Who will liberals blame if Trump wins the election.

[Moonbeam]

Will they even get close to realizing it's because of a brain defect? Will they think of anything more original than that the whole world is stupid? There will be so many tails in need of donkeys to pin them to.

 

[IronWing]

I'm going to put the blame squarely on you.

 

[alcoholbob]

Bernie Bros.

 

[Balt]

Bernie Bros.

They will share some of the blame, just like Ralph Nader and his supporters in 2000. We didn't have to suffer through eight years of GWB, but I guess some people felt it was worth it just so they wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[buckshot24]

Will they even get close to realizing it's because of a brain defect? Will they think of anything more original than that the whole world is stupid? There will be so many tails in need of donkeys to pin them to.

You talking about brain defects is pretty hilarious.

 

[Jhhnn]

Following our liberal brain defect, liberals will blame ourselves for not not being able to bring the unreasonable to reason.

I honestly think more Americans have what you describe as LBD than the serious case of CBD it takes to see Trump as a serious candidate.

So far, Trump has given the base an excuse to rant, rave, raise Hell & carry on about their own leadership. It'll be different after the convention because he'll need to actually make sense to a whole lot of people who don't have CBD.

 

[kage69]

They would have no one but themselves to blame. I reject the Nader comparisons to Sanders on the merits Nader didn't win shit, and didn't have anywhere near the popular support.

It's going to be a real shame if it takes a Drumpf victory to get it in thick Dem heads that the anti-establishment sentiment is quite real and can't be ignored. Pretending it isn't an issue and supporting people like Clinton is a sure way to follow the GOP down the drain.

They would probably try to blame Sanders, it would just sound stupid because everyone knows no one is responsible for Hillary's records and words other than Hillary. If Hillary had chosen not to sell out to the healthcare and credit industries (not doing other specific flip flops might have helped too) I'm sure she'd be doing better on all fronts, and we wouldn't be seeing another person running just to get her to re-align her policies to positions where they should already be.

As an unaffiliated moderate, were Drumpf to win I would blame his oatmeal-for-brains voters first. To a lesser extent, I'd blame the people who nominated someone who made a proudly ignorant orange sociopath more attractive to other voters.

 

[fskimospy]

They would have no one but themselves to blame. I reject the Nader comparisons to Sanders on the merits Nader didn't win shit, and didn't have anywhere near the popular support.

It's going to be a real shame if it takes a Drumpf victory to get it in thick Dem heads that the anti-establishment sentiment is quite real and can't be ignored. Pretending it isn't an issue and supporting people like Clinton is a sure way to follow the GOP down the drain.

They would probably try to blame Sanders, it would just sound stupid because everyone knows no one is responsible for Hillary's records and words other than Hillary. If Hillary had chosen not to sell out to the healthcare and credit industries (not doing other specific flip flops might have helped too) I'm sure she'd be doing better on all fronts, and we wouldn't be seeing another person running just to get her to re-align her policies to positions where they should already be.

As an unaffiliated moderate, were Drumpf to win I would blame his oatmeal-for-brains voters first. To a lesser extent, I'd blame the people who nominated someone who made a proudly ignorant orange sociopath more attractive to other voters.

I would say whether or not Sanders would get blamed depends a lot on his actions going forward.

 

[Spungo]

I would say whether or not Sanders would get blamed depends a lot on his actions going forward.

Yep. If he manages to destroy Hillary's character, he will be blamed.

Shoot the messenger is still alive and well. Hillary takes bribes from big banks? It's Bernie's fault for mentioning it! Get him!

 

[fskimospy]

Yep. If he manages to destroy Hillary's character, he will be blamed.

Shoot the messenger is still alive and well. Hillary takes bribes from big banks? It's Bernie's fault for mentioning it! Get him!

Bribes from big banks? How so?

Bernie would be to blame if he tries to sabotage the Democratic nominee after having already lost the primary. Whatever ideals he espouses, Trump would be vastly worse for them than Clinton would. Hopefully he is able to swallow his pride and accept that.

 

[Zor Prime]

If he manages to destroy Hillary's character, he will be blamed.

Hillary already did that without any help.

 

[rpanic]

If Trump wins nobody is to blame but Hillary, she shouldn't have ran.

 

[Spungo]

Hillary already did that without any help.

It doesn't matter. Bernie is evil for trying to tell the truth.

Bribes from big banks? How so?

Are you serious?
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
Top donors:
EMILY's List
Citigroup Inc
DLA Piper
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Morgan Stanley

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/

 

[fskimospy]

Are you serious?
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
Top donors:
EMILY's List
Citigroup Inc
DLA Piper
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Morgan Stanley

Not only are career contributions stupid to use in the current election cycle, especially for someone who was a Senator for years in the state where those companies are headquartered, but campaign donations are bribes now? This is very strange to hear, as Obama got a ton of money from Wall Street in 2008 and then enacted legislation that they totally hated. How do you explain this? Were their bribes ineffective then but will be effective now? Are all donations bribes or only these?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/

Speaking fees are now bribes too?

 

[zinfamous]

Not only are career contributions stupid to use in the current election cycle, especially for someone who was a Senator for years in the state where those companies are headquartered, but campaign donations are bribes now? This is very strange to hear, as Obama got a ton of money from Wall Street in 2008 and then enacted legislation that they totally hated. How do you explain this? Were their bribes ineffective then but will be effective now? Are all donations bribes or only these?



Speaking fees are now bribes too?

How can't they be considered bribes?

Do you think Bill or Hilary command $250,000+ fees to speak in front of these groups because they are well-educated lawyers with tons of financial experience, or because they are the best-connected politicians on the planet, along with Bill's history of making the banks fabulously wealthy?

