caulfield12

https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-president-tr...-073531733.html http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-...trnd/index.html See Greg? Be careful what you wish for...Trump's Amerikkka is falling apart before it even starts. This is just the beginning.

Tom Barrack from Colony Capital (in charge of raising money and producing the inauguration)..."great guy, outstanding guy, supported me from the very beginning"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ku-klux-klan-hol...-230227525.html KKK rally scheduled for NC, Duke celebrates Trump victory for "our people" Yeah, the whole thing with blaming Obamacare is overblown...it's easy to make a villain/bad guy, especially if he's an "Other" but the fact of the matter is that casual restaurant dining is experience tons of upheaval and diminished profitability over the past five years. That has little to nothing to do with who is actually president. But it's a lot easier to hide under the cover of "It's Obama's fault!" rather than to admit they were taking tax credits and increasing profitability while squeezing the workers. Nothing new there. All those workers/families who lose health insurance and were tepid/lukewarm in their support of it because of the politicization of this topic since Hillarycare back in 1993 and 1994 might be wishing they had SOMETHING, rather than nothing at all. To expect competition/supply & demand to solve societal problems has never been the aim or goal of capitalism. It's to separate the "winners" and "losers" out (if your perspective on life is more oriented around material wealth and acquisition as the means to achieve happiness), those who own their own companies versus those who labor for others.

Harris was just elected to the Senate...the Dems might want to be careful about running another candidate with limited experience. The same argument was used against Marco Rubio in Florida. It's difficult to imagine Sanders, Michelle Obama or Joe Biden taking a leading role. Booker has a lot of positive momentum behind him, but he might need to start off as a VP candidate. Liz Warren, Kaine, Amy Klobuchar (MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Harris, Duckworth, Chris Murphy (CT) and Hickenlooper (CO) are all possibilities. Whatever they do, they have to find someone who can win the economic argument in the Rust Belt...to fight back in WV, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. So if you're thinking of a candidate, imagine how they would play in those five states, in terms of making a "blue collar" argument. Indiana would be another state to watch. I'm not sure Liz Warren has the ability to win those over, but certainly Sanders stood toe to toe with Clinton in those exact same states and beat her. Essentially, we're looking at the same areas that Obama lost to Clinton way back in 2008.

Why not try to have a more productive discussion here, lol? And typing in all CAPS will definitely help!!! Trump has announced his three "first 100 days" priorities as immigration, jobs and health care. These are the pertinent questions: 1) How does one go about cutting capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, individual rates (especially for the Top 10%, as its impact will be disproportionately felt), estate taxes and not blow up the Federal deficit even more? Bill Clinton was the last president with a Federal budget surplus, and that was largely due to the successfully economy/stock market and incoming revenues from 20% capital gains taxes (that were largely felt by the rich). Trump has promised 4% growth, whereas it has been in the 1.5-3.0% (range) over the last 2-3 years. Has this ever worked successfully in a traditional 1st world economy that incoming revenues were decreased, significant growth/expansion occurred AND the government didn't need to create stimulus/utilize quantitative easing/initiate jobs training and shovel ready projects? 2) Let's assume for the sake of argument that much of the "cost savings" will come from taking back or tearing down Obamacare completely. Which private insurance companies are going to take on those with pre-existing conditions and add them to their risk pools when many Americans are likely to change or dump insurance altogether? 3) One of the other "likeliest" solutions to the economic malaise is bringing in new talent from overseas, especially in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) areas, which are obvious current weaknesses in the American public high school and middle school systems. If you make it harder for talented/qualified immigrants to enter the US and fill tech jobs...what are you going to do to offset that? What types of education/training reform would be necessary? Is it realistic for those workers between ages 40/45 and 65/70 to retrain/make career changes so late in life? Let's look at PA, MI, WI and OH in particular. 4) If you slap a 45% tariff on all incoming Chinese goods or a 35% tariff on goods imported from Mexico, how exactly is that going to do anything but raise prices for consumer goods (lowering disposable or real income) and how will that result in those lost blue-collar/manufacturing/factory jobs coming back to the US? Is Donald Trump going to FORCE all American companies to bring back their production/manufacturing facilities back to the US? And their offshore corporate profits? And the Republican Congress will agree with this philosophically? Even if that was possible, unless workers were willing to accept lower wages (and most of the labor unions are dying already), the costs of doing business in America are already 2X-3X times higher...how is this anti-globalism/protectionism thing actually going to work? I just read where the average wage in Bangladesh is something like 28 cents per hour, so how can you possibly compete with those labor rates when you could get two or three day's worth of work in SE Asia for the cost of one util/labor unit in the United States? Realistically, how long would it take for a "jobs/training/education" program to even produce demonstrable/quantifiable results? This isn't House of Cards with America Works...after all. I hope the answer doesn't come back to building a wall between the United States and Mexico, or making Lou Dobbs the new head of the Department of Homeland Security.

