why do they vote twice?

[OWC Jamie]

The real dumb schmucks allowed a candidate to corruptly control the DNC to try to buy a Presidency.
A real candidate might have won the election and all this smearing unbased character assassinations
blackmail/bribe/make-deals wouldn't have happened.

[$tevie]

Clinton lost because a bunch of moron butt-hurt progressives and idiot inattentive women decided that they'd rather lose gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, national parks, clean oceans, and breathable air than have to vote for Clinton. They can all burn in hell.

[bfd]

The dimmest bullbs in the box - still trying to light the way in a dark world.

[max]

bfd wrote:
The dimmest bullbs in the box - still trying to light the way in a dark world.

it must be very tough.
My deepest condolences....

[deckeda]

billb wrote:
... all this smearing unbased character assassinations blackmail/bribe/make-deals wouldn't have happened.

Your sudden soft spot for Dr. Ford is touching, it really is. Blaming the DNC for making/allowing the Republican party to smear her is a special treat of "logic" to read.

[rjmacs]

$tevie wrote:
Clinton lost because a bunch of moron butt-hurt progressives and idiot inattentive women decided that they'd rather lose gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, national parks, clean oceans, and breathable air than have to vote for Clinton. They can all burn in hell.

You skipped over a giant part of the electorate in there, one that gets let off the hook persistently:

White male Democrats and independents. Why do they get a pass? I'm not saying that White women don't bear some culpability (they do), but hardly to the degree that White men flocked to 45, and not just on the GOP side.

[$tevie]

Well, the moron butt-hurt progressives were the males in my mind. Although it would include women, too, of course.

[rjmacs]

$tevie wrote:
Well, the moron butt-hurt progressives were the males in my mind. Although it would include women, too, of course.

I hear ya. And I don't disagree, I just think there are plenty of white Democratic men who aren't butt-hurt progressives who ended up supporting Trump, and having a greater overall impact on the election's outcome.

I'm thinking about all the white Democrats in former labor strongholds like the central and upper mid-west, where racism and xenophobia were intentionally marshaled to pull white people, and especially men, away from the party.

[Buzz]

First, we're in a heap o' hurt when we can't nominate better candidates than Hilary or Trump for POTUS.
Second, SCOTUS appointments ought to require a 2/3 majority vote in order to confirm.
That would fix a LOT of problems.
==

[Sarcany]

Buzz wrote:
Second, SCOTUS appointments ought to require a 2/3 majority vote in order to confirm.
That would fix a LOT of problems.
==

They used to require 60 votes.

Dems couldn't get a judge through the process with republicans blocking every nomination throughout Obama's tenure, so they invoked the "nuclear option" on low-level judicial appointments which allows a simple majority-vote to move an appointment forward and disallowed filibusters for the cloture vote.

This set a precedent which republicans ran with to invoke the nuclear option for everything they do. They've used it to confirm every lowlife piece of trash Drumpf can come up with to fill a seat with their big fat butts and while the original amendments exempted SCOTUS appointments and left the original rule in place, republicans extended it to the SCOTUS to push through Gorsuch with minimal debate. (One might wonder, given what we've just seen of his buddy Drunken McRapeyface, what would have come up from a thorough investigation and debate on Gorsuch.)