patrick.net

Tim Aurora says

• Evangelists supported Trump, a known sex philanderer and offende

While that may be true, abortion and other evangelical issues were not a big part of this election,

Trump is saying "lets bring back 'merry christmas' and fuck political correctness' to throw these guys a bone.Dan8267 says

In America guns and Christianity go hand-in-hand

It's funny because in the era of JFK, saying that you liked hunting wouldn't give an idea one way or other about one's political affiliations

Strategist says

MMR says

China can "pick up slack" by dealing with Pakistan instead of the United States.

Pakistan is a failed state. They are dependent on others for their survival.

correct; let them depend on China moving forward as the US continues to cozy up to India

Blurtman says

No, we all have to verify information form any source and reach our own conclusions.

No one verifies information from Wikipedia before posting it. Again, quoting a discredited encyclopedia is simply intellectual laziness.

I'm telling this to you for your own good. Although you think quoting Wikipedia makes you look smarter, it actually does the exact opposite. Wikipedia is a bigger joke than even Fox News.

If there is any evidence to support whatever case you are making, then it's trivially easy to find better evidence from real journals and news outlets. Wikipedia is the mother of all fake stories sites.

errc says

Nothing naive about that. Bernie absolutely would have won the election, with even a half fair shake. He came close, and that was with both parties doing everything possible to deny him in the primary.

Bernie won almost half the Dem Primaries/Caucuses, with the Media against him, despite his underdog status.

MMR says

correct; let them depend on China moving forward as the US continues to cozy up to India

Sorry for Nixon. If he hadn't interfered, Pakistan would be a puppet state of India.

Dan8267 says

Although you think quoting Wikipedia makes you look smarter

I don't think that at all. But if any Wiki reference that I do post is in fact not correct, please do cite better references. I don't think you ever have.

"Bernie won almost half the Dem Primaries/Caucuses, with the Media against him, despite his underdog status"

The media had nothing to do with Bernie's loss. Having the media against him was probably a good thing in this election. Bernie lost because he couldn't win minorities. The "rigged" election is hogwash. And I say that as a strong Bernie supporter and voter.

"So tell me, which is better, making a 20% profit, down from 35% because you negotiated and you kept the factory open and people employed, or making ZERO profit because you had to shut down the company?"

False choice. I'll take door 3. Telling Carrier that once Trump is President, they can be certain that United Technologies will not be getting any government contracts and products manufactured overseas for the US market will be hit with a nice sized tariff? Instead of rewarding them.

Ironman says

YesYNot says

I doubt

YesYNot says

I read

YesYNot says

I think

YesYNot says

will likely

YesYNot says

would probably

Do you EVER deal with FACTS instead of SPECULATION?

In other words YesYNot, you have no fucking clue.

joeyjojojunior says

The media had nothing to do with Bernie's loss. Having the media against him was probably a good thing in this election. Bernie lost because he couldn't win minorities. The "rigged" election is hogwash. And I say that as a strong Bernie supporter and voter.

True, for the most part. I think had Bernie won the primaries he would've made Trump look as dumb as he is, and won the general.

I think the biggest drag on a "Bernie wins" prediction was that the Dems wouldn't have won many of the Primary states Bernie won in the General--Alaska? Indiana? Oklahoma? Utah? Wyoming?

OTOH, He'd probably win the blue states, and might've retained the purples as Dems would vote for him, as well as many of those who had switched to Trump. We also would have had higher turnout, which would've mad a yuuge difference.

Blurtman says

But if any Wiki reference that I do post is in fact not correct, please do cite better references. I don't think you ever have.

I'm not arguing about the specific point you are trying to make about the election. I'm arguing against using Wikipedia as a go to source. It's irrelevant whether or not the broken clock is coincidentally right at this particular time.

I have shown time and time again that Wikipedia is nothing more than a blatant propaganda machine spewing massive amounts of misinformation. See all the previous posts I made about it for details. There comes a point where a source has been discredited so thoroughly and so many times that it is ridiculous to continue using it. Wikipedia has long past that point.

joeyjojojunior says

The media had nothing to do with Bernie's loss.

That's a load of crap. Of course the media, both news and entertainment, have a huge affect on the electorate. This is precisely why campaigns spend so much money on media.

CL says

We also would have had higher turnout, which would've mad a yuuge difference.

Not enough is said about turnout this election. It was like?, what?, at a 20 year low? You can guaran-damn-tee the lack of enthusiasm was on the Dem side. Lots of libocrats said "meh" to the Hillbot. Trump got out the vote, even if what galvanized his base was good old fashioned rabblerousing.

joeyjojojunior says

The media had nothing to do with Bernie's loss. Having the media against him was probably a good thing in this election. Bernie lost because he couldn't win minorities. The "rigged" election is hogwash. And I say that as a strong Bernie supporter and voter.

Actually, I was incorrect about the negative stories about Bernie.

