arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The problem with the democratic party is simple. Most people who can read and write have figured out that stock market highs and economic growth doesn't mean better standard of living for them. While the banks are raking in profits the working class is still mired in the recession and trying to figure out WTF happened to their party. If this party cant be honest about its coziness with big banks it will continue to lose support.
Hillary was the role model for everything wrong with this party now. Bring back the left wing or die.

Why then not to rename Democratic into Socialist?
Time to stop misleading the people.

Mislead? Bernie Sanders is a socialist and I would have given up my left arm to see him elected. And I am proud of it. Get it? Let me try that in English again - I am a socialist and I'll scream it from the rooftops. You have a problem with that? I would really like to tell you exactly what you can do with it.

Just because you grew up in Russia and you are not smart enough to tell the difference between communism, socialism and corrupt government doesn't give you the right to come here and call other people out for being misleading. GTFO

I get it.
So why you are with this hack-job Democrats who are in fact the party of large capital?
US has Socialist and Communist parties.
Be a man and support them not pretenders.
You do not need to be smart to see where the wind is blowing.
Sorry to ruin your utopian dream - socialism is dead together with hundred of millions victims it slaughtered for nothing.

I've yet to find a country with more than 20 occupants where socialism works. Again huge difference between socialism in Denmark vs socialism in Brazil, Argentina & Venezuela. Doesn't work in countries approaching half a billion occupants. Infrastructure crumbles and corruption rises. You think out current health care sucks? Try waiting on line for a year for a Chest X-ray. Now if you tell me you've lived in a successful high density socialist country I will take take your word but only if you've lived it. I have a huge family in South America. Cousins ranging from 15-60yrs old and theyve been living in despair. Fortunately things have slowly improved after these socialist leaders were all impeached

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The problem with the democratic party is simple. Most people who can read and write have figured out that stock market highs and economic growth doesn't mean better standard of living for them. While the banks are raking in profits the working class is still mired in the recession and trying to figure out WTF happened to their party. If this party cant be honest about its coziness with big banks it will continue to lose support.
Hillary was the role model for everything wrong with this party now. Bring back the left wing or die.

Why then not to rename Democratic into Socialist?
Time to stop misleading the people.

Mislead? Bernie Sanders is a socialist and I would have given up my left arm to see him elected. And I am proud of it. Get it? Let me try that in English again - I am a socialist and I'll scream it from the rooftops. You have a problem with that? I would really like to tell you exactly what you can do with it.

Just because you grew up in Russia and you are not smart enough to tell the difference between communism, socialism and corrupt government doesn't give you the right to come here and call other people out for being misleading. GTFO

I get it.
So why you are with this hack-job Democrats who are in fact the party of large capital?
US has Socialist and Communist parties.
Be a man and support them not pretenders.
You do not need to be smart to see where the wind is blowing.
Sorry to ruin your utopian dream - socialism is dead together with hundred of millions victims it slaughtered for nothing.

And where did you see me support this hack-job Democrats again? Please point out exactly what I have said in support of them???

Socialism is a philosophy not an economical model and no you don't get it, you never have. But I have no intention of discussing it with you, you are clearly to brainwashed against it to even comprehend what is being said.

It is not a realistic model. The funds won't magically appear to support $319 million Americans without crippling our economy and infrastructure.

Briggs is right. Give Trump a chance. No one will be complaining when their payments increase and they no longer need to work 2-3 jobs to support their families. It's gotten to the point where you can't even afford children. 1 child is a huge financial burden for most Americans let alone 2 unless you are covered under social programs where your benefits increase with each child. That's how the poor and unemployed with 3-5 children get by. Someone without any say is supporting them

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The problem with the democratic party is simple. Most people who can read and write have figured out that stock market highs and economic growth doesn't mean better standard of living for them. While the banks are raking in profits the working class is still mired in the recession and trying to figure out WTF happened to their party. If this party cant be honest about its coziness with big banks it will continue to lose support.
Hillary was the role model for everything wrong with this party now. Bring back the left wing or die.

Why then not to rename Democratic into Socialist?
Time to stop misleading the people.

Mislead? Bernie Sanders is a socialist and I would have given up my left arm to see him elected. And I am proud of it. Get it? Let me try that in English again - I am a socialist and I'll scream it from the rooftops. You have a problem with that? I would really like to tell you exactly what you can do with it.

Just because you grew up in Russia and you are not smart enough to tell the difference between communism, socialism and corrupt government doesn't give you the right to come here and call other people out for being misleading. GTFO

I get it.
So why you are with this hack-job Democrats who are in fact the party of large capital?
US has Socialist and Communist parties.
Be a man and support them not pretenders.
You do not need to be smart to see where the wind is blowing.
Sorry to ruin your utopian dream - socialism is dead together with hundred of millions victims it slaughtered for nothing.

