Revenge of the ‘Deplorables’

MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Posted on Nov 9, 2016
By Robert Scheer

The people Hillary Clinton derided as a “basket of deplorables” have spoken. They have voted out of the pain of their economic misfortune, which Clinton’s branch of the Democratic Party helped engender.

What you have is a defeat of elitism. Clinton’s arrogance was on full display with the revelation of her speeches cozying up to Goldman Sachs—the bank that caused this misery more than any other—and the irony of this is not lost on the people who are hurting and can’t pay their bills. This is a victory for a neofascist populism—scapegoating immigrants and Muslims—and if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrats’ candidate, I feel confident he would have won. We were denied the opportunity of a confrontation between a progressive populist, represented by Sanders, and a neofascist populist.

It’s a repudiation of the arrogant elitism of the Democratic Party machine as represented by the Clintons, whose radical deregulation of Wall Street created this mess. And instead of recognizing the error of their ways and standing up to the banks, Clinton’s campaign cozied up to them, and that did not give people who are hurting confidence that she would respond to their needs or that she gave a damn about their suffering. She’s terminally tone-deaf.

So too were the mainstream media, which treated the wreckage of the Great Recession as a minor inconvenience, ignoring the deep suffering of the many millions who lost their homes, savings and jobs. The candidate of Goldman Sachs was defeated, unfortunately by a billionaire exemplar of everything that’s evil in late-stage capitalism, who will now worsen instead of fix the system. Thanks to the arrogance of the Democratic Party leadership that stifled the Sanders revolution, we are entering a very dangerous period with a Trump presidency, and this will be a time to see whether our system of checks and balances functions as our Founding Fathers intended.

Make no mistake about it: This is a crisis of confidence for America’s ruling elite that far surpasses Nixon’s Watergate scandal. They were the enablers of radical deregulation that betrayed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s contract with the American people in the wake of the Great Depression. The people are hurting, and regrettably, Trump was the only vehicle presented to them by either major party in the general election to register their deepest discontent. The Trump voters are the messenger; don’t demonize them in an effort to salvage the prestige of the superrich elite that has temporarily lost its grip on the main levers of power in this nation.

Thankfully, the Clinton era is over, and the sick notion that the Democratic Party of FDR needed to find a new home in the temples of Wall Street greed has been rudely shattered by the deep anger of the very folks that the Democrats had presumed to represent. That includes working-class women, who failed to respond to the siren song of Clinton, whom the Democratic hacks offered instead of a true progressive like Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Yes, we need a female president, but not in the mold of Margaret Thatcher.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/revenge_of_the_deplorables_20161109
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
Posted on Nov 9, 2016
By Robert Scheer

The people Hillary Clinton derided as a “basket of deplorables” have spoken. They have voted out of the pain of their economic misfortune, which Clinton’s branch of the Democratic Party helped engender.

What you have is a defeat of elitism. Clinton’s arrogance was on full display with the revelation of her speeches cozying up to Goldman Sachs—the bank that caused this misery more than any other—and the irony of this is not lost on the people who are hurting and can’t pay their bills. This is a victory for a neofascist populism—scapegoating immigrants and Muslims—and if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrats’ candidate, I feel confident he would have won. We were denied the opportunity of a confrontation between a progressive populist, represented by Sanders, and a neofascist populist.

It’s a repudiation of the arrogant elitism of the Democratic Party machine as represented by the Clintons, whose radical deregulation of Wall Street created this mess. And instead of recognizing the error of their ways and standing up to the banks, Clinton’s campaign cozied up to them, and that did not give people who are hurting confidence that she would respond to their needs or that she gave a damn about their suffering. She’s terminally tone-deaf.

So too were the mainstream media, which treated the wreckage of the Great Recession as a minor inconvenience, ignoring the deep suffering of the many millions who lost their homes, savings and jobs. The candidate of Goldman Sachs was defeated, unfortunately by a billionaire exemplar of everything that’s evil in late-stage capitalism, who will now worsen instead of fix the system. Thanks to the arrogance of the Democratic Party leadership that stifled the Sanders revolution, we are entering a very dangerous period with a Trump presidency, and this will be a time to see whether our system of checks and balances functions as our Founding Fathers intended.

Make no mistake about it: This is a crisis of confidence for America’s ruling elite that far surpasses Nixon’s Watergate scandal. They were the enablers of radical deregulation that betrayed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s contract with the American people in the wake of the Great Depression. The people are hurting, and regrettably, Trump was the only vehicle presented to them by either major party in the general election to register their deepest discontent. The Trump voters are the messenger; don’t demonize them in an effort to salvage the prestige of the superrich elite that has temporarily lost its grip on the main levers of power in this nation.

