I agree here. As much as I don't like Trump and think he's a complete buffoon, what has he really done damage on? The economy is strong, jobs are good, confidence is good and most people are as good (if not better off) than when he started. Is he aggravating to listen to and watch? Of course. But I would say he has done much better than the last two republican presidents (the Bush's) whom everyone "liked" more.

He's a complete idiot and it is annoying to here the leader of your country act like a petulant child more often than not, but I'm not sure the country is in the dire straits the left is making it seem. Don't get me wrong, I hope Trump loses - but I'm not sure the panic needs to be at a level where we pray for an 11-month recession to make it happen.

FFS. Listen I will leave it at this since apparently I am the only one that thinks this wishing for a recession for political purposes is quite possibly not only the dumbest idea ever but the pure definition of selfishness.

Right and your whole argument is "recessions happen". Well everyone dies so why give a shit about anything right? It's absurd to wish for a recession for purely political purposes. I don't think one needs an economics degree to understand that.

Wait what... do people actually think Trump's bad parts are just that he's aggravating to listen to and watch?!!

Like not his stirring up of racism (especially against Latin Americans and Muslims)? Not his actions against the press? Not his attempts to weaponize family separation at the border? Not his attempts to turn refugees into 'illegals'? Not his gutting of federal agencies?

Is this what white folks just see? My 401k is good so fuck brown people? Because that is more terrifying than anything else I've seen.

It's always about race isn't it? What would be ironic is this exact same recession discussion 8 years ago. Oh boy the racism talk about one wishing a recession on a black president would be through the roof.

That's a fun reductio ad absurdum. Recessions are an integral part of the business cycle - they are considered corrections to overheating economies (which if unchecked and kept going leads to crippling inflation). There is a reason why Central Banks try to slow down economies at times - and they weigh at times whether its better to have a small recession now or a much larger recession later. So the decisions is when will the recession hit, not if, and small recessions are easier to deal with than bigger ones.

So I have no issue wishing for a small recession in the Spring so that the existential threat to our democracy and morality is removed.

Yes. It must be nice to be white and get to ignore race when you want to. We don't have that luxury.

Turns out he did have a bit of a recession to deal with.

It isn't about impacting my life. It is about the impact he has on our nation, and the world, as a whole.

Just the environmental rollbacks alone are enough to make me say a short term recession is worth it for the long term gain.

Trump has been in office just over 3 years and look at the damage he has done. Another 4 years of him unchecked, because we now know the Senate is powerless, could literally destroy us as a nation.

Would a recession harm many Americans, absolutely, but the alternative is far more harmful long term.

Old white folks.

My dad is the nicest guy you will meet. Owned the town pharmacy for 45 years. Recently got an award from an African american group because he was integral in the hiring of many blacks in the 60s when no one would. Beloved by the whole community. Never, ever, heard him say a racist word even though his dad was a raging racist.

Fully supports Trump. Admits he is a total ass, but because the economy is good, and his investments keep doing well he supports him.

Don't underestimate the GOP PR machine when it gets fired up about Trump being the only one who can keep this going.

What about alienating all our allies and coddling dictators? What about environmental rollbacks? What about openly obstructing justice and witness intimidation? What about openly conspiring with foreign governments to bring down political opponents? What about empowering his followers to commit acts of violence against people who don't look like him? etc...etc...

He has fragmented us so much as a nation that I actually fear violence on a scale we haven't witnessed before, save for the civil war, could occur if he losses the election. He won't go quietly.

If he wins the election, you can bet he will put the wheels in motion to remove presidential term limits, and his followers will cheer.

I also think it is only a matter of time, and if he wins almost a certainty, that you see Schiff, Pelosi, Biden, etc...arrested and charged with BS crimes.

Indeed. I work in the same building as the EPA region in the Southeast. They appear to be the most dejected people I've ever seen in government service. Their mission has been completely destroyed and the agency has been gutted. And still the Administration rolls back environmental protections - now looking at selling rights to protected land in Utah (probably to get back at Romney - like a mob boss would do).

I saw that. Shameful.

The problem with a lot of Trump voters is they are boomers. They couldn't care less because they won't be here in 30 years.

