The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

What do you think had a greater impact on the election: the person of Clinton or Obamacare?

I'm asking because I'm wondering if obama essentially doomed the next election cycles for something that is weak then poor short game. But if it was mostly about the person of Clinton then I can see thee being room for healthcare reform.

Clinton. As we're finding out, most people actually like Obamacare when it came down to it.

She was a bad candidate that didn't inspire moderate voters as much as she needed to. Still she ended up with more votes and it came down to a bit of dumb luck for her to lose.

[JPhillips]

In any other year we'd say she did well considering that the election was an attempt to have a third term for one party. We tend to overlook that and blame it all on her campaign, but it's extremely difficult for a party to win three in a row.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I agree that in the vast majority of instances no one would or should see it as a call for violence. However, we shouldn't underestimate a certain group of Trump supporters and what they're capable of. They already believe the Clintons are murdering people left and right.

Journalist who revealed Neo-Nazi creator of Trump's CNN tweet now receiving death threats

The "receiving death threats on the internet" thing is embarrassing to anyone under 40 years old (and those older with experience on the internet). It's such a cop-out to anyone who receives backlash. I'd love to see the ratio of internet threats to actual follow-through. Trillion to one maybe? Every public figure has likely received them in some form or another. Heck, everyone who has played on XBox Live has probably gotten their share.

I'm not saying it's right, just that this fake outrage we have whenever it happens is tiresome. They're expecting a generation that grew up in chatrooms and comment sections to find this appalling.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yeah, many on the left are wayyyy overreacting. Call it dumb, sophomoric, unbecoming of the office, and I'm with you. But "HE IS TRYING TO INCITE TEH VIOLENCE" sounds like the kind of crazy that could get Trump re-elected.

Exactly. This constant attempt to try and get people outraged over silly internet things has to be killing their credibility with normal people. I remember cringing at Clinton's campaign trying to explain why we all needed to take the depictions cartoon frog real serious.

And of course this stuff works as a nice distraction when healthcare, North Korea, and Russia should be the focus.

[JPhillips]

2/3 of the public thinks the Russia investigation is important, 3/4 thinks Trumpcare is a shit sandwich, and his approval ratings are below forty percent.

The midterm will be a referendum on Trump, as midterms always are, and what he's doing isn't working.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In any other year we'd say she did well considering that the election was an attempt to have a third term for one party. We tend to overlook that and blame it all on her campaign, but it's extremely difficult for a party to win three in a row.

Joe Biden would have beaten Trump easily.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Joe Biden would have beaten Trump easily.

I agree with this statement.

[JPhillips]

I'm so old I remember when people said Clinton would beat Trump easily. Maybe Biden would have, but he'd face months of attacks and the Russians would have battered him, too. Biden has a decades long history of foot in mouth disease and all of that would have come out.

Maybe he would have won, but I'm not convinced it would have been easy for anyone.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm so old I remember when people said Clinton would beat Trump easily. Maybe Biden would have, but he'd face months of attacks and the Russians would have battered him, too. Biden has a decades long history of foot in mouth disease and all of that would have come out.

Maybe he would have won, but I'm not convinced it would have been easy for anyone.

Biden would not have had near the negatives Hillary had. Yes, he has hoof and mouth disease, but with Trump, any verbal gaffe would not have been in the news cycle very long. I would have considered Biden, would not have likely voted for him, but Hillary has been a flat no go for me since the 92-93 timeframe.

EDIT: I think people underestimated the feeling that many of the non-minority blue collar voters have in the Midwest (I am including PA W of I-476 in this). They feel that they have been taken for granted by the Democrats and while Trump might not follow through with any of the campaign promises, he might. They (people I spoke to in my sales territory) had no faith in Hillary and felt she would say whatever it took for her to win. I think Biden blunts that in PA to keep it blue, and I believe he would have done it in MI enough to keep that state blue as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

2/3 of the public thinks the Russia investigation is important, 3/4 thinks Trumpcare is a shit sandwich, and his approval ratings are below forty percent.

The midterm will be a referendum on Trump, as midterms always are, and what he's doing isn't working.

Maybe focus on that instead of animated gifs on Twitter.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe focus on that instead of animated gifs on Twitter.

It's fair to say that Dems/liberals overreact to petty things like the animated gifs, but I'm not sure what kind of world you're living in where the Dems aren't focused on Russia and Trumpcare.

