Donald Trump 2018

[Fozzz 152]

How much effort did Hillary’s team expend on emphasizing collective bargaining, increasing minimum wage, etc., vs stressing that Donald the dotard wasn’t a “normal” Republican?  That campaign was engineered to target suburban whites that found Trump and his more explicit racism/xenophobia too icky. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

9 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The parties' stated positions are not that far apart. But there is a vast gulf in the behavior of the current leadership of the parties. One party is the party of gleeful and purposeful ignorance, treason, fear mongering, racism, sexism, rampant corruption, disrespect for the rule of law including the Constitution, and maliciousness

And the Republican party is even worse.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

19 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

Ok.  What about the policies of the current Democrat party do you find to be characteristically left?

Dead giveaway.  Nice try. 

[Dirk X West 772]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your attempt to cast current D perspective in light of the world view is distracting.  What matters is where they are relative to the opposition RIGHT NOW.

Never mind that the average Republican would have us believe all Democrats are Communists.  

I agree with that, but what it's come to is, instead of pulling things back in the right  direction - which to me is back to the left - the Democrats have conceded the terms of the debate and are just fighting for the status quo.  You may disagree, but I suspect that that's partly because they are content with the status quo.  I mean, isn't that a big reason that Hillary lost, because she thought that support from minorities along with economically well off liberals (i.e. people happy with the status quo) was enough to win? 

[Dirk X West 772]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Dead giveaway.  Nice try. 

Typo, good grief.  I've voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since Bill Clinton's first term.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Right.

And the Clinton administration was the high water mark for similarities between the parties.  The are much more distinct now than they were then. 

[Pods 7,586]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Right.

And the Clinton administration was the high water mark for similarities between the parties.  The are much more distinct now than they were then. 

and diverging rapidly by the day. Only one party is currently an existential threat to law and order in this country and becoming increasingly more so (looking at you Mitch McConnell).  

[SKJ 1,311]

With the Clinton machine no longer in the way, I could see someone like Gillibrand winning the Dem nom in 2020 on a platform that includes some social democratic features (jobs guarantee being one).  Who knows if that ever turns into policy though.  

Kucinich

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

1 hour ago, Dirk X West said:

 

 

[Nick Diaz 107]

[Mdhorn 5,982]

1 hour ago, Dirk X West said:

I agree with that, but what it's come to is, instead of pulling things back in the right  direction - which to me is back to the left - the Democrats have conceded the terms of the debate and are just fighting for the status quo.  You may disagree, but I suspect that that's partly because they are content with the status quo.  I mean, isn't that a big reason that Hillary lost, because she thought that support from minorities along with economically well off liberals (i.e. people happy with the status quo) was enough to win? 

You've already f'd it up--Hillary lost because she didn't get support from minorities.  She didn't get support from a lot of places and even still got more votes in the election.  Didn't help that Russians were playing Bernie and Hillary supporters off each other.  I don't know how many times I read supposed Bernie supporters saying there was no difference between Trump and Hillary, therefore they weren't going to vote.  Republicans are going to vote Republican regardless of whether it's a Russian in Republican clothing or a Putin supporter.  That's a fact.  Just ask Mitch McConnell. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Mdhorn

[Mdhorn 5,982]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

How much effort did Hillary’s team expend on emphasizing collective bargaining, increasing minimum wage, etc., vs stressing that Donald the dotard wasn’t a “normal” Republican?  That campaign was engineered to target suburban whites that found Trump and his more explicit racism/xenophobia too icky. 

She did all of that--she'd stump for an hour on policies and the only part that got televised was the portion about Trump. 

[Mdhorn 5,982]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

With the Clinton machine no longer in the way, I could see someone like Gillibrand winning the Dem nom in 2020 on a platform that includes some social democratic features (jobs guarantee being one).  Who knows if that ever turns into policy though.  

Really, the Clinton machine that rolled over when Obama took the presidency for 8 years while she only got older.  Had Biden run, he very well could've won the nomination.

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

She did all of that--she'd stump for an hour on policies and the only part that got televised was the portion about Trump. 

 

Quote

Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new studypublished on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.

But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads

Edited April 18, 2018 by Fozzz

[Mdhorn 5,982]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

We haven't lost hardly any of the people who execute policy either even though Trump would like to make big cuts.  It isn't like the EPA has had wholesale layoffs.  And it isn't like Pruitt, or McCarthy before him, are the ones who show up when a company dumps lead in your river.  The only difference now is that agents are being paid to twiddle their thumbs.  In 2020, I'm sure they'll remember how to put the hammer down.

