earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Starting to hit mainstream now...

Fox & Friends calls out George Soros for funding riots!

I hate to keep making facts a sticking point...FIX News Anchor Bret Bair said during a broadcast that he has a treasure trove of evidence that Hillary committed a crime in her emails just a few weeks ago..He apologies a week later for lying when called on it...So you may regard FIX News as mainstream media, I'll actually debate it's not in the news business...

So, you are bringing up a past mistake and that means this information is wrong and that FOX is not mainstream?

How about this: Mainstream had been saying for 8 weeks that Hillary had leads of 5 points, sometimes 10. They were ALL wrong. (As well as the professional Brexit polls. Hmmmm.)
Does that mean everything they say now is false?

It's not a mistake, it's a pattern of what they do..No one will be fired much like what NBC did with Brian Williams..It's not a news station, it's a political public service station for the Republican Party..For example, they had no reporter in Iraq covering that war during Bush's invasion..All others who considered themselves a news station had such coverage..

You said time and time again that you were afraid Hillary would go to war...Ryan just confirmed this morning the US will be going on offense against ISIS like the American people want..That's the mandate they got from supporters like you..

Go both sides, mention the corruption coming from all over in the establishment. Don't make it seem like (the king of corruption in) Hillary out on the sidelines seeing some big bad Media attacking her. They were all on her side, the corporate world was, etc. She blew it, she wanted Trump as her opponent, got it and lost. She went and had a private email server and it got hacked by probably every nation out there, talk about National Security. Look at Trumps rallies, with 10,000 to 20,000 people and hers with 200-500 with cameras trying to get the angles right to make it seem full. Right or Wrong, there was nothing exciting in her campaign in some pretty bad times imo. Her strategy was wrong. Hillary lost this election in almost every possible way.

I'm talking war with Russia, WWIII, not some isolated war where we are fighting terrorists, whom Hillaries donators (e.g. Saudi Arabia) are funding. And perhaps Hillary armed.
I will not go for everything Trump does, I was clear there from the beginning, actually then I was a Hillary antagonist, but actually started to like a lot of what Trump was going to do.
I am not one to step into voting for something, if people vote for war, then that is just sad to me. But thus far they have voted against the biggest war in our history by not Voting for Hillary.

Oh, ok..Isolated war where only a few thousand die is ok..So you too are now changing your tune..I knew you were lying all along...Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia was on CNBC on Friday with glee about the Trump win..He said the US will be more involved in the middle east...We will go back to fighting their wars for them..Saudi Arabia is happy with this victory...

No, I'm against war and said I won't get involved in a democratic process.

Do you have any issues you want to talk about with Trump or are you going to keep on going on about Hillary losing? What is the point? Take responsibility and move on.
And perhaps start addressing the reply instead of a snippet you don't agree with. (e.g. Bonn not replying to tax cuts for middle class. )

No comments too be honest, I wouldn't know where to begin...Because everything you stood for before the election victory has now changed, like most republicans...

I knew Trump would backtrack...Can't wait for the wall backtrack and NAFTA backtrack..

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Starting to hit mainstream now...

Fox & Friends calls out George Soros for funding riots!

I hate to keep making facts a sticking point...FIX News Anchor Bret Bair said during a broadcast that he has a treasure trove of evidence that Hillary committed a crime in her emails just a few weeks ago..He apologies a week later for lying when called on it...So you may regard FIX News as mainstream media, I'll actually debate it's not in the news business...

So, you are bringing up a past mistake and that means this information is wrong and that FOX is not mainstream?

How about this: Mainstream had been saying for 8 weeks that Hillary had leads of 5 points, sometimes 10. They were ALL wrong. (As well as the professional Brexit polls. Hmmmm.)
Does that mean everything they say now is false?

It's not a mistake, it's a pattern of what they do..No one will be fired much like what NBC did with Brian Williams..It's not a news station, it's a political public service station for the Republican Party..For example, they had no reporter in Iraq covering that war during Bush's invasion..All others who considered themselves a news station had such coverage..

