OT - Trump

[clyde21]

There is the British video out stating why the DNC lost and I found it to be pretty on point. He kept saying that the DNC keeps labeling people. Deplorables. Basement Dwellers. Backwards Catholics. Uneducated and now its the Political Uniformed. That in itself breeds for unseen barriers.

That video is brilliant, and its by British satirist Jonathan Pie:

Watch on YouTube

Saw that. So good. Perfect.

[FNQ]

The foundation of ISIS started well before anything Obama did, however I can say after learning of the complexity of what is going on in the middle east via my own experience of going there, friends I have who are middle eastern and through the knowledge that has been imparted upon me by a good friend who studied US International Law you can say that in a round about way that the US is at least partially responsible for colluding with Saudi Arabia in the creation of ISIS. I can't explain it as eloquently as one friend who has lived through it or my other friend who has studied it at length but US definitely played a part.

Partially? We had several interns from Afghanistan.. and while they abhor what ISIS is, and even likened them to the cartels in Mexico as far as violence against people, they have great insight as to why ISIS even exists: they've all had family or friends who were caught in some violent skirmish despite being bystanders. How many loved ones of yours would need to die in crossfires before you got really angry?

I feel for them, I truly do. I feel for the public too, being kept in the dark, and inevitably when ISIS hits, its the public that sufferes, not the decision makers

[jamesnamida]

I voted Hilldog so maybe my views on why she lost might be biased:

1. Trump got less votes than McCain and a little bit less than Romney, but still won.
2. Democrats didn't turn out. it's ironic how so much talk was on how the republican party was splintered, but it looked like the democratic splinter post primary affected the voting more.
3. 5+ states were less than 2% percent between trump and clinton. most broke for trump. while on avg 4% (largest in 16 years) broke third party ( higher % of democrats).
4. Clinton + her campaign managers failed to connect with working class whites, and instead focused on more social issues that were less of an importance to that voter group.
5. Trump and the media from both sides, successfully labelled her as untrustworthy.
6. Rising Obamacare premiums and jobs were big issues that Trump focused more on and capitalized.

oh and kaepernick didnt vote lol. there were other issues on the ballots too

[jason bourne]

BTW, progressive and liberal are 2 different things.

I'm going by what Clinton and Obama call themselves. Clinton is progressive. Obama is progressive. They're both solid left-wing.

Clinton: I'm a progressive and not a moderate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-progressive_us_561dafabe4b050c6c4a35c32

I would say moderate is someone just to the left of middle. They could either be populist or libertarian.

Bernie Sanders is liberal. Unfortunately, he doesn't get monetary support because the leftist establishment want the pipeline.'

It's people who use government power to want Obamacare or single-payer. Use it to force climate change upon the states and other countries. It represents the wealthy in the Democratic Party. So maybe I should have said the young liberals and progressives are in the streets? Clearly, people like Popovich would be a progressive. He doesn't care for demonstrating in the streets. He wants to use the government to force the progressive agenda on the populace. Typical Popovich. In this case, being an a-hole.

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

Sanders and Clinton argued about it during the debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-progressive-fight/index.html

Sanders ended up looking like the liberal.

BTW Trump isn't right-wing. He's hard to pin down right now. He's supposed to be right of middle and a moderate populist/libertarian. Everybody in power hates him. I would say Ted Cruz and GWB are right-wing or the opposite of progressives in the GOP.

[clyde21]

The foundation of ISIS started well before anything Obama did, however I can say after learning of the complexity of what is going on in the middle east via my own experience of going there, friends I have who are middle eastern and through the knowledge that has been imparted upon me by a good friend who studied US International Law you can say that in a round about way that the US is at least partially responsible for colluding with Saudi Arabia in the creation of ISIS. I can't explain it as eloquently as one friend who has lived through it or my other friend who has studied it at length but US definitely played a part.

Partially? We had several interns from Afghanistan.. and while they abhor what ISIS is, and even likened them to the cartels in Mexico as far as violence against people, they have great insight as to why ISIS even exists: they've all had family or friends who were caught in some violent skirmish despite being bystanders. How many loved ones of yours would need to die in crossfires before you got really angry?

I feel for them, I truly do. I feel for the public too, being kept in the dark, and inevitably when ISIS hits, its the public that sufferes, not the decision makers

We should have NEVER invaded Iraq. That was THE single biggest mistake in the last two decades. What an absolutely disgusting, dismal decision that turned out to be.

