question: how would you deal with cyber attacks against the US government?
donald trump: i am so strongly against cyber. we came up with the internet. cyber is a big issue. we need to be SMART and QUICK. let me tell you. my son has a computer. he’s 10! he’s so good on that computer so good you wouldn’t believe it!
Used the mermaid prompt on sketch dailies as an excuse to do a nice thing of one of my manatee mermaids. And a manatee! X3 Mixed media on toned grey paper!
listen. hogwarts houses but instead of placing all the houses in the same dormitories you place them in mini dormitories that each have a Gryffindor, slytherin, ravenclaw and hufflepuff
that way when these 4 kids eventually become friends (and lbr they will after basically living each other after 7 years)
all these personality types are evenly balanced out. when the Gryffindor wants to be reckless the slytherin is like ok chill or we could think this through. when the ravenclaw devotes too much time to studying the hufflepuff is like or you could care abt urself too
and etc
this way ur chances of having 3 reckless Gryffindor children trying to save the school every year dwindles js
FYI to White folks planning to vote Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in the election because they hate Hillary, are salty Bernie lost, are mad at “the system” or whatever.
Keep in mind that what that says to the people of color you know is, “I don’t care about your life.”
Except Jill Stein is a good person and has almost all the same ideologies Bernie had, and there are poc (myself included) that support her… So….
I understand that you think if people vote third party trump would win, but if the amount of Bernie supporters there is out there voted for Jill, she could win. Although I know a lot of people don’t know about her so no, I’m not positive she will win, and would still rather have Hillary over Trump as bad as Hillary is herself, Trump is worse.
Wow
Jill Stein: anti-vax, pro-Autism Speaks, has never held elected office beyond town council, is GROSSLY unqualified to be president.
In the year 2000, fresh out of college, I cast my second-ever presidential election vote for Ralph Nader. Later that night, I watched in horror as the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush ended in an unprecedented electoral college toss-up, leading to a messy recount battle and the infamous Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore. The chosen successor of a popular incumbent administration, Gore should have sailed to victory on the strength of the economy alone, yet he conceded the election to Bush, a candidate initially considered too unserious to be a true contender.
Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. Nader received almost 100,000 votes in Florida. And he actively campaigned in swing states, including Florida, in the lead-up to the election. If Nader had quit the race and thrown his support to the Democrats, we might be reminiscing about a Gore administration right now. And I share the blame. Now, before you post mean things in the comments, let me clarify: I voted in New York state, which went blue in 2000, so my individual vote did not help swing the election. But I still feel complicit. I jumped on the Nader bandwagon and bought into a set of beliefs that seemed right to me at the time but were proven very wrong over the eight years that followed.
Chief among them, I thought that Gore and Bush were essentially indistinguishable. Carbon copies of each other. Both corporate insider candidates, beholden to big-money interests and out of touch with people struggling at the margins of the economy. I’m from the Rust Belt—I grew up near Cleveland—and I had seen factory closures turn a once-vibrant part of the country into a series of ghost towns. I blamed NAFTA and the Clinton administration’s failure to defend unions and stem the tide of outsourcing. In this and on other issues—welfare reform, prison sentencing—I thought the Clinton administration had bent so far backward to win over the right that it had lost its progressive conscience. The economy boomed during the Clinton years, but the gulf between the rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, only widened. Nader voiced the discontent I was feeling. I was young and idealistic and wanted political revolution.
It felt good to back a rabble-rouser, not the stiff, robotic Al Gore. I was annoyed with the Democrats for picking a predictable, incremental candidate who played not to the left, but to the mushy middle. I went to a Nader rally in NYC: Bill Murray, Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon spoke. Eddie Vedder sang. I felt inspired, part of a movement to bring about real change, ready to cast my protest vote. Alarmingly, some Sanders supporters seem to welcome the chaos of a Trump presidency.