Thankfully, the Clinton era is over, and the sick notion that the Democratic Party of FDR needed to find a new home in the temples of Wall Street greed has been rudely shattered by the deep anger of the very folks that the Democrats had presumed to represent. That includes working-class women, who failed to respond to the siren song of Clinton, whom the Democratic hacks offered instead of a true progressive like Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Yes, we need a female president, but not in the mold of Margaret Thatcher.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/revenge_of_the_deplorables_20161109
Click to expand...
The candidate of Goldman Sachs?

So surely you're talking about the guy that appointed 3 Goldman Sachs ex executives right?
 
B

brimck325

Well-Known Member
the problem is thats all u are seeing. you are looking to pounce on anything, try reading it without prejudice.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
When you have a President Elect that appointed 3 ex-Goldman Sachs executives to cabinet positions but call his opponent "the Goldman Sachs candidate" you kind of lose your credibility on the basis you're obviously heavily mentally impaired.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he never had any credibility to begin with. That's why he won. ;-)
 
B

brimck325

Well-Known Member
yea, your right nothing in his post is true........
are u so butt hurt your piece of shit lost to another piece of shit that you can't even read something.
i can't believe some of you "grown men' (over 40) are acting like little sissy la-las.....
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
The candidate of Goldman Sachs?

So surely you're talking about the guy that appointed 3 Goldman Sachs ex executives right?
Click to expand...
Yes the Goldman Sachs candidate. the candidate they paid a quarter of a million per speech. the candidate that was in their pocket and who they thought would win. Trump was a curve ball from left field. it was Clinton they wanted and expected to win and who they've back since they bought her husband. Trump was an unknown quantity. just because he appointed former Goldman people after the fact that doesn't he was their candidate.

he's a repub, who else was he going to appoint.
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
No, as I already said the credibilty of the entire article is shot when they get such a glaringly fucking obvious fact wrong.
Click to expand...
Read Ninja.................and there is so much more going all the way back to Bill who sold everything out to Wall St. Trump was a dark horse no one saw winning, he was only in politics a few months and was talking all kinds of reforms, Wall st wasn't sure what he was and didn't take him serious until close to the end. There is long history with both Clintons.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/behind-closed-doors-hillary-clinton-sympathized-with-goldman-sachs-over-financial-reform/

Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s previously secret speeches to big banks and trade groups in 2013 and 2014 show her exalting the work of her hosts, hardly a surprise when these groups paid her up to $225,000 an hour to chat them up.

Far from chiding Goldman Sachs for obstructing Democratic proposals for financial reform, Clinton appeared to sympathize with the giant investment bank. At a Goldman Sachs Alternative Investments Symposium in October 2013, Clinton almost apologized for the Dodd-Frank reform bill, explaining that it had to pass “for political reasons,” because “if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing.”

Clinton added, “And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.”

Clinton praised Deutsche Bank in a 2014 speech for “the work that the Bank has done in New York City on affordable housing.”

While Deutsche Bank has given to anti-homelessness campaigns in the past, it was also cited in a New York State Senate report in January for refusing to maintain foreclosed properties in New York City neighborhoods and costing those communities millions in unpaid fines. Deutsche is also about to face a multi-billion-dollar penalty from the Justice Department for defrauding investors with low-quality mortgage securities, leading to the housing meltdown.

Those excerpts were among many listed in an 80-page document prepared by the Clinton campaign, listing potentially damaging quotes from the Democratic nominee’s paid but at that point still secret speeches. The report landed in campaign chairman John Podesta’s email, which was hacked, and then posted by WikiLeaks last week.

In a November 2013 speech to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Clinton pronounced herself proud to work with the trade group as a U.S. senator to “look for ways to help families facing foreclosure with concrete steps.”

NAR represents real estate agents, who had no authority to assist distressed homeowners. An April 2007 document lists NAR’s priorities in foreclosure mitigation, and they were able to get an amendment exempting mortgage debt forgiveness from being treated as earned income. But the rest amount to “urging” and “supporting” efforts to help homeowners that never happened.

Clinton has historically been far less critical of the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington than many other Democrats, and as secretary of state allowed two of her top aides — Tom Nides and Robert Hormats — to receive big payouts from their big-bank employers before entering public service.

“Thank you for lending me Tom Nides for the past two years,” Clinton said to a crowd at Morgan Stanley on April 18, 2013. As The Intercept reported in July 2015, Nides moved from chief operating officer at Morgan Stanley into Clinton’s State Department, and when Clinton left Foggy Bottom, Nides went right back to Morgan Stanley as a vice chairman.

