What The F@@@ Do They Want.....Exactly?

[renz20003]

This morning all I hear on Morning Joe and over at CNN, was how the people that voted for Trump felt "left behind" and "forgotten Americans".
So... what the F is it that they want, exactly?
And why in the hell would they think some billionaire TV game show host could or would deliver that to them?
I mean really....

I get the sense they are people that are mostly non college educated, probably dropped out of school or graduated with an GED.
They work hard for a living, or possibly have not worked for some time.
And most likely their fathers and grandfathers were unskilled non college educated factory workers, or worked on the family farm, or worked in the small family business.

Well....
The factories went south, and the farms taken over by the corporations, and the small family business were squashed by the big box stores.
So now they think some billionaire will understand their plight and can pull rabbits out of his magical hat?
They have all bought into this crap from Donald Trump, that he can bring back those father/son factory jobs that once gave dad and gramps a pretty damn good living with a decent wage.
They fail to realize that one can only get help by helping themselves.
No billionaire is going to do that for them.
If they are unskilled and unemployed, they need to get training.
Either a local area community college or train in a profession as an apprentice.
Something, anything where they can lift themselves up.

The reason so many feel so left behind, those factory jobs that dad and his dad worked all their life are forever gone.
And the reason the factories went away to Mexico was not due to democrats nor republicans in congress.
The reason the factory jobs went away was plain and simple corporate greed.
Something that Donald Trump knows all too well how that works.

And lets just say President Donald Trump could being back those factory jobs.
What would they look like?
Well, any factory job returning from Mexico back to the states is not going to be anywheres near that same factory job dad or gramps once had.
Dad and his dad worked the factory job and earned a good decent wage only because they were unionized.
The unions guaranteed and delivered a decent living wage for the worker.
If Donald Trump and republicans do indeed bring back those jobs from Mexico, the unions are not coming along with them.
Republicans are not now nor never have been union friendly.
Any factory job Donald Trump brings back to the states will be low minimum waged jobs.
And most likely paying less than the minimum wage because Trump has said he prefer there be no minimum wage, period.
And the only way Trump will bring back those factory jobs would be to promise the corporations they can indeed pay a low wage, pay any wage they want. And forget about providing any benefits.

Donald Trump will never provide a decent waged factory job to the Americans that feel so forgotten and so ignored. And still, they voted for Trump.
On the other hand if it would have been Hillary Clinton, proven and dedicated for improving the lives of the forgotten and ignored, then we would have had real hope.
By making college more affordable, and state college practically free.
That would have given opportunity for that unemployed displaced worker, allowing to learn and return back into the workplace with a skill and a future.
And it would have been a Hillary Clinton and only a Hillary Clinton that would have raised the wage thus giving those forgotten a better chance once again.
Donald Trump nor one single republican in congress will ever provide any of what Hillary would have.
Trump and his republicans offer absolutely no help for education, nor any help for wages.

And to make things even worse, Donald Trump and Paul Ryan will do something Hillary Clinton would have never done. To take away what healthcare those forgotten and displaced now have, privatizing their social security, and voucher-izing their medicare.
So what safety net those so lost and so forgotten did have would be striped away.

I don't know what it was that all of those Trump supporters think they heard Donald Trump say to them at those Trump rallies, but factory jobs without unions will get them nowhere.
And health without healthcare will do them no good.
And giving the top wealthy of America along with those gigantic corporations even more and larger tax cuts is not going to trickle down into empty wallets. Not one dime.

Yes... they F@@k-ed up.
They F@@k-ed themselves up royally by believing in some billionaire that claims to have all the answers to all their woes coming out of his magical hat.
And that hat he refuses to show them, but still insists that they believe he owns.
So the bottom line, they rejected that sure bet.
They rejected Hillary Clinton along with a democratic controlled senate, instead opting for the very thing that definitely will make their lives even harder and less survivable.
They opted for a Donald Trump and an republican controlled congress.
Both of which have never once shown any interest in those feeling displaced, forgotten, and left behind.
For republicans like Trump it has always been about wealth and corporate greed.
The banks. The market. The Donald Trump's.

So with doing what they did, electing the very thing that will destroy them, I have to ask...
WHAT THE "F" IS IT THAT THEY REALLY WANT?
AND WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?

"...And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand."