[Radii]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politi...eet/index.html

Speaking of overreacting. CNN hunted down the random guy on reddit who made the trump/CNN meme? And demanded an apology? And are "graciously" witholding the guy's name... for now:

"CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

are you fucking serious? Just stop, CNN... please.

[Edward64]

Agree. It wasn't as if that guy gave the gif to Trump or okayed it ahead of time.

If that was the case, I think it is fair play to expose who he was in a short blurb.

[JediKooter]

Zero sympathy for him, he's a racist, altright/nazi wannabe.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm so old I remember when people said Clinton would beat Trump easily. Maybe Biden would have, but he'd face months of attacks and the Russians would have battered him, too. Biden has a decades long history of foot in mouth disease and all of that would have come out.

Maybe he would have won, but I'm not convinced it would have been easy for anyone.

He had one big problem- being Obama's VP-Trump would have used his hatred of anything Obama and the "swamp" against Biden. Maybe he would have done better than Clinton, but not convinced he could have won. Seemed to be the Presidency for the extremes-so Sanders perhaps?

[digamma]

Biden's one big problem was that he couldn't beat Clinton in the primary.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Radii

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politi...eet/index.html

Speaking of overreacting. CNN hunted down the random guy on reddit who made the trump/CNN meme? And demanded an apology? And are "graciously" witholding the guy's name... for now:

"CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

are you fucking serious? Just stop, CNN... please.

I understand why CNN put out the statement the way they did. It was a legal insert in case they did change their position, they wanted to be covered. But yeah, damn if it doesn't come across really poorly.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by digamma

Biden's one big problem was that he couldn't beat Clinton in the primary.

You can't win if you don't get in. That said, the DNC had a stacked deck for Clinton this election.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

He had one big problem- being Obama's VP-Trump would have used his hatred of anything Obama and the "swamp" against Biden. Maybe he would have done better than Clinton, but not convinced he could have won. Seemed to be the Presidency for the extremes-so Sanders perhaps?

Obama was pretty popular when he left office. I think that would have helped him more than hurt him.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Biden has a decades long history of foot in mouth disease and all of that would have come out.

I'm at a point where I think the only people who care about the "foot in mouth" stuff is the media. If there is one thing we learned from the past election is that the big headline on Politico every morning has almost no sway on voters.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politi...eet/index.html

Speaking of overreacting. CNN hunted down the random guy on reddit who made the trump/CNN meme? And demanded an apology? And are "graciously" witholding the guy's name... for now:

"CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

are you fucking serious? Just stop, CNN... please.

That's pretty amazing. A news organization is going to follow this guy around to make sure he behaves himself on social media, and doesn't criticize CNN anymore, and punish him if he doesn't comply.

Geez, maybe Trump is right about CNN.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I think (like the above posts indicate) that it is more a legal-ese statement that came across extremely poorly.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by molson

That's pretty amazing. A news organization is going to follow this guy around to make sure he behaves himself on social media, and doesn't criticize CNN anymore, and punish him if he doesn't comply.

Geez, maybe Trump is right about CNN.

I just hope this isn't some 15 year old kid that was trying to be funny...

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Biden would not have had near the negatives Hillary had. Yes, he has hoof and mouth disease, but with Trump, any verbal gaffe would not have been in the news cycle very long. I would have considered Biden, would not have likely voted for him, but Hillary has been a flat no go for me since the 92-93 timeframe.

EDIT: I think people underestimated the feeling that many of the non-minority blue collar voters have in the Midwest (I am including PA W of I-476 in this). They feel that they have been taken for granted by the Democrats and while Trump might not follow through with any of the campaign promises, he might. They (people I spoke to in my sales territory) had no faith in Hillary and felt she would say whatever it took for her to win. I think Biden blunts that in PA to keep it blue, and I believe he would have done it in MI enough to keep that state blue as well.

Yeah I completely agree with this, Biden would have made the election a laugher. PA, MI, OH would have been solidly blue and from there it wouldn't really matter what else happened.

Clinton was an awful candidate uniquely poorly suited to this election cycle who then ran a terrible campaign and topped it all off by insulting and completely ignoring a critical cross section of American voters. Biden is massively popular in exactly those places that lost the election for Hilary and the places where he's less popular are places that were never going to vote for Trump anyway.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Obama was pretty popular when he left office. I think that would have helped him more than hurt him.



