OT: Elizabeth Warren to Donald Trump: Let's Work Together

[Gracchus]

First Warren throws Bernie under the bus for Hillary and now dumps Hillary two days after the election. Shows how deep her allegiance was.

But the real question is...who will pay for the Tic-Tacs?!

http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-speech-afl-cio/

[PeteWasLucky]

Did you even read the article?

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:51:08 PM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:

> Did you even read the article?

Yes, numbnuts, I did. The article didn't even suggest she was being sarcastic.

[bob]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:45:37 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>First Warren throws Bernie under the bus for Hillary and now dumps Hillary two days after the election. Shows how deep her allegiance was.

anyone who cheats on a job app using false ethnicity probably doesn't
have the highest integrity in the world. i'd say i misjudged her from
a few yrs ago, i'm wrong sometimes.

>But the real question is...who will pay for the Tic-Tacs?!
>http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-speech-afl-cio/

i wonder if the donald has "tic tac women" - i.e. this ones a "2 tic
tac," but the one over there is a "5 tic tac." :-)

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

What's wrong on working on the issues?

[soccerfan777]

Warren is a fraud.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 11.11.2016 2:45, Gracchus wrote:
> First Warren throws Bernie under the bus for Hillary and now dumps
> Hillary two days after the election. Shows how deep her allegiance
> was.

You guys sure are eager to find fault in anything. Puts the HRC bashing
in perspective.

EW is not making pacts or throwing anybody "under the bus". From the
article:

She "to the extent the next president wants to crack down on Wall
Street, reform campaign finance, rethink trade deals and invest in
infrastructure projects, she stands ready to help."

But ... "She said progressives wouldn’t tolerate any bigotry from him in
office. And if the Trump administration decides to focus on
accommodating financial industry interests, “we will fight them every
step of the way.”"

Sanders has already said exactly the same.

--
A Dramatic Entrance:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjDDbcAW0AEbc7I.jpg:large

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:52:28 PM UTC-8, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 11.11.2016 2:45, Gracchus wrote:
> > First Warren throws Bernie under the bus for Hillary and now dumps
> > Hillary two days after the election. Shows how deep her allegiance
> > was.
>
> You guys sure are eager to find fault in anything. Puts the HRC bashing
> in perspective.

> EW is not making pacts or throwing anybody "under the bus". From the
> article:

> She "to the extent the next president wants to crack down on Wall
> Street, reform campaign finance, rethink trade deals and invest in
> infrastructure projects, she stands ready to help."

> But ... "She said progressives wouldn’t tolerate any bigotry from him in
> office. And if the Trump administration decides to focus on
> accommodating financial industry interests, “we will fight them every
> step of the way.”"

You're taking her qualifications out of context to make them look like the main message. The comments you quoted don't reflect the tone of the article, and I never claimed she made a "pact" with Trump. My subject line was the article's title. If you think it's unfair, blame the author.

> Sanders has already said exactly the same.

No surprise if he did. Neither Sanders nor Warren were ever true Hillary supporters.

[TT]

Nothing to do with Hillary. You're obsessed...

--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"

[Court_1]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > Sanders has already said exactly the same.
>
> No surprise if he did. Neither Sanders nor Warren were ever true Hillary supporters.

They are politicians and are in support of furthering their own careers/agendas! They are all chameleons to some extent.

[Court_1]

He truly is obsessed with: a)hating Hillary and b)hero-worshipping Bernie Sanders and his brand of wheatgerm politics.

Sanders and Warren and any politician want to further their agendas and help get their messages out there. They flip-flop according to whichever politician is in power and can help them get their messages out there for themselves! They don't "truly" support Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Their politics and concerns are far away from both.

[PeteWasLucky]

Sanders does what he believes in.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 11.11.2016 9:04, Gracchus wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:52:28 PM UTC-8, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>> On 11.11.2016 2:45, Gracchus wrote:
>>> First Warren throws Bernie under the bus for Hillary and now
>>> dumps Hillary two days after the election. Shows how deep her
>>> allegiance was.
>>
>> You guys sure are eager to find fault in anything. Puts the HRC
>> bashing in perspective.
>
>> EW is not making pacts or throwing anybody "under the bus". From
>> the article:
>
>> She "to the extent the next president wants to crack down on Wall
>> Street, reform campaign finance, rethink trade deals and invest in
>> infrastructure projects, she stands ready to help."
>
>> But ... "She said progressives wouldn’t tolerate any bigotry from
>> him in office. And if the Trump administration decides to focus on
>> accommodating financial industry interests, “we will fight them
>> every step of the way.”"
>
> You're taking her qualifications out of context to make them look
> like the main message.

Her words should be the main message.

> The comments you quoted don't reflect the tone
> of the article,

Indeed. The unfortunate Fortune dude paints EW as changing her opinion
on Trump, being "eager to work with him", whatever that might mean.
Other accounts on the same speech put EW on a warpath with Trump! A
middle of the road piece gives an entirely different picture of what EW
says:

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-tell-donald-trump-theyll-work-him-key-economic

But nevermind all that.

What EW is doing is being pragmatic. She offers her hand, like Trump did
the night before, saying what Sanders also says. Both will conditionally
work with Trump to forward the things they see important. As long as
these are in the Trump agenda. Which is as it should be.

Describing this as throwing people under the bus, as a serial betrayal
will of course have bob eating from your hand, but really is from this
playbook:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PqpoyOOzeQ

[Gracchus]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 9:35:05 AM UTC-8, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> On 11.11.2016 9:04, Gracchus wrote:

> > You're taking her qualifications out of context to make them look
> > like the main message.

> Her words should be the main message.

Yes--in their *entirety*, which is why I included the link. The article spun her words, but selectively quoting the way you did is even worse.

> > The comments you quoted don't reflect the tone
> > of the article,

> Indeed. The unfortunate Fortune dude paints EW as changing her opinion
> on Trump, being "eager to work with him", whatever that might mean.
> Other accounts on the same speech put EW on a warpath with Trump! A
> middle of the road piece gives an entirely different picture of what EW
> says:

Sure. Two writers with different agendas could spin it in different directions. Even what constitutes "neutral" is subjective.

> What EW is doing is being pragmatic. She offers her hand, like Trump did
> the night before, saying what Sanders also says. Both will conditionally
> work with Trump to forward the things they see important. As long as
> these are in the Trump agenda. Which is as it should be.

I know she and Sanders are being pragmatic. They've worked in Washington as part of the system for years, and know that to have any hope of advancing their agendas, it would be counterproductive to continue the "Trump is a scumbag" campaign rhetoric.

I guess Sanders made a shrewd calculation in deciding to back Clinton going into the convention. Of course, anyone could see that doing so turned his stomach. However, (1) had he fought Clinton on the convention floor and refused to endorse, he wouldn't have won the fight. Plus, then if she'd become president, he'd be stonewalled by her and Clinton allies for 4-8 years (2) if he'd refused to endorse and continued opposing her and she *lost*, Sanders would be a bigger pariah in Washington than Ralph Nader was.

So it was a bitter pill to swallow, but he's still viable whereas "adios gorilla" to Hillary. What being viable actually means during a Trump administration remains to be seen.

