|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 08 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization.
The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality.
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. That is true. Bernie probably wouldn't have been the solution to the problems we had. But, you know, I'd rather have deadlock than what we have right now. A lack of consensus is better than a Republican consensus - Hillary-led or Trump-led. Yes, we know your country is in the middle of a "my government or no government" crisis right now.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 08 2017 05:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. That is true. Bernie probably wouldn't have been the solution to the problems we had. But, you know, I'd rather have deadlock than what we have right now. A lack of consensus is better than a Republican consensus - Hillary-led or Trump-led. Yes, we know your country is in the middle of a "my government or no government" crisis right now. What's true is true. But nevertheless a paralyzed government is probably the best we can do right now.
|
On April 08 2017 05:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. The myth was that it would be any different for Hillary. Additionally, Bernie and his ideas appeal to republicans. Currently, 60% of Americans say the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, compared with 38% who say this should not be the government’s responsibility. SourceLastly he had a strategy that was meant to compete for the 1000+ seats Democrats lost under Obama and Hillary. On April 08 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2017 05:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:11 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote: [quote] Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote: [quote] If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Yes, it was. Her tax plan was actually pretty sound. It was basically the existing tax plan but with a few tweaks on capital gains. No actual tax rates changes, just some tax surcharges to correct problems like her proposed Buffett Rule. It's exactly the same as the stuff Obama was things like his 3.8% capital gains surcharge. Mhmm Republicans were totally going to send that back to her desk to sign... Zero changes at all to the tax code left by Obama was a good 99.9% of the Clinton tax plan. That's nice. I think you also underestimate how toxic any cooperation with Hillary would be for Republicans as well. Also over estimate how much her 99.9% same tax plan was "what she ran on". Reminder that Republicans won't work with Bernie either. That is true. Bernie probably wouldn't have been the solution to the problems we had. But, you know, I'd rather have deadlock than what we have right now. A lack of consensus is better than a Republican consensus - Hillary-led or Trump-led. yeah that too, I made this point during the election as well. GH, those opinion polls don’t matter. The majority of Americans don’t want a complete ban on abortion, want background checks and think we should fund education better. Republicans still get elected. Once single payer is passed, there is a long and ongoing fight to make it work. Just like the ACA. You need to be in power for term after term. I don’t really understand your argument. You just seem to shut down every time someone tries to have some discussion with you about how it’s hard to govern. No one really disagrees with you, but you just fight anyways for some reason.
Republicans win because Democrats suck. Stop sucking at fighting for what you say you want and you'll get votes like Republicans.
Let's look at the filibuster. Democrats hemmed and hawed about getting rid of it for lower judges. Republicans day 1 said, you stop us we kill the filibuster.
Next is the legislative filibuster, Democrats didn't even bother to filibuster the bill for selling our internet histories, because they suck, but when they finally do filibuster a bill Republicans are going to threaten to kill the filibuster. Who knows what sucky democrats do at that point, but lets look at some of the bills stopped completely or in part by Republicans (with many less seats) by the filibuster.
1. American Jobs Act. In the minority, Republicans still shut down President Obama’s 2011 jobs plan. It would have imposed a 5.6-percent tax on all income over $1 million to pay for new “stimulus” spending by the government. The Democrats’ majority couldn’t pass the measure, which failed 50-49.
2. Buffett Rule. Championed by Senate Democrats and the White House in 2012, the “Buffett Rule” sought to levy a minimum 30 percent tax on wealthier Americans. Forty-five Republicans voted not to end debate, keeping the legislation from the floor and from becoming law.
3. Cap and Trade. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2010, but their “cap-and-trade” legislation stalled in the Senate. Republicans filibustered sweeping restrictions on the use of fossil fuels aimed at cutting carbon emissions and the measure failed to reach Obama’s desk
4. DREAM Act. Cheered by President Obama and passed by the House, the DREAM Act was on its way to becoming law in 2010. The legislation would have blazed a path to citizenship for millions of children brought here by illegal immigrants. But a filibuster-wielding Republican minority delayed a final vote, killing the bill.
5. Card Check. The 2009 “card check” bill would have made it easier for labor unions to organize and stay in power by making union elections by secret ballot obsolete. Instead, employers would be forced to recognize a union once organizers collected a majority of employee signatures. After the Republican minority threatened to filibuster, Democrats scrapped the proposal.
6. Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act. Elder Americans would have collected an extra $250 in tax credits under the cost of living adjustment in Social Security, or COLA. A Republican filibuster took the fizz out of the proposal and the bill failed, 53 to 45.
7. Gun Control. The gun control legislation sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., backfired in the Senate after Republicans filibustered the measure. The bipartisan bill would have significantly expanded background checks in gun sales but fell shy of the 60-vote threshold to end debate, receiving only 54 votes.
