Donald wins: 'Deplorables' trump Clinton

[Lormar]

I hope Trump invites the Little Sisters of the Poor to the inauguration.

And at the ball afterwards maybe the band can play:

Billy would be pleased.

 

[DeniseNY]

I hope Trump invites the Little Sisters of the Poor to the inauguration.

And at the ball afterwards maybe the band can play:

No. The next day the media would be having palpitations over “White Wedding” being racist.

 

[KSU]

No. The next day the media would be having palpitations over “White Wedding” being racist.

And he is-- he just evicted a Black family from their home.

 

[RCinMT]

Truth is from God. God is Truth. God is Love.

I think Pope Francis understands this, which is why he wrote Laudato Si and admonished us to mitigate climate change even if we don’t quite accept it is happening.

Excuse me, Lynn, some says it’s true, some do not. So calling it a truth from God either means you’re claiming to be God or claiming that whatever you agree with is true.

 

[CaptFun]

And he is-- he just evicted a Black family from their home.

Meh - it was public housing anyway.

The poor man will now have to live there himself … and use public transportation too. What a sacrifice he’s making. Trading in his midtown Manhattan penthouse in the tower for an aging split-level that needs to be guarded by soldiers.

Why are all those people protesting HIM – while after all

we are still basking in the glow of the Obama years.

Nothing is wrong or the media would have told us so. :dancing::extrahappy:

 

[Memaw]

I don’t think it’s Trump that did that. We have had agitators stir up racist sentiment for several years now. There seem to be a lot of racists on both sides of the political divide. HRC made quite a few racist comments as did her staff. So I suppose one could say that a Clinton win could have made her brand of racism (and other bigotry) “more acceptable and okay”. The demonstrations over the last two days have certainly shown us that progressives have a low level of tolerance for those they disagree with.

AMEN!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[mary_bobo]

Something actually intelligent on Huffington Post for once

and don’t get distracted by the title, he makes some excellent point about what happened and is happening, here are some of the highlights

The Democratic Party Has Exploded

A significant chunk of Obama voters flipped to Trump. Trump won 10 percent of voters who approve of Obama’s presidency and 23 percent of voters who think the next president should “be more liberal,” according to CNN data. Trump significantly outperformed Romney among union households. He did 14 points better than Romney among whites without a college degree, according to The New York Times, and 16 points better among households with less than $30,000 in income. The Trump Democrat turns out not to be a myth, but a meaningful constituency that just cost Clinton the presidency.

a dominance struggle between Sanders supporters and the Steny Hoyer wing of the party is already underway. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is calling for a “complete restructuring” of the Democratic National Committee, and Sanders is promoting nominees.

And the suggestions I have heard are far, far left wing. Perhaps the DNC should regroup and give some thought that this past election, IMO, was a repudiation of that wing of the party.

 

[pnewton]

Excuse me, Lynn, some says it’s true, some do not. So calling it a truth from God either means you’re claiming to be God or claiming that whatever you agree with is true.

The reference to Laudatio Si should show that it is not Lynn that is claiming to be God, but the Pope who is trying to lead us to some truth here. Namely, if you do not believe in climate change, then you have the moral duty nonetheless to help mitigate damage to the environment. This too is a pro-life position.

 

[Ridgerunner]

, if you do not believe in climate change, then you have the moral duty nonetheless to help mitigate damage to the environment. This too is a pro-life position.

But is it?

If one does not believe in MMGW, and if “mitigating” climate change even so, causes suffering, then there is no moral duty to do it. Indeed, the moral duty is to avoid doing it.

Other environmental damage, yes, making people unable to heat their houses, no.

 

[Brendan]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/new...ar-AAk6BxT?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp#image=1

.

One item that Moore failed to mention is the environment. Around here, blue collar auto workers are not exactly enamored with the fuel econonmy requirements. They would greatly like to see them reduced, or even eliminated. . A lot of the drive to move production to Mexico is for the small cars. To make ‘Corporate Average Fuel Economy’ (CAFE) regs, Ford, GM etc… have to sell a certain amount of small cars, generally at a loss, to be able to sell the profitable full size pickups. The autoworkers would like to see those CAFE requirements removed, so that the production would remain here.