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, obama was the ultimate manchurian candidate but nice try. So much talk, so little action and so much middle class wealth eroded. He duped everyone with his awesome oratory skills; the Pied Piper getting the middle class to go along with his middle-class-wealth-eroding healthcare plan.

What eroded middle class wealth was the financial looting spree of the ownership society. Recovery from that has been slow & spotty thanks to an obstructionist Repub Congress.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Many want a job (or a better job) and viewed Trump as the candidate who gave them the best shot at improving their lives (without government handouts)
Many want to live in a a country where the government isn't santa claus
Many want to live in a country where political correctness is not so pervasive that the government puts the needs of other countries over the needs of our own.
Many want to live in a country where the president enforces the laws set out by the legislature (specifically immigration laws)
Many want to live in a country where government programs are mitigated so that taxes do not rise further out of control.
Many simply wanted a president that wasn't part of the established political leadership (due to growing distrust of the government)
Many voted for Trump because they viewed Hillary as being untrustworthy (feeding into the prior point)
Many voted for Trump because, beleive it or not, there are still a lot of Americans who feel that the way to a better life is to work for it, not to ask the government to provide more programs.
As for the upper middle class - many voted for trump because they are sick of being america's piggy bank.
Some voted for Trump simply because he was the republican party candidate.

As can be seen, there are many reasons people voted for Trump that do not involve racism, homophobia, etc. There are definitely some that voted for him because of the rhetoric re: illegal immigrants, muslims, etc. (e.g., white power groups). But there are extremist on both sides of the aisle. For example, I am sure there were a lot of communists (or closet communists) who voted for Hillary. That fact doesn't make all Trump supporters racists, just as it does not make all Hillary supporters communists.

I guess to sum up - what a lot of republican voters want is a return to the traditional republican ideals of a small government, good fiscal policy, a strong military, and the U.S. acting as a leader on the world stage. A large part of the republican base (at least those under age 50) do not care about traditional republican social values, and support (perhaps strongly support) movements such as the gay rights movement, trans-gender equality, women's equality etc. And by "do not care" I mean that they are fine with the advances that have been made in those areas and are fine with proactively taking steps to ensure equality of those and other groups.

What many republicans don't want (generally) is the never ending expansion of government aid programs (at the cost of increased taxes and the federal deficit), a continuance of the "woe is me" attitude that many Americans have, and a continuance of poor fiscal and poor foreign policy decisions. As to the latter - I think the biggest legacy Obama will leave behind is not Obama care, an improvement to gay rights, etc. I think the thing he will be remembered most for 50 years from now is the Iran nuclear deal. I sincerely hope that my intuition is not correct. But I think that one single foreign policy decision was perhaps one of the absolute worst foreign policy decisions that has ever been made in this country. It made the entire world less safe by enabling of bunch of unstable loonies (who expressly want to kill us and everyone else that does not think the way they do, by the way) to have access to nuclear material that they can use to support the production of nuclear weapons.

FWIW - I did not vote for Trump. I voted for Evan McMullin. Why? Because I want a president who is first and foremost a leader with sound judgement. Trump is a kind of the former (leader), but his judgment (at least for now) is suspect IMO. Hopefully that impression will change over time. That said, I can see and understand why many people DID vote for Trump - and little of that has to do with social issues.

A final point - I am sick of people asserting that "uneducated" people voted for Trump - because its clear that it is just a polite way of saying "stupid people" voted for Trump. The fact that someone lacks a college education does not make them stupid. Someone without a college education might not be "book smart," but relatively few people are truly "stupid." Heck - some of the dumbest, most out of touch people I have met in my life have been those with doctoral degrees. And some of the smartest people on earth lack formal education (Bill gates being one notable example).

 

[Kazukian]

The logic of allowing countries to develop nukes and then negotiating them away later is moronic.

 

[sportage]

This still drives me crazy.
And the reason I originally asked the question.

Just now on CNN Wolf was asking some guy on the street why he voted for Trump.
And this guy started bitching about not having a raise with his social security for a long time, and the last raise (or increase) was only $3.
Then he added, "I guess that will buy me a loaf of bread."

WHAT??? WHAT???
WHAT THE F@@K DO THEY WANT... EXACTLY?
Shit...
Don't people like this moron realize the only reason social security is still around is due to the democrats protecting it?
GW Bush wanted desperately to privatize, and turn SS upside down on its head.
And Newt wanted to privatize SS.
And Paul Ryan has submitted budget after budget completely overhauling not only SS but also voucher-izing medicare.