Perhaps a good way to put it is that we see a Hugo Chavez or Reccip Erdogan attempted take over. Now I believe and hope our institutions are stronger than Venezuela and Turkey, but it's the same damned playbook.

This is probably the best case - but a lot of his changes have involved marginal decreases to help business and the reporting of pollution. The four water regulations he's changed have involved mostly non-populated areas. Again, I don't agree with them, but I think it's a stretch to say they've done massive damage compared to what we've already done under Bush and Obama.

This is on congress. Trump certainly doesn't help, but you could make Chuck Shumer president tomorrow and no sensible gun legislation would get passed with this House and Senate. You need changes there (and with the gun lobby) before you even worry about the president. Bernie or Bloomberg isn't going to solve this unless you get massive congressional changes.

Every president since JFK has "nearly pulled us into war" - and many have pulled us into war. I'm not sure his actions against Iran have amounted to a massive change in US foreign policy.

There's a massive division no matter who is president. You think Bernie would fix this? Trump is a buffoon and does not distance himself from racism, but we are a country with a massive division on political, economical and social issues. No president in this election will change that.

Much like the Iran thing, nothing has actually happened.

This is the way US government is now. It's why so many people stump for tax cuts. If we are going to blow the money anyway - atleast give it back to the citizens. There are just too many political mouths to feed for us to really cut into it. But, it does ebb and flow. Obama added $4.6 Trillion in his first term and Trump looks to be adding closer to $5 trillion. Usually presidents do better in their second term as they aren't trying to setup re-election. You could make the argument a 2nd term for Trump would be better for the deficit than a first term for Bernie or Warren. But, the reality is both situations will result in a big deficit increase. Trump's first term has certainly been bad for the federal deficit - but I don't know that any president would have to stomach to stem that tide.

Overall, Trump has made some policy decisions on the environment that aren't the best, and his rhetoric has been dreadful at times - but I don't think massive damage has been done. I hope he loses, but I'm not to the level of hoping harm to the nation to make that happen.

I find it curious you hope he loses yet don’t want harm to the nation to make it happen. What is your reasoning for wanting him to lose then? Seems to me either way the nation would be harmed.

I work for the federal agency that enforces the ACA. We are not allowed to cite violations of the ACA for the 2019 Plan year going forward (thankfully we can still continue pursue violations we cited in 2018). So insurance companies that are violating the ACA in 2019 can do so.

This has happened in multiple agencies - so things are being done just aren't being widely reported.

I would prefer he not be president because I don't like him. But, I think people give the president way too much credit/blame for what goes on in the country. Confidence and leadership are pretty much the extent of what a president can provide - and in a strong economic time like we are in now a 5-year old could be president (which isn't far off of Trump).

I think Obama did a very nice job of navigating the bank disaster and leading the country. But, he ran nearly a $5 trillion deficit and the economy never got to the levels we are at right now. None of that was his fault, just like Trump doesn't deserve all the praise for a strong 2019-20. I usually won't vote for a president who's stated economic policies could massively impact my situation. But, I also think that's also a little short-sited on my part as it is very unlikely someone like Bernie would get his plans through congress. So, I really don't lose sleep on who wins the presidency.

There's no way a second Trump term would be better for the deficit than a Dem president. We already know what Trump wants to do and that includes yearly trillion dollar plus deficits. The minute a Dem is elected the entire GOP infrastructure will go into deficit madness. There's no way a Dem is going to be able to run trillion dollar deficits unopposed the way Trump is doing.

That is a good point. Given the state of congress, a democratic president would struggle to get a lot passed and probably help the deficit. I hadn't thought of it and it's a another reason to vote for the Dem nominee. I'm still not losing sleep over who wins, but this is a really good point provided the republicans don't lose a bunch of seats in 2020 or 2022. Not sure how likely that is though.

Yeah I'm not in the mood for this nonsense normalization of Trump. The guy is a racist, corrupt, moronic piece of shit. Claiming that he just "talks bad" and is really no different than any other politician is just bullshit gaslighting of the highest order and I consider it a direct insult.

