so much for draining the swamp

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 08:55 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: You hit on the points about turning our backs to voters that I was referring to previously. Michigan is a prime example, in that HRC didn't even go there in the few weeks running up to the election. She took Michigan for granted, same as she did Wisconsin and likely Pennsylvania. Beyond that, to a point made by Dill, the Democrats did little to nothing about refuting the claims about a "weak military" etc. HRC's arrogance bit her in the ass, by acting like anything Trump said could not possibly be on target. She stopped listening.

The Clinton campaign did nothing to build Clinton up, only to try to push Trump down. That was why they failed in those toss-up states.

(11-12-2016, 08:55 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I am a Bernie fan, and the main reason is he does bring forward issues. The policy list he presented was about the problems we all face in some varying degrees. He has some good comprehensive explanations for how some if his proposed solutions could work, while others needed some work. The main point with him was the passion he showed in conveying the belief in making things better for as many as possible. Make fun of his mannerisms if you must, but I don't think he deserves ridicule for the care and effort he has put in over his entire career, all for the betterment of the public. The rest of the clown show we've been exposed to pale in comparison. 

I am not making fun of Bernie, I just dislike people of the establishment pushing an anti-establishment message. I liked Bernie on the issues, but I can't support people trying to play the card he did.

(11-12-2016, 08:55 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: How long it will take for Democrats to regroup depends on how well they identify their problems, and who they pick to solve them. Plus who they choose to front the new and improved Party, which that in itself will take a good amount of time to establish the needed credibility to draw the majority back 'home'. I am not one to root for immediate GOP failure as a means to shorten this time span. I do hope that Trump does push for infrastructure programs right off the bat, then come up with a decent 'repaired' Obamacare plan. Neither of these two can be done quickly but ideally buys some time while things settle down. 

I am right there with you on this. Like Obama said, if he succeeds, America succeeds.

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-12-2016, 09:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Clinton campaign did nothing to build Clinton up, only to try to push Trump down. That was why they failed in those toss-up states.


I am not making fun of Bernie, I just dislike people of the establishment pushing an anti-establishment message. I liked Bernie on the issues, but I can't support people trying to play the card he did.


I am right there with you on this. Like Obama said, if he succeeds, America succeeds.

Who better to expose the faults of the establishment than one who sees the inner workings of it more accurately than any citizen possibly could? He has my respect for being willing to do so. I thought of him as being the Congressional whistle-blower, which did not bother me one bit. He wasn't selling eliminate the establishment (which will never go away). He was selling improve it.

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 09:15 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Who better to expose the faults of the establishment than one who sees the inner workings of it more accurately than any citizen possibly could? He has my respect for being willing to do so. I thought of him as being the Congressional whistle-blower, which did not bother me one bit. He wasn't selling eliminate the establishment (which will never go away). He was selling improve it.

Eh, I got a different message from him. Either way, it's all moot now.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 08:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your ability to see into the future is amazing. How do you know Obama won't be a bookend to Trump's Presidency? 

Not sure what you are asking. In one sense Obama's presidency certainly will be a bookend.  Unless we hit a nuclear apocalypse or space aliens invade and cancel our governments, someone will come after Trump and he will be sandwiched between them.  Every president is some other's bookend in that sense.

My point was that Obama's presidency will be sandwiched between the disaster that W's and the disaster to come, which is Trump's.  Seeing this does not require special powers of prediction. Sort of like predicting what will happen if you hire a drug addict to work in a pharmacy.

 

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-12-2016, 09:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you are asking. In one sense Obama's presidency certainly will be a bookend.  Unless we hit a nuclear apocalypse or space aliens invade and cancel our governments, someone will come after Trump and he will be sandwiched between them.  Every president is some other's bookend in that sense.

My point was that Obama's presidency will be sandwiched between the disaster that W's and the disaster to come, which is Trump's.  Seeing this does not require special powers of prediction. Sort of like predicting what will happen if you hire a drug addict to work in a pharmacy.

 

There could be another Obama term after Trump ..... (it's one of those popular trick questions)

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 09:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, consider that it took Obama/Pelosi/Reid just 2 years to wreck a massive mandate and near supermajority...and finish the jobs 6 years later with "Repubs" controlling on 3 branches.