So this F...ING moron believes a president Donald Trump along with a full republican controlled congress is going to protect his social security?
WTF are these people drinking?

Come January 21st, or shortly after, Paul Ryan is going to get his middle class ravaging raping budget passed by this republican congress. And republican president elect Donald Trump will absolutely sign it into law.
Then... everything as we know it will be turned upside down.
And if this idiot has issues with his SS now.... just wait 6 months fella.
Shit.... I just can not believe some people.
And boy do they deserve a president Donald Trump, and all the hell that will bring them.
I swear.....

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ahhhh poor thing still in meltdown mode

 

[disappoint]

Well I guess he's expressing his anger in a healthy way. I mean hopefully when he lets loose on these boards he doesn't later go out looting, burning or pillaging his village.

Hey Sportage if you protest in real life make sure you protest peacefully ok? Be safe out there.

Although, I must say, you know what feels better than protesting, getting emotionally upset or angry? Understanding.

 

[Jhhnn]

Many want a job (or a better job) and viewed Trump as the candidate who gave them the best shot at improving their lives (without government handouts)
Many want to live in a a country where the government isn't santa claus
Many want to live in a country where political correctness is not so pervasive that the government puts the needs of other countries over the needs of our own.
Many want to live in a country where the president enforces the laws set out by the legislature (specifically immigration laws)
Many want to live in a country where government programs are mitigated so that taxes do not rise further out of control.
Many simply wanted a president that wasn't part of the established political leadership (due to growing distrust of the government)
Many voted for Trump because they viewed Hillary as being untrustworthy (feeding into the prior point)
Many voted for Trump because, beleive it or not, there are still a lot of Americans who feel that the way to a better life is to work for it, not to ask the government to provide more programs.
As for the upper middle class - many voted for trump because they are sick of being america's piggy bank.
Some voted for Trump simply because he was the republican party candidate.

As can be seen, there are many reasons people voted for Trump that do not involve racism, homophobia, etc. There are definitely some that voted for him because of the rhetoric re: illegal immigrants, muslims, etc. (e.g., white power groups). But there are extremist on both sides of the aisle. For example, I am sure there were a lot of communists (or closet communists) who voted for Hillary. That fact doesn't make all Trump supporters racists, just as it does not make all Hillary supporters communists.

I guess to sum up - what a lot of republican voters want is a return to the traditional republican ideals of a small government, good fiscal policy, a strong military, and the U.S. acting as a leader on the world stage. A large part of the republican base (at least those under age 50) do not care about traditional republican social values, and support (perhaps strongly support) movements such as the gay rights movement, trans-gender equality, women's equality etc. And by "do not care" I mean that they are fine with the advances that have been made in those areas and are fine with proactively taking steps to ensure equality of those and other groups.

What many republicans don't want (generally) is the never ending expansion of government aid programs (at the cost of increased taxes and the federal deficit), a continuance of the "woe is me" attitude that many Americans have, and a continuance of poor fiscal and poor foreign policy decisions. As to the latter - I think the biggest legacy Obama will leave behind is not Obama care, an improvement to gay rights, etc. I think the thing he will be remembered most for 50 years from now is the Iran nuclear deal. I sincerely hope that my intuition is not correct. But I think that one single foreign policy decision was perhaps one of the absolute worst foreign policy decisions that has ever been made in this country. It made the entire world less safe by enabling of bunch of unstable loonies (who expressly want to kill us and everyone else that does not think the way they do, by the way) to have access to nuclear material that they can use to support the production of nuclear weapons.

FWIW - I did not vote for Trump. I voted for Evan McMullin. Why? Because I want a president who is first and foremost a leader with sound judgement. Trump is a kind of the former (leader), but his judgment (at least for now) is suspect IMO. Hopefully that impression will change over time. That said, I can see and understand why many people DID vote for Trump - and little of that has to do with social issues.

All of that romanticized bullshit stands in defiance of economic reality. Multinational Capitalism doesn't give a rat's ass what the American people want & neither do Trump & the Repubs.

As all of this has unfolded, offshoring & automation, Middle class people have been cut right out of the cashflow. It goes right around us, straight to the financial elite. As they scaled up, they gained enormous power & are now insurgent to the govt of the people & to democracy itself. They eschew civic responsibility entirely.