> Describing this as throwing people under the bus, as a serial betrayal
> will of course have bob eating from your hand, but really is from this
> playbook:

Okay, Warren dropped her pretense of devotion to Hillary post-election. Do you like that wording better?

[bob]

it was a complete fraud to begin with. when she said hillary would
attck the banks at the convention i laughed a good 15mins.

but nothing compared to the look on bernie's face at the convention
days after he found out he was cheated.

bob

[Court_1]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:43:32 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:

> but nothing compared to the look on bernie's face at the convention
> days after he found out he was cheated.

So let me get this straight, Bernie lost in the primary because Hillary fixed the results but somehow she wasn't able to fix the result vs Trump in the final crunch? Does that make sense you ignoramus? You can't scream "fixed results" only when it suits your agenda. Either the entire election process can be rigged or it can't.

Bernie lost the primary vs Hillary because more people (more than 3 million) agreed with Hillary's proposals over Bernie's!

[bob]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 20:07:51 -0800 (PST), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:43:32 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
>
>> but nothing compared to the look on bernie's face at the convention
>> days after he found out he was cheated.
>
>So let me get this straight, Bernie lost in the primary because Hillary fixed the results but somehow she wasn't able to fix the result vs Trump in the final crunch?

hillary didn't "fix" the result, her own party cheated one of their
own. of course they couldn't "cheat" trump in the same way, he wasn't
counting on them to be "fair" and wasn't part of their primary.

> Does that make sense you ignoramus? You can't scream "fixed results" only when it suits your agenda. Either the entire election process can be rigged or it can't.
>Bernie lost the primary vs Hillary because more people (more than 3 million) agreed with Hillary's proposals over Bernie's!

whether bernie would've won or not isn't the issue - he was cheated.
and he didn't enjoy it.

bob

[bob]

i agree.

bob

[Court_1]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 11:12:07 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:

> hillary didn't "fix" the result, her own party cheated one of their
> own.

But where is your proof that those DNC "talks" caused the over 3 million vote difference? Oh I know, you don't have any proof and have created some fantasy agenda in your own mind. Bernie's proposals couldn't get the job done. It's not any more complicated than that.

> of course they couldn't "cheat" trump in the same way, he wasn't
> counting on them to be "fair" and wasn't part of their primary.

I see. Always some excuse after the fact with you.

> whether bernie would've won or not isn't the issue - he was cheated.
> and he didn't enjoy it.

He wasn't cheated! He wasn't good enough to get over the finish line. Do you see me making a thousand excuses about Hillary's loss? In the end she wasn't good enough to win the whole process although she did win the popular vote (which is another sad and frankly unfair story altogether.)

Trump is already backtracking from his campaign proposals. He told us for a year Obamacare was a disaster which needed to be repealed and amended and now he's thinking about keeping portions of it. I can't wait for more hypocrisy to come! Those poor deluded coalminers who voted for him thinking he will create jobs for them are going to be disappointed! It's a dead industry. What can Trump do for them?

[Gracchus]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 8:30:23 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 11:12:07 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:

> > hillary didn't "fix" the result, her own party cheated one of their
> > own.

> But where is your proof that those DNC "talks" caused the over 3 million vote difference? Oh I know, you don't have any proof and have created some fantasy agenda in your own mind. Bernie's proposals couldn't get the job done. It's not any more complicated than that.

Actually it's a lot more complicated than that. Only in your mind is is a presidential campaign a pure battle of ideologies where the superior one always comes out on top. And you aren't even consistent on the issue. Sometimes it's Obama's "smoothness" responsible for beating Hillary & Romney. Or a bunch of hillbilly white males responsible for Trump beating Hillary. Tomorrow it will be something different. Except when it comes to Bernie of course.

> He wasn't cheated! He wasn't good enough to get over the finish line. Do you see me making a thousand excuses about Hillary's loss? In the end she wasn't good enough to win the whole process although she did win the popular vote (which is another sad and frankly unfair story altogether.)

"Not good enough" doesn't even mean anything in this context.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:34:55 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> Actually it's a lot more complicated than that.

No it really isn't. You can't explain away Bernie's loss by over 3 million votes to Hillary by the DNC impartiality exhibited in private emails. The notion is absurd.

> Only in your mind is is a presidential campaign a pure battle of ideologies where the superior one always comes out on top.

I never said it's always only a pure battle of ideologies but ideologies play the biggest role and Bernie as a Socialist wasn't winning this election. When a candidate with Socialist leanings becomes president of the US, drop me a line. Until then, shut up. :)

> And you aren't even consistent on the issue. Sometimes it's Obama's "smoothness" responsible for beating Hillary & Romney. Or a bunch of hillbilly white males responsible for Trump beating Hillary. Tomorrow it will be something different. Except when it comes to Bernie of course.

In the example of Obama vs Clinton their ideologies are similar so when you have two candidates with similar ideologies obviously other factors come into sharper focus and Obama's smoothness and oratory skills were certainly a factor in his defeat of Hillary. With Trump vs Hillary you have two candidates undesirable in many ways and both are elitists/capitalists. What won the election for Trump was his outsider status and his promise of job creation for people who are desperate and dissatisfied with the status quo. He offered a hope of something different(even though most of his campaign claims will probably be unfulfilled promises) and a capitalist vision from a man who is the biggest capitalist there is and who has earned billions from these capitalist visions. These situations are completely different than the situation between Clinton and Sanders who have two vastly different political agendas. It's my opinion that Sanders' to the left platform didn't entice enough people and offer them hope of job prospects.

> > He wasn't cheated! He wasn't good enough to get over the finish line. Do you see me making a thousand excuses about Hillary's loss? In the end she wasn't good enough to win the whole process although she did win the popular vote (which is another sad and frankly unfair story altogether.)
>
> "Not good enough" doesn't even mean anything in this context.

It most certainly does. His platform wasn't good enough to get him over the line,period end of story. If you think otherwise you're like a deluded tennis fan who makes up a million excuses when his/her favorite player loses when in actuality the player wasn't good enough on the day.

We'll never agree on this topic. We're probably as opposite politically as can be.

[Gracchus]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:21:37 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:34:55 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > Actually it's a lot more complicated than that.

> No it really isn't. You can't explain away Bernie's loss by over 3 million votes to Hillary by the DNC impartiality exhibited in private emails. The notion is absurd.

> > Only in your mind is is a presidential campaign a pure battle of ideologies where the superior one always comes out on top.

> I never said it's always only a pure battle of ideologies but ideologies play the biggest role and Bernie as a Socialist wasn't winning this election. When a candidate with Socialist leanings becomes president of the US, drop me a line. Until then, shut up. :)

And until you can prove that ideology plays the biggest role, then it's your opinion supported by nothing, so you can shut up. Otherwise, you're just like Whisper repeating, "everyone agrees Nadal is greater than Federer" year after year. Adds up to zero.

> > And you aren't even consistent on the issue. Sometimes it's Obama's "smoothness" responsible for beating Hillary & Romney. Or a bunch of hillbilly white males responsible for Trump beating Hillary. Tomorrow it will be something different. Except when it comes to Bernie of course.

