|
Glazier posted:Exactly, Obama rode in on a wave election in 2008 and as soon as he took office he was capitulating and compromising. "Oh well the Republicans won't let me shut down Guantanamo, nothing I can do." "Single payer? The GOP will attack me if I ask for that, better to implement their plan then they can't say anything bad about it." "Oh let's give the farm away on entitlements and then the GOP will have to come to the table for a grand bargain." You are a moron. What did you want him to do with Guantanamo if the countries they are from don't want them back, and congress blocks any attempts to transfer them to the mainland? Do we just open the cells and GTFO and leave the people imprisoned there stranded in Cuba? Single payer wasn't fought for because the blue dogs, who we needed 100% of them to vote yes to get the bill passed, would not have voted yes on a bill with single payer.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The general public always hates the top of house leadership. Those jobs are not about winning elections or being a public face; the job is to wrangle people into the best position you can get, endure an enormous amount of poo poo flung at you from all sides, and take it in stride so that the rest of your party can vote as a unified front. They are not figureheads. Reminder, people kept screaming about Clinton not being progressive enough despite voting with Bernie 93% of the time in the Senate. The American Left is still unable to figure out how to stop doing this constant purity test bullshit because they've decided anybody in power before now is automatically bad. Next they're going to demand we get rid of Elizabeth Warren. Wait they were already demanding that at one point for some stupid spurious reason, sometime around the NRLB formation if I remember right. NewForumSoftware posted:The democratic primary voters failed to eject the Wall Street elements of their party like the GOP primary voters did. Granted, superdelegates make it much more difficult to do so (by design I might add) but i guess that's what happens when you're as in bed with wall street as the Democrats are, which is somehow more than the GOP. Trump's nominating a Goldman Sachs banker for Secretary of the Treasury, the GOP primary voters did absolutely gently caress-all to eject Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:You are a moron. What did you want him to do with Guantanamo if the countries they are from don't want them back, and congress blocks any attempts to transfer them to the mainland? Do we just open the cells and GTFO and leave the people imprisoned there stranded in Cuba?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Stop holding people indefinitely. Don't allow "enhanced interrogation" methods. Try prisoners. Let prisoners know the charges against them, and have lawyers. If you want to prosecute terrorists, whatever, I'm not a lawyer and don't know anything about crime across national borders. But you have to actually prosecute them. Stop using it as an offshore platform for committing human rights abuses. Oh so you want TERRORISTS in our backyards? Idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Stop holding people indefinitely. Don't allow "enhanced interrogation" methods. Try prisoners. Let prisoners know the charges against them, and have lawyers. If you want to prosecute terrorists, whatever, I'm not a lawyer and don't know anything about crime across national borders. But you have to actually prosecute them. Stop using it as an offshore platform for committing human rights abuses. He literally tried to do that. He wanted to try every single remaining detainee in civilian courts stateside and assess whether or not they were even actually terrorists and the Republicans again stalled it out, whinging inside out about national security and how risky it'd be and so on and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Trump's nominating a Goldman Sachs banker for Secretary of the Treasury, the GOP primary voters did absolutely gently caress-all to eject Wall Street. I have no doubt Wall Street can and will get to Donald Trump, why wouldn't he support them? He's a multi-millionaire. But he at least said he wasn't going to, which is more than you can say for Hillary. The GOP voters didn't want an establishment candidate and they didn't get one. The Democratic voters didn't want an establishment candidate and got HRC. Not hard to see why they had trouble in the general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
DA declines to press charges in Keith Scott shooting. It turns out that the initial accounts widely circulated on social media, that he was shot at an apartment by a white officer, and that he was unarmed and reading a book, were from people who did not actually witness the shooting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:You are a moron. What did you want him to do with Guantanamo if the countries they are from don't want them back, and congress blocks any attempts to transfer them to the mainland? Do we just open the cells and GTFO and leave the people imprisoned there stranded in Cuba? You do it, that's what a Republican with a majority would do. He's the CinC not Congress, if he orders them transferred to a base stateside the GOP would be powerless to stop it. quote:Single payer wasn't fought for because the blue dogs, who we needed 100% of them to vote yes to get the bill passed, would not have voted yes on a bill with single payer. Ok, so get rid of the filibuster in the Senate and pass it on majority vote. Angry_Ed posted:He