Will an olive branch (cabinet position) be offered to Trump by Clinton? (Putin, Congress)

[baystater]

Originally Posted by bUU

Read the topic of this thread. Also, read the topic of this forum. It's about the election, and the election is effectively a binary choice between Clinton and Trump, no matter what folks would prefer.

If you feel that way than you're welcome to decline to participate in the discussion.

The OP said this.

Originally Posted by Ghengis

seems like after the election would be a good time to build bridges and not walls between Clinton and those she kind of referred to as disposables. Having Trump head up a low to medium-low level cabinet position would help unite the country. Isn't there a Secretary of Entertainment or am I thinking of Russia?

Perhaps a position for Melania that would be appropriate?

So you hijacked the thread to suit your purposes.

Better than Trump, and again that's what matters, even if you want something else to matter. Right now, nothing else matters.

To you. In this election cycle. But if she acts like a hawk during her term. It will help her get reelected in four years. Especially if she is against a moderate republican with a similar forgien policy.

I've read over your comments and indeed they can be read that way. Sorry for my earlier misreading of them. Regardless: Who cares that rabid right-wing reactionaries don't like a Democrat? What possible relevance could that ever have, given that it is always true, whether the liberal is Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Pelosi, etc. As a matter of fact, the only thing you really can say that varies from that is that of all the possible Democrats, Clinton is among the most Republican, the one that the Republican has worked with the most and seem to be willing to work with the most.

I believe you were talking earlier half of the nation thinking sanders supporters were dangerous socialist. That that Hillary's administration had to take into consideration those people's points of view. But I would argue that half of that half thanks Hillary is the root of all evil. And that any reaching out that she does towards them will be rejected out of hand. So really Hillary only has to somewhat placate a quarter of the population. The other quarter she should not even bother with.

The link you provided has the same CNN poll data in it that the link I provided. 69% of Sanders supporters are support Clinton with the third-party candidates included, and 91% of Sanders supporters said they were willing to support Clinton against Trump. Which is exactly what I said, "Are all 91% going to vote for Clinton? No. Some will vote for Stein."

I'm telling you the headline number is Of the article is closer truth. Also have completely skipped over the people that are not going to bother to show up to vote. I'd say round about 20% to 25%. but we're only going to know after the election. Call me out if I'm wrong. But I don't think I will be proven wrong.

She's not liked for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with policy perspectives. The reality is that Bernie Sanders was not a Democrat. He joined the party solely to run for POTUS this year. He doesn't pretend to reflect the Democratic perspective. What he offers is a path for people who were never Democrats to consider the Democratic Party. They represent a small portion of the party now. The bulk of the Party is between Clinton and Sanders, and actually mostly clumped around Clinton, seeing Sanders as a radical.

1. Believe the two leading issues that are plaguing Hillary are the perception that she will be weak on Wall Street..... which would be policy. And showing her perceived lack of judgment with her email server. Those are the main two.

2. Only people who cares Bernie joining the Democratic Party to win the nomination are Hillary supporters. Nobody else cares. Not at all. He is supporting your candidate now. so.......

Also he got 13,206,428 or 43% with in the party itself. Bernie represents a little less than half of what the Democratic Party wants. I know you're really trying to push the radical angle but the truth is, is Bernie supporters are voting for Clinton because they either want a left-leaning Supreme Court or they can't stand Trump. Really they don't love your candidate......yet. And whether you like it or not . The future of the Democratic Party is heading more towards Bernie sander type candidates. The days of the new Democrats are over after Hillary is 4 to 8 years. You can leave the party anytime you like.

With one on one side and one on the other. Sanders supporters who think that they have special privileges over Trump supporters in the nation, just because the Democrats win the White House, are in for a rude awakening. The is a government for all the people, not just those who win the election. Sanders supporters can look forward to more support for their perspectives than they would have gotten if they had not joined in coalition with Clinton, and of course get to avoid being shot by firing squads now that it seem that Trump's fascist regime won't see daylight.

That's fine. But don't come expect Bernie supporters support in the 2020 election. Tit-for-tat.

You're wrong. They're radicals because of where they are on the spectrum with regard to the values they care about, not what values they care about.

Nope. They're radicals to you because they don't share your Spectrum of values. I have already stated to you that people put different emphasis of importance on different issues. The ones that you like terming radicals are the ones that put more emphasis on economic issues. They're not willing to vote for your candidate because they do not believe she's going to serve their interest. Oh so many people both in the party and in the general electorate that are also concerned about Hillary's handling of Wall Street in the banks. But that might not be the number one issue. They're number one issue might The Supreme Court for the more fearful, stopping trump at all costs. They have their own interests and priority of interests.

your use of radicals in essence is doing nothing but driving it for the wedge with in the party. And overtime it's a battle you're going to lose. Hopefully Hillary will have better foresight and refrain from such labeling while servicing some of the economic minded within the party.