[turk3d]

BTW, progressive and liberal are 2 different things.

I'm going by what Clinton and Obama call themselves. Clinton is progressive. Obama is progressive. They're both solid left-wing.

Clinton: I'm a progressive and not a moderate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-progressive_us_561dafabe4b050c6c4a35c32

I would say moderate is someone just to the left of middle. They could either be populist or libertarian.

Bernie Sanders is liberal. Unfortunately, he doesn't get monetary support because the leftist establishment want the pipeline.'

It's people who use government power to want Obamacare or single-payer. Use it to force climate change upon the states and other countries. It represents the wealthy in the Democratic Party. So maybe I should have said the young liberals and progressives are in the streets? Clearly, people like Popovich would be a progressive. He doesn't care for demonstrating in the streets. He wants to use the government to force the progressive agenda on the populace. Typical Popovich. In this case, being an a-hole.

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

Sanders and Clinton argued about it during the debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-progressive-fight/index.html

Sanders ended up looking like the liberal.

BTW Trump isn't right-wing. He's hard to pin down right now. He's supposed to be right of middle and a moderate populist/libertarian. Everybody in power hates him. I would say Ted Cruz and GWB are right-wing or the opposite of progressives in the GOP.

I like your assessment.

[Mylie10]

There are 4 main reasons Trump won:

Anti establishment. Those who feel government is to big, or who feel that the people they have voted in previously aren't following through with why they were voted in in the first place.

Union democrats who have suffered through jobs and industries either going elsewhere, or being phased out based on government direction.

The Anti Hillary crowd who were so fired up at the notion of her being their President. Most who probably lived through the early years of the Clinton's.

The people who liked that Trump was willing to fight back from the media or Hillary when they would paint middle America a certain way. For so long Republicans have not fought for the platform, and have tried to appease the media and democrats instead of fighting back or holding firm on a position. They were more worried about being liked, than standing strong.

[FNQ]

BTW, progressive and liberal are 2 different things.

I'm going by what Clinton and Obama call themselves. Clinton is progressive. Obama is progressive. They're both solid left-wing.

Clinton: I'm a progressive and not a moderate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-progressive_us_561dafabe4b050c6c4a35c32

I would say moderate is someone just to the left of middle. They could either be populist or libertarian.

Bernie Sanders is liberal. Unfortunately, he doesn't get monetary support because the leftist establishment want the pipeline.'

It's people who use government power to want Obamacare or single-payer. Use it to force climate change upon the states and other countries. It represents the wealthy in the Democratic Party. So maybe I should have said the young liberals and progressives are in the streets? Clearly, people like Popovich would be a progressive. He doesn't care for demonstrating in the streets. He wants to use the government to force the progressive agenda on the populace. Typical Popovich. In this case, being an a-hole.

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

Sanders and Clinton argued about it during the debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-progressive-fight/index.html

Sanders ended up looking like the liberal.

BTW Trump isn't right-wing. He's hard to pin down right now. He's supposed to be right of middle and a moderate populist/libertarian. Everybody in power hates him. I would say Ted Cruz and GWB are right-wing or the opposite of progressives in the GOP.

Sanders looks like a liberal next to a moderate, I guess. He's more of both. Clinton and Obama most certainly are not progressives. They have kowtowed to business money. Even the article you linked clearly DQs them from being progressive. They are not. Bernie is, and his main platform was based on being progressive - aggressively so, btw.

How on earth are Clinton and Obama progressives, like at all? Liberals sure, they were both in favor of reallocating taxes to help people. Progressives? Yeah, the DAPL, the TPP.. these things kinda throw that right out the window. Bernie was the only one going after big companies and wanting to shut down the numerous loopholes and regulate big pharma and big banks.

[bakesale]

The foundation of ISIS started well before anything Obama did, however I can say after learning of the complexity of what is going on in the middle east via my own experience of going there, friends I have who are middle eastern and through the knowledge that has been imparted upon me by a good friend who studied US International Law you can say that in a round about way that the US is at least partially responsible for colluding with Saudi Arabia in the creation of ISIS. I can't explain it as eloquently as one friend who has lived through it or my other friend who has studied it at length but US definitely played a part.