The federal hiring freeze had a massive negative impact on my workplace. Despite being one of the largest military hospitals there were no waivers for us. It just so happened to be timed with the transition to DHA support and during preparations for our MHS Genesis rollout later that year. That's just from my IT perspective. I can't imagine what the clinics and departments here were going through with a 4 month hiring freeze.

Trump has continually fought to keep our pay down. He first eliminated raises that were eventually restored by congress, but even now he's trying to cap raises next year at 1%.

His administration has leaked memos outlining plans to ban unions in the DoD (that's me), VA, DHS, and federal OPM.

Little things like the time it takes to get a passport or the time it takes to get Global Entry. Those are State Department jobs that still haven't recovered from the shutdown last year. Where we used to see a month turnaround to get things done, we now see 6 month waits and even expedited is only getting to you just before you need it. That the department has been either cut, or not fully staffed is proof of his delinquency in running the government. Yet you'll see small govt types praising him for the cuts, at the same time running the govt down for being inefficient and not able to handle simple tasks like passports. Parts of the government are completly overwhelmed with the amount of work that needs done, and all he can do is say, "look how much cheaper it is!" I've worked for companies like that, they all fail in the end.

Re: my hypothetical question, I support a typical 11 month recession if it guarantees a Trump loss. I am in a peculiar place here because I often disagree much with the Liberal echo chamber here and support some of Trump's policies.

I think the calculus that we all go through is whether a Trump 2nd term will do more damage to the country than a typical recession. To me its a good trade off. Here's my rationale

1) Its not about me. I am benefiting from the Trump Presidency - so far its been a great stock market and solid economy. I like some of his foreign policy initiatives. Definitely support his stance on illegal immigration etc.

2) Recessions are normal, its part of the business cycle. If we are overdue for one, let's get it over with (but like I said previously, IMO its too late to impact Trump so I'm okay if one does not happen now). People will definitely get hurt with the layoffs and stock market hit, most of bell curve will be better 3-5 years later. Likely the bottom 10-20% will likely never recover but how are they doing now with Trump?

3) Much of what the board liberals have said about why they don't support a second term differs from my rationale. Environment is not a Top 5 issue for me, I'm willing to trade energy independence for fracking and like (which buys us time for Elon and the like). Gun regulation, I do support tougher laws but its not all on Trump. Deficit is a real problem but not all on Trump either as evidenced by my prior posts & charts. Not too worried about SCOTUS

4) I am not a never Trump'er. I can see where a Democratic candidate like Sanders could do just as much (or more) damage as Trump but in a different way. I've said my preferred candidate is Biden and would like to know more about Bloomberg

5) I consider myself a nationalist, in my simplistic definition I put the US first. Not a white nationalist, not a fascist etc. with all the negative connotations that is often thrown about here. I consider US to be the best country in the world and still the land of opportunity for the majority of the bell curve

The reasons why I do not support a Trump second term are:

6) Another Trump term would be a reaffirmation that the US embraces Trump with his warts and all - his bullying manner, his lack of empathy, his lack of diplomacy while dealing with allies (don't mind it with frenemies), his misogyny, his willingness to use his political power to spy on political opposition to benefit himself etc. It also positions his family to more likely run for office and win. I hate to think we are like that. There is no question everyone knows who Trump is in 2020

7) Another Trump term would embolden the GOP senate vs returning to the good old days. Using a simple example, 1 is Sanders, 10 in Trump, the historical middle ground has been 4-6, even 3-7 and I want a return to that

8) Overall global opinion of Trump is negative. Don't care about enemies or frenemies but this is with our allies (with the exception of good old Israel). Overall global opinion of US is going in the wrong direction. I want the vast majority of legal immigrants-wannabees to continue selecting the US by a huge margin, I want other countries' brain drain to benefit us. Simplistically, I want most of the world to like us and view us as their protector from the evil empires

9) Another Trump term means this country won't heal the divisiveness in the next 4 years, or what I consider a return to sanity. I don't think a Sanders administration will do that either and hence my preference for Biden

So thinking long term, thinking globally (e.g. not just me personally), thinking about the US coming together and healing some, I'm all for a recession if it guarantees a Trump loss and a win for a "reasonable" Dem nominee.

