A Political Observation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbdjYy20q8Q

Divide and conquer

D's & R's split on things for us. They come together quite nicely for big business.

>>>   D's & R's split on things for us. They come together quite nicely for big business.

That's simply untrue, and exactly the kind of Bernie idiocy that got us Trump.

>>>>That's simply untrue, and exactly the kind of Bernie idiocy that got us Trump.

HRC true believer blame's the world for there shitty candidate. It was her fault she ran one of the worst campaigns in history. 

If you think Clinton would have signed a massive corporate tax cut, you are as disconnected from reality as the trumpkins.

>>>   D's & R's split on things for us. They come together quite nicely for big business.

>>>>That's simply untrue, and exactly the kind of Bernie idiocy that got us Trump.

It wasn't just one party who bailed out Wall Street. Dems were in control of the House. Wake up and smell the shit your shoveling Steve

...The revised HR1424 was received from the Senate by the House, and on October 3, it voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law. Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote.[9][15]

President Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its enactment, creating a $700 billion dollar Treasury fund to purchase failing bank assets.[140]

The revised plan left the $700 billion bailout intact and appended a stalled tax bill.[134] The law has three major divisions, Division A: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; Division B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, and Division C: the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008.[9] The tax part of the law has provisions that will have a net expenditure of $100 billion over 10 years. It had been stalled due to a disagreement between Democrats that did not want to increase spending without a corresponding increase in taxes and Republicans, who were adamantly opposed to any tax increases.

The government made money on TARP, it was not a wealth transfer to the banks, it was a liquidity conduit to avoid the collapse of the banking syustem.

In many cases, the government seized private lenders and wiped out the shareholders (e.g., Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc).

If you Bernie "democrats" decide that capitalism is too conservative for you, welcome to Trump's second term.

 one could even argue she had a certain dark hearted nature about her<<

If you think about it honestly, had Hillary won would we be in some sort of newly manufactured foreign conflict by now?  It's hard to think we wouldn't be, she never met a foreign entanglement she didn't like.<<<

Or maybe people could be be swayed into believing ludicrous nonsense after 20+ years of bullshit "scandal" coverage?

If you think about it honestly.

One dynamic no one seems to discuss is the anti war vote, in many ways Obama's continuation of Bush's foreign policy had kind of normalized the concept of war in perpetuity, I think many people saw Hillary as not only an extension of that, but almost a certain escalation of hostilities.  The irony that I suspect played out in November '16 is that a significant [enough] portion of the anti war vote went to Trump, had Bernie been the nominee he very well may have won the presidency.  If you think about it honestly, had Hillary won would we be in some sort of newly manufactured foreign conflict by now?  It's hard to think we wouldn't be, she never met a foreign entanglement she didn't like.<<<

Obama clearly pushed the envelope on this front in terms of maintaining a duality of appearances:  on one hand, not getting bogged down in messy conflicts, yet at the same time ramping up drone usage.  I'm sure Hillary would've tried to "fix the world" to some extent via military use; however, I don't believe either would leverage military action as a distraction from what might be massive conflict of interests and perhaps criminal activity.  I think the motivations might share political undertones, but I believe they're categorically different.

One dynamic no one seems to discuss is the anti war vote, in many ways Obama's continuation of Bush's foreign policy had kind of normalized the concept of war in perpetuity, I think many people saw Hillary as not only an extension of that, but almost a certain escalation of hostilities.  The irony that I suspect played out in November '16 is that a significant [enough] portion of the anti war vote went to Trump, had Bernie been the nominee he very well may have won the presidency.  If you think about it honestly, had Hillary won would we be in some sort of newly manufactured foreign conflict by now?  It's hard to think we wouldn't be, she never met a foreign entanglement she didn't like.<<<

Obama clearly pushed the envelope on this front in terms of maintaining a duality of appearances:  on one hand, not getting bogged down in messy conflicts, yet at the same time ramping up drone usage.  I'm sure Hillary would've tried to "fix the world" to some extent via military use; however, I don't believe either would leverage military action as a distraction from what might be massive conflict of interests and perhaps criminal activity.  I think the motivations might share political undertones, but I believe they're categorically different.

Perhaps she could have been, but she was never able to realize that potential. 

If such a label can be slapped on a recent administration, the blue ribbon would clearly go to W and Co. 

Perhaps Trump is wheeling and dealing as well.

Do you think Kasich would've been a poor choice for the GOP nomination?

yeah it's bernie's fault....

give it a rest jerk-off.

I want to choose my words carefully, but Kasich has this one size fits all approach towards "________" that the real problem is republicans and democrats don't see eye to eye and that he alone can be on both sides of every issue, which to 85% of the population seems perfectly logical.  That's not really an approach towards anything as much as it is a tactic...one characteristic of the guys that attempt this is always the "folksy" speaking style.<<<

I don't believe the thrust of what he was saying is that there's a "one size fits all approach"; rather, that the bulk of Americans are actually moderates and open to debate vs. the extremists (on either side) who essentially say "my way or the highway".   Of course Kasich is going to play politics to the same extent that most will, but I don't see where he comes across as "he alone"?  If anything, this was a mantra of Trump.  In fact, I believe he's even used these words almost verbatim.

It's an interesting topic for sure, since it seems as if we've entered "winner take all" territory, yet is this truly how a healthy Republic should function?  Should not the majority be willing to reach out to the minority to the extent possible, especially if it's a close divide?

Kasich is the right guy.

For 1958.

In light of current situation, I would've taken him in a heartbeat in 2016.