> In the example of Obama vs Clinton their ideologies are similar so when you have two candidates with similar ideologies obviously other factors come into sharper focus and Obama's smoothness and oratory skills were certainly a factor in his defeat of Hillary. With Trump vs Hillary you have two candidates undesirable in many ways and both are elitists/capitalists. What won the election for Trump was his outsider status and his promise of job creation for people who are desperate and dissatisfied with the status quo. He offered a hope of something different(even though most of his campaign claims will probably be unfulfilled promises) and a capitalist vision from a man who is the biggest capitalist there is and who has earned billions from these capitalist visions. These situations are completely different than the situation between Clinton and Sanders who have two vastly different political agendas. It's my opinion that Sanders' to the left platform didn't entice enough people and offer them hope of job prospects.

Fine. I respect that as your opinion. Let's just not pretend it's any kind of objective reality. Pick any 10 people at random and you'll get 10 different views of it even if they're chosen from a pool of political science professors.

> > > He wasn't cheated! He wasn't good enough to get over the finish line. Do you see me making a thousand excuses about Hillary's loss? In the end she wasn't good enough to win the whole process although she did win the popular vote (which is another sad and frankly unfair story altogether.)

> > "Not good enough" doesn't even mean anything in this context.

> It most certainly does. His platform wasn't good enough to get him over the line,period end of story. If you think otherwise you're like a deluded tennis fan who makes up a million excuses when his/her favorite player loses when in actuality the player wasn't good enough on the day.

Since you've already admitted that there are various possible reasons (or combinations of them) why one candidate wins over another, then that just doesn't wash. There are so many more factors in a political campaign than in a tennis match that the comparison is absurd. Do I really need to list them all?

> We'll never agree on this topic. We're probably as opposite politically as can be.

Now THAT is a statement of fact. :)

[TT]

11.11.2016, 20:35, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> Yes--in their *entirety*, which is why I included the link. The article spun her words, but selectively quoting the way you did is even worse.

What did she say wrong then?

Don't you see that the article is character assassination by the big
money...

If anything what Warren said gives her legitimate reason to oppose
Trump. Trump will be for Wall Street, donors and banks and getting rid
of regulations. Warren can now say that at least she gave him a chance,
that she's not opposing him because of who he is but what he does.

[TT]

No she's not, you dimwit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJhkX74D10M

[Court_1]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:11:42 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:


> And until you can prove that ideology plays the biggest role, then it's your opinion supported by nothing, so you can shut up. Otherwise, you're just like Whisper repeating, "everyone agrees Nadal is greater than Federer" year after year. Adds up to zero.

I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary because DNC impartiality shown in private emails actually influenced the result and accounts for a difference of 3 million votes! That's the much more sane opinion! *rolls eyes*

As I said, when a Socialist actually becomes elected as president of the US, then we can talk. Until then, it's a fantasy. This race was between Trump and Clinton from day one. You even admitted that many times.

> Fine. I respect that as your opinion. Let's just not pretend it's any kind of objective reality. Pick any 10 people at random and you'll get 10 different views of it even if they're chosen from a pool of political science professors.

I think it pretty much is objective reality as most political pundits I've listened to would agree more with me on this issue. It's pretty clear why Sanders didn't cross the finish line and why Trump did.

> Since you've already admitted that there are various possible reasons (or combinations of them) why one candidate wins over another, then that just doesn't wash. There are so many more factors in a political campaign than in a tennis match that the comparison is absurd. Do I really need to list them all?

I'm just saying that your denial is like a sore loser tennis fan who can't accept the reality when his favorite player loses. I have a problem with any person who can't admit weaknesses in a political candidate they support or a tennis player they like, etc. etc. It sounds so childish to me. Sanders lost because he's a Commie. :) It's not rocket science. Trump gave the working class a reason to believe as a capitalist who has succeeded in big time business. They believe he'll take his capitalist vision and reproduce it in America. That gives them hope(probably false hope.) Sanders doesn't have that kind of pedigree.

[Court_1]

For once I have to agree with Bob (even though he did a complete 180 on his opinion of Warren in the past six months.) I find Warren irritating. She'd praise the devil if she thought it would advance her agenda. She's also too over the top in many of her speeches. More importantly, I don't agree with a lot of her politics.

[TT]

12.11.2016, 9:37, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary

Gracchus seems not to understand that Trump is the president now... he's
still in his blame Hillary/DNC mode.

[TT]

Weren't you a Warren fan though...

[Gracchus]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:11:42 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > And until you can prove that ideology plays the biggest role, then it's your opinion supported by nothing, so you can shut up. Otherwise, you're just like Whisper repeating, "everyone agrees Nadal is greater than Federer" year after year. Adds up to zero.

> I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary because DNC impartiality shown in private emails actually influenced the result and accounts for a difference of 3 million votes! That's the much more sane opinion! *rolls eyes*

One which doesn't happen to be mine, but go ahead and flat-out lie if you're that desperate.

> As I said, when a Socialist actually becomes elected as president of the US, then we can talk. Until then, it's a fantasy. This race was between Trump and Clinton from day one. You even admitted that many times.

> > Fine. I respect that as your opinion. Let's just not pretend it's any kind of objective reality. Pick any 10 people at random and you'll get 10 different views of it even if they're chosen from a pool of political science professors.

> I think it pretty much is objective reality as most political pundits I've listened to would agree more with me on this issue. It's pretty clear why Sanders didn't cross the finish line and why Trump did.

Oh, so those would be "all the experts"? Imagine citing that in an academic journal or magazine article as a source: "all the political pundits Court 1 has listened to."

> > Since you've already admitted that there are various possible reasons (or combinations of them) why one candidate wins over another, then that just doesn't wash. There are so many more factors in a political campaign than in a tennis match that the comparison is absurd. Do I really need to list them all?

> I'm just saying that your denial is like a sore loser tennis fan who can't accept the reality when his favorite player loses. I have a problem with any person who can't admit weaknesses in a political candidate they support or a tennis player they like, etc. etc.

> It sounds so childish to me: Sanders lost because he's a Commie. :)

**fixed**!

And speaking of making excuses, how's this for "butthurt", Miss Hip O. Critt?

"Americans will vote for an African American but not a woman? Sad."

--Court 1, 08 November 2016

Then: "In the end she wasn't good enough to win the whole process although she did win the popular vote."

--Court 1, 11 November 2016

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:53:58 AM UTC-8, TT wrote:
> 12.11.2016, 9:37, Court_1 kirjoitti

> > I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary

> Gracchus seems not to understand that Trump is the president now... he's
> still in his blame Hillary/DNC mode.

Trump is the president now? Wow, he's really gonna be pissed when he finds out Obama is still using his office. :)

[TT]

That's no president... that's a lame duck.

