The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Nah, he didn't explicitly say the words Quid Pro Quo.

Foiled by those pesky technicalities again!!

[Front Office Midget]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Bernie supporters on the left can be nearly as bad as trump supporters on the right. They are willing to buy in and support whatever conspiracy makes them feel the most aggrieved and throw a massive temper tantrum when they don't get their way.

I don't really want to get sucked into this thread, I'll just say that probably about 90% of my friends are Bernie supporters (I have only ever seen 1 other positive post about a different candidate this cycle, and that was a selfie with Warren), and I really don't know what you're talking about here. I wouldn't know the term "Bernie Bros" except for FOFC, and I really don't know what it is all about. What events are you referring to?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bernie isn't a Democrat. Not only that, he has spent years shitting all over the party and, more importantly, the people working for the party. He doesn't campaign for a lot of Democrats. He doesn't fundraise for the party or many candidates. Then, when he runs for the presidency, he and his supporters expect some perfect neutrality that hasn't ever existed. People have relationships, they have preferences, and there have always been favorites. Bernie's failing is that he hasn't the time nor interest in building the relationships necessary to get things done. He's had the same failing as a senator.

Well the party sucks as evident by the fact they always get their ass kicked and can't accomplish anything when they do luck into power. So what should he be praising them for? Giving Wall Street everything they want? Continuing on endless unpopular wars? Being the Republican's bitch? Losing on every issue?

But even with that, what has the DNC done to stop Bernie? Sure people don't like him, but the DNC rewrote a lot of rules for this cycle specifically to please Bernie and his supporters. Four years ago, somehow the rigged DNC still let Bernie win primaries and caucuses. So far this cycle the rigged DNC has let Bernie win the vote count for both contests. If they're working against Bernie they sure are doing a poor job.

You can read actual e-mails from DNC leaders describing how they want to stop Bernie. Calling on shady schemes to halt his popularity. They used DNC funds to run her campaign against Bernie.

My belief is the DNC should be neutral and let the best candidate win. They shouldn't be working behind the scenes to screw anyone. They shouldn't be run by one candidate in what is supposed to be a democratic primary. Whether that be Pete, Biden, Sanders, etc. Republicans for all their faults actually let their base call the shots. A handful of rich Democrats want to call the shots for the base. Guess which one always seems to win?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Sanders weakness is that he is a socialist. There are people that might have voted against Trump that will never ever ever vote for a socialist. The assertion that he will bring in "new voters" to make up for those losses is at best a theory. I think the same (but opposite affect) of Bloomberg. Bloomberg will pull even deeper from the center-right than any other Democratic candidate, but he is going to drive the far left to vote third party, or just stay home.

The weakness is that he's labeled a socialist. Politicians are more than happy to provide welfare to farmers, auto manufacturers, steel makers, banks, investment firms, and on and on.

Face it, this country is a bastardized version of socialism where taxpayers take on all the downside and a few individuals reap the benefits.

[JPhillips]

The GOP was working very hard to stop Trump up until it became clear he was going to win regardless of what they wanted.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP was working very hard to stop Trump up until it became clear he was going to win regardless of what they wanted.

Ted Cruz wasn't controlling the RNC coffers. Trump didn't have to compete with an avalanche of superdelegates tilting the race toward a single candidate.

[RainMaker]

And I'm not a Bernie bros or whatever. I just want an opposition party in this country. For some reason Democrats just love to lose. They're a bad sports franchise that always ends up losing and instead of firing the people who made it happen, they promote them.

How that party didn't purge every dumbass Clinton surrogate after 2016 is beyond me. She lost to a fucking game show host.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And I'm not a Bernie bros or whatever. I just want an opposition party in this country. For some reason Democrats just love to lose. They're a bad sports franchise that always ends up losing and instead of firing the people who made it happen, they promote them.

How that party didn't purge every dumbass Clinton surrogate after 2016 is beyond me. She lost to a fucking game show host.

That's pretty close to how I feel. The Democrats have been playing compromise-to-lose for my entire lifetime, acting as the Washington Generals to the GOP's Globetrotters, and the relative stink of Trump has made it easy to ignore their faults for the last 3 years. I have managed to at least take some solace from the predictions that Biden, an actual living relic of the third way, won't end up as the nominee.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ted Cruz wasn't controlling the RNC coffers. Trump didn't have to compete with an avalanche of superdelegates tilting the race toward a single candidate.

