|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 10 2016 02:39 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else Honest question : did you actually expect HRC to do any of these things aside from pay token lip service? She was too deeply in bed with Wall Street to have any modicum of credibility, and her refusal to release her paid speeches pretty much solidified that notion. The optics of the email scandal was magnified in part by her own mishandling of the issue, and did not help with her credibility problem either. Trump not releasing his tax returns turned out to be much less of an issue because almost everyone identifies with finding every possible way to reduce their tax burdens. I'm not saying it is right - it just happened to be the way things played out.
Honestly, yes I do. And I also expected her to be blocked by a Republican House and Senate, just like Obama did. And be blamed for not being able to do anything, just like Trump has been doing.
I think that she was as deeply in bed with Wall Street as much as anyone else in her position. Given that Bill and Hillary run one of the most prestigious charities in the world that has generated over $2B in charitable causes and that Hillary didn't grow up on money and her platform has been fighting for the people for the last 8 years, I kinda had a reasonable expectation that she's not some paid shrew that changes her opinion or stances on social reform as far as the money goes, which I have iterated examples of multiple times in this thread. And even so, you can take money in one way and still negotiate to effect positive social change. I just didn't see anything outrageous about it. Like it could be that I'm wrong, and America certainly thinks that way, but in a media campaign full of mud slinging and outrageous lying, it's going to take a while to sort this out.
|
On November 10 2016 02:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:46 Wolfstan wrote:On November 10 2016 02:31 Nevuk wrote:On November 10 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 02:15 Nevuk wrote:
If the DNC really doubles down on attacking Bernie for the loss they may flat out lose millennial support for a generation. Wait, are they doing this? If democrats lose union whites, democrats lose everything. Social justice can only get you so far. The progressive wing is basically out for blood already, while the establishment is just in mourning. Kind of wish GH wasn't banned to get a more inside the scene look at it. When the establishment wakes up I'm not sure what happens though. The hill had an article talking about how there's no presumptive leader for the Democratic party left. Pelosi, Chuck schumer aren't exactly brimming with charisma. Warren/Sanders are their best bets but can you see the DNC tolerating that? The leader shouldn't be someone the DNC "tolerates", the leader should be someone that excites the base. They also need to find out who their base is. I mean it certainly didn't matter that the RNC was headed by someone no one cared about Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
So what do we think that Trump horse-trades to get his wall? I think he horse-traded the wall away already and walked it back quite a bit unless I missed something
Trump's at a what, 70% lie rate over the past few months? That combined with most politician promises going unfulfilled... I would just assume anything he promised isn't going to happen as it's overwhelmingly unlikely to happen.
|
On November 10 2016 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
So what do we think that Trump horse-trades to get his wall?
Nothing, If he's not as dumb as people think he'll say it was symbolic and instead try to strengthen border control and increase deportations without deleting money with a vanity project.
|
I can't wait to see how he tries to cobble the wall together and jail Hillary.
|
If Trump doesn't build the wall after all of the promises that he made, he'll be lynched in the streets. He has to build the wall.
|
On November 10 2016 02:54 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump doesn't build the wall after all of the promises that he made, he'll be lynched in the streets. He has to build the wall.
Don't count on it. He delivered a victory, he is untouchable for his base now.
|
On November 10 2016 02:54 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump doesn't build the wall after all of the promises that he made, he'll be lynched in the streets. He has to build the wall.
I dunno, the border has something of a wall already. It wouldn't be too hard to scale appropriately and fit within political reality.
|
Yes he absolutely has to build the wall. He promised it to millions of uneducated Americans who don't like double talk and politicians.
He will lose their support without it. And I say this living in the middle of Trump country. He also needs to try and prosecute Hillary for the same reason. Washington is corrupt is he said.
I'm surrounded by people without college degrees and discussed this with them for months. Trump would be just another politician if he doesn't do what he said he would.
And trying to jail her is precisely what we don't need now to bring the country together.
|
On November 10 2016 02:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:42 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else She said she would do some of that stuff, but I think what she would actually do is pretty limited. I think she would have been a better president than trump (in regards to what I see as helpful for our future), but I certainly don't think she would have "shaken up the establishment". i mean... track her funding.. not every billionaire is evil, or motivated by financial gain. that may be the broad narrative from the activist media but it is not true.
Most people aren't evil, but most billionaires are motivated by financial gain. Billionaires also cause massive damage to those below them on the ladder. Their wealth doesn't come from nowhere.
|
On November 10 2016 02:54 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump doesn't build the wall after all of the promises that he made, he'll be lynched in the streets. He has to build the wall.
That didn't stop Bush Sr. from backpedalling after we read his lips.
The wall has barely been mentioned in the past 3 months and I think it had what, 0? 1? mention during the debate. It's probably not happening.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:42 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else She said she would do some of that stuff, but I think what she would actually do is pretty limited. I think she would have been a better president than trump (in regards to what I see as helpful for our future), but I certainly don't think she would have "shaken up the establishment". i mean... track her funding.. not every billionaire is evil, or motivated by financial gain. that may be the broad narrative from the activist media but it is not true. The bible says otherwise.
i know that this notion is very ingrained, but this is all the reason to look deeper.
maybe the bill gates etc shouldnt have dismissed the occupy kids so readily, but here we are. another biblical goodie, a divided house cannot stand
|
|
|
Trump already backed off the building of a Wall with Mexico including backing off getting Mexico to pay for it.
|
On November 10 2016 02:56 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:54 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump doesn't build the wall after all of the promises that he made, he'll be lynched in the streets. He has to build the wall. That didn't stop Bush Sr. from backpedalling after we read his lips.
But what happened to Bush Sr.? He was our only single term president in 50 or so years? I didn't check, but our last bunch of Presidents have all served two full terms unless there was assassination or corruption that brought down a President.
Bush Sr. just let everyone down.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:56 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:44 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:42 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else She said she would do some of that stuff, but I think what she would actually do is pretty limited. I think she would have been a better president than trump (in regards to what I see as helpful for our future), but I certainly don't think she would have "shaken up the establishment". i mean... track her funding.. not every billionaire is evil, or motivated by financial gain. that may be the broad narrative from the activist media but it is not true. Most people aren't evil, but most billionaires are motivated by financial gain. Billionaires also cause massive damage to those below them on the ladder. Their wealth doesn't come from nowhere.
this is why you should look deeper, past the wealth and look at the ideology and actions.
frictionless capitalism etc. im not endorsing that one, more of a INET person myself.
|
On November 10 2016 02:56 BronzeKnee wrote:
Yes he absolutely has to build the wall. He promised it to millions of uneducated Americans who don't like double talk and politicians.
He will lose their support without it. And I say this living in the middle of Trump country. He also needs to try and prosecute Hillary for the same reason. Washington is corrupt is he said.
I'm surrounded by people without college degrees and discussed this with them for months. Trump would be just another politician if he doesn't do what he said he would.
And trying to jail her is precisely what we don't need now to bring the country together.
Are you really saying his supporters don't like double talk when a huge chunk of them think various things he's said are complete lies and he will do the opposite while in office? And are perfectly okay with him contradicting himself?
We'll get some localized barriers and increased border security with some photo ops (basically HRC's plan).
|
On November 10 2016 02:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump already backed off the building of a Wall with Mexico including backing off getting Mexico to pay for it.
When? He did a rally a few weeks ago in my area and he said exactly that.
|
On November 10 2016 02:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump already backed off the building of a Wall with Mexico including backing off getting Mexico to pay for it.
I think he talked it down for the sake of the election, but his supporters are going to hold him to building it. He's already going to be walking back a lot of other things ("LOCK HER UP!!!!"), so he better build the wall.
|
If someone told me a year ago that there would be serious non satire discussions about president Trumps wall on TL.....
Well you know the rest.
|
US stocks doesn't take a dive at all. I really can't predict the market :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8c1HrmB.png)