[bob]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:43:16 -0800 (PST), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:23:17 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>> 12.11.2016, 6:13, bob kirjoitti:
>> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:12:03 -0800 (PST), soccerfan777
>> > <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:45:38 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
>> >>> First Warren throws Bernie under the bus for Hillary and now dumps Hillary two days after the election. Shows how deep her allegiance was.
>> >>>
>> >>> But the real question is...who will pay for the Tic-Tacs?!
>> >>>
>> >>> http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-speech-afl-cio/
>> >>
>> >> Warren is a fraud.
>> >
>> > i agree.
>> >
>> > bob
>> >
>>
>> No she's not, you dimwit...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJhkX74D10M
>
>For once I have to agree with Bob

you agreed with me last week. that's twice.

>(even though he did a complete 180 on his opinion of Warren in the past six months.)

i have every right to do so.

> I find Warren irritating.

me too! but not for same reason as you.

> She'd praise the devil if she thought it would advance her agenda.

agree.

> She's also too over the top in many of her speeches. More importantly, I don't agree with a lot of her politics.

bob

[bob]

court1 a fan of breaking up big finance? my gosh TT, you kdding?

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 22:21:36 -0800 (PST), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:34:55 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> Actually it's a lot more complicated than that.
>
>No it really isn't. You can't explain away Bernie's loss by over 3 million votes to Hillary by the DNC impartiality exhibited in private emails. The notion is absurd.

for 1, hillary was well known and pushed by the press all the way
through.
for 2, bernie was cheated by his own party.

it all counts.

>> Only in your mind is is a presidential campaign a pure battle of ideologies where the superior one always comes out on top.
>
>I never said it's always only a pure battle of ideologies but ideologies play the biggest role and Bernie as a Socialist wasn't winning this election. When a candidate with Socialist leanings becomes president of the US, drop me a line. Until then, shut up. :)
>
>> And you aren't even consistent on the issue. Sometimes it's Obama's "smoothness" responsible for beating Hillary & Romney. Or a bunch of hillbilly white males responsible for Trump beating Hillary. Tomorrow it will be something different. Except when it comes to Bernie of course.
>
>In the example of Obama vs Clinton their ideologies are similar so when you have two candidates with similar ideologies obviously other factors come into sharper focus and Obama's smoothness and oratory skills were certainly a factor in his defeat of Hillary.

clinton has no ideology. her ideology is "i wanna be president!!" in
fact, as time goes on, i'm more and more convinced clintons want that
power more and more strictly for personal wealth.

>With Trump vs Hillary you have two candidates undesirable in many ways and both are elitists/capitalists. What won the election for Trump was his outsider status and his promise of job creation for people who are desperate and dissatisfied with the status quo. He offered a hope of something different(even though most of his campaign claims will probably be unfulfilled promises) and a capitalist vision from a man who is the biggest capitalist there is and who has earned billions from these capitalist visions.

i thought he wa a lousy businessman? :-)

> These situations are completely different than the situation between Clinton and Sanders who have two vastly different political agendas. It's my opinion that Sanders' to the left platform didn't entice enough people and
>offer them hope of job prospects.

not sure how bern would do in the general, but in the primary he was
cheated.

the people in his party aren't all the "whtie rednecks" you speak of,
the "coal miners" looking for work. they're progressive whites,
minorities, women. you're sorely confused your logic here.

>> > He wasn't cheated! He wasn't good enough to get over the finish line. Do you see me making a thousand excuses about Hillary's loss? In the end she wasn't good enough to win the whole process although she did win the popular vote (which is another sad and frankly unfair story altogether.)
>>
>> "Not good enough" doesn't even mean anything in this context.
>
>It most certainly does. His platform wasn't good enough to get him over the line,period end of story. If you think otherwise you're like a deluded tennis fan who makes up a million excuses when his/her favorite player loses when in actuality the player wasn't good enough on the day.
>
>We'll never agree on this topic. We're probably as opposite politically as can be.

you're an extremist court1. honest.

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:37:57 -0800 (PST), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:11:42 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>
>
>> And until you can prove that ideology plays the biggest role, then it's your opinion supported by nothing, so you can shut up. Otherwise, you're just like Whisper repeating, "everyone agrees Nadal is greater than Federer" year after year. Adds up to zero.
>
>I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary because DNC impartiality shown in private emails actually influenced the result and accounts for a difference of 3 million votes!

he never said that. he said the cheating is the problem.

> That's the much more sane opinion! *rolls eyes*
>As I said, when a Socialist actually becomes elected as president of the US, then we can talk. Until then, it's a fantasy. This race was between Trump and Clinton from day one. You even admitted that many times.
>
>
>
>> Fine. I respect that as your opinion. Let's just not pretend it's any kind of objective reality. Pick any 10 people at random and you'll get 10 different views of it even if they're chosen from a pool of political science professors.
>
>I think it pretty much is objective reality as most political pundits I've listened to would agree more with me on this issue. It's pretty clear why Sanders didn't cross the finish line and why Trump did.

"pundits?" they still exist? bwahahahah.

>> Since you've already admitted that there are various possible reasons (or combinations of them) why one candidate wins over another, then that just doesn't wash. There are so many more factors in a political campaign than in a tennis match that the comparison is absurd. Do I really need to list them all?
>
>I'm just saying that your denial is like a sore loser tennis fan who can't accept the reality when his favorite player loses. I have a problem with any person who can't admit weaknesses in a political candidate they support or a tennis player they like, etc. etc. It sounds so childish to me. Sanders lost because he's a Commie. :) It's not rocket science. Trump gave the working class a reason to believe as a capitalist who has succeeded in big time business. They believe he'll take his capitalist vision and reproduce it in America. That gives them hope(probably false hope.) Sanders doesn't have that kind of pedigree.

yet you'll never admit hillary was a bad candidate. just cause she had
a p*ssy.

bob

[TT]

12.11.2016, 23:52, bob kirjoitti:
> clinton has no ideology. her ideology is "i wanna be president!!

Ah the irony...

How are Trump's campaign promises holding up?

[Court_1]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 9:57:17 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:

> > I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary because DNC impartiality shown in private emails actually influenced the result and accounts for a difference of 3 million votes! That's the much more sane opinion! *rolls eyes*
>
> One which doesn't happen to be mine, but go ahead and flat-out lie if you're that desperate.

You don't think the main reason Bernie lost the primary was because of DNC interference/corruption? Please! You've been posting about it for months.

> > I think it pretty much is objective reality as most political pundits I've listened to would agree more with me on this issue. It's pretty clear why Sanders didn't cross the finish line and why Trump did.
>
> Oh, so those would be "all the experts"? Imagine citing that in an academic journal or magazine article as a source: "all the political pundits Court 1 has listened to."

Stop making excuses! That pinko wasn't winning this election. It was always between Clinton and Trump from day 1. It's nice to believe in fantasies but I don't. Trump could offer a model of living based on his own business experiences that the working class masses were ready for and that in their minds Clinton and Sanders couldn't offer at this time. Now we're going to see if Trump keeps any of his campaign promises.

> And speaking of making excuses, how's this for "butthurt", Miss Hip O. Critt?
>
> "Americans will vote for an African American but not a woman? Sad."
>
> --Court 1, 08 November 2016
>
> Then: "In the end she wasn't good enough to win the whole process although she did win the popular vote."
>
> --Court 1, 11 November 2016

None of that is butthurt. I said in the end Clinton won the popular vote but wasn't good enough to win the whole process and that sexism is a part (only a part not the biggest reason) of why she lost.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 3:55:02 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:

> 12.11.2016, 9:43, Court_1 kirjoitti:

> Weren't you a Warren fan though...