For about the one millioneth time, the super delegates didn't matter. Clinton was ahead before the super delegates. The only way Bernie could have won was with the super delegates.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

For about the one millioneth time, the super delegates didn't matter. Clinton was ahead before the super delegates. The only way Bernie could have won was with the super delegates.

Superdelegates gave impression Clinton had an insurmountable lead. It painted her as the leader at all times.

Image matters in elections. It's why winning an extra delegate or two in a tiny caucus like Iowa matters. It allows your campaign to build momentum and garner popular support. Looking up the results of a primary and seeing a side has an enormous lead out of the gate due to superdelegates isn't going to help the people who are behind. It crushes the idea that it is a democratic process (which is really isn't).

But keep supporting how the DNC operates. They'll continue to get their asses kicked over and over again. But at least we'll all get to see Nancy tearing up a piece of paper or clapping or whatever it is that gets her a 24 hour news cycle that means shit.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Superdelegates gave impression Clinton had an insurmountable lead. It painted her as the leader at all times.

Image matters in elections. It's why winning an extra delegate or two in a tiny caucus like Iowa matters. It allows your campaign to build momentum and garner popular support. Looking up the results of a primary and seeing a side has an enormous lead out of the gate due to superdelegates isn't going to help the people who are behind. It crushes the idea that it is a democratic process (which is really isn't).

But keep supporting how the DNC operates. They'll continue to get their asses kicked over and over again. But at least we'll all get to see Nancy tearing up a piece of paper or clapping or whatever it is that gets her a 24 hour news cycle that means shit.

You reminded me of an old favorite



And sometimes I get the feeling you just like to complain without offering any useful suggestions.

[JPhillips]

Trump's now admitting that he sent Rudy to Ukraine.

[JPhillips]

The presidential election hasn't been the problem. They've gotten the most votes in five of the last six elections, and the DNC really doesn't have much say in the general election. The problem for the DNC has been too much attention to the presidential election and too little to everything else.

I think the idea that Bernie would have gotten more votes if more people thought he wasn't losing by as much is dubious. Further, my recollection is that the super delegates were talked about a lot and the general argument was that if Bernie got the most delegates he should win.

Politics is a tough game. It was unfair for Bill Clinton. It was unfair for Obama. In the general it was unfair for Hillary. Nobody cares. Win.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Front Office Midget

I don't really want to get sucked into this thread, I'll just say that probably about 90% of my friends are Bernie supporters (I have only ever seen 1 other positive post about a different candidate this cycle, and that was a selfie with Warren), and I really don't know what you're talking about here. I wouldn't know the term "Bernie Bros" except for FOFC, and I really don't know what it is all about. What events are you referring to?

Specific to Bernie Bro, here's a Feb 2016 article.

Bernie Bros, explained - Vox

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Front Office Midget

I don't really want to get sucked into this thread, I'll just say that probably about 90% of my friends are Bernie supporters (I have only ever seen 1 other positive post about a different candidate this cycle, and that was a selfie with Warren), and I really don't know what you're talking about here. I wouldn't know the term "Bernie Bros" except for FOFC, and I really don't know what it is all about. What events are you referring to?

Well, for starters, their failure to support the party candidate cost the party the election. Instead, they all threw up their hands and sat out, or swapped to idiocracy man.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-election/


Now, they believe that, because their man isn't dominating and winning by big numbers that the party is out to get him again. They refuse to take any other stance except that Bernie is the only candidate they want, they refuse to play with anyone else, and if you stand in their way, they will claim you cheated, and that he would have won fair and square. The fact is, that the party needs voters and candidates like this, but they need them as part of the larger structure and base, not as some kind of negotiation with a gun to your head mentality, our way or else, that they currently espouse.



So in a way, like trump's "only I can solve the problems" attitude, which is complete bs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Win.

I think the problem is the leaders of the party are the people who always lose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Well, for starters, their failure to support the party candidate cost the party the election. Instead, they all threw up their hands and sat out, or swapped to idiocracy man.

It was Bernie's fault that one of the worst politicians in modern history lost yet again. This time to a game show host. As she has made clear time and again, it is never her fault.

I've heard he made her vote for the Iraq War. Forced her to vocally denounce gay marriage for decades. Also was behind that racist whisper campaign against Obama in the primary.