I may have posted this in another thread. But WaPo didn't run so many negative stories over days, it was 16 Negative Stories in 16 Hours Prior to Super Tuesday

16 Stories in less than one day! Here are 15 of them:

http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/

Ironman says

"Might"...

That's why every deal is negotiated separately..

So tell me, which is better, making a 20% profit, down from 35% because you negotiated and you kept the factory open and people employed, or making ZERO profit because you had to shut down the company?

False choice. Each negotiation affects your ability to negotiate with other customers. I said might, because we know that some other company will try to pull a Carrier. We don't know how many and how successful they will be. Just because you ignore the possibility, doesn't mean you are dealing with facts. It just means that your model is not dynamic, and your head is in the sand.

"Actually, I was incorrect about the negative stories about Bernie.
I may have posted this in another thread. But WaPo didn't run so many negative stories over days, it was 16 Negative Stories in 16 Hours Prior to Super Tuesday. 16 Stories in less than one day! Here are 15 of them"

Maybe you misunderstood my comment--I wasn't saying that there were no negative stories written about Bernie. Just that those negative stories were not the cause of his defeat in the primary.

Dan8267 says

I have shown time and time again that Wikipedia is nothing more than a blatant propaganda machine spewing massive amounts of misinformation.

Unlike the MSM. We all have to do our own homework.

Blurtman says

Unlike the MSM. We all have to do our own homework.

That doesn't justify using thoroughly discredited sources. A writer shouldn't take the stance of "reader beware, everything I cite may be a lie". A writer should at least put a little effort into trying to use good sources.

joeyjojojunior says

Maybe you misunderstood my comment--I wasn't saying that there were no negative stories written about Bernie. Just that those negative stories were not the cause of his defeat in the primary.

They were. Often the media put up superdelegate pledge votes before they happened, showing Bernie behind before one vote was cast.

Donna Brazile got at least two questions for the Hillary-Bernie debates in advance and used them to plan responses. Probably 'friendlies' at the highest levels on the inside of CNN, if not the executives themselves.

It's a proven fact, with abundant evidence, that Wasserman-Schultz and Brazille used the DNC to oppose Bernie, to the point of corresponding how best to smear him via "friendly leaks" to the Media.

BOTH lost their job directly because of their biased behavior - while Wasserman-Schultz insisted in several interviews she was 100% unbiased and the DNC would be absolutely impartial.

Podesta had lists of friendly journalists to wine and dine and butter up and feed Bernie Bashing, Pro-Hillary stories to.

Most ridiculously, Maggie Habermann and other reporters allowed themselves to be roped like cattle during the early campaign season by Hillary. If a republican candidate insisted on physically corralling reporters like cattle, you'd never hear the end of it. With Hillary, you hardly heard about it.

Have to explain why the bears blew it this year, economics, data reading and a understand on currency commodity relationship

Live discussion with the Fed meeting

https://www.facebook.com/Logan.Mohtashami/videos/vb.783163249/10154340041778250/?type=3&theater

Cut rates in '15-'16:
Swiss
Sweden
ECB
Japan
Denmark
UK
Canada
Korea
Taiwan
Australia
China
Indonesia
India
Russia
Brazil

US hikes again...

"They were. Often the media put up superdelegate pledge votes before they happened, showing Bernie behind before one vote was cast."

No, they weren't. Clinton had a huge superdelegate lead over Obama too in the beginning. Made zero difference.

Again--I'm not sure why you think it's important to detail what the DNC did. I've already granted that their behavior was horrible. The point is that it didn't cost Bernie the election. His inability to reach minorities was the problem. And that had nothing to do with any DNC leaks or WAPO editorials.

The bears I respect didn't call recession this year. The bears I listen call recession in next 3 years.

Logan stop turning shit around. Nobody who's little intelligent listens that idiot Harry Dent.

I listen the reasonable guys who call recession in next 3 years. Now you can argue with that!

This year is almost over sir. That's you little pitty victory against Harry Dent supporters. Well they are idiots.

Philistine says

Not enough is said about turnout this election. It was like?, what?, at a 20 year low? You can guaran-damn-tee the lack of enthusiasm was on the Dem side. Lots of libocrats said "meh" to the Hillbot. Trump got out the vote, even if what galvanized his base was good old fashioned rabblerousing.

I'd love to see actual figures. Early vote totals didn't include some big blue states, so I don't know how it actually ranked compared to, say, the last 2 general election cycles. I thought it was lower overall (Trump's were lower too). These were two profoundly disliked candidates, and so any claim of a mandate is negated.

It could be lower as a percentage of voting eligible citizens too, I reckon, but higher totals. Let us know if anyone has that.

