Completely agree with OP. There are literally about a dozen or so late-night "talk shows" that today are nothing but mouth pieces for left wing political views and talking points. Hollywood and the mainstream media (i.e. everyone but Fox News) basically act as arms of the Democratic party, and opposing points of view are not only just not tolerated but openly mocked as well with a holier-than-thou attitude that is completely devoid of any sense of irony in their own little world. In their smugness living in their own little group-think bubbles high atop everyone else in their ivory towers, they managed to piss enough people off in this country that they'd rather see Donald Trump become president of the media's corrupt globalist candidate of choice Hillary Clinton. . Edit: case in point, check out this top trending clip from Samantha Bee's TBS show where she goes into full post-election meltdown mode and starts blaming Donald Trump's victory on WHITE WOMEN of all people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4

binary solo said: Chris Hu said:   Republicans have even less to offer to the working class. Trumps economic plan has failure written all over it and will lead to more jobs lost in the rust belt. At best those five states will become swing states. Unless some economic miracle happens those states will not stay solid Republican.   Assuming Trump actually won't do anything for those states which is a reasonably safe assumption, and Clinton lost those 3 states which gave Trump the W by a collective 107K, which is a very small margin, it is very presumptuous of anyone to think that those states have become reliably red. But it did send Democrats a message about not taking those states for granted, so the question is whether they heard it and how they will respond.

 

If Trump starts a trade war which is highly possible not only will he screw over the rust belt more it will also hurt the rest of the country.

Chris Hu said: binary solo said:   Assuming Trump actually won't do anything for those states which is a reasonably safe assumption, and Clinton lost those 3 states which gave Trump the W by a collective 107K, which is a very small margin, it is very presumptuous of anyone to think that those states have become reliably red. But it did send Democrats a message about not taking those states for granted, so the question is whether they heard it and how they will respond.   If Trump starts a trade war which is highly possible not only will he screw over the rust belt more it will also hurt the rest of the country.

Starts a trade war? Thats the problem right there. The trade war has been on going since there has been trade. Having free trade agreement with countries that dont have similar labor laws and protections just undermines the labor laws and protections here. There is a trade war going on, and we are getting killed by Mexico and China. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can fix it. Yes things will cost more, they should cost more. Higher cost is the only way to support living wages and good working conditions. I never understood how the left could argue for higher wages here, and safer working conditions, but than also want free trade with countries that dont care about the same things. Its self defeating, and its a road to low wages and unsafe working conditions.

thranx said: Chris Hu said:   If Trump starts a trade war which is highly possible not only will he screw over the rust belt more it will also hurt the rest of the country. Starts a trade war? Thats the problem right there. The trade war has been on going since there has been trade. Having free trade agreement with countries that dont have similar labor laws and protections just undermines the labor laws and protections here. There is a trade war going on, and we are getting killed by Mexico and China. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can fix it. Yes things will cost more, they should cost more. Higher cost is the only way to support living wages and good working conditions. I never understood how the left could argue for higher wages here, and safer working conditions, but than also want free trade with countries that dont care about the same things. Its self defeating, and its a road to low wages and unsafe working conditions.

 

Yeah, the notion that higher wages automatically mean higher costs is pretty ridiculous. Aldi pays its workers more then Walmart and their prices are pretty much lower on everything they sell. Costco pays its workers more then Sam's Club and their prices aren't higher either they are about the same. If you are a highly efficient company and you care more about your workers then profits you can sell goods at a lower or competitive price and still pay your workers a decent wage compared to companies that only care about profits and their stock holders.

thranx said: Chris Hu said:   If Trump starts a trade war which is highly possible not only will he screw over the rust belt more it will also hurt the rest of the country. Starts a trade war? Thats the problem right there. The trade war has been on going since there has been trade. Having free trade agreement with countries that dont have similar labor laws and protections just undermines the labor laws and protections here. There is a trade war going on, and we are getting killed by Mexico and China. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can fix it. Yes things will cost more, they should cost more. Higher cost is the only way to support living wages and good working conditions. I never understood how the left could argue for higher wages here, and safer working conditions, but than also want free trade with countries that dont care about the same things. Its self defeating, and its a road to low wages and unsafe working conditions.

 

The left doesn't actually argue for that. The left is ridiculously protectionist. It's the right that wants the free trade because all the corporations and capitalists want to be able to be able to produce at lowest possible cost. Why do you think it's corporations run mostly by Republican supporters that moved manufacturing off shore, under the corporate mandate of maximising profits and maximising shareholder value? And why do you think Obama would have had to rely on Republican support (and had enough of it) to get the TPP ratified? If Hillary had won I reckon Obama would have got TPP through in the lame duck with Republican support. But since Trump won, there's no way Republicans would vote through TPP against the policy of their newly elected president, even though a lot of Republicans support TPP (now in secret of course).

SpokenTruth said: I just want to get this straight. You don't want celebrities telling you who to vote for but you elected a celebrity that was telling you to vote for him? And if you're about to tell me that doesn't count, you better start drawing up some very clear, precise and distinctive parameters on who can campaign for your vote for and who can't.

 

I seem to have saw this post before and answered, but will do again just in case. Hillary is as much of a celebrity as Donald Trump. And one is not wanting others to determine who you want to choose not about who you choose.

I think Hollywood has become disconnected from most of America

Personally been enjoying the celebs crying and back pedalling on their comments. Any news on when Cranston and De Niro are leaving America?

SpokenTruth said: DonFerrari said:   I seem to have saw this post before and answered, but will do again just in case. Hillary is as much of a celebrity as Donald Trump. And one is not wanting others to determine who you want to choose not about who you choose. Run that by me again?   I think I missed it.  You just said Hillary Clinton is a celebrity. "hillary clinton is a celebrity" - 5 hits in Google. "donald trump is a celebrity" - 105,000 hits in Google.

So your metric is google recognizing she being called a celebrity? She appears on the midia all the time, have special privileges for being famous, etc. That is a celebrity even if you don't say. Donald Trump is much more a entrepeuner than a celebrity.

TheDarkShape said: Uh-huh. People have completely abandoned progressivism, which is why Hillary got more votes than Trump and Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.

They haven't finished counting the popular vote for this election yet.    So you should say 5 of the last 6 elections, because you don't know what the popular vote's final tally is for this election.

Democrats also won 4 out of the last 6 elections electoral votes.   So I see how you're trying to paint some sort of unfair victim status here because of 1 incident in your life time where the popular vote didn't also determine the electoral votes...and then maybe again it happened in this election.


Also reports of something like 3 million illegal immigrants casted votes.  And some other shady voting stuff that has been reported about the Democrat's side, who knows if those popular vote numbers from this election are even valid.