8. Immigration Reform. Toward the end of his term, President George W. Bush pushed for a complete overhaul of the nation’s immigration system in 2007. The measure would have bolstered border security but granted citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants. Republican senators jumped ship and a motion to end debate failed, 53 to 46.
9. Minimum Wage. Republicans launched a filibuster in 2014 to derail a Democrat proposal that would have mandated an across-the-board federal minimum wage of $10.10.
10. The “Public Option.” Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., joined Republicans threatening to filibuster Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care bill in 2009. The proposed legislation included a “public option” akin to Medicare but was defeated before it could come to a vote.
11. Prolonging Bush Tax Cuts. In 2010, Senate Democrats tried twice to extend George W. Bush’s tax cuts only to middle-class Americans. Higher tax brackets would have returned to Clinton-era rates under their plan. Republican filibusters slammed the door on anything short of across-the-board cuts.
12. Paycheck Fairness Act. Republicans blocked the 2014 Paycheck Fairness Act four separate times. The bill would have leveled harsher penalties for discrimination and required employers to account for any pay gap between male and female employees. The bill never made it to a final vote, though, failing 52 to 40.
Source
Democrats lose because they suck at accomplishing what they run on.
|
Frum with a pretty solid article on why he can't be too happy with what happened.
When the Electoral College elevated Donald Trump to the presidency, it conferred on him the awesome life-and-death powers that attend the office. It was inevitable that President Trump would use those powers sooner or later. Now he has. For the effects on the region, I refer you to the powerful piece by The Atlantic’s Andrew Exum. I’m concerned here with the effects on the U.S. political system. Seven seem most immediately relevant.
Trump’s Words Mean Nothing
If there was any one foreign policy position that Donald Trump stressed above all others, it was opposition to the use of force in Syria. Time has helpfully compiled Trump’s tweets on the subject dating back to 2013. For example:
These were not the idle thoughts of a distracted mind. Promises of no war in Syria were central to Donald Trump’s anti-Hillary Clinton messaging. Take, for example, to his interview with Reuters on October 26, 2016.
“What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump, as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right?” That message—a vote for Clinton is a vote for World War III beginning in Syria—was pounded home by surrogates and by Trump’s social-media troll army.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/seven-lessons-from-trumps-syria-strike/522327/
|
or because they have more respect for government institutions and don't want to destroy them.
though i'd be fine with agreeing they're kinda spineless/weak.
|
GH, you know they couldn’t filibuster the ISP change right? The GOP tacked it onto a resolution that didn’t need to be debated, so no filibuster.
If you want to harp on the democrats sucking, that is cool. That wasn’t really what I was talking about. I was talking about a sustained long term and productive stay in congress. You seemed to have skipped beyond that to argue with some other person.
|
On April 08 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote: GH, you know they couldn’t filibuster the ISP change right? The GOP tacked it onto a resolution that didn’t need to be debated, so no filibuster.
If you want to harp on the democrats sucking, that is cool. That wasn’t really what I was talking about. I was talking about a sustained long term and productive stay in congress. You seemed to have skipped beyond that to argue with some other person.
Fair enough on the ISP (source?), but you may have missed this conversation partially grew out of my refuting that the Democrats run on things they can accomplish.
Your suggestion that they can't run on medicare for all because it's hard just doesn't make any sense. The reason Democrats lost those 1000+ seats is because they don't do what they say they are there to do, start doing it, like supporting medicare for all, and getting it passed, and you'll still be there to keep it going.
|
On April 08 2017 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote: GH, you know they couldn’t filibuster the ISP change right? The GOP tacked it onto a resolution that didn’t need to be debated, so no filibuster.
If you want to harp on the democrats sucking, that is cool. That wasn’t really what I was talking about. I was talking about a sustained long term and productive stay in congress. You seemed to have skipped beyond that to argue with some other person.
Fair enough on the ISP, but you may have missed this conversation partially grew out of my refuting that the Democrats run on things they can accomplish. Your suggestion that they can't run on medicare for all because it's hard just doesn't make any sense. The reason Democrats lost those 1000+ seats is because they don't do what they say they are there to do, start doing it, like supporting medicare for all, and getting it passed, and you'll still be there to keep it going. GH, when we said promising people the moon, did you think we were talking about single payer?
And the ISP thing, I don’t know the source. I thought it would die in the senate, but someone in the thread said it didn’t need to get past the filibuster.
|
On April 08 2017 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote: GH, you know they couldn’t filibuster the ISP change right? The GOP tacked it onto a resolution that didn’t need to be debated, so no filibuster.
If you want to harp on the democrats sucking, that is cool. That wasn’t really what I was talking about. I was talking about a sustained long term and productive stay in congress. You seemed to have skipped beyond that to argue with some other person.