literally tried to do that. He wanted to try every single remaining detainee in civilian courts stateside and assess whether or not they were even actually terrorists and the Republicans again stalled it out, whinging inside out about national security and how risky it'd be and so on and so forth. No he didn't try, he talked about maybe doing it and when the GOP whined he backed off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The GOP voters didn't want an establishment candidate and they didn't get one. Yes they did. Trump is the establishment writ-large. A rich lying rear end in a top hat who benefits from loving over other people. What's not establishment about that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Hillary actually ran some pretty progressively economic commercials in Virginia during the primary but after she wrapped that up it was 100% "Trump is bad" which everyone already knew so I don't know what the point of that was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:But he said he'd give me my job back and get rid of those immigrants and Muslims!!!!!!!!! It's just astonishing that anyone who's dealt with unemployment or hardship in any way would believe a billionaire. They think the "Liberal Elite" (whoever the gently caress that is...) hate them? The Liberals have nothing on the rich for pure hatred of the common man. Khisanth Magus posted:You are a moron. What did you want him to do with Guantanamo if the countries they are from don't want them back, and congress blocks any attempts to transfer them to the mainland? Do we just open the cells and GTFO and leave the people imprisoned there stranded in Cuba? This is a good topic though. We should have done something. Keeping them imprisoned is insane if they can't prove them guilty, and letting them out in America is equally stupid (Republicans aren't being entirely unreasonable there. I wouldn't want someone I just tortured and imprisoned let loose in my backyard with an "oops"). Their home countries should take them regardless, unless they are in danger of being killed for going home. If not, maybe some other culturally similar nation would take them in as a humanitarian action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Democrats as a whole ran on not being Republicans in 2014. It didn't work. They didn't really have anything else to run on. The post-08 Dems organized the party very centrally with the Obama administration at its core, and the White House didn't really manage to come up with anything that downballot Dems could point to as an argument for voting for Dems. For a clearer illustration of what I mean, just look at 2010 - the Dems' productivity went way up during the lame duck session as they scrambled to rush through all the stuff they'd been punting and delaying on. They didn't really have any accomplishments to show for the previous two years other than "hey, the economy didn't completely collapse, it's just a really bad recession now" and "I know Obamacare is fairly unpopular but it's going to be totally awesome when it kicks in two years from now, you'll see", which made it real hard to articulate any positive message other than "if the Republicans win they'll repeal what little we did accomplish". And then after they lost, they rubbed salt in the base's eyes by revealing that they actually could pass legislation after all and had just been saving it for later (i.e., 2012). NewForumSoftware posted:If you don't think anti-establishment sentiment was at an all time high this entire election cycle and that it didn't have a big part to do with why Clinton lost and why Bernie would have done better... well, that's some pretty poor analysis imo. All-time high? Don't be ridiculous. It pales in comparison to 2008's anti-establishment sentiments, when people were calling for the sitting president to be prosecuted for war crimes, the Dem field was substantially thinned by the scarlet I that many longtime Dems were marked with, and people were seriously concerned that bankers might have destroyed the economy altogether. The anti-establishment sentiments now are just the pale remaining echoes of what they were back then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's just astonishing that anyone who's dealt with unemployment or hardship in any way would believe a billionaire. They think the "Liberal Elite" (whoever the gently caress that is...) hate them? The Liberals have nothing on the rich for pure hatred of the common man. Because he was the only one saying anything to them, the Clinton campaign was too busy trying to get Republicans in Georgia to vote for her. Main Paineframe posted:They didn't really have anything else to run on. The post-08 Dems organized the party very centrally with the Obama administration at its core, and the White House didn't really manage to come up with anything that downballot Dems could point to as an argument for voting for Dems. For a clearer illustration of what I mean, just look at 2010 - the Dems' productivity went way up during the lame duck session as they scrambled to rush through all the stuff they'd been punting and delaying on. They didn't really have any accomplishments to show for the previous two years other than "hey, the economy didn't completely collapse, it's just a really bad recession now" and "I know Obamacare is fairly unpopular but it's going to be totally awesome when it kicks in two years from now, you'll see", which made it real hard to articulate any positive message other than "if the Republicans win they'll repeal what little we did