Wait forgot the MMT people.... and Secular stagnation Larry Summers

Anyone from Pimco who has been wrong for years now

tsk tsk... did you really think people could lie about this country and get away with it with data miners out there

No.... it's our turn to blow the Trolls and Anti America non sense out of the sky...

joeyjojojunior says

No, they weren't. Clinton had a huge superdelegate lead over Obama too in the beginning. Made zero difference.

She had a lead before the primaries began. The Media and the Dems fell in love with Obama during the primaries, and the superdelegates began switching to his camp.

Trump as well

The U.S. stock market is a Great Fat Ugly Bubble .. 2016 September .. countless bears now and forever...

The battle has just began

"She had a lead before the primaries began. The Media and the Dems fell in love with Obama during the primaries, and the superdelegates began switching to his camp."

Not exactly. Obama was winning and superdelegates are nothing if not self interested, so they naturally switched to the candidate who they thought would win. Bernie never really had a path to win. He could never connect with minorities.

joeyjojojunior says

Not exactly. Obama was winning and superdelegates are nothing if not self interested, so they naturally switched to the candidate who they thought would win. Bernie never really had a path to win. He could never connect with minorities.

Not true. Her non-appeal to minorities, esp. minority youth, was a factor in Trump's victory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hillary-clintons-support-_b_9579544.html

"Bring them to heel"

Of course it's true. Bernie lost minorities by like 50 points in every state.

Read the article. His support among minorities was growing steadily, and hers shrinking.

It's why Bernie had a shock win in Michigan, that Hillary should have won handily because of Detroit Minorities. All the pollsters thought the minorities were going to go for her, big league.

Instead, he beat her by 20 pts.

It was this that did it:
www.youtube.com/embed/wQ4PYVATBac

Dan8267 says

Blurtman says

Unlike the MSM. We all have to do our own homework.

That doesn't justify using thoroughly discredited sources. A writer shouldn't take the stance of "reader beware, everything I cite may be a lie". A writer should at least put a little effort into trying to use good sources.

The NY Times cannot be credible. They didn't do something as reprehensible as publishing bogus information about Plato, but their mobile weapons lab stories did have negative consequences.

Ditto all of the MSM issuing bogus stories on WMD in Iraq. Or the babies being pulled from incubators by the rascally Kuwaitis.

I doubt that you could provide a reference for credibility rankings by a respected rating agency, and who rates the raters, then?

As I have said, we all have the responsibility to determine the truth as best we can. You can't be a lazy ass and expect others to do the work for you.

"Read the article. His support among minorities was growing steadily, and hers shrinking. It's why Bernie had a shock win in Michigan, that Hillary should have won handily because of Detroit Minorities. All the pollsters thought the minorities were going to go for her, big league. Instead, he beat her by 20 pts."

I will say I was surprised when I went back and looked at the data. It was more age related than race related.

Still no evidence that anything the DNC did had any effect.

Had the DNC and the media not colluded to rig the election against Bernie,he would have smashed Hillary even worse than he would have thumped Trump.

You can't post data from the rigged election as evidence that he would have lost a fair election. Come on, people. Use your brains

errc says

Had the DNC and the media not colluded to rig the election against Bernie,he would have smashed Hillary even worse than he would have thumped Trump.

You can't post data from the rigged election as evidence that he would have lost a fair election. Come on, people. Use your brains

Sure I can. If the DNC rigging caused him to lose, you should be able to look at points on the above charts and show me inflection points caused by the DNC interference. I see no such points.

And the Republican race was similarly "rigged" against Trump with no effect. If anything, I think media support hurt candidates in 2016

Blurtman says

The NY Times cannot be credible.

You may not like the NY Times, but overall, it's a largely credible source. Hell, even Fox News is far more reliable than Wikipedia.

I think media support hurt candidates in 2016

Quit while you're behind. The media was 24/7 Trump save for a quick update of how Hillary had already won the primary because of all the superdelegates that they included in her tally every single time since six months + prior to them having an opportunity to vote.

The mouth breathing idiots that watch that shit are the same people that voted Clinton

The media never gave Bernie a fair shake, had they given each candidate equitable coverage, Bernie would be president elect. I say this with 100% certainty

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

It's why Bernie had a shock win in Michigan, that Hillary should have won handily because of Detroit Minorities. All the pollsters thought the minorities were going to go for her, big league.

Instead, he beat her by 20 pts.

It was this that did it:

Bernie Sanders has a very long history of fighting for the civil rights of African Americans. He's walked the walk and even was arrested for protesting segregation. He has real street cred.

Unfortunately, most African American voters are low-information voters and didn't even realize all that Bernie has done for them throughout his life, or the crap that Hillary Clinton has done against them including promoting the war on drugs, which is a blatant front for destroying minority voting power and economic opportunity.

Some black voters, however, did remember or learn history, and they voted for Sanders.

Low-information voters are the greatest problem in a republic. They are easily manipulated by dishonest campaigns and the media. This is why money can buy elections. It buys ads and propaganda that influences low-information voters.