Not really. I liked her feisty comments to Trump and I defended her against Bob's hypocrisy as it related to her but I don't agree with most of her political views. She's a little too far left into Bernie territory for my liking with her tireless anti-Wall Street tirades.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 4:55:09 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:37:57 -0800 (PST), Court_1
> wrote:

> >I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary because DNC impartiality shown in private emails actually influenced the result and accounts for a difference of 3 million votes!
>
> he never said that. he said the cheating is the problem.

He did say DNC impartiality/corruption cost Bernie the primary. Antyhing but Bernie lost because of his politics! *rolls eyes*

> yet you'll never admit hillary was a bad candidate. just cause she had
> a p*ssy.

For me she wasn't a bad candidate and was a much better candidate than erratic/misogynist/liar who would say anything to get the vote Trump. It's not my fault you have a bunch of uneducated gullible hicks making up a large percentage of the population in your country!

[bob]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 23:57:32 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>12.11.2016, 23:52, bob kirjoitti:
>> clinton has no ideology. her ideology is "i wanna be president!!
>
>Ah the irony...
>
>How are Trump's campaign promises holding up?

not sure. he's not sworn in yet.

bob

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 4:55:09 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:37:57 -0800 (PST), Court_1
> > wrote:

> > >I see. So instead we should listen to your ludicrous ramblings over and over that Sanders lost the primary because DNC impartiality shown in private emails actually influenced the result and accounts for a difference of 3 million votes!

> > he never said that. he said the cheating is the problem.

> He did say DNC impartiality/corruption cost Bernie the primary. Antyhing but Bernie lost because of his politics! *rolls eyes*

If you find a post where I said I thought that's the main reason he lost (and you're bored enough to look), then I'll apologize for saying you lied. Let's separate the two threads of this twine...

I've certainly said the DNC cheated, and that's based on the leaked collusive e-mails, comments from Wasserman-Schultz, and lest we forget, Brazile's flagrant debate question forwarding to the Clinton campaign. I believe you've even acknowledged it yourself and defended the practices with the "he's not a real Democrat anyway" rationale. I've brought this stuff up again and again because IMO (trendy acronym of the afternoon) the corruption in itself is plenty offensive. You see it as ho-hum stuff. I disagree.

However, condemning that cheating is *not* the same as saying I think it's the main reason Sanders lost the primary election. A finger on the scale doesn't mean that's what tipped the scale.

So for the record, I do NOT think those things are the main reason Sanders lost the primary election.

[TT]

You sure has a purdy mouth mr...

[Court_1]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 5:45:11 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > He did say DNC impartiality/corruption cost Bernie the primary. Antyhing but Bernie lost because of his politics! *rolls eyes*

> If you find a post where I said I thought that's the main reason he lost (and you're bored enough to look), then I'll apologize for saying you lied. Let's separate the two threads of this twine...

So what is the main reason he lost if not for the DNC corruption/cheating in your opinion?

> I've certainly said the DNC cheated, and that's based on the leaked collusive e-mails, comments from Wasserman-Schultz, and lest we forget, Brazile's flagrant debate question forwarding to the Clinton campaign. I believe you've even acknowledged it yourself and defended the practices with the "he's not a real Democrat anyway" rationale. I've brought this stuff up again and again because IMO (trendy acronym of the afternoon) the corruption in itself is plenty offensive. You see it as ho-hum stuff. I disagree.

But what about the dirty politics Trump employed, i.e. there's a story floating around that he received debate questions in advance from Megyn Kelly, his ties with Russia and all of the Wikileaks which were damaging to the Democratic party, etc? You are willing to look away from the Trump corruption and its negative influence on the election but are disgusted with the Democratic corruption? Politics at this level is a dirty world. Perhaps your stomach isn't strong enough for the reality of it?

> However, condemning that cheating is *not* the same as saying I think it's the main reason Sanders lost the primary election. A finger on the scale doesn't mean that's what tipped the scale.
>
> So for the record, I do NOT think those things are the main reason Sanders lost the primary election.

So again, what are the main reasons Sanders lost in your opinion? His left wing politics aren't a major factor in your opinion? For me, his left wing politics sealed his fate.

[TT]

Backpedaling on all his promises already. He lied on anything and
everything to become president.

[TT]

13.11.2016, 0:58, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> But what about the dirty politics Trump employed, i.e. there's a story floating around that he received debate questions in advance from Megyn Kelly, his ties with Russia and all of the Wikileaks which were damaging to the Democratic party, etc? You are willing to look away from the Trump corruption and its negative influence on the election but are disgusted with the Democratic corruption? Politics at this level is a dirty world. Perhaps your stomach isn't strong enough for the reality of it?

Gracs obviously thinks forwarding one primary townhall debate question
compromises election integrity more than weeks of leaks by Russia...

No wonder he's pissed off. Clearly the election was rigged for Hillary!

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:58:06 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 5:45:11 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > > He did say DNC impartiality/corruption cost Bernie the primary. Antyhing but Bernie lost because of his politics! *rolls eyes*

> > If you find a post where I said I thought that's the main reason he lost (and you're bored enough to look), then I'll apologize for saying you lied. Let's separate the two threads of this twine...

> > I've certainly said the DNC cheated, and that's based on the leaked collusive e-mails, comments from Wasserman-Schultz, and lest we forget, Brazile's flagrant debate question forwarding to the Clinton campaign. I believe you've even acknowledged it yourself and defended the practices with the "he's not a real Democrat anyway" rationale. I've brought this stuff up again and again because IMO (trendy acronym of the afternoon) the corruption in itself is plenty offensive. You see it as ho-hum stuff. I disagree.

> But what about the dirty politics Trump employed, i.e. there's a story floating around that he received debate questions in advance from Megyn Kelly, his ties with Russia and all of the Wikileaks which were damaging to the Democratic party, etc? You are willing to look away from the Trump corruption and its negative influence on the election but are disgusted with the Democratic corruption?

> Politics at this level is a dirty world. Perhaps your stomach isn't strong enough for the reality of it?

Oh, don't try to play the tough-as-nails broad who grew up fighting the dogs for scraps in the gutter. You probably grew up with chauffeured limos whisking you off to private girls' school every day. Joan Crawford you are not.

> So again, what are the main reasons Sanders lost in your opinion? His left wing politics aren't a major factor in your opinion? For me, his left wing politics sealed his fate.

I think his "left-wing politics" were exactly what got him as far as he did, winning 23 states and taking it all the way to the convention. Would he have exercised so much influence on the party platform otherwise?

I could easily list a bunch of reasons and go into double-digits. But if I had to reduce it to a "main reason," I'd say an extremely organized and well-oiled Clinton campaign outmaneuvered the Sanders campaign and effectively controlled "the center of the chessboard." Unless a candidate blunders on a scale of something like the Romney video, it usually comes down to the opposition defining you and themselves better than your campaign does the reverse. As far as I recall, Sanders' blunders were relatively small and he did respectably in the debates.

