A message from Elizabeth

Eliabeth Warren sent out a message, which I excerpt in abbreviated form:

It's time for a female president, boys-'n-girls. The Electoral College, this disgraceful un-democratic mechanism that spoils the popular-vote, stole hers from Hilary. And, as a consequence, we have a PotUS afflicted with acute narcissim.

That occasion might come in another two years. But, this year, for those who think this country has been seriously afflicted by a dunce-PotUS, we can show him the power of Congress. Just like the Replicants did to Obama in 2010.

For those who want change, soon and badly, November is your target! Don't lose sight of it.

Those who think that Donald Dork will address and correct the issues in red within Elizabeth's message above are hopelessly beyond political reality. Sanity is telling us that we, the sheeple, must take back at least the HofR this year, and the presidency in 2020.

If not, your standard-of-living will remain in a steep, steep decline whilst boy-Donald plays silly games in his presidential sandbox ...

 

All it took to avoid a Trump presidency was for the Democrats to nominate a decent candidate. They didn't, they nominated one just as disliked by America as a whole as Trump was. In fact 70% of independents had an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, 57% had that same unfavorable view of Trump. So they and America voted for the candidate they least disliked and least wanted to lose. Not necessarily wanted to win.

Trump had only a 36% favorable, Hillary 38% favorable among all Americans. They set the record for the lowest favorable of being seen in the least positive light of any major party candidates since FDR. The previous lowest was held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 at 43% and G.H.W. Bush had the second lowest at 46% in 1992. No other major party candidate has had a favorable rating of 50% or lower than those four I just mentioned.

Still if Hillary hadn't been so lazy and let her opponent out work and out campaign her by huge margin, she probably would have won fairly easily. Laziness did her in. From 1 Sep 2016 to 8 Nov 2016 Hillary let Trump out campaign and out work her 116 to 71 campaign visits, stops and some of those 71 for Hillary were fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. Trump never took a day off the campaign trail, Clinton several.

Then there was Hillary's ho hum and inept campaign. Trump didn't win it, Hillary lost it herself. Well, what do you expect when the Democrats choose their nominee four years in advance in a secret meeting between Obama, Bill and Hillary prior to the 2012 election. Then have the DNC and Democratic state party leaders jury rig the Democratic primaries in Hillary's favor.

2016 was the anti election where most Americans voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose. 8 million Americans voted against both Trump and Clinton voting third party. That was an election in which 60% of all Americans didn't want Trump to become the next president and another 60% didn't want Clinton.

Bottom line, we have who we have as president as a direct result of choices, decisions and actions taken by both major parties back in 2016. If one or the other don't like the results, all they have to do is look in a mirror. It's not like the Democrats didn't have warnings about Hillary. In a February 2016 poll 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone else other than Hillary. Like normal, the Democrats told America to stick it where the sun don't shine and did exactly what they wanted to. They're right to choose whom they wanted. America's right to tell them they made a huge mistake. Want the presidency, next time nominate a decent and better candidate. The presidency was yours until you went with Hillary.

 

Considering im not a statist bedwetter, i cant agree the govt should be requiring businesses to pay their employees a certain wage. Not now and not when they started doing this unconstitutional crap.
And if hillary won, we would STILL have a narcissist in the WH. Delusion does no one any good.

 

Warren is full of it. She had a chance to support sanders who is much closer to her, in beliefs, and what did she do?

This woman is a fake, a shyster and didn't help sanders, but hillary.

 

I agree. I remember when she was attacking the FED like crazy. "they need to be audited" she said.. Guess what happened at voting time? She did the same thing Cruz did. Voted No. SMH

 

Please run Squaw Warren. Please.

 

THE POOR CAN GO TO HELL

Ignorance of the facts behind the last election will never cease to amaze. It's as if wholesale stoopidity is colossal amongst the American people.

Hillary's history has no reproachable aspects except to bruised male egos who are dead-scared of American womanhood's ascendancy to equality with males.

Moreover, Hillary would have implemented two very necessary elements of governance that are severly lacking in America. One deals with the fact that America the world's most unfair healthcare system. They other a costly post-secondary education that prohibits its youth to obtain the skills necessary in this Information Age that is upon us.