The biggest problem is that only 10-15% of the Democratic Party was extremely excited and motivated by her candidacy...she just never had that "it" factor like her husband, GW Bush or Obama that gave people hope that she was capable of changing much about their futures.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2016 -> 07:51 AM) I am still in such disbelief that with everything that happened the last two years, it's the Democratic Party that has no voice. This is a nightmare. They assumed too early that she was the best candidate...and "owed" the opportunity after the disappointment and close call of 2008. It's the same way the GOP ended up with Dole, McCain and Romney. All that stuff coming out about Bernie getting the shaft had to hurt the 18-29 year old vote in those key Rust Belt states that experienced depressed turnout. And African-Americans were still wary about the Clintons after the 2008 South Carolina primary. Biden, Warren and perhaps Sanders all could have taken Trump out.

Well, if Clinton won...it would have prevented the Democrats from winning again in 2020 or running Warren etc. until eight years from now, so there's that. Of course, there's no guarantee the GOP won't have some tricks up their sleeves as well. With control of Congress, there's also oing to be zero excuse for not governing going into the 2018 midterms, and Clinton still managed to win the popular vote. Not only that, but that's the end of centrist/moderate Democratic politics in the Clinton mode...Democratic Leadership Council, etc. it's officially been put out to pasture, and the Bernie coalition will be at the center of the new group, holding the Debbie Wasserman Schulz's/establishment feet to the fire.

Just wait until Trump opens up another investigation into the Clintons after inauguration or tries to bring criminal charges. He goes that route, he's going to re-energize a lot of young people who sat out this election.

It's not 1968 with MLK and JFK assassinated and the Chicago Democratic convention in complete chaos, it's not 9-11 or Pearl Harbor, but the last time I remember this feeling was the 1994 Newt Gingrich/Contract With America repudiation of the Clintons. But that was still less surprising than this particular result.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 01:20 PM) Hillary since she's getting locked up! Cruz, Kasich and Ryan. Romney and McCain. The Bush Family. Anyone in the FBI who wasn't pushing hard for a Clinton indictment. Alicia Machado Hollywood/Penn/Clooney/Bono NATO Aleppo Guantanamo Bay detainees

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) What happened was the dems selected a candidate that simply couldnt be president. It wasnt going to happen, I have said that for months. Bernie mops the floor with Trump this election but as we saw from wikileaks the DNC wasnt going to let that happen, under any circumstances. Not to mention that there is video proof thanks to James Okeefe of the dems admitting they pay the mentally ill to attack people at Trump rallies. The Clintons almost destroyed the entire democratic party. Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate in political history running the most negative garbage campaign possible. Colluding with the media and even establishment GOP politicians. That is why Trump won. Not because of raicism, sexism or any isms people want to insult people with. You lost because of the candidate you selected. A guy who admittedly honeymooned in Russia, Socialist Party member who is just as annoying to hear speak as Hillary...with completely unrealistic free universal higher education policies and no chance at breaking up the big banks without the cooperation of Congress? No...he never had a chance. The polls that had him ahead of Trump are meaningless today.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 12:50 PM) Well Donald, you won. I didn't vote for you and I didn't want you to win. I hope you prove me wrong and go on to be an amazing president. And for all the politicians out there, I hope every one saw what happened and realized Donald is here because of the republicans and democrats who failed to work together to make America better. I hope we see a much more moderate Trump from here on out and that ultimately his policies will end up falling more in the middle. We shall see, but as an American, I hope you do an amazing job. The 85% incumbency and gerrymandering effect disagrees in the sense they preserved the Congress despite the GOP being at about a 15-20% approval rating over parts of the last four years due to obstructionism and lack of creative/innovative policy ideas beyond trickle down economics. But there will definitely be a backlash if he fails to govern in the middle....see 1994, 2006/08....2010/2014. Who is going to protect those Americans who will lose medical coverage and be denied due to pre-existing conditions by the next insurer? The environment/green movement was going to be a driver of employment growth...where is new job growth going to come from? All small and medium sized businesses?