That's observable reality, and it doesn't fit with what you want. Left to their own devices, our own Capitalists will reduce us to a distribution of income like Mexico or Brazil.

If we, the people, want to prevent that then the only way we have to accomplish that if through the agency of govt, through regulation, taxes, govt jobs & redistribution. We need to redefine the package deal of being an American, what comes with it.

It comes down to being dependent on the Jerb Creators or de Gubmint, and it's not like we have any voice in corporate boardrooms.

Why do you think that the right wing has been giving govt a bad name since Reagan, anyway? They're obstructionist when out of power & incompetent in power. Well, except when it comes to serving the financial elite, something they do very, very well.

 

[poofyhairguy]

If we, the people, want to prevent that then the only way we have to accomplish that if through the agency of govt, through regulation, taxes, govt jobs & redistribution.

You maybe have a concept of what needs to happen, but you don't have a viable concrete plan that the " financial elite" can't just dodge via tax havens, settlements, or outright relocation.

You have good intentions about who needs to be beaten with what stick, but you have no way to implement it or force the elite to actually take that beating.

Instead what we keep seeing is time after time politicians try to come up with ways to reinforce the middle class (the drug part of medicare, Obamacare, the drug war, or even no child left behind) that end up being used to instead erode the middle class once implemented (Part B profiteering, insurance premiums or the mandate tax, locking up their sons and daughters, ruining their schools so only charter schools now function properly).

What we need is someone that can GUILT the financial elite into playing ball, because forcing them to do so only hurts us in the long run. Or we just need to accept we are fucked and try to run everything at a minimal level to make it a long slide into third world status.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Some people don't understand that the economic pie grows bigger, it's not a zero-sum game, wealth swells across all economic strata. It's not a case of the haves depriving the have nots. Sure we gripe about the rich using their money to make more money, but we should aspire to that ourselves, not covet others' wealth and try to take it for ourselves.

The more you subsidize poverty, the more you get of it. It's really up to individuals to support the deserving poor, not the government. Government isn't really in position to judge who deserves freebies. It is beyond the scope of government to prop up the poor.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Don't people like this moron realize the only reason social security is still around is due to the democrats protecting it?
GW Bush wanted desperately to privatize, and turn SS upside down on its head.
And Newt wanted to privatize SS.
And Paul Ryan has submitted budget after budget completely overhauling not only SS but also voucher-izing medicare.

Social security is going to be out of funds in the next 20-30 years if something is not done to change it - be it structurally, how its financed, or both. The simply fact is that were live in a country where the population is aging, people are living longer, and there are fewer workers to support each retiree. That is precisely why my retirement plans assume social security will not be there. Because if it is there (and I doubt it will be for someone with my income) when I retire, the amount I see from it will be infinitesimally small. Something needs to change with social security. Privatization may not be how to do it, but at least its something.

Medicare is another huge program that needs to drastically change. We cannot keep going on spending huge amounts of our GDP on medical care. We cannot afford it.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

All of that romanticized bullshit stands in defiance of economic reality. Multinational Capitalism doesn't give a rat's ass what the American people want & neither do Trump & the Repubs.

As all of this has unfolded, offshoring & automation, Middle class people have been cut right out of the cashflow. It goes right around us, straight to the financial elite. As they scaled up, they gained enormous power & are now insurgent to the govt of the people & to democracy itself. They eschew civic responsibility entirely.

That's observable reality, and it doesn't fit with what you want. Left to their own devices, our own Capitalists will reduce us to a distribution of income like Mexico or Brazil.

If we, the people, want to prevent that then the only way we have to accomplish that if through the agency of govt, through regulation, taxes, govt jobs & redistribution. We need to redefine the package deal of being an American, what comes with it.

It comes down to being dependent on the Jerb Creators or de Gubmint, and it's not like we have any voice in corporate boardrooms.

Why do you think that the right wing has been giving govt a bad name since Reagan, anyway? They're obstructionist when out of power & incompetent in power. Well, except when it comes to serving the financial elite, something they do very, very well.

I seriously have no clue what point you are trying to make. Your argument is an angry rant containing seemingly random points.

Re: middle class people being cut out of the cash flow - what in the world does that even mean? What cash flow are you talking about?

