He wasn't conservative enough!

[Nathan_Brazil]

Every single time that the Republicans lose a Presidential election, their leaders in the media/talk radio/social media say the same thing. "He wasn't conservative enough. He wasn't a REAL conservative populist. Etc."

Okay... You've got your wish this time. The GOP has armed itself with a real populist, America-loving patriot, and he has armed himself with the heads of Fox News and Breitbart...

My friends on the right. It is put up or shut up time.

 

[sr71plt]

An American-loving patriot? Who are you talking about?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

An American-loving patriot? Who are you talking about?

The outsourcing, politician bribing, bankruptcy declaring, fake "university" con artist, who would much rather hire (and marry) immigrants than good hardworking Americans?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

The outsourcing, politician bribing, bankruptcy declaring, fake "university" con artist, who would much rather hire (and marry) immigrants than good hardworking Americans?

I thought you were a fan of the hillary

 

[patient1]

Every single time that the Republicans lose a Presidential election, their leaders in the media/talk radio/social media say the same thing. "He wasn't conservative enough. He wasn't a REAL conservative populist. Etc."

Okay... You've got your wish this time. The GOP has armed itself with a real populist, America-loving patriot, and he has armed himself with the heads of Fox News and Breitbart...

My friends on the right. It is put up or shut up time.

As much as I would like to agree with you and say yes, this will settle it once and for all, I don't.

But it's not just the hard core conservatives. The Evangelicals say the nominee needs to be more Evangelical, the moderates and libertarians say the candidate needs to be more inclusive.

But Trump is a nationalist-populist, rather exclusive. No Conservative would donate to Hillary's campaign. No Evangelical would take his multitude of stances on abortion.

But political positions are only one dimension in this race. Character and experience are another. Any of those could explain a loss.

I think the GOP will fracture and re-align. The elements can neither win the whitehouse nor get along together.

 

[The_Trouvere]

There are different kinds of conservatives. Donald Trump has made more of an effort than conventional Republicans to reach out to the white male blue collar workers who have been losing ground economically and socially for over a generation.

Nevertheless, he is still in favor of the Republican snake oil of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.

 

[sr71plt]

He's not reaching out to the blue-collar workers, he's conning them and making fun of them in the process, and using them to add to his bank account. He's playing on their ignorance and inability to properly assess their overall self-interest as opposed to their knee-jerk limited-vision prejudices. And he's laughing at them in the process.

 

[BotanyBoy]

He's not reaching out to the blue-collar workers, he's conning them and making fun of them in the process, and using them to add to his bank account. He's playing on their ignorance and inability to properly assess their overall self-interest as opposed to their knee-jerk limited-vision prejudices. And he's laughing at them in the process.

Sounds like Clinton with the black community LOL.

She carries hot sauce!!!

 

[underguy1]

He's not reaching out to the blue-collar workers, he's conning them and making fun of them in the process, and using them to add to his bank account. He's playing on their ignorance and inability to properly assess their overall self-interest as opposed to their knee-jerk limited-vision prejudices. And he's laughing at them in the process.

I suppose you believe the Clintons are champions of the working class?

 

[phrodeau]

I suppose you believe the Clintons are champions of the working class?

At least the Clintons have experience running a country.

 

[sr71plt]

I suppose you believe the Clintons are champions of the working class?

What I suppose is that you are irrelevant with this. You don't have to lionize anyone else to be able to read the blatant behavior and history of Trump. You'd be an idiot to try to argue he has done anything for the working class or has any intention of doing anything for the working class. Using him to avoid anyone else on this (and many other issues) just would make you an idiot. He's about as obvious in what he is as any one person could be.

 

[underguy1]

What I suppose is that you are irrelevant with this. You don't have to lionize anyone else to be able to read the blatant behavior and history of Trump. You'd be an idiot to try to argue he has done anything for the working class or has any intention of doing anything for the working class. Using him to avoid anyone else on this (and many other issues) just would make you an idiot. He's about as obvious in what he is as any one person could be.

The Clintons do exactly as you claim Trump will. Neoliberalism is their schtik and that's about as anti-working class as it gets.

You are a Clinton supporter.

That makes you a hypocrite and an enabler.

 

[underguy1]

At least the Clintons have experience running a country.

Running a country into the ground.

 

[sr71plt]

The Clintons do exactly as you claim Trump will. Neoliberalism is their schtik and that's about as anti-working class as it gets.

You are a Clinton supporter.

That makes you a hypocrite and an enabler.

Hillary was raised middle/working class; Bill was raised lower class. Neither became rich until they left the White House, when all presidents get rich off of consulting fees.

Trump was raised upper class; I was raised upper middle class; you were raised without class.

 

[BettyPoop]

I suppose you believe the Clintons are champions of the working class?

