The Policies That Failed

[Maui]

I should've said the biggest Republican margin of victory in decades. It's funny how the electoral college is just fine until it doesn't work in someone's favor. And I find it incredulous that we have a media that is all over every incident of white cops shooting black men, but we're supposed to believe minorities are getting intimidated into not voting, that there are actual lawsuits concerning such, but the very liberal mainstream media isn't reporting it. Which turnip truck do you think I just fell off of? What I'm seeing over and over is Democrats grasping at every straw, making excuses, but refusing to acknowledge that most of the blame lies with them. Exactly why we saw all the rioting, weeping and wailing after Trump one. Someone must have screwed them out of their birthright to run this country. How else could it be explained?

Lots to unpack here. Largest Repub EC win in decades is a pretty low bar when the Dem candidate received more votes (from actual voters) in 6 of the last 7 elections over 24 years. Voter suppression is very real. The judge in the court decision I linked to earlier said NC laws targeted "minority voters with surgical precision" for disenfranchisement. Seriously just a privileged position to believe otherwise. In this ~230 year old republic the majority of citizens, for the majority of time, could not vote (women, black, natives, etc.) and I think even your biased news sources include info from unpresidential thanking AA that did not vote. Even your sources will likely tell you Repubs don't want more people to vote.

Of course there have been many challenges and proposed changes to the EC since the first votes in 1800.
1950 - Lodge-Gossett Amendment
1952 - SJ 152
1966 - State of Delaware v State of New York

And many others including the current National Popular vote push started in 2004 after Kerry nearly beat Bush (Franklin County, OH would have given him OH and the election) even as he earned fewer votes.

Trump hasn't started yet. We know what her record is. Y'all keep saying she should've won and won't accept that it was her fault she didn't. All I've done is point out the obvious. Amazed me that all this was out there and yet that many people still voted for her. This is a totally polarized nation, more so than any time since the Civil War. And a lot of it is being driven by emotional people who refuse to look at these things rationally and can't stand the other side pointing it out. Maybe the Democrats should learn something from this election and try a different approach. But unless Trump really effs up and Congress really does do nothing for the middle class I doubt you'll see another Democrat majority anytime soon.

Sometimes it is better to lose for the right reasons than win for the wrong ones. The unpresident is a con man and willing to say anything to win. He courted bigots and white supremacists with his rhetoric. He surrounded himself with homophobes and transphobia. Hillary, nor any other decent, moral person should try to win that way. Remember, the Dems usually get more votes and they have for the majority of elections for the last 24 years.

I agree the country is polarized and I believe we have a severe lack of critical thinking skills. You and many others easily accept the worst possible motives about Hillary and other Dems. I have no trust whatever in Trump and always assign the worst possible motives to anything he does.I will continue to do that. I'm from small-town TN and most of family and friends from there are RW so I see the stuff they believe which is very often demonstrably untrue. I see my fellow libs fall for falsehoods about Trump, albeit at a much lower rate.

The Repubs have a substantial majority in the House, and not enough are up for re-election in two years to lose it. As in everything it comes down to results. The Dems had control of the entire government, now they have nothing. The majority of voters didn't like what they were seeing. The Repubs would be smart to remember that. Now I'll wait for someone to call me a hater for pointing out the obvious. Happy New Year!

Happy New Year. Of course there all 435 House seats are elected every year, so there are always enough seats up to change the House. Typically, 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years( not accounting for run-offs and other special elections). It is very possible for Dems to take Congressional majorities in 2018, but I have my doubts. The map is less favorable to Dems than 2016 in the Senate, but some of the gerrymandering that Repubs did from 2010 census is no being undone as unconstitutional so House pickups may happen even if the votes stay roughly the same based on new, independent bipartisan boundaries.

Again, more people voted for Dem Senate and President. In 2012, Dems received more Senate, House and Presidential votes. Where the voters live matters, a lot. Too many American voters vote against their better interests.

 

[vantexan]

Lots to unpack here. Largest Repub EC win in decades is a pretty low bar when the Dem candidate received more votes (from actual voters) in 6 of the last 7 elections over 24 years. Voter suppression is very real. The judge in the court decision I linked to earlier said NC laws targeted "minority voters with surgical precision" for disenfranchisement. Seriously just a privileged position to believe otherwise. In this ~230 year old republic the majority of citizens, for the majority of time, could not vote (women, black, natives, etc.) and I think even your biased news sources include info from unpresidential thanking AA that did not vote. Even your sources will likely tell you Repubs don't want more people to vote.