Re: Financial elites. Who are these people, exactly? Give me some examples (besides trump). I hear that term thrown around a lot, but its used a lot like the hypothetical "they" (as in "They want us to fail;" "They are against us" etc. while never identifying who "they are). And how exactly are those people insurgent to the government of the people and to democracy?

Re: fighting financial elites - I can (kind of) see your points re: regulation and taxation. But how in the world do we fight financial elites with government jobs and wealth redistribution? The federal and state governments combined employ over 20% of the workforce. How many more government jobs do we need?

If you don't want to be dependent on job creators or the government, start a business and be your own boss.

 

[shady28]

You maybe have a concept of what needs to happen, but you don't have a viable concrete plan that the " financial elite" can't just dodge via tax havens, settlements, or outright relocation.

You have good intentions about who needs to be beaten with what stick, but you have no way to implement it or force the elite to actually take that beating.

Instead what we keep seeing is time after time politicians try to come up with ways to reinforce the middle class (the drug part of medicare, Obamacare, the drug war, or even no child left behind) that end up being used to instead erode the middle class once implemented (Part B profiteering, insurance premiums or the mandate tax, locking up their sons and daughters, ruining their schools so only charter schools now function properly).

What we need is someone that can GUILT the financial elite into playing ball, because forcing them to do so only hurts us in the long run. Or we just need to accept we are fucked and try to run everything at a minimal level to make it a long slide into third world status.

Agree. The reason the real 'elite' are never burgeoned with this type of thing is because they run everything. Then there's a question of what are the 'elite'? Every time Dems have gone after the 'elite' for taxes it's typically been middle class and upper middle class Americans who foot the bill. Case in point - Obamacare.


Did you know Trump in his 2000 book 'The America We Deserve' proposed a one-time 14% tax on all assets over ~$10M to pay off the debt and fix SS? Just saying..

 

[Jaskalas]

This still drives me crazy.
And the reason I originally asked the question.

Just now on CNN Wolf was asking some guy on the street why he voted for Trump.
And this guy started bitching about not having a raise with his social security for a long time, and the last raise (or increase) was only $3.
Then he added, "I guess that will buy me a loaf of bread."

WHAT??? WHAT???
WHAT THE F@@K DO THEY WANT... EXACTLY?
Shit...

The American people are hurting - and lashing out.
Basically your own insane, enraged post, in the form of a vote.

 

[pcgeek11]

Many want a job (or a better job) and viewed Trump as the candidate who gave them the best shot at improving their lives (without government handouts)
Many want to live in a a country where the government isn't santa claus
Many want to live in a country where political correctness is not so pervasive that the government puts the needs of other countries over the needs of our own.
Many want to live in a country where the president enforces the laws set out by the legislature (specifically immigration laws)
Many want to live in a country where government programs are mitigated so that taxes do not rise further out of control.
Many simply wanted a president that wasn't part of the established political leadership (due to growing distrust of the government)
Many voted for Trump because they viewed Hillary as being untrustworthy (feeding into the prior point)
Many voted for Trump because, beleive it or not, there are still a lot of Americans who feel that the way to a better life is to work for it, not to ask the government to provide more programs.
As for the upper middle class - many voted for trump because they are sick of being america's piggy bank.
Some voted for Trump simply because he was the republican party candidate.

As can be seen, there are many reasons people voted for Trump that do not involve racism, homophobia, etc. There are definitely some that voted for him because of the rhetoric re: illegal immigrants, muslims, etc. (e.g., white power groups). But there are extremist on both sides of the aisle. For example, I am sure there were a lot of communists (or closet communists) who voted for Hillary. That fact doesn't make all Trump supporters racists, just as it does not make all Hillary supporters communists.

I guess to sum up - what a lot of republican voters want is a return to the traditional republican ideals of a small government, good fiscal policy, a strong military, and the U.S. acting as a leader on the world stage. A large part of the republican base (at least those under age 50) do not care about traditional republican social values, and support (perhaps strongly support) movements such as the gay rights movement, trans-gender equality, women's equality etc. And by "do not care" I mean that they are fine with the advances that have been made in those areas and are fine with proactively taking steps to ensure equality of those and other groups.