You said time and time again that you were afraid Hillary would go to war...Ryan just confirmed this morning the US will be going on offense against ISIS like the American people want..That's the mandate they got from supporters like you..

Go both sides, mention the corruption coming from all over in the establishment. Don't make it seem like (the king of corruption in) Hillary out on the sidelines seeing some big bad Media attacking her. They were all on her side, the corporate world was, etc. She blew it, she wanted Trump as her opponent, got it and lost. She went and had a private email server and it got hacked by probably every nation out there, talk about National Security. Look at Trumps rallies, with 10,000 to 20,000 people and hers with 200-500 with cameras trying to get the angles right to make it seem full. Right or Wrong, there was nothing exciting in her campaign in some pretty bad times imo. Her strategy was wrong. Hillary lost this election in almost every possible way.

I'm talking war with Russia, WWIII, not some isolated war where we are fighting terrorists, whom Hillaries donators (e.g. Saudi Arabia) are funding. And perhaps Hillary armed.
I will not go for everything Trump does, I was clear there from the beginning, actually then I was a Hillary antagonist, but actually started to like a lot of what Trump was going to do.
I am not one to step into voting for something, if people vote for war, then that is just sad to me. But thus far they have voted against the biggest war in our history by not Voting for Hillary.

Oh, ok..Isolated war where only a few thousand die is ok..So you too are now changing your tune..I knew you were lying all along...Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia was on CNBC on Friday with glee about the Trump win..He said the US will be more involved in the middle east...We will go back to fighting their wars for them..Saudi Arabia is happy with this victory...

No, I'm against war and said I won't get involved in a democratic process.

Do you have any issues you want to talk about with Trump or are you going to keep on going on about Hillary losing? What is the point? Take responsibility and move on.
And perhaps start addressing the reply instead of a snippet you don't agree with. (e.g. Bonn not replying to tax cuts for middle class. )

No comments too be honest, I wouldn't know where to begin...Because everything you stood for before the election victory has now changed, like most republicans...

Try it. Try to talk about going forward instead of going backwards.

BTW - I am not a republican. Growing up I would have said I was a Democrat as my grandparents told me when I was little that democrats stood for the common person. Me liking Trump had nothing to do with the party, obviously.

I don't like war and still don't, so what exactly are you talking about? We should all face the music, where we are now. Get over this loss and move forward. If there are issues, let's get to them. I mentioned the tax cuts and you and Bonn (mostly) just complained, nothing good to say. You want to stay in the past, ok, but I don't see the point.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

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.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

The pollsters were off by about 2 points in the national election and swing states. So her average approval rating was closer to 54 than 56 during that interval? OK I could grant something like that.

You can't take the fact that the polls were off by 2 points and conclude you'll never look at another poll again. If you wanted to look at them and give a 2 point larger margin of error, that would make more sense.

See? Case in point, I wasn't talking about the numbers or about polls. I was talking about how democrats have ignored the middle class forever, and how the middle class has figured it out. You can take comfort from the polls and ignore the real message the people just sent, or you can take the blinders off and see what really has happened to the democratic party. One way or another it won't change the movement that has started and I can only hope it keeps gaining momentum.

Well he mentioned a lot of things and you didn't add anything specific. So I had no way of knowing what you were referring to. If you're talking about ignoring the middle class, then BOTH parties have done that, and Trump's policy proposals will put that problem on steroids.

People making 25,000 to 50,000 paying 10% tax and 0% Capital Gains is hardly ignoring the middle class, so no, no steroids, quite natural and nice.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

So taking less in taxes will just bring the middle class out of the recession they have begun in since 2008?

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

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.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

The pollsters were off by about 2 points in the national election and swing states. So her average approval rating was closer to 54 than 56 during that interval? OK I could grant something like that.

You can't take the fact that the polls were off by 2 points and conclude you'll never look at another poll again. If you wanted to look at them and give a 2 point larger margin of error, that would make more sense.

See? Case in point, I wasn't talking about the numbers or about polls. I was talking about how democrats have ignored the middle class forever, and how the middle class has figured it out. You can take comfort from the polls and ignore the real message the people just sent, or you can take the blinders off and see what really has happened to the democratic party. One way or another it won't change the movement that has started and I can only hope it keeps gaining momentum.

Well he mentioned a lot of things and you didn't add anything specific. So I had no way of knowing what you were referring to. If you're talking about ignoring the middle class, then BOTH parties have done that, and Trump's policy proposals will put that problem on steroids.

People making 25,000 to 50,000 paying 10% tax and 0% Capital Gains is hardly ignoring the middle class, so no, no steroids, quite natural and nice.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

So taking less in taxes will just bring the middle class out of the recession they have begun in since 2008?

I think you understand that the economy and the middle class are more complicated than one variable in a huge equation? So why mention 1 thing?
The middle class will have more money to spend. Companies will have more money to spend and pay the middle class better and bring more jobs back home (hopefully lowering the tax for corporations from 35% to 15% does this.) Middle class spends more increases tax revenue from purchases, for starters. All the other tax brackets (only 3 under Trump) go way down too.

But we are between a rock and a hard place, Trump or Clinton getting in office next year was going to be going to be difficult, the big banks have basically destroyed this country with QE. America is a little piece of what it once was, at least as far as its workforce is concerned. We have our work cut out for us.

I don't understand how you guys bring up 1 point to either stand for your argument or to attack with. All of this is complicated. It is like micro managing a complex business. It doesn'T make sense.

Bring up one point? I responded to your post. All you did was make one point. You want to discuss the economy and the impact of tax cuts? Go for it. How about you present some evidence of how tax cuts for the wealthy have helped the middle class, or any other tax cuts. Don't respond with talking points, show me some data.

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

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.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

The pollsters were off by about 2 points in the national election and swing states. So her average approval rating was closer to 54 than 56 during that interval? OK I could grant something like that.

You can't take the fact that the polls were off by 2 points and conclude you'll never look at another poll again. If you wanted to look at them and give a 2 point larger margin of error, that would make more sense.

See? Case in point, I wasn't talking about the numbers or about polls. I was talking about how democrats have ignored the middle class forever, and how the middle class has figured it out. You can take comfort from the polls and ignore the real message the people just sent, or you can take the blinders off and see what really has happened to the democratic party. One way or another it won't change the movement that has started and I can only hope it keeps gaining momentum.

Well he mentioned a lot of things and you didn't add anything specific. So I had no way of knowing what you were referring to. If you're talking about ignoring the middle class, then BOTH parties have done that, and Trump's policy proposals will put that problem on steroids.

People making 25,000 to 50,000 paying 10% tax and 0% Capital Gains is hardly ignoring the middle class, so no, no steroids, quite natural and nice.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

So taking less in taxes will just bring the middle class out of the recession they have begun in since 2008?

I think you understand that the economy and the middle class are more complicated than one variable in a huge equation? So why mention 1 thing?
The middle class will have more money to spend. Companies will have more money to spend and pay the middle class better and bring more jobs back home (hopefully lowering the tax for corporations from 35% to 15% does this.) Middle class spends more increases tax revenue from purchases, for starters. All the other tax brackets (only 3 under Trump) go way down too.

But we are between a rock and a hard place, Trump or Clinton getting in office next year was going to be going to be difficult, the big banks have basically destroyed this country with QE. America is a little piece of what it once was, at least as far as its workforce is concerned. We have our work cut out for us.

I don't understand how you guys bring up 1 point to either stand for your argument or to attack with. All of this is complicated. It is like micro managing a complex business. It doesn'T make sense.

Bring up one point? I responded to your post. All you did was make one point. You want to discuss the economy and the impact of tax cuts? Go for it. How about you present some evidence of how tax cuts for the wealthy have helped the middle class, or any other tax cuts. Don't respond with talking points, show me some data.

My point is that this is complicated. The idea behind cuts is solid, instead of trickle down economics, instead of banks giving money to more at the top, we give money to those who need it. These tax cuts are across the board.