And just because Zinke wants to sell off National Parks to the highest bidder, that doesn't mean that the park rangers who are still employed by the NPS suddenly dropped their ideals too.

The parks were already undermanned and now they're underfunded as well.  That's not buying replacements for those retiring or officials that left.  The top positions in a lot of places such as the Census, EPA and others lost their top officials.  That certainly doesn't help an organization.  And funding definitely has been cut for these departments as well as any technology going forward.  How are they supposed to study something that you can not define by a specific term?  Websites were scrubbed of studies for global warming or anything related.  That's a hindrance to the Navy that has filed for actions on rising sea levels, NASA, and whatever other scientific research is offered.  Hey, let's get back to coal isn't helping the solar industry. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

4 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

The parks were already undermanned and now they're underfunded as well.  That's not buying replacements for those retiring or officials that left.  The top positions in a lot of places such as the Census, EPA and others lost their top officials.  That certainly doesn't help an organization.  And funding definitely has been cut for these departments as well as any technology going forward.  How are they supposed to study something that you can not define by a specific term?  Websites were scrubbed of studies for global warming or anything related.  That's a hindrance to the Navy that has filed for actions on rising sea levels, NASA, and whatever other scientific research is offered.  Hey, let's get back to coal isn't helping the solar industry. 

I'm not saying that they aren't running like shit right now.  I'm just saying that it won't be so hard for them to get back to work in 2020.

[Mdhorn 5,982]

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads

Great--I'll have to link some actual speeches she gave around the country when I get out of class tonight.  All political ads are attack ads these days--they're about a minute apiece.  And yet she still won the popular vote.  Whatever, I'm glad she lost.  It was the best thing for her and the country.  People were asleep at the wheel and needed to see what a corrupt party is capable of.  Also, she would've been a lame duck president under the current Congress and that's without all of the continuing Benghazi investigations. 

[Fozzz 152]

The issue isn't that her campaign was overly negative, but that it was focused on personality and tailored her campaign for people who normally support Republicans. 

 

Remember when Schumer said "for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin"?  That's what i'm talking about.

[Dirk X West 772]

1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

You've already f'd it up--Hillary lost because she didn't get support from minorities.  She didn't get support from a lot of places and even still got more votes in the election.  Didn't help that Russians were playing Bernie and Hillary supporters off each other.  I don't know how many times I read supposed Bernie supporters saying there was no difference between Trump and Hillary, therefore they weren't going to vote.  Republicans are going to vote Republican regardless of whether it's a Russian in Republican clothing or a Putin supporter.  That's a fact.  Just ask Mitch McConnell. 

88% of black voters voted for Clinton, 65% of Latinos for Clinton.  The Latino number is a little down compared to what Obama got, but how is this not getting support from minorities?

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

3 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

88% of black voters voted for Clinton, 65% of Latinos for Clinton.  The Latino number is a little down compared to what Obama got, but how is this not getting support from minorities?

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

 

[Hank Kingsley 21,028]

Hillary lost because she ran a terrible, tone-deaf campaign.  The blame should focus 100% on Hillary, her staff, and the Democratic party for doing an awful job.  Blaming minorities, 3rd party voters, or people that didn't show up to the polls is flat out wrong.

 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

So you are you claiming that Hillary didn't have the black vote because black voter turnout returned to the same level they were at before the Obama years?

Edited April 18, 2018 by Grade of D as in David
This is a reply to mojo

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Hillary lost because she ran a terrible, tone-deaf campaign.  The blame should focus 100% on Hillary, her staff, and the Democratic party for doing an awful job.  Blaming minorities, 3rd party voters, or people that didn't show up to the polls is flat out wrong.

 

No doubt.  I blame Hillary for the voters who didn't turn out for her, not the voters themselves.  It was her job to get their votes.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

7 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

So you are you claiming that Hillary didn't have the black vote because black voter turnout returned to the same level they were at before the Obama years?

She got lower turnout among blacks than John Kerry.   The increasing turnout trend since 1996 wasn't just because of one black candidate, which seems to be your implication.  Sure, she had the black vote relative to Trump, but she underperformed among blacks, especially taking into account a racist opponent.  Blacks don't just turn out in force for black candidates, as you suggest.  Black women cost Roy Moore the Senate, and in favor of a white candidate.  Hillary was just a bad candidate who didn't do enough among any constituency, including minorities. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,028]

I still laugh in horror over the #ImWithHer slogan. They had their heads so far up their asses. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Yeah, one of Trump's best lines was saying for Hillary it's all about her, but I'm with you. 

