Donald wins: 'Deplorables' trump Clinton

[KSU]

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.

**She was not left-wing? In fact, she ran to left of Sanders who ran as a Socialist. How more left-wing can you get without advocating Communism? **

Her running mate, Time Kaine, also represented the right-wing of the party.

Correct! The fact that Time Kaine represented the right-wing of the party illustrates how far left his Party has become since the sixties. He had to be reprimanded by his Bishop.

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.

First, Sanders was a proud and loud Socialist Democrat (not a social democrat), and thus the chance he would have had against Trump was the chance of a snowball in Hades. Second, it appears you will get your wish; George Soros et al. will move the Party even further left and scare even more Catholics into recognizing that the Party of John F. Kennedy is no more. The Left since its birth has feared and hated the Catholic Church, which leaked e-mails reconfirmed.

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.

I know; it’s delicious. The left finally poked the sleeping giant once too often by destroying its health care and its jobs and its unique-in-history Constitutional rights and its borders and its God-given, natural concept of sexual differences.

A left-wing candidate could have easily picked up on this [working class] sentiment.

**She tried that Democrat 101 ploy, but this time the working class saw the truth; it saw what the Party did to the FBI and the DOJ and the Supreme Court, and that she was joined at the hip with the world’s money class–Wall Street, Mid-Eastern oil potentates, leftist law firms and the lobbying industries. That is not where working class sentiment lies. **

 

[Thorolfr]

Here’s something kind of interesting that appeared in the news today about the first daughter’s favorite bangle that can now be bought for only $10,800. It didn’t take the Trumps long before trying to make money from Donald’s election as president:

One day after President-elect Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka spoke to "60 Minutes” about her father’s rise to power, her jewelry line alerted journalists to a surprising fact: The incoming first daughter’s bracelet could be bought for $10,800.

It was the first televised interview with the new commander in chief of a deeply anxious America. But it was also, for the Trump company, an undeniable promotional opportunity. The 18-karat Metropolis diamond bangle, a gold version of which also sold for $8,800, was Ivanka’s “favorite bangle,” an Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry vice president told journalists in a “style alert.”

 

[stinkcat_14]

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?

Why should tax money be refunded? When has the government ever given people’s tax money back? Also, do you know that Medicare part B premiums only cover about 25% of that program’s cost? The rest comes from the taxpayer. So if anybody is owed money, it is working people, not medicare recipients.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here’s something kind of interesting that appeared in the news today about the first daughter’s favorite bangle that can now be bought for only $10,800. It didn’t take the Trumps long before trying to make money from Donald’s election as president:

Pretty small stuff. Just a way to be hateful to the lady.

Might have sold for more than that if Trump had lost, since most of the people who would spend that kind of money on jewelry seem to be liberals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

The left is inherently totalitarian because it wants people to do what they don’t want to do. That takes force. It will never be any different.

 

[Thorolfr]

The left is inherently totalitarian because it wants people to do what they don’t want to do. That takes force. It will never be any different.

And people on the right never try and force their views on other people?

 

[DeniseNY]

Pretty small stuff. Just a way to be hateful to the lady.

Might have sold for more than that if Trump had lost, since most of the people who would spend that kind of money on jewelry seem to be liberals.

It’s a huge snooze and a nothing of a story. Petty, petty stuff.

 

[Thorolfr]

Pretty small stuff. Just a way to be hateful to the lady.

Might have sold for more than that if Trump had lost, since most of the people who would spend that kind of money on jewelry seem to be liberals.

This is just the first week. I’m sure that the Trumps are already looking for much bigger money making schemes to profit off of their new role as first family.

 

[Jeanne_S]

This is just the first week. I’m sure that the Trumps are already looking for much bigger money making schemes to profit off of their new role as first family.

Really?I find is very admirable that our president elect has opted NOT to take the 400K salary he is entitled to as our president.A true public servant! I I betcha he won’t abscond with the silverware and china when his tenure is over either!

 

[DeniseNY]

Really?I find is very admirable that our president elect has opted NOT to take the 400K salary he is entitled to as our president.A true public servant! I I betcha he won’t abscond with the silverware and china when his tenure is over either!

