Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    In-between watching Westworld and reading our President Elect's Twitter account lately I've been think a lot about Simulacra and Simulation and the precession of Simulacra. I stumbled upon this essay by Baudrillard and it seems as relevant today as it was 25 years ago- maybe more so.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
      In-between watching Westworld and reading our President Elect's Twitter account lately I've been think a lot about Simulacra and Simulation and the precession of Simulacra. I stumbled upon this essay by Baudrillard and it seems as relevant today as it was 25 years ago- maybe more so.
      I think it's hilarious you think yourself to be such an intellect; yet you feed from this liberal dumpyard.

      Shit in, shit out.

      Comment


      • #53
        I am an independent completely, but does it concern anyone else that trump does not have any political experience? I just worry about his ability to handle everything.

        I hope change is coming, I just hope this change works out for everyone.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by AllGoldEverything View Post
          I am an independent completely, but does it concern anyone else that trump does not have any political experience? I just worry about his ability to handle everything.

          I hope change is coming, I just hope this change works out for everyone.
          The lack of any political experience has the potential to be problematic, but it's certainly no guarantee that it will be. Ike had no political experience before being elected president, though you could certainly argue that his experience in WWII counted for a lot. Reagan had none before being elected governor of California. A number of senators & presidents were retired military guys who'd never held office before. Maybe what we need is someone who's not a professional career politician and can approach things a bit differently. I think that his lack of political experience won't be a problem if he surrounds himself with the right people who do have experience and he listens to their advice.
          Winners see success and want to climb up to its level. Losers see success and want to drag it down to their own.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
            The lack of any political experience has the potential to be problematic, but it's certainly no guarantee that it will be. Ike had no political experience before being elected president, though you could certainly argue that his experience in WWII counted for a lot. Reagan had none before being elected governor of California. A number of senators & presidents were retired military guys who'd never held office before. Maybe what we need is someone who's not a professional career politician and can approach things a bit differently. I think that his lack of political experience won't be a problem if he surrounds himself with the right people who do have experience and he listens to their advice.
            I agree with a lot of what you are saying. You are exactly right, other presidents have done it. What do you think about Bannon though?

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by AllGoldEverything View Post
              What do you think about Bannon though?
              I know almost nothing about him, so I'm completely unqualified to offer any opinion. I like Trump's choice of Sessions as AG.
              Winners see success and want to climb up to its level. Losers see success and want to drag it down to their own.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
                The lack of any political experience has the potential to be problematic, but it's certainly no guarantee that it will be. Ike had no political experience before being elected president, though you could certainly argue that his experience in WWII counted for a lot. Reagan had none before being elected governor of California. A number of senators & presidents were retired military guys who'd never held office before. Maybe what we need is someone who's not a professional career politician and can approach things a bit differently.
                Ike's role as head honcho of the Allies probably trumps any experience one could hope to have before being the leader of the free world. Reagan's terms as governor showed he could delegate his way through an administration, which is what he did as President.

                I respect the opinion that someone from outside the Beltway could offer some needed views, but that 1) was the exact opposite of the GOP's position just eight years ago and 2) logically doesn't mean the absence of experience is a positive every time.

                Originally posted by Bishop2b5 View Post
                I think that his lack of political experience won't be a problem if he surrounds himself with the right people who do have experience and he listens to their advice.
                We thought this would be the case for George Bush, and the result was disastrous. He surrounded himself with "top" Republicans who knew how to work the system and they worked said system right into the Iraq War. That's what makes all of these Bolton/Guiliani rumors terrifying to me. Neither of those guys have any reason to be in a position of power like Secretary of State or anything near the President for that matter.

                The worry with Trump is that he hasn't ever demonstrated an ability to be levelheaded when someone "wrongs" him. Donald Trump in the Situation Room could be a disaster as global adversaries play this narcissist as the fool he has been on the campaign trail.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                  1. Because HRC isn't Obama.

                  2. Because empirical evidence isn't everything in politics.

                  3. Because the people who were least happy with Obama have a disproportionate amount of voting power.

                  Are you being serious here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the left was convinced they would win because of the "blue wall." It's pretty much widely accepted at this point that a Republican candidate is at a disadvantage from the get-go.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by theclassickiller View Post
                    Are you being serious here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the left was convinced they would win because of the "blue wall." It's pretty much widely accepted at this point that a Republican candidate is at a disadvantage from the get-go.
                    Widely accepted by who? Dems have won 6 out of the past 7 popular votes and 4 out of 7 elections. The evidence certainly does not seem to point to a structural Dem advantage.

                    But that's not actually the point I was making with that- it was very specific to people who were not happy with Obama. That group somewhat overlaps with Dems, but it also includes a lot of rust belt voters who were traditionally dem voting union workers but who showed up bigly this year for Trump.

                    It's a group of people that voted for Obama (in places like West Virginia and a lot of industrial districts in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Ohio) and voted overwhelmingly for Trump in this election.

                    I posted a link somewhere in this thread showing the average voting power of a voter by state. A voter in Ohio has something like 100x the voting power of an average American voter, so the fact that they swung so hard from Obama to Trump was a big freaking deal in this election- way bigger than their share of the population would suggest.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Relevant:
                      "It is so much easier to live placidly and complacently. Of course, to live placidly and complacently is not to live at all."-Jack London

                      Comment


                      • #61
                        Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                        Do you think Batista was a good guy?

                        The Fidel question is an interesting one because it mirrors plenty of other Cold War conflicts. The US supported a repressive dictator, a civil war ensued and a dictator who wasn't under an American thumb rose and we claimed we're simply fighting the good fight for democracy and capitalism...

                        Fidel Castro & Friends beat a murdering dictator backed by the US. It has been estimated that Batista killed ~20,000 Cubans in the 1950s. It simply wasn't a peachy time on the island under American influence, that can be said for most of Latin America.