Truthfully, if you're a Democrat and being honest - those 3 are failures because they were given a blank check and unprecedented mandate to make lasting, productive change and more or less shit the bed.

If you add Hillary to the mix, in 8 short years they've achieved a total 180 in the direction/momentum of the Democratic party.  Almost as damaging as Bush was to the Republican party by 2008.

Don't quite follow your logic here, JustWin.

Bush's damage was done by an unnecessary, $trillion+ war in which 4,000 Americans died and the worst recession since the great depression, not to mention side items like giving away the Medicare store to Big Pharma.  Nothing comparable to that under Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, though Republicans made a bigger stink over four dead in Benghazi and a slow recovery. Obama's worst moment was probably the inept rollout of Obamacare, but that is the sort of thing hardly remembered ten years later.

Controlling three branches of government did last long enough for Obama to get Obamacare passed. Even if the Republicans repeal and replace it with something else, they will likely retain its most important features, so people with pre-existing conditions can get policies and people can take policies from job to job.

As far as the "unprecedented mandate" goes, no administration since Lincoln's has faced the level of obstruction Obama did, and from day 1, and yet he steered the economy through 7 years of rising employment and repaired much of Bush's foreign policy damage--as least as viewed by most of the rest of the world, if not Fox News. That is not shitting the bed.

 Obama's election did not send thousands of Americans into the streets of major cities to protest nor send shockwaves of consternation and contingency planning through US allies. He looks to leave office with high approval rating, and he will be replaced by someone without a tenth of his statecraft.  So I disagree that Obama, Pelosi, and Hillary (who won the popular vote) were "almost" as damaging to the Democrats as Bush was in 2008, or that there has been a 180 degree shift in momentum.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 10:03 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: There could be another Obama term after Trump ..... (it's one of those popular trick questions)

Ha ha, well I was tricked then. Michelle 2020!

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 10:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Don't quite follow your logic here, JustWin.

Bush's damage was done by an unnecessary, $trillion+ war in which 4,000 Americans died and the worst recession since the great depression, not to mention side items like giving away the healthcare store to Big Pharma.  Nothing comparable to that under Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, though Republicans made a bigger stink over four dead in Benghazi and a slow recovery. Obama's worst moment was probably the inept rollout of Obamacare, but that is the sort of thing hardly remembered ten years later.

The recession was largely timing, and a lot of seeds were sown under Clinton, to the extent POTUS is really responsible for a recession or can actively prevent them.  But the mediocre recovery is all Obama.  Now we are stuck with absurdly low interest rates, massive debt and the next recession could be even worse with less monetary ability to combat it.  Truthfully, Obama has not been very different from Bush, and has had many of the same policies, particularly on the economic side (Bush's on steroids).

As for the wars, sure, but not sure it would have been very different if the roles were reversed.  Certainly Slick Willy would have done similar and has said as much.

Obamacare is a mess.  Bush gave the store to Big Pharma?!?  What was Obamacare then - the insurance companies practically wrote it.  It is shitting the bed because you simply didn't need to go that route just for pre-existing conditions.  When you admit that it was a stepping stone, you implicitly admit you passed crappy legislation to force something else (again with the steamrolling).

Again, I think the Dems have fallen as far from where they were as Repubs under Bush did (who didn't have the same high starting point).  That is, if you want to be honest which you don't appear willing to be.

Sorry, Obama/Pelosi/Reid CREATED that obstruction when they steamrolled the minority party and the Repubs most certainly did not start out that way from Day 1.  They didn't think they'd ever have to work with Repubs again.  Obama when he was elected was going to be the great unifier and reach across the aisle - he never did that.


I don't disagree Bush was terrible.  My point is Obama isn't much different.  To think one is good and the other terrible just wreaks of delusion.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2016, 09:52 PM)Dill Wrote: My point was that Obama's presidency will be sandwiched between the disaster that W's and the disaster to come, which is Trump's.  Seeing this does not require special powers of prediction. Sort of like predicting what will happen if you hire a drug addict to work in a pharmacy.

 

No doubt liberals have been outstanding at predicting the future lately (Special powers or otherwise). You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your assumption as fact. 

[hollodero]

(11-12-2016, 10:28 PM)Dill Wrote: and yet he steered the economy through 7 years of rising employment and repaired much of Bush's foreign policy damage--as least as viewed by most of the rest of the world, if not Fox News. That is not shitting the bed.

