The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Belsnickel]

(05-07-2019, 06:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've said it numerous times: The RNC did everything they could to not make Trump the nominee while the DNC did everything it could to make Hills the nominee. Which NC's actions were better/worse? 

I think what frustrates me most about this is that the DNC fought for Hillary because she represented their positions. Then people were pissed upon realizing that. That shouldn't have been a surprise, the parties are going to protect their interests.

The RNC tried to protect their interests because Trump did not actually represent conservative or Republican values. So their actions during the primary were not as reprehensible as the DNC's. However, now, there has been an abandonment by the RNC of their principles as they have rushed to support Trump.

Meanwhile, the DNC is going all "oh, we're hip and progressive, look at all the women and people of color running!" Meanwhile, who leads in the polls for the primary? Two old white dudes.

I really am sick of all of this. Thankfully, I have a state election to focus on. Oh, wait, there is the Northam/Fairfax/Herring bullshit.

[jj22]

Hillary was a safe choice. The only thing we had to worry about with the Clintons was blow job's in the WH, and a generational booming economy (we still feel the effects of today). Who didn't love the 90's. The days!

It was just time for a change. I'm not sure we'll ever see 3 terms from one party again. And honestly, I'm not sure we should. Regardless of party. That's a long time under one ideology. The only tough thing with that is the Supreme court picks. If Dems aren't careful, they can be looking at a 6-3 court by 2024. And it'll bring a reversal to all progress (social) made from Roe V Wade on for roughly 30 years (as young as they will be). Republican voters know this and understand, they'll pinch their nose and vote for him again, Dem voters were never that driven by Supreme court picks. That's why Trump will win in 2020 that and...

There's no Dem that can beat Trump. You have to get down and dirty with him, and the media won't allow anyone to. The problem with Trump is you have to meet a bully in the gutter. But when you do, and even if you win, you come out soaked in shit and looking like you lost.

And that's the key to Trumps success. It's what helped him beat back all those candidate in the primary. No one could stoop to his level. And when they did instead of shaming the bully, Americans were disappointed the candidate stooped to Trumps level. Lose if you just sit there and get beat up. Lose if you fight back.

I don't see anyone tough enough to take on Trump. And even if there was someone who was bold enough to brag about shooting someone and grabbing pu**y's, the media and Americans would have demanded more of a Dem running for POTUS and he'd (or she'd) surely lose.

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2019, 08:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what frustrates me most about this is that the DNC fought for Hillary because she represented their positions. Then people were pissed upon realizing that. That shouldn't have been a surprise, the parties are going to protect their interests.

The RNC tried to protect their interests because Trump did not actually represent conservative or Republican values. So their actions during the primary were not as reprehensible as the DNC's. However, now, there has been an abandonment by the RNC of their principles as they have rushed to support Trump.

Meanwhile, the DNC is going all "oh, we're hip and progressive, look at all the women and people of color running!" Meanwhile, who leads in the polls for the primary? Two old white dudes.

I really am sick of all of this. Thankfully, I have a state election to focus on. Oh, wait, there is the Northam/Fairfax/Herring bullshit.

I will say I'm disheartened by the lack of accountability that the GOP has held Trump to, but they have a "job" to do. We can shake out fists at the bigger picture all day but we should realize that the big picture is made up of many little pictures. So good luck with your state elections. 

I do wish many of those wasting their time and energy slurring the current Admin would focus on what we can do to move forward. But everyone here and Nationally is too busy pointing a finger.  

Hell we've got a thread in this very forum about 2020 candidates and I'll give you one guess as to which candidate is mentioned the most

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-07-2019, 08:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If only the DNC realized how the Electoral College works. 

We'll put you down as one vote for the losing side. 

That wasn't the DNC's fault. Hillary lost the electoral college because of what she chose to focus on and where and when she chose to focus her efforts. Hillary made strategic errors which lost her the election.

[hollodero]

(05-07-2019, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do wish many of those wasting their time and energy slurring the current Admin would focus on what we can do to move forward.

Well, the current admin is the news of the day. The news of the day will always be discussed. Including earnest expressions about the awful (well, eye of the beholder I guess) things happening or done. Can't say I find anything odd about that.

