reads back into thread
My previous post was a response to yours, I had not posted in this thread prior to that, maybe you can keep to things I actually said, not assign someone else’s argument to me?
That’s actually rather funny considering you asked me for a cite when it was that Bernie declared himself a Democrat in response to a post where I said “Bernie was not a member of the Democratic party”.
But it would seem that some (may or may not include you) think that all of the folks who supported Bernie (most of whom did and do consider themselves Democrats) have nothing to complain about because someone found some silly semantic pseudo-argument that Bernie wasn’t a “Democratic Candidate”. Or that other folks on the Democratic side who, though they didn’t support Bernie, were not supporters of HRC either should be not at all bothered by the fact that the DNC significantly intertwined itself with HRC’s campaign before we even know who all the candidates were going to be (Biden didn’t announce he wasn’t running until Oct 2015, for example).
Oh my again. 
We have a subthread with razncain making the false statement:
The 1993 budget passed Congress without one single Republican vote. Far from “cooperating”, Gingrich and his cronies staged press conferences emphasizing that it was all the Democrats doing, and that the Democrats alone would be responsible for the great recession of the mid- and late-1990’s. (Spoiler alert: The recession didn’t happen. Instead that era was one of the strongest booms ever.)
I tried to fight this ignorance, but look what happened:
:smack: razncain finds a cite which supports my statement … but is in such a hurry to cut-paste the link that he doesn’t read his own cite! He doesn’t even notice that it supports my statement:
razncain, if you feel an urge to continue on this ignorant path, at least nod your head when you’ve actually read the about quote taken from your own cite. :smack:
The “Fact check” was checking a completely different claim. :smack: (Start a new thread to debate the claim I did NOT make but which razncain “refuted.” BTW, there are economistS who won the highest Prize in Economics who would disagree with “FactCheck” here.)
Please reread the posts you purport to respond to. After you put the shovel down, of course.
razncain said “generally.” One counterexample does not explode a claim of generality.
**septimus,**the FactCheck cite did support plenty of my contentions in previous posts. In post 185 and 195 when talking about the deficit, I said it generally takes the cooperation of both parties to have gotten us here. Nearly 20 trillion of dollars isn’t just one party doing the overspending. This is when you inserted your canned post wanting to concentrate on '93. FactCheck also stated Clinton deserved some credit for the surpluses, not all, as did I, and that by the time he left the office the economy was slowing and slipped into a recession just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office. And it also stated how other factors having little or nothing to do with the government that were at work during the Clinton years, of which I also commented on the tech boom, and that particular piece stating how personal computers and internet have came of age along with other tech innovations. It also mentioned luck, of which I didn’t.
I’d agree that some economists could find fault with some aspects of FactCheck. And I’m also sure if the piece was updated, they would want to revise it about Greenspan’s role, because many economists finally realized his policies in part help bring on the Great Recession, and even Greenspan admitted he had erred and conceded an error on regulation and that free market ideology is flawed.
I just picked FactCheck because it is non-partisan.
Conservative Christians didn’t support HRC, but don’t recall ever a time they ever have supported a Democratic candidate even if they are Christian. Wonder what they found in Trump though?
That was sarcasm, right? It’s so hard to be sure these days.
Elvis, in all seriousness, I don’t expect conservative Christians to support HRC, although of the candidates, their view of what being a Christian is and acting like one evidently was the least of their concerns. But I’m curious in all of the Celebrity Apprentice shows, and TV interviews done on Trump spanning decades, was he ever once proclaiming Jesus as his Savior, any talks of him being saved, anything where he talked bible shop or anything remotely religious that gave us a clue he was a Christian?
Remember not too long ago talking to some religious school, think it was Liberty, where he mispronounced Two Corinthians and the crowd laughed? He even cussed a few times IIRC in front of them. Of all the cons he has pulled off, and there have been plenty, but this may have been one of his biggest. Or maybe they didn’t even care, and the venom for HRC is what still drove 'em to Trump.
Not only has he never proclaimed that he was a Christian himself, it’s that he embodies all the qualities that are the exact opposite of what Christianity should be, and by that I mean all the good stuff about tolerance, loving your neighbors, and turning the other cheek.
The Christian Right is very tolerant. They’ll put up with Nazis, pedophiles and torturers if it means women may be forced to bear children against their will or if there’s money involved.
I was suggesting that affiliation with evangelical Christianity is closely associated with racism, as well as sexism and homophobia and other deplorabilities that are also associated with today’s Republican Party. That faction of the pretend-religious is well known for rationalizing away and simply ignoring what Christ actually taught.
IOW you *know *why they hate Obama and love Trump. I didn’t realize that was a serious question.
AIUI, most Christians don’t see Trump as a good Christian, or a Christian at all. Those who voted for Trump did so on the basis of pragmatism - he was going to nominate Gorsuch to SCOTUS, for instance, whereas Hillary sure wouldn’t. They may have disliked him, but he was much more likely to get their political goals enacted than HRC.
Did Trump announce Gorsuch before the election??
Not Gorsuch by name, but voters all knew he would nominate someone much more palatable to conservative tastes than Hillary would.
He did provide a list of 21 names of planned nominees, including Gorsuch and others like him.
Well, he put his name on it. Donald Trump sure as hell didn’t provide that list. Not for one instant do I believe Donald Trump in 2016 could have named 21 active judges or any political stripe.
As I recall, the list was composed primarily by The Heritage Foundation, funded by the Kochs. Gorsuch was the Mercers’ contribution to the list. Bannon/Conway were ascendant when the time came to make the choice, so Gorsuch it was.
Are you really going to nit pick that? I could see if the claim was that he “created” the list, but “provided”? Especially since the original question was whether the name was “announced” before the election. The answer is: yes.
The 8%ers are extremely online. One can derive some sick satisfaction from seeing the Clinton star fade, but as always the problem isn’t individuals but institutions. I’m not seeing a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the next pick, unless they pull a GOP and run a million establishment robots against a charismatic outsider.
You’re right to the extent the Dem party is an abhorrent institution that can drive millions away without anyone else’s help, though the the reformist problem in a duopoly does play a part.
If the link dies, it’s a picture of a sideways 8 with a dialogue between progs and Dems that loops back into itself:
P: The Democrats need to move left.
D: Why don’t you work within the existing party.
P: OK, we’ll run progressive candidates in the primaries.
D: Sorry, they’re not really Democrats.
P: The Democrats need to move left.
D: If you want to move left, start your own party.
P: OK, I’ll vote for a third party.
D: I can’t believe you’d split the vote like that
P: The Democrats need to move left.
Unless you count Saudi Arabia. I’m sure she’d competently bomb Middle Eastern people in the name of empire, like Obama.