It is not at all incoherent babble. If you bothered to listen to Trump supporters speak about why they voted for him, this is what they say. They absolutely do say they want to preserve their culture, and that they're fed up with Black Lives Matter. That's not dropping the Race Card, that's called dropping the Truth Card. The Democrats lost because (1) normal pendulum swing - independents go Republican instead of Democrat; (2) a lot of people are tired of having to be politically correct; and (3) they believe electing Republicans will enable them to make more money. Among other things. BigTexxx, you really have no place to call others shallow. Your "takes" are frequently as superficial as they come. You're a big fan of telling people to "think deeper," but you don't actually put much thought into your posts. Heck, people like Bobby, ATW, Tallanover- at least these individuals put thought and explanations behind their views. I mean, come on, ATW and I debate vigorously at times, but at least he presents detailed reasons behind his views- whether I agree with him or not, I respect that he puts thought behind what he says. Bobby as well - I chide him on rhetoric, but he presents well-reasoned arguments - heck, he got me to change my mind about the whole Clinton email thing- which was tough to do. No, with you, there is very little intellectual rigor or thought. It's like a series of soundbarks that have no bite. Weak.
I would argue that the number one reason why they lost is because they nominated an all time awful candidate for president......pretty much the only person that wouldn't have beat Trump in a one on one race. Nominating someone that terrible can have all sorts of ramifications down ballot. I mean, when a candidate is so terrible it can cause states like Pennsylvania and Michigan to vote Republican......yeah, that's really doing something.
I think once we get to the point where we can be honest about any President's legacy, including the positives and negatives, then maybe there's progress. But I really don't think you can look at it objectively. Well, maybe that's wrong. You're like this rock critic I used to read - Robert Christgau. Very, very tough critic. Would give groups like Black Sabbath a D. Led Zeppelin a C. Queen a C. Extremely harsh. Unless it was The Rolling Stones, CCR, Sly and the Family Stone, or Van Morrison, they would get a B grade or lower. That's what you remind me of. I don't know if that's good or bad. Some people are Roger Eberts and they have a more positive critical eye of movies, for example. Some are like Pauline Kael and have extremely high (some would say too high) standards for movies. It's a way of seeing things, I guess.
Clinton didn't start off as a bad candidate. She was being talked about for years as the most obvious person to run- for years. Bernie Sanders was never even in the conversation. Then, she decides to run, and the Bernie Sanders phenomenon happens. Then, the email thing. What happened to Clinton is, ironically, what happened to the guy that ran against her husband in 1992. Highly popular the year before, downhill the year of the election. Who still had more people vote for her than Trump. By close to 3 million. I mean, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Trump, either. But, yes, she became a bad candidate after it was too late to do anything about it.
That's why we are where we are right now. I read and trust economists and financialbank reports on how the economy was handled over the last decade. Those who didn't think the economy recovered go by their alternate assertions despite the numbers that support his and the Fed's successes. No doubt the recovery benefited the asset holders and coastal states. What you're assuming is that those successes blind people with the work that's yet to come. It's rather a thank God that we didn't have another dipshit after Bush to hemorrhage and sustain the damage. Examples are letting gm, Chrysler and a smaller extent Ford get thrown to the wolves. Allowing the financial system self correct by rolling of tarp and implicit Fed guarantees. While ideologically consistent with free marketers, it would exacerbate uncertainty and panic at a time when housing foreclosures were still rising. This was unpopular to some liberals because they'd rather have used that money on taxpayers rather than the companies responsible for their and the nation's failures. Trump can definitely reduce all the handouts Obama made to the victims of the housing collapse. That could probably squeeze some pennies out of the budget. It won't offset his Bush sized tax cut, which for whatever reason "we" are entitled to be rewarded with. Who cares, with capital gains it does feel like getting double taxed.
See, that's where I disagree. From day one her unfavorable numbers were through the roof and the reason for it is that she's simply not a likable person at all. Running against Trump gave her a small chance, but if either Trump or Hillary had run against a non-joke candidate, they'd have been completely blown out.....even if the Democrat would have run the score up in California no matter what because that's just how it goes.
Yes, also a vast right wing conspiracy and whatnot. And racism. And sexism. And....well, Hillary was just terrible.
Didn't say that. Give Trump credit for being charismatic. And b/c people want change. Very hard to have 3 terms of any party in a row. FDR did it, Reagan-Bush did it, and that's it. McCain wasn't a bad candidate, Obama was more charismatic and people already had 8 years of R. Clinton wasn't a bad candidate, Trump was more charismatic and people already had 8 years of D. Or, McCain and Clinton both sucked. People believe what they want.
Showing that fluctuation in polling during the election doesn't really tell the whole story, Hillary has had really high unfavorable numbers since she was the first lady.
Whelp looks like something we already knew. The Buffoon in chief is a lying sack of ****, and his supporters have the intelligence of a watermelon given how they deep throat anything he says... At some point that pathological liar needs to be held accountable. These transgressions go well beyond what is allowed in the moral or even political realm. What's really interesting is the lengths he's going to right now to suppress the ongoing investigation. Something is scaring the crap out of him and I'm glad this horrible excuse of a human being is losing sleep over it. FBI chief James Comey 'urges Justice Department to publicly refute Donald Trump's wiretap claim' Donald Trump meeting with FBI Director James Comey: AP Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey has reportedly asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Donald Trump’s claim that Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of his phones. According to senior American officials close to Mr Comey, he has called on the department to publicly state that the political charged claims were false and must be corrected. He gave no evidence to support his claim but a report by alt-right website Breitbart made the same claim on Friday – again with no evidence. The Justice Department has yet to issue a formal statement on the matter. New York Times reported[/a]. He became the most senior Obama era law enforcement official to retain his position in the Trump administration. Mr Sessions is close to Mr Trump and has spent the weekend with him at his Mar a Lago resort in Florida. Mr Obama has denied ever ordering the wiretapping of any US citizen and his spokesman Kevin Lewis said a “cardinal rule” of his administration was that “no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice”. He said it was quite common for the FBI to wiretap people they suspect of acting as a agent for a foreign country. But the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, flatly denied the existence of an such order to bug Trump during his tenure. Meet the Press:[/a] “For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI. “There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate or against his campaign.”
That's patently untrue. She has had both favorable and barely unfavorable ratings - barely under 50%. 62% in 1998 is high. Are you looking at the same graph I am?
Its the beginning of the end. Just watch, they're going to push Reince Preibus out first, and the whole thing will start to unravel. President Pence is looming on the horizon.
Any bets whether Congress investigates Obama the next four years over this alleged wire tap, but not Trump and his Russian ties ever?
Trump accusied a former President of wiretapping his phone, and now today publicly attacked America's lead domestic intelligence and security service (as he attacked America's lead foreign intelligence and security service). I think the only responsible thing that can happen now is a full independent investigation of the whole Trump/Russia issue. It has to be independent since it touches the very heart of America's democratic process and government (including intelligence, investigation, and justice processes). And since there are so many questions regarding financial gain as a motivation it needs to also involve a full investigation of Trump's financial history including his tax returns over the past ten years. Only then will American confidence in the very core of our government can be protected. It has to be independent investigation to avoid even the hint of partisan influence. All republicans and even Trump himself should agree with this. And it needs to happen right away.
Does the Trump administration have any evidence to support this or is this another case of #alternativefacts?