But here’s the thing: In the eight years that followed, I was reminded again and again that George Bush and Al Gore were not carbon copies of each other. Bush was a disastrous president. He got us into an expensive, unwinnable war that unleashed untold human misery both abroad and here at home. He cut taxes on the rich while failing to curtail spending, turning the $280 billion surplus he inherited from Clinton into a $6 trillion deficit. He relaxed gun control restrictions and refused to comply with international climate treaties. He passed No Child Left Behind, a law that turned schools into test-taking machines. He bungled the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina. His administration left the country mired in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.Gore might not have been a perfect president, but it’s likely he would have taken more reasonable action on the economy, climate change, and gun policy. It’s hard to say how he would have handled 9/11, but he might have been more cautious and more diplomatic in the Middle East than Bush was.
Now, 16 years later, I look back on my young, Nader-voting self and see plenty of parallels with the college students who are feeling the Bern. Hillary Clinton is a wonkish, often uninspiring candidate, just as Al Gore was. Like Gore, she promises to extend an incumbent’s centrist legacy rather than move the country further left. Her ties to the moneyed powers-that-be sometimes seem stronger than her connection to the other 99 percent. And Bernie, as Nader did, promises to dial back the influence of big-money corporate donors and bring about real change. He even has Bill Murray, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Eddie Vedder on his side.
But if Bernie splinters the left and erodes Clinton’s support among voters, the consequences for our country could be even more dire than another Bush administration. If the Bush administration was catastrophic, a Trump administration could be cataclysmic. He has no compunction about stirring up violent, hateful rhetoric among his supporters. He wants to deport millions of people and ban an entire religious group from entering the country. He threatens to shut down the press. If he gets elected, we’ll be counting down the days before he insults some world leader and starts World War III.
Alarmingly, some Sanders supporters seem to actually welcome the chaos of a Trump presidency: Susan Sarandon has said he can “bring the revolution,” an argument that only highlights her privileged position as a celebrity not at risk of getting deported, deployed, or discriminated against by a Trump administration. Jill Stein, running as the Green Party’s nominee, recently tweeted, “I will be horrified if Donald Trump is elected. I will also be horrified if Hillary Clinton is elected. Both are corporate politicians.” Change up the names, and she could be quoting her party mate Nader in 2000. Both Sarandon and Stein are ignoring real differences: Hillary Clinton may not be a revolutionary, but she’ll defend Roe v. Wade, preserve Obamacare, push for reasonable gun laws, protect LGBTQ rights, support parental leave, and heed climate science.Trump will do none of the above.
Like Gore, Hillary Clinton isn’t the left’s ideal candidate. But, barring a mathematical miracle, she’s our nominee. And, in what promises to be a tight general election, she’s going to need every vote she can get. Now that the Republican Party is consolidating around Trump, the Democrats’ failure to unify around its own presumptive nominee becomes all the more glaring. The longer Sanders stays in the race, the more Hillary’s negatives grow, and the more cash and attention she peels away from her general election efforts.
A recent YouGov poll reports that 61 percent of Sanders supporters have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, a number that has grown as the primaries continue to drag on. Moreover, Sanders’ critiques of Clinton have become more pointed and go beyond policy disputes; they also focus on process (allegations that the nomination process is rigged) and character (painting Clinton as corrupt and dishonest). Come November, it will be tough for the Democrats to energize voters who see their nominee as fundamentally untrustworthy and their party as unjust. Trump insulted practically every voting bloc in his party, and the GOP is still holding its nose to line up behind him. Yet the left threatens to fracture.
How do we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Like this.
To the Bernie voters who are disgusted with the process and disillusioned with the Democratic nominee, I hear you. But if you plan to stay home, defect to a third party candidate, or vote Trump in November, think back to the fall of 2000. It only took 100,000 ideological purists in one state to give our country away to a know-nothing nightmare of a president.
I never reblog things like this and I’m not even American, but I have a number of American friends who intend to cast protest votes. The thing about the States is that what happens there affects the rest of the world in a big way. I cannot emphasize enough the fear that the possibility of a Trump presidency inspires here across the border.
Every vote counts - to nitpick that last @ouiseaudete paragraph - It only too 537 idealogical purists in one state.
