Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Marc Thiessen's latest piece in WAPO asserts that if Mueller -- and the various prosecutors to whom he has handed off crimes investigations -- can prove that Donald Trump violated campaign laws and tax laws, etc., but cannot prove he personally conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election, he not only won't lose his base, but he'll gain back the suburban voters Democrats gained in 2018 and are counting on to win in 2020.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

I think Thiessen is right about Trump's base -- he could shoot one of them dead on Fifth Avenue and only lose the one vote. But the suburbs, I feel, are disgusted with Trump as a human being. Forget about what the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC say about him, and forget about the Mueller probe. If all I knew about Trump -- ALL I knew -- was what has come out of his mouth and what he has tweeted, I wouldn't want anything to do with him. I wouldn't do business with him, have a Diet Coke with him, or shake his hand. If he walked into the room, I'd have to leave for fear that someone would take a photo of him with me in the background. It disgusts me that a person like him is president of our country, and I think suburban Independents feel that way, as well as an increasing number of suburban Republicans. It's a character thing with me -- first and foremost. And that has nothing to do with Mueller.

That's not to say I think Trump won't be re-elected. He'll lose the votes of the people worse than the last time -- the American people will reject him again, for sure. But the Electoral College weighs the votes of Trump's rural base heavier than city or suburban voters. So he still has an excellent chance.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Wishful thinking.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2018-12-19 07:40 AM | Reply

Trump is losing suburban voters because his policies are disastrous to the middle class and appalling to women especially.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2018-12-19 07:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Flynn was close to Trump, was part of his campaign. We already know he colluded with the Russians. Manafort too. This thread is stupid.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-19 08:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump is being held by his balls right now and anyone who cant see it unfolding is willfully ignorant or has no business voting. All these concessions he's making are simply because they have the goods on him and he knows it.

Ban on bump stocks. (a move that even Obama wouldn't even attempt)
gave up the wall. one of the key things he ran on
gave the $4.8 billion to Mexico in aid instead of building the wall
funded planned parenthood (he ran on the premise that a woman receiving an abortion should be tried for murder)
Tough on drug dealers stance was obliterated yesterday with him touting his signing the criminal reform act

on and on and on he has done exactly the opposite of what he promised his constituents.

Trump voters should be getting out the pitchforks rather than making excuses for this serial liar.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-12-19 08:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"he not only won't lose his base, but he'll gain back the suburban voters Democrats gained in 2018 and are counting on to win in 2020"

Doesn't seem rational. There are many reasons for the Blue Wave. Many. Including suburban women, who aren't likely to change gender in two years.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2018-12-19 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another thread shows a poll that says 62% of the American people believe Trump is lying about his collusion with Russia.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-19 09:42 AM | Reply

"but cannot prove he personally conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election, he not only won't lose his base, but he'll gain back the suburban voters Democrats gained in 2018 and are counting on to win in 2020.

If you think that the only thing suburban voters, in particular suburban soccer moms, have against Trump is Mueller's investigation, think again.

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-19 10:42 AM | Reply

The authot is an AEI guy. ‘Nuff said.

#8 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-12-19 12:16 PM | Reply

2020 is a long way away.

With the economy losing what little stimulation it got from the unnecessary tax cuts and the tax cuts being largely a bust for the average American, there really isn't anything positive to run on.

Spinning threads about immigrants and crime will rile up his base, but it's unlikely to sway middle voters who are the election deciders.

The only other major variables are who the Dems nominate and how far left said person is. The Dems seem to be under the impression that uber progressives are what's desired at this point in time, so I'm afraid they'll push that in 2020 and get burned.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-19 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Mueller Probe Could Prove Disastrous for Democrats

One can only hope.

WATERS/PELOSI 2020

#10 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2018-12-19 12:22 PM | Reply

I'm afraid they'll push that in 2020 and get burned.

#9 | POSTED BY JPW

You are right to be afraid about that.

Jim Webb threw his hat into the ring in '16. He would have been a great candidate IMO and I would have voted for him over almost every GOP candidate in '16. Yet his run went nowhere in the Dem primary. The biggest challenge Democrats have heading into 2020 is the possibility of what plagued the GOP in '16 - too many candidates and with the loopiest ones making it to the end because they aren't taken seriously as the more serious candidates savage each other and don't take the threat posed by the loons seriously enough until it's too late.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 12:24 PM | Reply

The premise used here that the probe will only boil down to paying hush-money as a campaign violation has been shot down by recent events.

"It is noteworthy that Mueller has handed off the prosecutions of the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and Maria Butina's involvement with the NRA to other parts of the Justice Department.

In effect, the Special Counsel's Office gives every sign of focusing sharply on the larger narrative with Russia.

It is investigating the possibility that Donald Trump, his campaign, his organization and his associates, participated in a set of criminal conspiracies with Russia to defraud the United States both of a free and fair election and of a government solely devoted to its interests (18 U.S.C. § 371)."

www.drudge.com

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 12:29 PM | Reply

"...but he'll gain back the suburban voters Democrats gained in 2018 and are counting on to win in 2020."

"One can only hope." - #10 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2018-12-19 12:22 PM

😀 😂 🤣 😅 🙄 😏 😛 🤪

#13 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 12:39 PM | Reply

The Dems seem to be under the impression that uber progressives are what's desired at this point in time, so I'm afraid they'll push that in 2020 and get burned.

