Trump to win?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

Although not yet 100% sure, it appears the alt-right has control of the US. Trump supporters wanted to break the party system ....

again, the crony capitalist weeps only for himself..

I was just trying to think of all the things that will disappear quickly; renewable energy, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd Frank, foreign trade,

you and the rest of your dirtbag political pals - who've supported the most inept, corrupt and bought-off administration iN US History...

who've ignored the rampant and blatant criminal activities that have so overshadowed ANY of the so-called progress that was RAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS since the 'great bailout OF 2008-09' of their largest campaign contributors...

along with 2nd BIGGEST FRAUD OF ALL TIME, known as 'the affordable care act'

both of which have caused more economic damage to The Rest of US
than ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED DURING THE 1930'S

and HITLERY - THAT LYING LOSER PSYCHOPATH - HAS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT HERSELF



HILLARY FOR PRISON!

ALONG WITH ALL HER BANKSTER BUDDIES

AUDIT THE FED, now

[verdo]

Re: Trump to win?

I do not recall Trump taking any stance on abortion. If I were you, I'd worry far less about Trump's effect on the U.S. and the world and would worry more about the effect of HRC supporters rushing in to Canada. They're coming to ruin your country.

yes, he isn't clear on a lot of policies apparently, but on abortion:

and that's beyond stupid. No one is coming to Canada to ruin the country lol. Its a bunch of hyperbole. I worry about trump and trump alone

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

yes, he isn't clear on a lot of policies apparently, but on abortion:

That is not an entirely clear position. Whether Trump is waffling or if he is truly uncertain about what a punishment should be is unknown. When it comes to abortion activists, it is like dealing with religious zealots. I have met some of those people and Trump's statement of his position is nothing like that of the zealots'.

Only time will tell. Abortion is a distraction from the key issues facing the country. If Trump is serious about a renewal of the American infrastructure, he's got far, far bigger fish to fry than to waste time on abortion.

For the record, I believe abortion is a terrible thing but should be legal up to a limit (first trimester or so). Abortion, like drugs and alcohol during the Prohibition era, will not go away if made illegal. The best resolution to abortion is easy, affordable availability of contraceptives; easy access and affordability of pre-natal care; and good-quality education for both men and women on the importance of being careful to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

and that's beyond stupid. No one is coming to Canada to ruin the country lol. Its a bunch of hyperbole. I worry about trump and trump alone

I am not saying they are going to Canada with the intent of ruining Canada. It will be a side effect of them promoting policies that correspond to how they think things ought to be. They seem to have blindspots for the nasty side effects.

I don't foresee any real negative effects on Canada from a Trump presidency. Canada is a first world nation with first world wages creating first-world products. I very seriously doubt Trump's threats to renegotiate trade agreements will affect Canada very much. Americans are not complaining about illegal Canadian immigrants or "off-shoring" to Canada.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

even if roe v wade goes, the issue would devolve to the states. women with money, wherever they live, will have access to safe abortions. women without money... not so much.

Its still bad law. The other choice is to have the federal government pass a law which implicitly puts it in the power of a central government, which means it can just as easily be reversed.
In a world of political compromise, I prefer the states.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

A shocking result. The dems f*'d themselves by letting the Clinton machine take it to where she did. I think the email/Benghazi thing, she could have skated if it was just that. But there were too many people holding their nose over the CGI scandal brewing.....too many years (decades) of smoke without being able to find the fire, and maybe the wikileaks put some more light on the fact that there probably was fire.

Just like the repubs need to clean house, the same can be said for the democrats organization.

Even if "that's the way politics is done" regarding the "do whatever it takes to win" of Bob Creamer, who, as a husband of a US Congresswoman, should know better, the folks that see their party for representing its values, and not the darker side of things, probably had a tough time supporting her. I'd guess that lots of folks who supported Obama just couldn't in Hillary's case.

Both of my college aged kids said, "forget it. We're not voting for either." My daughter was too young in 2008 and 2012, but I'm pretty sure my son voted for Obama. Hillary definitely lost that support. She made sure of that in her handling of Sanders.

If you look at Gary Johnson, he did quite well as these things go. Does anybody know how it compared to prior presidential elections? Can't say he was a spoiler, but certainly it will be interesting to see who was voting for him.

