Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators!

The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators! (Page 19)
Thread Tools
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 12:47 PM
 
As I said, if we get trade protectionist those hats would get made here.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 01:13 PM
 
Gary Johnson's stuff was made here. What stopped Trump?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 01:40 PM
 
Margins.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also known as "deplorables".
Bingo. She can think about her BS and lies while waiting for her hearings and eventual, very public, trial (that will likely strip her of all of her freedoms and dignity).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The rust belt bought the snake oil, that Trump would get their jobs back, even as they bought Trump's "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. There's a logic disconnect there.
As a minor side note, the MAGA hat I have (I collect election memorabilia) reads "Proudly Made in the USA" on its tag with a US flag beside the text, and so have all the other "official" hats I've had a chance to inspect. I suspect that the Chinese hats are mostly an urban legend, sprinkled with a healthy number of opportunistic knock-offs.

Imposing manufactured goods tariffs isn't snake oil (it helped revive manufacturing in the UK, Germany, and Japan), it can work, if handled smoothly and correctly.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The rust belt bought the snake oil, that Trump would get their jobs back, even as they bought Trump's "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. There's a logic disconnect there.
That's what confuses me; How are Trump's vague promises any less empty rhetoric than any other politician?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 12:27 PM
 
Logic has been nowhere near this election.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's what confuses me; How are Trump's vague promises any less empty rhetoric than any other politician?
I'm finding many current discussions about Trump to be difficult. Since everybody thought he'd lose, his actions have been filtered through the "loser" lens.

Punching Paul Ryan in the dick? What a loser move... he should be attacking Hillary! Trump should be beholden to his party... like a good little politician.

In terms of rhetoric, you can't get more "full" than flaming out on your allies.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 01:27 PM
 
So where we those RINO's endorsements of Trump? NOWHERE.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So where we those RINO's endorsements of Trump? NOWHERE.
Wait, what? Is Trump a RINO or a real Republican? Are you saying they're RINOs for not endorsing him, or are you saying you expected them to endorse him only because that's what RINOs would do?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 06:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trump should be beholden to his party
Hillary might well have beaten anyone else they put forward. The party hated him and only came around because they are unprincipled hypocrites and had little choice if they wanted to hold on and run again/themselves later. Then the guy they don't want to follow lands them a victory bigger than they even dreamed of when they know they should have got creamed so now they are beholden to him. The cult of Trump has just begun.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 09:57 AM
 
^^ and the Cult of Hillary is literally in tears and destroying their own neighborhoods... again.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 10:31 AM
 
They are angry because instead of seizing a golden opportunity for permanent, positive, progressive change, America choose to remind everyone that its still full of assholes who want their privilege back.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They are angry because instead of seizing a golden opportunity for permanent, positive, progressive change, America choose to remind everyone that its still full of assholes who want their privilege back.
So they believed the Left's lies and the most corrupt person to ever run for president (Hillary)? SHE was your "golden opportunity"? The chick who despised them all until it was in her best interest to pander to them? For real?

Oh, and your regressive language is dead, talk of this mythical "privilege" is so old fashioned now. The only truly underprivileged people in the world are the ones being oppressed by the regimes that Clinton takes 100s of $millions$ in donations from, to fund her personal ambitions. With any luck the Establishment's days are numbered, and good riddance. I'd rather it was pushed by Sanders, he was my candidate, but I'll back Trump if he goes through with draining the DC swamp and back term limits (something Hillary would have never done in a million years).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Oh, and your regressive language is dead
Honestly, I expect it to be pursued more strongly than ever.

Whatever the chances are of a Trump presidency being a disaster, there's a group out there who won't rest until they double the chances.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 12:51 PM
 
It may get louder, but it won't be stronger. Thankfully it will now shrink, and it can't happen soon enough. The crybullies have had their way for long enough.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It may get louder, but it won't be stronger. Thankfully it will now shrink, and it can't happen soon enough. The crybullies have had their way for long enough.
It could go either way.

I'm seeing about half "maybe we should step back and try to understand what happened" and half "FUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU!"
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 02:16 PM
 
What happened is the media has now decided that they don't care about fair democratic results when things don't go their way, so now they're doing anything they can to sew discord. Ironically, they were the ones who caused all this by giving Trump $5B in free publicity in the first place, and attempting to hide anything negative about Clinton (causing the mother of all Streisand effects). People didn't know for sure what was happening with her causing speculation to run rampant, they only knew it looked really bad, while at the same time believing that Trump was some type of outlaw who would rob from the elites and give to the middle class.