Of course there have been many challenges and proposed changes to the EC since the first votes in 1800.
1950 - Lodge-Gossett Amendment
1952 - SJ 152
1966 - State of Delaware v State of New York

And many others including the current National Popular vote push started in 2004 after Kerry nearly beat Bush (Franklin County, OH would have given him OH and the election) even as he earned fewer votes.



Sometimes it is better to lose for the right reasons than win for the wrong ones. The unpresident is a con man and willing to say anything to win. He courted bigots and white supremacists with his rhetoric. He surrounded himself with homophobes and transphobia. Hillary, nor any other decent, moral person should try to win that way. Remember, the Dems usually get more votes and they have for the majority of elections for the last 24 years.

I agree the country is polarized and I believe we have a severe lack of critical thinking skills. You and many others easily accept the worst possible motives about Hillary and other Dems. I have no trust whatever in Trump and always assign the worst possible motives to anything he does.I will continue to do that. I'm from small-town TN and most of family and friends from there are RW so I see the stuff they believe which is very often demonstrably untrue. I see my fellow libs fall for falsehoods about Trump, albeit at a much lower rate.




Happy New Year. Of course there all 435 House seats are elected every year, so there are always enough seats up to change the House. Typically, 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years( not accounting for run-offs and other special elections). It is very possible for Dems to take Congressional majorities in 2018, but I have my doubts. The map is less favorable to Dems than 2016 in the Senate, but some of the gerrymandering that Repubs did from 2010 census is no being undone as unconstitutional so House pickups may happen even if the votes stay roughly the same based on new, independent bipartisan boundaries.

Again, more people voted for Dem Senate and President. In 2012, Dems received more Senate, House and Presidential votes. Where the voters live matters, a lot. Too many American voters vote against their better interests.

You lost me when you said "Hillary, nor any other decent, moral person." Spin it any way you like, she and Bill came out of the White House "broke", her words, in 2001. Their foundation received hundreds of millions from not only corporations and wealthy individuals, but foreign governments who can't legally directly contribute to presidential campaigns. As Secretary of State more than half of meetings she took with private concerns were large donors to her foundation. Some of those gained significantly from her and Bill's interceding on their behalf. And they both were paid large sums to just give speeches. Bill's fee went up to $750k a speech after she became Secretary of State. Bernie Sanders pointed out her speaking to Wall Street and especially to Goldman Sachs, which she wouldn't allow the transcripts to be published. "Must've been a pretty good speech" said Sanders. And then it was discovered that she kept a private server that she conducted gov't business on. Supporters like to say so did other Secretaries of State. Nowhere close. And didn't share top secret info with others who didn't have clearance. People who've done a fraction of what she did have been jailed and ruined. And AFTER she was subpoenaed she had the server acid washed to eliminate any possibility of recovering 33,000 emails, emails she claimed were just about things like yoga and Chelsea's wedding. She had no right to "bleach bit" them, and the Obama administration covered for her. And she and Bill went from broke to well over $100,000,000 in net worth as it was assumed she was the next president and access was being bought.

You want to talk to us as if we're naive about what goes on, that the Democrats are the good guys, the Republicans are the evil ones. I'll put forth that there's a huge amount of money flowing through Washington, and who has access to it depends on how convincing they can be about how the other side is doing the voters wrong. But make no mistake, each side has it's constituencies that it relies heavily on. The Repubs are about creating an environment that greatly benefits business, and supports a set of social values that draws in a large voting block. The Dems are beholden to various constituencies whose social values are often at odds with both business and the social values Republicans represent. It's an even bigger block in total. There are those in gov't who are true believers in each group's core values, but by and large it's about all that money, all that power. As voters we have to decide which group is going to do the most for us. If we need jobs, if we can't stand the idea of abortion, if we love the military, etc we vote Republican. If we believe business is destroying the environment, if we think the religious right will restrict our rights, etc we vote Democrat. And over time these positions have become polarized with people on each side demonizing the other side. And we seem to be demanding politicians who are so one sided they're almost caricatures. JFK and Harry Truman weren't on the extreme left, they represented all Americans as president. Compare them with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. Compare Donald Trump with Ronald Reagan. It's a sad state of affairs, no pun intended. And yet after reading this there are those here who'll tell me I'm completely wrong, the Democrats are in the right, the Repubs are stupid, greedy, blah, blah, blah. We get the government we deserve.