I'm at a point where I think the only people who care about the "foot in mouth" stuff is the media. If there is one thing we learned from the past election is that the big headline on Politico every morning has almost no sway on voters.

I understand the concern with Biden's gaffes. He has had some pretty big ones over the years. I am not sure if it is wisdom with age, but he seems to have cut down on them significantly once he became VP.

[ISiddiqui]

This confidence in Biden is quite interesting. Let us consider that the last two times he ran for President he barely could get 1% in the primaries and had to bow out ridiculously early.

[bhlloy]

One of which was in 1988 and the other was before he'd been a pretty damn popular VP for 8 years?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I think (like the above posts indicate) that it is more a legal-ese statement that came across extremely poorly.

Probably right. They glossed over the reddit user's post history in one sentence

"Now the user is apologizing, writing in a lengthy post on Reddit that he does not advocate violence against the press and expressing remorse there and in an interview with CNN for other posts he made that were racist and anti-Semitic."


The main story about this on Reddit that hit the front page was full of people reading it the same way as me, as a huge mistake by CNN. But there are some other discussions I was reading this morning that are talking more about that post history, which, sure, has been deleted, but its the internet, his post history is certainly still viewable.

Here's one of this user's other comments:

"America is generally a safe place to travel, however precautions are needed when entering areas populated by black people. We advise not going to any city where there is predominately a black population, and if you have to travel to those cities carry a gun aka n***** repellent"


There was a great 538 article awhile back doing some analysis on the posting habits of posters to "the_donald", showing that racist and anti-semitic subreddits were the primary subreddits that posters to t_d had in common.


The point of all of this is that it seems like CNN missed a great opportunity to shine a giant light onto what is a not insignificant portion of Trump's most loyal supporters and onto the horrible collective that is "the_donald", and instead, seriously looks like the bad guy.

[molson]

It's just so ridiculous - both that the president would get so excited about a silly internet meme and that CNN would be so offended by it to the extent of actually tracking down the creator and threatening him. This is the new normal.

[JPhillips]

Why is someone connected to the WH or the Trump campaign spending time surfing in these cesspools?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

One of which was in 1988 and the other was before he'd been a pretty damn popular VP for 8 years?

The 1988 run was derailed by plagiarism IIRC, back when we actually cared about that sort of thing.

[AENeuman]

So it seems all here think it was Clinton and not Obama care. If so, I'm wondering how disastrous it would be if the republicans worked with dems on significantly fixing ACA? More or less than not having anything?
NPR was saying for compromise to happen republicans need to give up repeal and dems need to admit it is broken.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So it seems all here think it was Clinton and not Obama care. If so, I'm wondering how disastrous it would be if the republicans worked with dems on significantly fixing ACA? More or less than not having anything?
NPR was saying for compromise to happen republicans need to give up repeal and dems need to admit it is broken.

If the (R) give up repeal then they might as well punt on getting elected, the turnout won't be there again as they'll have proven themselves rather pointless.

[JPhillips]

The problem is that the Dems want to expand healthcare access with increased government funding and the Reps want to cut taxes with decreased healthcare funding.

I'm not sure how you can work together when the priorities are so contradictory.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If the (R) give up repeal then they might as well punt on getting elected, the turnout won't be there again as they'll have proven themselves rather pointless.

+1, and the fact that they have shown repeatedly, they are not all in on reducing spending themselves, what would be the point to the party anymore?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem is that the Dems want to expand healthcare access with increased government funding and the Reps want to cut taxes with decreased healthcare funding.

I'm not sure how you can work together when the priorities are so contradictory.

I don't get to +1 you all that often, but this this, 100k X THIS.

The analogy I've used more than once is that if two people have one car between 'em but one wants to go to Los Angeles and the other wants to go to New York, either somebody isn't ending up where they want to be or they need separate cars.

[albionmoonlight]

Trump posts a wrestling GIF created by a reddit racist.

CNN Execs: "Yeah, but how can we make sure that WE end up looking stupid here?"

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

+1, and the fact that they have shown repeatedly, they are not all in on reducing spending themselves, what would be the point to the party anymore?

I felt that way about the current party structure 10 years ago. Still haven't found an answer.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

+1, and the fact that they have shown repeatedly, they are not all in on reducing spending themselves, what would be the point to the party anymore?