What many republicans don't want (generally) is the never ending expansion of government aid programs (at the cost of increased taxes and the federal deficit), a continuance of the "woe is me" attitude that many Americans have, and a continuance of poor fiscal and poor foreign policy decisions. As to the latter - I think the biggest legacy Obama will leave behind is not Obama care, an improvement to gay rights, etc. I think the thing he will be remembered most for 50 years from now is the Iran nuclear deal. I sincerely hope that my intuition is not correct. But I think that one single foreign policy decision was perhaps one of the absolute worst foreign policy decisions that has ever been made in this country. It made the entire world less safe by enabling of bunch of unstable loonies (who expressly want to kill us and everyone else that does not think the way they do, by the way) to have access to nuclear material that they can use to support the production of nuclear weapons.

FWIW - I did not vote for Trump. I voted for Evan McMullin. Why? Because I want a president who is first and foremost a leader with sound judgement. Trump is a kind of the former (leader), but his judgment (at least for now) is suspect IMO. Hopefully that impression will change over time. That said, I can see and understand why many people DID vote for Trump - and little of that has to do with social issues.

A final point - I am sick of people asserting that "uneducated" people voted for Trump - because its clear that it is just a polite way of saying "stupid people" voted for Trump. The fact that someone lacks a college education does not make them stupid. Someone without a college education might not be "book smart," but relatively few people are truly "stupid." Heck - some of the dumbest, most out of touch people I have met in my life have been those with doctoral degrees. And some of the smartest people on earth lack formal education (Bill gates being one notable example).

This was an excellent summary of how the vast majority that I associate with feel. As do I.

 

[agent00f]

Posting in another sportage post election meltdown thread........LOL

Sportage has been triggered, big time and I'm enjoying it greatly. Just sit back and watch, President Trump will take it from here.

Wow this is amusing and sad. Go get some help.

The first few posts in this thread answer the OP's question remarkable well.

Clearly these aren't people who've won much of anything in life, so their existence is defined by finally sticking it to someone better than them for once. This is a regrettable feature of the political communism of egalitarian democracy, so they used the tool a decent government gave them in good faith, to enact some revenge no matter the cost or means. Even if they can't kick the mexicans et al back down, at least they can tell of the day they screwed everyone else over, too.

You already see them making excuses why trump won't actually do anything except enrich himself. They always knew that was coming to some extent, they certainly know a fellow piece of shit when they see one, even if they're willing to lie to whatever extent necessary to "win". Eg. telling everyone who'd listen "both sides are equally bad" when they certainly didn't believe that come polling day.

The worst part of this is liberals won't never learn the right lesson, because they're ingrained to believe the egalitarian lie that people are decent. Some evidently are not, like those bible thumpers who'll pretend to morality all day, then vote for the most ungodly man possible out of selfish expedience.

The only optimism to be found is that demographics will inevitably marginalize the worst people in this country, assuming they haven't burned it to the ground first in their last act of desperation.

 

[blankslate]

Hey you want to lose again keep on pushing centrist limousine liberal millionaire big money grabbin' politicians instead of the person who not only excited the base but appealed to independents which is why Clinton lost those states....

We were called misogynists and Bros for telling you why Clinton wasn't the best choice for the general given all the reasons listed in other threads why Clinton despite her resume (read the experience all the, as we know now totally wrong, pundits touted for her) lost. It wasn't about resumes it was about who spoke best to the issue of trade policies killing jobs.
Ironically, Bernie would not have run if Senator Warren ran and she would've gotten the vast overwhelming majority of the support that Bernie had by the end of the primary.

So go have your little melt-down then in the future you can conveniently forget why Clinton lost those states that Tim Kane (who is being talked up as the guy for 2020) will also lose.


______________

 

[agent00f]

Hey you want to lose again keep on pushing centrist limousine liberal millionaire big money grabbin' politicians instead of the person who not only excited the base but appealed to independents which is why Clinton lost those states....

We were called misogynists and Bros for telling you why Clinton wasn't the best choice for the general given all the reasons listed in other threads why Clinton despite her resume (read the experience all the, as we know now totally wrong, pundits touted for her) lost. It wasn't about resumes it was about who spoke best to the issue of trade policies killing jobs.
Ironically, Bernie would not have run if Senator Warren ran and she would've gotten the vast overwhelming majority of the support that Bernie had by the end of the primary.

So go have your little melt-down then in the future you can conveniently forget why Clinton lost those states that Tim Kane (who is being talked up as the guy for 2020) will also lose.

______________

They talk about jobs while ignoring the fact that democrats fought every inch of the auto bailout which is the only reason why half of them still have a job.