Things the way we have been doing them ain't working and hasn't been working, is that data?

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

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.

Keep telling yourself that. It wasnt Clinton's tacit approval for legislation and policies that has caused great suffering to Americans for years now. Legislation and policies she watched her husband enact, that she also supported and promoted as a Senator. It wasnt any of that.

Clinton lost not because she supported policies that has caused misery on a biblical scale in this country. Hillary lost because Trump said mean things about her.

Huh? Are you saying that negative attack messages don't work? The things you mentioned likely had very little to do with the outcome. Her favorability ratings were in the 50s and 60s even after all the events you cited happened.

Those same pollsters claimed Clinton would coast to an easy victory. Clinton's attack ads were much more frequent, and much better.

Get your head out of the numbers for a minute and consider the role the Clintons policies have had on the outcome. You don't seem to appreciate the suffering they have caused. You have to add a BC next to the date the last time inequality was this bad. You cant just brush that fact aside, ignore the Clintons role in us getting to this place. It shouldnt have even been close.

Amen. This is the part annoy how hard Hillary supporters worked to ignore the obvious.

The pollsters were off by about 2 points in the national election and swing states. So her average approval rating was closer to 54 than 56 during that interval? OK I could grant something like that.

You can't take the fact that the polls were off by 2 points and conclude you'll never look at another poll again. If you wanted to look at them and give a 2 point larger margin of error, that would make more sense.

See? Case in point, I wasn't talking about the numbers or about polls. I was talking about how democrats have ignored the middle class forever, and how the middle class has figured it out. You can take comfort from the polls and ignore the real message the people just sent, or you can take the blinders off and see what really has happened to the democratic party. One way or another it won't change the movement that has started and I can only hope it keeps gaining momentum.

Well he mentioned a lot of things and you didn't add anything specific. So I had no way of knowing what you were referring to. If you're talking about ignoring the middle class, then BOTH parties have done that, and Trump's policy proposals will put that problem on steroids.

People making 25,000 to 50,000 paying 10% tax and 0% Capital Gains is hardly ignoring the middle class, so no, no steroids, quite natural and nice.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

So taking less in taxes will just bring the middle class out of the recession they have begun in since 2008?

I think you understand that the economy and the middle class are more complicated than one variable in a huge equation? So why mention 1 thing?
The middle class will have more money to spend. Companies will have more money to spend and pay the middle class better and bring more jobs back home (hopefully lowering the tax for corporations from 35% to 15% does this.) Middle class spends more increases tax revenue from purchases, for starters. All the other tax brackets (only 3 under Trump) go way down too.

But we are between a rock and a hard place, Trump or Clinton getting in office next year was going to be going to be difficult, the big banks have basically destroyed this country with QE. America is a little piece of what it once was, at least as far as its workforce is concerned. We have our work cut out for us.

I don't understand how you guys bring up 1 point to either stand for your argument or to attack with. All of this is complicated. It is like micro managing a complex business. It doesn'T make sense.

Bring up one point? I responded to your post. All you did was make one point. You want to discuss the economy and the impact of tax cuts? Go for it. How about you present some evidence of how tax cuts for the wealthy have helped the middle class, or any other tax cuts. Don't respond with talking points, show me some data.

My point is that this is complicated. The idea behind cuts is solid, instead of trickle down economics, instead of banks giving money to more at the top, we give money to those who need it. These tax cuts are across the board.

Things the way we have been doing them ain't working and hasn't been working, is that data?

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Starting to hit mainstream now...

Fox & Friends calls out George Soros for funding riots!

I hate to keep making facts a sticking point...FIX News Anchor Bret Bair said during a broadcast that he has a treasure trove of evidence that Hillary committed a crime in her emails just a few weeks ago..He apologies a week later for lying when called on it...So you may regard FIX News as mainstream media, I'll actually debate it's not in the news business...

So, you are bringing up a past mistake and that means this information is wrong and that FOX is not mainstream?