Again, none of this shit would have happened if they'd done their ****ing jobs. They hand delivered the gov't to their worst enemy, and I find it all incredibly hilarious.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
What happened is the media has now decided that they don't care about fair democratic results when things don't go their way, so now they're doing anything they can to sew discord.
What a dangerous needle and thread to use.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The rust belt bought the snake oil, that Trump would get their jobs back, even as they bought Trump's "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. There's a logic disconnect there.
Exactly.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
This. Just this. Everything else is beside the point. Sure Florida would have been enough to flip it even if Michigan does drop for Trump eventually (NH and MN seem to be going blue), but the main path was pretty clearly to keep the traditionally Democratic states and add Virginia and Colorado to get to 270 - and if that was the idea, she made remarkably few proposals to keep the rust belt.
These three states were definitely, to me, the story of this election. They've been reliably blue since at least 2000.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Bingo. She can think about her BS and lies while waiting for her hearings and eventual, very public, trial (that will likely strip her of all of her freedoms and dignity).

This is horseshit.

If women, hispanics, muslims, etc. can stomach all that they stomached enough that some voted for Trump (obviously not 100% of his vote was from white males), they can stomach the "deplorable" label, which there was even an apology for.

Why is it that Trump gets to say what he wants, yet Hillary can't say this, and yet you still claim that there isn't sexism going on here?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is it that Trump gets to say what he wants, yet Hillary can't say this, and yet you still claim that there isn't sexism going on here?
Conservatives don't apply the same standards to each party. Democrats have to be absolutely perfect and never make a mistake or do anything too liberal, then they can earn the rank "Still a ****ing libtard" which is the absolute highest rank for a liberal in conservative land.

If you wear red instead of blue or prefer R to D then you can say and do whatever you want and they'll be cool with it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is horseshit.

If women, hispanics, muslims, etc. can stomach all that they stomached enough that some voted for Trump (obviously not 100% of his vote was from white males), they can stomach the "deplorable" label, which there was even an apology for.

Why is it that Trump gets to say what he wants, yet Hillary can't say this, and yet you still claim that there isn't sexism going on here?
Still conflating what Trump said with what Clinton did, are you? If anyone but Clinton had done what she'd done, they would be in Leavenworth right now. People have been jailed for decades for less. I know what Trump said over a decade ago outrages you, it wasn't nice, it was some nasty locker room banter, but it's not even on the same plane of existence with the laws broken by Clinton. I'm so glad that PC culture is dying, it's about time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 04:01 AM
 
I think he was comparing things Trump has said to what Hillary has said, not actions. We can't compare Trump politically because he has never served office.

Saying that 48% of his followers are "deplorables" (such as the KKK, etc) is unforgiveable, but locker room talk, and so many other outragous statements (shoot someone and still be elected) meh? If you don't like PC, was Hillary's comment PC?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I think he was comparing things Trump has said to what Hillary has said, not actions. We can't compare Trump politically because he has never served office.
We can easily compare actions, and hers are worthy of indictment.

Saying that 48% of his followers are "deplorables" (such as the KKK, etc) is unforgiveable, but locker room talk, and so many other outragous statements (shoot someone and still be elected) meh? If you don't like PC, was Hillary's comment PC?
The "they let you grab them by the pussy" line was old talk, over a decade ago, hers was after receiving the nomination. She dismissed 1/4th of the electorate as deplorable during the run-up to the election, it was her "47%" moment and she never recovered from it (neither did Romney).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 07:34 AM
 
Doesn't mean she was wrong.

If someone forgives a candidate for being a sexist and a racist and votes for him in what would be the certain knowledge that he has zero respect for women if they weren't kidding yourself due to their existing bias, they are literally endorsing that behaviour and that opinion. Between Trump and Pence they want to strip rights from women and LGBT people as well.
Thats well over half the nation someone has to throw under the bus in order to support Trump. It is very much deplorable. The fact they are dumb enough to vote themselves under the bus is another matter, and it doesn't justify anything.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Thats well over half the nation someone has to throw under the bus in order to support Trump.
Meanwhile, you're throwing the other half. Half the nation is idiots, everyone agrees on that. They just don't all agree on which half is which.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Doesn't mean she was wrong.
It means she was stupid for saying that at such a crucial time? Yeah, I agree.

If someone forgives a candidate for being a sexist and a racist and votes for him in what would be the certain knowledge that he has zero respect for women if they weren't kidding yourself due to their existing bias, they are literally endorsing that behaviour and that opinion. Between Trump and Pence they want to strip rights from women and LGBT people as well.
Trump has vocally supported the LGBTQ+ community, you're completely wrong there. The rest is hyperbole that I'm unable to take seriously.