The Democratic Party establishment rallied behind Hillary Clinton in 2016. A candidate with almost no progressive history who had a pro-corporate voting record that took tons of money from the fossil fuel industry. She held nearly identical views on immigration as Trump.

Maybe people on the left didn't vote for her because she's not really on the left? I get the idea of picking the lesser of two evils. But I also understand why people would say fuck it and stay home. Maybe try earning someone's vote instead of acting like it's owed.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The weakness is that he's labeled a socialist. Politicians are more than happy to provide welfare to farmers, auto manufacturers, steel makers, banks, investment firms, and on and on.

Face it, this country is a bastardized version of socialism where taxpayers take on all the downside and a few individuals reap the benefits.

Sure it is, but the difference is that he has labeled himself a socialist. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union. He praised Castro. He is going to be by far the easiest candidate to slam in a general election, with constant comparisons to Venezuela and Cuba. Is it fair? Of course not. Will it work? Absolutely.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Sure it is, but the difference is that he has labeled himself a socialist. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union. He praised Castro. He is going to be by far the easiest candidate to slam in a general election, with constant comparisons to Venezuela and Cuba. Is it fair? Of course not. Will it work? Absolutely.

It doesn't matter. The GOP will be labeling any D candidate a socialist just like they've done for decades.. including Obama. It may scare some boomers but those boomers were not likely to vote D anyway.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe try earning someone's vote instead of acting like it's owed.

Can't the same be said for Bernie?

If Clinton is so horrible, how bad must Bernie be if he can't beat her?

[JPhillips]

dola

Boris Johnson has canceled a trip to the WH after Trump hung up on him.

So much winning.

[molson]

Trump would win 2020 in a landslide if he could act kind of normal. Unless those things are a part of his appeal. But with so many "I don't like him but who else am I going to vote for" kind of voters, the Dems seemingly on their way towards going far-left for the nomination, and Trump's relatively solid approval ratings all things considered - I think he could have swept the floor with the Dems in November if he did his thing but cut back on the insanity and crimes just a little bit. (And he still might win a electoral college landslide despite those things). It's kind of crazy where we are.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Boris Johnson has canceled a trip to the WH after Trump hung up on him.

So much winning.

I don't know if this post is sarcastic or not.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

It doesn't matter. The GOP will be labeling any D candidate a socialist just like they've done for decades.. including Obama. It may scare some boomers but those boomers were not likely to vote D anyway.

Agreed.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

I think he could have swept the floor with the Dems in November if he did his thing but cut back on the insanity and crimes just a little bit.

There's something surreal seeing "if he just cut back on the crimes just a little bit" written down like this.

[cartman]

Opinion | A Conservative Judge Draws a Line in the Sand With the Trump Administration - POLITICO

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It was Bernie's fault that one of the worst politicians in modern history lost yet again. This time to a game show host. As she has made clear time and again, it is never her fault.

I've heard he made her vote for the Iraq War. Forced her to vocally denounce gay marriage for decades. Also was behind that racist whisper campaign against Obama in the primary.

The Democratic Party establishment rallied behind Hillary Clinton in 2016. A candidate with almost no progressive history who had a pro-corporate voting record that took tons of money from the fossil fuel industry. She held nearly identical views on immigration as Trump.

Maybe people on the left didn't vote for her because she's not really on the left? I get the idea of picking the lesser of two evils. But I also understand why people would say fuck it and stay home. Maybe try earning someone's vote instead of acting like it's owed.

That's my point. She's a shitty candidate. She has 30 years of old, white men talking shit about her and how awful she is. She brought a ton of baggage, and she has an uppity feel to her 'fuck you' attitude that someone like Harris doesn't have.



But, more to my point and yours. People who genuinely cared about what 2016 was all about, and it wasn't the presidency, it was the Supreme Court, if those people actually pulled their heads out of their asses, and were truly pissed about the way that McConnell fucked over Obama, and the rule of law, then they should have sucked it up like big boys, grabbed some tissues, and fucking voted that way. So yeah, take your ball and stay home won the day. Great fucking choice that was.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can't the same be said for Bernie?

If Clinton is so horrible, how bad must Bernie be if he can't beat her?

*crickets*

This is basically, after the silence, when the conspiracy theories come out.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I don't know if this post is sarcastic or not.