Put aside your proprietary rules. If you want to have a discussion, have a discussion.

Again hijacking the thread for your own purposes this election cycle.

Wrong. You aren't happy with the extent to which people are going to jail and being fined. BIG difference.

I stand by what I said and Information I gave you. You can say whatever you like . But know this. The viewpoint that you have on this issue is most likely seen by most Main Street people....using you own word.....a "radical" viewpoint. The American people are tired of the status quo and financial institutions behaving badly on fairly regular basis. It's time to get tough on people that break the law in our financial system.

Tough. Take what I have to offer or admit that there is no point in asking for what you're asking.

Are we mad that you have no proof that Hillary has any type of plan on how to break up a bank. You make me laugh with your indignation. You're just acting silly now.,

[bUU]

Originally Posted by baystater

So you hijacked the thread to suit your purposes.

No. I carried on a discussion that went beyond the artificial boundaries you set.

Originally Posted by baystater

To you. In this election cycle.

Yes, in this election cycle. And not just to me. You have people in the candidate's own party repudiating him. The warnings about the danger he poses is unprecedented in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by baystater

I believe you were talking earlier half of the nation thinking sanders supporters were dangerous socialist. That that Hillary's administration had to take into consideration those people's points of view. But I would argue that half of that half thanks Hillary is the root of all evil. And that any reaching out that she does towards them will be rejected out of hand.

Nonsense. The government has myriad interdependencies. The future POTUS will have to work with members of the core of both parties. There will be a cost for becoming the obvious source of gridlock.

Originally Posted by baystater

So really Hillary only has to somewhat placate a quarter of the population.

Again: Nonsense.

Originally Posted by baystater

I'm telling you the headline number is Of the article is closer truth.

Wrong. Both are true metrics. You just don't like the ramifications of the 91% number, that that amount of Sanders supporters find Clinton acceptable enough to support her in a two candidate poll. BIG difference.

Originally Posted by baystater

I'd say round about 20% to 25%.

Don't "say" - know or don't know - there is no "say". The reality is that there is no data about that whatsoever so we (meaning both you and I) don't know and so any claims you try to make based on what you "say" is self-ratifying nonsense. We don't know and it will remain that way.

Originally Posted by baystater

Only people who cares Bernie joining the Democratic Party to win the nomination are Hillary supporters.

In other words, most Democrats. The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that Sanders is still a fringe candidate with generally unpopular views, especially in the context of a general election.

Originally Posted by baystater

The future of the Democratic Party is heading more towards Bernie sander type candidates.

A lot of that depends on what happens to the GOP. If the GOP becomes just the establishment Republicans, moves to the left and leaves the Trumpists and evangelicals behind, that that will push the Democrats over further to the left. If the Trumpists prevail, and draw a lot of support to the alt-right, then the Democrats will be sucked further over to the center.

Originally Posted by baystater

The days of the new Democrats are over after Hillary is 4 to 8 years.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." - Barack Obama, 2008.

"I've been going through an evolution on this issue... I [now] think same-sex couples should be able to get married." - Barack Obama, 2012

This is one thing that distinguishes honorable Democrats: They come around to more progressive perspectives in good time. They aren't beholden to some archaic, never-changing doctrine of how things should be.

Originally Posted by baystater

You can leave the party anytime you like.

The party has changed with me (or me with it) for the last twenty five years. I don't see any reason to believe that the party and I won't continue to be in synch with each other - certainly not your saying so.

Originally Posted by baystater

That's fine. But don't come expect Bernie supporters support in the 2020 election. Tit-for-tat.

We'll have to see. One of the things that will play a big role in this is that Bernie Sanders apparently has come to the realization that I've been espousing to Sanders supporters since January: Congress First. Running for POTUS is stupid unless you have enough members of your party (folks who really are members of your party) in Congress. Your movement should at least have achieved leadership of one of the houses of Congress. The Republicans didn't run a POTUS candidate until 1856, after they had established enough credibility for their movement to capture the Speakership of the 34th Congress.

Once school boards and state legislatures and governorships and the US Senate and House of Representatives are full of folks who buy into Sanders' vision, then it'll be the right time to make a move on the White House.

I bet you that by then people like me, real Democrats, will be more than happy to support that.

Originally Posted by baystater

Nope. They're radicals to you because they don't share your Spectrum of values.