Yeah, no shit indeed. The rest of the world, represented by nobody less than me, agrees. 

(And we have an advantage, we don't care about Blue or Red when evaluating.)

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 11:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The recession was largely timing, and a lot of seeds were sown under Clinton, to the extent POTUS is really responsible for a recession or can actively prevent them.  But the mediocre recovery is all Obama.  Now we are stuck with absurdly low interest rates, massive debt and the next recession could be even worse with less monetary ability to combat it.  Truthfully, Obama has not been very different from Bush, and has had many of the same policies, particularly on the economic side (Bush's on steroids).

As for the wars, sure, but not sure it would have been very different if the roles were reversed.  Certainly Slick Willy would have done similar and has said as much.

Obamacare is a mess.  Bush gave the store to Big Pharma?!?  What was Obamacare then - the insurance companies practically wrote it.  It is shitting the bed because you simply didn't need to go that route just for pre-existing conditions.  When you admit that it was a stepping stone, you implicitly admit you passed crappy legislation to force something else (again with the steamrolling).

Again, I think the Dems have fallen as far from where they were as Repubs under Bush did (who didn't have the same high starting point).  That is, if you want to be honest which you don't appear willing to be.

Sorry, Obama/Pelosi/Reid CREATED that obstruction when they steamrolled the minority party and the Repubs most certainly did not start out that way from Day 1.  They didn't think they'd ever have to work with Repubs again.  Obama when he was elected was going to be the great unifier and reach across the aisle - he never did that.


I don't disagree Bush was terrible.  My point is Obama isn't much different.  To think one is good and the other terrible just wreaks of delusion.

Some seeds sown under Clinton, and before, sure.  But granting the recession was not "all Bush," why would you claim a mediocre recovery was "all Obama"? What do you think Romney would have done differently or better?

Clinton was pretty clear that inspections should have run their course before any invasion. And were he still president in 2003, he would not have had Cheney and Rumsfeld cooking his intel. Why would you ever think Obama would have invaded, were “roles reversed”? There was never any credible evidence of WMDs and much dissension within the intel community.  No reason to believe any president would have invaded, other than the one who had staffed his cabinet with neo cons.

I haven't “admitted” Obamacare is supposed to be a stepping stone, only that Trump might make it so. That one party destroys another’s legislation does not mean it is bad legislation, as the post-Civil War history of civil rights shows.

As for the charge Obama never reached across the aisle and “steamrolled” Obamacare—he was the first president to ask three members of the opposing party to join his cabinet, including the all-important Secretary of Defense, and was constantly criticized by his own party during his first months in office for reaching out to Republicans who continually rebuffed him, who planned to obstruct even before he was sworn in. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/08/if-obama-was-for-it-we-had-to-be-against-it.html

Do you remember Bush’s popularity standing at 50+ when Obama was elected? Or McCain getting the popular vote in 2008? Or thousands protesting in the streets for days after Obama won? How about a NEVER OBAMA movement forming after his nomination, all manner of prominent Democrats vowing to vote Republican? If not, then what are your "honest" criteria for determining the Democrats have fallen as far as the Republicans in 2008?

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 11:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt liberals have been outstanding at predicting the future lately (Special powers or otherwise). You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your assumption as fact. 

Why would you take any "assumption" as fact, mine or anyone else's?  Future events, in any case, cannot be facts today.

And I'm afraid it's not only liberals who are predicting a Trump disaster. Why do you suppose there was a never Trump movement in the Republican party? Why did so many Republicans publicly claim they could not in good conscience vote for him?

[*bfine32*]

(11-13-2016, 01:52 AM)Dill Wrote: 1) Why would you take any "assumption" as fact, mine or anyone else's?  Future events, in any case, cannot be facts today.

2) And I'm afraid it's not only liberals who are predicting a Trump disaster. Why do you suppose there was a never Trump movement in the Republican party?

3) Why did so many Republicans publicly claim they could not in good conscience vote for him?

1) It was just your declaration of what will happen seemed to be a statement of fact. I now understand you were just guessing.

2) Because the establishment underestimated how tired the public was

3) Because they were eviscerated by the left, but once the curtain on the election booth was closed; they voted their true conscience.  