How about this: Mainstream had been saying for 8 weeks that Hillary had leads of 5 points, sometimes 10. They were ALL wrong. (As well as the professional Brexit polls. Hmmmm.)
Does that mean everything they say now is false?

It's not a mistake, it's a pattern of what they do..No one will be fired much like what NBC did with Brian Williams..It's not a news station, it's a political public service station for the Republican Party..For example, they had no reporter in Iraq covering that war during Bush's invasion..All others who considered themselves a news station had such coverage..

You said time and time again that you were afraid Hillary would go to war...Ryan just confirmed this morning the US will be going on offense against ISIS like the American people want..That's the mandate they got from supporters like you..

Go both sides, mention the corruption coming from all over in the establishment. Don't make it seem like (the king of corruption in) Hillary out on the sidelines seeing some big bad Media attacking her. They were all on her side, the corporate world was, etc. She blew it, she wanted Trump as her opponent, got it and lost. She went and had a private email server and it got hacked by probably every nation out there, talk about National Security. Look at Trumps rallies, with 10,000 to 20,000 people and hers with 200-500 with cameras trying to get the angles right to make it seem full. Right or Wrong, there was nothing exciting in her campaign in some pretty bad times imo. Her strategy was wrong. Hillary lost this election in almost every possible way.

I'm talking war with Russia, WWIII, not some isolated war where we are fighting terrorists, whom Hillaries donators (e.g. Saudi Arabia) are funding. And perhaps Hillary armed.
I will not go for everything Trump does, I was clear there from the beginning, actually then I was a Hillary antagonist, but actually started to like a lot of what Trump was going to do.
I am not one to step into voting for something, if people vote for war, then that is just sad to me. But thus far they have voted against the biggest war in our history by not Voting for Hillary.

Oh, ok..Isolated war where only a few thousand die is ok..So you too are now changing your tune..I knew you were lying all along...Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia was on CNBC on Friday with glee about the Trump win..He said the US will be more involved in the middle east...We will go back to fighting their wars for them..Saudi Arabia is happy with this victory...

No, I'm against war and said I won't get involved in a democratic process.

Do you have any issues you want to talk about with Trump or are you going to keep on going on about Hillary losing? What is the point? Take responsibility and move on.
And perhaps start addressing the reply instead of a snippet you don't agree with. (e.g. Bonn not replying to tax cuts for middle class. )

No comments too be honest, I wouldn't know where to begin...Because everything you stood for before the election victory has now changed, like most republicans...

Try it. Try to talk about going forward instead of going backwards.

BTW - I am not a republican. Growing up I would have said I was a Democrat as my grandparents told me when I was little that democrats stood for the common person. Me liking Trump had nothing to do with the party, obviously.

I don't like war and still don't, so what exactly are you talking about? We should all face the music, where we are now. Get over this loss and move forward. If there are issues, let's get to them. I mentioned the tax cuts and you and Bonn (mostly) just complained, nothing good to say. You want to stay in the past, ok, but I don't see the point.

Well you have adapted the full Republican repotoire, trickle down big spenders and all..

Look at you, you are walking away from someone wanting to have a discussion. It is an opportunity for you to move on.
And still you name call?

Come on..Don't do me that way..You know I love a spirited debate..I just can't take the fact checking of every comment..Then the reversals..The discussion becomes a moving target with no conviction..For example you say you hate war..First thing Trump will do is put boots on the ground in Iraq..Then you said you meant war with Russia..But you tell me you are afraid Hillary will engage Russia with war, something that will never happen...

Ok, I really felt like you were running from things but didn't see your perspective. No offense meant. I just see this thread is now at the complaining stage.

There is no "then", I've been worried about war with Russia since Clinton said she was going for president, or shortly there after. When Trump gets in, we can judge him for what he does.
Not sure why you are bringing up Iraq, I mean is that situation not there because of the previous wars (which Clinton voted for?) What are you meaning with "I meant war with Russia?" I thought I've been real clear on that since the get go.

Why do you think war with Russia was possible with Hillary?