 

[vantexan]

I feel terrible for the citizens of Lebanon. It is a catch 22 quagmire. Hezbollah is the only thing protecting the country from ISIS. The USA arms Hezbollah currently, but then deems them a terror organization. And bows eternally to the interests of Israel first. Think even about Obama, President welcomes terrorists and criminals into the United States, but draws the line at peaceful Russian diplomats. Expelling them like a cry baby. The woeful ineptness of fellow coconut mulatto Hussein is cringeworthy.

Went to school in the 70's with a couple of guys whose family left Lebanon. What struck me about them was how much more mature they seemed than the rest of us. Can only imagine what they witnessed.

 

[MrFedEx]

You lost me when you said "Hillary, nor any other decent, moral person." Spin it any way you like, she and Bill came out of the White House "broke", her words, in 2001. Their foundation received hundreds of millions from not only corporations and wealthy individuals, but foreign governments who can't legally directly contribute to presidential campaigns. As Secretary of State more than half of meetings she took with private concerns were large donors to her foundation. Some of those gained significantly from her and Bill's interceding on their behalf. And they both were paid large sums to just give speeches. Bill's fee went up to $750k a speech after she became Secretary of State. Bernie Sanders pointed out her speaking to Wall Street and especially to Goldman Sachs, which she wouldn't allow the transcripts to be published. "Must've been a pretty good speech" said Sanders. And then it was discovered that she kept a private server that she conducted gov't business on. Supporters like to say so did other Secretaries of State. Nowhere close. And didn't share top secret info with others who didn't have clearance. People who've done a fraction of what she did have been jailed and ruined. And AFTER she was subpoenaed she had the server acid washed to eliminate any possibility of recovering 33,000 emails, emails she claimed were just about things like yoga and Chelsea's wedding. She had no right to "bleach bit" them, and the Obama administration covered for her. And she and Bill went from broke to well over $100,000,000 in net worth as it was assumed she was the next president and access was being bought.

You want to talk to us as if we're naive about what goes on, that the Democrats are the good guys, the Republicans are the evil ones. I'll put forth that there's a huge amount of money flowing through Washington, and who has access to it depends on how convincing they can be about how the other side is doing the voters wrong. But make no mistake, each side has it's constituencies that it relies heavily on. The Repubs are about creating an environment that greatly benefits business, and supports a set of social values that draws in a large voting block. The Dems are beholden to various constituencies whose social values are often at odds with both business and the social values Republicans represent. It's an even bigger block in total. There are those in gov't who are true believers in each group's core values, but by and large it's about all that money, all that power. As voters we have to decide which group is going to do the most for us. If we need jobs, if we can't stand the idea of abortion, if we love the military, etc we vote Republican. If we believe business is destroying the environment, if we think the religious right will restrict our rights, etc we vote Democrat. And over time these positions have become polarized with people on each side demonizing the other side. And we seem to be demanding politicians who are so one sided they're almost caricatures. JFK and Harry Truman weren't on the extreme left, they represented all Americans as president. Compare them with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. Compare Donald Trump with Ronald Reagan. It's a sad state of affairs, no pun intended. And yet after reading this there are those here who'll tell me I'm completely wrong, the Democrats are in the right, the Repubs are stupid, greedy, blah, blah, blah. We get the government we deserve.

Hey, van. You're nuts. If you want to shut us all up, have Trump show us all of his taxes. Now would be a good time to do it.

 

[MrFedEx]

Went to school in the 70's with a couple of guys whose family left Lebanon. What struck me about them was how much more mature they seemed than the rest of us. Can only imagine what they witnessed.

I thought you were retiring and heading straight to Mexico for a life of leisure. Still saying with El Bandito Freddo?

 

[Oldfart]

Hey, van. You're nuts. If you want to shut us all up, have Trump show us all of his taxes. Now would be a good time to do it.

Will take more than that to get you to quit crying.

 

[It will be fine]

Will take more than that to get you to quit crying.

While this is certainly true, are you not concerned by what's in his tax returns? There has to be something damaging or he would have released them by now. Aren't you interested in what potential conflicts exist between his personal financial interests and say foreign governments?

 

[Oldfart]

While this is certainly true, are you not concerned by what's in his tax returns? There has to be something damaging or he would have released them by now. Aren't you interested in what potential conflicts exist between his personal financial interests and say foreign governments?