Clinton joked about the “culture shock” for Nides, working a government job. “You should have seen his face when he learned there were no stock options at the State Department. But he soon not only settled in very nicely, he became positively enthusiastic when I told him we did have our own plane.” Clinton also gushed about Hormats, who joined her at State after a career at Goldman Sachs, in a 2014 speech at JPMorgan Chase.

In excerpts that got some attention last week, Clinton told bankers that financial reform “really has to come from the industry itself,” that “the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry,” and that blaming banks for the crisis was “an oversimplification.”

Her former Democratic presidential rival, Bernie Sanders responded in a statement, “Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her campaign,” and which “calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged in illegal behavior.”

The excerpts reveal that Clinton, when speaking to the financial industry, adopted their mindset and privileged their arguments. The question that arises is whether members of a possible Clinton administration will reflect this worldview, or whether the long primary with Sanders has made that untenable. Some aggressive advocates for progressive appointments believe the latter.

“At State and on the speaking circuit, Clinton was in an environment that encouraged her to view Wall Street bankers as fonts of economic wisdom,” said Jeff Hauser, Director of the Revolving Door Project. “But after 15 months running against a progressive populist like Sanders, Clinton knows that government conducted a by rotating stream of bankers is politically unacceptable.”
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
Posted on Nov 9, 2016
By Robert Scheer

The people Hillary Clinton derided as a “basket of deplorables” have spoken. They have voted out of the pain of their economic misfortune, which Clinton’s branch of the Democratic Party helped engender.

What you have is a defeat of elitism. Clinton’s arrogance was on full display with the revelation of her speeches cozying up to Goldman Sachs—the bank that caused this misery more than any other—and the irony of this is not lost on the people who are hurting and can’t pay their bills. This is a victory for a neofascist populism—scapegoating immigrants and Muslims—and if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrats’ candidate, I feel confident he would have won. We were denied the opportunity of a confrontation between a progressive populist, represented by Sanders, and a neofascist populist.

It’s a repudiation of the arrogant elitism of the Democratic Party machine as represented by the Clintons, whose radical deregulation of Wall Street created this mess. And instead of recognizing the error of their ways and standing up to the banks, Clinton’s campaign cozied up to them, and that did not give people who are hurting confidence that she would respond to their needs or that she gave a damn about their suffering. She’s terminally tone-deaf.

So too were the mainstream media, which treated the wreckage of the Great Recession as a minor inconvenience, ignoring the deep suffering of the many millions who lost their homes, savings and jobs. The candidate of Goldman Sachs was defeated, unfortunately by a billionaire exemplar of everything that’s evil in late-stage capitalism, who will now worsen instead of fix the system. Thanks to the arrogance of the Democratic Party leadership that stifled the Sanders revolution, we are entering a very dangerous period with a Trump presidency, and this will be a time to see whether our system of checks and balances functions as our Founding Fathers intended.

Make no mistake about it: This is a crisis of confidence for America’s ruling elite that far surpasses Nixon’s Watergate scandal. They were the enablers of radical deregulation that betrayed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s contract with the American people in the wake of the Great Depression. The people are hurting, and regrettably, Trump was the only vehicle presented to them by either major party in the general election to register their deepest discontent. The Trump voters are the messenger; don’t demonize them in an effort to salvage the prestige of the superrich elite that has temporarily lost its grip on the main levers of power in this nation.

Thankfully, the Clinton era is over, and the sick notion that the Democratic Party of FDR needed to find a new home in the temples of Wall Street greed has been rudely shattered by the deep anger of the very folks that the Democrats had presumed to represent. That includes working-class women, who failed to respond to the siren song of Clinton, whom the Democratic hacks offered instead of a true progressive like Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Yes, we need a female president, but not in the mold of Margaret Thatcher.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/revenge_of_the_deplorables_20161109
Click to expand...
Obama and Hillary Clinton were these people? Is the world black and white with no grey areas in between?

They were the enablers of radical deregulation that betrayed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s contract with the American people in the wake of the Great Depression. The people are hurting, and regrettably, Trump was the only vehicle presented to them by either major party in the general election to register their deepest discontent. The Trump voters are the messenger; don’t demonize them in an effort to salvage the prestige of the superrich elite that has temporarily lost its grip on the main levers of power in this nation.

Clinton isn't even close to "superrich". She was more conservative than you, which goes without saying, but nothing like Trump or the Bush family or the real super rich like the Kochs. The Trump voters aren't the messenger, they are delivery boy or girl who brought us Trump.

Also, "the superrich ... lost it's grip on power"? WTF? With Trump in charge, the "superrich" elite have a firmer grip on the main levers of power in this nation. To say they lost control with Tump's victory is to submit to right wing propaganda.
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Obama and Hillary Clinton were these people? Is the world black and white with no grey areas in between?

