Who will liberals blame if Trump wins the election.

[Zor Prime]

Nobody wants to hear a speech by a politician at a private event. People go to these things because they're social events and good for networking. And it's a way to funnel money, easily explainable.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary already did that without any help.

Yeh, that's what Benghazi was all about, right? Not to mention every right wing slime attack directed her way since 1992.

Just imagine if we'd given Trump the same kind of scrutiny all these years.

 

[soundforbjt]

Nobody wants to hear a speech by a politician at a private event. People go to these things because they're social events and good for networking. And it's a way to funnel money, easily explainable.

It's also a tax write off I'm assuming, is it not?

 

[Spungo]

The S&P is up about 150% since January 20, 2009, Look at those banks, performing at index fund levels! Truly impressive demonstration of corruption, haha.

So much fail.

The S&P 500 is at a PE ratio of 23.74, making it one of the most overpriced markets in US history.
http://www.multpl.com/

The banks:
JP Morgan trades at 10.78x earnings.
Goldman Sachs is at 17.58x
Wells Fargo is at 12.02x
Citigroup is at 8.97x

If JP Morgan were as overpriced as the index, it would currently be up about 374% since Obama took office.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I would blame the Citizens United ruling, gerrymandering, voter suppression, Hillary Clinton, unionbusters, the RNC, and the DNC.

 

[fskimospy]

So much fail.

The S&P 500 is at a PE ratio of 23.74, making it one of the most overpriced markets in US history.
http://www.multpl.com/

The banks:
JP Morgan trades at 10.78x earnings.
Goldman Sachs is at 17.58x
Wells Fargo is at 12.02x
Citigroup is at 8.97x

If JP Morgan were as overpriced as the index, it would currently be up about 374% since Obama took office.

Yes I agree, your post was a huge failure. You tried to use the increase of bank stock prices as evidence for favoritism from Obama but if that were the case that's some awfully shitty favoritism as their stock price basically increased in tandem with the overall market. Saying the S&P is overpriced has no bearing on this as we are talking about relative performance, not absolute.

I'm going to be charitable and say that not framing their gains in reference to the rest of the market was just an egregious oversight on your part.

 

[Spungo]

Yes I agree, your post was a huge failure. You tried to use the increase of bank stock prices as evidence for favoritism from Obama but if that were the case that's some awfully shitty favoritism as their stock price basically increased in tandem with the overall market.

You made the claim that I would have lost everything if I invested in banks. I posted stock prices to prove that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Now you're trying to backpedal and act like you never made that claim.

Saying the S&P is overpriced has no bearing on this as we are talking about relative performance, not absolute.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. Earnings by the big banks are outperforming the index by about 2:1 and you're claiming this doesn't matter?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Obama would have done the bailout if the timing was different.

I have no doubt he would have, because it was the responsible thing to do at the time. You do not sacrifice the entire US economy just to teach a few bankers a lesson.

 

[fskimospy]

You made the claim that I would have lost everything if I invested in banks. I posted stock prices to prove that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Now you're trying to backpedal and act like you never made that claim.

Huh? I was talking in a political sense not a stock index one, but I guess I could have been more clear.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. Earnings by the big banks are outperforming the index by about 2:1 and you're claiming this doesn't matter?

I'm saying that their stock prices have increased basically in tandem with the broader market index. That means their performance has been nothing special. Acting like the banks did really well as evidenced by their stock price when their stock price hasn't outperformed the market is stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thank you, Vic, for the Mencken post. Nothing to me could be more obvious than the the number of supposedly educated people who post here that lack any comprehension whatsoever regarding the reciprocal nature of rights. We are surrounded by backward savages emensly proud of their ignorance. Not true of everybody, however.

 

[Exophase]

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

Like what? He's not going to run independent. And when the time comes that his run is officially over he will endorse Hillary and urge people to vote for her like he basically promised. He's not going to go back on his word like this. And it's obvious that he believes defeating Trump is paramount and that his platform commonality with Hillary outweighs their differences.

And I understand completely where he's coming from and respect and appreciate his position. Although I don't exactly agree with it.

