[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?
Author Thread
Welpee
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

11/12/2016  2:18 PM
Vmart wrote:
Welpee wrote:
Vmart wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently Trump backpedaled his criticism of the protesters too

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!

I hope Trump listens to the voices of the 67 million people who voted against him, not just the 60 million who voted for him.

Those protesters are not the voice of 67 million. If they were you would be out there. These are people who aren't scared or anything of that sort. They are just upset that their candidate lost and have taken to the streets. That seems to be the motto for today's society when something happens let's take to the streets. There are rules and one of them is the right to demonstrate peacefully. They can do so if they are doing so peacefully.

There are people who are paid to do this. These are paid rallies. You don't see Obama making statements to calm the situation or anyone from DNC. They seem to relish what is going on. What you have forgotten and chose to forget is that everyone is protected by the constitution of the United States and it is bigger than the President of the United States.

I don't recall anyone taking to the streets when Kerry lost or when Gore lost (and that would be totally justifiable). This is more than about being mad that their candidate lost and you do these folks a total disservice trying to minimize and marginalize their anger. They are mad because a truly despicable person was elected president of their country. Not someone they just disagree with philosophically, someone they rightly view as a bigot, racist, misogynist, con man, etc.

Now, like I've said before, they should've directed this energy to getting more Dems to vote in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. But please don't insult these people by trying to minimize their feeling as just sour grapes.

Minimize? Disservice? Wow. This is more a result of brain warping that the DNC has done. For some reason DNC has become synonymous with Liberalism with every movement possible. Now everyone is afraid of the big bad wolf. People are protected under the constitution of the United States of America. We are Americans first. I understand a protest when something has happened but a result of an election is not a reason to protest. This is the society we live in where everyone gets what they want. When in reality people don't always get what they want. People need to accept it move on with their lives.

I'm not sure why you quoted me in your post because what you wrote isn't remotely related to anything I said. Just regurgitated talked points.
AUTOADVERT
markvmc
Posts: 21996
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2008
Member: #1797

11/12/2016  2:43 PM
Of course, Republicans would never advocate protest at losing an election.

http://bgr.com/2016/11/09/trump-twitter-obama-election/

"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!" Donald Trump, Nov 6th, 2012.

reub
Posts: 21836
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2016
Member: #6227

11/12/2016  4:13 PM
Where is Hillary? She was recently seen on a hiking trail bumping into a random woman with a baby and taking a selfie with her. Of course it turns out that that same woman has held fundraisers for her in the past. Small world!
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
11/12/2016  5:42 PM
Vmart wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Vmart wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently Trump backpedaled his criticism of the protesters too

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!

I hope Trump listens to the voices of the 67 million people who voted against him, not just the 60 million who voted for him.

Those protesters are not the voice of 67 million. If they were you would be out there. These are people who aren't scared or anything of that sort. They are just upset that their candidate lost and have taken to the streets. That seems to be the motto for today's society when something happens let's take to the streets. There are rules and one of them is the right to demonstrate peacefully. They can do so if they are doing so peacefully.

There are people who are paid to do this. These are paid rallies. You don't see Obama making statements to calm the situation or anyone from DNC. They seem to relish what is going on. What you have forgotten and chose to forget is that everyone is protected by the constitution of the United States and it is bigger than the President of the United States.


What's your evidence for that? It seems like you're just making stuff up.

Bonn I respect you but you are fanning the flames. This is a paid movement and there is vast evidence go look up George Soros and you will see that he is behind the protests. But like anything else you'll turn a blind eye to it. Just like how you couldn't wrap you head around how bad a candidate Hillary was. This requires an open mind which I feel you don't have.

There is endless information out there right now regarding this protest movement, at least in large part, being paid. Buses that only Soros would splurge on and all lined up. Soros probably needs to be careful with how much he does as I think the whole DNC and connected "parts" are being watched after those leaks showed corruption. For starters, but just google for more. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/11/daisy-luther/soros-funding-trump-protests/
Too early for the main stream media to touch it as we have learned regarding their recent behavior, as of say November 8th.

I honestly hope Trump is careful for the next 70 or so days, because IF his message is true, and I believe it/he was, then we are in for a cleaning and things will get ugly. We are basically talking about uprooting the corruption throughout the government. (Not sure to what extent they do that though as I think it might be too much for your average citizen to handle.). This globalist infiltration and infestation is what he is gonna clean up, and that is a JFK level cleanup. We all know what happened to him when he tried cleaning up more than they like.