And moving forward for many in a very first step will mean not re-electing Trump, I'd guess. Not to diminish local level issues or other "smaller pictures" at all, but the president seems to be the more important topic for debates like on an internet board. In the end, the bigger picture is not just made of smaller pictures, but also changes all the smaller pictures. Trump has consequences.

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 01:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the issue is that there were 2 non-viable candidates. So how do you pick? Do you take the guy with no experience in government, a lot of bad experience in business, allegations of sexual assault, racism, sexism, general bigotry and hatred? Or do you take the woman with more controversies and investigations than we'd ever seen in a modern candidate (well, at the time) that was still given major consideration?

From either side's perspective, the other's candidate was the exact worst person for the job. And, for an awful lot of people, their own candidate was mostly just "better than that other piece of shit."

That's not how elections should be run. You should actually WANT your candidate to be president. It shouldn't really have much to do with making sure the other candidate definitely does not get into office (although the differences in those two statements is subtle).

I don't know what the DNC was thinking throwing their hopes on the back of Hillary. And now they're potentially doing the same thing with Biden.

If you are thinking about a steady, competent president, you take the woman with the experience who remains calm and focused during debate, not the misogynist grifter who ran business after business into the ground, frequently loses his temper in public, buys into conspiracy theories, laments we didn't "keep the oil," and didn't know what the nuclear triad is but wants nukes on the table.

You pick mentally stable candidate over the unstable.

That each side believed the other's candidate was the exact worst person for the job does not mean that each side's candidate was the exact worst person for the job.

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 12:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm just kinda post random things and use the bold function periodically while not addressing the point the other person made. I do realize regardless how many times I assert you are defending those that voted for Trump, because their only other choice was flawed, and state that is a defense of Trump; is in no way logically sound. But just try and stop me

Perhaps if I use terms like jumping in when you provide your input into the discussion it and use bold font whenever I wrongly accuse you of defending Trump my lack of actually having a point will be lost in the white noise. Hell I'm even going to throw in the term false equivalency even those folks can see a comparison between the two candidates when you are equating each to acts that can be considered immoral.

I further realize you did not slur any voter as I have done but in some twist of logic I can make it seem you're suggesting no voter had an legitimate option that they could sit his/her morale compass by and bold defending Trump again may lead one or two to believe that's actaully what you've done. I can only hope the don't read too closely

Wow.  Talk about white noise.

In my posts, the bolding marks logical emphases, like conclusions and general statements, from support. If you don't see the logical relations between statements, I suppose every statement in an argument seems (falsely) equivalent, and the bolding random.

If premise, conclusions and other support seem equivalent, then you cannot follow (or make) and argument. In that logical flatland, arguments with support seem no different than arguments without support,  Hillary no better than Trump.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................

You state that Trump critics are motivated by hate, not by Trump's behavior.  They "slur" him.

That locates the flaw in the critic, not in Trump and his behavior. 

I have asked you how deflecting your criticism from Trump to his critics is not defending Trump.
Your response seems to be there are silent others out there who "see" you are not defending him.

Easy to make your case if you just explain why someone pointing out a Trump lie is just "slurring" Trump even when the lie is actually a lie.

Two different people have explained to you that all "immoral acts" are not equally immoral (lol killing Vince Foster or running a child trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor would be more immoral than cheating on three successive wives, wouldn't it?); that's why all violations of the law are not punished equally.  That is why Hillary is not as immoral as Trump, once one starts comparing apples to apples, lies to lies, scandal to scandal.

But you won't go there, because stopping at "immoral equivalence" is the only way to defend someone like Trump.  Only then are his opponents are just as bad.

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do wish many of those wasting their time and energy slurring the current Admin would focus on what we can do to move forward. But everyone here and Nationally is too busy pointing a finger.  

Most of those who have wasted their time and energy reading the Mueller Report think Congress should be "pointing a finger" at the president for obstruction of justice.

Does the documented obstruction in that Report merely "slur" the president or does it actually describe a pattern of repeated violation of law?

Supposing it does, is it still your view that Congress and the people should let bygones be bygones and "move forward" with Mitch McConnell? 

