Trumped

[Tank]

57 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

In my world people that think Hillary was a shitty candidate just hate her (they even think she murdered Vince Foster), so they are willing to say anything no matter if the facts don't back up the rhetoric.

The election can be analyzed forever but when the final is written on the subject the conclusion on why Clinton lost won't support the right-wing notion that she was a "shitty candidate".

wow. LOL. okay.

[Thomas]

4 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

IMO.  Any democrat that would have run against Trump would have lost.  And it's not because of the candidate.  It's because of the DNC platform.  The DNC turned their backs on the working class.  They took them for granted and thought they could shit on their porch, and still get their votes.  They kept stroking California and New York because they had more people, and forgot this isn't a popularity contest.

This was a Hillary thing. Bernie knew better obviously. Warren knew better. Obama knew better. Bill Clinton knew better. They all told her this but this was the way Hillary wanted to win.

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, loofah faced shit gibbon said:

Sheila Jackson Lee.

Maxine Waters.

[Glen]

4 minutes ago, Thomas said:

He didn't smash them all. Though God knows the Republican bench was awful he took advantage of the exceptionally large field on name value and an exceptional ability to attract attention to win many delegates when only attracting 25-30% of the voters and by the time the Republican field withered to a reasonable number it was too late. And seriously when Ted Cruz is your savior you're kind of boned.

I really think you could pick a Democrat out of a hat and they would have won. As long as it wasn't the one that was both the conservative anti-christ while simultaneously being the one that kept many on the far left disengaged and allowed Trump to be the savior to the common man. 

 

 

 

Like who?  Pick a few names out of a hat.  

[Jason]

Pelosi has been the face of the Democrats in congress for quite some time. They should run her out there in 2020

[Thomas]

 

1 minute ago, Tank said:

Maxine Waters.

I'll concede this one.

[Glen]

4 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

IMO.  Any democrat that would have run against Trump would have lost.  And it's not because of the candidate.  It's because of the DNC platform.  The DNC turned their backs on the working class.  They took them for granted and thought they could shit on their porch, and still get their votes.  They kept stroking California and New York because they had more people, and forgot this isn't a popularity contest. 

And it's just going to get worse for the democrats.  How are they going to go back to those working class people, after they shit on their porches and are constantly whining about the new president.  When the new president, for the first time since I can remember, is doing exactly what he promised.  Which includes bringing jobs to those shit covered working class people?  Just IMO, but right now, all these shitshow protests, and whining politicians trying to take the ball home, would just be telling me, this isn't my party anymore.  But look, that other party I hate, is telling me I'm important, and my idea of working for a living and having a good job is important to them.  That other side doesn't give a shit how I feel, but they want to give me a legit shot at having 3 squares a day and a roof over my head and have money left over so that I can have the luxury of having my feelings hurt.

 

 

I think there's a lot of truth to this.  I doubt the democrats learn a lesson, they didn't learn anything from 2014.  

[Thomas]

Just now, Jason said:

Pelosi has been the face of the Democrats in congress for quite some time. They should run her out there in 2020

This one too

[gotbeer]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

This was a Hillary thing. Bernie knew better obviously. Warren knew better. Bill Clinton knew better. But this was the way Hillary wanted to win.

See, I disagree.  Warren, Bernie, Bill among others.  All of these people could have done what Pence and other Repubilcans did.  Go back to their states and really campagned.  Instead they all followed Clinton around like it was a DNC mandate.  I really think the DNC equates money and popularity with winning.  Which is why they spent gobs of time in California and New York.  Just my opinion though.

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, Glen said:

Like who?  Pick a few names out of a hat.  

I'll pick my state's junior Senator Martin Heinrich. He would have demolished him.  Bright. Intelligent.  Attractive. Rather gun friendly. Clearly an outsider in this race.

Biden
Warren
Sanders
 

Let's throw a few wild cards
Tom Hanks
Gabrielle Giffords
Michelle Obama
Martin Sheen

 

[Thomas]

5 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

See, I disagree.  Warren, Bernie, Bill among others.  All of these people could have done what Pence and other Repubilcans did.  Go back to their states and really campagned.  Instead they all followed Clinton around like it was a DNC mandate.  I really think the DNC equates money and popularity with winning.  Which is why they spent gobs of time in California and New York.  Just my opinion though.