Let's see how things go with his plan. TPP is dead, Canada wants to talk NAFTA, Russia wants to work with us, not a bad start for a President Elect.
All those emails from Wikileaks that basically solidified Trump getting in we be further investigated. We basically have strong strong evidence of corruption, basically illegal activity.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/08/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clintons-potential-criminal-violations-are-piling

What is to come is not about Trump, it will be about the deep corruption that has infiltrated our Government, Corporate Structure, etc.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
11/12/2016  5:46 PM
reub wrote:Where is Hillary? She was recently seen on a hiking trail bumping into a random woman with a baby and taking a selfie with her. Of course it turns out that that same woman has held fundraisers for her in the past. Small world!

Hiking trail? She needs to be helped up stairs to a point. Her health right now is still a concern but not where it was a few months back.
I do hope she is getting better.

But I heard that story of this coincidence. Sort of Like that "coincidence" with Bill at the airport meeting with Lorretta Lynch.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/12/2016  9:02 PM
Vmart wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently Trump backpedaled his criticism of the protesters too

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!

I hope Trump listens to the voices of the 67 million people who voted against him, not just the 60 million who voted for him.

Those protesters are not the voice of 67 million. If they were you would be out there. These are people who aren't scared or anything of that sort. They are just upset that their candidate lost and have taken to the streets. That seems to be the motto for today's society when something happens let's take to the streets. There are rules and one of them is the right to demonstrate peacefully. They can do so if they are doing so peacefully.

There are people who are paid to do this. These are paid rallies. You don't see Obama making statements to calm the situation or anyone from DNC. They seem to relish what is going on. What you have forgotten and chose to forget is that everyone is protected by the constitution of the United States and it is bigger than the President of the United States.


I don't know if they're paid or random people are just claiming to be making money in order to make the Democrats look bad. I haven't actually seen any paychecks or direct evidence of payment.

One point, though. I believe earlier you or Briggs said it doesn't make sense to protest when the rules of the election were clear and Trump got the most electoral votes. "Protester" is just the media's word. I would say these people are "demonstrators." The demonstrations are aimed at getting Trump to notice the voices of the 67 million who voted against him. I don't see what other means they have to get their voices heard.

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

11/12/2016  11:39 PM
So I take it the Republicans will drop all investigations of Hillary now and go back to saying what a great job she has done for this country..
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

11/13/2016  12:45 AM
The man bought up Rosie O'Donnell's name during a Presidential debate and still won...
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
11/13/2016  3:41 AM
Vmart wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently Trump backpedaled his criticism of the protesters too

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!

I hope Trump listens to the voices of the 67 million people who voted against him, not just the 60 million who voted for him.

Those protesters are not the voice of 67 million. If they were you would be out there. These are people who aren't scared or anything of that sort. They are just upset that their candidate lost and have taken to the streets. That seems to be the motto for today's society when something happens let's take to the streets. There are rules and one of them is the right to demonstrate peacefully. They can do so if they are doing so peacefully.

There are people who are paid to do this. These are paid rallies. You don't see Obama making statements to calm the situation or anyone from DNC. They seem to relish what is going on. What you have forgotten and chose to forget is that everyone is protected by the constitution of the United States and it is bigger than the President of the United States.

And Americans are watching and growing more furious. Trump hasn't even moved into the White House and I already can't wait to see him get re-elected in 4yrs

gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
11/13/2016  3:43 AM
BRIGGS wrote:Ah Pop STFU

So disgusting how these people feel they were " entitled" to having Hillary win. And some of these holier than thou remarks are obnoxious and whiny. why does Pops interpretation of the state of our union mean more than a 30 year old coal worker in Pennsylvania. That's right it doesn't. And thats the beauty of the system. Be a man and deal with it work with him rather than against. This is our system these are our laws and if you don't like it there are many more countries out there that night fit u better

If they let you in.

I know Canada and Denmark won't. Mexico might if you pledge your love to them

gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
11/13/2016  3:45 AM
Vmart wrote:
Welpee wrote:
Vmart wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently Trump backpedaled his criticism of the protesters too

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!

I hope Trump listens to the voices of the 67 million people who voted against him, not just the 60 million who voted for him.

Those protesters are not the voice of 67 million. If they were you would be out there. These are people who aren't scared or anything of that sort. They are just upset that their candidate lost and have taken to the streets. That seems to be the motto for today's society when something happens let's take to the streets. There are rules and one of them is the right to demonstrate peacefully. They can do so if they are doing so peacefully.