They ran a centrist in 2016 and lost to the most despicable person in America. They would be smart to correct course. People like Bernie and Beto get voters and small donors excited. People like Clinton and Biden do not.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"They ran a centrist in 2016 and lost to the most despicable person in America." - #14 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 12:39 PM

That wasn't why Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral vote and the election.

There are many reasons why one of the worst candidates in history lost the election, but let's leave the historical revision to those on the right.

#15 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another GOP fantasy.

#16 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-19 12:46 PM | Reply

That wasn't why Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral vote and the election.

I don't agree. The more progressive Democratic candidate polled better head to head against Trump than the centrist candidate did.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she was a centrist.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 01:23 PM | Reply

"Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she was a centrist."

Yeah, all those Jill Stein voters were concerned that she was too far left.

Wait, what?

#19 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-12-19 01:26 PM | Reply

#18 What is your basis for saying that? I've referenced polling data that suggests Sanders would have performed better against Trump than Clinton did. You can't just say "nuh-uh."

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17

True, but if the more progressive candidate were actually running in the GE, that polling goes out the window. Until proven otherwise, the old adage that the candidate that grabs the middle wins national elections still holds true. That should have been Hillary, but she ignored middle America to her ultimate peril (the so called Obama Swing Voters) and that is what makes her campaign one of the worst run ever.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20

In the GE, even Bernie would have had to move toward the middle to grab those voters, otherwise he would be facing another McGovern type situation.

#22 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 01:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Marc Thiessen's latest piece in WAPO asserts that if Mueller -- and the various prosecutors to whom he has handed off crimes investigations -- can prove that Donald Trump violated campaign laws and tax laws, etc., but cannot prove he personally conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election, he not only won't lose his base, but he'll gain back the suburban voters Democrats gained in 2018 and are counting on to win in 2020.

Posted by nimbleswitch

You think suburban voters are going to won over by the argument "See I didn't collude! I just hired a bunch of traitors and liars and criminals!"

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she was a centrist.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ

She lost because of many factors.

Being a centrist in her mind meant taking bribery donations from corporations. And that IS one of the factors that made her lose.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In the GE, even Bernie would have had to move toward the middle to grab those voters, otherwise he would be facing another McGovern type situation.

#22 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I don't think he could have pulled it off - moving to the center. His track-record was/is WAY too long.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The MSM are falling in love with uber-lefties who end up losing their election - Wendy Davis, Gillum, Beto and Ocasio-Cortez.

Obviously Ocasio-Cortez won but she was in a district where she was guaranteed to win once she won the primary.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 01:41 PM | Reply

if the more progressive candidate were actually running in the GE, that polling goes out the window.

Let's say a center-left candidate and a progressive are running in a primary. In head to head polling against the Republican opponent, the center-left candidate is up by 4 points, while the progressive is up by 10.

Yes, in the general, both figures will drop. The difference is that if one is farther ahead than the other, the drop may not be enough to change the outcome.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I don't think he could have pulled it off - moving to the center. His track-record was/is WAY too long." - #25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 01:37 PM

Yep. Honeymooning in the Soviet Union.* The ads write themselves.

*In spite of the real collusion with the Kremlin of today that went on in 2016 by the Republican ticket.

#28 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 01:43 PM | Reply

Bernie would have had to move toward the middle to grab those voters

Not if he generates enough excitement and turnout on his own side of the aisle.

Turnout for Clinton was trash because she was a trash candidate. A candidate that authentically appeals to the middle and lower classes can more than make up for what someone can gain by moving to the right.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not if he generates enough excitement and turnout on his own side of the aisle...

#29 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-12-19 01:45 PM

I can think of only 2 candidates over the past few decades who were purists for their base: Goldwater and McGovern. Both lost in a landslide.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 01:52 PM | Reply

To your point I will cede that Trump winning is proof that anything is possible these days.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Turnout for Clinton was trash because.... the FBI Dir released a letter right before the election that depressed her turnout... and that he later said he should not have.

The idea that Bernie would have beaten Trump is way over-rated.

www.motherjones.com

www.huffingtonpost.com

www.theguardian.com

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 01:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 2


@#30 ... I can think of only 2 candidates over the past few decades who were purists for their base: Goldwater and McGovern. Both lost in a landslide. ...

Times were also quite different ~back then.~

The country's electorate was not nearly so tribal as it is today.

Indeed. one could proffer the viewpoint that, in today's tribal political environment, it is only a purist who can get elected.

#33 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-12-19 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not if he generates enough excitement and turnout on his own side of the aisle.

Not even close, here are the 2018 nationwide voter registration statistics from the University of Virginia Center for Politics:

"Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents."

Even if all registered Democrats or Republicans in the party registration States voted partyline, they still would need independent voters, the Dems would just need far less before taking the EC into account.

Registering By Party: Where the Democrats and Republicans Are Ahead

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 01:58 PM | Reply

"Registered"

Which is why generating turnout matters more than moving to the center. When a party runs an honest, authentic candidate, people who don't typically participate in elections turn out.

We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Turnout for Clinton was trash because.... the FBI Dir released a letter right before the election that depressed her turnout... and that he later said he should not have.