Thats well over half the nation someone has to throw under the bus in order to support Trump. It is very much deplorable. The fact they are dumb enough to vote themselves under the bus is another matter, and it doesn't justify anything.
and that is too. If the Dems really wanted to win, they wouldn't have put up the worst establishment candidate in the last 50 years, and they definitely wouldn't have so obviously stabbed Sanders in the back. There was no one more deplorable than Hillary in that race, and that's why she lost. The end.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Still conflating what Trump said with what Clinton did, are you? If anyone but Clinton had done what she'd done, they would be in Leavenworth right now. People have been jailed for decades for less. I know what Trump said over a decade ago outrages you, it wasn't nice, it was some nasty locker room banter, but it's not even on the same plane of existence with the laws broken by Clinton. I'm so glad that PC culture is dying, it's about time.

Her email scandal is irrelevant to the point I was making. Her email scandal is just partisan fodder, because your non-ideological Joe Sixpack person has no idea what went on there, this was way too technical and foggy.

Joe Sixpack can sink his teeth into whether the deplorable label was fair or not though. There clearly are a lot of deplorable Trump supporters, one just needs to look around to see that, but as far as name-calling goes Trump has gotten away with FAR worse, likely because it supports his brash persona that has worked well for him. There is no way Hillary or any woman can succeed with this sort of brash persona, which is my point. For a woman to succeed she can't be as emotional and reactionary as Trump has been.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Meanwhile, you're throwing the other half. Half the nation is idiots, everyone agrees on that. They just don't all agree on which half is which.
I'm just calling them idiots/assholes. I'm not threatening their rights. Supposedly they are made of tough stuff and don't need safe spaces and they certainly don't care what I think so thats not the same as throwing them under the bus. Electing a leader for everyone who doesn't respect everyone is.


Now that I think about it, this is a shining example of the most spectacular false equivalence of US politics: That both sides are as bad as each other. Somehow according to even perfectly rational and sensible people (and hilariously to both liberals and conservatives), me calling someone an idiot or an asshole because they think and act like an idiot or an asshole is just as bad as them being an idiot or an asshole.

The baseline is in the wrong place. If we could move it to where people are in better agreement as to what constitutes a reasonable political stance, and what makes you a shitty human being, America would be much better off.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It means she was stupid for saying that at such a crucial time? Yeah, I agree.
Yes, she probably shouldn't have said it. But you should be thanking the SJW sae space crew for it really bombing with Dem voters.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Trump has vocally supported the LGBTQ+ community, you're completely wrong there. The rest is hyperbole that I'm unable to take seriously.
Trump sure, Pence not so much.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
and that is too. If the Dems really wanted to win, they wouldn't have put up the worst establishment candidate in the last 50 years, and they definitely wouldn't have so obviously stabbed Sanders in the back. There was no one more deplorable than Hillary in that race, and that's why she lost. The end.
As nice as it would have been to see a woman in charge, I preferred Bernie too. He would have stood a better chance against Trump than any other Republican but I don't think the Dems expected Trump when they moved to get rid of Bernie and the others would have made the most of calling him out as a socialist. I'm sure thats still almost as dirty a word as Clinton in Republican circles.

Trumps campaign was pretty deplorable. At least she never advocated any violence towards anyone.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Her email scandal is irrelevant to the point I was making. Her email scandal is just partisan fodder, because your non-ideological Joe Sixpack person has no idea what went on there, this was way too technical and foggy.
Breaking the laws relating to the handling of top secret documents, and possible treason, isn't "technical" or "foggy". I know you have open contempt for anyone not part of your philosophical clique, but most people can grasp that concept.

Joe Sixpack can sink his teeth into whether the deplorable label was fair or not though. There clearly are a lot of deplorable Trump supporters, one just needs to look around to see that, but as far as name-calling goes Trump has gotten away with FAR worse, likely because it supports his brash persona that has worked well for him. There is no way Hillary or any woman can succeed with this sort of brash persona, which is my point. For a woman to succeed she can't be as emotional and reactionary as Trump has been.
It was an act to get free publicity, and it worked. As Obama said in 2012: Deal with it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes, she probably shouldn't have said it. But you should be thanking the SJW sae space crew for it really bombing with Dem voters.
Mostly she lost because she and the DNC ****ed Bernie, that's it. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Trump sure, Pence not so much.
So what? Pence won't be president. I guess you'd better hope one of the ideologues on your side doesn't kill Trump, then (as they're more likely to do).