There are people who are paid to do this. These are paid rallies. You don't see Obama making statements to calm the situation or anyone from DNC. They seem to relish what is going on. What you have forgotten and chose to forget is that everyone is protected by the constitution of the United States and it is bigger than the President of the United States.

I don't recall anyone taking to the streets when Kerry lost or when Gore lost (and that would be totally justifiable). This is more than about being mad that their candidate lost and you do these folks a total disservice trying to minimize and marginalize their anger. They are mad because a truly despicable person was elected president of their country. Not someone they just disagree with philosophically, someone they rightly view as a bigot, racist, misogynist, con man, etc.

Now, like I've said before, they should've directed this energy to getting more Dems to vote in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. But please don't insult these people by trying to minimize their feeling as just sour grapes.

Minimize? Disservice? Wow. This is more a result of brain warping that the DNC has done. For some reason DNC has become synonymous with Liberalism with every movement possible. Now everyone is afraid of the big bad wolf. People are protected under the constitution of the United States of America. We are Americans first. I understand a protest when something has happened but a result of an election is not a reason to protest. This is the society we live in where everyone gets what they want. When in reality people don't always get what they want. People need to accept it move on with their lives.

Exactly the premise of protesting an American election is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Wish these crybabies would just leave

earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
11/13/2016  5:46 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/13/2016  6:51 AM
The more I look into it the more it does appear these protestors are being paid. Mostly from Soros related projects it seems, but too early to really say. But e.g. $1500 bucks a week per person is not cheap.

Some of the adds have been pulled, but not yet pulled:
https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/npo/5869093530.html
https://philadelphia.craigslist.org/npo/5862770802.html
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/npo/5873054541.html
https://lasvegas.craigslist.org/npo/5843751488.html

Pulled https://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/evg/5873600655.html, but screenshot was captured first:

Possible connection to Soros: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cnj9u/dallas_protests_are_paid_for_proof/

I'm sitting in a hotel in Frisco, TX watching NBC news 8. They just interviewed a protestor who had a unique name, so I googled him. His name was Odell Tannehill(http://m.imgur.com/gallery/RyHugQ8)
A quick Google of his name pulls up his Linked in profile which shows he works for Allied Barton, a security and janitorial firm. No big deal, right? Except I remembered that the SEIU is a HUGE union that focuses on enrolling janitors into their organization so I googled "Allied Barton SEIU". Then this popped up.
http://www.seiu26.org/files/2013/05/Local-26-Security-Officers-Downtown-2013-2016.pdf
SEIU/Soros connection: http://www.conservapedia.com/Service_Employees_International_Union
George Soros is funding these protests. Lock him up. If someone can find the clip I'm talking about that would be even better.
Edit: I tried calling wfaa to find out how to get a copy of tonight's clip but they are closed. I'm in a hotel so I didn't DVR it.
I stayed up to watch the replay. Pics will be up in a sec.
Here is a picture of the organizer, Dominique Alexander, but Odell was being interviewed right before his picture popped up so his name is still on the screen: http://m.imgur.com/qfJgDgJ

edit more links:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5gs4/attention_look_at_the_rioters_signs_all_premade/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5i0t/important_george_soros_is_the_main_instigator_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c6nl4/soros_behind_anti_trump_protest/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c6ag1/breaking_they_found_the_buses_dozens_lined_up/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5zwc/hillary_supporters_attack_and_beat_a_trump_voter/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7j60/did_hillary_incite_the_protests_to_those_who/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5rf7/breakingsoros_paying_antiprotestors/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5dwb/rachel_maddow_says_its_an_spontaneous_and_organic/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5hqy/can_we_please_start_referring_to_the_recent/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c4hsv/email_id_59125_sorospodesta_master_plan_how_to/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5op3/yes_trumpprotest_is_a_georgesoros_sponsored_event/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c529m/alert_soros_is_funding_all_of_the_protesting_he/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c5gy8/psa_all_the_protests_going_on_have_more/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c6be2/proof_is_in_the_signs_another_staged_protest_with/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c6bpj/how_odd_the_signs_at_trumpprotest_are_just_like/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c61i9/pedes_do_not_engage_in_the_trump_protests_its_a/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7r8w/scott_fovals_twitter_account_just_got_banned_for/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7q4b/something_very_very_important_please_read_proof/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7thz/whenever_theres_a_protest_against_trump_find_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c81hn/spontaneous_protests_yeah_right/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7yno/los_angeles_trumpprotest_positions_paid_for_by/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ydm/soros_paid_protestors_w_moveon_answercoalition/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c834m/calling_all_patriots_we_need_you_for_one_more_tour/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8bye/people_living_in_areas_where_rioting_is_taking/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c89tv/soros_is_still_out_there_writing_checks_he_will/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c89iy/they_found_the_buses_dozens_lined_up_just_blocks/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8qd7/found_at_one_of_the_protest_last_night_ummm_what/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ceg32/found_em_its_united_we_dream_get_this_to_the/