I imagine that the steel workers in PA, and most especially the coal miners in WV feel much the same.

That is also a major part of how the blue collar workers view the ‘elites’. That they simply do not care about their jobs, and are willing to throw them under the natural gas powered hybrid bus.

 

[pnewton]

But is it?

If one does not believe in MMGW, and if “mitigating” climate change even so, causes suffering, then there is no moral duty to do it. Indeed, the moral duty is to avoid doing it.

Other environmental damage, yes, making people unable to heat their houses, no.

That is why I linked Laudatio Si. Since this is not a global warming thread, best just to post the info and move on.

 

[vz71]

But is it?

If one does not believe in MMGW, and if “mitigating” climate change even so, causes suffering, then there is no moral duty to do it. Indeed, the moral duty is to avoid doing it.

Other environmental damage, yes, making people unable to heat their houses, no.

I see a distinct difference between mitigation of damage and mitigation trying to alter the environment.

 

[stinkcat_14]

How could President Obama spend more for Medicare? There was a lot less to spend because he shifted $716 B from Medicare funds to pay for Obamacare and thus buy young votes for Dems. To make up the difference for that theft and destabilization of Medicare, we old Deplorables and other seasoned citizens have had to spend a lot more money under our Medicare plans.

So, are you counting those increased amounts we have to spend when you say “medicare spending went up during the Obama administration”?

When Obama took office, the federal government spent $430 billion on medicare. This year the government is projected to spend $594 billion. Anyone who thinks that is a cut needs a remedial math class.

 

[KSU]

When Obama took office, the federal government spent $430 billion on medicare. This year the government is projected to spend $594 billion. Anyone who thinks that is a cut needs a remedial math class.

I did not say there was an overall cut. After all, there are a lot more recipients of Medicare benefits now than there were when Obama took office. My question was: are you counting the increased amounts we have had to pay for and under our Medicare plans during the Obama Administration when you say “medicare spending went up during the Obama administration”? E.G., are the higher withholdings, fees, deductibles, drug costs, etc. part of the “increased spending”?

Determining Obamacare’s impact on my Medicare benefits is what I’m after, and I had hoped you could provide one of the (name removed by moderator)uts. Thus my above question.

Published Government outlays for Medicare don’t provide what I want to know-- how average Medicare recipients fared as to net benefits after Obama shifted $716 Billion from our Medicare Fund to Obamacare.

In short, after considering all of the new Obamacare-influenced costs to keep our Medicare benefits, have per capita benefits increased, decreased or stayed pretty much the same since Obamacare? It just doesn’t make sense that after reducing my Medicare Fund by $716 Billion, and forcing me to pay more every year to make up the difference, it can be said that I’m enjoying increased spending.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I did not say there was an overall cut. After all, there are a lot more recipients of Medicare benefits now than there were when Obama took office. My question was: are you counting the increased amounts we have had to pay for and under our Medicare plans during the Obama Administration when you say “medicare spending went up during the Obama administration”? E.G., are the higher withholdings, fees, deductibles, drug costs, etc. part of the “increased spending”?

What I am saying is that the federal government (i.e. taxpayer’s money) spent more and more on medicare. Medicare spending by the federal government went up, not down. There was no cuts to medicare spending. If there were cuts, the federal government would have outlayed less money. That is a cut, when you spend less in one year than you did the year before.

Determining Obamacare’s impact on my Medicare benefits is what I’m after, and I had hoped you could provide one of the (name removed by moderator)uts. Thus my above question.

Published Government outlays for Medicare don’t provide what I want to know-- how average Medicare recipients fared as to net benefits after Obama shifted $716 Billion from our Medicare Fund to Obamacare.

The fact is, medicare spending was never cut. The federal government spent more and more of taxpayer money on it.

In short, after considering all of the new Obamacare-influenced costs to keep our Medicare benefits, have per capita benefits increased, decreased or stayed pretty much the same since Obamacare? It just doesn’t make sense that after reducing my Medicare Fund by $716 Billion, and forcing me to pay more every year to make up the difference, it can be said that I’m enjoying increased spending.

