If you’re going to include quotes from multiple posters, please try to keep the “Originally Posted by …” so that a quote doesn’t get mis-attributed to me (no big deal, just a protip for future reference).
As for Jon Stewart examples, here’s a couple to kick off the discussion:
Trump just pulled out of TPP, something Clinton would most definitely not have done. Obama broke his promises on trade too. If you want to know one reason Democrats lost bigger than all the others, it’s not bathrooms, or lack of messaging, or all the other theories. It’s years of saying one thing on trade and doing the opposite once elected. Clinton had zero credibility on TPP, which caused some Sanders/Obama voters in the working class to go to Trump. And Trump did actually keep faith with them. TPP is dead.
I distinctly remember back when I was a daily show fan enjoying the show but realizing just how absurdly biased some of their segments were. For example, anything having to do with guns was going to bear little relationship with reality, like presenting bills that would allow someone with a concealed carry permit to carry in places that serve alcohol as long as the carrier doesn’t drink as if they were making it legal to get completely wasted while carrying. I wasn’t aware they did stuff on the level of HurricandDitka’s links, but it doesn’t surprise me.
I certainly never got the impression from the Daily Show that Stewart was especially honest, he was funny but clearly more concerned with getting laughs and promoting his political viewpoint than objectivity or Speaking The Truth. Which is not really bad in a comedy show commentator, especially on a show who’s audience mostly agrees with him, but as a presidential candidate attempting to appeal to the electorate that chose Trump over Clinton I think it would be a big problem.
Isn’t Peter Schiff a tax protestor because Ohio never touched second base or something?
None of those Blue Collar workers even knew what the Trans-Pacific Partnership was, except for GOP scaremongering that “it will take your jobs away”.
And Clinton was on board during the initial steps but after it was gutting and massively changed, she dropped her support.
The concept was a good one. The actual final plan-* not so much. *
Irwin Schiff , not Peter.
This sounds vaguely like something Trump would tweet.
We also all know that campaign promises quite often break in the face of political opposition. I don’t recall the cite specifically, but I remember seeing an article rating Obama at keeping approximately 70% of his campaign promises, a pretty good record even in the absence of the lockstep hypocrisy of GOP Congressmen. That’s a far cry from the flat-out lying that some on this board accuse him of.
TPP is a minor reason at best. It’s lost in the sea of FBI cliques, Russian and Assange collusion with Trump, Clinton’s own complicity in making herself look that bad, and campaign errors in strategy. She’s proven to go where the political winds blow, and has been pretty effective at acting in concert with them. If there had been a groundswell of anti-TPP fervor, she would’ve tried to kill it, but the fact is that it’s just another Republican whipping boy to beat the Democrats, another way of blaming everything under the sun on those damned lying liberals.
Thanks. Now my question is: is Peter Schiff Lorne Michael’s American brother?
Yes, it’s interesting that Gary Johnson was the only functional candidate (on enough ballots to win or had major attention in primaries) who was not opposed to TPP during the campaign. There’s even a thread on GD that’s essentially ‘how dumb does Trump have to be to pull out’ where the people criticizing Trump basically roll their eyes at people pointing out Hillary’s campaign promises.
Hopefully the Democrats have a plan for 2020 that is better than running someone making promises so weak even her ardent supporters think they are BS. It does make all of the posts about how much more honest Hillary is than Trump in here pretty amusing, though.
Getting real on issues Democrats traditionally waffle on for political reasons would be a good start. Trade is one. Abortion funding is the other. Why can’t Democrats just say they support government funding of abortion? Democrats voted against making the Hyde amendment permanent today. We saw the same kabuki dance on gay marriage in the 2000s, where Democrats voted against outlawing gay marriage but were also not for it either(they said).
Say what you mean, mean what you say, be direct. That’s something the whole political class needs to learn, but the party that wants to claim to represent the common man needs it more than most.
In other words, talk like the person who won the last election? Not necessarily what he said but how he said it?
Basically, just sound like Joe Biden.
Yes, especially in 2020 when those legislatures will be drawing Congressional district maps for 2022.
True, nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democratic Party.
He was a David sandwiched between Hillary Goliath and Bernie Goliath.
He’s got plenty going for him for 2020 though: