Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
c wilmot
climber
|
|
Hillary is regressive. Her time as Secretary of State and the things she said during her wall st speaches showed that. The Supreme Court sold its soul years ago when they declared corporations people. Neither trump nor Clinton were a good option as neither care about the American people. The time to be upset was decades ago.
Instead people got played into being outraged over gender wars, and who gets to pee where.
It's all theatre. Just a very tragic one in terms of the costs to humanity
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
c wilmot, climber, Feb 3, 2017 - 01:22pm PT
Hillary is regressive. Her time as Secretary of State and the things she said during her wall st speaches showed that. The Supreme Court sold its soul years ago when they declared corporations people. Neither trump nor Clinton were a good option as neither care about the American people. The time to be upset was decades ago.
Instead people got played into being outraged over gender wars, and who gets to pee where.
It's all theatre. Just a very tragic one in terms of the costs to humanity Hitlery was the less of the two evils, it was clear from the reintroduction of the militaryidustrial complexes supiority in de escalating the Cold War that was then the point of the blind-folding of the people.
The. Ronnie-Ray gun, Second bush, /CIA, covert drugs for cash/weapons deals should have shown the light of day on things before a ground war in Afganistan.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
The Supreme Court sold its soul years ago when they declared corporations people.
What the f*#k? Seriously? Nader2000 resulted in the appointment of two activist conservatives to the court one of whom was made chief justice. They had a majority on the court at the time and that's why Citizens United got a majority - five conservative justices - not the Supreme Court as an institution. I mean WTF? So exactly at a juncture where we could have swung the court hard the other way people decided to turn up their nose and not vote over hillary? Again, WTF given what was at stake - really?
With a two-seat liberal majority almost anything was possible once the senate and house were reclaimed. Now instead we're f*#ked for several generations.
If folks can't grasp the extraordinary enormity and gravity of the mistake that's been made then I have little hope for much change going forward.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
Hillary had/has deep ties to Wall Street and a willingness to profit off of death and chaos in their he Middle East.
I preferred to not vote rather than give my support to someone with a track record like that.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I preferred to not vote rather than give my support to someone with a track record like that.
I get it, in other words, you voted for trump.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Choosing a narcissistic corporate manipulator like Trump for president is even more mad, yes...
...extraordinary enormity and gravity of the mistake...
Choosing between bad (Clinton) and extremely bad (Trump), bad is to prefer...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
CNN, Fox and Washington Post three of the main CIA news media disinfo collaborators ...
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
I agree, it's water under the bridge. We need to fight the current battles, also we need to get the dem party to have a infusion of new blood, and I'd say rather quickly.
Yes and no. Clinton and Bernie were both poor candidates and as it was, Clinton still almost won. If the FBI director hadn't released additional innuendo right before the election, she still might have. The key states were that close.
If Obama could have run again, it appears that he would have been able to cruise to a third term. If Biden or Kerry had been younger, they could have likely won.
Many of the points that Bernie made I agree with. However, I really don't want to see the Dems go down the road of: you can have all the free stuff you want and nobody (outside of a few billionaires) has to pay for it. Bernie was detached from reality. Maybe not as bad as Trump, but still really bad. Warren, for all her idealism, is much more attached to reality/has real policy proposals with workable details than Bernie.
Bernie had no foreign policy experience or ideas as far as I could tell either. (True of Trump also). Outside of "stick it to Wall Street", and "free tuition", what did he have that made one think, this guy is going to do a great job with all of the intricacies that come with office?
If left wing populism is the only way to keep the R's out of office, maybe it is lesser of two evils.
I'm not willing to concede that that is the only way for Dems to win. Demographic changes should still be on Dems side. Trump is unpredictable, but the prospects for Trump and R's popularity/polling to fall, is high. Especially if R's do repeal Obamacare and whatever system does exists is Trumpcare.
So to summarize: I think it is important to figure out why Clinton lost as it relates to whether the Dems need to make a major change in the future. Such as running a Bernie style populist.
I agree that the Ds need to get younger. Among his many other faults, Bernie was too old to be president. Trump is too old to be president. Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office. Hillary was borderline too old, in my opinion.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
We need to focus on the fights here and now and in the next several years. We need to band together, along with right leaning folks who care about democratic norms and constitutional principles and are alarmed about this menace.
this! This!! THIS!!!
It's time to stop pitting Right and Left/Democrat and Republican against each other. Rich Glttlieb posted an interesting insight in response to a stupid meme poking fun at "Libtards." It was one of those "When a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one, but when a Democrat doesn't like Guns, he wants to - you know the type, It listed eight or ten of these "comparisons." Anyway - Rich's reply was "If you really believe those things, you're not a Conservative, you're a Radical." I am paraphrasing, but his use of the tern "Radical" clicked for me.
I think it is time to really take note that there is a subset of our population that is "masquerading" under the party of GOP. The Alt-Right needs to be viewed as a separate entity than those with the GOP which don't hold those racist ideas. A good number of those GOPers know that climate change is real, support a woman's right to choose, want a separation of Church and State and so on. But to lump them with the Alt Right pushes them up against a wall.
It LOOKS like some of the GOP politicians and starting to distance themselves from being linked with the Alt mindset. I say - support this and help them and our friends who feel the same way, instead of slamming the door on them like a puppy come to you in the dead of winter after being tossed out of a car on a country road.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Safe seats in gerrymandered house districts. Winner take all elections (as opposed to any sort of proportional voting). I don't see any way this country is going to change from being a two-party system.
Now there are still questions, like whether both parties are going to be populists or not. Where the dividing line between the parties is. But I'm not seeing a centralist party happening or having something beside the bitter partisans divide. It would be great if did, but the smart money says otherwise.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Here's the reason the left and right can never come together
Hillary had/has deep ties to Wall Street and a willingness to profit off of death and chaos in their he Middle East.
The right use alt-facts as talking points against the left
They will not believe the facts on almost any issue
can't agree on facts = no possible agreement can be made
What right winger here uses facts against the left?
Zero
they're all BS, propaganda of just dead wrong talking points deliberately created to spread disinformation.
Listen to any right wing media outlet, all they ever do is lie
It's one big lie after another
I listen to Rush and Hannity just to see what they're saying, it's an unbelievable bubble world of lies they use against the left, nothing they say is factual, and all the listeners call in and say how they believe the lies, "we must stop those terrible libs, they're the source of all our problems"
They call us stupid, morons, libtards, Nazis, Commies, pickos, on a regular basis, they have no problem name calling.
It's a cult
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
oh f*#k you joseph. You head might not be shoved up Hillary's ass but it certainly is shoved up your own ass.
It's really f*#king telling that you're the only one that doesn't see my point. You're worthless to the Resistance. Noted.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
Yes and no. Clinton and Bernie were both poor candidates and as it was, Clinton still almost won. If the FBI director hadn't released additional innuendo right before the election, she still might have. The key states were that close.
Maybe it's just me, but I also feel that Hillary did herself no favors by bringing out Beyonce, and Jay Z the night before the election. Hillary was trying to garner the same black vote that Obama did. Instead, I think she alienated some borderline white voters.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
oh my, you can get off your high horse with the condemning people who got paid for speaking
there is nothing at all wrong, unethical, immoral with getting paid to speak
IF getting paid to speak bothers you so much then why did you vote for Trump?
from Forbes:
No. 1: Donald Trump
$1.5 Million
The Learning Annex, 2006 And 2007
The Donald earned a staggering $1.5 million PER speech at The Learning Annex’s “real estate wealth expos” in 2006 and 2007. Trump appeared at 17 seminars and collected this fee for each one
Ronald Reagan
$1 Million
Fujisankei Communications, 1989
The late former president was reportedly paid $2 million by the Japanese media company for a 1989 tour of Japan, which included two speeches. We rank Reagan a notch behind Trump because he also gave press interviews with Fujisankei-owned media outlets during his visit.
No. 4: Tony Blair
$500,000
Guangda Group, 2007
The former British prime minister was pilloried in November by government-run newspapers in China when they revealed he had been paid half a million dollars by a property development company in Guangdong province to deliver a speech at a luxury housing development.
No. 5: Bill Clinton
$450,000
Fortune Forum, 2006
The Man From Hope generates more on the public speaking circuit than any former president ever has. His most expensive speech to date? An address he delivered in September 2006 at the Fortune Forum in London, for which he earned $450,000.
I am not going to bother going further, point is Hillary Clinton's speaking fees are chicken feed
and to be clear-you can whine all you want about "wall street"
nobody but you cares - if Goldman Sachs who makes billions in profits wants to entertain their senior executives with a luncheon speech for 250K, they pick from a menu of speakers
you are simply jealous of the money involved, and most importantly you cannot prove any
"influence", no legislation, no regulation, that was passed as a result of someone speaking
grow up, this one falls flat, go on to speculating about hair color or pants suits.....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
It's really f*#king telling that you're the only one that doesn't see my point. You're worthless to the Resistance. Noted.
Again, there is no valid point around bernie (certainly not for winning) other than bernie at least had the sense to ask you to vote for hillary. And we wouldn't need a resistance if folks hadn't turned up their noses and stayed home. If progressives are still in lala land blindly thinking they just need better bernies in 2018 and 2020 we'll likely lose those elections as well.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
still just SO upset about WALL STREET's "influence" on politicians?
Then why did you vote for Donald Trump?
You like this one?
*Donald Trump Signs Huge Wall Street Giveaway
*A new executive order will transfer billions from retirees to Wall Street.
Why did you vote for him?
*WASHINGTON ― One of the Donald Trump administration’s first orders of business on the economy will scuttle a rule protecting retirees from being scammed out of $17 billion a year by their own financial advisers.
The Obama administration approved the regulation last year. The rule established a “fiduciary duty” for money managers, requiring them to operate retirement accounts in the best interests of their clients. The Trump team’s repeal will allow financial professionals to steer retirees into expensive or poor-performing products that carry economic benefits and perks for the advisers and their firms, without disclosing such conflicts of interest.
*Trump signed an executive order Friday afternoon directing the Department of Labor to overturn the rule, alongside another order designed to curtail elements of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law. Dodd-Frank created a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned nearly $12 billion to wronged households since it’s founding.
How do you like what you voted for, so far?
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
Norton you are providing great examples for why I did not vote. These people are all corrupt and work on behalf of the wealthy elite. They don't care about average Americans. They only care to play them against each other. Which they are doing well.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
A cult of personality is not an actual cult...
It's quite applicable to trump and Clinton supporters
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Because trump is a habitual liar, he has vast yet undisclosed business interests, and he has a history of rampant scamming of employees, customers and investors, I'm going to assume that every single decision he makes benefits him financially and therefore, is corrupt.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!