accomplish". And then after they lost, they rubbed salt in the base's eyes by revealing that they actually could pass legislation after all and had just been saving it for later (i.e., 2012). Exactly, with in the first 100 days there should have been a single payer bill on his desk with a 90-180 day implementation date. Gynocentric Regime fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:There were several moments during the campaign that I really liked what he had to say so I completely get his appeal. For example I outright cheered at my screen when he talked about how he buys influence with money. Yes he's a bastard but for many he's their bastard, particularly in contrast to the Democrats who deny that serious problems exist (America is already great!) and don't really stand for anything outside of winning and being slightly less terrible than Republicans (I'm with HER!). What policy though, he had like one pushed solid policy position and that was his tax plan that cut taxes for the rich. Hillary had dozens of policy proposals and spent a large amount of her rally time pushing them just the media didn't cover it because it got bad ratings. What you are saying is like literally the opposite of reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Glazier posted:No he didn't try, he talked about maybe doing it and when the GOP whined he backed off. Presidential memorandum detailing the closure of the detention facilities and moving the detainees to a prison in CONUS Senate blocks detainee transfer Obama reiterating his desire to want to try the detainees in US Civilian Courts, in 2013, despite continued congressional blocking But keep going on about he didn't try because lol nothing matters. Guess he should've just become a dictator when his Executive Order to close Gitmo didn't take. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:All-time high? Don't be ridiculous. It pales in comparison to 2008's anti-establishment sentiments, when people were calling for the sitting president to be prosecuted for war crimes, the Dem field was substantially thinned by the scarlet I that many longtime Dems were marked with, and people were seriously concerned that bankers might have destroyed the economy altogether. The anti-establishment sentiments now are just the pale remaining echoes of what they were back then. You say that and yet Donald Trump won the GOP primary and general election. "when people were calling for the sitting president to be prosecuted for war crimes" you mean the liberal media? kind of like how conservative media went off the rails once obama was elected? Regardless of how much you don't like the guy, ignoring the fact that Donald Trump not being a member of the political establishment was what gave him any sort of edge of Hillary among swing voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Presidential memorandum detailing the closure of the detention facilities and moving the detainees to a prison in CONUS Any good socialist would!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Reminder, people kept screaming about Clinton not being progressive enough despite voting with Bernie 93% of the time in the Senate. The American Left is still unable to figure out how to stop doing this constant purity test bullshit because they've decided anybody in power before now is automatically bad. Next they're going to demand we get rid of Elizabeth Warren. Wait they were already demanding that at one point for some stupid spurious reason, sometime around the NRLB formation if I remember right. If you have trouble seeing how people can question the progressive creds of the master of triangulation and someone who spent the entire primary calling Sanders unrealistic, only to immediately accept most of his platform as soon as he gave her a run for her money, I don't know what to tell you. Also yes, everyone that's been in power that worked with Bush administration and now kowtowing to literal fascism absolutely is terrible and need to be cut out of the party immediately
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Presidential memorandum detailing the closure of the detention facilities and moving the detainees to a prison in CONUS No he should have acted like the CinC and at least moved them to a base in CONUS. Then when nothing happened, making the doomsayers look stupid, start returning or prosecuting them in Federal court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:If you have trouble seeing how people can question the progressive creds of the master of triangulation and someone who spent the entire primary calling Sanders unrealistic, only to immediately accept most of his platform as soon as he gave her a run for her money, I don't know what to tell you. Good thing Bernie "Trump has an ally with me" Sanders isn't in the party then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:If you have trouble seeing how people can question the progressive creds of the master of triangulation and someone who spent the entire primary calling Sanders unrealistic, only to immediately accept most of his platform as soon as he gave her a run for her money, I don't know what to tell you. So when Trump lies to people to get votes it makes sense, but when Hilary does it it's bad, lol ok. Also I guess we can add "is a renegade Time Lord" to Hilary's resume because she traveled back in time to change her Senatorial voting record to be 93% in line with Sanders?  MariusLecter posted:Good thing Bernie "Trump has an ally with me" Sanders isn't in the party then. What a champion of progressivism.
Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The democratic primary voters failed to eject the Wall Street elements of their party like the GOP primary voters did. Granted, superdelegates make it much more difficult to do so (by design I might add) but i guess that's what happens when you're as in bed with wall street as the Democrats are, which is somehow more than the GOP. Yes, the billionaire real estate mogul from NYC is a rejection of Wall Street because he made his money by conning people through a different investment method.  HorseRenoir posted:Trump had an entire walk-in closet of skeletons and inconsistent political opinions and it didn't matter. The main takeaway from this election is that actual policies and facts don't matter, the most important thing for a candidate is charisma and personal likability. Trump has been consistently less liked by more people than Clinton, so guess again. The media giving you a platform, including CNN's inexcusable hiring of Lewandoski, did a ton to help Trump as did their Truth Is In The Middle style of reporting and their quest for ratings about all else. Dr. Killjoy posted:Well I for one am confident that now that the Republicans are at a majority and they no longer have to worry about Obama getting credit for successful legislation we'll finally see some good policy in regards to veterans and ahahahahah just kidding they'll still be PTSD riddled derelicts begging for change under bridges for years to come. Also can't wait for them to gut the VA for "underperforming". It'll be because of Obama, and that drat ACA spending money we didn't have and now Trump has to clean up his mess!  FlamingLiberal posted:For all of the problems the Dems currently have replacing Pelosi is like #300. What they really need to be doing is preparing to fight the onslaught of awful legislation and getting a new DNC chair who will put together a strategy for taking things back starting at the state level in 2018. Starting in 2017 actually, since a Federal court is making NC redraw some of their more blatantly unconstitutional districts and hold a new election for them next year. Trump's SCOTUS will probably overturn it, but they should still prepare just in case. Angry_Ed posted:He literally tried to do that. He wanted to try every single remaining detainee in civilian courts stateside and assess whether or not they were even actually terrorists and the Republicans again stalled it out, whinging inside out about national security and how risky it'd be and so on and so forth. "I'm going to pardon everyone held at Gitmo after MM/DD/YYYY if you don't allow the courts to handle them." That's require far more balls than Obama has ever had, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"I'm going to pardon everyone held at Gitmo after MM/DD/YYYY if you don't allow the courts to handle them." And where would said recently-pardoned detainees go, exactly? Or do the details ruin your perfect world scenario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Also it's worth mentioning that 2008 wasn't an anti-establishment year, it was an anti-GOP year. The Democrats were expected to completely turn around the country based on the campaign of Obama. If anything the american left had way more faith in the political system in 2008 than they did in 2016. Obama might have survived had the internet not been a thing but the reality is you simply can't play this master compromiser and make everyone happy. People are too smart to fall for that poo poo any more and they want someone who will fight for them. Basically, Campaign Obama.Evil Fluffy posted:Yes, the billionaire real estate mogul from NYC is a rejection of Wall Street because he made his money by conning people through a different investment method. Sadly enough this is the reality for the GOP primary. I certainly didn't participate but what would you say happened?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
Headline: Obama impeached for pardoning terrorists
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So when Trump lies to people to get votes it makes sense, but when Hilary does it it's bad, lol ok. No when Hillary lies people didn't believe it because she is the establishment. People were desperate for someone who was not a familiar face and had not spent the last thirty years in and around establishment politics NewForumSoftware posted:Also it's worth mentioning that 2008 wasn't an anti-establishment year, it was an anti-GOP year. The Democrats were expected to completely turn around the country based on the campaign of Obama. If anything the american left had way more faith in the political system in 2008 than they did in 2016. Obama might have survived had the internet not been a thing but the reality is you simply can't play this master compromiser and make everyone happy. People are too smart to fall for that poo poo any more and they want someone who will fight for them. Basically, Campaign Obama. Hell it's even post-campaign Obama, even in the lame duck he wants to be careful and not upset anyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:And where would said recently-pardoned detainees go, exactly? Or do the details ruin your perfect world scenario. To live with all the white working class voters who were presumably clamoring for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:And where would said recently-pardoned detainees go, exactly? Or do the details ruin your perfect world scenario. We should have just liquidated all the detainees into bologna for Lunchables.