[Sawbonz 27,583]

4 hours ago, Dirk X West said:

Because I voted for Hillary?  What?

There is a doctrine here if you haven’t noticed. If you don’t adhere strictly to it you are labeled a trumpkin, and or traitor, among other things 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Sawbonz

[Red Five 40,881]

I still laugh in horror over the #ImWithHer slogan. They had their heads so far up their asses. 
 

Better than “I’m Ready For Hillary!”. As in “you see, I️ wasn’t before but now I️ am. So the problem was me.”

[BrickHorn 18,263]

43 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I still laugh in horror over the #ImWithHer slogan. They had their heads so far up their asses. 

 

That was MUCH better than the “HERstory” shit.  I’m all for people succeeding and achieving their goals and shit.  But I don’t get excited to vote for a candidate so they can check some box on their bucket list.  I pick a candidate because I believe their policies are best for me, my family, and my country.  

Hillary had no message, save: (1) it’s my turn and (2) at least I’m not Donald Trump. It was a really shitty campaign.  Like historically tone deaf and arrogant.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

#imwithher was malpractice. It started as a graphic design exercise and took on a life of its own because “Stronger Together” didn’t connect and core supporters responded to it.

 

It was a good rally point for for her core supporters but never should have been used the way it was, and because it highlighted literally everything* wrong with her value proposition as a candidate the slogan probably alienated more voters than it kept in line.

 

And the super duper crazy part is that even today there’s an element in Dem campaign circles that still thinks #Imwithher was a eureka moment of campaign genius.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*a long list. Actually, that may be the true genious of #imwithher: it managed to encapsulate a long list of negative personal and professional attributes by cramming presumption, hubris and unsuitability in only three words.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

There is a doctrine here if you haven’t noticed. If you don’t adhere strictly to it you are labeled a trumpkin, and or traitor, among other things 

You forgot to use your Clear Lake Horn sock account here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And the super duper crazy part is that even today there’s an element in Dem campaign circles that still thinks #Imwithher was a eureka moment of campaign genius.

 

Yep.  I see #ImStillWithHer all the time on Facebook. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

You forgot to use your Clear Lake Horn sock account here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oh fuck off with that shit bozo.  I am going to balance out the pos rep I just gave you with an exceedingly rare neg rep from me. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

oh fuck off with that shit bozo.  I am going to balance out the pos rep I just gave you with an exceedingly rare neg rep from me. 

The feelings!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Fantana 6,690]

STB's sock army still neg repping old posts of mine lmao

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

Where’s bad mofo? If I self-report can he infract me? Can I infract myself?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just try harder moving forward. 

[Brisketexan 105,246]

34 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

That was MUCH better than the “HERstory” shit.  I’m all for people succeeding and achieving their goals and shit.  But I don’t get excited to vote for a candidate so they can check some box on their bucket list.  I pick a candidate because I believe their policies are best for me, my family, and my country.  

Hillary had no message, save: (1) it’s my turn and (2) at least I’m not Donald Trump. It was a really shitty campaign.  Like historically tone deaf and arrogant.

This.  So, so, SO much this.  She had no fucking message.  None.  Look, for me, "at least I'm not Donald Trump" gave her the tiniest of edge.  But the real issue is that she generated ZERO enthusiasm from any of the constituencies that she really needed to come out and vote for her.  Black voters, hispanics, blue collar workers....ZERO enthusiasm.  Because (1) and (2) were her entire platform.  It was lazy as fuck, and intellectually insulting to us the voters.

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

#imwithher was malpractice. It started as a graphic design exercise and took on a life of its own because “Stronger Together” didn’t connect and core supporters responded to it.

 

It was a good rally point for for her core supporters but never should have been used the way it was, and because it highlighted literally everything* wrong with her value proposition as a candidate the slogan probably alienated more voters than it kept in line.

 

And the super duper crazy part is that even today there’s an element in Dem campaign circles that still thinks #Imwithher was a eureka moment of campaign genius

*a long list. Actually, that may be the true genious of #imwithher: it managed to encapsulate a long list of negative personal and professional attributes by cramming presumption, hubris and unsuitability in only three words.

 

 

The text I bolded is where it started and ended.  I remember talking to some rather strong Hillary supporters who were women, and they were excited about the prospect of a woman president, but when it got down to talking about what ELSE about Hillary excited you, they didn't exactly rattle off a buncha stuff.  Hillary needed to appeal to people outside her core group.  But as a product, she had no public trust or goodwill, and she didn't even try to build any.

