The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Flagg]

While the President cannot directly amend the Constitution themselves, the President obviously wields great influence and can help rally support for legislation. See the role Lincoln played in mobilizing support for Amendment 13, for example.

Of course, it could backfire on her post-election if she can't actually deliver said amendment (which would require some really major Democratic victories down ballot, I suspect). So I expect that we'll likely hear a lot of people complaining about how she betrayed this promise down the line, whatever her intent is.

However, her primary purpose is probably to get as much progressive turnout in the election as possible, and I dare say it will help with that. And even slightly increasing turnout from progressives could be the difference between winning and losing some close states.

It's literally impossible for her to get that done. You need majorities (and in the Senate it's a 1/3 majority IIRC) in both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states, most of which are republican controlled. So for her to say that is majorly stupid, or would be if most Americans knew basic civics.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not technically impossible. Just requiring highly implausible and unrealistic implosion of the Republican Party at the ballot box to be practical.

But yeah, its more a symbolic pledge/pandering, and could be seen as a bit disingenuous. The thought is nice, and it'll probably help her politically if she sticks with it, but if Citizens United is scrapped, it'll probably be via the Supreme Court revisiting the decision some time down the line, not an Amendment.

[maraxus2]

POTUS plays no part in Amending the constitution anymore than I do, so that was a really dumb thing to say on her part.

No, but the President does have slightly more influence on national politics than you. Maybe that had something to do with it?

The constitutional amendment is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but amending the constitution to overturn Citizens is a pretty mainstream Democratic position. It was right and proper for her to say that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Major speakers for the Democratic convention have been announced:

https://demconvention.com/press-release ... ladelphia/

DNCC Announces Headlining Speakers For Democratic National Convention In Philadelphia

Convention Will Showcase A Diverse, United, Energized Democratic Party Rallying Around Hillary Clinton in the Fight for an America That Is “Stronger Together”

SHARE
PHILADELPHIA – Ahead of the Democratic National Convention being held in Philadelphia from July 25th to July 28th, Hillary for America and the Democratic National Convention Committee announced today headlining speakers for each night of the program. While Republican leadership continues to run away from Donald Trump, and refuse to participate in the upcoming Republican convention, the Democratic convention will showcase enormously popular national leaders, rising stars from across the country and a diverse range of everyday Americans who will inspire the nation.

Just days after Donald Trump’s divisive convention in Cleveland full of dangerous ideas that would pose a danger to our economy and national security, Democrats will lay out the clear stakes in this election between building walls and tearing people down or an optimistic unifying vision for an America that is stronger together.

Through narrative storytelling utilizing innovative technology, Hillary Clinton’s vision that we are stronger together will come into strong focus for the American people. A vision that America is at its best when we work together to solve our problems. We are stronger together when we build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. We’re stronger when we work with our allies around the world to keep us safe at home. And we’re stronger when we respect each other and really listen to each other – when we lift each other up instead of tearing each other down.

Here is a preview of each night:

Monday: United Together

Featuring First Lady Michelle Obama, Senator Bernie Sanders and DREAMer Astrid Silva

Gavel time expected at 3:00pm

Monday will focus on putting the future of American families front and center and how we’re stronger together when we build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top and when everyone has a chance to live up to their God-given potential. DREAMer Astrid Silva will share her story and her fight to keep families together.



Tuesday: A Lifetime of Fighting for Children and Families

Featuring President Bill Clinton and Mothers of the Movement

Gavel time expected at 4:00pm

Tuesday will feature the roll call vote and how Hillary has spent her entire career working to make a difference for children, families, and our country. The Mothers of the Movement participating include Gwen Carr, Mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, Mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, Mother of Dontré Hamilton; Lucia McBath, Mother of Jordan Davis; Lezley McSpadden, Mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, Mother of Hadiya Pendleton; Geneva Reed-Veal, Mother of Sandra Bland.



Wednesday: Working Together

Featuring President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden

Gavel time expected at 4:30pm

On Wednesday speakers will take an in-depth look at just how high the stakes are in this election and how Hillary has the experience and steadiness to bring people together to tackle the big challenges and get real results.



Thursday: Stronger Together

Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton

Gavel time expected at 4:30pm

On the final day of the convention, Hillary will speak about her vision for our country – her belief that we are stronger together and that America is at its best when we work together to solve our problems.

Speaking spot on night one for the Bern, along with Michelle Obama. Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary and Chelsea Clinton will also speak over the four days of the convention, along with individuals representing DREAMers and The Mothers of the Movement.

