Will an olive branch (cabinet position) be offered to Trump by Clinton? (house of representatives, vote)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by baystater

1. No. I basically said that that as of current there are many Bernie supporter (and most likely General Electorate voter) are skeptical of how much Sincerity Hillary (and her future administration) will have in enforcement of current regulations in the banking/financial industry and how much emphasis her administration on reforming the banking/financial industry.

Look You gave me some of her proposals in her last post. Which I am fine with. But at the end of the day she has yet make many Bernie supporter (and most likely many voters in the general electorate) believe that she will actually have the ability or will to push hard implement these proposals.

In essence you fighting skepticism and cynicism here.

And, if my Bernie-supporting friends are any indication, a strong preference to condemn (even Bernie himself) anything that resembles compromise - anything that recognizes that half the nation thinks they're dangerous socialists. And that's a consideration even though most of those folks are certifiably "deplorable" because they are still citizens of the nation.

Originally Posted by baystater

With that said. As I Alluded to in an earlier post of mine. If Hillary does make the effort and does have some substantive legislation...and yes I know they'll be some compromises made.... it all a matter of how much (devils in details).....Hillary may be able to move those skeptics towards supporting her and her administration.

I just hope that the radicals don't spite themselves, undercutting their best chance for change in the direction they want to go, albeit a lot slower than they want to go, and thereby fostering a reversal of even those modest gains and gains made of these past eight years. One unshakable truth about progress is that it is hard to achieve and easy to roll back. Another unshakable truth about progress is that it'll only come through fusion politics, where all "non-deplorables" come together, even when they fundamentally disagree with the change that each other seek, but recognize that helping those changes occur is the best way to bring about the changes they want to occur. The "deplorables" win if the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America cannot find common ground with a Catholic nun working in the interest of poverty relief, or a Disciples of Christ minister preaching liberation theology cannot sign onto the same campaign as Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.

Originally Posted by baystater

2. Also I would say I'm (and a lot of others) fairly unbending on the enforcement part of financial regulations. Look fining institutions and making them say a mea culpa will not deter them from doing the same types of events /actions again. You actually have to show people in real terms that there are severe consequences (jail time) for those who break the law. And those consequences have to be shared by all parties directly involved in the action. Whether you're a mail room clerk or senior executive.

However, it is also important to recognize that today's reality is that our monetary system is independent from direct government control, and that banks are for profit businesses. Therefore, only actual violations of actual statutes on-the-books can result in consequences - not just perceived grievances by the public whipped up into blood thirst by media looking for a story.

Originally Posted by baystater

3. You still haven't given me the plan for her proposal on how she's going to break up a too big to fail banks.

Beyond what she's already said, my guess is that she's going to negotiate with the industry to find a win-win scenario for that, if one is to be found. Again, the raving mob does not justify effectively nationalizing private enterprises, especially when the people calling for such draconian actions are a minority (and they are).

[baystater]

Originally Posted by bUU

And, if my Bernie-supporting friends are any indication, a strong preference to condemn (even Bernie himself) anything that resembles compromise - anything that recognizes that half the nation thinks they're dangerous socialists. And that's a consideration even though most of those folks are certifiably "deplorable" because they are still citizens of the nation.

1. You do realize that the same half of the country that thinks Bernie supporters are "dangerous radical" are also just as skeptical of Hillary Clinton in the same way as Bernie supporters though for different reasons.
Actually I say probably a 1/4 of these people think Hillary is evil incarnate. Good luck reaching out and convincing them be any means that Hillary looking out for their interests.

2. As to you friends. well there are some on the left that will never be reached with a canidate/president like Clinton. Her unpopularity numbers speak volumes of where many stand at to her as a canidate. Granted I'm sure I would be labeled a "radical" by democrats simple because I refuse to support and vote for their canidates. But I (any many I know ) hold ill will towards Bernie in fact I had thanked Bernie multiple times on this very board after he lost for giving me a chance for my voice to be heard. But I also stated I couldn't travel down his path....even though I knew why he was going the route he was.

Again it comes down to Hillary beating expectations of the skeptics. So let her beat them.