                        Economically plenty of Cubans were unhappy with the situation that they saw as American mercantilism:



                        As for allying with the USSR, what do you expect? Cuba is an island like 100 miles from the greatest power in history, which it had antagonized by nationalizing its corporations' holdings. Allying itself with the USSR was a way to prevent an American invasion. Obviously it's understandable that Americans would shake their head and being buddies with the Soviets, but then again most Americans don't know the history of American influence in the Caribbean/Latin America. I think there is an argument to be made that Cuba found itself between a rock and a hard place as a key piece in the Cold War feud.

                        Ultimately Fidel Castro gets an asterisk from many on the Left because during his time in power there was a real commitment to health care and education for his people and both Cuban systems outclass their Caribbean counterparts. How many dictators has the US supported who didn't give a flying fuck about any of that? That's why he gets an asterisk. That doesn't mean, at all, that the Left has excused his political repression and all of the murders, which are of course deplorable.
                        1930s Germany was between a rock and a hard place. Versailles had left them gutted and they had no industry to speak of. Their birthrates were plummeting and inflation was eating the country alive. The Red Menace to the East was threatening to consume Germany and the Weimar Republic was too week and ineffectual to respond. The Allies had gutted the Reich and separated many ethnic Germans from the Vaterland.

                        This is why Hitler gets an asterisk from many on the Right because during his time in power there was a real commitment to rebuilding German infrastructure, promoting high birth rates, and the modernization of Germany's military. I mean he was Time's Man of the Year! He put Germans back to work, reunited the Volksdeutsche, and combatted the spread of Communism. Plus they had universal healthcare, the 3rd Reich invented the modern highway system, they had great schools, and it was one of the first countries in history to have a strong conservationist movement. That's why he gets an asterisk. That doesn't mean, at all, that the Righ has excused his political repression and all of the murders, which are of course deplorable.


                        This is how ridiculous and unhinged you sound Buster. Castro "gets an asterisk" because he invested in education and healthcare?
                        "It is so much easier to live placidly and complacently. Of course, to live placidly and complacently is not to live at all."-Jack London

                        Comment


                        • #62
                          Originally posted by Buster Bluth View Post
                          but that 1) was the exact opposite of the GOP's position just eight years ago
                          But it was the position of the Democrats 8 years ago.
                          "It is so much easier to live placidly and complacently. Of course, to live placidly and complacently is not to live at all."-Jack London

                          Comment


                          • #63
                            Trump Excuses the White Working Class From the Politics of Personal Responsibility - The Atlantic

                            thoughts? Especially interested if you read and/or link to NR or TAC on the reg.

                            Comment


                            • #64
                              looks like Petraes making the rounds, despite his "off the field issues" I always thought he was a very smart, highly qualified capable guy--hope he gets what he is after.

                              Comment


                              • #65
                                Originally posted by ND NYC View Post
                                looks like Petraes making the rounds, despite his "off the field issues" I always thought he was a very smart, highly qualified capable guy--hope he gets what he is after.
                                Yeah, he would be an appointment I felt good about.

                                Comment


                                • #66
                                  Originally posted by ND NYC View Post
                                  looks like Petraes making the rounds, despite his "off the field issues" I always thought he was a very smart, highly qualified capable guy--hope he gets what he is after.
                                  I think it is a trap to see if any ex-Hillary backers express outrage over someone in government with a security clearance after mishandling classified information.

                                  Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                  Comment


                                  • #67
                                    Originally posted by ickythump1225 View Post
                                    1930s Germany was between a rock and a hard place. Versailles had left them gutted and they had no industry to speak of. Their birthrates were plummeting and inflation was eating the country alive. The Red Menace to the East was threatening to consume Germany and the Weimar Republic was too week and ineffectual to respond. The Allies had gutted the Reich and separated many ethnic Germans from the Vaterland.

                                    This is why Hitler gets an asterisk from many on the Right because during his time in power there was a real commitment to rebuilding German infrastructure, promoting high birth rates, and the modernization of Germany's military. I mean he was Time's Man of the Year! He put Germans back to work, reunited the Volksdeutsche, and combatted the spread of Communism. Plus they had universal healthcare, the 3rd Reich invented the modern highway system, they had great schools, and it was one of the first countries in history to have a strong conservationist movement. That's why he gets an asterisk. That doesn't mean, at all, that the Righ has excused his political repression and all of the murders, which are of course deplorable.


                                    Yeah, even Hitler and the Nazis deserve to have their good achievements weighed against their atrocities. You left out some good achievements: they led the world in establishing decent animal rights laws (weird considering their racism..) and mandated vacation time to create a modern tourist economy.

                                    Then they, ya know, killed millions in the world's first industrialized genocide and were the main culprit in a war that killed tens of millions more. So even a fool can weigh those appropriately.

                                    Originally posted by ickythump1225 View Post
                                    This is how ridiculous and unhinged you sound Buster. Castro "gets an asterisk" because he invested in education and healthcare?
                                    If trying to provide context and a fair historical picture of the situation is ridiculous and unhinged, sign me up. I haven't suggested that I am a Castro fan. I didn't say I agreed with Trudeau's remarks. And most importantly, I haven't once excused or made light of Castro's killings.

                                    Mostly I just think Americans, specifically Conservatives, are being enormous hypocrites with this politically-motivated outrage. Do you need a list of US-supported dictators and all of the atrocities we've ignored because it served our interests?

                                    More specifically, do you need a picture of a murdering Communist (and genocidal monster who killed more people than Hitler) getting a handshake and a smile from a US President (and Republican)? Because here it that:



                                    Or how about the next Republican President's personal favorite dictator? You know, the guy to whom we sold gas munitions, and who used them in battle the same week we were over there normalizing the diplomatic relationship. Would you like a picture of our President's personal envoy, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, shaking hands with that piece of shit?



                                    Let's try a different continent. How about Africa? Mobutu's human rights record might have been the worst in all of Africa, but according to Reagan he was "a voice of good sense and goodwill." Here he is with Nixon:



                                    We could go on and on and on and on and on.

                                    So for me the outrage over neutral or mildly supportive words after this dictators death are a god damn joke, completely motivated because 1) this dictator wasn't our dictator, and 2) many of this dictator's refugees live in a swing state.