Partially? We had several interns from Afghanistan.. and while they abhor what ISIS is, and even likened them to the cartels in Mexico as far as violence against people, they have great insight as to why ISIS even exists: they've all had family or friends who were caught in some violent skirmish despite being bystanders. How many loved ones of yours would need to die in crossfires before you got really angry?

I feel for them, I truly do. I feel for the public too, being kept in the dark, and inevitably when ISIS hits, its the public that sufferes, not the decision makers

LOL I was trying to tread lightly by saying "Partially".

[jason bourne]

BTW, progressive and liberal are 2 different things.

I'm going by what Clinton and Obama call themselves. Clinton is progressive. Obama is progressive. They're both solid left-wing.

Clinton: I'm a progressive and not a moderate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-progressive_us_561dafabe4b050c6c4a35c32

I would say moderate is someone just to the left of middle. They could either be populist or libertarian.

Bernie Sanders is liberal. Unfortunately, he doesn't get monetary support because the leftist establishment want the pipeline.'

It's people who use government power to want Obamacare or single-payer. Use it to force climate change upon the states and other countries. It represents the wealthy in the Democratic Party. So maybe I should have said the young liberals and progressives are in the streets? Clearly, people like Popovich would be a progressive. He doesn't care for demonstrating in the streets. He wants to use the government to force the progressive agenda on the populace. Typical Popovich. In this case, being an a-hole.

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

Sanders and Clinton argued about it during the debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-progressive-fight/index.html

Sanders ended up looking like the liberal.

BTW Trump isn't right-wing. He's hard to pin down right now. He's supposed to be right of middle and a moderate populist/libertarian. Everybody in power hates him. I would say Ted Cruz and GWB are right-wing or the opposite of progressives in the GOP.

Sanders looks like a liberal next to a moderate, I guess. He's more of both. Clinton and Obama most certainly are not progressives. They have kowtowed to business money. Even the article you linked clearly DQs them from being progressive. They are not. Bernie is, and his main platform was based on being progressive - aggressively so, btw.

How on earth are Clinton and Obama progressives, like at all? Liberals sure, they were both in favor of reallocating taxes to help people. Progressives? Yeah, the DAPL, the TPP.. these things kinda throw that right out the window. Bernie was the only one going after big companies and wanting to shut down the numerous loopholes and regulate big pharma and big banks.

Both Clinton and Obama usurped the "progressive" label because of the dirty L-word. They further enhanced to mean use of government power. Another example was used to enforce Obamacare. If someone didn't want to buy health insurance, then they were assessed a penalty on their taxes. I could easily see them saying to states, if you do not have x-number of solar or alternative energy sources, then we're going to withhold the infrastructure money. The argument has nothing to do with helping rebuild America's infrastructure, but oligarchy. The ND pipeline is payback for their rich backers who want it. Whatever happened to not wanting shale oil because of the environment? I even saw a Matt Damon movie against it -- Promised Land. It's a big reason why Clinton lost, but you won't read about it in the NYT.

[FNQ]

Both Clinton and Obama usurped the "progressive" label because of the dirty L-word. They further enhanced to mean use of government power. Another example was used to enforce Obamacare. If someone didn't want to buy health insurance, then they were assessed a penalty on their taxes. I could easily see them saying to states, if you do not have x-number of solar or alternative energy sources, then we're going to withhold the infrastructure money. The argument has nothing to do with helping rebuild America's infrastructure, but oligarchy. The ND pipeline is payback for their rich backers who want it. Whatever happened to not wanting shale oil because of the environment? I even saw a Matt Damon movie against it -- Promised Land. It's a big reason why Clinton lost, but you won't read about it in the NYT.

So they are progressives because they call themselves progressives? Obamacare as the sole example? Well it would be a good one if it didn't jack up the prices of healthcare to begin with.. but let's say for the sake of argument, OK, Obamacare is progressive. The rest of what you are saying is purely hypothetical. So we're basing that they are 'progressives' for one action.. that's not logical.

The DAPL proves that they are in fact not progressives. So does the TPP. So does the acceptance of NAFTA. There's far more evidence that both are not progressives than that they are.

Clinton lost because she alienated a chunk of her base and assumed that she had certain battleground states locked up. She scaled back her appearances and believed people would buy into fear-mongering and manipulation. They didn't. Her (and Obama's) relative accepting silence of the DAPL was a part of it, but because of its lack of coverage in the news, I can't imagine it's a big reason she lost.