I just hope that the radicals don't spite themselves, undercutting their best chance for change in the direction they want to go, albeit a lot slower than they want to go, and thereby fostering a reversal of even those modest gains and gains made of these past eight years. One unshakable truth about progress is that it is hard to achieve and easy to roll back. Another unshakable truth about progress is that it'll only come through fusion politics, where all "non-deplorables" come together, even when they fundamentally disagree with the change that each other seek, but recognize that helping those changes occur is the best way to bring about the changes they want to occur. The "deplorables" win if the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America cannot find common ground with a Catholic nun working in the interest of poverty relief, or a Disciples of Christ minister preaching liberation theology cannot sign onto the same campaign as Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.

1. I'm going your use of "radicals" in the paragraph as your first name calling in this thread. You just dragged down your levity a notch or two by your approach.

2. You've moved from after the election to the current one. Look. Lets be realistic here. Most places where what you deem as "radicals" and not vote for Clinton, will mostly be in states/counties/regions that are safe for her. So the fear factor is nigh. Though you may wish to play it up. Unfortunately for you it will be ignored.
As to change. I regret to inform you that I believe mostAmericans don't believe a Hillary will make much of a change as president. Granted I could argue for you that Hillary's Supreme Court pick could be a game changer. But one could look at it as just suring up reproductive rights and gays right...but as for citizens united...well....no....no change there.

But again let Hillary prove that the majority of Americans are wrong about her when she president. If she can she'll get more backing from not just Bernie supporter but Americans in general.

However, it is also important to recognize that today's reality is that our monetary system is independent from direct government control, and that banks are for profit businesses. Therefore, only actual violations of actual statutes on-the-books can result in consequences - not just perceived grievances by the public whipped up into blood thirst by media looking for a story.

And their were no statutes broken in the Wells Fargo case? Really? I believe it was fairly blatant . Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Beyond what she's already said, my guess is that she's going to negotiate with the industry to find a win-win scenario for that, if one is to be found. Again, the raving mob does not justify effectively nationalizing private enterprises, especially when the people calling for such draconian actions are a minority (and they are)

So there is no plan as we know of right now. So her threat is nigh....thus so far.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by baystater

You do realize that the same half of the country that thinks Bernie supporters are "dangerous radical" are also just as skeptical of Hillary Clinton in the same way as Bernie supporters though for different reasons.

The Bernie Sanders supporters I know are smarter than that. They don't buy into the false equivalency between Trump and Clinton that you're insinuating. They actually understand what Bernie has said about this, without even being told by Bernie himself: That their movement can build momentum in the context of a Clinton administration, whereas it would be quashed by a Trump administration.

Originally Posted by baystater

Actually I say probably a 1/4 of these people think Hillary is evil incarnate.

You'd be mistaken. Even way back in July it was established that 91% of Sanders supporters are smarter than that. It is probably higher now. Is it 100%? No. But pretty close-to. Are all 91% going to vote for Clinton? No. Some will vote for Stein. Some (poorly informed Sanders supporters) will vote for Johnson. Some will be so depressed about not getting their way that they'll stay home. But they don't view Hillary Clinton as "evil incarnate" like you claim.

Originally Posted by baystater

I'm going your use of "radicals" in the paragraph as your first name calling in this thread.

Don't. It's an English word that it often used to describe people who hold views that only a small percentage of the population hold. On the left, people who hold such marginally supported views are referred to as "radicals". On the right, they are referred to as "reactionaries". Again: These are basic, English words, very commonly used in a dispassionate way, to describe different portions of a political spectrum.

If you want to drag down the thread that's your choice, but my words are literal, English words that describe things precisely and accurately.

Originally Posted by baystater

You've moved from after the election to the current one. Look. Lets be realistic here. Most places where what you deem as "radicals" and not vote for Clinton, will mostly be in states/counties/regions that are safe for her.

Huh? I didn't say so (because it didn't matter in context) but I was talking about North Carolina.

Originally Posted by baystater

As to change. I regret to inform you that I believe mostAmericans don't believe a Hillary will make much of a change as president.