                                    The asterisk is notable because unlike all of the guys I mentioned and I'm sure most of the ones listed on that wiki sheet, Castro and Co actually invested a fair share into building up the nation's educational and health care systems--two huge components for the everyday guy. That, in my view, is an asterisk that says "hey check that out, this shithead actually did a halfway decent job in some pretty important fields--something that wasn't ever achieved by our cronies in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, or Asia..."
                                    Last edited by Buster Bluth; 11-28-2016, 08:37 PM.

                                    Comment


                                    • #68
                                      they never learn;.....its never.....never appropriate to use hitler/nazis for any type of comparison, or analogy. Unless your talking about a video game where you shoot, hunt, and kill nazis.

                                      its show your naivete not only in the topic of discussion, but also suggests only a surface knowledge (at best) of the Nazi regime.
                                      YYZ by RUSH (cover) - (only the last half)
                                      Billie Stephens' Fiery Disaster -- Dancin' with Myself (partial cover)

                                      Comment


                                      • #69
                                        Trump wins Michigan's 16 electoral votes, state board says | Fox News
                                        Published November 28, 2016 Associated Press

                                        President-elect Donald Trump has won Michigan's 16 electoral votes.

                                        The Board of State Canvassers certified Trump's 10,704-vote victory on Monday, nearly three weeks after the election. The two-tenths of a percentage point margin out of nearly 4.8 million votes is the closest presidential race in Michigan in more than 75 years.

                                        Trump's win in Michigan gives the Republican 306 electoral votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton's 232.

                                        Trump is the first Republican presidential nominee to win Michigan since 1988.

                                        Green Party candidate Jill Stein is expected to ask for a recount. She has until Wednesday. Trump would have seven days to file objections to her request.

                                        Comment


                                        • #70
                                          Trump to name Obamacare critic as health secretary - Nov. 28, 2016
                                          by Tami Luhby @Luhby
                                          November 28, 2016: 11:02 PM ET

                                          President-elect Donald Trump has selected Georgia Representative Tom Price, an ardent critic of Obamacare, to head the Department of Health and Human Services, according to an official briefed on the decision.
                                          The official announcement will likely come Tuesday.
                                          One of Price's top priorities as health secretary will be to dismantle the sweeping health reform law that his two predecessors spent six years implementing.
                                          Price, an orthopedic surgeon who chairs the House Budget Committee, has long decried Obamacare as a threat to quality and affordable health care.
                                          "The purpose of health reform should be to advance accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, and innovation," the Republican congressman said in 2011, a year after Obamacare was signed into law. "None of these are improved" by the Affordable Care Act, he added.

                                          ...

                                          Comment


                                          • #71
                                            Trump chants of "Lock her up" for Hillary's email server and talks of Bill Clinton's affairs, but is "very impressed" by David Petraeus?

                                            How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time (Washington Post)

                                            Inside a secure conference room on the sixth floor of the Justice Department in early 2014, top federal law enforcement *officials gathered to hear what criminal charges prosecutors were contemplating against David H. Petraeus, the *storied wartime general and former CIA director whose public career had ended about 15 months earlier over an extramarital affair.

                                            Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and FBI Director James B. Comey listened as prosecutors did a mock run-through of the government’s case, a preview of how they would present their evidence to Petraeus’s lawyers in order, they hoped, to force a guilty plea.

                                            The presentation included felony charges: lying to the FBI and violating a section of the Espionage Act. A conviction on either carried potentially years in prison.

                                            They were also considering bringing the same charges against Petraeus’s biographer and former mistress, Paula Broadwell.
                                            Last edited by Legacy; 11-29-2016, 03:17 AM.

                                            Comment


                                            • #72
                                              Trump's Cabinet, top appointments: Elaine Chao, Tom Price, Seema Verma, other final picks | am New York
                                              By Nicole Brown with Lauren Cook and Reuters nicole.brown@amny.com November 29, 2016

                                              President-elect Donald Trump has settled on some positions in his Cabinet, as well as other top West Wing roles, while others remain unfilled.
                                              He must choose all his Cabinet members and appointments by his Jan. 20, 2017, inauguration, and he will eventually need to fill about 4,000 positions in the government.
                                              Here's a look at the people he has selected so far.

                                              ...

                                              Comment


                                              • #73
                                                Breaking News

                                                Trump announces Dec. 15 news conference to discuss leaving business | Reuters

                                                President-elect Donald Trump said on Wednesday he will be leaving his business "in total" to focus on running the country and will outline the plan in a Dec. 15 news conference with his family, according to a post on Twitter.
                                                (Reporting by Doina Chiacu Editing by W Simon)

                                                Comment


                                                • #74
                                                  Trump wins Michigan's electoral votes, Jill Stein serves notice for recount | PBS NewsHour
                                                  BY NANCY BENAC, ASSOCIATED PRESS November 28, 2016 at 2:33 PM EST | Updated: Nov 28, 2016 at 4:25 PM

                                                  Nearly three weeks after Election Day, Michigan officials certified Monday that Donald Trump won the state by 10,704 votes out of nearly 4.8 million to claim all of its 16 electoral votes. There’s more wrangling to come, though, on the final vote count for this oh-so-contentious campaign.

                                                  Jill Stein’s Green Party served notice that it would petition for a Michigan recount even as her party pushed forward with recount efforts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump won by somewhat wider but still small margins.

                                                  Should the results for Trump hold in all three states, as expected, the president-elect would have 306 electoral votes to 232 for Democrat Hillary Clinton. It takes 270 to be elected president.

                                                  Only if the results were overturned in all three states would Clinton have a claim on the presidency, and that is widely considered to be out of the question.

                                                  If it’s any consolation for Clinton — and it’s probably mighty little — she’s winning the national popular vote. With some votes still being counted, she is ahead by more than 2 million, about 1.5 percent of the total counted so far.
                                                  ...

                                                  Stein, who won 1.4 million votes nationwide or about 1 percent of the count, signaled her determination to keep pushing the Midwest recount efforts, saying that “Americans deserve a voting system we can trust.” As of Monday, she had raised $6.2 million to finance recounts, according to her campaign website.