Fair enough on the ISP, but you may have missed this conversation partially grew out of my refuting that the Democrats run on things they can accomplish. Your suggestion that they can't run on medicare for all because it's hard just doesn't make any sense. If they run on medicare for all in 2018, they need to deliver it by 2024 without driving away scared voters who will never look at long term implications.
Look at Obamacare. Not even a full overhaul of your medical system, yet it still took half a decade for voters to realize it was actually beneficial to most of them.
If you promise it in your election campaign and end up only delivering more stepping stones toward UHC, voters like yourself will blame them for being too spineless to make it happen immediately.
|
On April 08 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote: GH, you know they couldn’t filibuster the ISP change right? The GOP tacked it onto a resolution that didn’t need to be debated, so no filibuster.
If you want to harp on the democrats sucking, that is cool. That wasn’t really what I was talking about. I was talking about a sustained long term and productive stay in congress. You seemed to have skipped beyond that to argue with some other person.
Fair enough on the ISP, but you may have missed this conversation partially grew out of my refuting that the Democrats run on things they can accomplish. Your suggestion that they can't run on medicare for all because it's hard just doesn't make any sense. The reason Democrats lost those 1000+ seats is because they don't do what they say they are there to do, start doing it, like supporting medicare for all, and getting it passed, and you'll still be there to keep it going. GH, when we said promising people the moon, did you think we were talking about single payer? And the ISP thing, I don’t know the source. I thought it would die in the senate, but someone in the thread said it didn’t need to get past the filibuster.
Yes?
On April 08 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 04:53 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:42 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote: The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? Pretty sure. Compare the Democrat platform of actual policies to help actual people to the Trump platform of "things your uncle says at Thanksgiving after too much PBR". Hell, compare their tax plans. Hillary wanted to raise taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending, Trump wanted to massively cut taxes on the very richest people to cover increased spending. No shit Trump managed to dominate the idiot demographic. Yeah, because raising taxes on the richest people was totally going to happen if she got elected. I mean their promises seem more practical/realistic, but they haven't exactly been accomplishing the things they run on either. Hillary's policy on Syria would be to ground the airforce, how do you think we would do that? On April 08 2017 04:47 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote: The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. They do run on jobs but the problem is that the run on realistic outlooks and not on the fairy tales of Trump, who promised to turn back automation and globalization. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a platform they can accomplish. Not on a rosy dream that will never become reality. You sure about that? If you want to retain power for longer than a term, you need to deliver. Things like single payer will not work without a sustained presence in congress. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You can’t have single payer by just passing it and then getting voted out. Otherwise it is under constant threat of being removed. Or worse, imploding under poor management of the other party. You need to win more than one election, so you can’t promise the moon and then not deliver. Ah, well single payer isn't a unicorn or "the moon", it's (or some variation) how many modern countries run their healthcare system. Fundamentally what matters is establishing that the government views healthcare as a right, but the Democratic party has to catch up with Coal mining Trump supporters in West Virginia on that one.
On the ISP I don't see anything indicating it didn't need to get past a filibuster, but maybe that person will resurface or we can go back to presuming they chose not to filibuster.
|
Ok, people were not talking about single payer. They were talking about promises like “bringing back unskilled labor and steel jobs”.
Here are the details of the ISP bill. No filibuster possible, it isn't a full law.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/s94
|
On April 08 2017 06:11 Plansix wrote:Ok, people were not talking about single payer. They were talking about promises like “bringing back unskilled labor and steel jobs”. Here are the details of the ISP bill. No filibuster possible, it isn't a full law. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/s94
You can’t have single payer by just passing it and then getting voted out. Otherwise it is under constant threat of being removed. Or worse, imploding under poor management of the other party.
You need to win more than one election, so you can’t promise the moon and then not deliver.
So there, by "the moon", you meant "bringing back unskilled labor and steel jobs"?
That doesn't seem to fit the context, but if that's what you meant I'm sure you can understand the confusion.
I admit I don't know the legislative procedure well enough to fully understand why a bill not being a "full law" means there's no point at which it could be filibustered?
|
On April 08 2017 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +You can’t have single payer by just passing it and then getting voted out. Otherwise it is under constant threat of being removed. Or worse, imploding under poor management of the other party.
You need to win more than one election, so you can’t promise the moon and then not deliver.
So there, by "the moon", you meant "bringing back unskilled labor and steel jobs"? That doesn't seem to fit the context, but if that's what you meant I'm sure you can understand the confusion. I admit I don't know the legislative procedure well enough to fully understand why a bill not being a "full law" means there's no point at which it could be filibustered? I understand that you are always spoiling for a fight how bad the Democrats are and single payer. It is understandable.