[CJD]

(05-08-2019, 03:10 AM)Dill Wrote: If you are thinking about a steady, competent president, you take the woman with the experience who remains calm and focused during debate, not the misogynist grifter who ran business after business into the ground, frequently loses his temper in public, buys into conspiracy theories, laments we didn't "keep the oil," and didn't know what the nuclear triad is but wants nukes on the table.

You pick mentally stable candidate over the unstable.

That each side believed the other's candidate was the exact worst person for the job does not mean that each side's candidate was the exact worst person for the job.

I agree.

But you and I believing something does not mean others did not. We live in a country that is about 40% to 50% conservatives (depending on what poll you read). So you can't just ignore what they think. And you can't be upset when they don't vote the way you want them to, despite you telling them who the correct choice is (people often resent being told what to do even when they aren't being called racists and sexists if they don't follow your instructions).

If Democrats truly want to flip Republican voters, they first need to realize why Hillary was so abhorrent to them and learn from their mistakes.

If they just want Republican voters to shut the hell up and hope that that works in 2020 they're probably going to be very disappointed.

[CJD]

(05-07-2019, 08:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what frustrates me most about this is that the DNC fought for Hillary because she represented their positions. Then people were pissed upon realizing that. That shouldn't have been a surprise, the parties are going to protect their interests.

The RNC tried to protect their interests because Trump did not actually represent conservative or Republican values. So their actions during the primary were not as reprehensible as the DNC's. However, now, there has been an abandonment by the RNC of their principles as they have rushed to support Trump.

Meanwhile, the DNC is going all "oh, we're hip and progressive, look at all the women and people of color running!" Meanwhile, who leads in the polls for the primary? Two old white dudes.

I really am sick of all of this. Thankfully, I have a state election to focus on. Oh, wait, there is the Northam/Fairfax/Herring bullshit.

Yea, I really hope Biden's surge is mostly due to name recognition and then, once the primaries start, someone else really takes hold of the nomination.

Because a Biden nomination will not win 2020. He inspires no excitement from anyone. In the past, he has alienated black people, women, millennials, pro-marijuana people (which, to be fair, is very similar to alienating millennials) and will almost assuredly make his campaign all about Trump, which is the last thing the Democrats need. 

You don't inspire excitement (which is what is required to get Democrats to vote, let's be honest) by saying "Hey! He's better than the alternative!"

Which is true.

But is not how you should run a campaign. Forcing people into a shitty choice that's merely "better than garbage" is a very dangerous way to run. This is why preferential voting should have been instituted at least 50 years ago. When you can only choose between two set candidates, it makes it so the president doesn't actually represent the people who elected them.

[CJD]

(05-08-2019, 12:42 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That wasn't the DNC's fault. Hillary lost the electoral college because of what she chose to focus on and where and when she chose to focus her efforts.  Hillary made strategic errors which lost her the election.

I don't believe that. 

In the 50s or 60s, I could buy the whole "you need to campaign somewhere to get those people's votes." Because, back then, you only really heard small tidbits of policy speak from candidates on the nightly news. So knowing what a candidate thought required actually going to listen to them speak.

Nowadays, the internet exists. And you can check what Hillary wanted to do on her website. Or on the news websites. Or by going to Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Instagram. Or almost anywhere else.

Going to rallies to listen to a candidate is not something I've ever heard any of my friends even mention as a possibility, let alone something they look forward to.

What Hillary did wrong was being so incredibly unrelatable that she lost millennial enthusiasm despite facing down the worst serious candidate for American President that the nation had ever seen. It was the preferential treatment (and arguably, cheating) the DNC gave to her that alienated a base that, had Bernie just lost fairly, would not have defied the DNC to the degree that they did. It was the fact that her entire strategy was based around "yea, I know I'm pretty insufferable, but look at my opponent!"

I don't know for sure, but I have my doubts that, after all that, just going to Michigan and Wisconsin and talking would have helped her at all.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-08-2019, 08:15 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't believe that. 

In the 50s or 60s, I could buy the whole "you need to campaign somewhere to get those people's votes." Because, back then, you only really heard small tidbits of policy speak from candidates on the nightly news. So knowing what a candidate thought required actually going to listen to them speak.

Nowadays, the internet exists. And you can check what Hillary wanted to do on her website. Or on the news websites. Or by going to Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Instagram. Or almost anywhere else.

