When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Lol..it's playing in New York City and Chicago... Prediction: attendance will be just fine.

Trump wants a safe space

If you're representative of that basket, it is indeed deplorable.

She certainly touched a nerve there with those identify themselves as A frightening array of Islamophobes, xenophobes, homophobes, racists, and misogynists[url]

True !

I am going to stick around and listen to you conservatives brag about voting for and electing tRump right up to the point when he removes the 1st and 2nd admendments and makes it illegal to criticize the president under threat of radiation poisoning from the Polonium-210 Putin has loaned tRump.

According to the Washington Post, Hillary spent $1.3 b and Trump spent $800 m.

Trump is already spurring the economy. Go Trump!

I really don't care who the president is as long as they don't destroy our country by recession or wars, and our country continues to grow economically - and the majority benefits.

Does anyone know what the Clintons were cheering about on election eve?

the checks and balances are still in place to ensure totalitarianism doesn't occur, right?

Just read this gem.

I foresee great weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Dems are already on the ropes. The machinations and reinventions of both parties will be the new Game of Thrones.

Let's think about that for a moment. The push towards foreign military engagements appears to come from three main sources:
1) neoconservative ideologues
2) the military/industrial complex which can and does see big profits in war
3) the saner portions of the military, intel and political entities which grasp that some foreign engagements will be necessary (confronting ISIS for example)

On the modern right, there's a clash between the neocons and the "libertarian" people, the latter of whom express a distaste for foreign adventures. But I don't doubt that people like Rand Paul or Pat Buchannan will be utterly steamrolled by the pro-war dynamics. The Koch crowd, though ostensibly "libertarian" include huge financial interests that will profit from war and for the brothers themselves, the main goal is nearly identical to Norquist's - shrinking government to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub. But on the right, calls to curb the size of government almost never include the military because of who the right tends to actually serve (which ain't the kids who get slaughtered).

Now, and this is truly frightening, add in Trump (and a compliant and subservient GOP beneath him). Does anyone with a functioning brain stem imagine that this guy would hesitate to use a military endeavor to:
1) stoke up his base
2) add luster to his imagined/desired image as a great world leader
3) drive media attention away from stories on-going or emerging which threaten his status.

Rove won the second election for Bush by presenting him as "a war President". That's not a lesson that will be forgotten.

If he actually sticks to his China trade rhetoric, things might get dicey. I don't pretend to understand it all but Vox explains if he sticks to his rhetoric of his campaign, he will spark off a trade war.

If Trump delivers on his promises on China, he’ll probably spark a trade war

"I felt it important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government—a war which has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families."

------------------------

In the previous excerpt, Tulsi Gabbard alludes to Hillary Clinton as the neocon fanning the flames of needless, interventionist wars.

I believe you are here presuming and postulating far more than you really know. There are words for that behavior.

Relations with the Press and Media is a professional specialty that most public figures employ in search of usually smaller advantages than Trump often gets on his own. Notwithstsnding your pseudoscientific "analysis" he may simply be more skilled at it than some of your favorewd icons.

Finally, the (largely empty) words you used could have, with only slight modification, been used with equal vaguery against many others, including our current President and many prominent members of the Press and the the new blogosphere.

Well then, let the games begin!

george - I think I understand why you are trying to normalize this guy. But I am not going to - out of some notion of manners - aid you in your project.

The article has some good meat in it, but what is missing is what's called "comparative advantage." You let countries like China with cheap labor cost produce our clothes and electronics, while we produce high tech, high quality, products that has high demand around the world. That's the reason why companies like Apple, Amazon, Tesla and Google does so well around the world.

I would still like to know how much dark money was spent by both sides and who had more spent on them.