The country has never had a president like Trump. Part showman, part promoter, part businessman and not a politician. His diverse business holdings circle the globe and are most likely very complex. I don't care about his tax returns, as I didn't care about Obama's, either Bush, either Clinton or Reagan's. If I trust him enough to run the country, I have to trust him enough to do the right thing when his business holdings come into play when dealing with foreign countries and any company, foreign or domestic.

 

[It will be fine]

The country has never had a president like Trump. Part showman, part promoter, part businessman and not a politician. His diverse business holdings circle the globe and are most likely very complex. I don't care about his tax returns, as I didn't care about Obama's, either Bush, either Clinton or Reagan's. If I trust him enough to run the country, I have to trust him enough to do the right thing when his business holdings come into play when dealing with foreign countries and any company, foreign or domestic.

This attitude is why I can't take republicans seriously. You treat politics like religion. You are happily ignorant of the man's motivations but have "faith" he'll do what's best for you and the country. It's idiotic.

 

[vantexan]

Hey, van. You're nuts. If you want to shut us all up, have Trump show us all of his taxes. Now would be a good time to do it.

As I pointed out, don't expect anything illegal. Otherwise the IRS would've nailed him already. You haven't seen his returns, but they sure have. And, as always, it gets personal because the truth hurts.

 

[vantexan]

I thought you were retiring and heading straight to Mexico for a life of leisure. Still saying with El Bandito Freddo?

Tuesday is my last one!

 

[vantexan]

This attitude is why I can't take republicans seriously. You treat politics like religion. You are happily ignorant of the man's motivations but have "faith" he'll do what's best for you and the country. It's idiotic.

Couldn't you say the same about Hillary?

 

[It will be fine]

Couldn't you say the same about Hillary?

I didn't vote for her, and she lost, he's the president elect and needs to be held to a higher standard.

 

[Oldfart]

This attitude is why I can't take republicans seriously. You treat politics like religion. You are happily ignorant of the man's motivations but have "faith" he'll do what's best for you and the country. It's idiotic.

He is the president elect. All I can do is trust he will do whats right. You can't go thru life not trusting anyone. Unlike many on here, I am an optimist and hope people do the right thing. Most on here do not trust anyone and always expect and wait on people to do the wrong thing. I kept waiting on Obama to do the right thing and all I got was disappointment and failed policies. The sooner we get rid of Obama care, the sooner insurance rates can become affordable for many people.

 

[vantexan]

I didn't vote for her, and she lost, he's the president elect and needs to be held to a higher standard.

Right now the one who still is President needs to be held to a higher standard. He and Kerry are trying to screw Israel on their way out.

 

[It will be fine]

Good lord you people, stop deflecting. How is it possibly a good thing to not know the financial holding of the potus? How is it better for the country to not understand what conflicts might be influencing his policies? Talk about your man, stop demonizing the opposition. How is society better off with less knowledge?

 

[Oldfart]

Good lord you people, stop deflecting. How is it possibly a good thing to not know the financial holding of the potus? How is it better for the country to not understand what conflicts might be influencing his policies? Talk about your man, stop demonizing the opposition. How is society better off with less knowledge?

Negative thoughts must keep you up at night.

 

[vantexan]

Good lord you people, stop deflecting. How is it possibly a good thing to not know the financial holding of the potus? How is it better for the country to not understand what conflicts might be influencing his policies? Talk about your man, stop demonizing the opposition. How is society better off with less knowledge?

Who's deflecting? I was saying Trump should release his returns during the primaries. But still, if he had done anything illegal Obama's IRS would've brought it out before the election. Expect them to show he used every trick in the book to avoid taxes, and he knew it would hurt him before the election. But right now I see the current potus trying to do a few things before he leaves and as he has no problem going around Congress I'm concerned with what he might pull. I'll worry about Trump when he actually has the power.

 

[MrFedEx]

Right now the one who still is President needs to be held to a higher standard. He and Kerry are trying to screw Israel on their way out.

No, sir. They are attempting to preserve the possibility of a 2 state "solution". Kerry and Obama have secured $38B in military aid for Israel, whose PM continues to aggressively expand and inflame the Palestinians.

 

[MrFedEx]

Tuesday is my last one!

Call-in sick, or better yet, take a full load and park the truck somewhere in the middle of nowhere and have your wife pick you up.