I mentioned elsewhere that come next time some minority group might have to take one for the team. Dunno if they wanna draw straws or what.

Sanders or whoever can promise all the jobs he wants but his counterpart will always have the white race trump card on top. The bern's just going to have sell out some principles to get the W.

 

[blankslate]

The bern's just going to have sell out some principles to get the W.

No Bernie would have gotten much more of the independents who broke for Trump rather than Clinton while getting at least as much (imo more) of the base out for the election....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-donald-trump-pre-election-poll-a7412636.html

Hillary Clinton did not fare quite as well in the poll amongst Independent voters – who could not vote during the primaries, resulting in Mr Sanders' loss to the former Secretary of State. The poll found that Mr Sanders led Ms Clinton among independent voters 55 to 45 per cent. Ms Clinton suffered a major blow Tuesday night from that particular demographic, losing independents to Donald Trump 48 per cent to 42 per cent..

This was the election cycle where a Bernie Sanders could have won without selling out. You're living in an establishment bubble and you are choosing to swallow their "blue pill" to believe otherwise


*e2a*
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ld-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
written by Thomas Frand author of "What's a Matter with Kansas?"
*I bolded parts of the excerpt*

What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?

Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.

And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.

____________

 

[agent00f]

No Bernie would have gotten much more of the independents who broke for Trump rather than Clinton while getting at least as much (imo more) of the base out for the election....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-donald-trump-pre-election-poll-a7412636.html

This was the election cycle where a Bernie Sanders could have won without selling out. You're living in an establishment bubble and you are choosing to swallow their "blue pill" to believe otherwise

*e2a*
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ld-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
written by Thomas Frand author of "What's a Matter with Kansas?"
*I bolded parts of the excerpt*

____________

I don't think you understand what I'm saying here, and possibly didn't even watch the same election. Recall that trump was the guy whose rallies consisted of calling mexicans rapists or such, and kept raising the height of that wall meant to keep them out. Who knew such a message would resonate so well near the canadian border. A key point you should consider here is that the republican candidates who didn't do that wouldn't have much of shot in those "firewall" states. Do you see McCain and Romney stooping that low? And how well did they do there?

And how was Sanders going to counter that kind of rhetoric? By promising jobs Trump was already promising 10x more of? It's pretty clear the only path open is have some minority scapegoat of his own to wall off. You got any one in mind?

 

[Blanky]

I think they want somebody who had not abused their office for years.
I think they wanted a president who cared more about law and order than stoking racial tensions even when he was wrong time and again (starting with trayvon who looked like his son).
I think they want a washington that is more interested about the fact their health care just went up 25% than adjudicating the ever so important issue of whether a transgender person can use a bathroom.
I think they wanted somebody who wouldn't look down on them sneering as being part of the "uneducated white".

 

[Ornery]

Social security is going to be out of funds in the next 20-30 years if something is not done to change it - be it structurally, how its financed, or both. The simply fact is that were live in a country where the population is aging, people are living longer, and there are fewer workers to support each retiree. That is precisely why my retirement plans assume social security will not be there. Because if it is there (and I doubt it will be for someone with my income) when I retire, the amount I see from it will be infinitesimally small. Something needs to change with social security. Privatization may not be how to do it, but at least its something.

Medicare is another huge program that needs to drastically change. We cannot keep going on spending huge amounts of our GDP on medical care. We cannot afford it.

First of all your earlier answer to the OP is spot on. I'll add to it the need to eliminate regulations and streamline red tape that stifles new as well as existing businesses.

And, I wish SS had been privatized. Too late for me, but I'd have been all over that. Here in Ohio, teachers don't have to pay into SS. They have their own "Public Employees Retirement System". I'd love a piece of that, how about you?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

First of all your earlier answer to the OP is spot on. I'll add to it the need to eliminate regulations and streamline red tape that stifles new as well as existing businesses.

And, I wish SS had been privatized. Too late for me, but I'd have been all over that. Here in Ohio, teachers don't have to pay into SS. They have their own "Public Employees Retirement System". I'd love a piece of that, how about you?

Whatever happens with SS, I would like to see all retirement plan income be completely tax free. Being able to keep all of the money in your 401k and traditional IRA, minus fees, would help millions of us tremendously, come retirement time. Pensions, even a lump sum payout, should stop being taxable income too.

