Will the Democrats nominate a George McGovern or a Bill Clinton in 2020?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's part of the brilliance of Hillary's strategy. She was the best candidate her party ever put forward because she knew calling people "deplorable", "racist" and "low information" was the perfect way to make them like her.

Yeah - honesty is nothing but dangerous to a political career. The way to go is to lie and contradict oneself, as the pandering orange hypocrite has proven.

Oh wow. That's "honesty". No wonder she is the president elect.


Wait, did you just say that Hillary is honest? Since when?

 

[LordKiran]

That's part of the brilliance of Hillary's strategy. She was the best candidate her party ever put forward because she knew calling people "deplorable", "racist" and "low information" was the perfect way to make them like her.

Yeah - honesty is nothing but dangerous to a political career. The way to go is to lie and contradict oneself, as the pandering orange hypocrite has proven.

The reason pandering works where condecension does not is because the election is supposed to be about acknowledging the concerns of the electorate. Hillary failed to do this in any meaningful way.

Though Trump is a pandering demagogue, the reason he won is because he spoke to voters in real terms, offering solutions to their problems that they can connect with "We will build a WALL!"

What is hillary's idea of connecting with the voters and addressing their concerns? "We will invest in the American workforce and put America back to work while making wall street pay their fair share!"

The ultimate irony here is that Hillary is the one who appears more vague and nebulous to the voting public because she largely failed to speak to voters in real terms, instead relying on that tired, placid political speech of vague promises.

I'm not saying that Trump didn't also engage in this sort of vague promise making, or that the direct solutions he does offer are the right way forward, only that as far as a struggling middle class family in PA is concerned "We will put up tariffs and build a wall" sounds a lot better than "I have the experience for the job and the alternative is voting for that guy"

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is there a way to discuss Hillary's shortcomings or the Democratic Party's shortcomings without bothering to discuss the irrelevant issue of Trump?

If the Democrats can't shape up, then they will give us more Trumps in the future. They need to improve. They'll never get around to doing it if every thread about "what can the Democrats do better, how can they improve?" turns into another "Trump sucks" thread.

 

[Elixir]

Is there a way to discuss Hillary's shortcomings or the Democratic Party's shortcomings without bothering to discuss the irrelevant issue of Trump?

If the Democrats can't shape up, then they will give us more Trumps in the future. They need to improve. They'll never get around to doing it if every thread about "what can the Democrats do better, how can they improve?" turns into another "Trump sucks" thread.

I agree. Dems, as embodied in HRC, live in a bubble. If they can't burst it, the nation is indeed doomed to repeat the debacle of 2016.
For me, the problem is that I see no way that the individuals comprising the Democrat establishment are ever going to give up their perch.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah - honesty is nothing but dangerous to a political career. The way to go is to lie and contradict oneself, as the pandering orange hypocrite has proven.

Oh wow. That's "honesty". No wonder she is the president elect.


Wait, did you just say that Hillary is honest? Since when?

Do you doubt that she was expressing an honest opinion when she called people "deplorable", "racist" and "low information"?

 

[skepticalbip]

Yeah - honesty is nothing but dangerous to a political career. The way to go is to lie and contradict oneself, as the pandering orange hypocrite has proven.

The reason pandering works where condecension does not is because the election is supposed to be about acknowledging the concerns of the electorate. Hillary failed to do this in any meaningful way.

Though Trump is a pandering demagogue, the reason he won is because he spoke to voters in real terms, offering solutions to their problems that they can connect with "We will build a WALL!"

What is hillary's idea of connecting with the voters and addressing their concerns? "We will invest in the American workforce and put America back to work while making wall street pay their fair share!"

The ultimate irony here is that Hillary is the one who appears more vague and nebulous to the voting public because she largely failed to speak to voters in real terms, instead relying on that tired, placid political speech of vague promises.

