Good enough for me to say she’s not president 
I see you signed up, like, yesterday. And you have 85 posts.
Are they ALL in this thread?
Oh no, he has spread his “opinions” in many threads and forums. :rolleyes:
Every spring my gardener spreads …
There were only two questions I asked of you, and they really aren’t that difficult to answer, if only you care to answer a question directly or does it always bring on more innuendo? Again, do you think all or most Democrats that voted for Hillary are delusional? And what makes Trump such an honorable man to you and what do you think of his fan base?
If the national debt is really what is driving you and is of great concern, and you think a Trump was the only answer, after filing six bankruptcies so he didn’t have to pay working people their hard earned money, you think a similar strategy is going to work on the national level? So he borrows a page out of Reagan’s play book, saying we are taxed too much, and if we cut the tax rates, this in turn will stimulate the economy so much, it will eventually make up for the cuts. Need a refreshment course on what happened to our debt under his presidency or under both Bushes? According to John Stossel’s report some years back, national debt typically goes up more when there is a Republican in the WH. Did you know that? But both parties have got us here, there’s plenty of blame to go around. AIUI, if Trump’s middle class tax cuts are temporary, while the upper class or permanent including getting rid of the estate tax entirely, and also bringing the corporate tax down to 15%, what do you think is going to happen to our debt at the end of his first term if his plan goes through? Think this is going to stimulate the economy so much, it will make up for all of the tax cuts? I seriously doubt Trump is your man due to your concern over the national debt.
Let’s try this one again too, and helpful to bring specifics. What psychology research did you do on her while in college, and who spared her diagnosis due to political connections? Big fan of Alex Jones, are ya?
The Democratic Party didn’t offer you a choice. She was the self anointed nominee complete with direct control of the financial strings within the party as was revealed by Donna Brazile. She alone controlled the party.
Trump has experience with profitable bankruptcies. Hasn’t he already said that the U.S. defaulting (“renegotiating”) on its Treasury debt may be a good option? :eek:
As for “plenty of blame to go around,” I do not like this repetitious ignorance. It was Reagan and later GWB who pursued reckless deficit spending. In 1993 Clinton and the Democrats made a serious effort to cut the deficit … and lost the midterm elections as a result. The Obama Administration was unable to attack the debt due to a crippling trifecta:
-
- the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s made stimulus spending mandatory
-
- prices of government-paid healthcare were skyrocketing, in part due to GOP gifts to Big Pharma
-
- increasing taxes on the rich to sane levels was politically impossible.
Thats what gets me. Their are literal hundreds of young, energetic, democrats working in state governments and in congress who would have been a great nominee but did the democratic party look around and choose some? Nope. They went with the old guard who was long past her prime. Why? Well she forced them to do it and dammit, it was her turn.
The polls showed her the huge favorite. She had raised the most campaign money by far. In fact if it hadnt been for Bernie it wouldnt have been a race at all, and in reality by Super Tuesday it wasnt a race anymore.
The voters put her in, not the DNC.
I’m sorry but that’s complete nonsense. She personally took over the party. There was no dynamic flow of information that allowed anything other than her coronation. The polls were crap and even Brazille new it. she wanted to replace HRC with Sanders. The Democratic Party new what was going on and couldn’t stop her.
“She personally took over the party” is a exaggeration. She was polling highest long before that time, and in fact ran well vs Obama, if you remember. No other candidate had a chance, HC has the best polls and best campaign chest very early.
Cart meet horse. Any polling reflected the party line. which she controlled. She was a party of one.
Here’s a Facebook meme that has been going around for a while. I’m not sure what the author is so excited about. Apparently Chelsea Clinton married a guy whose father is a little shady. Big deal, so did Jared Kushner. But those with Hillary Derangement Syndrome eat this up and present it as proof positive that Hillary is Satan’s evil sister. Facts simply don’t matter. If you dig deep and find anyone with any connection to Hillary doing anything that isn’t according to the right wing manifesto, then it is guaranteed to generate outrage, despite any merit or lack thereof.
Yes, I believe Warren said something about it being rigged as well.
It generally takes cooperation of both parties in order to get budgets passed, that’s why it is both that can get some credit during surpluses, but also share some of the blame during deficits. You also give too much credit where it isn’t due, and gladly lay blame solely on the other party. The eight years of the Clinton Administration were divided into four Congresses, with the Democrats controlling the first one during that two year stint, but with the next three their majority diminished with each two year election, and Republicans controlling the last three. The record surpluses were the later years when with the Republicans having more control in Congress, not the Democrats.
But the real reason some economists say we had record surpluses didn’t have as much to do with the president or congress as many like to think, although each played some role. The real reason behind the record surpluses was because of the high tech boom that we were experiencing. This wasn’t just going on in the US, but also in Europe at the same time.