[clyde21]

Let's be honest here - there's absolutely no way you can make it up the political ladder without catering to the lobbyists and big banks. All of these are already predetermined and "pre-screened" candidates masquerading as "choices" for the people. Bernie Sanders was probably one of the few who wasn't (or not as much) and that's exactly why he never stood a chance.

[FNQ]

He doesn't care for demonstrating in the streets. He wants to use the government to force the progressive agenda on the populace. Typical Popovich. In this case, being an a-hole.

Also.. every single political stance it trying to force their agenda on the populace. Be it conservative, be it liberal, be it progressive, be it libertarian. Putting your opinion out there doesn't make you an a-hole. I'd think that calling someone an a-hole for putting their political preference out there is literally the definition, actually.

Here's Pop being an a-hole:

"I live in that country where half of the people ignored all of that to elect someone," Popovich said. "That's the scariest part of the whole thing to me. It's got nothing to do with the environment and Obamacare, and all of the other stuff. We live in a country that ignored all of those values that we would hold our kids accountable for. They'd be grounded for years if they acted and said the things that have been said in that campaign by Donald Trump."

He also expressed confusion that evangelical Christians were willing to ignore Trump's hateful language. He added that he respects political figures like Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, as well as Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich — all of whom he disagrees with politically — for not condoning Trump's actions.

Popovich reasoned that anyone can understand Trump's message while not forgiving his "fear mongering."

"It leaves me wondering where I've been living, and with whom I'm living," he said.

Popovich continued, blasting the postelection rhetoric and the way Trump's transition into office is being handled.

"The fact that people can just gloss that over, start talking about the transition team, and we're all going to be kumbaya now and try to make the country good without talking about any of those things. And now we see that he's already backing off of immigration and Obamacare and other things, so was it a big fake, which makes you feel it's even more disgusting and cynical that somebody would use that to get the base that fired up. To get elected. And what gets lost in the process are African-Americans, and Hispanics, and women, and the gay population, not to mention the eighth-grade developmental stage exhibited by him when he made fun of the handicapped person. I mean, come on. That's what a seventh grade, eighth grade bully does. And he was elected president of the United States. We would have scolded our kids. We would have had discussions until we were blue in the face trying to get them to understand these things. He is in charge of our country. That's disgusting."

According to the San Antonio News-Express, a reporter began to ask another question, and Popovich cut him off:

"I'm not done. One could go on and on. We didn't make this stuff up. He's angry at the media because they reported what he said and how he acted. That's ironic to me. It makes no sense. So that's my real fear, and that's what gives me so much pause and makes me feel so badly that the country is willing to be that intolerant and not understand the empathy that's necessary to understand other group's situations. I'm a rich white guy, and I'm sick to my stomach thinking about it. I can't imagine being a Muslim right now, or a woman, or an African American, a Hispanic, a handicapped person. How disenfranchised they might feel. And for anyone in those groups that voted for him, it's just beyond my comprehension how they ignore all of that. My final conclusion is, my big fear is — we are Rome."

See how he's riled up because he feels bad for people who were targeted by hate-speech?

What an A**HOLE

[FNQ]

Let's be honest here - there's absolutely no way you can make it up the political ladder without catering to the lobbyists and big banks. All of these are already predetermined and "pre-screened" candidates masquerading as "choices" for the people. Bernie Sanders was probably one of the few who wasn't (or not as much) and that's exactly why he never stood a chance.

Pretty true, which is why more people are calling for transparency in politicians and lobbyists. We won't see it in Bernie's lifetime unfortunately, and the only way we'll see him in 2020 is if the DNC basically hands him the keys and admits they screwed up (should happen right around the time of a Browns/9ers Super Bowl).

But Sanders pulled back the curtain to a voting block that always been coveted between the 2 parties: the future voters. As of now, the GOP has capitalized on the situation despite the DNC having the huge advantage. If the DNC doesn't right the ship quick, there's a good chance they will lose a significant chunk of this voting block and thus lose there already tenuous grasp on political influence.

Let's start by replacing Donna Brazile with Keith Ellison.

[DonaldSanders]

Let's be honest here - there's absolutely no way you can make it up the political ladder without catering to the lobbyists and big banks. All of these are already predetermined and "pre-screened" candidates masquerading as "choices" for the people. Bernie Sanders was probably one of the few who wasn't (or not as much) and that's exactly why he never stood a chance.

