Yesterday was a rough day for the Democrats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday was a rough day for the Democrats?

It would be more accurate to say that every single day since November 9th have been bad days for the Democrats.

And the proof of this is the hysteria we see in the posts by liberals on this forum and in the media who just cannot get over the fact that someone who they thought was a buffoon ended up creaming Hillary!

They are leaderless and adrift as to what they should do other than indulge in futile exercises like the recount effort that they tried to get done using Stein as a surrogate. The recount collapsed and so they have moved to hoping that enough electors will desert Trump ..... of course all we have is one Republican elector who seems to have joined the effort although they publicize it as being ten or more, except that all the other electors are Democrats who were not expected to vote for Trump in any event.

Ok. And this makes you happy because why? Sociopath? Yay, other Americans are sad!

It does not make me happy. It actually mystifies me and I am someone who has voted for Democratic presidential candidates for decades though I did not vote for either Hillary or Trump this go around.

FWIW, the very same thing happened when Reagan was running and Democrats were apoplectic that his victory would be a disaster - quite honesty, I was concerned as well. Reagan was feared as a war monger and a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets was viewed as likely. Democrats also used to deride Reagan as being dumb and an idiot just like they do to Trump today. Guess what ..... we survived fine.

So although I have reservations about some of Trump's policies, I have enough faith in the US to believe that we will come through fine.

Some people survived, some did quite well and some - particularly the working class - went on a downward spiral from which there's been no recovery.

Republicans who want a repeat of the Reagan glory years forget that it came at the cost of a stable middle class and started the oxidation of the Rust Belt. Or maybe they remember it well.

I find myself in an odd position defending Reagan of all people given my own political leanings but here is a link that shows the median household income over several decades adjusted for inflation.

From 1981 when Reagan came to office until 1989 when he left office median inflation adjusted household income went up from $47,658 to $53,306 which represents an increase of just under 12%. From 1993 to 2001 under Clinton the comparable numbers were $50,421 to $56466 - an increase of just under 15%. Under Obama for the years that the information is available income from 2009 to 2014 went DOWN from $54,925 to $53657.

What has devastated the average American has been the shift of jobs to other countries - something that both parties have had a role in implementing with trade agreements. Is it any wonder that Trump has managed to tap into this discontent because the establishment candidates want to continue the same policy. I don't know what Trump can do to reverse this trend - maybe nothing significant. But the erosion of middle class income cannot be laid at the door of Reagan.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

[Anonymous]

Trade agreements did not cause the decrease of median household income.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433575/trade-jobs-free-trade-hurting-american-economy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday was a rough day for the Democrats?

It would be more accurate to say that every single day since November 9th have been bad days for the Democrats.

And the proof of this is the hysteria we see in the posts by liberals on this forum and in the media who just cannot get over the fact that someone who they thought was a buffoon ended up creaming Hillary!

They are leaderless and adrift as to what they should do other than indulge in futile exercises like the recount effort that they tried to get done using Stein as a surrogate. The recount collapsed and so they have moved to hoping that enough electors will desert Trump ..... of course all we have is one Republican elector who seems to have joined the effort although they publicize it as being ten or more, except that all the other electors are Democrats who were not expected to vote for Trump in any event.

Ok. And this makes you happy because why? Sociopath? Yay, other Americans are sad!

It does not make me happy. It actually mystifies me and I am someone who has voted for Democratic presidential candidates for decades though I did not vote for either Hillary or Trump this go around.

FWIW, the very same thing happened when Reagan was running and Democrats were apoplectic that his victory would be a disaster - quite honesty, I was concerned as well. Reagan was feared as a war monger and a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets was viewed as likely. Democrats also used to deride Reagan as being dumb and an idiot just like they do to Trump today. Guess what ..... we survived fine.

So although I have reservations about some of Trump's policies, I have enough faith in the US to believe that we will come through fine.

Some people survived, some did quite well and some - particularly the working class - went on a downward spiral from which there's been no recovery.

Republicans who want a repeat of the Reagan glory years forget that it came at the cost of a stable middle class and started the oxidation of the Rust Belt. Or maybe they remember it well.

I find myself in an odd position defending Reagan of all people given my own political leanings but here is a link that shows the median household income over several decades adjusted for inflation.

From 1981 when Reagan came to office until 1989 when he left office median inflation adjusted household income went up from $47,658 to $53,306 which represents an increase of just under 12%. From 1993 to 2001 under Clinton the comparable numbers were $50,421 to $56466 - an increase of just under 15%. Under Obama for the years that the information is available income from 2009 to 2014 went DOWN from $54,925 to $53657.

What has devastated the average American has been the shift of jobs to other countries - something that both parties have had a role in implementing with trade agreements. Is it any wonder that Trump has managed to tap into this discontent because the establishment candidates want to continue the same policy. I don't know what Trump can do to reverse this trend - maybe nothing significant. But the erosion of middle class income cannot be laid at the door of Reagan.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

Nothing you wrote here refutes my post. Some people did VERY well under Reagan. Your Mitt Romney types who got into management consulting and private equity got filthy rich breaking up and restructuring businesses that pushed upper incomes way up while pushing wages down. Then there were all those SEC scandals, savings and loans schemes - it was a real heyday if you had money to play. Reagan's success with union-busting pulled any leverage that workers had right out from under them, and that set the table for trade deals in the 90s.