Looking at the 2000 campaign for example, Bush's people painted Gore as a compulsive liar, and Gore's campaign (headed by the ubiquitous bovine incompetent, Donna Brazile) wasn't able to counter it. In 2004, the Bush campaign used the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" against Kerry, and his campaign waited about a month to respond. Too late. Etc.

And the same applies to the general election, even though most of us misread the result in a big way. This election shows that the system is screwed up in some very big ways that need to be addressed (whether they are or not). Including (1) the role of superdelegates and whether they should even exist (2) the idea of "battleground states" and whether some states should have disproportionate power to turn an election (3) whether someone should be able to lose the popular vote and still win an election (4) the role of media in national politics (5) whether political parties should be trusted to run themselves or if there should be oversight.

[bob]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:06:38 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>13.11.2016, 0:22, bob kirjoitti:
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 23:57:32 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>> 12.11.2016, 23:52, bob kirjoitti:
>>>> clinton has no ideology. her ideology is "i wanna be president!!
>>>
>>> Ah the irony...
>>>
>>> How are Trump's campaign promises holding up?
>>
>> not sure. he's not sworn in yet.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Backpedaling on all his promises already. He lied on anything and
>everything to become president.

yet he's not president yet so nobody knows what his 1st 100 days will
hold.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:56:03 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:58:06 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 5:45:11 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> > > He did say DNC impartiality/corruption cost Bernie the primary. Antyhing but Bernie lost because of his politics! *rolls eyes*
>
>> > If you find a post where I said I thought that's the main reason he lost (and you're bored enough to look), then I'll apologize for saying you lied. Let's separate the two threads of this twine...
>
>> > I've certainly said the DNC cheated, and that's based on the leaked collusive e-mails, comments from Wasserman-Schultz, and lest we forget, Brazile's flagrant debate question forwarding to the Clinton campaign. I believe you've even acknowledged it yourself and defended the practices with the "he's not a real Democrat anyway" rationale. I've brought this stuff up again and again because IMO (trendy acronym of the afternoon) the corruption in itself is plenty offensive. You see it as ho-hum stuff. I disagree.
>
>> But what about the dirty politics Trump employed, i.e. there's a story floating around that he received debate questions in advance from Megyn Kelly, his ties with Russia and all of the Wikileaks which were damaging to the Democratic party, etc? You are willing to look away from the Trump corruption and its negative influence on the election but are disgusted with the Democratic corruption?
>
>> Politics at this level is a dirty world. Perhaps your stomach isn't strong enough for the reality of it?
>
>Oh, don't try to play the tough-as-nails broad who grew up fighting the dogs for scraps in the gutter. You probably grew up with chauffeured limos whisking you off to private girls' school every day. Joan Crawford you are not.
>
>> So again, what are the main reasons Sanders lost in your opinion? His left wing politics aren't a major factor in your opinion? For me, his left wing politics sealed his fate.
>
>I think his "left-wing politics" were exactly what got him as far as he did, winning 23 states and taking it all the way to the convention. Would he have exercised so much influence on the party platform otherwise?
>
>I could easily list a bunch of reasons and go into double-digits. But if I had to reduce it to a "main reason," I'd say an extremely organized and well-oiled Clinton campaign outmaneuvered the Sanders campaign and effectively controlled "the center of the chessboard." Unless a candidate blunders on a scale of something like the Romney video, it usually comes down to the opposition defining you and themselves better than your campaign does the reverse. As far as I recall, Sanders' blunders were relatively small and he did respectably in the debates.

IMO the reason was hillary had the press on her side, had a huge
headstart with money and name recognition and had the DNC plus CNN on
her side.

add it all up and she wins. make it all equal footing, i'm not sure.

>Looking at the 2000 campaign for example, Bush's people painted Gore as a compulsive liar, and Gore's campaign (headed by the ubiquitous bovine incompetent, Donna Brazile) wasn't able to counter it. In 2004, the Bush campaign used the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" against Kerry, and his campaign waited about a month to respond. Too late. Etc.
>
>And the same applies to the general election, even though most of us misread the result in a big way. This election shows that the system is screwed up in some very big ways that need to be addressed (whether they are or not). Including (1) the role of superdelegates and whether they should even exist (2) the idea of "battleground states" and whether some states should have disproportionate power to turn an election (3) whether someone should be able to lose the popular vote and still win an election (4) the role of media in national politics (5) whether political parties should be trusted to run themselves or if there should be oversight.

great list. love each and every 1 of them. superdelegates is
ridiculous. i woldn't care 1 way or the other about the electoral
college, i.e. states choosing. if they want to go overall popular vote
that'd be ok. media will do what it wants, i mean we can't silence it.
but people should be smart enough not to buy it.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:13:15 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>13.11.2016, 0:58, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> But what about the dirty politics Trump employed, i.e. there's a story floating around that he received debate questions in advance from Megyn Kelly, his ties with Russia and all of the Wikileaks which were damaging to the Democratic party, etc? You are willing to look away from the Trump corruption and its negative influence on the election but are disgusted with the Democratic corruption? Politics at this level is a dirty world. Perhaps your stomach isn't strong enough for the reality of it?
>
>Gracs obviously thinks forwarding one primary townhall debate question

that's what we KNOW of...god forbid what we don't!

bob

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:01:06 PM UTC-8, bob wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:56:03 -0800 (PST), Gracchus

> >I could easily list a bunch of reasons and go into double-digits. But if I had to reduce it to a "main reason," I'd say an extremely organized and well-oiled Clinton campaign outmaneuvered the Sanders campaign and effectively controlled "the center of the chessboard." Unless a candidate blunders on a scale of something like the Romney video, it usually comes down to the opposition defining you and themselves better than your campaign does the reverse. As far as I recall, Sanders' blunders were relatively small and he did respectably in the debates.

> IMO the reason was hillary had the press on her side, had a huge
> headstart with money and name recognition and had the DNC plus CNN on
> her side.

You're right, bob. I don't know what I was thinking. :)

> add it all up and she wins. make it all equal footing, i'm not sure.

> >Looking at the 2000 campaign for example, Bush's people painted Gore as a compulsive liar, and Gore's campaign (headed by the ubiquitous bovine incompetent, Donna Brazile) wasn't able to counter it. In 2004, the Bush campaign used the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" against Kerry, and his campaign waited about a month to respond. Too late. Etc.

> >And the same applies to the general election, even though most of us misread the result in a big way. This election shows that the system is screwed up in some very big ways that need to be addressed (whether they are or not). Including (1) the role of superdelegates and whether they should even exist (2) the idea of "battleground states" and whether some states should have disproportionate power to turn an election (3) whether someone should be able to lose the popular vote and still win an election (4) the role of media in national politics (5) whether political parties should be trusted to run themselves or if there should be oversight.

> great list. love each and every 1 of them. superdelegates is
> ridiculous. i woldn't care 1 way or the other about the electoral
> college, i.e. states choosing. if they want to go overall popular vote
> that'd be ok. media will do what it wants, i mean we can't silence it.
> but people should be smart enough not to buy it.