It isn't about Hillary Clinton making the change. It is about Hillary Clinton fostering an environment within which such change is possible. She's going to have enough of a challenge just trying to overcome GOP resistance her appointing to moderately liberal justices, passing budgets that don't gut ACA, etc. Don't lay on her more than any reasonable person would believe any one person would ever be rationally able to accomplish.

Doing that is effectively abrogating your responsibility as a citizen. I've seen a few Bernie Sanders supporters (not my aforementioned friends, incidentally) do that: They whine about how the changes they want didn't magically come about from prior administrations. They whine that President Obama didn't wave a magic wand and do away with institutionalized oppression. That kind of irrational blame-mongering is scurrilous.

We are a coalition. We have to be because there isn't enough of any segment of us to prevail against reactionary forces. And as we all learned in kindergarten, a coalition means that no one gets exactly what they want when they want it. We are all working together to foster enough power to move the ball down the field, yard by yard, inch by inch, in a certain direction, recognizing that no one - certainly not the POTUS - controls the speed. As a matter of fact, the speed is more so determined by how many of us convert our friends and neighbors from reactionaries to progressives, and the failure to do that is a shared failure. If you've studied the nature of organizations and movements, you know that blaming the leaders is a form of work avoidance.

Originally Posted by baystater

But again let Hillary prove that the majority of Americans are wrong about her when she president. If she can she'll get more backing from not just Bernie supporter but Americans in general.

From my standpoint, she needs to work harder to get more backing from centrists. Bernie supporters need to do their own work to convince the entire nation - including convincing moderate Democrats - to support what they want. They need to stop making excuses for their failures to do the work that they need to do, just like Trumpists needs to stop making excuses for their failures to convince moderate Republicans to be flaming reactionaries.

Originally Posted by baystater

And their were no statutes broken in the Wells Fargo case?

Citation?

Originally Posted by baystater

I believe it was fairly blatant. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

That's nonsense. You want to believe what you want to believe, and what's worse you want to believe that your belief is more important and takes precedent over due process of law. There's a cancer spreading in our society where angry mobs think that their anger over the results of something justifies their presumptions regarding guilt and where it is to be placed. It's another form of work avoidance. Cite the citation of the regulation violated. Present the objective evidence of the violation to the prosecutor. And if you cannot then admit your failure in that regard and admit that your opinion does not superseded the law.

Originally Posted by baystater

So there is no plan as we know of right now.

What I outlined is the only rational plan. The world doesn't revolve around what you want when you want it. You're going to find that the nation is made up mostly of people who disagree with you. If you cannot stomach the work of building bridges with and working with such people, then you shouldn't be POTUS. Luckily, Hillary Clinton is not only someone who can stomach the work, but has done it very successfully many times.

[baystater]

Originally Posted by bUU

The Bernie Sanders supporters I know are smarter than that. They don't buy into the false equivalency between Trump and Clinton that you're insinuating. They actually understand what Bernie has said about this, without even being told by Bernie himself: That their movement can build momentum in the context of a Clinton administration, whereas it would be quashed by a Trump administration.

No l'd least half of the nationis skeptical about Hillary. Bank and financial issues are the most prevalent. there are voters that will not vote for her at this election cycle because she needs to show that she will be tough on Wall Street in the banks. she does that she may receive some of their voting for years. It's really just that simple. One more reminder this is about the post-election. People have already decided for the most part we are going to go for or not vote for. So a discussion of this is moot.
Also would add that I think some folks are actually concerned toward how she will handle world conflict. She is seen as more of a hawk than Obama. this will also be a big post election issue hesitant voters will take into account when she went for reelection.

You'd be mistaken. Even way back in July it was established that 91% of Sanders supporters are smarter than that. It is probably higher now. Is it 100%? No. But pretty close-to. Are all 91% going to vote for Clinton? No. Some will vote for Stein. Some (poorly informed Sanders supporters) will vote for Johnson. Some will be so depressed about not getting their way that they'll stay home. But they don't view Hillary Clinton as "evil incarnate" like you claim.

1. you are mistaken. Was talking about the right side of the aisle thinking she's evil incarnate. and the sheer impossibility of reaching those particular people.

2. 91% Bernie seems is unrealistic to me.