It is not. The whole trip has been canceled, although they still plan to meet at the G-7 this summer.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It is not. The whole trip has been canceled, although they still plan to meet at the G-7 this summer.

I see.

It's just that I would consider getting out of meeting Boris Johnson a win

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

Trump would win 2020 in a landslide if he could act kind of normal. Unless those things are a part of his appeal.

Don't underestimate that to a very large block of his voters those things are the appeal. There are a lot of people who feel like they have been talked down upon from the elitists in Washington their whole lives. He speaks a language they understand, nevermind the content. It isn't about that. They excuse all the juvenile, horrible things he says by dumbing it down to "telling it like it is"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

That's my point. She's a shitty candidate. She has 30 years of old, white men talking shit about her and how awful she is. She brought a ton of baggage, and she has an uppity feel to her 'fuck you' attitude that someone like Harris doesn't have.

But, more to my point and yours. People who genuinely cared about what 2016 was all about, and it wasn't the presidency, it was the Supreme Court, if those people actually pulled their heads out of their asses, and were truly pissed about the way that McConnell fucked over Obama, and the rule of law, then they should have sucked it up like big boys, grabbed some tissues, and fucking voted that way. So yeah, take your ball and stay home won the day. Great fucking choice that was.

Maybe her campaign should have focused on that more. "I'm a shitty candidate who has a history or terrible votes but I'll maybe appoint a Supreme Court justice you'd like".

Again, not her fault. Never can be. Always someone else to blame for why she sucks and always loses.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can't the same be said for Bernie?

If Clinton is so horrible, how bad must Bernie be if he can't beat her?

Yeah I don't know if Bernie would have beaten Trump. I think the party would have united more if the primary was impartial.

The Democratic Party went all-in behind a politician who has been more or less a moderate Republican for the past 20 years. They did a bunch of shady shit behind the scenes to stifle the only progressive candidate running. Then they got made that the progressives didn't support their moderate Republican candidate.

The real issue isn't Bernie vs Hillary. It's that the Democrats sort of punted on anyone but Hillary. They should have pushed more candidate to run and seen if they could light a spark (like with Obama).

I guess my advice to Democrats is to run Democrats if you want Democrats to vote for you.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

It doesn't matter. The GOP will be labeling any D candidate a socialist just like they've done for decades.. including Obama. It may scare some boomers but those boomers were not likely to vote D anyway.

But those charges stick much harder on a guy that literally is a socialist and has a long history of praising socialist. It is going to more than scare Boomers. There are people that will vote for a Democrat, but won't vote for Bernie.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There are people that will vote for a Democrat, but won't vote for Bernie.

I could full on be one of these despite the fact I despise Trump with everything I have. I would really need to dig in to what Sanders is proposing. Not trying a humble brag, but wife and I make well into 6 figures and I would really need to know if his policies would have a serious effect on our take home. I am all for universal healthcare, affordable college, etc...but at some point I need to know the cost to my family and out best financial interests.

[JPhillips]

There's this weird insinuation that Hillary was a historically terrible candidate. She won almost 66 million votes and turnout was higher than average. Lots of people were excited to vote for her.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's this weird insinuation that Hillary was a historically terrible candidate. She won almost 66 million votes and turnout was higher than average. Lots of people were excited to vote for her.

Having the second highest unfavorable rating out of all presidential candidates will do that to you.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/...or-images.aspx

[GrantDawg]

Hillary ran a bad campaign as well. Ignoring the mid-west was the ballgame.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But those charges stick much harder on a guy that literally is a socialist and has a long history of praising socialist. It is going to more than scare Boomers. There are people that will vote for a Democrat, but won't vote for Bernie.

I agree with both points. I just don't want people to give the GOP the power to dictate the candidate. Sanders certainly wasn't my first choice but if the alternative is Biden then consider me a Bernie bro

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's this weird insinuation that Hillary was a historically terrible candidate. She won almost 66 million votes and turnout was higher than average. Lots of people were excited to vote for her.

She lost to a game show host who's brain is filled with peanut butter.