They were good soldiers. Though Bill and Bernie both campaigned in my state while Hillary never did. Did admirable jobs at it.  Hell Trump came here for whatever good that did. It doesn't mean they agreed with her. Yes you have to spend time in NYC, LA, and SF if you are the Democratic candidate. But why the hell did Hillary go to Arizona but never Wisconsin?  Clearly her health played into it which was another strike against her fair or not. But there was some serious arrogance with her I don't think would have been common in almost any other candidate.

[Thomas]

10 minutes ago, Glen said:

I think there's a lot of truth to this.  I doubt the democrats learn a lesson, they didn't learn anything from 2014.  

Have you?

[Jay]

4 hours ago, Glen said:

Hillary voters can at least look at the train wreck that is President Trump and say "yep, she would have been better."  

We have a few Trump voters on here.  Do any of them want to chime in about how they're feeling right now?

Let me see, how can I describe it.

You know how miserable you are right now? It's the opposite of that.

 

[gotbeer]

4 minutes ago, Thomas said:

They were good soldiers. Though Bill and Bernie both campaigned in my state while Hillary never did. Did admirable jobs at it.  Hell Trump came here for whatever good that did. It doesn't mean they agreed with her. Yes you have to spend time in NYC, LA, and SF if you are the Democratic candidate. But why the hell did Hillary go to Arizona but never Wisconsin?  Clearly her health played into it which was another strike against her fair or not. But there was some serious arrogance with her I don't think would have been common in almost any other candidate.

It's just one of those hypotheticals, and I can see it going that way.  But Dems better really learn and start kissing some major ass, instead of their current trajectory of just complaining about everything, and going further and further left.  Because come 2020, if they don't get their act together, and Trump keeps delivering.  It won't be till 2024, till they get a shot, and even then, it will be against a still young (comparatively) Pence who was on the team that delivered.  And the frightening thing for Dems is, they may not have a shot again till 2032. 

[Thomas]

Just now, gotbeer said:

It's just one of those hypotheticals, and I can see it going that way.  But Dems better really learn and start kissing some major ass, instead of their current trajectory of just complaining about everything, and going further and further left.  Because come 2020, if they don't get their act together, and Trump keeps delivering.  It won't be till 2024, till they get a shot, and even then, it will be against a still young (comparatively) Pence who was on the team that delivered.  And the frightening thing for Dems is, they may not have a shot again till 2032. 

2032 only happens if Trump really is Hitler and we have to go through all that mess and war and stuff and finally put back the pieces by 2032. But yeah definitely 2020 is not going to be easy considering how much in disarray the Democratic party is outside a few states.

[Ordos]

53 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Let me ask you something,  since you are obviously on the left and would probably be characterized as a social liberal politically. That would mean you would support the more down trodden in society and try to lift them up, improve their situation and help them be productive instead of dependent on government handouts. Basic needs,  a good job, a home, good schools, etc... 

Now tell just what NAFTA and TPC does for those people, outsourcing their jobs to third world countries? Because that is what your candidate represented,  more poverty, shutting the blue collar worker out of any stable manufacturing industry. 

 

Heard an interesting take on this, recently. Might be worth a listen.

 

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/china-eat-americas-jobs/

 

Quote

AUTOR: Well I want to be clear: President Trump makes a lot of unfounded claims about trade that I do not agree with. For example that NAFTA was a disaster for the United States. Very very little evidence to suggest that was true – was actually mostly a win for the United States and but pretty modest. I also you know strongly disagree with the idea that we ought to be slapping extremely high tariffs on importers. I think that would be quite damaging to the U.S. Similarly I don’t favor strong-arming companies to keep employment here if it’s going to deter others from creating jobs here out of fear that they’ll then be forced to retain them. So I don’t even think trade has been a net bad for the United States. I just think it’s created real concentrated adverse impacts, which I you know Trump was right to recognize. And but that’s where I’m more in sympathy with the administration than on other points. I’ll finally say that a good example of where bad thinking and bad trade policy has come in immediately is in this whole debate around the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was basically a forward-looking trade agreement that was set up as a bulwark against Chinese domination of Asia. You know, Trump said on the campaign trail you know “China will take advantage of us through the TPP like they always do.”