Going to rallies to listen to a candidate is not something I've ever heard any of my friends even mention as a possibility, let alone something they look forward to.

What Hillary did wrong was being so incredibly unrelatable that she lost millennial enthusiasm despite facing down the worst serious candidate for American President that the nation had ever seen. It was the preferential treatment (and arguably, cheating) the DNC gave to her that alienated a base that, had Bernie just lost fairly, would not have defied the DNC to the degree that they did. It was the fact that her entire strategy was based around "yea, I know I'm pretty insufferable, but look at my opponent!"

I don't know for sure, but I have my doubts that, after all that, just going to Michigan and Wisconsin and talking would have helped her at all.

Was the DNC responsible for Hillary not focusing on the economy as much as she should have? No, that was her mistake.

As far as campaigning in key states, you're not going to convince me that in a race in which she won the popular vote, but lost key states where she chose not focus her time, effort, and money didn't play a roll in her loss.

[fredtoast]

(05-07-2019, 08:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If only the DNC realized how the Electoral College works. 

We'll put you down as one vote for the losing side. 

The DNC knows exactly how the electoral college works.  That had nothing to do with why Hillary lost the general election.  There was nothing they could have done to win the states they lost.  In the Presidential election voters make their decisions based on the NATIONAL NEWS, not on who happens to stop in their state the most times.

[Dill]

(05-08-2019, 07:59 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I agree.

But you and I believing something does not mean others did not. We live in a country that is about 40% to 50% conservatives (depending on what poll you read). So you can't just ignore what they think. And you can't be upset when they don't vote the way you want them to, despite you telling them who the correct choice is (people often resent being told what to do even when they aren't being called racists and sexists if they don't follow your instructions).

If Democrats truly want to flip Republican voters, they first need to realize why Hillary was so abhorrent to them and learn from their mistakes.

If they just want Republican voters to shut the hell up and hope that that works in 2020 they're probably going to be very disappointed.

With you on the bolded, C-Dawg.

What bothers me about the Hillary "abhorrence," though, is that so much of it was manufactured. True, she broke the law when she used a private server. That action, more than anything else, hurt her election chances with independents. But then none of the charges levied against her, imagined or real, really mattered to the Trump inclined when Trump's scorecard was far worse.  Fox, Comey and Russia took her out of the election.

Trump voters remind me a lot of those African-Americans who, after the OJ Simpson trial, were glad that he got off even if guilty.  For them it was never about Simpson's guilt; it was about a history of the White man getting away with it.  For committed Trump voters, it was never about competence. It was a thumb in the eye to "the Left" and the "Hollywood elite." And to the undocumented immigrants and Muslim who were "getting away with it."  

[Dill]

(05-08-2019, 08:15 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't know for sure, but I have my doubts that, after all that, just going to Michigan and Wisconsin and talking would have helped her at all.

If you look at polling before and after Comey's announcement that he had re-opened the inquiry into Hillary's email/server mess, that was the biggest wobble in her support.  And she never really recovered.

Frankly, I think it made sense to spend the time she did in VA, NC and Florida, hoping the northern firewall would hold.

It was (still is) hard to fathom that 60 million voters would think an Alex Jones fan would make a responsible steward of the nation. That inability to judge a candidate's character, competence and stability--and the capacity to be misled that goes with it--is the real problem with US politics today.

[CJD]

(05-08-2019, 11:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Was the DNC responsible for Hillary not focusing on the economy as much as she should have?  No, that was her mistake.

As far as campaigning in key states, you're not going to convince me that in a race in which she won the popular vote, but lost key states where she chose not focus her time, effort, and money didn't play a roll in her loss.

Honestly, if someone came through a time machine and told me "I come from the year 2056. We have been through 10 elections since Trump was elected. 5 were won by Democrats and 5 were won by Republicans. But all 10 times, Democrats won the popular vote." I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

The electoral system just happens to put the country in this scenario. We have severe cases of liberal flight all over the country. Boston, New York and the big cities in California are so heavily blue that they turn their entire states blue. But winning 70% of a state and winning 51% of a state makes no difference to the electoral college. 