But if this means that he needs to stop criticizing her, her campaign, the DNC, or anything else that's viewed as negative for the party then I guess you're just going to have to be set on blaming Bernie. Because he feels, rightfully, that these things need to be said and Hillary being the presumptive nominee is all the more reason that she should be open for criticism. Even if it's seen as helping Trump. There's more to this than playing lip service to the right team.

 

[Exophase]

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!

I'm suspicious of Hillary's allegiances, but maybe having a prestigious political celebrity like Hillary is viewed as a morale booster for the company, or as a perk that helps drive and maintain employment?

I have less explanation for the campaign funding.

 

[fskimospy]

Like what? He's not going to run independent. And when the time comes that his run is officially over he will endorse Hillary and urge people to vote for her like he basically promised. He's not going to go back on his word like this. And it's obvious that he believes defeating Trump is paramount and that his platform commonality with Hillary outweighs their differences.

And I understand completely where he's coming from and respect and appreciate his position. Although I don't exactly agree with it.

I agree that he will most likely do this as well.

But if this means that he needs to stop criticizing her, her campaign, the DNC, or anything else that's viewed as negative for the party then I guess you're just going to have to be set on blaming Bernie. Because he feels, rightfully, that these things need to be said and Hillary being the presumptive nominee is all the more reason that she should be open for criticism. Even if it's seen as helping Trump. There's more to this than playing lip service to the right team.

I don't really care if he criticizes Hillary, but I think he should limit his criticism to policy. His claims that the system is rigged against him are not only obviously wrong, but they aren't helping him win and will just antagonize his supporters without accomplishing anything.

 

[Moonbeam]

Personally I blame what I call the liberal brain defect for the mess we find ourselves in, liberals wonderful capacity to exclude emotional moral outrage from their political calculations, their titanic blindness to the moral outrage that exists within the American people for politics as usual, their fear of feeling, of succumbing to irrational feelings, their intellectually distant disregard for the feelings of ordinary people.

This inability to ignore the emotional tides of history make them irrelevant to it, allowing somebody like Trump to voice their feelings.

Where is your emotional outrage, you god damned zombies? Where is your moral outrage that the voice of the people has been coopted by money. That's right, locked safely away behind liberal smugness. But real people don't vote for dead fish. All democrats offer is gender and identity politics as the wealth continues to rush to the top. There is just never enough for competative pigs.

The more the suffering of the excluded grows the more grows the will to burn it all down.

Afraid to feel the madness and you will put on blindfolds and throw yourselves in.

 

[JSt0rm]

I blame public schooling.

 

[Guurn]

So much gnashing of teeth and confusion. Of course they are buying influence, that doesn't mean that their plans work out every time. Next week will be an interesting one.

 

[soundforbjt]

I blame public schooling.

I blame reality TV.

 

[khon]

Actual liberals will blame Hillary for being a shitty candidate, and the Democratic establishment for favoring her.

Conservative democrats and the main stream media will blame liberals for not supporting a candidate they disagree with.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Republicans, probably.

 

[Atreus21]

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

Uh god.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll blame the people who voted for him in the primary and election.

 

[Exophase]

I don't really care if he criticizes Hillary, but I think he should limit his criticism to policy. His claims that the system is rigged against him are not only obviously wrong, but they aren't helping him win and will just antagonize his supporters without accomplishing anything.

How did you feel when Hillary's campaign said this about the DNC in 2008?

May 31: The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee meets to settle the fate of the Michigan and Florida delegates. It decides to cut both states' delegations in half—a death blow to Clinton's chances. Angry Clinton supporters outside the meeting tell the Huffington Post's Sam Stein that an ex-Senate majority leader (Tom Daschle) had "rigged" the South Dakota primary, that Obama was in the pocket of a billionaire megadonor (George Soros), and that his base of supporters was little more than an "anti-woman cult."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...y-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-feud-perspective

I disagree with you that Bernie's claims are obviously wrong. There are many things during this primary cycle that deserve questioning and further examination. The voter registration purges and mysteriously changed affiliations, the exit polling discrepancies, Bill Clinton's polling tours, the debate schedule, many other comments and actions by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. He absolutely should be allowed to question and highlight these things. And he'll do it if they don't help him win, he'll even do it if it makes his loss worse. Because he thinks that the system shouldn't be above scrutiny and inspection and that people NEED to be vigilant about this. In the end it's better that people are overzealous and proven wrong about wrongdoing than letting actual problems go unchecked. And it's entirely possible that this criticism reveals real problems even absent deliberate nefarious intent.