[Dill]

(11-13-2016, 02:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) It was just your declaration of what will happen seemed to be a statement of fact. I now understand you were just guessing.

2) Because the establishment underestimated how tired the public was

3) Because they were eviscerated by the left, but once the curtain on the election booth was closed; they voted their true conscience.  

I'm not "guessing." I am making an inference based upon Trump's behavior and my knowledge of what has happened in other cases when unstable, insecure people have taken over positions of high responsibility for which they are unprepared.

Romney was somehow "eviscerated by the left" and that's why he came out of retirement to warn Republicans that a Trump nomination would end badly for his party? 

Trump's bad behavior bad judgment were not grounds for responsible Republicans to worry about how he would do in an office that requires good behavior and good judgment?  

[WeezyBengal]

(11-11-2016, 04:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I honestly don't think he really wants to be President. It's nothing other than just me throwing out my opinion, but he doesn't appear to be a man that really wants that office. If he did, I don't think he knew what he was really getting himself into. I think they will talk him into staying just that long on the off chance they can get Pence elected for two more terms after that.

2 years campaigning, millions of his own dime spent on his campaign...and he doesnt want to be president. OK. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

Hate to say it, but Trump will get the economy kicking and will go a second term.
The Majority of the people care about money, not social issues.
It's a shame Democrats can't figure this out. Bill knew it, that's why he won.
Only Reagan (7.3%) and Obama (8.1%) are the only Presidents in modern times to win a 2nd term with Unemployment rates over 7.2%. Prior to these 2, you have to go all the way back to FDR.

Democrats repeat after me, PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS.
This is where Trump won. He appealed to the middle class more than Hillary did.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-14-2016, 04:42 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: 2 years campaigning, millions of his own dime spent on his campaign...and he doesnt want to be president. OK. 

Yea, all that, and I believe he is only taking a salary of $1/year for the job of POTUS, instead of the usual $400k/year.
I bet Democrats will complain about that as well.

[Benton]

(11-14-2016, 06:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hate to say it, but Trump will get the economy kicking and will go a second term.
The Majority of the people care about money, not social issues.
It's a shame Democrats can't figure this out. Bill knew it, that's why he won.
Only Reagan (7.3%) and Obama (8.1%) are the only Presidents in modern times to win a 2nd term with Unemployment rates over 7.2%. Prior to these 2, you have to go all the way back to FDR.

Democrats repeat after me, PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS.
This is where Trump won. He appealed to the middle class more than Hillary did.

To the bold, I agree most people care about financial issues, and I think the looming insurance hikes were part of what hurt Hillary. But, it's doubtful Trump will have much impact on the economy and it's likely not his fault, but just timing. There are several signs we're headed for another recession. Hopefully, a mild one. I really haven't read much on if his plan will help or hurt it, but the last I read (and it changes daily with him) he planned to cut revenue and increase spending. Which works good to temporarily fend off a recession but will most likely prolong it.

If it happens sooner rather than later, his economy won't be looking very good in four years.

Interesting on the unemployment rates, I wasn't aware of that about Reagan and Obama.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-13-2016, 01:42 AM)Dill Wrote: Some seeds sown under Clinton, and before, sure.  But granting the recession was not "all Bush," why would you claim a mediocre recovery was "all Obama"? What do you think Romney would have done differently or better?

Bush went before Congress, 3 times I think, about reigning in Fannie and Freddie.  He failed.  But recessions are an inevitable course of the economy.  But certainly policy DOES play a major role in the recovery and expansion.  Romney wanted to lower corporate taxes and unburden business with costly and ineffective regulation, among others.  Obama was not pro-business, big govt socialists usually aren't.

And Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions.  I'm sure you're familiar with the Wolfowitz doctrine from the Clinton administration.  You can pretend Obama or Clinton would not have invaded Iraq, despite the opportunity for regime change presenting itself after failed policy after failed policy in the Middle East....but the fact is Bush pre-9/11 wouldn't have invaded Iraq, either.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-14-2016, 06:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yea, all that, and I believe he is only taking a salary of $1/year for the job of POTUS, instead of the usual $400k/year.
I bet Democrats will complain about that as well.

No worries - he'll probably donate the other $399,999 to his charity....oh, wait