About A Third Of Bernie Sanders’s Supporters Still Aren’t Backing Hillary Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

This much more realistic to me. But let's talk after the election. Since this thread is supposed to be post election.

Don't. It's an English word that it often used to describe people who hold views that only a small percentage of the population hold. On the left, people who hold such marginally supported views are referred to as "radicals". On the right, they are referred to as "reactionaries". Again: These are basic, English words, very commonly used in a dispassionate way, to describe different portions of a political spectrum.

If you want to drag down the thread that's your choice, but my words are literal, English words that describe things precisely and accurately.

The first time you use the word radicals is was used in the context of your view that you think that certain Bernie supporters are viewed a by the general population as dangerous. Fine.
Second time you used it, it was your opinion straight out of certain Bernie supporters that don't support your point of view in the Democratic Party.
A view which I believe is very incorrect. Because let's face it. Your candidate is almost as unpopular as Trump. So while people may vote for Hillary. That does not mean that there with her "with" her. For most part people are either voting for secretary Clinton because they can turn the Supreme Court (specific issue) leftwards or they just hate Trump. They're not really for Hillary Clinton. You can try to convince Otherwise. But please be very aware that both soon to be president Clinton and the Democratic Party a riding on the back of a tiger with both Bernie supporters and the general electorate.
So at the end of the day....what you deem "radicals" are only a small subset voters that refuse to vote for Hillary because they're more concerned with economic issues. As opposed to turning the Supreme Court left or hating on Trump.
The reason why I took it as an insult. Is because by you using the word radical in this case to diminish the point of view of those Who will not vote for Clinton because they hold economic issues as their number one issue. But we know that many people are about economic issues. And are concerned how a president Clinton is her administration are going to handle those economic issues. Just that other folks Place more priority on other issues enough to vote for Clinton this time around. There's nothing radical going on here.

[Huh? I didn't say so (because it didn't matter in context) but I was talking about North Carolina.

Bump. I can already see that Our discussion is leading into this election cycle. As opposed to post election cycle.

It isn't about Hillary Clinton making the change. It is about Hillary Clinton fostering an environment within which such change is possible. She's going to have enough of a challenge just trying to overcome GOP resistance her appointing to moderately liberal justices, passing budgets that don't gut ACA, etc. Don't lay on her more than any reasonable person would believe any one person would ever be rationally able to accomplish.

Doing that is effectively abrogating your responsibility as a citizen. I've seen a few Bernie Sanders supporters (not my aforementioned friends, incidentally) do that: They whine about how the changes they want didn't magically come about from prior administrations. They whine that President Obama didn't wave a magic wand and do away with institutionalized oppression. That kind of irrational blame-mongering is scurrilous.

We are a coalition. We have to be because there isn't enough of any segment of us to prevail against reactionary forces. And as we all learned in kindergarten, a coalition means that no one gets exactly what they want when they want it. We are all working together to foster enough power to move the ball down the field, yard by yard, inch by inch, in a certain direction, recognizing that no one - certainly not the POTUS - controls the speed. As a matter of fact, the speed is more so determined by how many of us convert our friends and neighbors from reactionaries to progressives, and the failure to do that is a shared failure. If you've studied the nature of organizations and movements, you know that blaming the leaders is a form of work avoidance.

From my standpoint, she needs to work harder to get more backing from centrists. Bernie supporters need to do their own work to convince the entire nation - including convincing moderate Democrats - to support what they want. They need to stop making excuses for their failures to do the work that they need to do, just like Trumpists needs to stop making excuses for their failures to convince moderate Republicans to be flaming reactionaries.

In short. Let her prove these things. And let her win over the American people. Nuff said.

Citation?

Sure.

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/d...nsentorder.pdf

Why No One Will Go to Jail Over Wells Fargo

That's nonsense. You want to believe what you want to believe, and what's worse you want to believe that your belief is more important and takes precedent over due process of law. There's a cancer spreading in our society where angry mobs think that their anger over the results of something justifies their presumptions regarding guilt and where it is to be placed. It's another form of work avoidance. Cite the citation of the regulation violated. Present the objective evidence of the violation to the prosecutor. And if you cannot then admit your failure in that regard and admit that your opinion does not superseded the law.