You're wrong. They're radicals because of where they are on the spectrum with regard to the values they care about, not what values they care about.

Originally Posted by baystater

Again hijacking the thread for your own purposes this election cycle.

No. I carried on a discussion that went beyond the artificial boundaries you set.

Originally Posted by baystater

I stand by what I said and Information I gave you.

This isn't about the information; it's about your opinion - your conclusion about what should have happened. You aren't happy with the extent to which people are going to jail and being fined. Like I said: BIG difference.

Originally Posted by baystater

The viewpoint that you have on this issue is most likely seen by most Main Street people....using you own word.....a "radical" viewpoint. The American people are tired of the status quo and financial institutions behaving badly on fairly regular basis.

We all are. However, stamping feet and banging on walls isn't going to change anything.

Originally Posted by baystater

It's time to get tough on people that break the law in our financial system.

It's always been time. You have to actually make what they're doing definitively law-breaking and despite your chest-beating earlier, you haven't done that yet.

Originally Posted by baystater

Are we mad that you have no proof that Hillary has any type of plan on how to break up a bank. You make me laugh with your indignation. You're just acting silly now.,

No, I'm just holding up a mirror to the unreasonable expectations you're expressing.

[emm74]

It's most often the case for a president to have one or two members of the other party in the Cabinet, but there's no chance it will be Trump, it will be someone who is actually qualified for the position.

[OrganicSmallHome]

Of course not. The man has no government experience and, besides that, is a raving lunatic.

[saltine]

Trump shall offer her up a spot under the prison

[baystater]

Originally Posted by bUU

No. I carried on a discussion that went beyond the artificial boundaries you set.

No now You're just being dishonest. Your hijacking the thread for this election cycle. When the OP clearly was talking about after the election.

Yes, in this election cycle. And not just to me. You have people in the candidate's own party repudiating him. The warnings about the danger he poses is unprecedented in our lifetimes.

Then you guys can stop him on your own.

Nonsense. The government has myriad interdependencies. The future POTUS will have to work with members of the core of both parties. There will be a cost for becoming the obvious source of gridlock. ]

Again. Let her work with whoever she wishes but if she wants the support of the leftist in the party she has to cater to them to a certain extent. Otherwise she will not have their support in four years. I mean the Supreme Court and Donald Trump being Donald Trump is really the thing that's going to help her get the presidency.

Again: Nonsense.]

And again. If you want to lose 2020 don't cater to left. It's really just that simple.

Wrong. Both are true metrics. You just don't like the ramifications of the 91% number, that that amount of Sanders supporters find Clinton acceptable enough to support her in a two candidate poll. BIG difference.]

I'm saying come election day you will be very disappointed that your number was incorrect. You Can't prove me wrong until Election Day.

Don't "say" - know or don't know - there is no "say". The reality is that there is no data about that whatsoever so we (meaning both you and I) don't know and so any claims you try to make based on what you "say" is self-ratifying nonsense. We don't know and it will remain that way.

I'm telling you, you prove me wrong election day. I'm saying you're 91% number is utter fantasy. Again Prove me wrong and election day.

In other words, most Democrats. The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that Sanders is still a fringe candidate with generally unpopular views, especially in the context of a general election.

You Can conjecture here just like I conjectured about the amount of people from the Bernie Sanders camp that are going to vote for Hillary. But we're never going to find out how well Bernie Sanders would do against Donald Trump with a General Electorate. Something tells me that he would be Trump fairly handily.

A lot of that depends on what happens to the GOP. If the GOP becomes just the establishment Republicans, moves to the left and leaves the Trumpists and evangelicals behind, that that will push the Democrats over further to the left. If the Trumpists prevail, and draw a lot of support to the alt-right, then the Democrats will be sucked further over to the center. ]

The youth demographic (the future of the party) is shifting Bernie's way. it's a matter of attrition at this point. older voters die off and younger voters take their place. And younger voters want The Democrats to move left.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." - Barack Obama, 2008.

"I've been going through an evolution on this issue... I [now] think same-sex couples should be able to get married." - Barack Obama, 2012

This is one thing that distinguishes honorable Democrats: They come around to more progressive perspectives in good time. They aren't beholden to some archaic, never-changing doctrine of how things should be.]

No. They bow to the constituency. Many people within the Democratic Party are for gay marriage. We have no idea what Barack Obama actually thinks in his head about it . didn't help also that Joe Biden blurted out on Meet the Press his views of gay marriage. Kind of Obama's hand on that one.

The party has changed with me (or me with it) for the last twenty five years. I don't see any reason to believe that the party and I won't continue to be in synch with each other - certainly not your saying so. ]

That depends on how far you're willing to go to the left. That's coming down the line. You have to live with that.