Democrats have the unenviable task each election year of overcoming the inherent bias the system has against them due to their voters' choices regarding where they live (If all my friends who moved to Chicago, LA and Boston stayed in Cincinnati, which they all left for a variety of reasons including politics, then maybe this problem wouldn't exist today).

I personally don't think the popular vote is even a thing worth talking about anymore, as it's become basically guaranteed to go the Democrats way (starting with the 1992 election, Republicans have won the popular vote exactly once). It's a meaningless statistic, unless the U.S. changes the way they elect presidents.

The truth is she was a really bad candidate. She may have been a good President. But people did not like her. If going up against Donald Trump wasn't enough reason for Michigan to vote for her, you really think her coming and being unrelatable and weird in front of them would have helped?

[CJD]

(05-08-2019, 12:40 PM)Dill Wrote: With you on the bolded, C-Dawg.

What bothers me about the Hillary "abhorrence," though, is that so much of it was manufactured. True, she broke the law when she used a private server. That action, more than anything else, hurt her election chances with independents. But then none of the charges levied against her, imagined or real, really mattered to the Trump inclined when Trump's scorecard was far worse.  Fox, Comey and Russia took her out of the election.

Trump voters remind me a lot of those African-Americans who, after the OJ Simpson trial, were glad that he got off even if guilty.  For them it was never about Simpson's guilt; it was about a history of the White man getting away with it.  For committed Trump voters, it was never about competence. It was a thumb in the eye to "the Left" and the "Hollywood elite." And to the undocumented immigrants and Muslim who were "getting away with it."  

Yea, I mean Russians assisted with the spread of misinformation about Hillary. We have concluded, via the Mueller Report, that, while Trump and his administration probably didn't explicitly work with the Russians (outside of a few people who have already been indicted), they definitely were aware of it and figured it was nice because it helped them win. Hopefully, that doesn't happen again in 2020. But, with Trump as president, I figure it'll have to be prevented by non-government organizations like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, as we've already concluded that Trump has no problem being the beneficiary of fake news, as long as he is not personally linked to its creation/distribution.

I will say one thing though. If the Democrats go through with the Biden nomination, they will be saying, loud and clear, "We don't think Hillary's policies were bad. She just happened to have a vagina, rather than a penis. Turns out you need a penis to be President."

And I agree that many Trump supporters don't actually care if Trump is a good President/Candidate or not. They just love seeing the PC obsessed, snowflake, lazy, obsessed-with-racism, expecting-handouts Lefties going nuts.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-08-2019, 01:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Honestly, if someone came through a time machine and told me "I come from the year 2056. We have been through 10 elections since Trump was elected. 5 were won by Democrats and 5 were won by Republicans. But all 10 times, Democrats won the popular vote." I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

The electoral system just happens to put the country in this scenario. We have severe cases of liberal flight all over the country. Boston, New York and the big cities in California are so heavily blue that they turn their entire states blue. But winning 70% of a state and winning 51% of a state makes no difference to the electoral college. 

Democrats have the unenviable task each election year of overcoming the inherent bias the system has against them due to their voters' choices regarding where they live (If all my friends who moved to Chicago, LA and Boston stayed in Cincinnati, which they all left for a variety of reasons including politics, then maybe this problem wouldn't exist today).

I personally don't think the popular vote is even a thing worth talking about anymore, as it's become basically guaranteed to go the Democrats way (starting with the 1992 election, Republicans have won the popular vote exactly once). It's a meaningless statistic, unless the U.S. changes the way they elect presidents.

The truth is she was a really bad candidate. She may have been a good President. But people did not like her. If going up against Donald Trump wasn't enough reason for Michigan to vote for her, you really think her coming and being unrelatable and weird in front of them would have helped?

She was the second worse candidate behind only Trump. The main reason for that is the shit that came out of her mouth; like calling people deplorable instead of talking about how to get those people jobs or better pay, etc.

I wasn't crazy about her because-what was her vision or mission? Right now I can't recall. Combine that with the political damage by mostly BS like Benghazi and her emails (which were mostly manufactured scandals) made her unpopular. Best thing she had going for her was she wasn't Trump.

There is more to campaigning than just showing up and shaking hands. It's marketing a person and their message. She didn't have a message that resonated and she didn't market it effectively in the areas she needed to effectively influence the electoral college to her favor.