londonfog
Well-Known Member
I knew you would pop up right about now
almost like clock work. funny this.
Nice read.
Send it to Bernie . He voted Hillary.
'The Irony Is Delicious..'
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
almost like clock work. funny this.
Nice read.
Send it to Bernie . He voted Hillary.
But they won't..I heard them floating Kaine for 2020 with Dean as DNC.
We WANT new..we WANT progressive!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Until we banish money from politics, what We the People may want will be irrelevant to a system that runs on cash instead of votes.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
A friend of mine told me, the government will never get rid of paper money.
Because you can't write a check for a bribe
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Have you seen what's going on in India right now?A friend of mine told me, the government will never get rid of paper money.
Because you can't write a check for a bribe
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
No, not really I did see a doc on the train children, seems like there is a large gap in income for a developing country? Ive been consumed by national news lately.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Wowsers. What a clusterfuck.No, not really I did see a doc on the train children, seems like there is a large gap in income for a developing country? Ive been consumed by national news lately.
India rupees: Chaos at banks after 'black money' ban
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37933233
Some banks ran out of cash. At others police were called in to manage queues of anxious customers hoping to change their savings for legal tender.
The surprise government move is aimed at tackling corruption and tax evasion.
But many low-income Indians, traders and ordinary savers who rely on the cash economy have been badly hit.
Banks were shut on Wednesday to allow them enough time to stock new notes following Tuesday night's announcement. There are also limits on cash withdrawals from ATMs.
The two notes accounted for about 85% of the cash in circulation.
Thanks for the heads up ty.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Yeah. THAT fucking mess.
see4
Well-Known Member
Not true.
If the several million dumbshits that voted for Johnson and Stein cast an adult vote based on reality rather than feelings, we'd have HRC as president.
That being said, the only person who blame the loss is Hillary. Her campaign didn't do enough to convince enough people, plain and simple. The right did a very good job of lying, bullshit and altering the truth enough for 58 million dumbshits to believe in him. Unsurprisingly within the first week of being elected we see Trump do the very things his voters hated.
The right needs to be honest. They wanted Trump because they wanted to win. That's all. They don't care about policy, they care about being on the winning team.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It was indeed Mrs Clinton's campaign to lose; she bought n paid for it, fair and square. The trouble is that she did a poor job of convincing her constituents that she would care about their needs once she won office. She also did a poor job of keeping her obvious campaign of dirty tricks hidden enough for deniability.
People knew what they wanted. when they didn't get it, they stayed home- very low turnout was recorded- or voted for Stein, Johnson or even Chump. Blaming the loss on those who voted for a third party candidate is missing the point.
see4
Well-Known Member
We sort of agree.
My point is, Hillary has nobody to blame but herself for running a poor campaign. And the people have nobody to blame but themselves for voting Drumpf into office.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Pretty much agree.
Her negatives were part of the story and DNC cheating for her was too. Trump's negatives were worse yet he won. The negatives for each candidate suppressed turnout. Other than @Flaming Pie , I don't know anybody who is obsessed with the wikileaks stuff. Stuff like: "Did you know that Clinton mentioned sacrificing a chicken to a demon in an e-mail?" was part of the entertainment of the election but in my opinion didn't sway voters in large numbers. Clinton's lead in the popular vote is approaching 2 million people, just saying, hers were losses at the state level and not overall.
If one can believe the results in the popular vote represent anything, in spite of all her baggage, she was still the better candidate to the majority of voters. I agree that she didn't convince the masses that she cared but I think "the masses" saw that true with her and too many were dreadfully wrong about Trump representing them, who is now planning to pack his staff with members of the 1% like Jamie Dimon.
Bottom line is that Clinton represented the status quo after eight years of rust belt decline under Obama. While it isn't fair to judge Obama as a failure for failing to raise everybody's condition up, it is fair to recall that was his promise. I think that the votes in MI, WI, PA and maybe OH were ready to vote for change than anything else. And that is what Clinton failed to grasp during the election.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Change. There's that word again. Everyone's using it. Everyone seems to know what it is when they see it but ask a dozen people to define it and you'll get a dozen different answers.
To me, it adds up to a long standing frustration with our Federal Government's unwillingness to be responsive to the middle class in any meaningful way FOR MOST OF OUR LIFETIMES NOW.
That's not a trend, it's a way of life. The aristocracy is here, the fix is in and has been for decades now.
The only difference is that they don't bother to hide it anymore.
I wonder how much longer the average citizen can be ignored and allowed to fall through the cracks? Every time I think I've seen the last straw, I see a whole nation continue to sit on its hands.
It's only your freedom and future prosperity on the line, people. Don't worry, go back to your Game Boy, we'll handle it.
To me, it adds up to a long standing frustration with our Federal Government's unwillingness to be responsive to the middle class in any meaningful way FOR MOST OF OUR LIFETIMES NOW.
That's not a trend, it's a way of life. The aristocracy is here, the fix is in and has been for decades now.
The only difference is that they don't bother to hide it anymore.
I wonder how much longer the average citizen can be ignored and allowed to fall through the cracks? Every time I think I've seen the last straw, I see a whole nation continue to sit on its hands.
It's only your freedom and future prosperity on the line, people. Don't worry, go back to your Game Boy, we'll handle it.
see4
Well-Known Member
I'm curious, how is Obama to blame for "rust belt decline"? And can you describe what "rust belt decline" means?
According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis since 2010 the rust belt has seen the best economic change, for the better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_economic_growth_rate
Which is completely contradictory to what you just said.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
MI: ranked 21st in econmic growth. And of the four states I mentioned -- MI, WI, OH, PA they ranged from 21st to 47th in the nation in terms of economic growth. Not exactly the "best economic growth". This from a long decline in manufacturing in the area which has led to declining wages and job security in the area.
I was working from narratives like this one:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501904167/feeling-left-behind-white-working-class-voters-turned-out-for-trump
These were states who voted for Obama over the past few elections, so why did the go for trump?
They're disconnected economically in the sense that these towns and cities have fallen so far behind the sort of coastal, prosperous bubbles of Washington, New York, San Francisco - these kind of places that have moved so far beyond these places in the last few years. Those gaps have really grown. They feel completely disconnected from the sort of mass mainstream media. And then they feel completely disconnected from Washington.
And then there is this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-elusive-promise-to-deliver-1-million-new-manufacturing-jobs/2016/05/05/717d8cd0-107a-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html
During President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, he told voters that manufacturing jobs would be a crucial part of the American economy’s resurgence. His administration set a goal to “create 1 million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016.”
At the time, manufacturing insiders cheered. The national unemployment rate had fallen 3 percentage points from its high point in 2009. The U.S. economy had added 4.4 million jobs since 2009, on its way to adding 13 million to date.
But factory jobs haven’t gotten the bump the president strived for: Only 331,000 of those many millions of new positions created since the start of his second term have come in manufacturing.
I don't hold Obama solely responsible for failing to even get close to his promise to create 1 million new manufacturing jobs. I also don't blame anybody who is unemployed or working for low wages and remembers better times in the rust belt for also remembering his promise.
And then there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt
the shift from the industrial era started more than a generation earlier, with the deindustrialization of the Rust Belt in the United States and comparable movements away from manufacturing in other industrialized countries. … The decline is readily measurable in statistics on crime, fatherless children, broken trust, reduced opportunities for and outcomes from education, and the like".[38] However, in the U.S. a deindustrialization effect on the former heavily industrialized North-East has been uneven in terms of geography and social class. Some regions, particularly along the Eastern Seaboard, saw an offset from an increased service sector including I.T.
An area already hard hit by deindustrialization saw middling improvement and practically no net growth in manufacturing jobs in spite of promises to the contrary. Other areas did much better and they asked "why not us"? They surprised pollsters and pundits alike by their vote for Trump. The story -- days after the election -- is that these areas weren't satisfied with the status quo and in my opinion, foolishly, believed Trump.
I don't think this is the whole story behind Clinton's loss. But it does play a role in it. At least, that's the narrative and there are some facts to be found that backs this up.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Symptoms of a larger trend of increasing income inequality and with it an increase in wealth inequality. As these trends accelerate everyone left behind feels the pinch- and that's nearly everyone.
So how is wealth inequality necessary, or even acceptable if it damages so many families? I submit it is not an ideal to strive for, but rather a danger to be avoided.
Corso312
Well-Known Member
Just because you couldn't see how unelectable and deplorable that cunt is, don't blame the millions of voters who desperately vote for a 3rd party candidate. The entire country should have voted Jill Stein after Bernie bitched out... I don't criticize anybody's vote...its their right bit IMO ~ it was Bernie, Stein, Johnson, Trump, Clinton ..in that order.
Corso312
Well-Known Member
Obama was a huge bust, he ran on change.. He changed nothing..he was Bush part 3, huge scumbag . if Obama had balls \Brains he'd have evacuated the middle east the first 90 days of office, he'd have shoved a single payer policy down the GOP throat when he had the senate and congressional numbers. He'd have legalized weed and end this absurd drug war.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Personally, I voted for clinton once Bernie was no longer running but I can't blame anyone who didn't. Maybe next time the DNC will actually field a candidate that the People can tolerate.