I do object to the announcement including the phrase "God-given potential", however. Political parties should not favour religion in such a manner.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is absolutely tragic to see Bernie's Facebook posts overrun with a torrent of delusional and fanatical fools condemning Sanders, posting conspiracy theories, and saying that they'll vote for Jill Stein or even Trump because Sanders endorsed Clinton.

Bernie Sanders has worked his whole life for progressive causes, and endorsed Hillary Clinton despite their differences because it was the best way to accomplish something, rather than throw everything away for the sake of spite, wishful thinking, or an empty gesture. He deserves better than this from his own supporters.

And the thing is, I know that these nut bags are a minority. But they are the most vocal group, and I very much fear that they will become the face of progressivism and, in the eyes of the public, validate every smear ever used against Sanders and his supporters.

I particularly loath "Bernie or Trump" people (thankfully rare though they are). I loath them, in a way, even more than straight-up Trump supporters. Trump supporters might be bigots, or even Nazis (or simply deluded fools), but they are true to what they are. Whereas "Bernie or Trump" people wear a mask of progressivism and then betray it like the two-faced assholes that they are.

Edit: I'll also say that if you are a progressive, a socialist, or a Sanders voter, you have a God damn responsibility to call these people out as much as you do Trump supporters. The greatest danger to any movement is being hijacked by its own extremist fringe, as the fate of the Republican Party in recent years should tell us.

[Flagg]

POTUS plays no part in Amending the constitution anymore than I do, so that was a really dumb thing to say on her part.

No, but the President does have slightly more influence on national politics than you. Maybe that had something to do with it?

The constitutional amendment is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but amending the constitution to overturn Citizens is a pretty mainstream Democratic position. It was right and proper for her to say that.

And how will that be accomplished in her first 30 days? There's a difference in demanding an amendment and promising it will be done in 30 days. It's shit like that that make voters apathetic.

[The Romulan Republic]

She didn't promise it would be passed in thirty days. All she's promising is that she will support it, and get started within 30 days.

[Flagg]

It is absolutely tragic to see Bernie's Facebook posts overrun with a torrent of delusional and fanatical fools condemning Sanders, posting conspiracy theories, and saying that they'll vote for Jill Stein or even Trump because Sanders endorsed Clinton.

Bernie Sanders has worked his whole life for progressive causes, and endorsed Hillary Clinton despite their differences because it was the best way to accomplish something, rather than throw everything away for the sake of spite, wishful thinking, or an empty gesture. He deserves better than this from his own supporters.

And the thing is, I know that these nut bags are a minority. But they are the most vocal group, and I very much fear that they will become the face of progressivism and, in the eyes of the public, validate every smear ever used against Sanders and his supporters.

I particularly loath "Bernie or Trump" people (thankfully rare though they are). I loath them, in a way, even more than straight-up Trump supporters. Trump supporters might be bigots, or even Nazis (or simply deluded fools), but they are true to what they are. Whereas "Bernie or Trump" people wear a mask of progressivism and then betray it like the two-faced assholes that they are.

Edit: I'll also say that if you are a progressive, a socialist, or a Sanders voter, you have a God damn responsibility to call these people out as much as you do Trump supporters. The greatest danger to any movement is being hijacked by its own extremist fringe, as the fate of the Republican Party in recent years should tell us.

Is discussing Bernie Sanders relavent in any way to the 2016 election since he's dropped out and endorsed his former opponent? I mean I don't really care what butthurt Sanders supporters are saying on FB.

[Flagg]

She didn't promise it would be passed in thirty days. All she's promising is that she will support it, and get started within 30 days.

Again, she has no standing to do so. And if the house isn't taken back, which it may well not be, it won't even make the floor.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is absolutely tragic to see Bernie's Facebook posts overrun with a torrent of delusional and fanatical fools condemning Sanders, posting conspiracy theories, and saying that they'll vote for Jill Stein or even Trump because Sanders endorsed Clinton.

Bernie Sanders has worked his whole life for progressive causes, and endorsed Hillary Clinton despite their differences because it was the best way to accomplish something, rather than throw everything away for the sake of spite, wishful thinking, or an empty gesture. He deserves better than this from his own supporters.

And the thing is, I know that these nut bags are a minority. But they are the most vocal group, and I very much fear that they will become the face of progressivism and, in the eyes of the public, validate every smear ever used against Sanders and his supporters.