We'll have to see. One of the things that will play a big role in this is that Bernie Sanders apparently has come to the realization that I've been espousing to Sanders supporters since January: Congress First. Running for POTUS is stupid unless you have enough members of your party (folks who really are members of your party) in Congress. Your movement should at least have achieved leadership of one of the houses of Congress. The Republicans didn't run a POTUS candidate until 1856, after they had established enough credibility for their movement to capture the Speakership of the 34th Congress.

Once school boards and state legislatures and governorships and the US Senate and House of Representatives are full of folks who buy into Sanders' vision, then it'll be the right time to make a move on the White House. ]

How do you know the amount of people that actually support the ideas of Sanders?
Also you're assuming everybody's behind Hillary again which I think is a mistake. I've told you why.

Let's really look at this. 43% of the party voted for Bernie Sanders. No mean feat.
They were willing to vote for his chance to engage his policies in the White House over Hillary Clinton. In essence there are people out there that are willing to work with a Bernie Sanders type candidate. And again if you think all of his supporters are college students. You would be mistaken. They. Come from all ages, all walks of life, and hold all types of positions in American society. And if he did happen to win the nomination and the Democratic Party didn't bother backing him well. Let's face it the Democratic Party would go down the toilet but quick. In that would be on them.

I bet you that by then people like me, real Democrats, will be more than happy to support that. ]

Real democrats like you? 43% of the party Just started laughing at you right now. You know
Hopefully Hillary is wiser and how she relays her a messages. otherwise she has a good chance of losing in 2029

You're wrong. They're radicals because of where they are on the spectrum with regard to the values they care about, not what values they care about.]

Hillary hope doesn't have the same thought process going on. Otherwise she's doom to failure in 2020. There is nothing radical going on here. Unless you want to say that 43% of the Democratic Party is radical. A lot of the people that that Bernie were because of his economic Stance. They've only switched over to your candidate in order to either move the Supreme Court leftward or to defeat Donald Trump. Again they're not for your candidate there either for the supreme court order against Donald Trump.

No. I carried on a discussion that went beyond the artificial boundaries you set.]

No you hijack the thread just a admit it.

This isn't about the information; it's about your opinion - your conclusion about what should have happened. You aren't happy with the extent to which people are going to jail and being fined. Like I said: BIG difference.]

I said I want to see more people convicted in my past post. I stand behind that. I've given you what statutes we're broken. I gave you the information that shows the federal government could bring criminal cases against people at Wells Fargo. And I've given you why they haven't persecuted as of this time.

Now you say it's my opinion. No it's basically Americas opinion at this point. You are in an extremely small minority of people that are willing to enable the continuation of a cycle that promotes banking and financial misbehavior.

We all are. However, stamping feet and banging on walls isn't going to change anything. ]

I know that you're trying to diminish my point of view. But again your view is the extreme minority here.
Imagine a Clinton administration that puts pressure on federal prosecutors to actually prosecuting cases as opposed cutting deals. Americans would love it. And I would say bolster her numbers for the next election.

[mIt's always been time. You have to actually make what they're doing definitively law-breaking and despite your chest-beating earlier, you haven't done that yet. ]

See posts above.

No, I'm just holding up a mirror to the unreasonable expectations you're expressing.]

No. No. No. You're the one that made that began the unreasonable expectations of Hillary being willing and able to break up the banks if they failed a stress test. You just couldn't back up those expectations that you tried to tout in one ofyour earlier posts.
My position is completely reasonable to ask for a plan of action in dealing with this issue.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

seems like after the election would be a good time to build bridges and not walls between Clinton and those she kind of referred to as disposables. Having Trump head up a low to medium-low level cabinet position would help unite the country. Isn't there a Secretary of Entertainment or am I thinking of Russia?

Perhaps a position for Melania that would be appropriate?

Hillary is a criminal.

No American with any sense of morality or sense of duty for the people would be associated with such a contemptible individual.

With the election of Hillary, the nation is officially dead. I thought it was finished with Obama's second term and the only chance was for a "non-politician" to change the trend of politicians betraying the US middle class for personal financial gain.

With Hillary, we can only have confidence that the permanent seeds for insurrection have been established. This may be our salvation and liberation from corrupt, self serving tyrants.

[BucFan]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

Will an olive branch (cabinet position) be offered to Trump by Clinton?

Not just "no", but "hell no!".

[MTQ3000]

He should share his expertise on the subject matter he knows intimately.

How about the Director of Sexual Assault Task Force.

Mick

[Compression]

Nah, Cankles will prolly just have him whacked.


CN