Oh but Bernistas and “independents” love to exaggerate, don’t they. They’re really no different than a lot of those who voted for Trump, falling for the same sort of conspiracy theory bullshit that helped propel Trump to victory. My theory about a lot of Bernie or bust voters is that they’re not really and truly as progressive as they appear on the surface. In a few years, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them openly identify as white supremacists or white nationalists.
Magiver is a “Bernista”? I wouldn’t be so sure about that.
That type of contempt for Bernie supporters does more damage to the party than anything the “Bernistas” do. I’m not sure why you want to drive millions of Democratic voters into 3rd parties.
For what it’s worth, I think Magiver’s claim is too broad. I’ve been a strong critic of what the DNC did wrt Hillary and giving her unprecedented control over the party during the primaries, but I’ll disagree with his characterization of it. Still it is incomprehensible to me that folks can’t understand how Bernie and his supporters would think that whole thing stank. We have no way of knowing if it made a difference or not (I suspect not), but it was a really good way of making Hillary’s Democratic rivals think the deck was stacked beyond what one would normally expect. And to be pissed about it.
And just to be clear, I am not going to get into another debate about the whole affair. Feel free to have the last word if you think you need to respond, but don’t expect I’ll reply. It has nothing do with you, it’s just that we beat this horse to death in the thread about it, and I’m not interested in repeating the process in this one.
Sentiments like mine aren’t driving millions of democratic voters away; they’re already gone anyway. I’m just going to point out that they’re idiotic and full of malarkey. I don’t care if they’re offended - they’re not going to vote for the “corrupt”, “rigged” Democratic party. They’ve made it clear that they think the country is better off with an authoritarian president who uses his powers to try to shut down the free press, engages daily in naked corruption that uses the federal government to enrich his business empire, tries to replace the rule of law with the rule of man, destroys the department of state, depends on the military for diplomacy, and wants to restructure the tax code to take tax breaks for the middle class to cut taxes for the top 1 percent of wealth holders in this country. Sorry, but when your voting behavior knowingly ends up making it more possible for that guy to get elected…you don’t get to call yourself a progressive. Just a bunch of angry “none of the above” voter who stab their eyes with pencils and expects something good to come of it.
There’s a blue arrow in the above quote box. Click the arrow; read my post; make a retraction.
The interests of the Democratic party and *the *Democratic candidate were intertwined, I hear? Oh my goodness gracious! Shame and scandal!
As RO goes, this isn’t even creative. All it does is make the remaining last-Japanese-soldier Bernie Bros look even more childish.
The Bernistas are just angry, angry that more voters didn’t take them and their candidate seriously. The thing is, I actually like Senator Bernie Sanders – he talks about issues and promotes causes that I basically embrace. I like Senator Sanders a lot more than conspiracy theorist presidential candidate Sanders, the latter of which has, perhaps unwittingly, hurt his cause because he has convinced a significant portion of the populace that the very government that he serves and was elected to is corrupt beyond repair. That might make sense in the presidential campaign, but in the longer term, you convince a lot of mainstream voters that it doesn’t matter who wins - they all suck, and that anyone but Bernie is corrupt and part of a corrupt, oppressive machine.
The reality is more complex than that. I think whether people like Hillary or hate her guts, most people would privately, if they’re being honest, would concede that there is nothing in Hillary Clinton’s past that would suggest that she’s shamelessly and as nakedly corrupt as Donald Trump. There’s nothing to suggest that she would have used the executive office to enrich her private enterprises the way Trump has. There’s nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton would have ended Obama’s oversight of police departments. There’s nothing to suggest Hillary Clinton would have gutted the EPA. There’s nothing to suggest that she would have ended net neutrality. There’s nothing to suggest she would have promoted a tax cut for billionaires at the expense of time-honored tax breaks for home owners and college tuition borrowers. There’s nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton would have tried to reverse a bi-partisan effort to reverse mass incarceration in favor of private prisons. There’s nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton would have tried to end DACA and deport asylum seekers There’s nothing to suggest that Hillary would have been pro-NRA. There’s nothing to suggest that Hillary wouldn’t have nominated a moderate progressive for the Supreme Court. I’ll just stop there but the point is made: anyone who seriously thinks that there’s no difference between Hillary and Trump is profoundly uninformed and unqualified to vote. Bernistas are just angry and the fact that they would take all of the above facts into consideration and NOT vote for Hillary is all I need to discredit them. Bernistas are not progressives. If they wanted Bernie to win and realized that the gig was up but then voted for Hillary, I’m fine with that. But to those who believe and even comment that Hillary was somehow no different than Trump, they really ought to shut the fucking fuck up and stop claiming they are enlightened and progressive. They’re just angry, blinded, disillusioned, moronic voters who have no brains and shouldn’t be respected.