I particularly loath "Bernie or Trump" people (thankfully rare though they are). I loath them, in a way, even more than straight-up Trump supporters. Trump supporters might be bigots, or even Nazis (or simply deluded fools), but they are true to what they are. Whereas "Bernie or Trump" people wear a mask of progressivism and then betray it like the two-faced assholes that they are.

Edit: I'll also say that if you are a progressive, a socialist, or a Sanders voter, you have a God damn responsibility to call these people out as much as you do Trump supporters. The greatest danger to any movement is being hijacked by its own extremist fringe, as the fate of the Republican Party in recent years should tell us.

Is discussing Bernie Sanders relavent in any way to the 2016 election since he's dropped out and endorsed his former opponent? I mean I don't really care what butthurt Sanders supporters are saying on FB.

Its relevant because a) he is, whatever your personal dislike for him, an influential voice in the Democratic Party who will be campaigning for Clinton; b) this is discussing political consequences of the election for progressivism in American; and c) most importantly, if enough people think this way, it could swing the election in favour of Trump, or at least cost the Democrats some races down ballot.

But if you feel its off-topic, you're welcome to report me to a moderator. Otherwise, no one's forcing you to read or discuss it if you don't want to.

[cosmicalstorm]

Scott Adams on Trumps Vp

Partial quote of article

You might be wondering what I think of Trump’s decision to pick Mike Pence for VP, given that Pence has disagreed with Trump on substantive policy issues in the past.

First of all, policies don’t matter in this election, or in any other election. Reason is mostly an illusion. And anyway, Pence will modify his positions to match Trump. No one cares.

Secondly, political experts say making a good choice for a VP running mate can’t help a candidate much, but a bad choice can hurt. Pence doesn’t do much to help, but he also doesn’t do much to hurt. So he’s a safe choice on that dimension. And he has plenty of government experience, as Trump says he needs. So Pence helps solve for Trump’s lack of experience. But those effects are all marginal

What matters with Pence is how he looks in terms of contrast with Trump. The best choice for VP is someone who looks like a boring, washed-out version of the top of the ticket. You need that contrast to remind people that the top of the ticket is truly special.

Pence is an experienced politician. But you stand him next to Trump and he sort of disappears. The contrast persuades you – subconsciously – that Trump is better than an experienced politician. That’s totally irrational, and totally effective.

What’s Clinton’s biggest strength? Experience. How does Trump compare to the experienced politician on his own ticket? Better, at least in the public’s irrational way of thinking. So if Clinton and Pence are both experienced, and you prefer Trump over Pence, you somewhat automatically extend that thinking to Clinton – with all of her boring experience – and imagine her to be a weak version of Trump as well.

Replace Trump and Pence with Reagan and Bush-the-elder to see how well this contrast-based persuasion works.

And think of Obama picking Biden. It’s all the same persuasion trick. You want the VP to be the solid, uninteresting version of whoever is at the top of the ticket.

Now imagine if Trump had picked Gingrich for his VP running mate. Gingrich would make Trump look less experienced, less informed, and less intelligent by contrast. That’s a bad formula for winning. Gingrich is simply too interesting.

And after Gingrich came out in favor of testing Muslims for loyalty to Sharia law, he became the worst possible choice for Trump’s running mate. Trump is trying to move to the middle for the general election. Gingrich is running hard in the opposite direction. If Gingrich is not on the ticket, his radical-sounding ideas create an anchor that actually makes Trump look moderate by comparison. But if Gingrich had been a running mate, it would make a Trump presidency look scarier than it already is. And fear is Clinton’s best weapon against Trump. So no matter what Trump planned a week ago, Gingrich took himself out of the running with his recent comments about testing Muslims. Still, I expect Gingrich to be part of a Trump administration somehow.

No matter what you think of Pence, he was the right choice on the dimension of persuasion. And that’s the only dimension that will matter here. Trump just needs to stay boring until November to win. Pence can do that. Gingrich probably could not.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1474951378 ... ng-mosques

[maraxus2]

POTUS plays no part in Amending the constitution anymore than I do, so that was a really dumb thing to say on her part.

No, but the President does have slightly more influence on national politics than you. Maybe that had something to do with it?

The constitutional amendment is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but amending the constitution to overturn Citizens is a pretty mainstream Democratic position. It was right and proper for her to say that.

And how will that be accomplished in her first 30 days? There's a difference in demanding an amendment and promising it will be done in 30 days. It's shit like that that make voters apathetic.

Jesus Christ Flagg, she said she'd *call* for an amendment and have her supporters in Congress introduce it, not that it would be passed into law. The whole point is that it gives the Dem base something to rally around and fleshes out a vague policy proposal into something a bit more meaty.

y u trolling on this?