It's not really a semantic issue here--It is plainly obvious why big donors pay big money to incredibly powerful people. They expect favors and they certainly expect past history to reflect future returns.

 

[ivwshane]

How can't they be considered bribes?

Do you think Bill or Hilary command $250,000+ fees to speak in front of these groups because they are well-educated lawyers with tons of financial experience, or because they are the best-connected politicians on the planet, along with Bill's history of making the banks fabulously wealthy?

It's not really a semantic issue here--It is plainly obvious why big donors pay big money to incredibly powerful people. They expect favors and they certainly expect past history to reflect future returns.

Well I guess if you can't think of any other reason then the only valid reason would be the one you come up with!

Ask yourself this; what do other big name speakers get for their speeches? What do speakers typically talk about? How many corporate speeches have you been to? What were the topics?

 

[glenn1]

Blame? Hell, aside from his anti-immigration rhetoric I think Trump might actually more honestly liberal than Hillary who seems Nixon like in her politics. If they weren't trying to appeal to the base of their respective parties, each at core would likely do a better job being the standard bearer for the opposite party as that seems where their true heart is.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Blame? Hell, aside from his anti-immigration rhetoric I think Trump might actually more honestly liberal than Hillary who seems Nixon like in her politics. If they weren't trying to appeal to the base of their respective parties, each at core would likely do a better job being the standard bearer for the opposite party as that seems where their true heart is.

Agree. If Trump wins...conservatives are in for a big surprise.

 

[senseamp]

I wouldn't care. Just grab the popcorn and watch GOP deal with having that buffoon as president.

 

[fskimospy]

Blame? Hell, aside from his anti-immigration rhetoric I think Trump might actually more honestly liberal than Hillary who seems Nixon like in her politics. If they weren't trying to appeal to the base of their respective parties, each at core would likely do a better job being the standard bearer for the opposite party as that seems where their true heart is.

What about him do you think is more liberal, specifically?

 

[fskimospy]

How can't they be considered bribes?

Do you think Bill or Hilary command $250,000+ fees to speak in front of these groups because they are well-educated lawyers with tons of financial experience, or because they are the best-connected politicians on the planet, along with Bill's history of making the banks fabulously wealthy?

It's not really a semantic issue here--It is plainly obvious why big donors pay big money to incredibly powerful people. They expect favors and they certainly expect past history to reflect future returns.

There are lots and lots of people who command large speaking fees who are not politicians. Are those people being bribed as well, or do speaking fees only count as bribes in this specific case?

 

[Spungo]

but campaign donations are bribes now?

Yes! Why do you think they are donating money? They just do that because they have good moral standards and they expect absolutely nothing in return? Do you really think shareholders would tolerate wasting money like that?

Speaking fees are now bribes too?

Yes. In legal speak, this is called conflict of interest.
Can you imagine someone doing that in a courtroom? What would happen if the judge was ruling in a case where the defendant was his past and current employer as well as campaign contributor and personal friend? It would be a mistrial. We have laws against this for a reason.

If Hillary wins the election, I'm betting everything on the banks. They will get bailout after bailout after bailout. The big banks hold billions worth of Puerto Rican bonds? Let's use federal tax money to bail out Puerto Rico so my big bank friends are not forced to take a loss on their bonds! Actually, that already happened. I think it was yesterday or the day before. The next banker bailout will be for bonds issued by Illinois.

Illinois is an awesome scam to pull. The bonds are issued at about 8% interest, but that high interest rate is due to the assumption that they will not be bailed out. If bankers know the state will be bailed out, it means the risk of those bonds is actually the same risk as US treasuries, which would be maybe 2% or less. That means the bonds are extremely mispriced. Big banks scoop them up at a huge discount, collect the interest payments, and they get paid in full when the federal government bails out the state of Illinois.

 

[dank69]

How can't they be considered bribes?

Do you think Bill or Hilary command $250,000+ fees to speak in front of these groups because they are well-educated lawyers with tons of financial experience, or because they are the best-connected politicians on the planet, along with Bill's history of making the banks fabulously wealthy?

It's not really a semantic issue here--It is plainly obvious why big donors pay big money to incredibly powerful people. They expect favors and they certainly expect past history to reflect future returns.

I don't get it. You are smarter than this. Is every person who ever received a big speaking fee now in the pocket of whoever paid for it? If not, then why the fuck does this line of thinking apply to Hillary?

Is it possible they command those fees because they are highly successful people? Jesus Christ of all the Hillary issues this one makes me the maddest, and I'm a fucking Bernie supporter.

 

[zinfamous]

Well I guess if you can't think of any other reason then the only valid reason would be the one you come up with!

Ask yourself this; what do other big name speakers get for their speeches? What do speakers typically talk about? How many corporate speeches have you been to? What were the topics?

I know PhDs that go to these power and leadership conferences for CEO training and make absurd amounts of money doing it. They are paid for their..."expertise" on the subject.

I'm not here criticizing Clinton, whatever you may think, but I'm also not naive to think that they don't command these prices for some comparable expertise in the field that a CEO or consultant that actually works in the field has.

They are paid for influence and it shouldn't be too difficult to accept that even as a supporter.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't get it. You are smarter than this. Is every person who ever received a big speaking fee now in the pocket of whoever paid for it? If not, then why the fuck does this line of thinking apply to Hillary?

Last I checked, Hillary has never been the CEO or held a PhD+ years of experience as a consultant in any comparable industry that another speaker would be paid for these conferences.

So, what expertise do they command to be speaking in front of these industries? Gee....

You guys act as if this isn't somehow clear? Come on--I don't see any other valid candidate in this upcoming election than Hillary, but I'm not so naive to pretend this isn't the case.

Are you guys pretending that Conservative politicians also aren't paid for this type influence? Of course they are--all of these industries hedge their bets. It's a cornucopia of bribes!