They haven't gone bankrupt five times and stiffed the contractors, vendors, painters, carpenters, plumbers, etc. Last time I checked these people are called workers. I can't say the same of you.

We did have a budget surplus under Bill. And for what it's worth, Trump can't even run a campaign. His staff is a revolving door of losers after losers. One of his foreign advisor picks, Joseph Schmitz, is a Holocaust denier whose rationale is the ovens were too small to kill six million Jews.

 

[BettyPoop]

Running a country into the ground.

Into the ground with a budget surplus.

 

[BettyPoop]

The Clintons do exactly as you claim Trump will. Neoliberalism is their schtik and that's about as anti-working class as it gets.

You are a Clinton supporter.

That makes you a hypocrite and an enabler.

Whine, whine, whine...

 

[BettyPoop]

I suppose you believe the Clintons are champions of the working class?

It's a shame Trump has to hire temporary foreign workers for his Florida properties because Floridians are unqualified.

 

[underguy1]

Into the ground with a budget surplus.

When the current account is in deficit and the Feds run a surplus, the private sector is being drained of savings and denied income.

The Clinton surpluses caused the biggest explosion of private sector borrowing in history which culminated in the 2007 GFC.

As I said, the Clintons ran the country into the ground.

 

[underguy1]

They haven't gone bankrupt five times and stiffed the contractors, vendors, painters, carpenters, plumbers, etc. Last time I checked these people are called workers. I can't say the same of you.

We did have a budget surplus under Bill. And for what it's worth, Trump can't even run a campaign. His staff is a revolving door of losers after losers. One of his foreign advisor picks, Joseph Schmitz, is a Holocaust denier whose rationale is the ovens were too small to kill six million Jews.

But Trump isn't a war criminal. Unlike both Hillary and Bill.

So your whatdaboutery is moot.

And you're shilling for a war criminal.

 

[JBCorbell]

The outsourcing, politician bribing, bankruptcy declaring, fake "university" con artist, who would much rather hire (and marry) immigrants than good hardworking Americans?

Sounds about as American as apple pie to me.

 

[mark_j]

Hillary was raised middle/working class; Bill was raised lower class. Neither became rich until they left the White House, when all presidents get rich off of consulting fees.

Trump was raised upper class; I was raised upper middle class; you were raised without class.

Hardly..

Unless she managed to get scholarships you don't go to Wellesley and Yale without considerable financial backing. Since there was no mention of scholarships in her BIO it is a pretty good bet that Daddy's successful textile business went a long ways towards footing the bills.

 

[sr71plt]

Hardly..

Unless she managed to get scholarships you don't go to Wellesley and Yale without considerable financial backing. Since there was no mention of scholarships in her BIO it is a pretty good bet that Daddy's successful textile business went a long ways towards footing the bills.

And assuming she didn't have scholarships makes you somehow objective? She met Clinton at Yale where they were both students. Are you going to claim that Bill Clinton came from a well-to-do family too? There was a lot of scholarship help to those with promise in those colleges in the 1960s. Probably still is.

You can't rewrite history on these folks no matter how much Swiftboating you do on them. Facts are facts. Neither one of them was upper class and they didn't pile up money until after Bill Clinton left the White House--and then did so using the same route that all presidents (other than maybe Jimmy Carter) have done: books, consulting fees, and corporate board fees.

The New York Times certainly didn't paint the Clintons as a silver spoon family that would be out of touch with the pressures of a working-class family.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-money.html?_r=0

 

[mark_j]

And assuming she didn't have scholarships makes you somehow objective?

No more than you..

She met Clinton at Yale where they were both students. Are you going to claim that Bill Clinton came from a well-to-do family too? There was a lot of scholarship help to those with promise in those colleges in the 1960s. Probably still is.

So what... Bill is irrelevant. Besides we all know the "poor boy up from poverty" story of Bill.

You can't rewrite history on these folks no matter how much Swiftboating you do on them. Facts are facts. Neither one of them was upper class and they didn't pile up money until after Bill Clinton left the White House--and then did so using the same route that all presidents (other than maybe Jimmy Carter) have done: books, consulting fees, and corporate board fees.

I have no problem with anyone "cashing in" on their experience, especially when they write about their life and what not in the White House. It makes for a compelling story. On the other hand the "we were broke when we left the White House" story is a bunch of bull shit and you and I both know that..

The New York Times certainly didn't paint the Clintons as a silver spoon family that would be out of touch with the pressures of a working-class family.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-money.html?_r=0

Yeah and when you make a choice to play in public service you kind of have to work through the lean times. But you have to remember that no matter how hard scrabble the early years may have been, they both had something that most working class families never have. Namely Yale law degrees and a whole lot of political connections.

So no. I don't have any sympathy for the the plight of the "poor Clintons".