As regards the former, some will recall that Hillary had put together a National Health Care Service that would have, finally, given Americans a higher life expectancy. At present, Americans have a life-span that is three years less than Europe's. (See that factually expressed in this infographic here.)

As regards the latter, Hillary convened Bernie just after her nomination and agreed to incorporate into her platform his plan that would offer free tertiary-education to all families earning less than the median income (which is about $54K annually). This government subvention alone would have allowed more than 50% of high-schools students - who either do not seek post-secondary degrees or who do so but fail to complete the program due to a lack of funding - to do so. And if you don't believe getting a tertiary-level degree is more expensive in the US than in most developed countries then you should consider this research infographic here.

So, in a few words, "you've got it all wrong, wrong, wrong". Unless, of course, you and people like you want the US to continue on its disastrous course where the rich get richer and poor can go to hell* ...

*Which is aptly described in this research by the UofCal indicating how Wealth is concentrated almost all within a tiny, tiny fraction of the American population:

 

LOL, back then dems were in charge and they have never pushed for a cost of living provision in the minimum wage. Why? So dems like Warren can try and scare people to vote for her.

BTW, a President doesn't create law, that is unless you were Obama.

 

Still clueless how the US government works and is structured?

 

Malarkey, typical of the Rabid Right that has been disconnected from the Intrinsic Values of a pluralistic democracy since the get-go of American history. Those values are based not upon financial equality, but financial equitability.

I am sure you could not tell the difference ...

 

You would have had that in spades with Hillary. Just look at her excuse tour.

 

Are you? What a shame.

Of course, you can also go to hell with it ...

 

Typical of what? LMAO nice tunnel vision.
The fed gov has no right to tell business owners what to do with their property. Thats not malarkey. Maybe you just cant read documents?

 

The only people scared of Warren are those who know that she has a chance of winning.

They are typically the Rabidly Right of the American political spectrum. Which should have died off with Roosevelt, but has lingered on ever since. And has a new champion in the person of Donald Dork ...

Oh really? Wow!

A PotUS signs the law and that is quite enough. Which is why getting control back of both chambers of Congress is key. It is the will of the people as expressed in their Legislature who "make law". This present dork of a PotUS (who is our 5th illegitimate* head-of-state in the US) that either signs it or not ...

*Legitimacy in any truly democratic vote is designated by the outcome of the popular-vote. Not some silly mechanism adopted at the down of the nation forced upon the signatories of the original Constitution because they knew that Congress might outlaw slavery. Which it did inevitably and why the Civil War happened anyway. The Electoral College is an historical mistake.

 

It has every right to tell owners what to do with their property, since possession/ownership DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to manipulate markets at the expense of the general public that elects a government to govern fairly ...

 

Manipulate markets? OMG LOL

 

More idiotic one-liner sarcasm.

Go read a lesson in what constitutes "proper debate".

 

Ignorance is bliss, which is why you are laughing ...

 

I am sure your lack of hackery is fundamental to our Constitutional Republic. Keep up the good work.

 

I mean seriously. A lack of govt intrusion manipulates the free market

 

Congress creates the law so the dems are never going to give up whining about things they could have actually fixed years ago.

 

LOL

 

Government cannot legislate a permanent state of financial fairness, nor can it eradicate poverty. can't be done. total pipe dream.

were 100 people each handed $100K, roughly 85 of them would be flat broke within two years, ten might see the windfall as an opportunity to pad their savings, three or four may invest the $100K in low-risk stocks and earn a modest income from it, while one, maybe two, will gamble big and turn that $100K into millions.

I know "poor" people who are happy and live well on modest incomes and "rich" people who are absolutely miserable and constantly broke. Government cannot "fix" that. Government policies can't make everyone behave rationally or irrationally with their money. All government can do is ensure there are no systemic barriers to opportunity. that's it. anything else is an affront to the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause....an affront to the equality leftists claim to champion!

when so inclined, I 'debate' topics that are worth debating. leftist claptrap is not typically one of them.

 

"And, as a consequence, we have a PotUS afflicted with acute narcissim."

I suspect the comedy of this is lost on the poster.

 

"bruised male egos who are dead-scared of American womanhood's ascendancy to equality with males."

I am sure that you really believe this.

It's an impediment to open discussion, to hold on to misconceptions like this one. Understanding is not possible without the willingness to let go of simplistic caricatures.