It does seem to always come back to that doesn't it?

I differ from you in the hypothetical question but agree with your sentiments here.

:deadhorse:

Just for an interesting sidebar, I wonder what would be different in the next few years under Trump vs the dem nominee (let's say Bernie). I'll take the main issues that seem to bother people:

1. Immigration
Bernie would roll back some enforcement, but I doubt the laws would change. I'm guessing fewer people would be detained, but we had a bunch detained under Obama. So, maybe a small difference here - but not a real noticeable one.

2. Tax policy
I don't even think Bernie could get a repeal of the tax cuts passed in congress - let alone his major changes. He may get a small increase on the rich, but I don't think many people would be impacted.

3. Health Care
He certainly would stop the assault on the ACA, but I don't see any new changes passed. So, more enforcement of the ACA, but that's about it.

4. Environment
This would probably be the biggest change, but it would mostly be to undo some of Trump's elective orders. I don't see anything massive on carbon tax or clean energy getting passed.

5. Gun control
Again, I don't see much of a change. Congress wouldn't go for even minor restrictions at this point.

6. Economy
It would certainly be worse under Bernie. Not only are we due for a small correction, but Bernie's stance on capital gains, other taxes, environmental regulation and health care would hurt the market's confidence.

7. Military
Bernie would certainly cut funding and draw a much softer line with our enemies. How would it change? I doubt by much - it's not like he would be passive if Iran/Korea start posturing (atleast I hope he wouldn't).

8. Rhetoric
Bernie would be a nice change here. No more subtle acceptance of racism, belittling groups/women, idiotic statements and petty attacks on people. That would be a nice change, but I don't think it changes how divided we are as a nation. There will still be plenty of class warfare under Bernie and a massive political divide.

So, in the end, people are willing to "trade" a long term recessions to get a president who will do some marginal changes on tax, environment and health care (if even that), as well as have a different tone as president. I guess I just don't see that much changing either way - esp enough to justify that kind of pain.

Right. And some of the latest comments show why a lot of People of Color simply don't trust white people right now. Because we get told, oh it's just some racist rhetoric, nothing too bad, with a President that is systemically targeting black and brown people with rhetoric that has incited racist activity and targeted executive action (Stephen Miller is White Supremacist and is Senior Advisor to the President - an ally of his just got tagged to be the top attorney at DHS). But it's not a big deal because it doesn't affect their 401(k) amounts. Feels as if our humanity doesn't matter vis-a-vis profits. Makes me feel like Jeremiah Wright was correct in his "Confusing God and Government" sermon, tbh.

This government kidnapped thousands of children, separated them from their parents, and kept such poor records that many of them can't ever be reunited.

If this was the only objectionable thing Trump had done, it would be enough to vote him out of office.

If we're accepting the fact that recessions are going to happen regardless of anything else then hoping for one 6-12 months early isn't very objectionable IMO. If the choice is no recession ever or maybe holding one off for a few years I get it. The problem, in this scenario, is that the market is trending toward a recession sometime within the next year. Everyone knows that so saying hey let's get it out of the way now and get Trump out of office isn't as bad as saying the same 3 years ago.

But as you say, we could both sides this all day. I personally find putting your retirement and the stock market above human life disgusting and we see that in the right in defense of Trump quite often.

One of the key differences between the left and right seems to be the difference is whether or not and when society should step in to help those that need help.

George W Bush lied to start a disastrous war in Iraq that led to the deaths of millions. Not to mention the thousands of American soldiers and countless ore who were irreparably maimed.

Obama didn't prosecute a single banker, handed them bailout after bailout, and then ran corrupt programs that allowed those criminals to commit even more crimes. He locked up a record number of whistleblowers.

Clinton signed the disastrous crime bill and bombed innocent people to distract from himself committing perjury. He also helped repeal Glass-Steagall which was arguably the biggest contributor to the financial collapse a decade later.

HW pardoned a bunch of felons who committed treason not only because they were friends, but also to protect his own self legally.

Trump is all those things you've said. He will have a list of bad things just like these other Presidents. I just don't see how anything he has done can come close to what W did.