And where did you see me support this hack-job Democrats again? Please point out exactly what I have said in support of them???

Socialism is a philosophy not an economical model and no you don't get it, you never have. But I have no intention of discussing it with you, you are clearly to brainwashed against it to even comprehend what is being said.

You said that you supporting Berny and Co and they are left wing Dems.
I studied socialism philosophy in school and college as it was mandatory subjects in USSR.
USSR had the best implementation of Socialism on every level.
Lenin started it, Stalin enhanced it, and Breznev and Co improved it to its logical conclusion.
Its when no one has anything and nobody wants anything. Then the whole thing fail like house of cards.
Unfortunately people only can learn on their own misfortunes and Americans so far were saved from this deadly disease.
But virus is still circulating.

Right it crippled the workplace. Which is what's happening here. Employees do just enough to keep their jobs. No one excels. The opportunity to elevate is no longer there. I can't believe Hillary had the nerve to talk about glass ceilings

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The problem with the democratic party is simple. Most people who can read and write have figured out that stock market highs and economic growth doesn't mean better standard of living for them. While the banks are raking in profits the working class is still mired in the recession and trying to figure out WTF happened to their party. If this party cant be honest about its coziness with big banks it will continue to lose support.
Hillary was the role model for everything wrong with this party now. Bring back the left wing or die.

Why then not to rename Democratic into Socialist?
Time to stop misleading the people.

Mislead? Bernie Sanders is a socialist and I would have given up my left arm to see him elected. And I am proud of it. Get it? Let me try that in English again - I am a socialist and I'll scream it from the rooftops. You have a problem with that? I would really like to tell you exactly what you can do with it.

Just because you grew up in Russia and you are not smart enough to tell the difference between communism, socialism and corrupt government doesn't give you the right to come here and call other people out for being misleading. GTFO

I get it.
So why you are with this hack-job Democrats who are in fact the party of large capital?
US has Socialist and Communist parties.
Be a man and support them not pretenders.
You do not need to be smart to see where the wind is blowing.
Sorry to ruin your utopian dream - socialism is dead together with hundred of millions victims it slaughtered for nothing.

And where did you see me support this hack-job Democrats again? Please point out exactly what I have said in support of them???

Socialism is a philosophy not an economical model and no you don't get it, you never have. But I have no intention of discussing it with you, you are clearly to brainwashed against it to even comprehend what is being said.

You said that you supporting Berny and Co and they are left wing Dems.
I studied socialism philosophy in school and college as it was mandatory subjects in USSR.
USSR had the best implementation of Socialism on every level.
Lenin started it, Stalin enhanced it, and Breznev and Co improved it to its logical conclusion.
Its when no one has anything and nobody wants anything. Then the whole thing fail like house of cards.
Unfortunately people only can learn on their own misfortunes and Americans so far were saved from this deadly disease.
But virus is still circulating.

Let's try this yet again in English - Bernie Sanders is a socialist he ran for president and campaigned as a socialist, so is Elizabeth Warren THAT is why I support them.

Now go and look at what I have said about the non socialist centrist component of the democratic party. I supported Obama and he is a Centrist but he is an honest person who did his best. I have systematically torn down everything Bill and Hillary Clinton stand for. They are right wing filth that have infiltrated the party and moved it further and further right.

You didn't study Socialism, you studied propaganda. There is a difference. Albert fukking Einstein defended socialism and I'll take his IQ and understanding of the world over yours. Other questions?

Was Albert Eistein, how ever many years ago, defending socialism for
$319 million Americans?

gunsnewing wrote:

holfresh wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:So Hillary got about four hundred thousand more votes than Donald but lost the electoral college. You might wonder what was Donald Trump's position on the electoral college before this election? In 2012 he said this:

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-updates-on-the-2016-election-voting-and-race-results/trump-in-2012-the-electoral-college-is-a-disaster-for-a-democracy/

I'm no Trump fan, but the rules are the rules. Who cares what Trump said about the electoral college in 2012?

The rules were made 240 years ago and are absolete today..One man, one vote, or have the electoral college more reflective of the population..

Founding fathers thought it was ok to have slaves and have sex with them as part of their free will..We kind of figured out this was a dumb idea..

The reason we have the electoral I'm assuming is so densely populated states like California, New York, Florida, Chicago & NJ can't represent the entire country. There are 40+ other states that
up America and carry the weight. You one the biggest reasons Trump won is because Randy in rural Pennsylvania is in despair because he can no longer support his own family. Let alone millions of Californians and their social needs.

Now you see why we have the electorate? Of course Hillary has wanted to abolish the electorate since 2000. She and the rest of the old regime's policies have flooded our big cities with people who can't support themselves from all parts of the globe. Bought their votes with free mortadella sandwiches while brainwashing and programming children and young Americans to defend their policies by telling them what is right or wrong.