That said, it's still nuts to respond to that with "okay, so I'll shoot myself in the dick and vote for Trump."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Epilogue of Comey Book in spoilers.

Pretty solid.

[Brisketexan 105,246]

He is far more optimistic than I am.  Some forest fires just destroy.

But we share one view, that's for certain.

Silence is complicity.

The last century offered lesson after lesson reinforcing that truth.  Even worse, to accept the damage he does because he may advance a pet issue of yours is even more inexcusable.  Complicity.  Collaboration.  Betrayal.  Those are what silence and support of Trump are, in every sense of each of those words.

I am beyond pleased that millions of my fellow Americans refuse to be complicit.  They refuse to accept this assault on the foundational values of our democratic Republic and the Rule of Law.  But, I believe that it's too little, too late.

Trump is intent on driving the Republic over the cliff, Thelma and Louise-style.  And he has collaborators like Ryan and McConnell sitting in the back seat urging him "faster! faster!"  They are in control.  And by the time control can be wrested from them -- if it can be -- the damage will be so deep and dramatic that there can be no recovery.  OR, even worse, they will have simply created a new normal.  We'll lurch to the other side, and end up with an authoritarian narcissist piece of shit from the left, except, even worse, that person might actually be competent, too.

Comey has plenty of flaws.  He's right about many things, too.  But he's wrong to be hopeful.

The smart money is on "we're fucked."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He is far more optimistic than I am.  Some forest fires just destroy.

But we share one view, that's for certain.

Silence is complicity.

The last century offered lesson after lesson reinforcing that truth.  Even worse, to accept the damage he does because he may advance a pet issue of yours is even more inexcusable.  Complicity.  Collaboration.  Betrayal.  Those are what silence and support of Trump are, in every sense of each of those words.

I am beyond pleased that millions of my fellow Americans refuse to be complicit.  They refuse to accept this assault on the foundational values of our democratic Republic and the Rule of Law.  But, I believe that it's too little, too late.

Trump is intent on driving the Republic over the cliff, Thelma and Louise-style.  And he has collaborators like Ryan and McConnell sitting in the back seat urging him "faster! faster!"  They are in control.  And by the time control can be wrested from them -- if it can be -- the damage will be so deep and dramatic that there can be no recovery.  OR, even worse, they will have simply created a new normal.  We'll lurch to the other side, and end up with an authoritarian narcissist piece of shit from the left, except, even worse, that person might actually be competent, too.

Comey has plenty of flaws.  He's right about many things, too.  But he's wrong to be hopeful.

The smart money is on "we're fucked."

He came to the same conclusion I’ve had all along, that the Trump presidency will be cathartic in the long run but in the short term it’s going to be real ugly/painful.

But most importantly, more people need to speak out.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 46,074]

It was fairly easy for the average left-leaning voter to pick Hillary.  She's not stupid, she has experience, and the alternative was worse than usual.  (I remember how awful I thought Mitt Romney was.  Oh, how times change.)

But y'all are spot on when you point out that her message was empty.  She simply had nothing to bring other than "well, I'm not Trump".  And frankly, that should have been enough.  It's a good lesson on the dangers of voter apathy.

[Pods 7,586]

39 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He came to the same conclusion I’ve had all along, that the Trump presidency will be cathartic in the long run but in the short term it’s going to be real ugly/painful.

But most importantly, more people need to speak out.

Comey has been wrong an awful lot about what he thinks will happen based on certain actions. I hope he is right here, but we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't hold my breath if you're waiting for the electorate to sharpen up. 

[Sawbonz 27,583]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Where’s bad mofo? If I self-report can he infract me? Can I infract myself?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We infract ourselves just by wading into this cesspool. No need for negging 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Sawbonz
Autocorrect

[Chad Fuck 17,738]

We infract ourselves just by wading into this cesspool. No need for negging 

I tried to infract myself last night, to no avail.

[Brisketexan 105,246]

I tried to infract myself last night, to no avail.

I think my uncle had an infracted colon. It made him real cranky.

[triplehorn 2,664]

 

[RPM 26,339]

I love how this has suddenly become all Hillary's fault. 16 candidates to choose from and they picked Dotard... but it's Hillary's fault.

[Lurch 5,931]

I love how this has suddenly become all Hillary's fault. 16 candidates to choose from and they picked Dotard... but it's Hillary's fault.

To be fair, she only won the popular vote by 2,864,974.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, RPM said:

I love how this has suddenly become all Hillary's fault. 16 candidates to choose from and they picked Dotard... but it's Hillary's fault.

It’s quite absurd.  The same thing with blaming Comey.  Like he made all those people vote for Trump.