Well said, Rainmaker.

With social media, I think we have lost a lot of perspective with politics (and we didn't have much to start with). I expect every election from here on down the line to be comparable to "life or death" for each side as they rile each other into a frenzy of how awful the other side is. It's really unfortunate as I fear this kills any substantial political discussion each side can ever have with each other. It's basically "we are the rebel alliance and the opponent is the Empire trying to elect Darth Vader."

It isn't just Trump for me. This GOP has made it remarkably clear through actions, statements, and documentation that they see power as more important than democracy. Plenty of those in power are trying to make an apartheid state.

It's not just Trump, but it is an order of magnitude different than the past.

Is it though? The Southern Strategy was over 50 years ago.

I guess my point is that Trump isn't some aberration in the Republican Party. This has been the GOP since the 60's. Trump just says the quiet parts out loud which makes him unique.

You could make a case that Trump is actually campaigning on the basis “we are the Empire and the opponent is the Rebel Alliance trying to destroy everything” but I agree with the general point :)

I think there's been a slope to fall to this point, but from gerrymandering to voter suppression to court seats to foreign collusion to using the DoJ as a personal law firm, etc., things are qualitatively different.

Plenty of GOP members have said what's driving this, they're afraid the country is changing and that they can't win fair elections anymore. They are becoming more and more a party opposed to democracy.

Edward's hypothetical was pointless imo, that's why I didn't answer it. Given the absolute that it puts out there - Trump 100% wins without a recession, a dem wins 100% with, the "wishing for recession" answers are much softer and contain far less malice than I believe you're assigning to them.

And the pivot is to a party that actively works against perhaps its most popular candidate to keep him from being nominated. Basically we're not a democracy wherever we go.

"Its" is an important word there.

Bernie is getting under 30% right now. If he clears 40% he'll get the nomination. If he doesn't he won't. Just like in 2016, stop complaining and go win.

Democrats don't know how to win. And part of that is because they put their thumbs on the scale instead of just letting members of their party choose a nominee.

Bernie supporters on the left can be nearly as bad as trump supporters on the right. They are willing to buy in and support whatever conspiracy makes them feel the most aggrieved and throw a massive temper tantrum when they don't get their way.

Yup.

I'm sure there's good people on both sides.

As a former frontrunner would say, Mularkey!

Bernie isn't a Democrat. Not only that, he has spent years shitting all over the party and, more importantly, the people working for the party. He doesn't campaign for a lot of Democrats. He doesn't fundraise for the party or many candidates. Then, when he runs for the presidency, he and his supporters expect some perfect neutrality that hasn't ever existed. People have relationships, they have preferences, and there have always been favorites. Bernie's failing is that he hasn't the time nor interest in building the relationships necessary to get things done. He's had the same failing as a senator.

But even with that, what has the DNC done to stop Bernie? Sure people don't like him, but the DNC rewrote a lot of rules for this cycle specifically to please Bernie and his supporters. Four years ago, somehow the rigged DNC still let Bernie win primaries and caucuses. So far this cycle the rigged DNC has let Bernie win the vote count for both contests. If they're working against Bernie they sure are doing a poor job.

Should We Worry about the Trillion-Dollar Deficit? | Yale Insights

Article about how running up the deficit in during a strong economy with low unemployment is not such a great idea.

Trump suggesting today that he'll remove restrictions on NY state driver's licenses if Cuomo agrees to stop lawsuits looking into Trump Org.

Senator Collins must be concerned about that.

White House is running out of "best people" apparently-Hope Hicks, Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer are being hired for new jobs in the White House

IDK, but there are definitely douchebags on both sides.
The sad thing is that the Bernie Bros really do a disservice to Bernie. He is actually pretty congenial to his opponents. Bernie also has many times accepted the "better". He voted for the ACA and other Democratic measures that might not have lived up to his vision, but was better than status=quo. He also doesn't openly spread the bullcrap conspiracy theories, whereas Trump plays along with his supporters.


Sanders weakness is that he is a socialist. There are people that might have voted against Trump that will never ever ever vote for a socialist. The assertion that he will bring in "new voters" to make up for those losses is at best a theory. I think the same (but opposite affect) of Bloomberg. Bloomberg will pull even deeper from the center-right than any other Democratic candidate, but he is going to drive the far left to vote third party, or just stay home.