The idea that Bernie would have beaten Trump is way over-rated.

www.motherjones.com

www.huffingtonpost.com

www.theguardian.com

#32 | Posted by Corky

Yeah that's why people didn't like hillary. Because of James comey's one announcement. Nothing to do with her being wrong on iraq, the drug war, wall street deregulation, nothing to do with her secret wall street speeches and bank full of bribe money. Just comey's one announcement. Yup. That's what it was.

This message has been brought to you by the Democractic Department of Refusing to Learn from Your Mistakes

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work.

#35 | Posted by JOE

This is so critical that I'm going to post it a few more times for you.

We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work.

#35 | Posted by JOE
We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work.

#35 | Posted by JOE
We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work.

#35 | Posted by JOE
We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work.

#35 | Posted by JOE
We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work.

#35 | Posted by JOE

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

They'll never learn. At least they have a scapegoat(me) to blame her losses upon. It saves them from thinking.

#38 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are both way more popular than Donald Trump

Biden, in particular, is popular with everyone.

"In contrast to Trump, Joe Biden's numbers look fantastic with a 53/33 favorable/unfavorable split. Democrats love Biden, with 84 percent approving, and he's above water with essentially all demographic subcategories:

see link

Bernie Sanders is distinctly less popular than Biden at 44-42 and, accordingly, is less uniformly popular across demographic groups.

At the same time, contrary to some of the pro-Bernie versions of these narratives, there's no particular sign that working-class whites are clamoring for democratic socialism.

They're simply more conservative than white college graduates, and consequently like Sanders less than the professional class does and less than they like Joe Biden.

Last but by no means least, the years-long twitter dual between Sanders's insurgent army and the establishment is not in evidence in the polling.

Both Bernie and Biden are extremely popular with self-identified Democrats, and the lesser-known contenders like O'Rourke, Harris, etc. are all extremely popular among those Democrats who have heard of them.

Trump, by contrast, is in really bad shape.

www.vox.com

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

- Refusing to Learn from Your Mistakes

See the latest polling in #39.... and learn from your mistakes.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Yeah that's why people didn't like hillary."

Of course that's not the only reason she was relatively (compared to Obama) unpopular but it is arguably a sufficient reason that enough people stayed home or voted for another candidate to cost her the election.

#41 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-12-19 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#36 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I wouldnt say that the letter was reason not to like Clinton, but it DID absolutely keep people I know personally home. They didnt have enough time between that announcement and the vote to actually get over it and make a choice. They simply stayed home, disenchanted with it all, and said 'it is what it is'. Those I speak of lived in Cali and Idaho, so their lack of vote really didnt sway the election, but I feel that since I know people in two states that did this there must be many in other states (including swing) to have made a difference. Anecdotal, but is why I feel the way I do.

#42 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-12-19 02:14 PM | Reply

- Refusing to Learn from Your Mistakes

See the latest polling in #39.... and learn from your mistakes.

#40 | Posted by Corky

Go ahead and wrap yourself in poll numbers that tell you your strategy will win. Just like you did in 2016. How'd that turn out?

The only thing we know for sure is hillary supporters were wrong in 2016. If someone crashes the bus, they don't get to drive next time.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:16 PM | Reply

I wouldnt say that the letter was reason not to like Clinton, but it DID absolutely keep people I know personally home. They didnt have enough time between that announcement and the vote to actually get over it and make a choice. They simply stayed home, disenchanted with it all, and said 'it is what it is'. Those I speak of lived in Cali and Idaho, so their lack of vote really didnt sway the election, but I feel that since I know people in two states that did this there must be many in other states (including swing) to have made a difference. Anecdotal, but is why I feel the way I do.

#42 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

Yes it was ONE reason. It kept SOME people home. Others were kept home by her war-friendly record. Others were kept home by her wall street corruption. Others were kept home by her rigging the primary.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Turnout for Clinton was trash because she was a trash candidate." - #29 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 01:45 PM

The top three (3) vote getters in US President election history:

1. Barack Obama in 2008
2. Barack Obama in 2012
3. Hillary Clinton in 2016
"Trash" turnout.

#45 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 02:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Bernie Sanders is distinctly less popular than Biden at 44-42

Sounds like an outlier.

53-38

averaged 57-33 through 2017

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:18 PM | Reply

If she didn't already betray so many liberals in the past, comey's investigation wouldnt have been enough to sink her.

In a close election, every small factor is THE deciding factor.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#45 That's interesting considering that turnout overall was at its lowest point since 1996, and that third party candidates got far more votes in 2016 than they typically do. How does that work?

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump hates being probed by Mueller.

And yet it continues no matter how much Russia yelps every time Mueller digs deeper.

#49 | Posted by Tor at 2018-12-19 02:31 PM | Reply

#43

lol.... Speaks, you'll still be re-fighting that Dem primary when you are 92... and I hope you live that long. But Bernie had every chance including a big advantage in undemocratic caucuses and he still lost in a landslide.

And I know those rwingers at Vox, MotherJones, and Huffpo don't impress you with their analysis of Bernie's chances against Trump, but projecting your own preferences on the voting public isn't a good substitute for astute analysis.

The latest Quinipac poll results I posted show the same thing this year as they did in 2016, as much as I wish it weren't true:

"Bernie Sanders is distinctly less popular than Biden at 44-42 and, accordingly, is less uniformly popular across demographic groups.

At the same time, contrary to some of the pro-Bernie versions of these narratives, there's no particular sign that working-class whites are clamoring for democratic socialism.

They're simply more conservative than white college graduates, and consequently like Sanders less than the professional class does and less than they like Joe Biden.

Last but by no means least, the years-long twitter dual between Sanders's insurgent army and the establishment is not in evidence in the polling."

- Sounds like an outlier.

It's the latest poll, not one from 2.5 mos ago or 2017.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's the latest poll, not one from 2.5 mos ago or 2017.

Do you know what "outlier" means and that it doesn't have anything to do with dates?

At the end of the day, the only poll that matters happened in November 2016 and the centeist dem candidate lost to quite possibly the worst person in America for the job. You can either learn from your mistake, or repeat it. Your choice.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Speaks, you'll still be re-fighting that Dem primary when you are 92... and I hope you live that long.
#50 | POSTED BY CORKY

At least speaks has objective history to back him up.

I pray you and others come to terms with reality before 2020.

#52 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-19 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Joe,

Most moderate Democrats don't have Hillary's baggage nor are they as disliked.

Also, recently Hans has been throwing around a really cool term called "The Overton Window".

If you aren't familiar with the term please look it up. Even if Bernie or some other purist were to win the General in 2020 I think you'd end up being very disappointed with what they will actually be able to accomplish.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 02:41 PM | Reply

lol.... Speaks, you'll still be re-fighting that Dem primary when you are 92...

#50 | Posted by Corky

You're the one re fighting it. Because you lost. Your strategy lost. Your corrupt sellout candidate lost. You can't accept it and are still in complete denial.

We can't win 2020 until we get the people who crashed the bus to let go of the wheel.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You can either learn from your mistake, or repeat it. Your choice."

I feel like the midterms were a whole lot of Trump voters learning from their mistake.

Don't you?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 02:41 PM | Reply

- "outlier" means and that it doesn't have anything to do with dates?

An outlier poll is one that is very different from other polls in a similar sample which includes time frame.

"a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample"

At the end of the day.... the loss was by a fraction of a fraction of a percent in the EC... and as Hagbard pointed out could have easily been caused by the FBI letter.... not to mention that they knew of Trump's hush money at the time.

And at the end of this day, what counts is that right now, Bernie is less popular with Dem voters, in almost all constituencies tested, than is Biden, no matter our personal preferences.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:43 PM | Reply

"Your corrupt sellout candidate lost."

But our corrupt sellout candidate won in 2012 and 2008 and 1996.

The other sides corrupt sellout candidate won in 2016, and 2004, and 2000.

A corrupt sellout alwaya wins.
A corrupt sellout always loses too.

So stop acting like you're saying anything.

It's insufferable to hear you still whining about it, over two years later.

Are you just dumb?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Because you lost.

No, Bernie lost the primary in a landslide. Hil lost the EC by a fraction with help from the FBI. You can keep telling yourself that Bernie woulda, shouda, coulda have won and that those analysis from MJ and Huffop are biased rwingers, but it ain't true.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:46 PM | Reply

Most moderate Democrats don't have Hillary's baggage nor are they as disliked.

There will always be baggage. Biden is a known plagiarist, plenty of banking industry ties, he backed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and bragged about writing the Patriot Act.

Even if Bernie or some other purist were to win the General in 2020 I think you'd end up being very disappointed with what they will actually be able to accomplish.

Appointing cabinet secretaries and Supreme Court justices have a huge impact on the everyday life of Americans. I never said Bernie could be a dictator.

#59 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the loss was by a fraction of a fraction of a percent in the EC

And against a imbecilic racist sexual assaulter, any candidate worth a damn will have a bigger cushion.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:50 PM | Reply

-But our corrupt sellout candidate won in 2012 and 2008 and 1996.
So stop acting like you're saying anything.
It's insufferable to hear you still whining about it, over two years later.

This. According to Speaks Obama was corrupt corporate candidate and so is almost every Dem in Congress.

There is such a thing as being overstating your premise... to death.

#61 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:50 PM | Reply

It's insufferable to hear you still whining about it, over two years later.

Are you just dumb?

#57 | Posted by snoofy

If you're tired of people pointing out how terrible hillary was, stop pretending she was the best choice.

You're whining that people are trying to learn the lesson of 2016. You'd rather ignore the lesson and repeat the results.

#62 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:50 PM | Reply

This. According to Speaks Obama was corrupt corporate candidate and so is almost every Dem in Congress.

#61 | Posted by Corky

Are you saying there was nothing corrupt about taking a bunch of money from the bankers who just crashed the economy, then letting them get away with it and hiring some of them into his administration?

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"And against a imbecilic racist sexual assaulter, any candidate worth a damn will have a bigger cushion.
#60 | POSTED BY JOE"

How you figure?

62 milion people vote for a imbecilic racist sexual assaulter. And half of them would say you just described Hillary.

It really doesn't have the sway you'd like it to.

Reality really doesn't have the sway you'd like it to.

Sorry.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 02:53 PM | Reply

- against a imbecilic racist sexual assaulter

That was OK with the voters... as was Hil OK with the primary voters.

It appears that Speaks wanted the Dems to go into a backroom and pick a non-Dem candidate rather than have a vote their candidate might lose.... and that some people would rather the same be done in a general election.

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:54 PM | Reply

How you figure?