And I'm not sure what makes this different, but a resolution is different than a law. The way we keep the goverment running is through a "continuing resolution" which avoid the filibuster as well. Its the way congresses avoids making a new budget.
|
On April 08 2017 05:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2017 04:59 Nevuk wrote:Milo had turned on Trump over the Syrian airstrikes. Some other alt right people seem to be upset too. In an exclusive statement to Mediaite, Yiannopoulos said Trump’s sudden foreign adventurism was “not why people voted for Daddy.”
“I’m as troubled by violence toward innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway,” said Yiannopoulos in an email. “NO MORE POINTLESS FOREIGN WARS. This is not why people voted for Daddy. It’s the opposite of why people voted for him.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-milo-yiannopoulos-breaks-with-trump-on-syria-not-why-people-voted-for-daddy/These people seem very fickle strangely Yeah... Weird to have Democrats cheer-leading a guy they told us couldn't be trusted with America's military as he launches missiles into a country he may or may not be able to find on an unlabeled map. Meanwhile the "crazies" on the alt-right are upset Trump is exactly the con man everyone told them he was. Then there's the folks that said "Hillary might actually be more hawkish than Trump" who got laughed at and shouted down, while now she advocates for MORE escalation in Syria. Her supporters suggest this is just a political stunt and if he was serious he'd escalate too, as if we're supposed to now think Trump is "Presidential" because he talked about a dead soldier at his joint address and launched some missiles (he might have a financial interest in) into a country he doesn't have the slightest fucking clue about. People are cray cray The support of Hillary Clinton included quite a long delusion train. This was basically a necessity - the arguments in favor of her, without any Trump to complain about, are lacking at best. The establishment folk were fully behind her, but that was hardly a good thing. In response to most problems the "never mind that, we HAVE TO stop TRUMP because he is dangerous." Unfortunately it was true that Trump was every bit as bad as his opponents said - shitty at leadership on top of being unreliable and liable to change his mind - but unfortunately that description doesn't apply to Trump alone. Don't forget that many of the reasons you describe here are relevant still. Shitty at leadership, liable to change his/her mind. Delusion train still chugging along, and we're supposed to believe that next time they'll do better having learned none of the lessons of last time.
I'd prefer a real opposition party because I have enough squabbles with my own. Not this current joke of a party seen with Gorsuch and #notmypresident #resist.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Syria claims that civilians in a nearby village died in the bombing. Can't vouch for the credibility of the claim but that's what the govt says. Source
|
On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote: I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians.
Bro you just don't see it, she won the popular vote. Don't you get it, she was the most electable and popular candidate in the history of us politics. No one has beaten anyone in such a popular fashion before, I mean I'm sorry the democrats now have nobody, hrc was truly their last champion. Wait I take that back, I think everyone is underestimating Tim Kaine 2020, he might be even more electable.
|
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots. nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 08 2017 07:42 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote: I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians. Bro you just don't see it, she won the popular vote. Don't you get it, she was the most electable and popular candidate in the history of us politics. No one has beaten anyone in such a popular fashion before, I mean I'm sorry the democrats now have nobody, hrc was truly their last champion. Wait I take that back, I think everyone is underestimating Tim Kaine 2020, he might be even more electable. DWS, who did nothing wrong and took one for the team, is also part of the Democrats' presidential bench. Same with Donna Brazile. Lot of good candidates to challenge the racist sexist xenophobic Russia-lover Trump and his goon James Comey in 2020.
|
On April 08 2017 07:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:42 biology]major wrote:On April 08 2017 07:33 LegalLord wrote: I swear, there's a nontrivial portion of the base that is still trying to say, "See? You really wish you had gotten behind Hillary now, don't you? Told you so!" Rather than exploring the genuine reasons for the widespread loss (not just at the presidential level) like they should.
No, idiot. There was a reason why people opposed your ungodly electable loser and her most loyal underlings. And it's not because they were racist sexist xenophobic Russians. Bro you just don't see it, she won the popular vote. Don't you get it, she was the most electable and popular candidate in the history of us politics. No one has beaten anyone in such a popular fashion before, I mean I'm sorry the democrats now have nobody, hrc was truly their last champion. Wait I take that back, I think everyone is underestimating Tim Kaine 2020, he might be even more electable. DWS, who did nothing wrong and took one for the team, is also part of the Democrats' presidential bench. Same with Donna Brazile. Lot of good candidates to challenge the racist sexist xenophobic Russia-lover Trump and his goon James Comey in 2020.
Tim Kaine DWS ticket 2020, my goodness that might just be the most electable combination ever witnessed. It's going to take even more of the russian trolls, James Comey with his secret but not really secret investiagions, and the Bernie Bros to stop that train.
|
|
|
|