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:He literally tried to do that. He wanted to try every single remaining detainee in civilian courts stateside and assess whether or not they were even actually terrorists and the Republicans again stalled it out, whinging inside out about national security and how risky it'd be and so on and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Glazier posted:No when Hillary lies people didn't believe it because she is the establishment. People were desperate for someone who was not a familiar face and had not spent the last thirty years in and around establishment politics Honestly when I see posts like the one you quoted I realize and remember how few people actually watched the Democratic debates. But then again they were at 2am on a Saturday... That argument Hillary and Sanders had about how she's the establishment was far more instructive than we realized at the time. "I'm not establishment because I am a woman (who happened to be married to a two term president and former governor, and also I gave speeches for 100s of thousands a pop for big banks and no you can't read them)" did not really carry weight then, or in the general election. VH4Ever fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Also it's worth mentioning that 2008 wasn't an anti-establishment year, it was an anti-GOP year. The Democrats were expected to completely turn around the country based on the campaign of Obama. If anything the american left had way more faith in the political system in 2008 than they did in 2016. Obama might have survived had the internet not been a thing but the reality is you simply can't play this master compromiser and make everyone happy. People are too smart to fall for that poo poo any more and they want someone who will fight for them. Basically, Campaign Obama. If the American Left had lost faith after 2008 then all the various "Socialist" parties in the country would've banded together under a united national-level banner for 2012. However, because they didn't want to actually do anything, they instead continued their petty squabbles and doing things like PSL running Peta Lindsey for President despite not being eligible due to being too young. After all, the real pressing issue of 2012 was not economic inequality but "maybe we should have a 28 year old be eligible for President" The fact the 10+ "Socialist" parties in this country still have not united after this election further proves that the American Left is, by and large, only interested in talk, and not action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:If the American Left had lost faith after 2008 then all the various "Socialist" parties in the country would've banded together under a united national-level banner for 2012. However, because they didn't want to actually do anything, they instead continued their petty squabbles and doing things like PSL running Peta Lindsey for President despite not being eligible due to being too young. After all, the real pressing issue of 2012 was not economic inequality but "maybe we should have a 28 year old be eligible for President" I'm talking about the American left in the sense of the 50% of the country that vote D Socialism, communism, etc are basically dead political movements in this country (I should know, I'm a member of one) but that doesn't change the fact that even among party supporters, support for politicians who have a career in compromising with the other side are at an all time low
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
And I think campaigning as a compromiser is bad. It makes it look like you have no integrity and won't fight the hard fight when the chips are down. Just look at how spineless the Dems look now. I have zero faith in their desire, let alone ability, to fight for my rights as the Pubs cackle and prepare their heinous program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So when Trump lies to people to get votes it makes sense, but when Hilary does it it's bad, lol ok. I mean you might not like it but people saw straight through the bullshit stance of "we need gradual incrementalism", adopting a progressive platform, and then campaigning on literally "I'll be more of the same" as soon as she thought she had the election in the bag. I mean Obama did the same thing but it turns out you can't run the Obama playbook if you have the charisma of a jar of mayonnaise