Soooo more Quid Pro Quo you say?

Nah, he didn't explicitly say the words Quid Pro Quo.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/art...-emails-tweets

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Foiled by those pesky technicalities again!!

I don't really want to get sucked into this thread, I'll just say that probably about 90% of my friends are Bernie supporters (I have only ever seen 1 other positive post about a different candidate this cycle, and that was a selfie with Warren), and I really don't know what you're talking about here. I wouldn't know the term "Bernie Bros" except for FOFC, and I really don't know what it is all about. What events are you referring to?

Well the party sucks as evident by the fact they always get their ass kicked and can't accomplish anything when they do luck into power. So what should he be praising them for? Giving Wall Street everything they want? Continuing on endless unpopular wars? Being the Republican's bitch? Losing on every issue?


You can read actual e-mails from DNC leaders describing how they want to stop Bernie. Calling on shady schemes to halt his popularity. They used DNC funds to run her campaign against Bernie.

My belief is the DNC should be neutral and let the best candidate win. They shouldn't be working behind the scenes to screw anyone. They shouldn't be run by one candidate in what is supposed to be a democratic primary. Whether that be Pete, Biden, Sanders, etc. Republicans for all their faults actually let their base call the shots. A handful of rich Democrats want to call the shots for the base. Guess which one always seems to win?

The weakness is that he's labeled a socialist. Politicians are more than happy to provide welfare to farmers, auto manufacturers, steel makers, banks, investment firms, and on and on.

Face it, this country is a bastardized version of socialism where taxpayers take on all the downside and a few individuals reap the benefits.

The GOP was working very hard to stop Trump up until it became clear he was going to win regardless of what they wanted.

Ted Cruz wasn't controlling the RNC coffers. Trump didn't have to compete with an avalanche of superdelegates tilting the race toward a single candidate.

And I'm not a Bernie bros or whatever. I just want an opposition party in this country. For some reason Democrats just love to lose. They're a bad sports franchise that always ends up losing and instead of firing the people who made it happen, they promote them.

How that party didn't purge every dumbass Clinton surrogate after 2016 is beyond me. She lost to a fucking game show host.

That's pretty close to how I feel. The Democrats have been playing compromise-to-lose for my entire lifetime, acting as the Washington Generals to the GOP's Globetrotters, and the relative stink of Trump has made it easy to ignore their faults for the last 3 years. I have managed to at least take some solace from the predictions that Biden, an actual living relic of the third way, won't end up as the nominee.

For about the one millioneth time, the super delegates didn't matter. Clinton was ahead before the super delegates. The only way Bernie could have won was with the super delegates.

Superdelegates gave impression Clinton had an insurmountable lead. It painted her as the leader at all times.

Image matters in elections. It's why winning an extra delegate or two in a tiny caucus like Iowa matters. It allows your campaign to build momentum and garner popular support. Looking up the results of a primary and seeing a side has an enormous lead out of the gate due to superdelegates isn't going to help the people who are behind. It crushes the idea that it is a democratic process (which is really isn't).

But keep supporting how the DNC operates. They'll continue to get their asses kicked over and over again. But at least we'll all get to see Nancy tearing up a piece of paper or clapping or whatever it is that gets her a 24 hour news cycle that means shit.

You reminded me of an old favorite



And sometimes I get the feeling you just like to complain without offering any useful suggestions.

Trump's now admitting that he sent Rudy to Ukraine.

The presidential election hasn't been the problem. They've gotten the most votes in five of the last six elections, and the DNC really doesn't have much say in the general election. The problem for the DNC has been too much attention to the presidential election and too little to everything else.

I think the idea that Bernie would have gotten more votes if more people thought he wasn't losing by as much is dubious. Further, my recollection is that the super delegates were talked about a lot and the general argument was that if Bernie got the most delegates he should win.

Politics is a tough game. It was unfair for Bill Clinton. It was unfair for Obama. In the general it was unfair for Hillary. Nobody cares. Win.