Whether a particular beneficiary is better or worse off is not the same as saying the government reduced spending. The government reduces spending when it spends less in one year than it did the previous year.

 

[KSU]

What I am saying is that the federal government (i.e. taxpayer’s money) spent more and more on medicare. Medicare spending by the federal government went up, not down. There was no cuts to medicare spending. If there were cuts, the federal government would have outlayed less money. That is a cut, when you spend less in one year than you did the year before.

The fact is, medicare spending was never cut. The federal government spent more and more of taxpayer money on it.

Whether a particular beneficiary is better or worse off is not the same as saying the government reduced spending. The government reduces spending when it spends less in one year than it did the previous year.

Thank you for explaining that it’s not about my individual health care; it’s about the collective where cuts for individuals are irrelevant so long as there is higher spending by the government. Deplorables like me often have difficulty in understanding that we are better off when the government controls the cost, content and distribution of health care.

As individuals in the proletariat we must not be concerned that we get less for a higher cost than under free-market health care. We must be made to understand that government control is necessary to eliminate competition and put everyone on a level playing field. Even the Little Sisters of the Poor should have health care that provides condoms and abortifacients.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Thank you for explaining that it’s not about my individual health care; it’s about the collective where cuts for individuals are irrelevant so long as there is higher spending by the government. Deplorables like me often have difficulty in understanding that we are better off when the government controls the cost, content and distribution of health care.

Personally, I am against Medicare. I believe seniors should pay for their own health insurance instead of demanding that working people sacrifice for them. In this thread, I was not arguing for or against medicare, just arguing the facts. The facts are that Obama did not cut Medicare spending.

As individuals in the proletariat we must not be concerned that we get less for a higher cost than under free-market health care. We must be made to understand that government control is necessary to eliminate competition and put everyone on a level playing field. Even the Little Sisters of the Poor should have health care that provides condoms and abortifacients.

I am all in favor of eliminating medicare entirely. Let seniors buy their own insurance. What can be more free market than that?

 

[DaveBj]

Personally, I am against Medicare. I believe seniors should pay for their own health insurance instead of demanding that working people sacrifice for them. In this thread, I was not arguing for or against medicare, just arguing the facts. The facts are that Obama did not cut Medicare spending.

I am all in favor of eliminating medicare entirely. Let seniors buy their own insurance. What can be more free market than that?

Would you be willing to refund all the money that we put into that program while we were working, as well as the thousands of dollars of premiums that we have paid after we retired?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

And the suggestions I have heard are far, far left wing. Perhaps the DNC should regroup and give some thought that this past election, IMO, was a repudiation of that wing of the party.

This election wasn’t a repudiation of the left at all, but an affirmation of it. Hillary Clinton was not a left-wing candidate at all, but represented the neo-liberal status quo of the party. Her running mate, Time Kaine, also represented the right-wing of the party. A social democrat candidate like Sanders could have stood a chance against someone like Trump, and hopefully we will see a push to the left within the Democrats. “Moderate” centrist politics failed, people wanted a candidate that they didn’t feel represented the status quo.

The last thing that needs to happen is for American politics to be pushed even further to the right. Look at the rhetoric surrounding Trump’s victory. There are people calling this a victory for the working class, and this is reflected in the statistics of those who voted for Trump. A left-wing candidate could have easily picked up on this sentiment.

 

[DeniseNY]

This election wasn’t a repudiation of the left at all, but an affirmation of it. Hillary Clinton was not a left-wing candidate at all, but represented the neo-liberal status quo of the party. Her running mate, Time Kaine, also represented the right-wing of the party. A social democrat candidate like Sanders could have stood a chance against someone like Trump, and hopefully we will see a push to the left within the Democrats. “Moderate” centrist politics failed, people wanted a candidate that they didn’t feel represented the status quo.

The last thing that needs to happen is for American politics to be pushed even further to the right. Look at the rhetoric surrounding Trump’s victory. There are people calling this a victory for the working class, and this is reflected in the statistics of those who voted for Trump. A left-wing candidate could have easily picked up on this sentiment.

Look at the violence and threats coming from the left. The last thing we need is more of that.