Trumps campaign was pretty deplorable. At least she never advocated any violence towards anyone.
Nah, they just had Soros bus people around to do that, over and over again, much like they're doing now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm just calling them idiots/assholes. I'm not threatening their rights.
That's disingenuous. You're not just calling names, and neither was the "deplorables" comment. The obvious implication of each was that their voices and opinions were less valuable, and their right to equal representation should be decreased, if not outright ignored.


Electing a leader for everyone who doesn't respect everyone is.
A prefect example of the above. The same could be said of Clinton; she doesn't respect bigots (apparently a sizable segment of the population). That's one of the main reasons I voted for her.


Now that I think about it, this is a shining example of the most spectacular false equivalence of US politics: That both sides are as bad as each other.
I don't think the two sides are equivalent, on the issues in general. But in the smaller context of electioneering? I most certainly do.


...and what makes you a shitty human being...
Shitty human beings deserve the right to fair representation. If we attenuate the right to vote based on the shittiness of the voter, that would be totally fascist.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is horseshit.

If women, hispanics, muslims, etc. can stomach all that they stomached enough that some voted for Trump (obviously not 100% of his vote was from white males), they can stomach the "deplorable" label, which there was even an apology for.

Why is it that Trump gets to say what he wants, yet Hillary can't say this, and yet you still claim that there isn't sexism going on here?
This is a fair question. The following isn't exhaustive, but covers some of the more important points.

First off, it needs to be acknowledged "basket of deplorables" is a brilliant piece of writing. It resonated louder than many things during the campaign because it's weapons-grade poetry.

Unfortunately, she took this dynamite line and made a really basic error in psychology in the way she framed it.

As an example, let's take the phrase "those dumbass liberals".

Am I referring to you with this term? The answer is "only if you're a dumbass". I did not indict liberals who aren't dumbasses.

How much luck do you think I'm going to have defending my allegation with that argument?


I also want to mention as a nod to the sexism aspect, while Gary did in fact get his Johnson chopped clean off, he didn't do badly because he lacked a penis.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is a fair question. The following isn't exhaustive, but covers some of the more important points.

First off, it needs to be acknowledged "basket of deplorables" is a brilliant piece of writing. It resonated louder than many things during the campaign because it's weapons-grade poetry.

Unfortunately, she took this dynamite line and made a really basic error in psychology in the way she framed it.

As an example, let's take the phrase "those dumbass liberals".

Am I referring to you with this term? The answer is "only if you're a dumbass". I did not indict liberals who aren't dumbasses.

How much luck do you think I'm going to have defending my allegation with that argument?


I also want to mention as a nod to the sexism aspect, while Gary did in fact get his Johnson chopped clean off, he didn't do badly because he lacked a penis.

I think you are fixating on a certain aspect to this while either missing or not acknowledging the broader point.

The broader point is that there are things Hillary could and could not do as a woman that Trump could get away with doing as a man. There were things Obama could and could not do too. There are things that all sorts of politicians can and can not do, but the list for white men is generally the most permissive.

As Louis CK says, being a white male is f-ing awesome.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 02:58 PM
 
If I'm fixating on that aspect it's because it was offered as an example. **** me, right?

I think there's validity to the broader point, but the deplorables didn't go off in her face because she's a woman.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 04:58 PM
 
Not repudiating Podesta et al. on the "Catholic spring" emails didn't help either. The latest count is Trump pulled in 52% of the Catholic vote.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Mostly she lost because she and the DNC ****ed Bernie, that's it. They have no one to blame but themselves.
It doesn't surprise me that you blame them. It won't surprise you that I blame the idiots and the scumbags that voted for Trump.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
So what? Pence won't be president. I guess you'd better hope one of the ideologues on your side doesn't kill Trump, then (as they're more likely to do).
Pence is likely to have increasing influence as Trump gets bored.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nah, they just had Soros bus people around to do that, over and over again, much like they're doing now.
[/QUOTE]