Or have I missed important economic factors that makes this a bad idea?

 

[Jhhnn]

I seriously have no clue what point you are trying to make. Your argument is an angry rant containing seemingly random points.

Re: middle class people being cut out of the cash flow - what in the world does that even mean? What cash flow are you talking about?

Go to table 5-

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

The top 1% share of income has more that doubled since 1980. The top .1% share is now greater than the whole 1% share in 1980.

Re: Financial elites. Who are these people, exactly? Give me some examples (besides trump). I hear that term thrown around a lot, but its used a lot like the hypothetical "they" (as in "They want us to fail;" "They are against us" etc. while never identifying who "they are). And how exactly are those people insurgent to the government of the people and to democracy?

The Twin Insurgency - The American Interest

Re: fighting financial elites - I can (kind of) see your points re: regulation and taxation. But how in the world do we fight financial elites with government jobs and wealth redistribution? The federal and state governments combined employ over 20% of the workforce. How many more government jobs do we need?

Total govt employment vs population is at its lowest point since 1962-

http://www.businessinsider.com/government-worker-percentage-2015-1

If you don't want to be dependent on job creators or the government, start a business and be your own boss.

That's the usual sort of non-sequiter dodge so common on the Right. It simply doesn't apply in a macro sense. It's not about me. Not everybody gets to be their own boss. Not everybody has the capital & financial reserves to even attempt it.

Computers & automation have drastically reduced the need for human labor in our economy. That process is ongoing. Offshoring has moved much of that work outside our own labor market, shifting the source of American income from work to investment, from the middle class to the political donor investor class as we saw in my first link, above.

That trend is irreversible. If we want more jobs then we need to create them through the agency of govt because the financial elite see no profit in doing so themselves.

We need a new way to look at it all, a new way to define what comes with being an American, and Trumpism fails entirely in that regard.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Go to table 5-
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

The top 1% share of income has more that doubled since 1980. The top .1% share is now greater than the whole 1% share in 1980.

Ah, so your argument is more about wealth inequality than cutting people out of some sort of cash flow.

Total govt employment vs population is at its lowest point since 1962-

http://www.businessinsider.com/government-worker-percentage-2015-1

Not sure I believe the article you reported, as there are other articles in the same time frame with significantly different numbers.

See, e.g., http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-government-employees-outnumber-manufacturing

That's the usual sort of non-sequiter dodge so common on the Right. It simply doesn't apply in a macro sense. It's not about me. Not everybody gets to be their own boss. Not everybody has the capital &
financial reserves to even attempt it.

Then what you are arguing is a non-sequitur. You said we need to stop relying on the government and job creators. The ONLY way you do that is to work for yourself.

Computers & automation have drastically reduced the need for human labor in our economy. That process is ongoing. Offshoring has moved much of that work outside our own labor market, shifting the source of American income from work to investment, from the middle class to the political donor investor class as we saw in my first link, above.

That trend is irreversible. If we want more jobs then we need to create them through the agency of govt because the financial elite see no profit in doing so themselves.

Hogwash. Utter hogwash. There is always a job for people who want to work. It might not be a great job, but you can survive. I know first hand because I watched my parents scratch a living from essentially nothing. My dad came to the U.S. with $1:34 in is pocket. Although he was a trained linguistics teacher and a legit polyglot, he was unemployable in the U.S. because no one would recognize his degree (which was from a university in then Czechoslovakia). His solution to that problem was not to rely on the government to create an opportunity for him. He worked initially as a sheet metal stamper in a plant in Chicago. He saved up a little money and then opened a painting and wallpapering business. His business took off because he was hard working, trustworthy, reasonably priced, and reasonably skilled.

People tend to forget that most businesses in the world are not the gigantic brands everyone knows. Most are small businesses where people employ themselves and maybe 3-4 other people. You don't need a ton of cash or a ton of skill to open up a lot of those businesses.

Your argument is just a reiteration of the woe-is-me attitude that so many have today. instead of looking for someone or something else to create an opportunity for you, go out and create one yourself. We used to be a nation of doers. I'm not that old (39) and yet I still understand that point.

We need a new way to look at it all, a new way to define what comes with being an American, and Trumpism fails entirely in that regard.

And what, exactly is that new way? Hopefully its not just the rehashed version of Marx's Communist Manifesto that many are pushing for these days.