Media figures have been extremely disingenuous post-election, acting as if they were caught by total surprise and didn't know the elements that elected Trump were even out there. I guess it's the only way they can justify the heavily pro-Clinton coverage that tried to produce the desired result with a narrative that Hillary presidency was inevitable. They just pretend that it's what they were really seeing.

[Gracchus]

There were at least three. Brazile says her only regret is that she got caught.

[Whisper]

I believe the strategy was to paint it like a done deal to discourage
Trump supporters from even coming out to vote - what's the point when
Hillary was going to win anyway? Instead they came out in droves,
especially white men over 40.

[Gracchus]

Exactly. They were fed up with being force-fed this stuff and programmed like robots by the media, so they rebelled. Add to the mix that Sanders supporters were furious too at being strong-armed by Clinton Democrats, and I suspect that enough of them (or us) opted not to follow "instructions" either. Made it into a perfect storm for Trump.

I can't say I'm pleased to have a President Trump, but if that's what it took for Hillary to get the smackdown, so be it. The American public didn't follow its "script" and rejected the status quo. That part is encouraging.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 6:56:05 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > Politics at this level is a dirty world. Perhaps your stomach isn't strong enough for the reality of it?
>
> Oh, don't try to play the tough-as-nails broad who grew up fighting the dogs for scraps in the gutter. You probably grew up with chauffeured limos whisking you off to private girls' school every day. Joan Crawford you are not.

Toughness and having the ability to face and deal with reality have nothing to do with what background you come from. There are other factors more important, i.e work experience, age & wisdom, etc. Plus, you are side-stepping the issue above when I said you dismissed all of the Trump/Republican dirty antics and instead only focused on Clinton/Democrats. Both sides played dirty! Surprise surprise! Zzzzzz.

By the way, I didn't go to private school so your image of me is incorrect in that respect.

> > So again, what are the main reasons Sanders lost in your opinion? His left wing politics aren't a major factor in your opinion? For me, his left wing politics sealed his fate.
>
> I think his "left-wing politics" were exactly what got him as far as he did, winning 23 states and taking it all the way to the convention. Would he have exercised so much influence on the party platform otherwise?

It got him far "up to a point" but it wasn't enough to take him over the line IMO.

> I could easily list a bunch of reasons and go into double-digits. But if I had to reduce it to a "main reason," I'd say an extremely organized and well-oiled Clinton campaign outmaneuvered the Sanders campaign and effectively controlled "the center of the chessboard."

Clinton did have a better campaign with better resources but I don't think that's the major reason for Bernie's loss. I still think his pie in the sky politics could only take him so far especially for the disenfranchised who were looking for some kind of miracle-maker. For instance, they thought Trump represented that miracle because they thought he was anti-establishment (lol, they've been fooled) and they thought because of Trump's personal business acumen he would pull a rabbit out of a hat for America and consequently for THEM. These are desperate and frankly not very intelligent people, let's be honest.

> Looking at the 2000 campaign for example, Bush's people painted Gore as a compulsive liar, and Gore's campaign (headed by the ubiquitous bovine incompetent, Donna Brazile) wasn't able to counter it. In 2004, the Bush campaign used the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" against Kerry, and his campaign waited about a month to respond. Too late. Etc.

Different scenario completely from the Clinton-Sanders one because it was a 50-50 proposition between Gore and Bush from the start. No Socialists there last time I checked. ;)

> And the same applies to the general election, even though most of us misread the result in a big way. This election shows that the system is screwed up in some very big ways that need to be addressed (whether they are or not). Including (1) the role of superdelegates and whether they should even exist (2) the idea of "battleground states" and whether some states should have disproportionate power to turn an election (3) whether someone should be able to lose the popular vote and still win an election (4) the role of media in national politics (5) whether political parties should be trusted to run themselves or if there should be oversight.

I agree with everything you say above except to question the role of the media. They have to do their thing and different networks/sources were biased in different ways. It's up to the individual to decide what impartiality he/she feels more comfortable with and an individual should be intelligent enough to know when a newsperson is being biased. It's all fair game.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 1:06:01 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:

> >Gracs obviously thinks forwarding one primary townhall debate question
>
> that's what we KNOW of...god forbid what we don't!

What about what we know about and don't know about with respect to Trump/the Republicans and their dirty antics? It's funny you fail to mention that time and time again. Trump didn't play dirty, is that what you think? Or do his dirty antics get a pass?

[Court_1]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 2:10:15 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > that's what we KNOW of...god forbid what we don't!
>
> There were at least three. Brazile says her only regret is that she got caught.

And again, what about what we know about Trump and his dirty antics in this campaign or how about what we don't know? Clinton is Lucifer and Trump is Snow White, is that it?

[Court_1]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 2:44:27 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:

> I believe the strategy was to paint it like a done deal to discourage
> Trump supporters from even coming out to vote - what's the point when
> Hillary was going to win anyway? Instead they came out in droves,
> especially white men over 40.

Whisper, that's wrong. They didn't come out in droves. 50% of Americans didn't vote! I read that Trump was elected by a little over a quarter of eligible voters.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/trump-election-2016-voter-turnout

[Court_1]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 2:57:06 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> The American public didn't follow its "script" and rejected the status quo. That part is encouraging.

LOL! Trump IS the status quo. These moron hick voters who voted for Trump have been duped. Wait and see. Trump knew what to say to reel these desperate fools in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/?tid=sm_tw

Look at the team Trump is assembling, with Giuliani, Gingrich, etc. It couldn't be MORE conservative Republican. They aren't helping these unemployed/uneducated goons. They will help the establishment and the elite! Some people never learn.

[Whisper]

Trump didn't make the rules though. He had to fight fire with fire.
Same thing in his business dealings - he never made any rules, he just
had to play by them to succeed.

Trump is no dummy. If he played everything 'by the book' he wouldn't be
in business (as his competitors would walk all over him) & he wouldn't
have become president. He's playing by the rules the Bushes/Clintons
have set. He's a quick learner because he learns the rules & wins
(business & politics).

[Court_1]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 3:35:03 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:

> Trump didn't make the rules though. He had to fight fire with fire.
> Same thing in his business dealings - he never made any rules, he just
> had to play by them to succeed.

He succeeded and scammed many people along the way. The idea that he is going to help the little people is hilarious.

>
> Trump is no dummy. If he played everything 'by the book' he wouldn't be
> in business (as his competitors would walk all over him) & he wouldn't
> have become president. He's playing by the rules the Bushes/Clintons
> have set. He's a quick learner because he learns the rules & wins
> (business & politics).

He is a quick learner and he is intelligent and knows how to play the game but now that he's in power the rules will change. He got what he wanted and duped helpless desperate people willing to believe Trump as an anti-establishment guy. He is the furthest thing from that. Most of his policies will benefit the wealthy. Let's see what he does for the little guy.

[Gracchus]

No. Clinton is the Wicked Queen.

[Whisper]

No problem benefiting the wealthy as long as you don't forget the little
guy along the way. Trump believes in a thriving middle class, as well
as feathering his own nest of course. Current policies seem to care
nothing for the little guy.