Also, apparently Trump's definitely first choice Veep nominee Mike Pence issued a press release wherein he revealed that Mulan was actually liberal propaganda

Mike Pence Argued In An Op-Ed That Disney’s “Mulan” Was Liberal Propaganda
“Obviously, this is Walt Disney’s attempt to add childhood expectation to the cultural debate over the role of women in the military,” Pence wrote. Obviously.

posted on Jul. 17, 2016, at 11:48 a.m.
Andrew Kaczynski

When Donald Trump’s running mate Mike Pence was a talk radio show host in Indiana, he wrote an op-ed declaring the film Mulan was an attempt by some “mischievous liberal” at Disney to influence the debate over women in the military.

The 1999 op-ed ran on a website for Pence’s radio program that was uncovered by BuzzFeed News.

“Despite her delicate features and voice, Disney expects us to believe that Mulan’s ingenuity and courage were enough to carry her to military success on an equal basis with her cloddish cohorts,” wrote Pence. “Obviously, this is Walt Disney’s attempt to add childhood expectation to the cultural debate over the role of women in the military.”

“I suspect that some mischievous liberal at Disney assumes that Mulan’s story will cause a quiet change in the next generation’s attitude about women in combat and they just might be right,” Pence continued. “(Just think about how often we think of Bambi every time the subject of deer hunting comes into the mainstream media debate.)”

Disney’s film is based on the 6th century Ballad of Mulan.

Pence argues Mulan’s romance with a superior officer proved women cannot serve in the military.

“It is instructive that even in the Disney film, young Ms. Mulan falls in love with her superior officer! Me thinks the politically correct Disney types completely missed the irony of this part of the story,” writes Pence. “They likely added it because it added realism with which the viewer could identify with the characters. You see, now stay with me on this, many young men find many young women to be attractive sexually. Many young women find many young men to be attractive sexually. Put them together, in close quarters, for long periods of time, and things will get interesting. Just like they eventually did for young Mulan. Moral of story: women in military, bad idea.”

Here’s the full text and a picture of the column on the site:

Just spent a memorable Fathers Day, like so many other all American Hoosier dads, with my kids at the new Disney film entitled, “Mulan”. For those who have not yet been victimized by the McDonald’s induced hysteria over this film, Mulan is a fictional account of a delicate girl of the same name who surreptitiously takes her fathers place in the Chinese army in one of their ancient wars against the Huns. Despite her delicate features and voice, Disney expects us to believe that Mulan’s ingenuity and courage were enough to carry her to military success on an equal basis with her cloddish cohorts. Obviously, this is Walt Disney’s attempt to add childhood expectation to the cultural debate over the role of women in the military. I suspect that some mischievous liberal at Disney assumes that Mulan’s story will cause a quiet change in the next generation’s attitude about women in combat and they just might be right. (Just think about how often we think of Bambi every time the subject of deer hunting comes into the mainstream media debate.)

The only problem with this liberal hope is the reality which intrudes on the Disney ideal from the mornings headlines. From the original “Tailhook” scandal involving scores of high ranking navy fighter pilots who molested subordinate women to the latest travesty at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the hard truth of our experiment with gender integration is that is has been an almost complete disaster for the military and for many of the individual women involved. When Indiana Congressman Steve Buyer was appointed to investigate the Aberdeen mess, he shocked the public with the revelation that young, nubile, 18 year old men and women were actually being HOUSED together during basic training. Whatever bone head came up with this idea should be run out of this man’s Army before sundown. Housing, in close quarters, young men and women (in some cases married to non-military personnel) at the height of their physical and sexual potential is the height of stupidity. It is instructive that even in the Disney film, young Ms. Mulan falls in love with her superior officer! Me thinks the politically correct Disney types completely missed the irony of this part of the story. They likely added it because it added realism with which the viewer could identify with the characters. You see, now stay with me on this, many young men find many young women to be attractive sexually. Many young women find many young men to be attractive sexually. Put them together, in close quarters, for long periods of time, and things will get interesting. Just like they eventually did for young Mulan. Moral of story: women in military, bad idea.

Snip dilbert wank

Who gives a fuck what Scott Adams thinks about anything?

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is absolutely tragic to see Bernie's Facebook posts overrun with a torrent of delusional and fanatical fools condemning Sanders, posting conspiracy theories, and saying that they'll vote for Jill Stein or even Trump because Sanders endorsed Clinton.