http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ceof4/help_wanted_ad_for_protesters_in_philly_shows_up/

http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ccygu/200_meal_to_protest_trump_los_angeles/

http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cey77/found_the_sol_guy_that_was_in_the_in_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cgdqg/soros_remember_the_yellow_anti_trump_signs/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ch8ut/portland_protest_leader_gregory_mckelvey_responds/

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cmmpd/upcoming_soros_protests_list_urgent_plan_counter/

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
11/13/2016  6:49 AM
^Old news
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
11/13/2016  6:53 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/13/2016  6:56 AM
gunsnewing wrote:^Old news

Lots of new links added, thx.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/13/2016  7:54 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/13/2016  8:03 AM
Welpee wrote:You guys are pretty gullible: http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/

How do we know it's true? If you could really get $3500 for this, I think millions of Americans would have shown up.
Snopes fact checker rates this as false. Anyone can post on the internet saying they were paid to protest if they want to make the protesters look bad.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out/

Anyone can post a craigslist ad too. It doesn't mean they're actually going to pay you. I've posted many things (not political) on Craigslist. You can actually post something, take a screen shot, and then delete it.

I'm not saying I know for sure any of this stuff is false but I'd want more direct, serious evidence than some guys on the internet saying they were paid.

Welpee
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

11/13/2016  8:09 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/13/2016  8:15 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Welpee wrote:You guys are pretty gullible: http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/

How do we know it's true? If you could really get $3500 for this, I think millions of Americans would have shown up.
Snopes fact checker rates this as false. Anyone can post on the internet saying they were paid to protest if they want to make the protesters look bad.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out/

Anyone can post a craigslist ad too. It doesn't mean they're actually going to pay you. I've posted many things (not political) on Craigslist. You can actually post something, take a screen shot, and then delete it.

I'm not saying I know for sure any of this stuff is false but I'd want more direct, serious evidence than some guys on the internet saying they were paid.

These folks are pretty gullible. That's how Trump roped them in because they're willing to buy into anything that neatly fits into the predetermined narrative of what they already want to believe. I've only seen one legit news source report on this and it was from a single person who claimed he got paid to protest and his story sounded pretty shaky. If this were really as wide spread as these folks want to believe you really think the legit media would just ignore it. Maybe its true but I find it hard to believe if it were only these right wing fringe website are picking it up.

One claim about protesters being bused was debunked and the originator of the rumor admitted it was false. It was actually a bus to a conference.

Think people!

GustavBahler
Posts: 42819
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 7/12/2010
Member: #3186

11/13/2016  8:55 AM
Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It


NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/13/2016  9:21 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/13/2016  9:23 AM
GustavBahler wrote:
Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It


NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."


I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
11/13/2016  9:33 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/13/2016  9:35 AM
gunsnewing wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:Ah Pop STFU

So disgusting how these people feel they were " entitled" to having Hillary win. And some of these holier than thou remarks are obnoxious and whiny. why does Pops interpretation of the state of our union mean more than a 30 year old coal worker in Pennsylvania. That's right it doesn't. And thats the beauty of the system. Be a man and deal with it work with him rather than against. This is our system these are our laws and if you don't like it there are many more countries out there that night fit u better

If they let you in.

I know Canada and Denmark won't. Mexico might if you pledge your love to them

love it or leave it, right?

pop can't get past all the stuff trump said. he said things with reckless abandon and you are seeing a country even more divided. i can't get past it either. and neither can alot of other folks. entitled to hillary? pop said nothing of the sort to indicate that.

i don't expect people of white skin to truly understand just how f cked up the things trump said were nor the ramifications of it.

when it comes to women - ann marie cox said it on bill maher the other night...women never had power in this country so there was no comparing themselves to men...they only compared themselves to other women and the competition was with other women. and that's still prevalent today. and with so many white women still voting for trump, race outweighs gender.