It's the reason so many in the Rust Belt are fighting for any ol crappy job they can get, even if it's one that kills them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a rough day indeed when the heavily favored candidate crushes the popular vote but loses three blue states to lose in the electoral college. To be sure, It's still not a certainty that electors won't throw it to the House.

If you took out all of NYC's votes, Trump wins the popular. Think about that for a moment.

Next we need to go over the voter rolls in each state with a fine-toothed comb, and remove all deceased, and all those that don't have the legal right to vote. Then there needs to be a voter-id system (like, say Mexico has) to ensure those that DO vote are legal citizens.

The exercise of the recount and then the elector business, in this case, is simply to try to delegitimize Trump's win. It is the biggest case of sore loser I've ever seen. Given the Rs won not only the Presidency, but also the house, senate, as well as the lion's share of the governorships, it's clear the people have indeed spoken. This was not a fluke, but a statement from the American people that this country was not going in the right direction.

New Yorkers aren't American? Tell that to the President-Elect.

If popular vote determined the election, candidates would only campaign in New York and Cailfornia.

[Anonymous]

Kanye's insane and no one cares about Jim Brown. I need to research that Bill Gates quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday was a rough day for the Democrats?

It would be more accurate to say that every single day since November 9th have been bad days for the Democrats.

And the proof of this is the hysteria we see in the posts by liberals on this forum and in the media who just cannot get over the fact that someone who they thought was a buffoon ended up creaming Hillary!

They are leaderless and adrift as to what they should do other than indulge in futile exercises like the recount effort that they tried to get done using Stein as a surrogate. The recount collapsed and so they have moved to hoping that enough electors will desert Trump ..... of course all we have is one Republican elector who seems to have joined the effort although they publicize it as being ten or more, except that all the other electors are Democrats who were not expected to vote for Trump in any event.

Ok. And this makes you happy because why? Sociopath? Yay, other Americans are sad!

It does not make me happy. It actually mystifies me and I am someone who has voted for Democratic presidential candidates for decades though I did not vote for either Hillary or Trump this go around.

FWIW, the very same thing happened when Reagan was running and Democrats were apoplectic that his victory would be a disaster - quite honesty, I was concerned as well. Reagan was feared as a war monger and a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets was viewed as likely. Democrats also used to deride Reagan as being dumb and an idiot just like they do to Trump today. Guess what ..... we survived fine.

So although I have reservations about some of Trump's policies, I have enough faith in the US to believe that we will come through fine.

Some people survived, some did quite well and some - particularly the working class - went on a downward spiral from which there's been no recovery.

Republicans who want a repeat of the Reagan glory years forget that it came at the cost of a stable middle class and started the oxidation of the Rust Belt. Or maybe they remember it well.

I find myself in an odd position defending Reagan of all people given my own political leanings but here is a link that shows the median household income over several decades adjusted for inflation.

From 1981 when Reagan came to office until 1989 when he left office median inflation adjusted household income went up from $47,658 to $53,306 which represents an increase of just under 12%. From 1993 to 2001 under Clinton the comparable numbers were $50,421 to $56466 - an increase of just under 15%. Under Obama for the years that the information is available income from 2009 to 2014 went DOWN from $54,925 to $53657.

What has devastated the average American has been the shift of jobs to other countries - something that both parties have had a role in implementing with trade agreements. Is it any wonder that Trump has managed to tap into this discontent because the establishment candidates want to continue the same policy. I don't know what Trump can do to reverse this trend - maybe nothing significant. But the erosion of middle class income cannot be laid at the door of Reagan.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

Algorithms have taken more jobs than other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a rough day indeed when the heavily favored candidate crushes the popular vote but loses three blue states to lose in the electoral college. To be sure, It's still not a certainty that electors won't throw it to the House.

If you took out all of NYC's votes, Trump wins the popular. Think about that for a moment.

Next we need to go over the voter rolls in each state with a fine-toothed comb, and remove all deceased, and all those that don't have the legal right to vote. Then there needs to be a voter-id system (like, say Mexico has) to ensure those that DO vote are legal citizens.

The exercise of the recount and then the elector business, in this case, is simply to try to delegitimize Trump's win. It is the biggest case of sore loser I've ever seen. Given the Rs won not only the Presidency, but also the house, senate, as well as the lion's share of the governorships, it's clear the people have indeed spoken. This was not a fluke, but a statement from the American people that this country was not going in the right direction.

+1,000,000

Best post I've seen in days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suspect in a few years, unless you are in the 1% and not some self-loathing masochist, you will be very sorry Trump is president ... and the smugness will be all gone.

Strongly disagree. He is reaching out to all people to help get us back on the track--the one that Obama drove us off.

And, your perception that NP is smug is off base. The people who voted for Trump are breathing a collective sigh of relief because they truly felt HRC would have taken us further to the left and those voters opposed far left thinking. Get it through you head that these voters aren't being smug, or sore losers like the HRC voters, they just have a different vision of the country than you do. The difference is you see Trump supporters as "bad" people and they see HRC supporters as "wrong." Change your thinking and stop seeing them as bad people and try to understand why they feel the way they do.