But pay for play schemes at the State Department didn’t seem to bother some folks too much. :doh2:

 

[Jeanne_S]

But pay for play schemes at the State Department didn’t seem to bother some folks too much. :doh2:

I know.Really grasping at straws ,those disgruntled HC supporters.

 

[Padres1969]

The left is inherently totalitarian because it wants people to do what they don’t want to do. That takes force. It will never be any different.

And the right doesn’t? I mean come on, lets not pretend one side or the other doesn’t push their views on the other side.

 

[Inisfallen]

In fact, she ran to left of Sanders who ran as a Socialist. How more left-wing can you get without advocating Communism?

Hillary Clinton ran to the *left *of Bernie Sanders? I don’t see it. Really. Hillary Clinton, like Bill, is a genuine neo-liberal. She’s pretty far from a leftist. She didn’t advocate anything that Richard Nixon wouldn’t have been comfortable with.

 

[Inisfallen]

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?

And what could be less consistent with the body of Catholic social teaching?

 

[KSU]

And the right doesn’t? I mean come on, lets not pretend one side or the other doesn’t push their views on the other side.

One side protects our God-given freedoms under the Constitution and one side doesn’t; that’s a day and night difference.

 

[Padres1969]

One side protects our God-given freedoms under the Constitution and one side doesn’t; that’s a day and night difference.

We’ll have to disagree then. I’d consider pushing conservative social positions on SSM, abortion, etc… on the rest of the country to be equally invasive. Neither side seems capable of leaving the other alone.

 

[KSU]

Hillary Clinton ran to the *left *of Bernie Sanders? I don’t see it. Really. Hillary Clinton, like Bill, is a genuine neo-liberal. She’s pretty far from a leftist. She didn’t advocate anything that Richard Nixon wouldn’t have been comfortable with.

Her not entirely unsympathetic views of her friend Saul Alinsky, her attempt to achieve Socialized Medicine long before it became a gleam in Obama’s eye, and her 2016 campaign to further the leftist agenda of Obama and the Socialist Sanders, all refute your opinion of her similarity to Nixon.

You confuse her with the pragmatist Bill Clinton. nationalreview.com/corner/388560/why-hillarys-alinsky-letters-matter-stanley-kurtz

 

[Regular_Atheist]

She was not left-wing? In fact, she ran to left of Sanders who ran as a Socialist. How more left-wing can you get without advocating Communism?

She didn’t run to the left of Sanders at all, her platform was much to the right of Sanders. I don’t really see how anyone can believe that Hillary was more left-wing than Sanders, her views on economics are staunchly neoliberal. Even when it comes to social issues she’s probably much more right-wing than she lets on and just changes her views to suit popular opinion. Remember how she used to oppose same-sex marriage?

Correct! The fact that Time Kaine represented the right-wing of the party illustrates how far left his Party has become since the sixties. He had to be reprimanded by his Bishop.

This is the man who, as Governor of Virginia, oversaw massive cuts to public spending and supported TTP until popular opinion forced him to change his view. He’s just another right-wing neoliberal politician, like most mainstream American politicians. At best he’s centrist.

First, Sanders was a proud and loud Socialist Democrat (not a social democrat), and thus the chance he would have had against Trump was the chance of a snowball in Hades.

On the contrary, him and Trump were quite similar in that they both took outspoken views against the neoliberal status quo in the USA. Trump was a protectionist and blamed globalization, while Sanders attacked privatization, austerity and utilized a lot of populist rhetoric as Trump did, attacking the “billionaire class” and the “one percent.” Run a candidate who opposes the status quo like Trump against a boring “moderate” like Clinton and of course Trump will win, but if Trump and Sanders were to run against each other I’m not sure it would be so obvious. This would be two candidates that could accurately employ the working-class’ dissatisfaction with the status quo running against each other.

On whether or not Sanders is a socialist we’re just discussing semantics, but I don’t really consider Sanders a socialist. Traditionally a Democratic Socialist has been someone who genuinely planned to break with capitalism and establish an alternative mode of production through reforms, but Sanders just wanted capitalism with a lot of public spending and welfare. Still, this is significantly left-wing for the USA, and the fact that someone like Sanders could gain so much support while calling himself a socialist is a monumental thing and a good sign for the possibility of a labour movement in the USA.