TRUMP: The TPP is a horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in — as they always do, through the back door — and totally take advantage of everyone. 

AUTOR: I don’t think he even realized at the point that China was not a signatory to the TPP and China was the country cheering loudest to see it crash and burn it because it was basically establishing rules of the game among with Asia and North America and the United States that would uphold intellectual property agreements, freedom and transparency of contracting, market access, and so on. So if we don’t set the rules of the game in Asia, China will, and I don’t think we’ll like those rules nearly as much. So that’s just this kind of bluster against trade that is ignorant and harmful to the U.S. interests and really harmful to our allies, including most especially Japan.

 

[Glen]

25 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Have you?

Yes. I never wanted Hillary to be the nominee.

[Thomas]

3 minutes ago, Glen said:

Yes. I never wanted Hillary to be the nominee.

Well I guess that scratches the surface on lessons to be learned.

[Glen]

36 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I'll pick my state's junior Senator Martin Heinrich. He would have demolished him.  Bright. Intelligent.  Attractive. Rather gun friendly. Clearly an outsider in this race.

Biden
Warren
Sanders
 

Let's throw a few wild cards
Tom Hanks
Gabrielle Giffords
Michelle Obama
Martin Sheen

 

Out of those I think only Biden would have stood a chance. Warren is Hillary-light and I just don't think Sanders could have pulled it off. 

Your Senator is an interesting choice. 

[Ordos]

19 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

It's just one of those hypotheticals, and I can see it going that way.  But Dems better really learn and start kissing some major ass, instead of their current trajectory of just complaining about everything, and going further and further left.  Because come 2020, if they don't get their act together, and Trump keeps delivering.  It won't be till 2024, till they get a shot, and even then, it will be against a still young (comparatively) Pence who was on the team that delivered.  And the frightening thing for Dems is, they may not have a shot again till 2032. 

I think it's a little early to start crowning the end of the Dems here. Do remember W's fear that he would be the last GOP President.

Oh, and it may behoove the Mango to actually prove he's not a complete buffoon, something he has yet to do convincingly.

[Glen]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

Well I guess that scratches the surface on lessons to be learned.

Nominating Hillary was a macrocosm of the DNC's problems. 

[Thomas]

5 minutes ago, Glen said:

Out of those I think only Biden would have stood a chance. Warren is Hillary-light and I just don't think Sanders could have pulled it off. 

Your Senator is an interesting choice. 

Which states that Obama won in 2012 would any of the others lost?

[Jay]

7 minutes ago, cezero said:

i can understand disdain for clinton, but voting from trump because of that is privileged behavior, pure and simple. 

voting for trump or another candidate to get even with people on social media saying things you don't like is even worse. you're a child if that factored into your decision at all. grow the fuck up. 

if you think it was a mistake to elect trump, the blame goes squarely to those who voted for him for whatever reason, including the ones listed above. blaming liberals is beyond stupid.

Just so I'm clear, is it ok to troll the pathetic losers?

 

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, cezero said:

i agree that hillary was a bad choice for nomination, but i think sanders would've done even worse.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Which of these states does Trump beat Sanders in?

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

54 minutes ago, cezero said:

apologies for the first part of my post, then. you're not indifferent, which is far worse than ignorance, imo.  

everything else you said reeks of hypocrisy and privilege. 

 

Please explain how what I said is hypocritical and how I'm privileged.  I laughed at the reps when they dropped the ball in 2012, I've criticized both sides at different times and I've voted for candidates from both parties in major elections.  I think you meant to say I am indifferent which I'm not I just don't let the results of an election ruin my day or turn me into an angry person who attacks others because like most things in my life I control 99% of the outcome not the president, governor, mayor, etc.  You know nothing about me other than whatever assumptions you continue to make based on a few message board posts.  Those assumptions are driven by the fact that you don't agree with me and continue to talk down to me and anyone else that doesn't agree with you. 

As of late in this forum you can't can't seem to post without constantly attacking people you don't agree with or getting in some little jab which is quite petulant.  I really hope it doesn't bleed into your work because then you'll end up one of those angry teachers who spends half of class complaining about how they're underpaid and under appreciated instead of actually doing their job.  Everyone here had a teacher like that and they remember them for the wrong reasons.