Bernie Sanders has worked his whole life for progressive causes, and endorsed Hillary Clinton despite their differences because it was the best way to accomplish something, rather than throw everything away for the sake of spite, wishful thinking, or an empty gesture. He deserves better than this from his own supporters.

And the thing is, I know that these nut bags are a minority. But they are the most vocal group, and I very much fear that they will become the face of progressivism and, in the eyes of the public, validate every smear ever used against Sanders and his supporters.

I particularly loath "Bernie or Trump" people (thankfully rare though they are). I loath them, in a way, even more than straight-up Trump supporters. Trump supporters might be bigots, or even Nazis (or simply deluded fools), but they are true to what they are. Whereas "Bernie or Trump" people wear a mask of progressivism and then betray it like the two-faced assholes that they are.

Edit: I'll also say that if you are a progressive, a socialist, or a Sanders voter, you have a God damn responsibility to call these people out as much as you do Trump supporters. The greatest danger to any movement is being hijacked by its own extremist fringe, as the fate of the Republican Party in recent years should tell us.

Is discussing Bernie Sanders relavent in any way to the 2016 election since he's dropped out and endorsed his former opponent? I mean I don't really care what butthurt Sanders supporters are saying on FB.

It is still on-topic for this thread because it is politically important.

[Grumman]

Also, apparently Trump's definitely first choice Veep nominee Mike Pence issued a press release wherein he revealed that Mulan was actually liberal propaganda

They built a wall and made Arab trade caravans pay for it. What more does he fucking want?

[The Romulan Republic]

So the clown/Nazi convention begins today.

And right off the bat, Steven Colbert gave us some fine spectacle by crashing the convention, going up on stage uninvited, and mocking Republicans and Trump before getting removed by security. Really.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/s ... ape-911887

"I know I'm not supposed to be up here, but let's be honest, neither is Donald Trump," the 'Late Show' host can be heard saying before being dragged away by security.
Stephen Colbert is still hours away from airing his first live Late Show tied to the 2016 Republican National Convention but already footage of one of his sketches from this year's event has popped up online.

Colbert, as his version of The Hunger Games' Caesar Flickerman, did a "Hungry for Power Games" bit from the RNC stage, seemingly for his show.

Video shot on the convention floor and posted on YouTube features Colbert in his Caesar Flickerman garb, seemingly speaking about presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

"He has formed an alliance with Indiana governor Mike Pence," Colbert says in character before letting his head fall forward as if he suddenly went to sleep. "Sorry I blacked out there for a moment."

In recent days, Colbert has regularly pretended to fall asleep when mentioning Pence's name on his show.

He then bangs a gavel, launching the "2016 Republican Hungry for Power Games."=-

READ MORE Jon Stewart to Join Stephen Colbert on 'The Late Show' for the Republican National Convention
With that someone grabs Colbert's elbow and struggles to get him off stage as Colbert can be heard saying, "I know I'm not supposed to be up here, but let's be honest, neither is Donald Trump."

Colbert is broadcasting four nights of live shows this week, tied to the RNC, and next week, tied to the Democratic National Convention, but all of them will be from the Late Show's home base of New York's Ed Sullivan Theater.

It seems, though, that Colbert couldn't stay away from Cleveland, stopping by over the weekend to tape at least the "Hungry for Power Games" bit. His Twitter account also posted a photo of him at the "center of power" for the convention.


Colbert's guests for Monday's show include Zoe Saldana, Jennifer Saunders and Ron Suskind as well as a special appearance by Late Show executive producer Jon Stewart, news of which first surfaced at the end of last week. It's unclear, though, what role Stewart will play on tonight's show.

[Simon_Jester]

Snip dilbert wank

Who gives a fuck what Scott Adams thinks about anything?

Dammit you had to go and make me agree with cosmicalstorm...

Seriously, the article itself isn't without merit in this case. Adams correctly points out that Trump isn't going to want a vice presidential candidate who makes him look bad, and that Pence was likely selected with this in mind. It doesn't matter that Adams has a wealth of false or unreasonable opinions, and it doesn't particularly matter that Adams isn't an experienced political commentator. This particular point isn't that bad.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seriously, the article itself isn't without merit in this case. Adams correctly points out that Trump isn't going to want a vice presidential candidate who makes him look bad, and that Pence was likely selected with this in mind. It doesn't matter that Adams has a wealth of false or unreasonable opinions, and it doesn't particularly matter that Adams isn't an experienced political commentator. This particular point isn't that bad.