I'm not saying that Trump didn't also engage in this sort of vague promise making, or that the direct solutions he does offer are the right way forward, only that as far as a struggling middle class family in PA is concerned "We will put up tariffs and build a wall" sounds a lot better than "I have the experience for the job and the alternative is voting for that guy"

The media didn't really cover it but Trump actually had a fairly long string of very specific plans. Agree with them or not, they were presented in clear language and his supporters heard them, the alt-right carried his speeches even if the media and Clinton supporters didn't. If you have any interest in what he actually said then do a youtube google search for Trump's first 100 days. (ETA: here's one link to that speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_WTG3FozGs The innumerated specific points are in the latter half of the talk. The first 16 minutes is a typical political talk.)

The only specific plans that I recall Hillary stating was to shut down coal mining and put coal miners out of business (good bye West Virginia and Pennsylvania) and to work to abolish "right to work" laws - a powerful appeal to union workers (11.3% of the workforce) but not so much an appeal for non-union workers (88.7%).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The reason pandering works where condecension does not is because the election is supposed to be about acknowledging the concerns of the electorate. Hillary failed to do this in any meaningful way.

Though Trump is a pandering demagogue, the reason he won is because he spoke to voters in real terms, offering solutions to their problems that they can connect with "We will build a WALL!"

What is hillary's idea of connecting with the voters and addressing their concerns? "We will invest in the American workforce and put America back to work while making wall street pay their fair share!"

The ultimate irony here is that Hillary is the one who appears more vague and nebulous to the voting public because she largely failed to speak to voters in real terms, instead relying on that tired, placid political speech of vague promises.

I'm not saying that Trump didn't also engage in this sort of vague promise making, or that the direct solutions he does offer are the right way forward, only that as far as a struggling middle class family in PA is concerned "We will put up tariffs and build a wall" sounds a lot better than "I have the experience for the job and the alternative is voting for that guy"

The media didn't really cover it but Trump actually had a fairly long string of very specific plans. Agree with them or not, they were presented in clear language and his supporters heard them, the alt-right carried his speeches even if the media and Clinton supporters didn't. If you have any interest in what he actually said then do a youtube google search for Trump's first 100 days. (ETA: here's one link to that speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_WTG3FozGs The innumerated specific points are in the latter half of the talk. The first 16 minutes is a typical political talk.)

The only specific plans that I recall Hillary stating was to shut down coal mining and put coal miners out of business (good bye West Virginia and Pennsylvania) and to work to abolish "right to work" laws - a powerful appeal to union workers (11.3% of the workforce) but not so much an appeal for non-union workers (88.7%).

Actually a lot of people who aren't in a union and don't want to be in a union aren't happy with right to work.

 

[skepticalbip]

Actually a lot of people who aren't in a union and don't want to be in a union aren't happy with right to work.

That is true but it is also true that there are a lot of people who are in unions only because their state allows closed shops who resent that they have no choice.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yeah - honesty is nothing but dangerous to a political career. The way to go is to lie and contradict oneself, as the pandering orange hypocrite has proven.

Oh wow. That's "honesty". No wonder she is the president elect.


Wait, did you just say that Hillary is honest? Since when?

Please. Let's stop with the bullshit. According to the non political "factchecker" website, HRC lied 30% of the time. Trump lied 69% of the time. Your boy is double the liar.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh wow. That's "honesty". No wonder she is the president elect.


Wait, did you just say that Hillary is honest? Since when?

Do you doubt that she was expressing an honest opinion when she called people "deplorable", "racist" and "low information"?

Actually, I think you've got a point there. This may be one of the few times she was completely honest - showing utter contempt for the public at large. When she lies, it is obvious that she has contempt for the public by just how blatant and transparent the lies are. And when she tells the truth she tells us she has contempt for the public.

Oh wow. That's "honesty". No wonder she is the president elect.


Wait, did you just say that Hillary is honest? Since when?

Please. Let's stop with the bullshit. According to the non political "factchecker" website, HRC lied 30% of the time. Trump lied 69% of the time. Your boy is double the liar.

My boy? I think you need to double check factchecker.

He's much more yours than mine. Do you think a third party vote is a wasted vote? The answer to that question is evidence for my statement.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh wow. That's "honesty". No wonder she is the president elect.


Wait, did you just say that Hillary is honest? Since when?