They were the enablers of radical deregulation that betrayed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s contract with the American people in the wake of the Great Depression. The people are hurting, and regrettably, Trump was the only vehicle presented to them by either major party in the general election to register their deepest discontent. The Trump voters are the messenger; don’t demonize them in an effort to salvage the prestige of the superrich elite that has temporarily lost its grip on the main levers of power in this nation.

Clinton isn't even close to "superrich". She was more conservative than you, which goes without saying, but nothing like Trump or the Bush family or the real super rich like the Kochs. The Trump voters aren't the messenger, they are delivery boy or girl who brought us Trump.

Also, "the superrich ... lost it's grip on power"? WTF? With Trump in charge, the "superrich" elite have a firmer grip on the main levers of power in this nation. To say they lost control with Tump's victory is to submit to right wing propaganda.
Click to expand...

the super rich he is talking about there is the cabal of Clinton, the dem party and it's donors.
And they are also the one's who've temp lost their grip on power, given the fact their candidate lost.
calling the right wing of the dem party superrich is appropriate.
it don't mean there aren't other super rich people. nor does imply other super rich elites aren't in power now.

the trump voters have delivered the message that establishment politics is over by virtue of how they voted.
and so don't vilify them by trying rehabilitate the dems/hillary's failure to connect with how the people were feeling, that they wanted radical change.

That is what he is saying.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
the super rich he is talking about there is the cabal of Clinton, the dem party and it's donors.
And they are also the one's who've temp lost their grip on power, given the fact their candidate lost.
calling the right wing of the dem party superrich is appropriate.
it don't mean there aren't other super rich people. nor does imply other super rich elites aren't in power now.

the trump voters have delivered the message that establishment politics is over by virtue of how they voted.
and so don't vilify them by trying rehabilitate the dems/hillary's failure to connect with how the people were feeling, that they wanted radical change.

That is what he is saying.
Click to expand...
Clinton isn't super rich. She served them, but isn't part of their clique. THAT clique embodies the kind of kleptocracy-corruption present in both parties. In my opinion the main difference between Blue kleptocrats like Soros and Red kleptocrats like the Koch brothers is that Blue kleptocrats furtively and hypocritically embrace corruption while the red kleptocrats enthsiastically embrace their corrupt manipulation of the system as the American Way.

Clinton is part of the Democratic Party elite and her policies were politically located to the right yet nothing like the GOP's right wing agenda. But that's all in the past now.

Looking forward, I am in agreement with the line that said: "Thankfully, the Clinton era is over". I would rather the Democratic Party focus on elevating the status of all workers without bias rather than whatever it was that Clinton thought she was doing, as represented in the campaign slogan "stronger together".
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
the super rich he is talking about there is the cabal of Clinton, the dem party and it's donors.
And they are also the one's who've temp lost their grip on power, given the fact their candidate lost.
calling the right wing of the dem party superrich is appropriate.
it don't mean there aren't other super rich people. nor does imply other super rich elites aren't in power now.

the trump voters have delivered the message that establishment politics is over by virtue of how they voted.
and so don't vilify them by trying rehabilitate the dems/hillary's failure to connect with how the people were feeling, that they wanted radical change.

That is what he is saying.
Click to expand...

so, you are in the same camp as a fucking klansman or close facsimile
brimck325 said:
again, get fucking past that and read the rest, wtf!
Click to expand...

Actually, that claim is key to the validity of the article. The entire article falls apart when this assertion about Clinton is unraveled.

Clinton somehow being super rich elite is a basic argument upon which the whole piece of shit was piled. This argument is false: that Trump, who IS super rich and HAS appointed not one but three Goldman super rich buddies is somehow the working man's man while Clinton is somehow the super rich Goldman candidate. The article is founded on false premises.

Use your head for more than cracking walnuts.
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
so, you are in the same camp as a fucking klansman or close facsimile



Actually, that claim is key to the validity of the article. The entire article falls apart when this assertion about Clinton is unraveled.

Clinton somehow being super rich elite is a basic argument upon which the whole piece of shit was piled. This argument is false: that Trump, who IS super rich and HAS appointed not one but three Goldman super rich buddies is somehow the working man's man while Clinton is somehow the super rich Goldman candidate. The article is founded on false premises.

Use your head for more than cracking walnuts.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is an astoundingly stupid post.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
I'm sorry but this is an astoundingly stupid post.
Click to expand...
So you're still claiming that Clinton was the Goldman Sachs candidate despite her just taking their money for speaking engagements and neve intending to appoint any of them...

Yet Trump is somehow not despite the fact he appointed 3 of their ex-executives to his cabinet?

And you think youve the right to determine the intelligence of someone else's posts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top