Jill Stein’s running mate also pals around with Holocaust deniers and called Obama an “Uncle Tom” and here’s what she said about it
But tell me again how Hillary, who overwhelmingly won the POC vote in the primaries, is the bigger racist because of a 20-year-old crime bill her husband signed that based on her platform, she clearly no longer supports
Stein is also a TERF apologist. But that’s cool I guess, just keep making it clear that y'all don’t think us out here on the margins are people.
holy fuck it’s been so long since I’ve drawn kalle and demos. here we have Demos eating @scraps-is-busy
not voting for hillary clinton is a vote for donald trump
But also THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO CHOICES IN THIS ELECTION pls people, I know it seems unlikely, but if everyone who didn’t want either candidate wrote in a name, someone else would stand a chance [and we could live with ourselves, not having voted for one or the other]
no they wouldn’t, literally do not do this
please educate yourself about nader and the 2000 presidential election before encouraging this literally terrible idea
People on both sides say “Not voting for my candidate is a vote for the other guy” No, it’s just not a vote for your fucking candidate. Vote for who you actually believe in, otherwise you might as well not vote. If Hillary actually gave a damn she would try harder than just say “Vote for me cause I’m not Trump” No bitch, how about you show me something I can believe in. God damn, no wonder so many people don’t fucking vote.
*sigh*
Let me explain why they say a vote for a 3rd candidate or not voting for Hillary is voting for Trump:
The United States does not have a direct democratic voting system. We have an indirect system called the electoral college.The electoral college is a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
To win the Presidency you do not need a popular majority; you need the majority of votes of the electoral college.
The way the college works is that the two parties select the delegates that will serve as electors, and the electors pledge to vote for the candidates, depending on their party affiliation, of either the democratic or republican party. So, when people go vote, they are actually going to vote for electors that have pledged to vote for a specific party/candidate.
Each state is allocated a different number of electoral seats, and so not every state is truly worth the same given that every candidate is racing to secure 270 seats (minimum required to win the election).
What’s important to note is that the electoral college is a winner take all vote in 48 of the 50 states, meaning that the candidate with the higher number of votes in a given state will get ALL of the seats. This is one of the reasons why third party candidates are a wasted vote.
Based on our country’s history, most States around the country have already been defined as either red or blue, because the majority of the people that go and vote in said states tend to stick to either one or the other no matter who is on the ballot. It becomes a bit of loyalism to a party or, more accurately, just a strong distaste towards the ideals of the other party. However, there are a few swing states that really define the elections, for each election cycle they tend to change depending on who is on the ballot.
Now, third party candidates, which is often used as a protest vote, have never worked because a) they are not written into every state ballot, meaning that there are states that don’t offer these candidates given that they did not qualify b) have rarely gotten enough votes to even be up for electoral seats c) ALWAYS end up hurting one of the two candidates, for, in close runs, they can make one of the other two candidates lose a SWING STATE.
This is what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. The votes that he received hurt Gore in certain states, particularly florida, which led to Bush winning as he had the majority of electoral seats even though he did not have the majority in popular vote.
Now, in the latest poll, it shows that the race between Hillary and trump is very close, and, when third party candidates are involved, it actually HURTS Hillary’s chances.
Now, if it hurts her enough, Trump can obtain the much needed swing states. If he gets over 270 seats (and thus more than hillary) he WILL win the goddamn election.
This is not a year to vote for a third party candidate. This is not a man you want in the oval office of the most powerful country in the world.
There is nothing NOTHING you can pull out that will make Trump the lesser of two evils.
We live in a country that has a two party system, so yes, a vote for a 3rd party candidate or a non-vote IS actually a vote for trump.
I was a Bernie supporter too, but “Bernie or Bust”ers are fucking idiots. Yes the system is corrupt, but you certainly wont fix anything by letting Trump win. Put your personal ideals aside for the good of the country.
Here, I even made a graph
If Everyone Pulls Together And Votes Hillary
If Y’all “Bernie Or Bust” People Vote Third Party
See? Not that hard.
Seriously, guys, do not vote third party. The electoral college will not vote third party. I know it sucks and it’s unfair, but it’s pull your heads out of your asses or have President Trump.
And this is why America’s political system really, REALLY sucks at Democracy.
I am Silver Tongue, I am an artist. I have many characters and you can check out my art in the art tag. I occasionally practice witchcraft though I don't do anything too complicated. I am girl 2 and don't know what else to put here.