Please. Let's stop with the bullshit. According to the non political "factchecker" website, HRC lied 30% of the time. Trump lied 69% of the time. Your boy is double the liar.

To be fair, Trump is also an idiot, so it's quite possible that he believed the he bullshit coming out of his mouth more often than not.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Do you doubt that she was expressing an honest opinion when she called people "deplorable", "racist" and "low information"?

Actually, I think you've got a point there. This may be one of the few times she was completely honest - showing utter contempt for the public at large. When she lies, it is obvious that she has contempt for the public by just how blatant and transparent the lies are. And when she tells the truth she tells us she has contempt for the public.

Oh wow. That's "honesty". No wonder she is the president elect.


Wait, did you just say that Hillary is honest? Since when?

Please. Let's stop with the bullshit. According to the non political "factchecker" website, HRC lied 30% of the time. Trump lied 69% of the time. Your boy is double the liar.

My boy? I think you need to double check factchecker.

He's much more yours than mine. Do you think a third party vote is a wasted vote? The answer to that question is evidence for my statement.

Yea, I'd agree that me calling Trump your boy is a low blow. But would you agree that you hated HRC far more than Trump? You didn't vote for Trump, but it seemed liked you supported him more than Clinton. Please Correct me if I'm wrong....

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Far longer, not far more.

There is one and only one thing I like about Trump, and I'm prepared to be disappointed in him. It was the one thing I liked about Obama, and I was disappointed in him.

I'm not a hawk. I want to pull all our troops out from around the world.

Actually two things. I see this country as going to hell in the next 4 years no matter who won. That includes the 3rd party candidates. The trends laid down by Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen are bearing ugly fruit and it will be a long, drawn out fix.

Under Hillary the road to hell would be self-righteous. Under Trump it will be entertaining.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Far longer, not far more.

There is one and only one thing I like about Trump, and I'm prepared to be disappointed in him. It was the one thing I liked about Obama, and I was disappointed in him.

I'm not a hawk. I want to pull all our troops out from around the world.

Actually two things. I see this country as going to hell in the next 4 years no matter who won. That includes the 3rd party candidates. The trends laid down by Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen are bearing ugly fruit and it will be a long, drawn out fix.

Under Hillary the road to hell would be self-righteous. Under Trump it will be entertaining.

Yea, I've never understood the people who think that Trump will be less militaristic than Obama or HRC. He's already appointed Bolton. Bolton wants us to invade Iran and Cuba. It's going to be a wild ride....

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The only reason I thought he might be less hawkish than Hillary is because it is impossible to be more. He can be equal or less, those are the only options.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The only reason I thought he might be less hawkish than Hillary is because it is impossible to be more. He can be equal or less, those are the only options.

You think having a few advisers on the ground in Iraq is equal to US invasion of Iran or Iraq???

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The only reason I thought he might be less hawkish than Hillary is because it is impossible to be more. He can be equal or less, those are the only options.

You think having a few advisers on the ground in Iraq is equal to US invasion of Iran or Iraq???

No. You think that is the whole of her foreign policy objectives?

 

[Harry Bosch]

You think having a few advisers on the ground in Iraq is equal to US invasion of Iran or Iraq???

No. You think that is the whole of her foreign policy objectives?

I just prefer the dems general strategy. Republicans prefer a do it ourselves style. They want Americans to do all the fighting and all the occupying. Trump has added to this by advocating that we take the spoils as well. I prefer the dems approach better: invade with allies, keep light force, withdraw and create incentive for locals to do the occupying and fighting. I think that the dems strategy is far better in the long run.

Having said that, I believe that we should completely withdraw from the ME. I think that the Kurds deserve some protection. But outside of that...

 

[laughing dog]

The only reason I thought he might be less hawkish than Hillary is because it is impossible to be more. He can be equal or less, those are the only options.

Nonsense, John Bolton and John McCain are more hawkish than HRC.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Um, McCain and Hillary are equals. Hillary and McCain and Cheney, all one big mass of Neocon aggression.

Yes, I just called Hillary a Neocon.

Obama looked like a peace candidate because he ran against Hillary in the primary and McCain in the general. Compared to those two anyone would look like a peace candidate.