No. I want the want the law-enforcement agencies involved to actually push for convictions when laws have been broken. They are not currently doing this. you can see it in the above article that I posted that they could but they are not. And cycle will continue somewhere down the line.

What I outlined is the only rational plan. The world doesn't revolve around what you want when you want it. You're going to find that the nation is made up mostly of people who disagree with you. If you cannot stomach the work of building bridges with and working with such people, then you shouldn't be POTUS. Luckily, Hillary Clinton is not only someone who can stomach the work, but has done it very successfully many times.

I don't care about your plan. I want to see Hillary Clinton's. Which you have not provided yet. So until you have it. Just stop.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by baystater

Again your moving this to this election. Why are you metion trump?

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.

Originally Posted by baystater

People have already decided for the most part we are going to go for or not vote for. So a discussion of this is moot.

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

Originally Posted by baystater

Also would add that I think some folks are actually concerned toward how she will handle world conflict.

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

Originally Posted by baystater

you are mistaken. Was talking about the right side of the aisle

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.

Originally Posted by baystater

91% Bernie seems is unrealistic to me.

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."

Originally Posted by baystater

A view which I believe is very incorrect. Because let's face it. Your candidate is almost as unpopular as Trump.

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.

Originally Posted by baystater

You can try to convince Otherwise. But please be very aware that both soon to be president Clinton and the Democratic Party a riding on the back of a tiger with both Bernie supporters and the general electorate.

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.

Originally Posted by baystater

The reason why I took it as an insult. Is because by you using the word radical in this case to diminish the point of view of those Who will not vote for Clinton because they hold economic issues as their number one issue.

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

Bump. I can already see that Our discussion is leading into this election cycle. As opposed to post election cycle.

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

Originally Posted by baystater

No. I want the want the law-enforcement agencies involved to actually push for convictions when laws have been broken. They are not currently doing this.

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

Originally Posted by baystater

I don't care about your plan. I want to see Hillary Clinton's. Which you have not provided yet. So until you have it. Just stop.

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

[DC at the Ridge]

Back to the topic, Hillary won't offer any government positions to Trump. At this point, until we know how the Senate elections pan out, she's just weighing the various potential appointees, which will likely be Democrats or left-leaning Independents.

And Trump won't need any olive branch. He's going to join with Breitbart to start his own TV station. Bluster and vitriol 24/7.

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Back to the topic, Hillary won't offer any government positions to Trump. ...

And Trump won't need any olive branch. He's going to join with Breitbart to start his own TV station. Bluster and vitriol 24/7.

Ambassador to Brigadoon?

Trump's son-in-law is already making inquiries about a cable channel start up.

Report: Trump

[LifeIsGood01]

Trump is not a politician, let him go back to scamming people by not paying for work done and creating fake universities that steal the students money. If he wants more money he should start a religion.

He's never been elected to anything.

[baystater]

correcting my first paragraph ran out of time to properly correct.

The Bernie Sanders supporters I know are smarter than that. They don't buy into the false equivalency between Trump and Clinton that you're insinuating. They actually understand what Bernie has said about this, without even being told by Bernie himself: That their movement can build momentum in the context of a Clinton administration, whereas it would be quashed by a Trump administration.

Basically what I was getting out in the last post. Was that the half of the nation that thinks Bernie supporters are Dangerous socialist. Are also Extremely skeptical of Hillary Clinton.

As with Bernie supporters. I would also say the many of them are skeptical about Hillary.....whether they are going to vote for her or not. Bank and financial issues are the most prevalent reasons. There are voters that will not vote for her at this election cycle because she needs to show that she will be tough on Wall Street in the banks. she does that she may receive some of their votes in four years. It's really just that simple. One more reminder this is about the post-election. People have already decided for the most part we are going to go for or not vote for. So a discussion of this is moot.
Also would add that I think some folks are actually concerned toward how she will handle world conflict. She is seen as more of a hawk than Obama. this will also be a big post election issue hesitant voters will take into account when she went for reelection.

[mlb]

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?

Are you out of your mind?

Melania doesn't have an original thought in her brain..... and T-rump is a dumpster fire just waiting to screw something up.