                                                  “After a presidential election tarnished by the use of outdated and unreliable machines and accusations of irregularities and hacks, people of all political persuasions are asking if our election results are reliable,” she said in a statement.

                                                  There is no evidence that voter results were hacked or that electronic voting machines were compromised.

                                                  The Clinton campaign, which declined to initiate recounts on its own, said over the weekend it would participate in the recounts requested by Stein “to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides,” in the words of campaign lawyer Marc Elias.

                                                  Stein’s campaign said she would file a petition Wednesday for a Michigan recount, after which Trump would have seven days to file objections. Trump’s margin of victory in the state was a slim 0.22 percent of the total vote.

                                                  Michigan Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel said a recount would be “a waste of time and disrespectful to all Michigan voters.”

                                                  Chris Thomas, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, said the recount would begin as early as Friday to meet a Dec. 13 deadline. Under state policy, the recount will be conducted by hand.

                                                  He said election officials have heard a lot this year about “so-called fraud … without any foundation in fact,” and a recount settling that question could provide one “silver lining.”

                                                  ...

                                                  The AP on Monday updated its election night vote count in Wisconsin to correct the totals for both candidates in three separate counties. The updates dropped Trump’s margin over Clinton from 27,257 votes to 22,460 votes, or 0.8 percent of the total vote. The corrections were made during the regular post-election canvass of the election-night vote.

                                                  In Pennsylvania, where Trump edged Clinton by about 71,000 votes, or about 1 percent of the vote, Stein filed a lawsuit seeking a statewide recount but it wasn’t clear if the courts had the authority to order one.

                                                  Democratic Secretary of State Pedro Cortes said there was no evidence of voting irregularities or cyberattacks on Pennsylvania’s voting machines, 96 percent of which record votes electronically and leave no paper trail.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • #75
                                                    Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                                                    Trump chants of "Lock her up" for Hillary's email server and talks of Bill Clinton's affairs, but is "very impressed" by David Petraeus?

                                                    How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time (Washington Post)
                                                    First of all, Trump never went after Bill Clinton for his affairs. He called out the hypocrisy of Hilary Clinton, a woman who rode the coattails of a notorious womanizer who has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women, for calling into question Trump's qualification to be President because of his sexual ethics.

                                                    It really was pretty audacious of her. Trump certainly could care less if someone had an affair.

                                                    Second--and I don't like Patreus at all and have no idea what Trump is thinking, so I am answering your question as if you are actually asking one and not just looking for nods from your team--maybe he sees a difference between:

                                                    1) a woman who:
                                                    - set up a private server that exposed high level diplomatic communication to international hackers over protests from multiple source,
                                                    - used it for a prolonged period for nothing more than her own personal convenience,
                                                    - lied to both Congress and the Public about it multiple times,
                                                    - destroyed evidence,
                                                    -escaped anything close to a thorough investigation through political pressure put on the FBI through the DOJ, and
                                                    - ultimately got a way with it completely ...

                                                    AND

                                                    2) a 4-star general who led the country through 2 wars and:
                                                    - let his long-time mistress, who graduated with honors from West Point, served in the military, reserves, and Army Intelligence, read his classified journal, and
                                                    - who got thoroughly investigated and prosecuted for it.

                                                    Maybe he thinks Hilary represents an abuse of power that put her own convenience over national security, while DP just showed weakness but never really jeopardized national security.

                                                    That may be how he sees it, even if that is not how you see it. Personally, I think Patreus seems like a slimy political-type and I'm not a fan, and don't think he deserves to be SEc. of State.
                                                    Last edited by Domina Nostra; 11-30-2016, 07:49 AM.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • #76
                                                      Why Hillary Lost but All Not Lost Sound article by a huge Liberal

                                                      How Macomb County Created and Killed the Clinton Machine - The Daily Beast

                                                      Famed Bill Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg said Hillary Clinton’s lack of economic message drove Reagan Democrats back to their roots.

                                                      ELEANOR CLIFT
                                                      11.29.16 12:00 AM ET

                                                      Stan Greenberg was still fuming 15 days after the election. He used words like “political malpractice” and “incompetent” to express his puzzlement at the outcome.
                                                      “How could they lose Michigan with 10,000 votes!”
                                                      he exclaimed in an interview, and Wisconsin too, he added, where the Clinton campaign—though flush with money—put in very little advertising.

                                                      For Greenberg, the Democratic pollster who helped engineer Bill Clinton’s presidential victory in 1992, Hillary Clinton’s loss in these Rust Belt states took him full circle back to Macomb County, Michigan, where his groundbreaking research on voters dubbed Reagan Democrats set the stage for Clinton’s White House win after 16 years of Republican rule.

                                                      Greenberg was so obsessed with Macomb County as the key to winning nationally that Bill Clinton would tease him asking, “How many electoral votes does Macomb County have?”

                                                      Clinton almost won Macomb in ’92, and carried it in ’96.
                                                      Barack Obama won it in 2012 by 4 points. Hillary Clinton lost Macomb County by 12 points, a stinging rebuke by this most studied group of voters.

                                                      The swing back to the GOP echoes what happened in 1984 when the blue-collar, unionized, mostly Democratic voters in the Macomb County suburbs that had voted for John F. Kennedy in a landslide broke for President Reagan. “When Reagan won, that was shattering,” says Greenberg, who was commissioned by the Michigan Democratic Party and the UAW (United Auto Workers) to figure out why the Democratic nominee, Vice President Walter Mondale, had lost so badly.

                                                      Greenberg’s focus groups and surveys of Macomb County voters caught Bill Clinton’s attention. “I came up with compelling findings how angry they were—but that they weren’t lost to the Democrats,” Greenberg told The Daily Beast. “They wanted to know ‘Why aren’t we central to your agenda?’ And they expressed themselves in very graphic and colorful language.”

                                                      Asked if “graphic and colorful” meant racially explicit language, Greenberg said yes, and for some Democrats seeking to rebuild their party, that was a deal-breaker. “Some Democrats said because of these voters’ illegitimate views, we shouldn’t incorporate them in our coalition. Bill Clinton, having grown up in Arkansas, understood these are voters Democrats could appeal to—and he also had legitimacy finding issues they wanted to address.”

