Maybe if you looked at the facts we’ve given you. Anyway, you did well.
In a democracy, isn’t listening to the voters enough of a reason for a politician to do something? Also, if you think she was just caving to the will of the people, does that mean that the majority of people favored her policy on immigration compared with Trump’s? It’d be pretty stupid for a politician to curry favor by adopting a minority view. If a majority of Americans want that more lenient (for lack of a better word) approach to illegal immigration, surely that’s the approach that the country should take, even if it’s not the policy that you favor.
But supposing you do want a more principled stand from politicians. Maybe Hillary gave her reasoning and you missed it. Maybe she had reasons, but didn’t articulate them in a speech. I can’t recall any politician ever explaining why they had a change of heart on a policy like that. Your assumption that she changed her mind just for votes doesn’t seem to have any evidence behind it. I don’t know of any evidence to counter it, either, but you seem to default to the most unfavorable explanation for her action.
Who is it that declares a place to be a sanctuary city if not the local government?
Do they also get the credit when they release someone who then goes on to drive a pregnant woman to the hospital, raise a child who serves honorably in the U.S. military, pay taxes, and support local businesses with their patronage? I’m sure it’s possible to find a lot of things that undocumented immigrants have done that have had a negative impact on their communities. I’m sure they also have a lot of positive impacts, some large, some very small. A reasoned approach looks at both. Deport all the undocumented immigrants and they won’t be taking any more construction jobs, but how many construction jobs will there be when there are suddenly millions of empty houses and apartments on the market?
Do you think sanctuary cities are hypocritical in that regard? Depending on where they’re located, I don’t think it would be a massive hit to their budget to transport deportees to the border themselves. Or even simpler, they could take them to a non-sanctuary city from which the federal government would then deport them.
One thing that many seem to misunderstand is where someone else is coming from.
Frustration is not anger, and even anger is not hate.
Disliking someone because you disapprove of their actions is not hate.
There certainly is some hate directed at trump, but most on the left admonish or at least ignore actual displays of hatred, even for trump.
I don’t know if its is a projection thing, where they hate democrats so much that they cannot imagine that we don’t hate them back, or just a misinterpretation of criticism, but this whole “you’re a hater” thing gets thrown around with so little consideration, I don’t even know if they know what it means anymore.
“You disagree with my feelings about something, so you’re just a hater.”
No, I just disagree with you, but you seem pretty upset about it.
That’s a shame. I think the things you left unsaid might have given me a better insight into your thinking and voting decision. Alas…
And yet more proof that postpic doesn’t have any real answer to why he supports Trump other than his mantra: He’s not Hillary. He’s not Hillary. He’s not Hillary.
By the way, postpic; you mentioned (or implied) that you didn’t want Ms. Clinton in the White House because you didn’t like her husband’s presidency*. So, to me, that means you’re holding an immediate relative’s actions against the person. Here’s a great question for you: Why don’t you hold Fred Trump’s actions against Donald Trump?
Also, why do you insist that I am a liberal or leftist?
*And what was so bad about the Clinton presidency?
That is not what a sanctuary city in the United States is.
Just wait till the antifas/MS-13 alliance seizes control, then those wimpy liberals will come begging for some good ol’ law and order!
Why does the American Left have so much trouble recognizing Hillary was an exceptional terrible candidate?
The premise of this thread “why didn’t we win like we were supposed to?” Is dumb. You lost because the other guys ran a better candidate (not Hillary). Saying “but he’s objectively worse” is idiocy (he won: he was the better candidate). The organization that lost to the Cheeto should take a look at itself and stop blaming the electorate for their own failings.
Hillary lost because there is not a likable molecule in her body, she got out the vote to get people voting “anybody but her”.
Nobody likes Trump, they just hate him less.
Facebook decided, via algorithm, I assume, that I would like to see posts from a Bernie Sanders supporting group. I haven’t blocked it because I find the comments amusing. One of the regular themes is: Post a news story about Trump misconduct, comments about how much worse Hillary is ensue. On a Bernie page. I swear, they cannot get over her.
Because it was unbelievable that the DNC ran her. It is still unbelievable. The people that arranged that are still in place: Unbelievable again.
Hillary’s opponents cannot get over how terrible she was as a candidate is nothing remarkable: What is remarkable is that Dems are still in denial.
It is not about Donald. He does not have a single good point aside from being not Hillary, but that was enough.
The “American Left” (the real one, not the one made of straw) has repeatedly acknowledged Hillary Clinton’s many flaws and spent considerable time analyzing the mistakes and strategic missteps of her failed campaign, and millions of people—including several of my close family members— do indeed like and admire Donald Trump. The premise of the thread is to ask why that is, and not “why didn’t we[sic] win like we were supposed to?”
But for all that, you really nailed it. Nice job!
She was such a terrible candidate that she got more votes than Trump.
Anyone who questions the way of the great leader must be a liberal or leftist.
So, the winner should rightfully be whoever is the more likeable candidate, not the more competent President. Got it.
My grandmother was a life-long Republican voting pretty much straight-ticket. The one time she voted Democratic for president was 1948, Truman vs. Dewey. She said she got into the voting booth fully intending on voting for Dewey, “but then thought how I couldn’t stand looking at that moustache for the next four years!” On such small things elections turn.
Well, the average IQ is 100. AVERAGE.
So for every 140, for example, there are likely eight 95’s.
And yes, they get to vote too. Hell, there’s probably people who vote for the party because they like Red or Blue. :smack:
No idea what universe you’re living in. That’s acknowledged and discussed and analyzed all the frickin’ time.
The fact that people also discuss other factors that went into Trump’s improbable victory (Russian influence, for instance) doesn’t mean there isn’t a baseline acknowledgement that Hillary was personally uninspiring and made massive strategic blunders.
Lots of people like Trump. They’re not hard to find. They’re hard to fathom, not locate.
Well, one must admit that sometimes he does the right thing, if only out of self-interest: