General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 438

That's how ambassadorships have basically always been awarded, they are asked by the President, usually from donors ... it's kinda funny that it was called "auctioning off." This has been pretty much standard practice ... for ... basically forever.

Edit: I actually did have that bookmark, from the AFSA:

• President Ford made 97 appointments during his brief time in office, 60 (61.9 percent) of which were career appointments and 37 (38.2 percent) of which were political;
• President Carter made 202 appointments during his four years in office, 148 (73.27 percent) of them career appointments, and 54 (26.73 percent) of them political;
• President Reagan made 420 appointments over eight years, 261 (62 percent) of them career appointments, and 159 (38 percent) political appointments;
• President George H.W. Bush made 214 appointments in four years, 147 (68.69 percent) of them career appointments, and 67 (31.30 percent) political appointments;
• President Clinton made 417 appointments over eight years, 300 (71.94 percent) of them career appointments, and 117 (28.06 percent) political appointments;
• President George W. Bush made 453 appointments in his eight years in office, 318 (70.2 percent) of them career appointments, and 135 (28.9 percent) political appointments; and finally,
• President Obama has, to date, made 378 appointments since 2009, 245 (64.8 percent) of them career appointments, and 133 (35.2 percent) political appointments

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/u...support-for-hillary-clinton-is-overrated.html

The bottom line is that Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to benefit from the same jump in black turnout and support that Mr. Obama had. Similarly, she is unlikely to repeat the same jump in support from Hispanic voters. It is possible she won’t see any gains among these groups at all.

Democratic gains from nonwhite voters have greatly slowed, to the marginal gains from demographic shifts alone.

The end result: According to The Upshot’s estimates, Mrs. Clinton’s gains from demographic change could be as small as a single percentage point.

 

Not surprised.

 

Clinton takes questions ... back to the news and ...

 

That MI poll sucks. Hope to see more from that state coming soon.

 

I quit.

 

I'm convinced the Onion is run by Marxists or something:

Goldinger, who started working as a server at the Whitecap Grill shortly after graduating college last spring, told reporters he took the job in order to make ends meet while he waits for the entire economic framework of the United States to be reorganized at the most basic level, creating a sufficient number of adequately paid opportunities for individuals with his level of education and experience.

Man Just Waiting Tables Until Fundamental Structure Of U.S. Economy Changes

 

After publishing her replies have been deplorable to a new level.

 

So we can add asthmatics and people that enjoy clean water to the list of groups that shouldn't vote Trump...

 

This is how it ends.

 

Tate, dude, you need to cool it with the tweets. It's too much

 

personally like the amount of tweets jason posts

 

You don't have to read the thread. I'm gonna post what I want to post and what I find interesting.

 

You don't have to post in it.

 

I choose to post in it.

 

I know, that's the problem.

 

You can not read the thread I post politics news in if you don't want. Your choice.

My website. My choice.

 

I cannot stand Amanda Marcotte. But, the critique goes both ways. Hillary had packaged herself as the sole option against fascism; she has named the decay of empire and it is Trump. What these individuals are asking for is sublimation of what they want in favor of a hegemonic ideology that has consistently given birth to the ills that produce Trumps, choices which undermine communities, then claim a defensive position when those communities adopt reactionary views against a status quo that has left them behind. I'm not a Nader supporter, however, this line of logic is actually abusive towards communities that have lived in trump's America under democrats. They say it can be worse, we don't believe you anymore when it is our lives on the line, hence our rejection of this paradigm.

 

I've never read either her or the author before (that I remember) but found that line interesting.

 

I like the thread, just not your all-day spamming of it with tweets.

Just looked and you've made at least 500 posts in here in the last two weeks, the vast majority of them just being tweets. Why? It's excessive. It reminds me of several years ago on the AP politics forum when all anyone did 90% of the time was post links to articles.

 

You just been really bored lately or something?

 

I was just commenting on them both. I really dislike that line of argument.