I keep seeing his name but I don't really know who Soros is. I assume this is another one of your conspiracy theories.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's disingenuous. You're not just calling names, and neither was the "deplorables" comment. The obvious implication of each was that their voices and opinions were less valuable, and their right to equal representation should be decreased, if not outright ignored.
More disingenuous than you deciding what I mean? I never said anything about taking away or devaluing their votes. In fact I expressly said I wasn't advocating any reduction in anyone's rights.
There is myriad voices crying out right now that calling these people idiots or assholes for making a horrible decision with their vote is somehow unfair or unhelpful. My perspective is that every other tactic has been tried with these people. If 60% or more of their fellow citizens made a concerted effort to shun them for their terrible beliefs instead of hiding behind free speech arguments or validating their points of view as legitimate alternatives, maybe they'd actually have a reason to reconsider their position. As long as everyone takes a "Oh you hate Mexicans? Thats cool bro" attitude, no minds will change. Free speech has to work both ways.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
A prefect example of the above. The same could be said of Clinton; she doesn't respect bigots (apparently a sizable segment of the population). That's one of the main reasons I voted for her.
This seems like the same disconnect where people don't understand its possible to have zero respect for religion while still respecting religious people as people. Sometimes they do make it really hard to respect them though. As long as you respect their rights, they can have no complaint because you are only doing what they do, except the part where you vote for someone who will deprive them of their rights.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Shitty human beings deserve the right to fair representation. If we attenuate the right to vote based on the shittiness of the voter, that would be totally fascist.
They have never been short of equally shitty representation at all levels of government for as long as I've been paying attention.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 07:30 PM
 
George Soros is currency trader who bankrolls Media Matter, moveon.org and other left wing groups. He's the left's version of the Koch brothers. He got his start ratting out fellow Jews to the Nazis.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
More disingenuous than you deciding what I mean? I never said anything about taking away or devaluing their votes. In fact I expressly said I wasn't advocating any reduction in anyone's rights.
I don't think you're being honest with yourself. And I can't force you to be, so that's all I'll say on that matter.

There is myriad voices crying out right now that calling these people idiots or assholes for making a horrible decision with their vote is somehow unfair or unhelpful.
It's not helpful. Keeping Trump out of office would be very valuable, but we have something far more valuable than that here: the fact that we settle our existential differences by election, not by fisticuffs. I'm not prepared to tear down democracy over Trump's victory. We had an election. It's settled. Save your bile for his actions, not his attitude.

Trump might not even do any of the despicable things he claimed he would do. There's never a good time to over-react before the enemy has even had a chance to act. There are lawful procedures in place to remove someone from office, AFTER he does something unacceptable, and that's what we should be keeping an eye on.


My perspective is that every other tactic has been tried with these people. If 60% or more of their fellow citizens made a concerted effort to shun them for their terrible beliefs instead of hiding behind free speech arguments or validating their points of view as legitimate alternatives, maybe they'd actually have a reason to reconsider their position. As long as everyone takes a "Oh you hate Mexicans? Thats cool bro" attitude, no minds will change. Free speech has to work both ways.
They're not going to change to your side, any more than you would ever change to theirs! Is undermining the ideals of democracy (and our own credibility) worth picking a fist-fight with a crowd of imbeciles who will never come around no matter what we do, and will likely win the fist-fight to boot?



This seems like the same disconnect where people don't understand its possible to have zero respect for religion while still respecting religious people as people. Sometimes they do make it really hard to respect them though. As long as you respect their rights, they can have no complaint because you are only doing what they do, except the part where you vote for someone who will deprive them of their rights.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying Clinton would be a good representative of the entire country, including the deplorables? I was trying to intimate that failure to represent (nearly) half the nation is par for the course. I don't see how it's a valid criticism.