If Trump turns out to be the violent evil rapist bigoted woman rights hater that he is shown to be, I'll be shocked, too. Will he be successful in achieving what he is setting out to do? No fricking way.

This site has been all about the underlying structural fiscal problems that face this country / world. No one administration can address that successfully.

I think Peter Theil's assessment of the country's problems was spot on.

The next 4 years are going to suck, but in a different way than Hillary's next 4 years would have made things.

Good luck, all!

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

this is an interesting piece written in JANUARY of this year, about the trump phenomenon.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.c...esentment.html

i'm not convinced by his argument that the salary class were the main beneficiaries of the immiseration of the wage class, as opposed to the investment class whose corporate investments profited immensely from "the global labor arbitrage" [as it's called in polite company]. nonetheless, it's an interesting read, and quite insightful. especially for a piece written nearly a year ago.

btw, i don't recall how i got to that piece. it may be that someone here on itulip posted it some time back. if so, thanks to that poster.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to win?

Everything that happens now is in their hands, and shows their skill and wisdom, and theirs alone.
May they go down in history as providing us many years of blissful peace and prosperity.

Amen. Let them drain the swamp while Democrats attempt to rebuild some sort of constituency.

Trump might be coming in as the most disliked president-elect ever. Except maybe one, who turned out ok.

Maybe history will come around to him, too.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

i'm not convinced by his argument that the salary class were the main beneficiaries of the immiseration of the wage class, as opposed to the investment class whose corporate investments profited immensely from "the global labor arbitrage" [as it's called in polite company].

If you consider the [upper] management class as part of the salary class, then the author is correct. Otherwise, the salary class has lost defined-benefit pensions and paid overtime (it's remarkable the type of entry-levelish jobs that are considered exempt due to their "managerial/supervisory" nature); and has faced declining or stagnant wages due to outsourcing, off-shoring, and foreign labor.

The management class has one foot in the salary class and one foot in the investment class through often outrageous stock option grants.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

If you consider the [upper] management class as part of the salary class, then the author is correct. Otherwise, the salary class has lost defined-benefit pensions and paid overtime (it's remarkable the type of entry-levelish jobs that are considered exempt due to their "managerial/supervisory" nature); and has faced declining or stagnant wages due to outsourcing, off-shoring, and foreign labor.

The management class has one foot in the salary class and one foot in the investment class through often outrageous stock option grants.

it's also well worth reading his latest piece, written a week before the election.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.c...can-dream.html

he also refers to piece below at a different website, entirely different in tone and providing a more personal level picture

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/

[Ellen Z]

Re: Trump to win?

this is an interesting piece written in JANUARY of this year, about the trump phenomenon.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.c...esentment.html

I read Archdruid Report almost every week. If I recall correctly, that January essay was one of the most read, and most commented-on essays he has ever done. Throughout this year, I've noticed quite a few articles by other people that to my eye present similar ideas, toned down to be more generally acceptable.

I've been reading JMG regularly since 2009. I went on vacation with my family, bringing with me printouts of everything he'd posted from 2006-2008. (It's all still there on his website.) It was quite an experience, sitting on a tropical beach, sipping rum drinks, and reading about the possible/likely futures ahead of us.

JMG paints with a large-scale brush. I don't think precision and balance are his predominant virtues.... I often disagree with him. BUT he suggests new ideas that had never occurred to me before, more than anyone else I read.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

....
The dems f*'d themselves by letting the Clinton machine take it to where she did
...
This site has [HAD] been all about the underlying structural fiscal problems that face this country / world. No one administration can address that successfully.

I think Peter Theil's assessment of the country's problems was spot on....

will [agree] there - i also think Thomas Frank [transcript of the video below] is also spot-on with what's happened to the democrat 'ruling class' - as i've noted before and think is quite unassailable

with a hat tip to jesse's cafe americain:

07 October 2016

Thomas Frank: How the Democratic Party Betrayed and Abandoned the Middle Class

"The Democratic Party has turned its back on working people and now pursues policies that actually increase inequality.

The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.

This is not only because of those 'evil Republicans,' but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.

He could have done anything he wanted with them, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in the ’30s. But he chose not to.

Why is that?


Thomas Frank

my answer?

is a question:

when the clinton's terms in office were done, where did they go 'home' to?

it wasnt some dusty ranch in arkansas - or texas - or some coastal town in maine or california - like every other president during my adult life has...

and within a couple years of the passage of NAFTA and repeal of Glass-Steagall,
they moved on up to the east side - to some multi-million dollar 'ranch' in chappaqua (with bill hangin with the homeys in the bronx) - when according to hillary, 'they were broke' ?

and somehow, within a couple years hill was elected as the 'freshman' senator from NY ?

after such a short period of residency?

tell me who else could've pulled that one off?

and tell me how that WASNT quid pro quo for their signing of
THE 2 most devastating pieces of legislation to have EVER f'kd-over the middle and working class (at least until the 'affordable' care act anyway)

and NONE of their propaganda aparatchix in the lamerstream media
have EVER had any questions about ANY of this?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Robert Scheer's take...

The people Hillary Clinton derided as a “basket of deplorables” have spoken. They have voted out of the pain of their economic misfortune, which Clinton’s branch of the Democratic Party helped engender.

What you have is a defeat of elitism. Clinton’s arrogance was on full display with the revelation of her speeches cozying up to Goldman Sachs—the bank that caused this misery more than any other—and the irony of this is not lost on the people who are hurting and can’t pay their bills. This is a victory for a neofascist populism—scapegoating immigrants and Muslims—and if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrats’ candidate, I feel confident he would have won. We were denied the opportunity of a confrontation between a progressive populist, represented by Sanders, and a neofascist populist.

It’s a repudiation of the arrogant elitism of the Democratic Party machine as represented by the Clintons, whose radical deregulation of Wall Street created this mess. And instead of recognizing the error of their ways and standing up to the banks, Clinton’s campaign cozied up to them, and that did not give people who are hurting confidence that she would respond to their needs or that she gave a damn about their suffering. She’s terminally tone-deaf.

So too were the mainstream media, which treated the wreckage of the Great Recession as a minor inconvenience, ignoring the deep suffering of the many millions who lost their homes, savings and jobs. The candidate of Goldman Sachs was defeated, unfortunately by a billionaire exemplar of everything that’s evil in late-stage capitalism, who will now worsen instead of fix the system. Thanks to the arrogance of the Democratic Party leadership that stifled the Sanders revolution, we are entering a very dangerous period with a Trump presidency, and this will be a time to see whether our system of checks and balances functions as our Founding Fathers intended.

Make no mistake about it: This is a crisis of confidence for America’s ruling elite that far surpasses Nixon’s Watergate scandal. They were the enablers of radical deregulation that betrayed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s contract with the American people in the wake of the Great Depression. The people are hurting, and regrettably, Trump was the only vehicle presented to them by either major party in the general election to register their deepest discontent. The Trump voters are the messenger; don’t demonize them in an effort to salvage the prestige of the superrich elite that has temporarily lost its grip on the main levers of power in this nation.

Thankfully, the Clinton era is over, and the sick notion that the Democratic Party of FDR needed to find a new home in the temples of Wall Street greed has been rudely shattered by the deep anger of the very folks that the Democrats had presumed to represent. That includes working-class women, who failed to respond to the siren song of Clinton, whom the democratic hacks offered instead of a true progressive like Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Yes, we need a female president, but not in the mold of Margaret Thatcher.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

P.S. If anyone happens to have lunch with someone at the top of the democratic party, please point out that their only job was to elect people to offices, and they have quite literally lost it all in a multi-year complete and total failure. They may wish to reconsider their career choice.

A bit flippant for you ToB, that's more my style.... Talked with someone very close to the HRC transition team today. No one saw this coming. No one yet has a plan. No lecturing is required. We were wrong and lost 1986 Boston Red Sox style. The ball went though our legs in the 10th inning and we watched the winning run come in. It's fine to blame the groundskeeper during the game, but when the game is over you have to have a short memory and plan for the next series.

It's time to put the flame thrower away and allow the new president to set his agenda then work to nudge him in our direction. I think Obama, HRC and DJT all set a proper tone today. I'm deeply concerned but we won't really know anything until he takes office, appoints his staff, sets his 100 day agenda and appoints his cabinet members.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

even if roe v wade goes, the issue would devolve to the states.

Why would you be so sure of that? A Supreme Court that decides fetuses have constitutional protections would not let the issue devolve to states. You're assuming they'll just lift the penumbra. I think a conservative court could be much more creative and hand a fetus due process rights, creating an instant ban in all US states, territories, and overseas possessions.