Subsidizing millionaires/billionaires. There's a sizable enough audience for white nationalism as well.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So it seems all here think it was Clinton and not Obama care.

ObamaCare is popular NOW, that people finally realize what was a part of it, but let's not think it was popular before the election.

[CU Tiger]

It was written in 1973 and I think it's truer now than ever.
And, to be abundantly clear, I am talking about BOTH sides of the aisle.

'Cause there's things goin' on that you don't know

Too many lives they've spent across the ocean
Too much money been spent upon the moon
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon

Well, they're goin ruin the air we breathe
Lord have mercy
They're gonna ruin us all, by and by
I'm telling all you beware
I don't think they really care
I think they just sit up there
And just get high

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem is that the Dems want to expand healthcare access with increased government funding and the Reps want to cut taxes with decreased healthcare funding.

I'm not sure how you can work together when the priorities are so contradictory.

Are you saying philosophically or specifically on ACA? It's hard for me to see it as a philosophical stance with things like the Prescription Drug Act. Or another way, it seems like they merely want to decrease federal funding.

I'm still trying to reconcile how this whole thing isn't just about 10-15 million working age adults who want health insurance, but can't get it or afford it. All rest: drug price regulation, prevention, malpractice, over testing and prescribing are not mentioned.

[Atocep]

I'd also add that both parties don't want the other to be the one that "fixes" healthcare.

The effectiveness of the ACA was neutered before passing and I'd expect that for any Healthcare plan that comes through our political process.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by nol

Subsidizing millionaires/billionaires.

This goes for both parties. It's not like the Democrats are saints.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This goes for both parties. It's not like the Democrats are saints.

Oh yeah, gotta hear both sides. No room for nuance or thinking about which side does it more often to an even greater extreme.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by nol

Oh yeah, gotta hear both sides. No room for nuance or thinking about which side does it more often to an even greater extreme.

So one party is all about lining donor's pockets while the other does no such thing?

Heck, the reason why Johnson wanted the Great Society passed was so the poor would be sucking at the teat of the government. With the power he would wield he could help out his cronies. How is that any different.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Heck, the reason why Johnson wanted the Great Society passed was so the poor would be sucking at the teat of the government. With the power he would wield he could help out his cronies. How is that any different.

Wait... WTF is this nonsense?

This sort of BS just pushes me to more to nol's side.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Are you saying philosophically or specifically on ACA? It's hard for me to see it as a philosophical stance with things like the Prescription Drug Act. Or another way, it seems like they merely want to decrease federal funding.

I'm still trying to reconcile how this whole thing isn't just about 10-15 million working age adults who want health insurance, but can't get it or afford it. All rest: drug price regulation, prevention, malpractice, over testing and prescribing are not mentioned.

I'm specifically talking about the current healthcare bills, but the basic fundamental has held pretty constant since the 1960s. One of the fundamental tenets of the GOP is now the belief that the government shouldn't help for insurance for the "undeserving." Now, I'll grant the definition of that term gets complicated for the base, but for the money running the party it covers a lot of people.

[JPhillips]

Dems are asking people to vote on a new sticker and I'm not sure anyone in history has been as bad at this. pic.twitter.com/isYaZV60Dp

— Mazel Tov Cocktail (@AdamSerwer) July 5, 2017

How about: No ideas, but give us money!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If the (R) give up repeal then they might as well punt on getting elected, the turnout won't be there again as they'll have proven themselves rather pointless.

Depends on where the Republican is located. Obamacare is popular in Nevada for instance. If the Senator votes to repeal it and kick a bunch of his constituents off health insurance, he's probably going to lose his Senate seat.

The problem Republicans have is that once you repeal it, you own the new system. Health care is such a gigantic minefield that as a party, you're almost better off being on the side that didn't implement the current policy. I think deep down there are some Democrats who secretly hope Obamacare does get repealed because they'll be able to point the finger in 2018 and 2020 when people lose their health insurance and premiums are still skyrocketing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Obamacare is popular in Nevada for instance.

The popularity of something-for-nothing is so broad at this point, it probably doesn't matter who ends up in office anyway. We're already sunk as a nation, it's just about rate of descent now.

[dave731]

Another good thing coming out of the Trump presidency....Tomi Lahren will debate Chelsea Handler in what will likely rival Lincoln vs. Douglas in entertainment.