Specific to Bernie Bro, here's a Feb 2016 article.

Bernie Bros, explained - Vox

Well, for starters, their failure to support the party candidate cost the party the election. Instead, they all threw up their hands and sat out, or swapped to idiocracy man.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-election/


Now, they believe that, because their man isn't dominating and winning by big numbers that the party is out to get him again. They refuse to take any other stance except that Bernie is the only candidate they want, they refuse to play with anyone else, and if you stand in their way, they will claim you cheated, and that he would have won fair and square. The fact is, that the party needs voters and candidates like this, but they need them as part of the larger structure and base, not as some kind of negotiation with a gun to your head mentality, our way or else, that they currently espouse.



So in a way, like trump's "only I can solve the problems" attitude, which is complete bs.

I think the problem is the leaders of the party are the people who always lose.

It was Bernie's fault that one of the worst politicians in modern history lost yet again. This time to a game show host. As she has made clear time and again, it is never her fault.

I've heard he made her vote for the Iraq War. Forced her to vocally denounce gay marriage for decades. Also was behind that racist whisper campaign against Obama in the primary.

The Democratic Party establishment rallied behind Hillary Clinton in 2016. A candidate with almost no progressive history who had a pro-corporate voting record that took tons of money from the fossil fuel industry. She held nearly identical views on immigration as Trump.

Maybe people on the left didn't vote for her because she's not really on the left? I get the idea of picking the lesser of two evils. But I also understand why people would say fuck it and stay home. Maybe try earning someone's vote instead of acting like it's owed.

Sure it is, but the difference is that he has labeled himself a socialist. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union. He praised Castro. He is going to be by far the easiest candidate to slam in a general election, with constant comparisons to Venezuela and Cuba. Is it fair? Of course not. Will it work? Absolutely.

It doesn't matter. The GOP will be labeling any D candidate a socialist just like they've done for decades.. including Obama. It may scare some boomers but those boomers were not likely to vote D anyway.

Can't the same be said for Bernie?

If Clinton is so horrible, how bad must Bernie be if he can't beat her?

dola

Boris Johnson has canceled a trip to the WH after Trump hung up on him.

So much winning.

Trump would win 2020 in a landslide if he could act kind of normal. Unless those things are a part of his appeal. But with so many "I don't like him but who else am I going to vote for" kind of voters, the Dems seemingly on their way towards going far-left for the nomination, and Trump's relatively solid approval ratings all things considered - I think he could have swept the floor with the Dems in November if he did his thing but cut back on the insanity and crimes just a little bit. (And he still might win a electoral college landslide despite those things). It's kind of crazy where we are.

I don't know if this post is sarcastic or not.

Agreed.

There's something surreal seeing "if he just cut back on the crimes just a little bit" written down like this.

That's my point. She's a shitty candidate. She has 30 years of old, white men talking shit about her and how awful she is. She brought a ton of baggage, and she has an uppity feel to her 'fuck you' attitude that someone like Harris doesn't have.



But, more to my point and yours. People who genuinely cared about what 2016 was all about, and it wasn't the presidency, it was the Supreme Court, if those people actually pulled their heads out of their asses, and were truly pissed about the way that McConnell fucked over Obama, and the rule of law, then they should have sucked it up like big boys, grabbed some tissues, and fucking voted that way. So yeah, take your ball and stay home won the day. Great fucking choice that was.

*crickets*

This is basically, after the silence, when the conspiracy theories come out.

It is not. The whole trip has been canceled, although they still plan to meet at the G-7 this summer.

I see.

It's just that I would consider getting out of meeting Boris Johnson a win :p

Don't underestimate that to a very large block of his voters those things are the appeal. There are a lot of people who feel like they have been talked down upon from the elitists in Washington their whole lives. He speaks a language they understand, nevermind the content. It isn't about that. They excuse all the juvenile, horrible things he says by dumbing it down to "telling it like it is"

Maybe her campaign should have focused on that more. "I'm a shitty candidate who has a history or terrible votes but I'll maybe appoint a Supreme Court justice you'd like".

Again, not her fault. Never can be. Always someone else to blame for why she sucks and always loses.