By the way, the RMB is at 6.84 and falling. Trump argued the Chinese were a currency manipulator...artificially undervaluing their currency. Now the opposite? It was 6.3 not too long ago...and they've spent almost a trillion USD in capital reserves on defending it from falling too far and patching up the stock market. So Trump theoretically should be against this (even if it's market forces of supply/demand/speculation) because it will make Chinese exports cheaper/more competitive. So let's see if anyone in the GOP really wants to start a trade war or favors a 45% tariff...making 75% of the goods coming (also increasing supply chain/assembly costs into the equation) into America more expensive for those (lower) middle class Wall-Mart customers who elected him. Even if he lowers taxes, disposable income would be cancelled out by protectionism-based losses to consumers' shopping carts and Iphones going up to $1000 like here in China.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 12:14 PM) I know nobody wants to hear this right now but the continuing to call people sexist, racist etc for disagreeing with you isnt helping anything. How long did the GOP spend trying to work with Obama in 2008/09? If they pass legislation that's beneficial to the country, then there will be progress...potentially. The entire philosophy of the Congress after 2010 was blocking/obstructionism. Why would that be any different now? The country didn't change last night so much as Hillary was just a terribly flawed candidate and repudiated by the same groups who got her husband elected, African Americans and voters under 30...the new administration tries to veer too far to the right, it will be as popular as the Brexit movement is right now in England. There's no massive mandate like Obama originally had to work with...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:50 AM) This doesn't help anything. Her husband had his chance in 1988 and then didn't challenge Hillary this time around when he is more popular than anyone but Michelle Obama and Liz Warren. They both should be doing some soul-searching. And plagiarism isn't a disqualifier anymore...especially when compared with the litany of Trump personal and ethical issues.

How are we selling high on Abreu again? His value has diminished considerably from midseason 2014.

https://gma.yahoo.com/video-shows-man-chant...topstories.html

https://gma.yahoo.com/video-shows-man-chant...topstories.html More good 'ol Trump supporters with offensive comments to get off their chests...

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/04/opinions...nion/index.html Read the last third Greg, "Clinton Fatigue." Clinton is afraid to argue for globalization because it flies in the face of labor unions and protecting the jobs of American workers...it would be simple to articulate that the average American family saves hundreds, if not thousands per year because of it, and how much slapping a 45% tariff on every good exported from China would take from the disposable income of every American without returning a single job. She can't blame corporations for maximizing profits or protecting their gains in off shore shelters because it's not her nature, or that of her husband. Lip service, sure. What it comes down to is that corporations have a "moral duty" to consider the consequences of their actions...that they wouldn't exist in America without the unique freedoms and protections provided by the Constitution, and that short term revenue gains from developing markets for their products are at least partially offset by losing 5-10 million blue collar American families in the chase for growth at all costs over the last twenty years or so. That's a Bernie Sanders argument, and the main reason those under 30 are voting at rates approaching 25-30% less than 2008 and 2012, while Republicans the same age are actually more energized and involved again.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2...NFUO/story.html Trump/Brady story from Boston Globe...what was that statistic they compiled, 65-70% of the things Trump said throughout the campaign could be verified to be outright lies or deliberately misleading?

What is the payroll? If it's the same or less than last year, forget it. Not willing to give up the draft pick as well, forget it.

Sloppy Joe's and Maid Rites rule. You aren't a Midwesternerner without being able to eat one of those, or at least BBQ (which isn't too far removed from a SJ). And peanut butter? Really? Since Labs (the coolest of all breeds, haha) love peanut butter, it's un-American to be against that, too. Unless you're allergic, unacceptable. Bill Self Loves PB. So does Roy Williams. Ozzie Guillen. Meghan McCain. It's not like you said cottage cheese. Are you a Daemon, Greg? Not demon...you might have to look it up, technology/internet term.

Where's Dr. Strange to contain you in a mirror room?

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 03:50 AM) The Sox have been bad at building their own talent, no doubt. However, whether they draft it or whether they obtain it through trade, there is no doubt that they need more talent for the long term. Trading and rebuilding gets that done far more quickly, especially when you have assets to deal to get those deals done. You look back on the 2005 team, sure there were only a few home grown players in Buehrle, Crede and Rowand. They also went out and brought in other teams top prospects with very little MLB experience to be a part of it like Konerko, Garland, Cotts, Uribe. The point is, it doesn't just have to be the White Sox scouts and draft alone to build this back up. It is OK to make moves and help shape the roster to be good in the future and also cheap enough where they aren't hamstrung financially like they are now. They have to run more like the Oakland A's than the Cubs. The front office has to embrace that philosophy and stop with half measures in order to have prolonged success. The A's will come back for a couple of years until their players aren't affordable, which isn't sustainable either. The Pirates, Royals, Astros, Rays (not recently)....are better models to follow because they at least developed 3-5 year windows. The Indians would be another obvious one. Unfortunately, we're more like Mariners (or Padres)...without their ability to bid on guys like Cruz and especially Cano due to their advantageous tv contract, and they still haven't made the playoffs in a division with one less team. Plus Beane's been able to bring them back from a rebuild to briefly the best team in baseball, something KW and Hahn haven't exactly mastered as of yet.