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Also I guess we can add "is a renegade Time Lord" to Hilary's resume because she traveled back in time to change her Senatorial voting record to be 93% in line with Sanders? If that's what happened, she was successful because in the two years they were in the senate together, she really did vote with Bernie 93% of the time. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/06/the-rare-times-that-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-disagreed-in-the-senate/ http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/03/30/31-senate-bills-hillary-bernie-voted-differently/
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Glazier posted:No when Hillary lies people didn't believe it because she is the establishment. People were desperate for someone who was not a familiar face and had not spent the last thirty years in and around establishment politics No instead they just wanted someone who was a reality show TV celebrity who had benefitted greatly from the Establishment and yet somehow is not it just because he never held office. And also occupy any and all positions about any and all topics. But you know, JOBS EMAILS BENGHAZI MUSLIMS MEXICANS WALLS. Eimi posted:And I think campaigning as a compromiser is bad. It makes it look like you have no integrity and won't fight the hard fight when the chips are down. Just look at how spineless the Dems look now. I have zero faith in their desire, let alone ability, to fight for my rights as the Pubs cackle and prepare their heinous program. As opposed to Trump literally changing his mind mid-sentence? Business Gorillas posted:I mean you might not like it but people saw straight through the bullshit stance of "we need gradual incrementalism", adopting a progressive platform, and then campaigning on literally "I'll be more of the same" as soon as she thought she had the election in the bag. Trump has also done the same thing given how he's been (allegedly) walking back all his more firey rhetoric (but not actually). But again I guess that's fine when you're not "the Establishment", man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:No instead they just wanted someone who was a reality show TV celebrity who had benefitted greatly from the Establishment and yet somehow is not it just because he never held office. If you don't think the other side is entirely full of people who are saying "I'm really not happy with this guy but I'll hold my nose so the other person doesn't win" you're fooling yourself. The idea that the GOP is compromised of Klu Klux Members and that the pitiful alt-right has any sort of sway in washington is conspiracy theory bullshit distracting you from the bigger picture. There were plenty of Democrats hoodwinked into voting for Obama because of "Change", why can't the GOP just be stupid instead of evil?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Honestly when I see posts like the one you quoted I realize and remember how few people actually watched the Democratic debates. But then again they were at 2am on a Saturday... I watched them and I remember how she flipped her position on TPP, by saying they changed things in the bill to make her against it, then selected a pro-TPP VP. I remember her calling Sanders a one-issue candidate on Wall Street. Then I guess, if Sanders emphasizing that his main differences from the previous administration made him a one-issue candidate, I guess Clinton running as Obama's third term made her a zero-issue candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Maybe the Democrats spending a lot of time railing against Citizen's United because of it's ability to let corporations influence elections, then turning around and using it undermined their message? Especially when you add the bank bailouts into the equation. But hey, at least all those television ads helped Clinton win. OH WAIT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Eimi posted:And I think campaigning as a compromiser is bad. It makes it look like you have no integrity and won't fight the hard fight when the chips are down. Just look at how spineless the Dems look now. I have zero faith in their desire, let alone ability, to fight for my rights as the Pubs cackle and prepare their heinous program. Yeah. When you have Dems talking about trying to be Serious and work across the aisle with Donald "backed by White Supremacist" Trump how am I supposed to feel about that as a voter? Compromising for eight years got the Democrats literally no where and the country in an incredibly dangerous position when that was touted as the Responsible thing to do. No one looks at a compromiser (or at least someone that is perceived as one) and thinks that guy is exciting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:06
|
|