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

11/13/2016  9:36 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
GustavBahler wrote:
Trump Didn't Win the Election, Hillary Lost It


NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 9 2016: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, appearing with Congressional representative Nydia Velazquez.
Photo Credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com
Hillary was always going to be a weak candidate and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it. The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. For one, she was exactly the wrong candidate for 2016. Indeed, in May 2014---two and a half years ago---I wrote on these pages:
By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces. As a result, voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate — indeed, having been in power in Washington for 20-plus years as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she is the poster child for the Washington political establishment, an establishment that will not be popular in 2016. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/seven-things-about-inevitability-hillary-you-probably-havent-thought-about

This, of course, is exactly what happened, which is why the Washington Post's chief political writer Chris Cilliza could write today:

This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate. To me, this is the single most important number in the exit poll in understanding what voters were thinking when they chose Trump. Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who "can bring needed change." (A candidate who "has the right experience" was the second most important character trait.) Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1116/cillizza111116.php3

On top of this problem---which to be fair to Clinton was not a problem of her making---she was extremely unpopular and had a long history dating back to 2007 of polling badly against Republicans. In December 2007, while leading national polls among Democrats by 26 points, in head-to-head polls against Republicans, she polled weaker against Republican presidential candidates than John Edwards and a relatively unknown new black Senator from Illinois. In fact, when matched up against Republicans---who had a very weak field themselves in 2008---she even polled behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate. We saw this inherent weakness repeated in 2016, when she was challenged by a 74-year old Senator from a small state who wasn't even a Democrat, who had virtually no financial base, but went from 3% in national polls to winning 22 contested primaries and 47% of the votes in those primaries, in the process regularly pulling 20,000+ enthusiastic people to his rallies, while Hillary spoke in small gatherings to large donors and never attracted more than 800 people to an event.

What this obvious lack of enthusiasm for Hillary translated to in this election is the single most appalling---and definitive---statistic of this campaign: Hillary got almost TEN MILLION fewer votes than Obama got in 2008, despite the fact there are millions more registered voters now and six million less votes than Obama got in 2012. Trump did not win this election. Hillary lost it. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012! We are not surrounded by more Republicans. We are surrounded by Democrats who were not inspired by the Wall Street-friendly candidate their party pushed on them.

Hillary's utter tone-deafness about her connections to Wall Street was another huge liability. In November 2014, I wrote:

On nearly every important issue, except women’s issues, Clinton stands to the right of her Democratic base. Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton continues to give speeches to Goldman Sachs at $200,000 a pop, assuring them that, “We all got into this mess together and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.” In her world — a world full of friends and donors from Wall Street — the financial industry does not bear any special culpability in the financial meltdown of 2007-'08. The mood of the Democratic base is populist and angry, but Clinton is preaching lack of accountability.

She got hammered by Sanders, and later Trump, for her reliance on Wall Street money, and then added to her problems by not releasing transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks to the public, which exacerbated the perception that she was not transparent and was rigging the system with the financial industry in ways that did not serve the public. So when her email problems arose, it all seemed part of the same pattern of duplicity. Polls with voters rating her 65% "untrustworthy" soon followed.

She also never explained why she had supported the deregulation of Wall Street, never explained why she had promoted NAFTA, why she had called the NAFTA-like Trans Pacific Partnership the "gold standard" of trade deals, despite the damage NAFTA had caused to America's manufacturing base and the millions of jobs that had been exported to lower-paying countries. And the DNC Democrats who fixed the primaries to nominate her have never explained how they expected to win the industrial mid-west with a candidate who had contributed to their economic demise or why they favored Clinton over a candidate who ran ten points stronger against every Republican presidential candidate, including Trump, in match-up polls.

This election was always going to be a plebiscite on the status quo and the status quo candidate, Hillary Clinton. For awhile many thought Hillary could pass it because she was matched against the weakest candidate imaginable. In the end, she could not overcome her many liabilities, the fact that her party had forgotten they needed to deliver results to the working class, nor the surly mood of voters who had figured out what a rigged system looked like and were willing to try a long-shot who might just bust up the system.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."


I disagree. Her approval ratings from 2008 to 2015 were in the 50s and 60s. Trump won the election by tearing Hillary down. He said things (lock her up, crooked Hillary, etc.) in a way that no other Republican would have. It wasn't enough to win the popular vote but apparently it was enough to sway the electorate in many critical swing states.

But not only Donald Trump but the entire Republican apparatus beginning with the Congress and the constant email hits...FBI director Comey and he rest of the FBI with their leaks...They even leak that they didn't find Trump ties to Russia...Putin's hacking of the DNC and Hillary's campaign...How about Assange and Wikileaks because the US, and Hillary was trying to arrest him thus he now lives in an Embassy...I guess now Trump will probably pardon Assange...Jokes...What's actually shocking is that Republicans are fine with all this...And they are the first to profess love of country...
Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy