East is not the result of materialistic causes (presumably things like poverty and US policy) but ideological ones--Islam. Let's be honest--that's probably why Trump wanted to meet with her. She campaigned and protested against civil unions and said some very homophobic things. "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists." I thought democrats were supposed to stand up for the disempowered, but what do I know? Why not apply the same logic to Gabbard that Progressives are applying to Trump: when she does something that we like, applaud her; when she supports disempowerment, intolerance, and belligerence, oppose her. Let's not rush to making plaster saints of everyone who calls themselves a Progressive.
    1
  36. You should see if there's a protest at your local Army Corps office. https://actionnetwork.org/event_campaigns/nov-15-nodapl-day-of-action-at-army-corps-of-engineers?referrer=350-org&utm_medium=email&utm_source=actionkit
    1
  37. I think that in a decade he'll be seen as McGovern 2.0
    1
  38. How so?
    1
  39. I don't want to pick on the young lady speaking around 2:15, but this notion--so common and anodyne that it is the slogan for Fox News--that there are two sides to issues and that our political process exists to parse, compromise, and legislate them, is a fiction. When someone says to listen to both sides, ask them, both sides for whom? The critical realization of the Sanders campaign is that finally there is a politician saying what average people have known for a long time: that the political system exists to serve our corporate and wealthy masters. When we speak of both sides, we're often talking about how decisions will affect the richest in the country. We are seldom presented with real, imaginative political options. Far from being designed to adjudicate "both sides" of the argument (in reality, most arguments are not that simple), the system of American politics was designed, explicitly-read Madison, Hamilton, Washington, et al.- to curtail the "harmful" effects of democracy, that is, of ordinary people having a say over the direction of their lives, and to protect the property and wealth of the upper classes.
    1
  40. There was an interview with Kaine the other day in which he said that Clinton would immediately seek to expand congressionally sanctioned, executive war powers. Very troubling.
    1
  41. Must. Try to. Empathize....
    1
  42. An Average 27 You win this thread.
    1
  43. Ian L I wouldn't mind him being on the penny. In fact, I would love that.
    1
  44. Ian L I don't think he would see it that way.
    1
  45. Paul Aagam ...To...replace the racist Andrew Jackson??? Maybe. I have a hunch that Trump likes him some Benjamins.
    1
  46. Ian L Oh the irony. PS I've never voted for a democrat for president. Nor a republican. People were so right to criticize the Clintonite democrats for their opportunistic and manipulative schemes. But you have to realize that Trump is as much of, if not more of, a con man. That's as clear to me as it is to you that Clinton was a flip-flopping corporatist.
    1
  47. No, because that still treats race as a valid category, when it's really a construct of nationalism and imperialism. 200 years ago people like Benjamin Franklin were saying the same thing about Germans, Italians, and the Irish. They can't mix and integrate. They aren't a part of our proud (white) Anglo-Saxon heritage. Yes, our politico-economic system reifies these false racial categories. But that's not this guy's point. He believes in those categories as real things. He's not even shortsighted; he's just wrong.
    1
  48. One thread running through the emails is Clinton and her campaign's fixation on perception and political posturing over substance. The banks didn't fail the economy; that was just a perception. Millennials feel like politics is rigged. There's a perception that Biden is more pro-labor than HRC. https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8021 (Trump rightly gets accused of being thin-skinned, but the HRC campaign interprets even the absence of praise as a slight.) Gina Glantz: "I believe the real issue is the perception of passion - hers and her supports." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8229 She later says that she liked how HRC got ahead of Bernie in "caring" (her quotes) about Flint. And right now I'm reading an email from Steve Hildebrand to Podesta, in which he claims that Clinton is losing ground because "I just don’t think she’s using the right words." If only Clinton would say the right words with enough emotion, it would make corporate giveaways, war and military intervention, fracking, and a complete unwillingness to implement first world social programs almost the greatest thing ever. Podesta attributes HRC's stumble to a double standard. Or maybe it was only the perception of a double standard. Who knows?
    1
  49. Politicians should have their pay docked for making patently false statements like this.
    1
  50. +Sarah Connor Exactly! That's the kind of person that votes for Carson. SMFH
    1