Hillary's 2008 campaign was absolutely brutal but everyone forgives her because she gave her full support to Obama when she backed out. Will you do the same for Bernie? Here's the thing: people call Hillary a real class act and party icon for devoting herself to Obama when the time came, as if it was this great act of selfless altruism. When anyone with the smallest amount of sense can see that that was by far the best political strategy in preparation for her inevitable 2016 campaign, and that it paid off greatly. When Bernie supports Hillary there's not going to be a payoff waiting for him. He's not running in 2024. He's not getting appointed to Hillary's cabinet. He's going to keep running as an Independent in Vermont and doesn't need the party's help to win his next term. When he backs Hillary it's going to be entirely because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

And when he attacks her it's not because he's trying to turn a primary he can't possibly win but again, because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

 

[Fern]

Who to blame of Trump is elected?

Why the swing voters of course.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

How did you feel when Hillary's campaign said this about the DNC in 2008?


http://www.motherjones.com/politics...y-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-feud-perspective

I thought it was silly and unhelpful. She lost in 2008 fair and square just like she is winning fair and square in 2016. By the way if the situation were reversed I would want Clinton to stop doing this as well. All I care about is that a Democrat wins, which one is not that important to me. The reasons I think Clinton is a better nominee than Sanders are basically these:

1. Sanders doesn't seem to have a strong grasp of policy.
2. Sanders would be a weak general election candidate. (and no, don't try to sell me on the GE matchup polling)

I disagree with you that Bernie's claims are obviously wrong. There are many things during this primary cycle that deserve questioning and further examination. The voter registration purges and mysteriously changed affiliations, the exit polling discrepancies, Bill Clinton's polling tours, the debate schedule, many other comments and actions by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. He absolutely should be allowed to question and highlight these things. And he'll do it if they don't help him win, he'll even do it if it makes his loss worse. Because he thinks that the system shouldn't be above scrutiny and inspection and that people NEED to be vigilant about this. In the end it's better that people are overzealous and proven wrong about wrongdoing than letting actual problems go unchecked. And it's entirely possible that this criticism reveals real problems even absent deliberate nefarious intent.

I have seen absolutely nothing that would make me think any of the 'irregularities' would have meaningfully changed the results of the primary. Sanders didn't see any meaningful bumps from the debates, exit polling isn't meant to indicate election outcomes, etc.

I'm perfectly fine with people investigating those things if they want, but Sanders is calling it rigged based on basically no evidence. That's irresponsible and self-serving.

Hillary's 2008 campaign was absolutely brutal but everyone forgives her because she gave her full support to Obama when she backed out. Will you do the same for Bernie? Here's the thing: people call Hillary a real class act and party icon for devoting herself to Obama when the time came, as if it was this great act of selfless altruism. When anyone with the smallest amount of sense can see that that was by far the best political strategy in preparation for her inevitable 2016 campaign, and that it paid off greatly. When Bernie supports Hillary there's not going to be a payoff waiting for him. He's not running in 2024. He's not getting appointed to Hillary's cabinet. He's going to keep running as an Independent in Vermont and doesn't need the party's help to win his next term. When he backs Hillary it's going to be entirely because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

Of course I will. I don't harbor any ill-will towards the guy, he's just starting to behave irresponsibly recently. Bernie's accusations of the system being rigged are being done, as best as I can tell, either to delude his followers into thinking he still has a chance to win or because he convinced himself that he was going to win earlier and is now unable to accept his loss. Either way, his strategy now is most certainly not the right thing to do if it continues to try and delegitimize the election that he lost or mislead his followers.

And when he attacks her it's not because he's trying to turn a primary he can't possibly win but again, because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

You're deluding yourself if you think Sanders is doing this because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He's doing it because he thinks it will maximize his power.

 

[ctbaars]

Who to blame of Trump is elected?

Why the swing voters of course.

Fern

Is that some sort of sex joke?