Trump vs. Clinton

[photon]

You're embarrassing yourself...

[FlameOn]

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Clinton body count:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-campaign.html

wait, is this a serious or parody post?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

wait, is this a serious or parody post?

[northcrunk]

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I don't see anyone defending Trump.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I don't see anyone defending Trump.

Turn on Fox News.

[V]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

wait, is this a serious or parody post?

It seems like you forgot what you put in your OP.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I've heard many times from many people that Hillary was corrupt and flawed, and it was her own fault she did not win the election.

I'd like anyone to explain ...

1. What should she have done/done differently, to win the election?

2. How was/is she flawed/corrupt.

Feel free to include links to your sources, ie, Fox news, Breitbart, Infowars, World News Daily etc.

To get this back on topic....

The problem IMO wasn't with what Hillary did, but the choice of Hillary herself. The public wants something different than the outdated conservative/liberal dichotomy. Those words have little meaning to many people these days. No one wants to elect a party insider. This is happening all over the world. Traditional conservative and liberal parties are being turfed.

The Democratic Party further confirmed Hillary's insider status by throwing Sanders under the bus. I don't think people realize quite how serious of a violation of the democratic process that was. The party is supposed to be neutral. Instead we get emails clearly favoring Hillary and attacking Sanders on many grounds, including his religion. I don't care about the circumstances of the leaks, those emails happened, and it's a very big deal.

Hillary herself was also ill suited to handle Trump's campaign. She allowed Trump to drag her down to his level. Trump is a champion in childish bickering, and Hillary allowed Trump to turn every debate into a bickering session.

Hillary also played into Trump's populist campaign in other ways. For example, accusing Trump of being a sex offender because he made jokes about women allowing him to grab their @#$@#$. Those are awful comments, but they were also made in the company of other men in an attempt to elicit laughs. As distasteful as that is, at the end of the day, we all know people who've said much much worse. To make as big of a deal, as the Hillary campaign did, out of those comments, further pushes the elitist nature of the Hillary camp. The correct approach would have been simply to leak the recordings and then make a few sly comments about them during debate. Rallying the SJWs is going to gain Hillary the vote of the SJW (which Hillary already had) but feeds far too much into Trump's own campaign.

Strangely enough, the election in many ways replayed the dichotomy between Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. A party insider, with troubles relating to the public, vs what people perceived to be a fresh perspective. Regardless of whether Trump was actually a fresh perspective or not, in relation to Hillary's campaign, he certainly came across that way.

[2Stonedbirds]

The DNC screwed the pooch because it couldn't get out of it's own way.

They were shown to be in for Clinton, and clearly steered her towards the nomination. I believe this is why the base wasn't energized, their choice was pushed aside while the DNC pulled the strings to ensure the dynasty rolled on. "Oh but you gotta back Hillary cuz unite and she isn't the devil" The DNC disenfranchised the votes they needed to win over and the weak turnout for what should have been a landslide was due to this in part. The DNC failed in many ways but running a bunch of sticks in the mud out against Hillary was always the plan, they just didn't foresee Sanders and his political bent to be so popular.

Many other reasons contributed to a failed campaign, many reasons why people stayed home or cast a protest vote, but the DNC simply didn't have a candidate that moved the needle for anyone outside of the base, who was going to vote Democrat anyways. Never mind getting caught with your pants down with CNN right before an election.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are just Wrong here in an economic sense.

We have been losing jobs since the invention of Agriculture. Hunter and Gateherers used to spend 100% of their time trying to survive. Then you got Agriculture which gave people free time, then in that free time some people studied and your invented creating better tools which further increased efficiencies and eliminated jobs. These jobs are never all replaced, if they were all replaced. We went from spending every waking hour trying to survive to spending 8, 5 days a week with paid vacations. This was all made possible by efficiency that reduced the total number of required labour hours to keep society running.

That's quite the oversimplification. Hunters and gatherers fended for themselves, the concept of an economy was to basically raid your neighbors camp or make trade. When agriculture started, it gave people an option to either continue hunting and gathering or raiding on their own or to trade/purchase. This lead to people continuing to innovate in an effort to have a form of trade value. The current dilemma is that jobs created through modern innovation are being or will be greatly outpaced by jobs replaced through modern innovation.

A 40 hour work week was not made possible by efficiencies. The reason workers went from a 12-16 hour/day 6 day/week work schedule was because workers fought for it. I can't even imagine what would convince you to suggest otherwise.

It's obvious 3 is wrong, the issue becomes how do you distribute wealth and labour in a world where there is a surplus of wealth and anshortage of demand for labour. The answer is not fake jobs for everyone

A guaranteed wage is also not the answer, this isn't about extremes, it's about being realistic about what options we have.

[Displaced Flames fan]

The basket of deplorables comment sealed her fate. But as someone mentioned earlier, the real tragedy is the two candidates we had to choose from. Pathetic.