Second, it appears you will get your wish; George Soros et al. will move the Party even further left and scare even more Catholics into recognizing that the Party of John F. Kennedy is no more. The Left since its birth has feared and hated the Catholic Church, which leaked e-mails reconfirmed.

George Soros is not left-wing. The worst thing that can happen to working-class movements is for them to be tainted by capitalists like Soros, as he is doing with BLM. Take a look at the Pride movement - at its inception it was very radical with communists being involved, and now its incredibly liberal (in the non-American sense) and pacified because it’s sponsored by businesses like Walmart that have appropriated it.

I know; it’s delicious. The left finally poked the sleeping giant once too often by destroying its health care and its jobs and its unique-in-history Constitutional rights and its borders and its God-given, natural concept of sexual differences.

The Democrats aren’t the left and it isn’t the left that’s made the working-class unhappy. It’s capitalism, and the failure of capitalism to provide them the quality of life they once had. It’s no coincidence that Trump’s main support came from working-class people in places like the Rust Belt - those who have been hit the hardest by the failures of capitalism.

She tried that Democrat 101 ploy, but this time the working class saw the truth; it saw what the Party did to the FBI and the DOJ and the Supreme Court, and that she was joined at the hip with the world’s money class–Wall Street, Mid-Eastern oil potentates, leftist law firms and the lobbying industries. That is not where working class sentiment lies.

How can you possibly be left-wing and be “joined at the hip with the world’s money class–Wall Street, Mid-Eastern oil potentates, leftist law firms and the lobbying industries?” I think you agree with me, Clinton was a neoliberal stooge of the capitalist ruling class. Of course working-class sentiment doesn’t lie there, and Clinton was not on the side of the working-class. She didn’t even try to appeal to the working-class. She didn’t bother to appeal to them and abused and demeaned them, accusing them of being “deplorables.”

Her not entirely unsympathetic views of her friend Saul Alinsky, her attempt to achieve Socialized Medicine long before it became a gleam in Obama’s eye, and her 2016 campaign to further the leftist agenda of Obama and the Socialist Sanders, all refute your opinion of her similarity to Nixon.

Obama isn’t left-wing either though, and the Clinton campaign did all they could to undermine Sanders and stop him from becoming the Democratic candidate. He was sabotaged by the DNC which was sympathetic to Clinton.

 

[Inisfallen]

Her not entirely unsympathetic views of her friend Saul Alinsky, her attempt to achieve Socialized Medicine long before it became a gleam in Obama’s eye, and her 2016 campaign to further the leftist agenda of Obama and the Socialist Sanders, all refute your opinion of her similarity to Nixon.

You confuse her with the pragmatist Bill Clinton. nationalreview.com/corner/388560/why-hillarys-alinsky-letters-matter-stanley-kurtz

Clinton wrote her undergraduate thesis on the ideas of Saul Alinsky. The thesis was quite critical of his work, and described it as “inapplicable” and “anachronistic.” I know conservatives tend to see Alinsky as a bogeyman, and love to throw around scary words like “Alinskyite,” but really, there’s nothing there.

And Ms. Clinton wasn’t trying to achieve “socialized medicine” at all (for better or worse). No one has proposed socialized medicine in the United States. The Clinton administration did proposed a hybrid form of government/private insurance, but neither of them ever proposed any kind of socialized medicine. Neither did Obama, for that matter – the ACA is a set of regulations for the insurance market, with subsidies, but definitely not national health insurance, and absolutely not socialized medicine.

Richard Nixon proposed (unsuccessfully) a form of national health insurance, and imposed wage and price controls in (I think) 1971 to deal with inflation, and again in 1973. So the comparison is apt, I think. The conservative Republican of 1970 is the neo-liberal of today.

As to her “2016 campaign to further the leftist agenda of Obama and the Socialist Sanders,” that’s really pretty meaningless. She certainly wasn’t trying to further the agenda of Sanders – she was running *against *him. As to Obama’s supposed leftist agenda, only by radically defining what “leftism” means can Obama be described as a leftist.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And what could be less consistent with the body of Catholic social teaching?

It is very consistent with CST.