They have never been short of equally shitty representation at all levels of government for as long as I've been paying attention.
Well you know the old line, democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones. There will never be a mechanism for running a government on the wisdom of purely the "good ones." A heterogeneous mixture of good and bad is the best we can hope for. Try to do better, and you're likely to come away with a higher percentage of bad than we have now.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't think you're being honest with yourself. And I can't force you to be, so that's all I'll say on that matter.
Thats interesting because whenever I accuse anyone of that, I get completely lambasted for it. I suspect even by you in the past.
I think I've clearly stated why I think its valuable to call people out for holding shitty views. You don't have to be as aggressive or hostile with as I tend to be, but if people always spoke up when someone said something racist or sexist instead of letting it slide amongst their friends or family, the behaviour would likely begin to die out and after that the views themselves. I say a lot of things that many people here strongly disagree with but they never involve legislating against any group to take their rights away. But we're well into the 21st century and this ass-backward thinking has got to do. Thats why liberals are really so angry about this election. It was such an opportunity to move forwards. First woman president, potentially a generation of Americans raised under liberal Presidents, equal rights for gay people, more acceptance in general and only an orange joke in the way. It looked like the country would finally be able to get over these awful, dated ideals and get down to arguing real politics against real politics instead of politics versus bigotry and nonsense which is what its become.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's not helpful. Keeping Trump out of office would be very valuable, but we have something far more valuable than that here: the fact that we settle our existential differences by election, not by fisticuffs. I'm not prepared to tear down democracy over Trump's victory. We had an election. It's settled. Save your bile for his actions, not his attitude.
I don't know why you think I'm trying to undermine the system. I'm just saying that in a sea of people blaming all sorts of things, no-one is pointing out that America is still full of complete assholes and thats the real problem. You say its not helpful but the first stage in fixing a problem is admitting you have one. As long as the liberals continue to be too polite or politically correct to say it, the assholes will carry on being proud that they are assholes. And voting for other assholes.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Trump might not even do any of the despicable things he claimed he would do. There's never a good time to over-react before the enemy has even had a chance to act. There are lawful procedures in place to remove someone from office, AFTER he does something unacceptable, and that's what we should be keeping an eye on.
Clearly he isn't going to do half the dreadful things we expected of him. He's had a personality transplant already. Just like his buddy Farage, he was lying about 90% of the things he said during the campaign. None of that changes that 70m people voted for him based on what he told them he was. They are now the bigger problem, not him. Until he destroys the environment or works out a way to make cash from more wars.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
They're not going to change to your side, any more than you would ever change to theirs! Is undermining the ideals of democracy (and our own credibility) worth picking a fist-fight with a crowd of imbeciles who will never come around no matter what we do, and will likely win the fist-fight to boot?
Why is calling them out for what they are undermining democracy? Someone else called me a fascist the other day for suggesting that we tell people off for being racist. These responses are baffling to me.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying Clinton would be a good representative of the entire country, including the deplorables? I was trying to intimate that failure to represent (nearly) half the nation is par for the course. I don't see how it's a valid criticism.
I'm saying Clinton wouldn't pass a law to deport white Republicans. She probably shouldn't have said that thing about deplorable but she certainly wasn't wrong about them and she probably figured since people seemed to like it when Trump spoke his mind maybe she could do it too. But America isn't ready for a woman who speaks her mind I guess. Or maybe its just Republicans that get to do that.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Well you know the old line, democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones. There will never be a mechanism for running a government on the wisdom of purely the "good ones." A heterogeneous mixture of good and bad is the best we can hope for. Try to do better, and you're likely to come away with a higher percentage of bad than we have now.
I've suggested something similar before but what about this:

Lets assume an ideal condition where we can build a tamper=proof electronic voting machine.

All political candidates in a given election must state a number of their policies. Lets say 3 each.
When you go to vote, the machine asks you 5 multiple choice questions about matching policies to candidates.
Get them right, your vote counts double. Get more than one wrong and your vote remains a single. The machine does not tell you how many you got right or wrong so you don;t get to know if your vote was a single or double.

This system asks voters who care to do a little bit of homework but its not elitist because you don't have to be a genius to learn the answers. You just have to know how to read. Which was already a prerequisite for a voting machine anyway.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I think I've clearly stated why I think its valuable to call people out for holding shitty views.
If you do it as part and parcel to their vote in a free election, then it's not a free election. It's a "vote my way or I'll harass you mercilessly over it" election. It conjures up images of fat hairy mouth-breathing trump supports loitering around polling places intimidating monitoring the election to ensure everything is on the up and up, or of abusive husbands making sure their wives vote a certain way on mail-in ballots (an argument sometimes given against absentee voting for all). There's a time for vigorous debate in an election cycle, and as you said it is valuable, but if it's not separated from the vote itself, then the vote is tainted.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You don't have to be as aggressive or hostile with as I tend to be, but if people always spoke up when someone said something racist or sexist instead of letting it slide amongst their friends or family, the behaviour would likely begin to die out and after that the views themselves.
Making yourself a pest is not guaranteed to win people over to your beliefs, but one alternative outcome might be that people learn to lie to your face while saying different things behind your back. A small measure of tact goes a long way.


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
First woman president, potentially a generation of Americans raised under liberal Presidents, equal rights for gay people, more acceptance in general and only an orange joke in the way.
I think voting based on "first woman", "first black," "first gay" or "first" of anything is a perfectly noble reason. I mention this only in reference to your vote-weighting idea below. Such a person would likely fail the issues quiz.



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't know why you think I'm trying to undermine the system.
I don't think you're trying to. I think you're doing so without realizing it. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
no-one is pointing out that America is still full of complete assholes and thats the real problem.
...
None of that changes that 70m people voted for him based on what he told them he was. They are now the bigger problem, not him.
...
You say its not helpful but the first stage in fixing a problem is admitting you have one.
Yes, the voters are the problem, but that problem will never be fixed. Bad decisions are the price of free will, and the "fix" (degrading free will) is worse than the problem.


