POTUS Donald Trump

[twinsnorth49]

I sense an increase in Grizzly bear crossings across the Northern border. 

[Mike Sixel]

somehow this is actually worse than I feared it would be. Hardly seems possible, frankly.

[nicksaviking]

 

I sense an increase in Grizzly bear crossings across the Northern border. 

 

Oh yeah, well I sense an increase in polar bear corpses washed upon your shores!

[TheLeviathan]

 

somehow this is actually worse than I feared it would be. Hardly seems possible, frankly.

 

Yeah, I expected a fair share of stupidity over the course of four years.  4 weeks though?  Yowza.

[Doomtints]

 

How do you combat such a philosophy? Impeachment seems inevitable.  Four years of this?

 

Unfortunately the House votes to impeach, and the House has been controlled by Trump-like elements for a long time.  I can't think of a scenario that gets Trump impeached, but he could surprise us.

[USAFChief]

 

Unfortunately the House votes to impeach, and the House has been controlled by Trump-like elements for a long time.  I can't think of a scenario that gets Trump impeached, but he could surprise us.

Not only that, but the folks who voted for the man are not only not rethinking their position, for the most part they are giddy over the results so far, and anxious for more.

[USAFChief]

 

somehow this is actually worse than I feared it would be. Hardly seems possible, frankly.

Concur.  I expected a move toward the middle.  A staff more professional and moderate.

 

I'm teh stupid.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Unfortunately the House votes to impeach, and the House has been controlled by Trump-like elements for a long time.  I can't think of a scenario that gets Trump impeached, but he could surprise us.

 

I really can't see that happening.  I'm actually more afraid of the collective group of morons in the House than i am of Trump.  Bannon is the embodiment of the growing, dominant ideas of the House.  That's the real menace.  Trump is just the dumb shill being used to execute the plans.

[PseudoSABR]

Rahm Emanuel: Too many Dems care more about being right than winning

 

I know we've talked about this a lot already, but I'd say that it's just the opposite what Rahm suggests.  Clinton's whole campaign was staked on winning rather than being right.  This wasn't tactical loss so much as it was a loss to win the minds and hearts of the American people.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Rahm Emanuel: Too many Dems care more about being right than winning

 

I know we've talked about this a lot already, but I'd say that it's just the opposite what Rahm suggests.  Clinton's whole campaign was staked on winning rather than being right.  This wasn't tactical loss so much as it was a loss to win the minds and hearts of the American people.  

 

let's not forget, more people voted for her than the other guy.....this was a lot about tactics being wrong....

[Willihammer]

Wasn't the rationale for nominating Clinton in the first place that she stood a better chance to beat Trump in a general? Despite the polls showing Sanders with a 9-10 pt lead over Trump into mid-summer.

 

Dems really need to back off the identity politics IMO. Being the "first" (fill in the blank) is always going to lose to someone who speaks to the issues people care about.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Not only that, but the folks who voted for the man are not only not rethinking their position, for the most part they are giddy over the results so far, and anxious for more.

Sometimes, you just have to let the child put their hand on the stove and learn a lesson.

 

I only hope the house doesn't burn down before they learn said lesson.

[TheLeviathan]

 

let's not forget, more people voted for her than the other guy.....this was a lot about tactics being wrong....

 

Isn't that kind of what he's saying though?  He wants to use tact to divide Republicans in much the same way they divide Dems.  It's about knowing which issues to double down on and which ones to avoid.  I felt like he's saying, "yes, we want to stand on the right side of history, but we have the power to change history if we care more about winning than about what we campaign on"

 

So it's about prioritizing the tactics that win an election, not those that necessarily make you stand on the right side of history.  I think there is some truth in that.  Republicans tend to be more willing to do or say whatever it takes to get into office.  And it's working for them.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Wasn't the rationale for nominating Clinton in the first place that she stood a better chance to beat Trump in a general? Despite the polls showing Sanders with a 9-10 pt lead over Trump into mid-summer.

 

Dems really need to back off the identity politics IMO. Being the "first" (fill in the blank) is always going to lose to someone who speaks to the issues people care about.

 

I think the Dems knew Bernie Sanders would never win a national election.  And he wouldn't have, not with what they would've dragged out on him.

 

Clinton was the better candidate, but a combination of bad timing and poor campaign strategy doomed her.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 I think the Dems knew Bernie Sanders would never win a national election. And he wouldn't have, not with what they would've dragged out on him.

What? Trump's election demonstrates the public's tolerance for non-mainstream positions and personal dirt.    

 

Of course it's impossible to prove a counterfactual (that Sanders would have won/lost), but I really hope Dems put forward more candidates like Sanders than Clinton in the future. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

What? Trump's election demonstrates the public's tolerance for non-mainstream positions and personal dirt.    

 

Of course it's impossible to prove a counterfactual (that Sanders would have won/lost), but I really hope Dems put more candidates like Sanders than Clinton forward in the future. 

 

I would encourage you to look at the opposition research.  That dirt worked with Trump because he was teflon, he embraced the craziness.  You start dragging up documents about Sanders dumping nuclear waste in poor hispanic towns?  It's over.  Sanders can't (and won't) embrace that.  It makes him a fraud.  All the "dirt" on Trump only reinforced what people already believed, good or bad.   

 

I'm ok with running people more like Bernie than Hillary, but Bernie would have been smoked by Trump.  Or just about any Republican, really.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

I would encourage you to look at the opposition research.  That dirt worked with Trump because he was teflon, he embraced the craziness.  You start dragging up documents about Sanders dumping nuclear waste in poor hispanic towns?  It's over.  Sanders can't (and won't) embrace that.  It makes him a fraud.  All the "dirt" on Trump only reinforced what people already believed, good or bad.   

 

I'm ok with running people more like Bernie than Hillary, but Bernie would have been smoked by Trump.  Or just about any Republican, really.  

 

I don't know how anyone can type that with such certainty, frankly.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't know how anyone can type that with such certainty, frankly.

I know self-identified Trump supporters who would have voted for Bernie (or so they say); the vitriol for Clinton and the establishment Dems may have been as much a factor in Trump's win as his own appeal.  And I think Trumps appeal (anti-establishment craziness) loses the stark relief if he's running against Sanders.  

 

Honestly, I can't see many Clinton-supporters moving to Trump because of Sanders.  That doesn't make sense. Not to mention the general lack of enthusiasm for Clinton. 

[Willihammer]

 

I would encourage you to look at the opposition research.  That dirt worked with Trump because he was teflon, he embraced the craziness.  You start dragging up documents about Sanders dumping nuclear waste in poor hispanic towns?  It's over.  Sanders can't (and won't) embrace that.  It makes him a fraud.  All the "dirt" on Trump only reinforced what people already believed, good or bad.   

 

I'm ok with running people more like Bernie than Hillary, but Bernie would have been smoked by Trump.  Or just about any Republican, really.  

Are you saying that Sanders would have lost the Latino vote? To Trump? A. Impossible, and B. This is identity politics again. That's not what people care about.

 

Polls had Sanders up 9-10% when Clinton was up 3-4%, right before she clinched the nom. The electoral map showed him with more EC votes. All races / sexes / etc. included in the population.

[D. Hocking]

we can destroy his career...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U37T2UD-GwY

[Willihammer]

The laughing...

[D. Hocking]

 

The laughing...

 

The laughing was disturbing.

[Willihammer]

Yeah I'm going to have to send a few coin to the ACLU. They're looking for a plaintiff with standing against Trump for his abuse of the Emolument's clause in the Constitution.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

[Bark's Lounge]

We can never know if Sanders would have defeated Trump. I'd like to think so, but look at what happened.

 

I certainly have no confidence in the population of this country to do the right thing... and that is on a handful of levels. The rear view mirror is only good to analyze the mistakes that were made and to try to come to some conclusion on how to fix it moving forward. Regret and what if's will only keep one in the malaise - in that respect I think the rear view window is more than harmful.

 

In the last chunk of months, I had a personal conversation with a member of this site, who I hold in high esteem, that suggested that maybe a Trump win will be so awful, that it will force our society to change to an idealism that is for the more common good of the majority of people (Middle Class & Below).

 

IF Trump and his disturbing cronies don't turn it all to S••t in his undetermined amount of time, maybe we can bounce back from this in an extraordinary way.

 

I do believe that the citizens will need to get involved, and I know, that it is hard to make sacrifices of your time when you are raising a family, working a job, working overtime and having other projects on the plate. It's a pain in the ass to make up new time. If we care enough we have to find a way.