                                                      The most famous incident was with Sister Souljah, a young black hip-hop artist, whose racially charged lyrics Clinton denounced at a meeting of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition in June of ’92. Clinton’s willingness to repudiate the singer at Jackson’s event signaled to white working-class voters that the party had heard their concerns and was not beholden to any one interest group at their expense.

                                                      “It’s not a trade-off—you can win them both,” says Greenberg, citing Bill Clinton’s ease and comfort with black Americans, and his civil-rights activism as a young man, and as governor, for his success in winning over white voters without alienating his support in the black community.

                                                      The New York Times and Politico reported that Clinton had “pleaded” with his wife’s campaign to redouble their efforts among downscale white voters in key battleground states, but was told that wasn’t the target group, and that victory was in hand.

                                                      “I think she would have won the election but for (FBI Director) Comey, but things happen in campaigns, the issue is how you respond to it. It was all attacking Trump—his temperament, how he was offending different groups. They went totally silent on the economy and any future plan that would be helpful to people,” says Greenberg.
                                                      He gives Clinton high marks for her speech at the Convention, where she demanded corporate responsibility and called for large-scale investments that would build an economy for many, not the few, a phrase she repeated multiple times. At the three debates, she had a consistent message pushing for economic change while she assailed Trump on taxes and “Trumped up trickle down.”

                                                      In the dial groups that Greenberg did, Clinton had her biggest shifts on who is better for the economy and who stands up against special interests. “How could you not close on that subject?” he exclaims, recalling her declaration in the last 60 seconds of the final debate, “The mission is to make the economy work for all, not just a few.”
                                                      Greenberg was elated, but not for long. “That’s the last we ever heard of it,” he says of Clinton’s economic message.

                                                      The news cycles took over. The Clinton Foundation leaks focused on personal enrichment, feeding into the narrative that the Clintons were self-serving, and then FBI Director James Comey dropped his bomb, focusing renewed attention on Clinton’s emails.

                                                      He calls Clinton’s final two-minute ad “a mishmash” that focused on divisiveness and unity and opportunity with just one sentence on the economy, “which was the number one issue, which we knew going in and from our exits.”

                                                      In ’92, Bill Clinton’s final 30-second ad scrolled down a list of names, business people and economists endorsing Clinton’s economic plan. “We knew we had to win the economy, so that ad had one subject, ‘win the economy.’

                                                      In Greenberg’s view, after a “masterful” handling of the Convention and the debates, the Clinton campaign fell off a cliff, and President Obama helped with the downfall.
                                                      “He was the main closing message,” he said. “His message was things are going well, we need to build on the progress.”


                                                      While Obama had every right to build on his legacy, Clinton didn’t have to follow his lead. “She no longer ran on change, she ran on continued progress in a change election. She lost the election in the final two weeks because of avoidable things that could have put them in the lead.”

                                                      As the Democrats survey the wreckage, Greenberg is optimistic. He doesn’t believe the party is divided ideologically. There’s not much that divided Clinton from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in terms of policies. It’s more a question of cultural emphasis, and Clinton’s remark at a fundraiser that half of Trump’s voters could be put in a “basket of deplorables” was the equivalent of Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” in revealing her elitist side. She never properly walked that back, saying only that the number was fewer than half.

                                                      The new American majority that gave Clinton over 2 million more votes than Trump is real and growing, and is leading to a new politics. “The future divide may be cultural not economic,” says Greenberg. “The issues that trouble white working men in Macomb are not very different from what upset millennials and single women… When we’re all done talking this through, we will see more commonality than difference between Macomb County white men and our own base of voters.”

                                                      Hillary Clinton’s slogan, “Stronger Together,” conveyed a message of multiculturalism and diversity that warmed the heart of voters wanting to live the dream but came across as elitist and out of touch to Macomb County voters.

                                                      They wanted to go back to the basics. “It’s the economy, stupid,” brought them back once before, and three decades later, it’s a good place to start all over again.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • #77
                                                        Significance of Macomb MI

                                                        Macomb Co MI a Democratic Stronghold. Below is a table from the WIKI for the county showing the 15 elections. Hillary lost the State by 10,000 votes but she lost Macomb County by 48,351 votes.

                                                        Obama won by 17K in '12
                                                        Obama won by 36K in '08
                                                        Bush won by 6K in '04
                                                        Gore won by 12K in '00
                                                        Clinton won by 31K in '96
                                                        Bush won by 17K in '92 (Perot got a chunck)
                                                        Bush won by 63K in '88
                                                        Regan won by 97K in '84
                                                        Regan won by 34K in '80
                                                        Ford won by 11K in '76 (son of Michigan)
                                                        Nixon won by 65K in '72
                                                        Humphrey won by 51K in '68
                                                        Johnson won by 87K in '64
                                                        Kennedy won by 44K in '60


                                                        The vote totals by year and party are below


                                                        Macomb County vote
                                                        by party in presidential elections
                                                        HTML Code:
                                                        Year	Republican	 Democratic
                                                        2016	53.6%*224,589	42.1%*176,238
                                                        2012	47.3%*191,913	51.3%*208,016
                                                        2008	44.7%*187,663	53.4%*223,784
                                                        2004	50.2%*202,166	48.8%*196,160
                                                        2000	47.5%*164,265	50.0%*172,625
                                                        1996	39.4%*120,616	49.5%*151,430
                                                        1992	42.3%*147,795	37.4%*130,732
                                                        1988	60.3%*175,632	38.8%*112,856
                                                        1984	66.2%*194,300	33.3%*97,816
                                                        1980	51.9%*154,155	40.4%*120,125
                                                        1976	51.2%*132,499	46.9%*121,176
                                                        1972	62.7%*147,777	34.9%*82,346
                                                        1968	30.4%*63,139	55.2%*114,552
                                                        1964	25.3%*44,684	74.5%*131,450
                                                        1960	36.9%*61,989	62.8%*105,681