Yeah I don't know if Bernie would have beaten Trump. I think the party would have united more if the primary was impartial.

The Democratic Party went all-in behind a politician who has been more or less a moderate Republican for the past 20 years. They did a bunch of shady shit behind the scenes to stifle the only progressive candidate running. Then they got made that the progressives didn't support their moderate Republican candidate.

The real issue isn't Bernie vs Hillary. It's that the Democrats sort of punted on anyone but Hillary. They should have pushed more candidate to run and seen if they could light a spark (like with Obama).

I guess my advice to Democrats is to run Democrats if you want Democrats to vote for you.

But those charges stick much harder on a guy that literally is a socialist and has a long history of praising socialist. It is going to more than scare Boomers. There are people that will vote for a Democrat, but won't vote for Bernie.

I could full on be one of these despite the fact I despise Trump with everything I have. I would really need to dig in to what Sanders is proposing. Not trying a humble brag, but wife and I make well into 6 figures and I would really need to know if his policies would have a serious effect on our take home. I am all for universal healthcare, affordable college, etc...but at some point I need to know the cost to my family and out best financial interests.

There's this weird insinuation that Hillary was a historically terrible candidate. She won almost 66 million votes and turnout was higher than average. Lots of people were excited to vote for her.

Having the second highest unfavorable rating out of all presidential candidates will do that to you.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/...or-images.aspx

Hillary ran a bad campaign as well. Ignoring the mid-west was the ballgame.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I agree with both points. I just don't want people to give the GOP the power to dictate the candidate. Sanders certainly wasn't my first choice but if the alternative is Biden then consider me a Bernie bro :)

She lost to a game show host who's brain is filled with peanut butter.

I've never met anyone that seems to live up to the description of a BernieBro despite knowing a ton of Bernie supporters....but I've never met an actual Tea Partier either. Culture implies these folks are everywhere, but I'm not sure they even exist, just like people who watch "Young Sheldon"

I do know of a BernieBro, but he seems to be one only when on Facebook. At the very least he doesn't get it that shit when he hangs out with me. We just generic dump on Trump if the conversation ever goes to politics.

And he is well away that I am (and remain) a massive Hillary Clinton supporter.

I know people in each of those three categories. So yep, they exist.

Smugglers are using rebar ladders bent at the top to hook onto the wall and climb over.

So much winning.

Avernatti found guilty on all counts in his trial of attempted extortion of Nike. Has two more federal trials coming up. I hop ehe enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame.

Steve Bannon wasn't kidding when he said he could go toe to toe with Trump.

Many innocent Afghanis will be hurt by this for sure but it's time to get out as best as possible and hope for the best. I did not read but assume the Taliban will have a role governing and that is really the only long term solution. Interesting "petri" dish experiment here, IMO odds are it'll end up similar to when the Russians left.

I wonder if a secular strongman dictator vs pseudo democracy would have been better, at least for the initial 20-30 years or so, but that comes with other issues. I really hope it turns out well, I would love to visit and tour Afghanistan.

US-Taliban talks: A prelude to all-encompassing Afghan deal? - BBC News

lol

Trump broke Daytona.

That weird insinuation is based on the simple fact of what her approval/disapproval numbers were. In modern history, only Trump's have been worse. Objectively Hillary was a historically terrible candidate. She got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012 in an election where there were more votes cast. Really I think it's pretty cut and dry on that score.


She had a huge lead a couple months out, which is easy to forget. Her campaign wasn't great with the whole basket of deplorables and similar language, but I can't fault her much for the most part. Esp. considering how unique of a challenge Trump posed. Going into the election, the consensus was Trump was delusional about winning in the Rust Belt. It went against what pretty much all the experts, including those in Trump's campaign, were saying. Everyone was taking fivethirtyeight to task in the runup for their insistence Trump had a chance, with most other pundits saying Hillary was a greater than 99% shoo-in (literally). I don't think it's fair to call being on the wrong side of a historical anomaly running a bad campaign.

Getting out is a good thing. The war was lost a long time ago. Every live lost now is unfortunately in vain. And we might as well be lighting our tax dollars on fire.

Cut a deal and get out. It's not our war.