 

I am a pessimistic person, but I can't be that person right now. I have to be better than that, and in my opinion, we all need to be.

 

Take it to the students, take it to your neighbors, take it to your friends, take it to your family, take it to your fellow employees, take it the government at all levels, and take it to the streets if need be!

 

But always have a measured plan. Chaos never works, it only creates other fissures. Have an organized vision or be part of one and execute it and take it all the way.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Are you saying that Sanders would have lost the Latino vote? To Trump? A. Impossible, and B. This is identity politics again. That's not what people care about.

 

Polls had Sanders up 9-10% when Clinton was up 3-4%, right before she clinched the nom. The electoral map showed him with more EC votes. All races / sexes / etc. included in the population.

 

Do we really still want to cite pre-election polls?  He wouldn't have lost the Latino vote, but he may have lost Latino voters.

 

Remember, pre-election, when everyone said Hillary would dominate the women and latino vote?  How'd that turn out?  Now get him to look like some coastal liberal elitist who talks about pollution but is more than willing to dump his on poor hispanics.  That narrative writes itself.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't know how anyone can type that with such certainty, frankly.

 

I'm pretty certain of it.  Let's just look at a litany of things that Sanders had going against him over and above Clinton:

 

1) Sanders struggled (mightily by comparison) to generate any enthusiasm among minority voters relative to Clinton and she struggled in the general.  And those struggles may have been especially key in the swing states.

 

2) Sanders was an even more ardent tax and spend liberal.  Candidates as liberal as Sanders (Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, etc.) have always been trounced.  Centrist Dems have been far more successful in the general because they attract centrist voters.  There is a reason those kinds of far left candidates have been smoked in the past.  

 

3) One of the opposition bits of research was a fictitious essay Sanders wrote about a woman enjoying being raped.  Do I need to elaborate on that?

 

4)  Bernie was unemployed until his mid 30s.  Clinton had a long record of public service.  Again, do I need to write that narrative, it feels like I don't.

 

5) He marched in "Die Yankee" parades.  Clinton had a long public service record and they made an email server make her look anti-American.  Sanders "Yankees will die"?  Almost too easy.

 

6) He's a Jewish socialist athiest.  You know what's even more unpopular than Muslims?  Athiests.  You know who liberals struggle to be excited to support?  Jews.  And again....need "socialist" be explained further?

 

I guess I could go on.  I'd love to see the rest of the opposition file the Republicans had, we only know some of the snippets above that leaked.  It's pretty pie in the sky to think he'd do something like win the Presidency.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

You know what's even more unpopular than Muslims? Athiests.

I have done my research, and that is true. They are also the two most growing belief practices. 1. Islam 2. Atheism.

 

I really have some trouble believing that we haven't had an Atheist president who just covered it up and waved the flag of Christianity.

 

I could be wrong, but I would think you and others have your suspicions.

 

Not to offend other's beliefs, but non-belief seems like common sense, most of the religions, especially the Abraham based ones are more outlandish than the stuff we see in comic books. Blind faith, rules the day I guess.

 

I think religion can be beneficial, but when it is a governmental influence, it is extremely bad.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I have done my research, and that is true. They are also the two most growing belief practices. 1. Islam 2. Atheism.

 

I really have some trouble believing that we haven't had an Atheist president who just covered it up and waved the flag of Christianity.

 

I could be wrong, but I would think you and others have your suspicions.

 

Not to offend other's beliefs, but non-belief seems like common sense, most of the religions, especially the Abraham based ones are more outlandish than the stuff we see in comic books. Blind faith, rules the day I guess.

 

I think religion can be beneficial, but when it is a governmental influence, it is extremely bad.

 

I tend to agree.  I think "Bernie Sanders: Atheist" alone would've been enough to lose him that election.  And it's both true and an easy sell.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

I tend to agree.  I think "Bernie Sanders: Atheist" alone would've been enough to lose him that election.  And it's both true and an easy sell.

That could be true, and it makes me very sad.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That could be true, and it makes me very sad.

 

Yeah, that ought to not be the case, but circling back to Emmanuel's advice, we need to start looking at the way things are and not the way we want them to be.  You don't win playing in some idealized world of how things "should" be.  It's just a simple fact that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with atheism.