                                                        Comment


                                                        • #78
                                                          <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump&#39;s flag and voting tweets are not the words of a sane man - they&#39;re the words of Saddam, Castro, Mao, Hitler <a href="https://t.co/QxAbPny1lY">pic.twitter.com/QxAbPny1lY</a></p>&mdash; Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) <a href="https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/803772319894151168">November 30, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                          <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                          Wow...how is he not in a rubber room yet?
                                                          Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                          Comment


                                                          • #79
                                                            Originally posted by connor_in View Post
                                                            <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump's flag and voting tweets are not the words of a sane man - they're the words of Saddam, Castro, Mao, Hitler <a href="https://t.co/QxAbPny1lY">pic.twitter.com/QxAbPny1lY</a></p>&mdash; Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) <a href="https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/803772319894151168">November 30, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                            <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                                                            Wow...how is he not in a rubber room yet?
                                                            He's crazy. But so is threatening prison or revocation of citizenship for burning a flag.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • #80
                                                              Originally posted by IrishJayhawk View Post
                                                              He's crazy. But so is threatening prison or revocation of citizenship for burning a flag.
                                                              It's actually always been a popular sentiment. It would already be illegal but the Supreme Court overturned 48 state and a federal statute in 1989.

                                                              Since then, Hilary Clinton has tried to ban it, and a constitutional amendment was one senate vote short of going back to the States in the 1990s.

                                                              So while I agree with you, it has legs.

                                                              The idea is, that the flag is the symbol of all that our forefathers sacrificed for and the condition for free speech. Burning it is more like burning free speech than protesting some individual issue.

                                                              Burning the flag in protest of the system, and then turning to that same unjust system for protection of your criticism of it is a little ironic, right?

                                                              Comment


                                                              • #81
                                                                And back to why we voted Trump:

                                                                Indiana: Trump Makes a Deal With Carrier to Keep Jobs

                                                                ir conditioning company Carrier said Tuesday that it had reached a deal with President-elect Donald Trump to keep nearly 1,000 jobs in Indiana. Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence planned to travel to the state Thursday to unveil the agreement alongside company officials.

                                                                Trump spent much of his campaign pledging to keep companies like Carrier from moving jobs overseas. His focus on manufacturing jobs contributed to his unexpected appeal with working-class voters in states like Michigan, which has long voted for Democrats in presidential elections.
                                                                Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • #82
                                                                  Did obama ever do that?

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • #83
                                                                    Originally posted by Rizzophil View Post
                                                                    Did obama ever do that?
                                                                    He was too busy apologizing to the world.
                                                                    Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • #84
                                                                      Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                                                                      No, it was because of Comey and Putin and racism didn't you hear?

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • #85
                                                                        Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                        No, it was because of Comey and Putin and racism didn't you hear?
                                                                        Ohh yeah, I forgot all about that identity politics thing.
                                                                        Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • #86
                                                                          Originally posted by IrishJayhawk View Post
                                                                          He's crazy. But so is threatening prison or revocation of citizenship for burning a flag.
                                                                          Originally posted by Domina Nostra View Post
                                                                          It's actually always been a popular sentiment. It would already be illegal but the Supreme Court overturned 48 state and a federal statute in 1989.

                                                                          Since then, Hilary Clinton has tried to ban it, and a constitutional amendment was one senate vote short of going back to the States in the 1990s.

                                                                          So while I agree with you, it has legs.

                                                                          The idea is, that the flag is the symbol of all that our forefathers sacrificed for and the condition for free speech. Burning it is more like burning free speech than protesting some individual issue.

                                                                          Burning the flag in protest of the system, and then turning to that same unjust system for protection of your criticism of it is a little ironic, right?
                                                                          That moment when the MSM realizes Trump just took a position advocated by Hillary Clinton in 2005 – twitchy.com

                                                                          <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Now where have I heard the idea of a one-year prison sentence for flag burning before? <a href="https://t.co/l8Vw4iTs9p">pic.twitter.com/l8Vw4iTs9p</a></p>&mdash; Joe Colangelo (@Itsjoeco) <a href="https://twitter.com/Itsjoeco/status/803585651169955840">November 29, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                                          <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


                                                                          Not that I have taken a stand one way or another, just showing either of the main candidates in the last election took the sam position.
                                                                          Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • #87
                                                                            Originally posted by connor_in View Post
                                                                            That moment when the MSM realizes Trump just took a position advocated by Hillary Clinton in 2005 – twitchy.com

                                                                            <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Now where have I heard the idea of a one-year prison sentence for flag burning before? <a href="https://t.co/l8Vw4iTs9p">pic.twitter.com/l8Vw4iTs9p</a></p>&mdash; Joe Colangelo (@Itsjoeco) <a href="https://twitter.com/Itsjoeco/status/803585651169955840">November 29, 2016</a></blockquote>
                                                                            <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


                                                                            Not that I have taken a stand one way or another, just showing either of the main candidates in the last election took the sam position.
                                                                            Politics is a lot like college football. Whatever your side is doing is fine (until you lose), whatever their side does is bad.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • #88
                                                                              Originally posted by Domina Nostra View Post
                                                                              Politics is a lot like college football. Whatever your side is doing is fine (until you lose), whatever their side does is bad.
                                                                              I heard that in the original reporting after Trump's tweet, possibly on NPR? It wasn't being hidden by the MSM. I think it's an equally stupid thing for her to propose.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • #89
                                                                                Originally posted by Rizzophil View Post
                                                                                Did obama ever do that?
                                                                                There was the stimulus package of $840 billion dollars.
                                                                                “I’m a lifelong Hoosier. I’m just amazed that not only do people not appreciate what happened in ’09, but there’s a lot of hostility toward Obama. I think part of it is racial and a lot of it is political.”

                                                                                This state stood to lose 150,000 auto jobs if Chrysler and G.M. had liquidated,” Mr. Howey added. “We would have had a bona fide depression here.”

                                                                                Senator Joe Donnelly, a Democrat who represented this area in the House until his election to the Senate in 2012, likewise praised the administration’s auto and financial rescues for averting disaster. “President Obama had about half the people on his own team telling him to let Chrysler go,” he recalled.