Yeah, I mean, on point of principle I do agree that "Who the fuck cares what Scott Adams thinks?" is a fairly good philosophy to adhere to, but that particular article was actually surprisingly insightful and cogent. I was shocked, actually; given both who posted it and the nature of other Scott Adams social/political commentaries I've seen quoted, I was expecting it to be a bunch of meaningless drivel. But it actually was a pretty on-point analysis of the VP pick specifically, regardless of what Adams himself thinks of him or any of the other candidates.

[Simon_Jester]

I hope Colbert doesn't get in an excessive amount of trouble over the incident a few posts ago...

[Elheru Aran]

I hope Colbert doesn't get in an excessive amount of trouble over the incident a few posts ago...

It seems to have been largely prearranged, and his show is proceeding as scheduled from what I understand, so I suspect he did it with the collusion of event staff and Republican leadership. They know he's mocking them, they don't particularly care because they know whatever he can say isn't going to be nearly as bad as Trump is going to be for the whole party in general.

[Simon_Jester]

It would actually be hilarious if RNC leadership frustrated by the sheer bizarreness of Trump's campaign deliberately hired Colbert to make fun of him.

[The Romulan Republic]

I hope Colbert doesn't get in an excessive amount of trouble over the incident a few posts ago...

It seems to have been largely prearranged, and his show is proceeding as scheduled from what I understand, so I suspect he did it with the collusion of event staff and Republican leadership. They know he's mocking them, they don't particularly care because they know whatever he can say isn't going to be nearly as bad as Trump is going to be for the whole party in general.

So your theory is that the Republican Party knows its fucked and basically doesn't give a shit any more?

[Simon_Jester]

My wouldn't-it-be-funny hypothesis is that the leadership responsible for organizing the convention, specifically, knows it's at least temporarily fucked, and wants to call attention to the fact in hopes of not totally destroying their brand reputation in the aftermath of a likely-failed Trump campaign or (worse yet for them) an even more failed Trump administration.

Alternatively, they stopped giving a shit.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.nydailynews.com/politics/whi ... -1.2714148

This year’s RNC may be a grand old segregated party.

Republican National Convention organizers are scrambling to replace signs labeling a bank of elevators the “white elevators.”

The Jim Crow-esque signs were seen in Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena, where thousands of Republican delegates, politicians and supporters are expected to formally nominate bombastic businessman Donald Trump as their party’s presidential pick this week.

Republican National Convention organizersput up signs labeling a bank of elevators as "white," unintentionally evoking memories of segregation.
Republican National Convention organizersput up signs labeling a bank of elevators as "white," unintentionally evoking memories of segregation. (GETTY)
Byron Tau, a Wall Street Journal reporter who first spotted the signs, said RNC staffers were replacing them “for obvious reasons.”

RNC speaker lineup features Trump’s kids — but no Palin, no Pence
It’s unclear who vetted the signs or why they were hung in the first place. Neither RNC organizers nor Trump’s campaign immediately responded to the Daily News’ request for further comment.


The “white” banners are eerily similar to the signs that once kept America segregated: Everything from bathrooms to restaurant entrances were labeled for “white” and “colored” use until segregation was abolished in 1964.

Earlier this year, David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, backed the real estate mogul, telling his white, bigoted followers that not voting for trump was “treason to your heritage.” Trump eventually disavowed the endorsment — but only after repeatedly refusing to, claiming he didn’t know anything about the white supremacist group.

Not Released (NR)
The RNC kicks off at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, Monday. (DOMINICK REUTER/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
The RNC kicks off Monday and runs through Thursday night, when Trump is expected to speak as he formally accepts the party’s nomination.

ACLU sues Cleveland over RNC protester free-speech rights
During the convention's four days, the party will vote on its platform, a draft of which calls for building Trump’s proposed Mexico-U.S. border wall, putting Bibles in public schools and cracking down on the “public health crisis” that is pornography. Delegates will also vote on Trump’s candidacy, potentially making the presumptive GOP nominee the official party pick.

Speakers include four people Trump beat out during the primary season: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and retired brain surgeon Ben Carson. At least six Trumps will also make speeches: The Donald himself, his wife, Melania and four of his kids.

[Grumman]

Please tell me you didn't fall for such an obvious false flag attack, TRR.

[Mr Bean]

Please tell me you didn't fall for such an obvious false flag attack, TRR.

If it were true they would have pictures since the RNC is open to all media groups. Even the Young Turks are there on press badges so if TRR story was true it would be... kinda easy to verify.