How do i figure that a good candidate would beat a racist game show host by more than a bad candidate?

I'm not sure how to answer that one.

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:55 PM | Reply

-Are you saying

No, I'm saying that doesn't matter to the avg American voter as much as it might to you or me... pretty obviously.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 02:55 PM | Reply

It appears that Speaks wanted the Dems to go into a backroom and pick a non-Dem candidate rather than have a vote their candidate might lose.... and that some people would rather the same be done in a general election.

#65 | Posted by Corky

Hillary was the one in the backroom with wasserman schultz.

More proof of her corruption.

Answer #63 Cork.

Are you saying there was nothing corrupt about taking a bunch of money from the bankers who just crashed the economy, then letting them get away with it and hiring some of them into his administration?

#68 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If you're tired of people pointing out how terrible hillary was, stop pretending she was the best choice."

She was the best choice among the names on the ballot in all fifty states on election day.

Bernie voted for her, why didn't you?

So you can feel special.

Is it working?

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It appears that Speaks wanted the Dems to go into a backroom and pick a non-Dem candidate

No, we just want idiots like you to recognize that you got your way, that it didn't work, and that perhaps it's time to try something else.

#70 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

www.huffingtonpost.com

The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive $400,000 to speak at a health care conference organized by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency. That governing failure convinced millions of his onetime supporters that the president and his party were not, in fact, playing for their team, and helped pave the way for President Donald Trump. Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion.

Obama refused to prosecute the rampant fraud behind the 2008 Wall Street collapse, despite inking multibillion-dollar settlement after multibillion-dollar settlement with major firms over misconduct ranging from foreclosure fraud to rigging energy markets to tax evasion. In some cases, big banks even pleaded guilty to felonies, but Obama's Justice Department allowed actual human bankers to ride into the sunset. Early in his presidency, Obama vowed to spend up to $100 billion to help struggling families avert foreclosure. Instead, the administration converted the relief plan into a slush fund for big banks, as top traders at bailed-out firms were allowed to collect six-figure bonuses on the taxpayers' dime.

#71 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Are you saying there was nothing corrupt about taking a bunch of money from the bankers who just crashed the economy, then letting them get away with it and hiring some of them"

Sort of.

I'm saying "But our corrupt sellout candidate won in 2012 and 2008 and 1996.

The other sides corrupt sellout candidate won in 2016, and 2004, and 2000."

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, I'm saying that doesn't matter to the avg American voter as much as it might to you or me... pretty obviously.

#67 | Posted by Corky

So you can't say obama wasn't corrupt. They best you can do is say people don't care.

As if tons of obama voters became trump voters for no reason.

This is why we'll lose again. Your head is in the sand. And for what? WHY are you fighting so hard for hillary? Do you want her to run again?
Or is it just stubborn pride and inability to admit you were wrong? A very republican trait. Democrats are supposed to accept real world evidence. The real world rejected hillary in favor of trump. All you can do is come up with excuses why we should ignore that result and repeat the failed strategy.

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Answer #63 Cork.

see 67

-Bernie voted for her, why didn't you?
So you can feel special.
Is it working?

This again.

-No, we just want idiots like you to recognize that you got your way, that it didn't work, and that perhaps it's time to try something else.

Yeah, see this is the problem you and Speaks have... you didn't get your way and now you can claim, however absurdly, that had you gotten your way things would have been different and Bernie would have certainly been President... which is hogwash.

It's not about who gets their way, it's about how the voters vote.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Appointing cabinet secretaries and Supreme Court justices have a huge impact on the everyday life of Americans." - #59 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 02:48 PM

Just one of the many reasons why I enthusiastically supported and voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.

#75 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

now you can claim, however absurdly, that had you gotten your way things would have been different

Well here's what we know for certain:
We nominated a centrist
She lost to a racist game show host.

You want to do that again. I don't.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is Jill Stein running again?

#77 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-19 03:02 PM | Reply

- Democrats are supposed to accept real world evidence.

We do... like Bernie did and you didn't.

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:02 PM | Reply

Yeah, see this is the problem you and Speaks have... you didn't get your way and now you can claim, however absurdly, that had you gotten your way things would have been different and Bernie would have certainly been President... which is hogwash.

#74 | Posted by Corky

Your ability to make absolute conclusions about what would have happened in an alternate universe is impressive.

In THIS universe, You DID get your way and you lost. Now you want everyone to listen to you about what to do next time.

I'm not taking flying lessons from a guy who just crashed a plane. And I'm not taking political advice from someone who thinks hillary was a good candidate.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, we just want idiots like you to recognize that you got your way, that it didn't work, and that perhaps it's time to try something else.
#70 | POSTED BY JOE"

Yeah, the GOP got more of that than the Democrats did. They won, but it's revealed what inept losers they are. Can't even repeal Obamacare after running on that pledge. Whole campaign under investigation or indictment. NRA turns out to be dirty Russian money. Winning hurt the GOP more than losing hurt the Democrats.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 03:03 PM | Reply

It appears that Speaks wanted the Dems to go into a backroom and pick a non-Dem candidate

MY WORDS FOLLOW

That's the problem with the Democratic party. They do the backroom deal to decide who THEY will allow the voting public to vote for. Instead of letting the voters decide. At least Republicans as God awful as they are. Will allow anyone to run for POTUS under their ticket. Democrats apparently haven't learnt one damned thing from 2016. Not one damned thing.

#81 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 03:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"We nominated a centrist
"She lost to a racist game show host."
- #76 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:02 PM

She was also a woman.

You want to do that again?

#82 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 03:05 PM | Reply

"I'm not taking flying lessons from a guy who just crashed a plane."

Nor are you taking flying lessons from your heartthrob Bernie Sanders.

Someday, hopefully before 2020, you'll find out that flying planes just isn't the thing for you.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- You want to do that again. I don't.

We could have nominated Bernie and he could at least as easily have lost.... well, except in BBro World where that's impossible.

Biden/Beto or any other number of Dem combos, and there will be lots of possibilities could be Trump or Pence or Ryan... and much will depend on who their candidate is.

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Funny how, as Snoofy has pointed out, that to Speaks almost all Dems are corrupt including Obama, but Obama was a good candidate to him at the time and Hil was not.

Weird how that kind of radicalization werks.

#85 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:07 PM | Reply

"Instead of letting the voters decide." - #81 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 03:04 PM

They did.

And Hillary Clinton received the votes of 17,000,000 voters (4,000,000 more than the other candidate).

I'd say that's letting the voters decide.

MORE OF MY WORDS FOLLOW:

Do you always have your head up your ass?

#86 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 03:08 PM | Reply

We could have nominated Bernie and he could at least as easily have lost

But we didn't. We nominated a centrist, and she lost to a racist game show host. So now, we've verified that one particular thing doesn't work. Do you want to do that one particular thing again? I don't.

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#81

Laura dismisses that Dems allowed an non-Dem to run and even had undemocratic caucuses for him to excel in.... which he then proceeded to lose in a landslide. OK, this isn't new for her.

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:09 PM | Reply

They ran a centrist in 2016 and lost to the most despicable person in America. They would be smart to correct course. People like Bernie and Beto get voters and small donors excited. People like Clinton and Biden do not.

#14 | Posted by JOE

There was so much wrong with Hillary that it's hard to tell if it was her centrist views that were the problem.

Personally, I think it was her level of entrenchment within the establishment that's been sticking it to the average citizen for decades that sunk her candidacy.

#89 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-19 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Nor are you taking flying lessons from your heartthrob Bernie Sanders.

Someday, hopefully before 2020, you'll find out that flying planes just isn't the thing for you.

#83 | Posted by snoofy

It doesn't get any simpler than this: YOUR STRATEGY AND CANDIDATE COULDNT BEAT DONALD FRIGGIN TRUMP.

If that doesn't make you reconsider anything, you are either so arrogant and egotistical that you can't admit an error, or you're just plain stupid.

#90 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:10 PM | Reply

"We nominated a centrist, and she lost to a racist game show host." - #87 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:08 PM

She was also a woman who lost to a racist (and misogynist) game show host.

So, according to you, we've verified that one particular thing doesn't work.

Do you want to do that one particular thing again?

Apparently, you don't.

Why don't you want to nominate another woman?

#91 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Funny how, as Snoofy has pointed out, that to Speaks almost all Dems are corrupt including Obama, but Obama was a good candidate to him at the time and Hil was not.

Weird how that kind of radicalization werks.

#85 | Posted by Corky

Obama hadn't yet revealed that he was a corrupt puppet for the bankers. He saved that til AFTER the election.

Everyone knew it about hillary BEFORE the election.

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- So now, we've verified that one particular thing doesn't work.

Yeah, that fraction of a percent in the EC loss was a defining statement on what is possible or not. Try to make a serious argument at least.

What we know from the most recent polling in a left of center guy like Biden who is not "centrist" as you keep claiming currently leads Sanders in all categories of Dem voters.

"It's an agenda that's progressive and could be genuinely transformative for low-wage workers but also cautious in key respects -- focused on workers and students rather than the poorest of the poor, and careful to avoid any hint of middle-class tax hikes or racial divisiveness.

It's less about expensive new expansions of the welfare state than shifting the underlying rules of the economic game to take the government's thumb off the bosses' side of the scale and put it on the side of workers."

Free college: Biden endorsed this back in 2015

Middle-class tax reform: Biden identifies a tax code that is excessively friendly to investors rather than workers as a central problem and calls for higher taxes on rich business owners' passive income in order to finance things like a tripling of the Child Tax Credit and other benefits for middle class working people.

Regional inequality: When listing his five ideas to strengthen the middle class, Biden made tackling regional inequality one of the ideas.

Power for workers: This is the area where Biden's thinking is most distinctive. He calls for "laws that allow labor unions to flourish and fight for basic worker protections" but also for a suite of new kinds of protections that operate outside the scope of traditional union-focused labor law.

Biden wants a ban on non-compete agreements, a suite of measures to ensure that workers can discuss their pay without fear of retaliation, and stronger measures against wage theft.

Separately, Biden has been stumping for a $15/hour minimum wage since 2015, when the Obama White House's official position was $12."

www.drudge.com

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Obama hadn't yet revealed that he was a corrupt puppet for the bankers. He saved that til AFTER the election.
Everyone knew it about hillary BEFORE the election.
#92 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

No, you were just too dumb to recognize Obama for who he really is

Because you vote for a fantasy of what you think a politician should be.

It's a particliary ignorant fantasy, in the wake of Citizens United.