Thanks for the civics lesson...Since you have it figured out, you can read the following for extra credit...

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery

As Americans await the quadrennial running of the presidential obstacle course now known as the Electoral College, it’s worth remembering why we have this odd political contraption in the first place. After all, state governors in all 50 states are elected by popular vote; why not do the same for the governor of all states, a.k.a. the president? The quirks of the Electoral College system were exposed this week when Donald Trump secured the presidency with an Electoral College majority, even as Hillary Clinton took a narrow lead in the popular vote.

Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.

One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.

Although the Philadelphia framers did not anticipate the rise of a system of national presidential parties, the 12th Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later— was framed with such a party system in mind, in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties—Federalists led by John Adams and Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson—took shape and squared off. Jefferson ultimately prevailed, but only after an extended crisis triggered by several glitches in the Framers’ electoral machinery. In particular, Republican electors had no formal way to designate that they wanted Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president rather than vice versa. Some politicians then tried to exploit the resulting confusion.

Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century.

smackeddog wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The problem with the democratic party is simple. Most people who can read and write have figured out that stock market highs and economic growth doesn't mean better standard of living for them. While the banks are raking in profits the working class is still mired in the recession and trying to figure out WTF happened to their party. If this party cant be honest about its coziness with big banks it will continue to lose support.
Hillary was the role model for everything wrong with this party now. Bring back the left wing or die.

Why then not to rename Democratic into Socialist?
Time to stop misleading the people.

Mislead? Bernie Sanders is a socialist and I would have given up my left arm to see him elected. And I am proud of it. Get it? Let me try that in English again - I am a socialist and I'll scream it from the rooftops. You have a problem with that? I would really like to tell you exactly what you can do with it.

Just because you grew up in Russia and you are not smart enough to tell the difference between communism, socialism and corrupt government doesn't give you the right to come here and call other people out for being misleading. GTFO

I get it.
So why you are with this hack-job Democrats who are in fact the party of large capital?
US has Socialist and Communist parties.
Be a man and support them not pretenders.
You do not need to be smart to see where the wind is blowing.
Sorry to ruin your utopian dream - socialism is dead together with hundred of millions victims it slaughtered for nothing.

And where did you see me support this hack-job Democrats again? Please point out exactly what I have said in support of them???

Socialism is a philosophy not an economical model and no you don't get it, you never have. But I have no intention of discussing it with you, you are clearly to brainwashed against it to even comprehend what is being said.

You said that you supporting Berny and Co and they are left wing Dems.
I studied socialism philosophy in school and college as it was mandatory subjects in USSR.
USSR had the best implementation of Socialism on every level.
Lenin started it, Stalin enhanced it, and Breznev and Co improved it to its logical conclusion.
Its when no one has anything and nobody wants anything. Then the whole thing fail like house of cards.
Unfortunately people only can learn on their own misfortunes and Americans so far were saved from this deadly disease.
But virus is still circulating.

This is cold war indoctrination/propaganda thinking- there is no black and white, its not full capitalism or full soviet socialism- there are zillions of different types of socialism and there are zillion different levels of state intervention on the economy (that don't even equate toU socialism)- why rob yourself of options? The free market extremists always cry soviet communism whenever anyone proposes any level of intervention- its ridiculous, they just do it to deter anything other than allowing them to get as rich as possible with as little accountability as option. As a result you have morons railing against health care coverage, that they otherwise wouldn't have, that will stop them dying because its 'communism'!

Again its easier said when you are on the outside looking in. In the comfort of the United States of America. Arkrud lived it. I have a huge family living through it now.

Some Americans speak like they have experienced socialism when in reality you never have. Bernie is liked for much of the same reasons Trump is liked. Anti-establishment and anti-corruption. Bernie and Trump applaud each other on their common ground but that alone is not socialism. There's more to it than social and racial equality as well

gunsnewing wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Horrified about the results, but looking at the numbers - it wasn't more people voting for Trump. It was voters who came out for Obama staying away from Clinton. Trump got fewer votes than Romney(12) and McCain(08) - but the problem is so did Clinton.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ckilpatrick/status/796773079179554816

Was going to post this from home tonight, you beat me to it. It really shows how this was more of a election that Clinton lost than one Trump won. Not trying to take anything away from him. He delivered what he promised and his campaign managed this much better on fewer resources against noy one but two establishments

That chart is a little deceiving in that you're comparing Clinton to a fairly popular Obama and Trump to a pretty unlikable Romney (yet another republican candidate even people in his own party didn't like). So the bar was significantly lower for Trump to hurdle Romney.

But I agree with your premise, Romney got 60.9 million votes compared to 59.8 million for Trump, pretty much a wash. However 65.9 million for Obama versus 60.1 million for Clinton is a staggering drop off. One thing I said on this thread, Trump couldn't win this election, but Clinton could lose it and obviously that's what happened.

Think about it this way - she ran for the same platform, it was widely touted as Obama's third term. Can we just acknowledge that she was a horrible candidate with so much personal baggage that she couldn't win even when the bar was lowered from what you called an unlikable candidate in Romney. Trump got less votes than Romney - so he was even less likeable. The problem here is obvious and it's Hillary.

Extremely debatable that Trump is less likable than Romney. Even Nix is posting about what Trump is going to do for the elite, without any factual basis my I add, is exactly what Romney would've done. Romney would be no different than past republican Presidents. Matter of fact his policies would destroy the average and poor Americans at the hands of the elite

For this discussion Welpee and I were using total votes received as the yardstick for likeability and I think it's a much better yardstick than polls and projections. He got less total votes than Romney and is thus less likeable. Now the same data also showed he was better like than Romney across categories, but he gained in other groups he lis the all that and then sone with white women.

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552

ARE YOU F CKING KIDDING ME?

what a f cking loser. lol.

This guy is going to be the most hyper-sensitive president in history. Not a good attribute for someone who can give the order for mass killings.

smackeddog wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The problem with the democratic party is simple. Most people who can read and write have figured out that stock market highs and economic growth doesn't mean better standard of living for them. While the banks are raking in profits the working class is still mired in the recession and trying to figure out WTF happened to their party. If this party cant be honest about its coziness with big banks it will continue to lose support.
Hillary was the role model for everything wrong with this party now. Bring back the left wing or die.

Why then not to rename Democratic into Socialist?
Time to stop misleading the people.

Mislead? Bernie Sanders is a socialist and I would have given up my left arm to see him elected. And I am proud of it. Get it? Let me try that in English again - I am a socialist and I'll scream it from the rooftops. You have a problem with that? I would really like to tell you exactly what you can do with it.

Just because you grew up in Russia and you are not smart enough to tell the difference between communism, socialism and corrupt government doesn't give you the right to come here and call other people out for being misleading. GTFO

I get it.
So why you are with this hack-job Democrats who are in fact the party of large capital?
US has Socialist and Communist parties.
Be a man and support them not pretenders.
You do not need to be smart to see where the wind is blowing.
Sorry to ruin your utopian dream - socialism is dead together with hundred of millions victims it slaughtered for nothing.

And where did you see me support this hack-job Democrats again? Please point out exactly what I have said in support of them???

Socialism is a philosophy not an economical model and no you don't get it, you never have. But I have no intention of discussing it with you, you are clearly to brainwashed against it to even comprehend what is being said.

You said that you supporting Berny and Co and they are left wing Dems.
I studied socialism philosophy in school and college as it was mandatory subjects in USSR.
USSR had the best implementation of Socialism on every level.
Lenin started it, Stalin enhanced it, and Breznev and Co improved it to its logical conclusion.
Its when no one has anything and nobody wants anything. Then the whole thing fail like house of cards.
Unfortunately people only can learn on their own misfortunes and Americans so far were saved from this deadly disease.
But virus is still circulating.

This is cold war indoctrination/propaganda thinking- there is no black and white, its not full capitalism or full soviet socialism- there are zillions of different types of socialism and there are zillion different levels of state intervention on the economy (that don't even equate to socialism)- why rob yourself of options? The free market extremists always cry soviet communism whenever anyone proposes any level of intervention- its ridiculous, they just do it to deter anything other than allowing them to get as rich as possible with as little accountability as option. As a result you have morons railing against health care coverage, that they otherwise wouldn't have, that will stop them dying because its 'communism'!

And these guys are living examples of how well the cold war indoctrination worked and is still working.

But ask these brilliant defenders of capitalism to provide data on how it has made middle class lives better and you get crickets.

crzymdups wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:So Hillary got about four hundred thousand more votes than Donald but lost the electoral college. You might wonder what was Donald Trump's position on the electoral college before this election? In 2012 he said this:

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-updates-on-the-2016-election-voting-and-race-results/trump-in-2012-the-electoral-college-is-a-disaster-for-a-democracy/

I'm no Trump fan, but the rules are the rules. Who cares what Trump said about the electoral college in 2012?

Welpee wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552

ARE YOU F CKING KIDDING ME?

what a f cking loser. lol.

The protesters are being "unfair to him" (in my best whiny voice), meanwhile wikileaks only hacked people associated with Dems and that was OK and he encouraged more?

This guy is going to be the most hyper-sensitive president in history. Not a good attribute for someone who can give the order for mass killings.

It's not fair. There was a fair election in which the rules have been well laid out for decades. So it seems the protesters went to an election only willing to accept it if they won.