                                                                                Now, Mr. Donnelly noted, Chrysler plants employ more than 5,000 people to the south in Kokomo, up from 100 at their nadir, and 7,000 statewide. Yet autoworkers are more apt to complain about the president’s gun proposals than to acknowledge the auto turnaround.
                                                                                (Source)

                                                                                You may also be interested in this, too:

                                                                                Revitalizing American Manufacturing: The Obama Administration’s Progress in Establishing a Foundation for Manufacturing Leadership (National Economic Council, Oct 2016)
                                                                                Since early 2010, U.S. manufacturing has added over 800,000 direct jobs
                                                                                When President Obama took office, the heartbeat of American manufacturing—the U.S. auto
                                                                                industry—was on the brink of collapse. By December 2008, access to credit for car loans dried
                                                                                up and auto sales plunged 40 percent. Auto manufacturers and suppliers dramatically curtailed production, and in 2008 the industry shed over 400,000 jobs, a year in which the manufacturing
                                                                                sector overall lost 900,000 jobs.14 It is within this context, unprecedented job losses for
                                                                                manufacturing workers, the offshoring of thousands of American factories, and an auto industry
                                                                                facing collapse, that many argued that the U.S. manufacturing sector was no longer globally
                                                                                competitive and that we should allow our industrial base to continue its decline.
                                                                                U.S. manufacturing has had a robust recovery emerging from the Great Recession
                                                                                Manufacturing output has increased by almost 30 percent since the end of the recession, growing
                                                                                at roughly twice the pace of the economy overall from the third quarter of 2009 when the
                                                                                economy began to expand through the first quarter of 2016, marking the longest period where
                                                                                manufacturing has outpaced U.S. economic output in fifty years.15 Starting in 2009
                                                                                manufacturing output has increased as a share of US value-added, contrary to the pattern seen in
                                                                                all U.S. recessions since 1982.
                                                                                Last edited by Legacy; 11-30-2016, 11:35 AM.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • #90
                                                                                  Originally posted by Domina Nostra View Post
                                                                                  It's actually always been a popular sentiment. It would already be illegal but the Supreme Court overturned 48 state and a federal statute in 1989.

                                                                                  Since then, Hilary Clinton has tried to ban it, and a constitutional amendment was one senate vote short of going back to the States in the 1990s.

                                                                                  So while I agree with you, it has legs.

                                                                                  The idea is, that the flag is the symbol of all that our forefathers sacrificed for and the condition for free speech. Burning it is more like burning free speech than protesting some individual issue.

                                                                                  Burning the flag in protest of the system, and then turning to that same unjust system for protection of your criticism of it is a little ironic, right?
                                                                                  I would rather someone burn the flag and wrap themselves in the constitution than burn the constitution and wrap themselves in a flag. Read that on Twitter yesterday.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • #91
                                                                                    Originally posted by no.1IrishFan View Post
                                                                                    I would rather someone burn the flag and wrap themselves in the constitution than burn the constitution and wrap themselves in a flag. Read that on Twitter yesterday.

                                                                                    I like this.

                                                                                    Only way I would ever burn a flag is if congress passed a law banning it.

                                                                                    And Hillary was criticized on the left when she tried to pass that law. Was a dumb idea then and it's a dumb idea now.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • #92
                                                                                      Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                                      I like this.

                                                                                      Only way I would ever burn a flag is if congress passed a law banning it.

                                                                                      And Hillary was criticized on the left when she tried to pass that law. Was a dumb idea then and it's a dumb idea now.
                                                                                      I don't think so. There are penalties for killing a bald eagle, over and above what the normal Endangered Species protections call for. Why? Because it is a national symbol. Just like the flag is. Banning burning the flag does not stop people from expressing their dissatisfaction with some aspect of life in the US. It simply protects a national symbol.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • #93
                                                                                        Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                                                        I don't think so. There are penalties for killing a bald eagle, over and above what the normal Endangered Species protections call for. Why? Because it is a national symbol. Just like the flag is. Banning burning the flag does not stop people from expressing their dissatisfaction with some aspect of life in the US. It simply protects a national symbol.
                                                                                        Yeah, I'll grant that it's not as cut and dry as I made it out to be, at least theoretically (pretty well-settled doctrine at this point). That being said, I think the doctrine's on solid ground. The very reason people want to ban flag burning- the fact that it's a national symbol- adds to the expressive nature of the act in a unique way. One might be sending the same substantive message by burning the flag vs chanting "Nobama" or whatever, but burning the flag has a different emotional impact.

                                                                                        The less popular speech is, the more important it is to protect it.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • #94
                                                                                          Originally posted by kmoose View Post
                                                                                          I don't think so. There are penalties for killing a bald eagle, over and above what the normal Endangered Species protections call for. Why? Because it is a national symbol. Just like the flag is. Banning burning the flag does not stop people from expressing their dissatisfaction with some aspect of life in the US. It simply protects a national symbol.
                                                                                          Agree with precedent you identified....

                                                                                          I would argue that there is no message in burning the flag...that providing it protections does nothing to limit expression...burn a copy of the constitution...burn a copy of the declaration...those actions actually say something...protest something whose content is contained .... burning the flag singularly intends to deface for effect...like vandalism....is painting shit on the Lincoln monument protected ????
                                                                                          One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • #95
                                                                                            From IndyMac to OneWest: Steven Mnuchin's Big Score (Bloomberg, March 2012)

                                                                                            Good bio from 2012 on Trump's new Treasury Secretary who spent seventeen years at Goldman Sachs, working his way up to partner, then starting his own hedge fund, acquiring a bank through which he has financed quite a number of movies and become a billonaire.

                                                                                            He'll be in charge of financial reform of Wall Street, limiting the excesses of big banks, closing loopholes of hedge funds, and protecting Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

                                                                                            Although he may seem an unlikely retail bank chairman, Mnuchin’s career made him an expert on perhaps the most important part of a banker’s job: assessing risk. His father, Robert Mnuchin, was a partner at Goldman Sachs in the 1960s. The second-youngest of five siblings, Steven attended the prestigious Riverdale Country School and then Yale University, where his roommate was Edward Lampert, who would go on to become a hedge fund manager and owner of Sears. Mnuchin started his career in the early ’80s as a trainee at Salomon Brothers before moving to Goldman Sachs in 1985. He was front and center for the advent of instruments like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDSs), which he calls “an extremely positive development in terms of being able to finance different parts of the economy and different businesses efficiently.” The pitfalls of securitization came later, he says. He spent 17 years at Goldman, working his way up to partner and becoming head of the mortgage department before joining Hank Paulson in the executive suite, becoming the firm’s chief information officer in 1999.