Congratulations, you built that... with plenty of help from Jill Stein on the Russian payroll!

Loser.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It appears that Speaks wanted the Dems to go into a backroom and pick a non-Dem candidate
MY WORDS FOLLOW
That's the problem with the Democratic party. They do the backroom deal to decide who THEY will allow the voting public to vote for. Instead of letting the voters decide. At least Republicans as God awful as they are. Will allow anyone to run for POTUS under their ticket. Democrats apparently haven't learnt one damned thing from 2016. Not one damned thing.

POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-12-19 03:04 PM | REPLY | FLAGGED NEWSWORTHY BY SPEAKSOFTLY, FUNNY BY HANS

Awwwwwwww the useless troll opines. How sweet.

#95 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, that fraction of a percent in the EC loss was a defining statement on what is possible or not

It really was. A loss is a loss is a loss. Do you want to lose by a fraction of a percent in rhe EC again? Is that good enough for you? Are you satisfied with the results?

#96 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

But we didn't. We nominated a centrist, and she lost to a racist game show host. So now, we've verified that one particular thing doesn't work. Do you want to do that one particular thing again? I don't.

#87 | Posted by JOE

There's absolutely no way you can put that fine a point on Hillary's loss. She had far far too much baggage to contend with.

#97 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-19 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Awwwwwwww the useless troll opines. How sweet." - #95 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 03:16 PM

I'm so "useless" that you couldn't resist looking at WFW, and then commenting on it.

MORE OF MY WORDS FOLLOW:

You really do have your head up your ass.

How sweet.

#98 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Obama hadn't yet revealed that he was a corrupt puppet for the bankers.

Sure he had. He never claimed not to take PAC money and for you that is all it takes for any Dem to be corrupt.... whether they actually ever voted for a Bill because of that donation or not.

Which you always claimed Hillary did though she never voted differently from the Dem caucus on any banking bill.... which, of course, never stopped you from saying she specifically was taking bribes.

Trump always appreciated that, btw.

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:19 PM | Reply

#93 | Posted by Corky

Blah blah blah just explanations and excuses. Yet you accuse ME of being obsessed with 2016.

We did it your way and YOU LOST. Worse - you made the entire world lose.

What's your strategy for 2020 cork, so we can do the exact opposite, since you have proven to NOT know what the american people want.

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because you vote for a fantasy of what you think a politician should be.

It's a particliary ignorant fantasy, in the wake of Citizens United.

Congratulations, you built that... with plenty of help from Jill Stein on the Russian payroll!

Loser.

#94 | Posted by snoofy

Brave of you to admit that you subscribe to the "you have to sell out to win" theory.
So why even be a democrat? If you're accepting plutocrat control of the country, just vote republican and he honest about it.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's absolutely no way you can put that fine a point on Hillary's loss. She had far far too much baggage to contend with.

And yet it is centrism and coziness with the establishment that repels average voters. Want proof? Look at the small-donor fundraising and excitement generated by candidates like Sanders and O'Rourke. Want more proof? A centrist lost to a racist game show host. You can ignore this obvious writing on the wall at your own peril.

#102 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#100

What's your strategy for 2020 Dem primary, Speaks, since you have proven to NOT know what the Dem voters want.

Then we can make sure that the Dem candidate is pushed just far enough left to alienate Rust Belt voters.

American voters are not as far left as you or I are.... I know this, you ignore it.

#103 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:25 PM | Reply

More on "baggage" - There is nobody with more baggage than Trump, and he won. Know why? He feigned "honesty," "telling it like it is," and "sticking it to the establishment." Imagine a Dem candidate who could genuinely, authentically convey those characteristics.

#104 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You can ignore this obvious writing on the wall at your own peril.

#102 | Posted by JOE

No they ignore it at the entire world's peril. If it was just their own peril I wouldnt care.

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Look at the small-donor fundraising

Yeah, do that:

"But Trump is backed by an army of small-dollar donors of his own. His campaign committees reported raising more than $18 million between July and September, bringing the total raised this year for his 2020 reelection bid to $106 million -- much of that from small donors."

thehill.com

#106 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:28 PM | Reply

What's your strategy for 2020 Dem primary, Speaks, since you have proven to NOT know what the Dem voters want.

Then we can make sure that the Dem candidate is pushed just far enough left to alienate Rust Belt voters.

American voters are not as far left as you or I are.... I know this, you ignore it.

#103 | Posted by Corky

The reason you lost and will lose again is because you only see LEFT vs RIGHT.

When there is a rabid ANTI CORRUPTION mass of voters who simply want to break the corrupt system.

They voted for obama when they thought he would fight for them. He let them down. They then voted for trump when he appeared to be the least corrupt and most likely to shake up the system.

Do you want their votes? Or do you want them to stick with trump or stay home?

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats apparently haven't learnt one damned thing from 2016. Not one damned thing.

POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

OH! Is that how they won so big this year with the Blue Wave?

Try to stay in the here and now.

I know it is difficult now that change is happening faster than ever.

The pendulum(that swings like a pendulum do) is swinging back again.

Don't let it hit you in your fat arse.

#108 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-12-19 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- When there is a rabid ANTI CORRUPTION mass of voters who simply want to break the corrupt system.

You mean the ones that put Trump in office? How's that werked out for them?