Pretty true, which is why more people are calling for transparency in politicians and lobbyists. We won't see it in Bernie's lifetime unfortunately, and the only way we'll see him in 2020 is if the DNC basically hands him the keys and admits they screwed up (should happen right around the time of a Browns/9ers Super Bowl).

But Sanders pulled back the curtain to a voting block that always been coveted between the 2 parties: the future voters. As of now, the GOP has capitalized on the situation despite the DNC having the huge advantage. If the DNC doesn't right the ship quick, there's a good chance they will lose a significant chunk of this voting block and thus lose there already tenuous grasp on political influence.

Let's start by replacing Donna Brazile with Keith Ellison.

Brazile is bad, but Ellison is a poor choice. I think he's someone who the Repub's machine could exploit -- can you imagine a Muslim with Nation of Islam ties running the democratic party? It's like writing breitbart for breitbart.

[clyde21]

Let's be honest here - there's absolutely no way you can make it up the political ladder without catering to the lobbyists and big banks. All of these are already predetermined and "pre-screened" candidates masquerading as "choices" for the people. Bernie Sanders was probably one of the few who wasn't (or not as much) and that's exactly why he never stood a chance.

Pretty true, which is why more people are calling for transparency in politicians and lobbyists. We won't see it in Bernie's lifetime unfortunately, and the only way we'll see him in 2020 is if the DNC basically hands him the keys and admits they screwed up (should happen right around the time of a Browns/9ers Super Bowl).

But Sanders pulled back the curtain to a voting block that always been coveted between the 2 parties: the future voters. As of now, the GOP has capitalized on the situation despite the DNC having the huge advantage. If the DNC doesn't right the ship quick, there's a good chance they will lose a significant chunk of this voting block and thus lose there already tenuous grasp on political influence.

Let's start by replacing Donna Brazile with Keith Ellison.

Brazile is bad, but Ellison is a poor choice. I think he's someone who the Repub's machine could exploit -- can you imagine a Muslim with Nation of Islam ties running the democratic party? It's like writing breitbart for breitbart.

As opposed to a president endorsed by the KKK?

[FNQ]

If the options are him and pharma lobbyist Howard Dean, I'm taking Ellison. He's not going to run for anything beyond Congress for a while, supports the progressive movement, and is someone who I'd trust to actually run the DNC fairly. Ultimately it wouldn't matter if the GOP called him out - DWS and Reince were constantly called out for something or another. Part of the job. Just because Ellison has an easy scapegoat target from the other side doesn't mean he's a bad choice. We shouldn't have our choice depend on what the GOP's going to do anyways.

[mos_def]

As opposed to a president endorsed by the KKK?

As opposed to the other candidate that says he wants to destabilize American society by influencing the black community because they are so easy to manipulate? (soros said I didn't )
All I'm saying is people do not have control of groups endorsing them, clyde.
Israel probably backed Trump. Russia probably backed Trump. Anonymous probably backed Trump. Trump has no control over that.
Trump has like 90% of the Evangelical vote. Does that mean he goes to church? No.

[clyde21]

As opposed to a president endorsed by the KKK?

As opposed to the other candidate that says he wants to destabilize American society by influencing the black community because they are so easy to manipulate? (soros said I didn't )
All I'm saying is people do not have control of groups endorsing them, clyde.
Israel probably backed Trump. Russia probably backed Trump. Anonymous probably backed Trump. Trump has no control over that.
Trump has like 90% of the Evangelical vote. Does that mean he goes to church? No.

My entire point is that knocking Ellison because he's had previous affiliations with NOI (so what?) when a guy like Trump was just appointed president is disingenuous.

[mos_def]

As opposed to a president endorsed by the KKK?

As opposed to the other candidate that says he wants to destabilize American society by influencing the black community because they are so easy to manipulate? (soros said I didn't )
All I'm saying is people do not have control of groups endorsing them, clyde.
Israel probably backed Trump. Russia probably backed Trump. Anonymous probably backed Trump. Trump has no control over that.
Trump has like 90% of the Evangelical vote. Does that mean he goes to church? No.

My entire point is that knocking Ellison because he's had previous affiliations with NOI (so what?) when a guy like Trump was just appointed president is disingenuous.

My bad. I have no problems with Ellison - from what I know of him