                                                                                            In 2002 he left Goldman to join Lampert’s ESL Investments hedge fund as vice chairman, before starting SFM Capital Management in 2003 with George Soros, who invested $1 billion in the fund. The next year, with two other ex-Goldman partners, he formed hedge fund Dune Capital. Among other things, Dune Capital invested $500 million in a slate of Twentieth Century Fox films, including Avatar.

                                                                                            One of the deals Dune looked at in early 2008 was a distressed portfolio of CDOs being unloaded by Merrill Lynch. Mnuchin worked for a few months on the deal, eventually being outbid by private equity firm Lone Star for $6.7 billion. Still, Mnuchin had seen enough to know that the heavily discounted $31 billion portfolio had been a good value. With the failure of IndyMac, which owned a similar portfolio of residential mortgage-backed CDOs, he recognized an opportunity. “This was something that Steven was steeped in for decades,” says David Fawer, a former mortgage trader who has worked with Mnuchin at Goldman, Dune, and OneWest. “The entire asset base are things we’ve spent a lot of time doing.”
                                                                                            With Treasury candidate Mnuchin come possible conflicts (Chicago Tribune)
                                                                                            Last edited by Legacy; 11-30-2016, 05:51 PM.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • #96
                                                                                              Originally posted by Legacy View Post
                                                                                              There was the stimulus package of $840 billion dollars.
                                                                                              (Source)

                                                                                              You may also be interested in this, too:

                                                                                              Revitalizing American Manufacturing: The Obama Administration’s Progress in Establishing a Foundation for Manufacturing Leadership (National Economic Council, Oct 2016)
                                                                                              Now I am going to preface this by stating that I have not heard or read any details regarding Trump's agreement with Carrier so I have no idea if keeping the jobs in the US will cost the taxpayers anything. Regarding what occurred with the GM and Chrysler, taxpayer money was used to effectively save union jobs and pensions; and according to the USA Today article, cost US taxpayers approximately $9.3B. This does not include the billions lost by bondholders (many of whom were retirees) who were "bullied" into accepting terms effectively dictated by the Administration.

                                                                                              Two good articles.

                                                                                              Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

                                                                                              The Obama administration bullies GM's bondholders

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • #97
                                                                                                Originally posted by MJ12666 View Post
                                                                                                Now I am going to preface this by stating that I have not heard or read any details regarding Trump's agreement with Carrier so I have no idea if keeping the jobs in the US will cost the taxpayers anything. Regarding what occurred with the GM and Chrysler, taxpayer money was used to effectively save union jobs and pensions; and according to the USA Today article, cost US taxpayers approximately $9.3B. This does not include the billions lost by bondholders (many of whom were retirees) who were "bullied" into accepting terms effectively dictated by the Administration.

                                                                                                Two good articles.

                                                                                                Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

                                                                                                The Obama administration bullies GM's bondholders
                                                                                                It could be argued that he had no choice. There were some pretty dire predictions being tossed about at the time. If that is accurate I'd say that all things considered, $9.3B is a pretty sound investment in preventing the complete collapse of the world economy.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • #98
                                                                                                  Originally posted by phgreek View Post
                                                                                                  Agree with precedent you identified....

                                                                                                  I would argue that there is no message in burning the flag...that providing it protections does nothing to limit expression...burn a copy of the constitution...burn a copy of the declaration...those actions actually say something...protest something whose content is contained .... burning the flag singularly intends to deface for effect...like vandalism....is painting shit on the Lincoln monument protected ????
                                                                                                  I mean obviously I'm not saying you can burn any flag- and I think one of the justifications for the o.d rule was that every flag is technically property of the government? But that's a pretty transparent legal fiction.

                                                                                                  I think the fact that flag burning is so common and something people get so angry about is proof of its expressiveness. Political speech doesn't have to be good or meaningful to merit protection.

                                                                                                  Anyway, it helps you identify assholes. See someone burning the flag over trade policies or something and you can immediately decide to not waste any brain matter listening to him. Win win.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • #99
                                                                                                    Originally posted by MJ12666 View Post
                                                                                                    Now I am going to preface this by stating that I have not heard or read any details regarding Trump's agreement with Carrier so I have no idea if keeping the jobs in the US will cost the taxpayers anything. Regarding what occurred with the GM and Chrysler, taxpayer money was used to effectively save union jobs and pensions; and according to the USA Today article, cost US taxpayers approximately $9.3B. This does not include the billions lost by bondholders (many of whom were retirees) who were "bullied" into accepting terms effectively dictated by the Administration.

                                                                                                    Two good articles.

                                                                                                    Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

                                                                                                    The Obama administration bullies GM's bondholders
                                                                                                    The big carrot for carrier to only layoff 1000 people was tax breaks at the state level according to their announcement. Not sure what the tax dollar per worker figure is on that but the bailout of the auto industry saved 1,000x more jobs so the figure to keep an eye on is 9.3 million dollars.

                                                                                                    Obviously this is a huge PR win for trump and a big win for the 50% of workers who won't be laid off. Not sure you can read much else into it one way or the other.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                                                                                      I mean obviously I'm not saying you can burn any flag- and I think one of the justifications for the o.d rule was that every flag is technically property of the government? But that's a pretty transparent legal fiction.

                                                                                                      I think the fact that flag burning is so common and something people get so angry about is proof of its expressiveness. Political speech doesn't have to be good or meaningful to merit protection.

                                                                                                      Anyway, it helps you identify assholes. See someone burning the flag over trade policies or something and you can immediately decide to not waste any brain matter listening to him. Win win.
                                                                                                      bolded probably true

                                                                                                      last paragraph absolutely true
                                                                                                      One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X