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
As long as the liberals continue to be too polite or politically correct to say it, the assholes will carry on being proud that they are assholes. And voting for other assholes.
You can win people over slowly, if you're polite and behave "better" than your opposition, or you can win them over never. Those are the two choices. You can't berate them over. Some people will remain non-won-over; this is a condition of success.



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Clearly he isn't going to do half the dreadful things we expected of him. He's had a personality transplant already.
Heh, I have a new theory about this: he is as dismayed by his victory as we are. His new demeanor isn't (just) dignity, it's dread


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm saying Clinton wouldn't pass a law to deport white Republicans.
Earlier your said "a leader for everyone who doesn't respect everyone." I took that as what it sounds like, "respect," not "deport." I feel confident saying that half the country would not feel respected by the (H) Clinton administration. I can think of a dozen realistic polices the president could enact to enrage that half of the electorate, still coming far short of deporting the actual voters themselves.


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
She probably shouldn't have said that thing about deplorable but she certainly wasn't wrong about them and she probably figured since people seemed to like it when Trump spoke his mind maybe she could do it too. But America isn't ready for a woman who speaks her mind I guess. Or maybe its just Republicans that get to do that.
Both sides have selectively ignored their own candidate's foibles, while obsessing over the other's. I am fully on-board the breaking-the-glass-ceiling boat, but a simpler explanation here was just that the right's platform wooed more voters this year than did the left's. The additional outrage this year is correlated to the additional clownishness of the candidate. We had to exaggerate to make W look like a clown.


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
All political candidates in a given election must state a number of their policies. Lets say 3 each.
When you go to vote, the machine asks you 5 multiple choice questions about matching policies to candidates.
Get them right, your vote counts double. Get more than one wrong and your vote remains a single. The machine does not tell you how many you got right or wrong so you don;t get to know if your vote was a single or double.

This system asks voters who care to do a little bit of homework but its not elitist because you don't have to be a genius to learn the answers. You just have to know how to read. Which was already a prerequisite for a voting machine anyway.
Poll tests have a bad connotation in this country. Interesting idea nonetheless.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If you do it as part and parcel to their vote in a free election, then it's not a free election. It's a "vote my way or I'll harass you mercilessly over it" election. It conjures up images of fat hairy mouth-breathing trump supports loitering around polling places intimidating monitoring the election to ensure everything is on the up and up, or of abusive husbands making sure their wives vote a certain way on mail-in ballots (an argument sometimes given against absentee voting for all). There's a time for vigorous debate in an election cycle, and as you said it is valuable, but if it's not separated from the vote itself, then the vote is tainted.
To me its not really any different to someone on the right stating that a lefty voted because they like welfare to gay marriage. Its really just a simple statement of fact, but I'm sick of everyone being too polite to say it and too forgiving of it as a legitimate or at least respectable political point of view. We wouldn't respect a group who campaigned for rape to be legalised no matter how big the group was. I doubt we would dismiss it as free speech either. We were not a million miles away from that during this election.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Making yourself a pest is not guaranteed to win people over to your beliefs, but one alternative outcome might be that people learn to lie to your face while saying different things behind your back. A small measure of tact goes a long way.
Nothing is guaranteed but like I say, we keep trying the same other things so why not give this one a go for a change?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think voting based on "first woman", "first black," "first gay" or "first" of anything is a perfectly noble reason. I mention this only in reference to your vote-weighting idea below. Such a person would likely fail the issues quiz.
Some would, some wouldn't. But they'd all still get at least one vote and that would still matter.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, the voters are the problem, but that problem will never be fixed. Bad decisions are the price of free will, and the "fix" (degrading free will) is worse than the problem.
You have to admit that until this year such voters have been much less of a problem in other developed countries than they have in the US.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You can win people over slowly, if you're polite and behave "better" than your opposition, or you can win them over never. Those are the two choices. You can't berate them over. Some people will remain non-won-over; this is a condition of success.
Children and pets learn that behaviour is bad when you reinforce it as such.
The left has been taking the moral high ground for ever and its gotten them nowhere. Its time the stooped a little bit for greater good. I'm not advocating they don any worse than the right, just try beating them at their own game. Despicable should beat despicable and stupid.



Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Heh, I have a new theory about this: he is as dismayed by his victory as we are. His new demeanor isn't (just) dignity, it's dread
I agree. He looks far from comfortable, let alone happy. Makes me wonder what his planned endgame was. I can't image he would have coped well with defeat either.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Earlier your said "a leader for everyone who doesn't respect everyone." I took that as what it sounds like, "respect," not "deport." I feel confident saying that half the country would not feel respected by the (H) Clinton administration. I can think of a dozen realistic polices the president could enact to enrage that half of the electorate, still coming far short of deporting the actual voters themselves.
The point is that while Hillary might think some of her electorate held deplorable views, she would have respected their rights to have them, plus the rest of their rights. Trump and Pence will probably not respect the rights of the groups they have demeaned during the campaign and previously.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Both sides have selectively ignored their own candidate's foibles, while obsessing over the other's. I am fully on-board the breaking-the-glass-ceiling boat, but a simpler explanation here was just that the right's platform wooed more voters this year than did the left's. The additional outrage this year is correlated to the additional clownishness of the candidate. We had to exaggerate to make W look like a clown.
You essentially had four candidates. Two were idiots who couldn't win, one was an establishment democrat with a bad if mostly unwarranted reputation. The other was a racist, sexist, narcissist with no clue wtf he was doing.

You have to ignore one candidates bad points, which do you pick? Its a painfully obvious choice on paper for anyone who isn't a scumbag or a moron. Frankly America should have been ashamed if 10% voted for Trump. Hence the sane half of the population are utterly mortified.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Poll tests have a bad connotation in this country. Interesting idea nonetheless.
If thats the only complaint against it, its holding up pretty well so far.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post


You essentially had four candidates. ....... one was an establishment democrat with a bad if mostly unwarranted reputation.
THIS is why you fail. You have no skills at evaluating others character and morals. You ignored the stuff we DID know about her email server and other horrid scandals she was involved in and caused.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Both sides have selectively ignored their own candidate's foibles, while obsessing over the other's.
Exhibit A:
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
THIS is why you fail. You have no skills at evaluating others character and morals. You ignored the stuff we DID know about her email server and other horrid scandals she was involved in and caused.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
evaluating others character and morals.
Certainly Trump's strong suits, his character and morals.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
To me its not really any different to someone on the right stating that a lefty voted because they like welfare to gay marriage. Its really just a simple statement of fact, but I'm sick of everyone being too polite to say it and too forgiving of it as a legitimate or at least respectable political point of view. We wouldn't respect a group who campaigned for rape to be legalised no matter how big the group was. I doubt we would dismiss it as free speech either.
Don't be so sure. Majority beliefs can change more "facts" than you think. People like Chongo believe that there is a group who campaigns for murder to (continue to) be legal, under the name of abortion. Most in the country believe differently, so it is not murder. If the ratio of believers changes, so will the "facts." Another example is child-marriage. Some groups believe it is not rape, but most of us think it is. If that fringe of believers in child-marriage managed to grow to a majority, then a campaign to legalize that form of rape would not be quelled a priori.

Nothing is guaranteed but like I say, we keep trying the same other things so why not give this one a go for a change?
If you had a Chongo in your family who implemented the persistence strategy on you (re abortion), what do you think the outcome would be? Would his persistence make you come around to his perspective? Or would his persistence merely harden your opposition to him?

You have to admit that until this year such voters have been much less of a problem in other developed countries than they have in the US.
That's cuz we made america great again


Children and pets learn that behaviour is bad when you reinforce it as such.
Oh god. People aren't children, not even stupid people. And they know it when you treat them like they are children, and they definitely don't appreciate it. You'll do more harm to your cause going down this path than any opponent of your cause could hope to do.


I'm not advocating they don any worse than the right, just try beating them at their own game. Despicable should beat despicable and stupid.
Beware the facile strategy of selecting the absolute worst of the other side as your role model. Many of the other side remain on the high road too, even if they aren't the most visible attention-seekers.


I agree. He looks far from comfortable, let alone happy. Makes me wonder what his planned endgame was. I can't image he would have coped well with defeat either.
The time when I got the strongest feeling of "this.... is his exit plan" was when he didn't back down from his "founder of ISIS" comment. Runner up was when he started talking about rigged elections several weeks before the election. I think he expected one of those events to give him an excuse to fade away gracefully.


The point is that while Hillary might think some of her electorate held deplorable views, she would have respected their rights to have them, plus the rest of their rights.
If deploring a viewpoint counts as "respect" for that view, then I have to wonder what definition of "respect" you are using.


You have to ignore one candidates bad points, which do you pick?
Yeah but that's exactly what both sides said. At that point, it falls back on the boilerplate issues, like abortion, second amendment, entitlements, yadda yadda yadda. The electorate is so close to break-even on those issues that it could go either way, and that's what happened.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,