[MRCboicgy]

https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/864642294024216577

Three different networks at 8:41 EDT.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The basket of deplorables comment sealed her fate. But as someone mentioned earlier, the real tragedy is the two candidates we had to choose from. Pathetic.

Basket of deplorables = fail, grabbing pussies = win.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Basket of deplorables = fail, grabbing pussies = win.

I don't understand how he survived that.

30 years ago both of them would have been out before the conventions.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A 40 hour work week was not made possible by efficiencies. The reason workers went from a 12-16 hour/day 6 day/week work schedule was because workers fought for it. I can't even imagine what would convince you to suggest otherwise.

Seriously? A tractor didn't make it so that a farmer didn't have to work 14 hour days to plot a field, it was his/her fight against "the man" that did it?

Who does a farmer work for?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Seriously? A tractor didn't make it so that a farmer didn't have to work 14 hour days to plot a field, it was his/her fight against "the man" that did it?

Who does a farmer work for?

I think you may be a little confused, go back and re-read GGG's post. He's talking about society as a whole, not just farmers.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think you may be a little confused, go back and re-read GGG's post. He's talking about society as a whole, not just farmers.

Farmers aren't part of society?

It is just the easiest example to show that advancements in technology (etc) makes things more efficient, and that workers, consumers, and society (not "big business", like your typical Walmart examples) that are benefiting.

Are trucks bad because there are fewer people and horses needed to carry product from one place to another?

Are bank machines bad because there are fewer tellers and banks aren't open 24/7?

Is the drink machine bad because there isn't a worker to open a bottle and pour your drink for you?

Are computers bad because you don't have to write letters and have multiple physical people deliver it to you?

All of these efficiencies mean there is less work for everyone to do in that area, which facilitates the reduction of hours... not that workers fought for them. Without the efficiency, workers could have kept fighting and they would have not got anywhere.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Farmers aren't part of society?

It is just the easiest example to show that advancements in technology (etc) makes things more efficient, and that workers, consumers, and society (not "big business", like your typical Walmart examples) that are benefiting.

Yes farmers are absolutely part of society. Do you know of any who only work 8 hours a day 5 days a week?

I don't see how the part of society made up of workers who are losing their jobs and consumers who are not seeing prices drop despite the labour cost savings from these efficiencies are benefiting, perhaps you could go into a little more detail to clarify. Cost cutting measures do not always equal higher efficiency, a self serve kiosk does not get the job done better or faster than a real person, because a real person is still needed to use that machine, and in a lot of cases it could be argued that not having a trained person using the machine actually reduces efficiency.

Are trucks bad because there are fewer people and horses needed to carry product from one place to another?

Are bank machines bad because there are fewer tellers and banks aren't open 24/7?

Is the drink machine bad because there isn't a worker to open a bottle and pour your drink for you?

Are computers bad because you don't have to write letters and have multiple physical people deliver it to you?

Most of your examples don't lead to less work for everyone, because they were introduced at a time when the new technology created more jobs than it eliminated. We are at a point where this is being less and less often the case. Trucks replacing horses reduced the number of people needed to drive carriages, but it also created the need for mechanics. The carriage builder jobs were replaced by vehicle assmbly line jobs and so on.

Now with self serve kiosks, we have jobs being eliminated to save on labour costs, rather than to increase efficiency at the productivity level. People will argue that it will create jobs because those machines require maintenance, which is true, however it will not create as many jobs as it eliminates, and as unemployment rises, the compensation for those new jobs will be given to the lowest bidder. So less people working, making less money, contributing less tax revenue and reducing consumerism. People will also argue these machines will need to be built, which is also true, but if you've seen an assembly line recently you'll have noticed machines building these machines is becoming the new norm.

All of these efficiencies mean there is less work for everyone to do in that area, which facilitates the reduction of hours... not that workers fought for them. Without the efficiency, workers could have kept fighting and they would have not got anywhere.

If you really believe that people were handed a 40 hour work week because of efficiency, I don't know what to tell you other than you really need to do some research.

Workers continue to fight to this day to reduce other forms of labour cost reducing "efficiencies" such as the outsourcing of jobs. Why? Because increasing consumerism grows the economy, not labour cost reduction for employers that are already thriving. This past year workers at AT&T in the states fought to have their company bring back thousands of outsourced jobs because it became obvious that this cost cutting "efficiency" wasn't helping society or the economy, it was only helping AT&T's profits.

I'd say that disprooves your claim that without efficiency workers fighting for what makes sense won't get them(or others) anywhere.

To everyone who makes these claims that reducing costs for businesses and the rich will somehow benefit everyone, I suggest taking a step back for a minute and considering this: you are making the same arguments as Donald Trump. Think about that.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I don't understand how he survived that.

30 years ago both of them would have been out before the conventions.

It was a counter-reaction to SJWs and political correctness. The political correctness has gotten out of hand, so voters made it clear that they would push hard the other way. It's sad that this is what freedom of speech has become.