Absolutely NOT. You are delusional. Hillary was not going to drive us off of some kind of socialist cliff. Not even remotely. The Trump voters' belief system is predicated on nonsense like that and it's entirely false. Please STOP making this kind of bullshit up.

Yes she was, she and Saul, her hero were taking us straight down that road. The sooner you see the truth the sooner you can move on. Trump voters are right, you are wrong.

Absolutely right. Democrats can mock and deny all they want, but everything she has done fits exactly with the method/teachings of the man to whom she devoted her undergraduate thesis:

Saul Alinsky. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

Look - Saul was a community organizer. Hillary was obviously enamored with his ideas or she wouldn't have written an entire thesis on the guy. Follow Hillary's career; follow what she has said over the years. No one believes it's a mere coincidence she acts in accordance with Saul's philosophy.

Consider these 2 rules, and ask yourself if the Clinton campaign practiced this:

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. ". (Remember - it was Hillary's people who sent agent provocateurs to Trump rallies).

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Remember how Hillary's team tried to bluff in Michigan and over-state their supposed advantage?).



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

You would not conclude that she was "enamored" of his ideas if you read her thesis.

Her thesis wasn't critical of his goals or his "rules for radicals."

Rather, she criticized his preference for antagonizing government as a tactic, and instead, sought to bring about his goals from within government itself. Read this link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a rough day indeed when the heavily favored candidate crushes the popular vote but loses three blue states to lose in the electoral college. To be sure, It's still not a certainty that electors won't throw it to the House.

If you took out all of NYC's votes, Trump wins the popular. Think about that for a moment.

Next we need to go over the voter rolls in each state with a fine-toothed comb, and remove all deceased, and all those that don't have the legal right to vote. Then there needs to be a voter-id system (like, say Mexico has) to ensure those that DO vote are legal citizens.

The exercise of the recount and then the elector business, in this case, is simply to try to delegitimize Trump's win. It is the biggest case of sore loser I've ever seen. Given the Rs won not only the Presidency, but also the house, senate, as well as the lion's share of the governorships, it's clear the people have indeed spoken. This was not a fluke, but a statement from the American people that this country was not going in the right direction.

+1,000,000

Best post I've seen in days.

Sock puppeting much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a rough day indeed when the heavily favored candidate crushes the popular vote but loses three blue states to lose in the electoral college. To be sure, It's still not a certainty that electors won't throw it to the House.

If you took out all of NYC's votes, Trump wins the popular. Think about that for a moment.

Next we need to go over the voter rolls in each state with a fine-toothed comb, and remove all deceased, and all those that don't have the legal right to vote. Then there needs to be a voter-id system (like, say Mexico has) to ensure those that DO vote are legal citizens.

The exercise of the recount and then the elector business, in this case, is simply to try to delegitimize Trump's win. It is the biggest case of sore loser I've ever seen. Given the Rs won not only the Presidency, but also the house, senate, as well as the lion's share of the governorships, it's clear the people have indeed spoken. This was not a fluke, but a statement from the American people that this country was not going in the right direction.

+1,000,000

Best post I've seen in days.

New Yorkers are obnoxious, but I'm not ready to throw them out of the Union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some people survived, some did quite well and some - particularly the working class - went on a downward spiral from which there's been no recovery.

Republicans who want a repeat of the Reagan glory years forget that it came at the cost of a stable middle class and started the oxidation of the Rust Belt. Or maybe they remember it well.

I find myself in an odd position defending Reagan of all people given my own political leanings but here is a link that shows the median household income over several decades adjusted for inflation.

From 1981 when Reagan came to office until 1989 when he left office median inflation adjusted household income went up from $47,658 to $53,306 which represents an increase of just under 12%. From 1993 to 2001 under Clinton the comparable numbers were $50,421 to $56466 - an increase of just under 15%. Under Obama for the years that the information is available income from 2009 to 2014 went DOWN from $54,925 to $53657.

What has devastated the average American has been the shift of jobs to other countries - something that both parties have had a role in implementing with trade agreements. Is it any wonder that Trump has managed to tap into this discontent because the establishment candidates want to continue the same policy. I don't know what Trump can do to reverse this trend - maybe nothing significant. But the erosion of middle class income cannot be laid at the door of Reagan.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

Nothing you wrote here refutes my post. Some people did VERY well under Reagan. Your Mitt Romney types who got into management consulting and private equity got filthy rich breaking up and restructuring businesses that pushed upper incomes way up while pushing wages down. Then there were all those SEC scandals, savings and loans schemes - it was a real heyday if you had money to play. Reagan's success with union-busting pulled any leverage that workers had right out from under them, and that set the table for trade deals in the 90s.

It's the reason so many in the Rust Belt are fighting for any ol crappy job they can get, even if it's one that kills them.

I don't deny that there were those who made a bundle in the Reagan years as they did in the Clinton years and under subsequent presidents.

My point is that the Reagan years showed upside in median family income which includes that earned by some in the Rust Belt.