[Gracchus]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 12:33:02 AM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 2:57:06 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > The American public didn't follow its "script" and rejected the status quo. That part is encouraging.

> LOL! Trump IS the status quo. These moron hick voters who voted for Trump have been duped. Wait and see. Trump knew what to say to reel these desperate fools in.

> Look at the team Trump is assembling, with Giuliani, Gingrich, etc. It couldn't be MORE conservative Republican. They aren't helping these unemployed/uneducated goons. They will help the establishment and the elite! Some people never learn.

I definitely don't like the team Trump is assembling and I don't like the Clinton loyalists that would have made up her team. There was no desirable outcome in all of this.

[TT]

13.11.2016, 1:56, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> I could easily list a bunch of reasons and go into double-digits. But if I had to reduce it to a "main reason," I'd say an extremely organized and well-oiled Clinton campaign outmaneuvered the Sanders campaign and effectively controlled "the center of the chessboard." Unless a candidate blunders on a scale of something like the Romney video, it usually comes down to the opposition defining you and themselves better than your campaign does the reverse. As far as I recall, Sanders' blunders were relatively small and he did respectably in the debates.
>

Could be about machine... but I thought Clinton won mainly because of
better recognition. She had too big a lead in the beginning for Sanders
to catch.

Also, while they didn't discuss emails, Clinton's rhetoric was imo more
reasonable and down to earth... Sanders had valid points but he went
overboard with populist comments such as breaking big banks.

> Looking at the 2000 campaign for example, Bush's people painted Gore as a compulsive liar, and Gore's campaign (headed by the ubiquitous bovine incompetent, Donna Brazile) wasn't able to counter it. In 2004, the Bush campaign used the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" against Kerry, and his campaign waited about a month to respond. Too late. Etc.

Republicans really know how to run dirty campaigns with character
assassination. Painting a war hero as coward when he was running against
someone whose Vietnam war was served in US soil...

[TT]

Not even himself...

[TT]

13.11.2016, 9:09, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> I guess it's the only way they can justify the heavily pro-Clinton coverage

Actually most of Clinton coverage was negative, emails...

[TT]

Yet Hillary won the popular vote... the current final estimate is by 2
million votes...

[Whisper]

So less than 1% of the population.

: )

[TT]

13.11.2016, 10:33, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 2:57:06 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> The American public didn't follow its "script" and rejected the status quo. That part is encouraging.
>
> LOL! Trump IS the status quo. These moron hick voters who voted for Trump have been duped. Wait and see. Trump knew what to say to reel these desperate fools in.
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/?tid=sm_tw
>

That's a really good article...

"No, their commitment is to be of service to that most oppressed and
forgotten group of Americans, the wealthy. Trump’s tax plan would give
47 percent of its benefits to the richest one percent of taxpayers. Paul
Ryan’s tax plan is even purer — it gives 76 percent of its cuts to the
richest one percent in its first year, and by 2025 would feed 99.6
percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent."

[TT]

You simply have no idea who he is...

[bob]

as opposed to the finnish guy supporting hillary. :-)

bob

[bob]

did foxnews give trump the debate questions?

until wikilieaks releases it, it didnt' happen! :-)

bob

[bob]

the beauty of it is their stance that the clinton presidency was
"inevitable" (like newsweek recalling 1/4 mil magazines showing
hillary won) caused very low turnout of her supporters. the
establishment and press are in total dufus mode! LMAO.

>They just pretend that it's what they were really seeing.

bob
bob

[bob]

exactly. would've been nice to have a really good honest guy, with
good policies, an outsider mentality, who disliked big campaign
finance, get some good healthcare, and was for evening up the country
fairly. but i guess nobody like that was available. :-)

i'll take trump as a lesser evil to clinton, without hesitation. i
respect carey's decision to go stein same time. i respect any vote or
nonvote but a clinton one.

> The American public didn't follow its "script" and rejected the status quo. That part is encouraging.

very much so. draintheswamp. or at least throw in a little bleach.
the bacteria is stifening. :-)

bob

[bob]

that's gotta sting.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:10:57 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>13.11.2016, 1:56, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> I could easily list a bunch of reasons and go into double-digits. But if I had to reduce it to a "main reason," I'd say an extremely organized and well-oiled Clinton campaign outmaneuvered the Sanders campaign and effectively controlled "the center of the chessboard." Unless a candidate blunders on a scale of something like the Romney video, it usually comes down to the opposition defining you and themselves better than your campaign does the reverse. As far as I recall, Sanders' blunders were relatively small and he did respectably in the debates.
>>
>
>Could be about machine... but I thought Clinton won mainly because of
>better recognition. She had too big a lead in the beginning for Sanders
>to catch.

she had a 10 state led before anyone knew who he was.

bob

[Court_1]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 8:33:27 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 00:19:32 -0800 (PST), Court_1

> did foxnews give trump the debate questions?

As a matter of fact that's the rumor going around.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/megyn-kelly-claims-donald-trump-debate-question-leaked-article-1.2868411

I guess you wouldn't know that because you don't follow mainstream media. They didn't tell you that over at those Leftist news websites you follow? *rolls eyes*

[bob]

i ate lunch in the CNN HQ bldg the day of the election. i never saw a
bunch of happier faces in my life. of course that was at noontime.

bob

[Whisper]

And you do?

[Whisper]

That's just simple maths. Any % of million$ is far greater than what
minimum wage earners get - don't be dumb.

5% tax cut for someone earning 100mil is 5 mil$ benefit - for someone
earning 20k it's 1k, 5,000 times less. Keep in mind the rich are paying
way more tax than the poor, yet get the same gov services. Fair? Looks
like the rich are subsidizing the poor no?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 14.11.2016 8:47, Whisper wrote:
> On 13/11/2016 10:48 PM, TT wrote:
>> 13.11.2016, 10:33, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 2:57:06 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>>>
>>>> The American public didn't follow its "script" and rejected the
>>>> status quo. That part is encouraging.
>>>
>>> LOL! Trump IS the status quo. These moron hick voters who voted for
>>> Trump have been duped. Wait and see. Trump knew what to say to reel
>>> these desperate fools in.
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/?tid=sm_tw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's a really good article...
>>
>> "No, their commitment is to be of service to that most oppressed and
>> forgotten group of Americans, the wealthy. Trump’s tax plan would give
>> 47 percent of its benefits to the richest one percent of taxpayers. Paul
>> Ryan’s tax plan is even purer — it gives 76 percent of its cuts to the
>> richest one percent in its first year, and by 2025 would feed 99.6
>> percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent."
>>
>
>
> That's just simple maths. Any % of million$ is far greater than what
> minimum wage earners get - don't be dumb.

Even if it's 0?

> 5% tax cut for someone earning 100mil is 5 mil$ benefit - for someone
> earning 20k it's 1k, 5,000 times less. Keep in mind the rich are paying
> way more tax than the poor, yet get the same gov services. Fair? Looks
> like the rich are subsidizing the poor no?

Looks like you and bob are chips off the same block as far as
percentages go. Houston, you have a problem.