[thesloppy]

I've never met anyone that seems to live up to the description of a BernieBro despite knowing a ton of Bernie supporters....but I've never met an actual Tea Partier either. Culture implies these folks are everywhere, but I'm not sure they even exist, just like people who watch "Young Sheldon"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I've never met anyone that seems to live up to the description of a BernieBro despite knowing a ton of Bernie supporters....but I've never met an actual Tea Partier either. Culture implies these folks are everywhere, but I'm not sure they even exist, just like people who watch "Young Sheldon"

I do know of a BernieBro, but he seems to be one only when on Facebook. At the very least he doesn't get it that shit when he hangs out with me. We just generic dump on Trump if the conversation ever goes to politics.

And he is well away that I am (and remain) a massive Hillary Clinton supporter.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I've never met anyone that seems to live up to the description of a BernieBro despite knowing a ton of Bernie supporters....but I've never met an actual Tea Partier either. Culture implies these folks are everywhere, but I'm not sure they even exist, just like people who watch "Young Sheldon"

I know people in each of those three categories. So yep, they exist.

[JPhillips]

Smugglers are using rebar ladders bent at the top to hook onto the wall and climb over.

So much winning.

[Thomkal]

Avernatti found guilty on all counts in his trial of attempted extortion of Nike. Has two more federal trials coming up. I hop ehe enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Avernatti found guilty on all counts in his trial of attempted extortion of Nike. Has two more federal trials coming up.

Steve Bannon wasn't kidding when he said he could go toe to toe with Trump.

[Edward64]

Many innocent Afghanis will be hurt by this for sure but it's time to get out as best as possible and hope for the best. I did not read but assume the Taliban will have a role governing and that is really the only long term solution. Interesting "petri" dish experiment here, IMO odds are it'll end up similar to when the Russians left.

I wonder if a secular strongman dictator vs pseudo democracy would have been better, at least for the initial 20-30 years or so, but that comes with other issues. I really hope it turns out well, I would love to visit and tour Afghanistan.

US-Taliban talks: A prelude to all-encompassing Afghan deal? - BBC News

What the Americans are clearly hoping for is some quick and early sign that the Taliban are serious.

A week's cessation of violence is the route into the process. Many US analysts fear that President Trump, for his own political reasons, is rushing for the exit.

Few Americans will be sorry that the longest-lasting campaign of the "forever wars" may at long last have a chance of ending.

But one should not be sanguine about what might follow.

Writing earlier this week, veteran US defence expert Tony Cordesman raised concerns that the "peace" being sought by President Trump might rather be the "Vietnamisation" of a US withdrawal.

There are many warning signs," he noted, "that this peace effort may actually be an attempt to provide the same kind of political cover for a US withdrawal as the peace settlement the US negotiated in Vietnam."

[JPhillips]

lol

Trump broke Daytona.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's this weird insinuation that Hillary was a historically terrible candidate. She won almost 66 million votes and turnout was higher than average. Lots of people were excited to vote for her.

That weird insinuation is based on the simple fact of what her approval/disapproval numbers were. In modern history, only Trump's have been worse. Objectively Hillary was a historically terrible candidate. She got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012 in an election where there were more votes cast. Really I think it's pretty cut and dry on that score.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Hillary ran a bad campaign as well. Ignoring the mid-west was the ballgame.

She had a huge lead a couple months out, which is easy to forget. Her campaign wasn't great with the whole basket of deplorables and similar language, but I can't fault her much for the most part. Esp. considering how unique of a challenge Trump posed. Going into the election, the consensus was Trump was delusional about winning in the Rust Belt. It went against what pretty much all the experts, including those in Trump's campaign, were saying. Everyone was taking fivethirtyeight to task in the runup for their insistence Trump had a chance, with most other pundits saying Hillary was a greater than 99% shoo-in (literally). I don't think it's fair to call being on the wrong side of a historical anomaly running a bad campaign.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Many innocent Afghanis will be hurt by this for sure but it's time to get out as best as possible and hope for the best. I did not read but assume the Taliban will have a role governing and that is really the only long term solution. Interesting "petri" dish experiment here, IMO odds are it'll end up similar to when the Russians left.

I wonder if a secular strongman dictator vs pseudo democracy would have been better, at least for the initial 20-30 years or so, but that comes with other issues. I really hope it turns out well, I would love to visit and tour Afghanistan.

US-Taliban talks: A prelude to all-encompassing Afghan deal? - BBC News

Getting out is a good thing. The war was lost a long time ago. Every live lost now is unfortunately in vain. And we might as well be lighting our tax dollars on fire.

Cut a deal and get out. It's not our war.