Rwing populists are still not the same as lwing populists no matter how loudly you shout to yourself that they are.

And when they started our left of center, you know who they are now?

Hrat and Dulli.

#109 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:32 PM | Reply

Just one of the many reasons why I enthusiastically supported and voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.

#75 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-12-19 03:01 PM

You knew she was a terrible candidate but supported her anyway because she was the least worst choice you had available to you out of the candidates who had a chance to actually win - she would have delivered better political outcomes for you than Trump has.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hillary lost because she ignored a few key swing states. It's as simple as that.

#111 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-12-19 03:33 PM | Reply

#106 And guess what? He won.

#112 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-19 03:34 PM | Reply

This is boring.

It's been the same thing since 11/6/16

Dem's whose sellout corporate corrupt candidate lost to a reality tv con man unable to admit that their strategy sucked. Pointing to polls even though the 2016 polls were wrong, blaming bernie and stein, blaming comey, blaming the electoral college, blaming everyone but the people who nominated a status quo corrupt candidate during global anti establishment movement.

This is truly sad.

Just like it's sad that people still support trump after seeing the way he runs the country, it's equally sad to see people still supporting sellout centrism after seeing that it lost.

I'm done with this for now. You're beyond reaching. I just hope you're anomalies and there aren't enough idiots who think like you to ruin 2020 like you ruined 2016.

#113 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- she ignored a few key swing states.

She didn't spend as much time there as she should have as more recent studies have shown that Bernie pushed her just far enough left to make those folks uncomfortable.

Of course, they also said they voted for Trump to maintain their majority (white mycologist) statue, so there's that, too.

All the Hil Hater like to forget when it was that a Dem candidate won a what would be a third Dem Pres term, half a century, or when a woman Dem candidate won, try never.

But see, their meme is it should have been easy, and they are sticking to it.

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

- Dem's whose sellout corporate corrupt candidate lost

According to your definition, that's 99 percent of all Dems whoever won anything ever anywhere.

#115 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:40 PM | Reply

She didn't spend as much time there as she should have as more recent studies have shown that Bernie pushed her just far enough left to make those folks uncomfortable.

#114 | Posted by Corky

BERNIE"S FAULT!

If only she were allowed to run unopposed no one would have pointed out her massive faults! Wahhhh!

#116 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

mycologist, lmao.... Spellchecker is not my friend

misogynist

#117 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:42 PM | Reply

OH! Is that how they won so big this year with the Blue Wave?
Try to stay in the here and now.
I know it is difficult now that change is happening faster than ever.
The pendulum(that swings like a pendulum do) is swinging back again.
Don't let it hit you in your fat arse.

POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-12-19 03:29 PM | REPLY

The only reason for the blue wave is because of Trump. Nothing more.

#118 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-If only she were allowed to run unopposed

Bernie and I accepted the will of the primary voters.... you are still squealing like a stuck pig about it.

#119 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:43 PM | Reply

#118

Wow, Trump caused the Blue Wave of 2012, too. Amazing what one can learn around here.

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:45 PM | Reply

Bernie and I accepted the will of the primary voters.... you are still squealing like a stuck pig about it.

#119 | Posted by Corky

No you're whining that their will was corrupted by bernie running at all.

And now you're adding in charges of sexism. I forgot to include that in your list of pathetic excuses.

#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:46 PM | Reply

- you're whining that their will was corrupted by bernie running at all.

Quoting studies of voter behavior by their own statements is whining now, I see.

I guess if you've got nothing for

All the Hil Haters like to forget when it was that a Dem candidate won a what would be a third Dem Pres term, half a century, or when a woman Dem candidate won, try never.
But see, their meme is it should have been easy, and they are sticking to it.

... then you've got nothing for it.

#122 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 03:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#122 | Posted by Corky

Ok let's start keeping track.

Corky's list of excuses for hillary losing:

-Dems haven't won 3 presidential terms in a row in a long time.
-Sexism
-Bernie pushing her too far to the left
-The electoral college
-James Comey

did I forget any?

I notice a total lack of accountability for the candidate's long record of bad judgement and corruption on that list.
Either you don't think it exists, which means you're ignorant, or you don't think anyone was bothered by it, which means you're stupid.

#123 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

did I forget any?
I notice a total lack of accountability for the candidate's long record of bad judgement and corruption on that list.
Either you don't think it exists, which means you're ignorant, or you don't think anyone was bothered by it, which means you're stupid.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-19 03:54 PM | REPLY

Laura Mohr. She's responsible for all of the worlds ills don'tha know???

#124 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 03:56 PM | Reply

-did I forget any?

Only if you need more to convince yourself that a fraction of a percent loss in the EC is some kind of statement milestone in politics that you BBros seem to "think" it is.

- I notice a total lack of

... accounting for billions of dollars in rwing spending over several decades, much of it doubled-down on by Puridopian Hillary Haters?

- you're ignorant
- you're stupid

Rubber, glue... bounces back on you! I mean, as long as you want to go all elementary school insults.

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 04:04 PM | Reply

*hands popcorn to JeffJ*

#126 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 04:29 PM | Reply

It needs more butter.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-19 04:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

God knows there is plenty of salt...on this thread.

#128 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 04:41 PM | Reply

Corky's list of excuses for hillary losing:

did I forget any?

-Racism
-Fear mongering
-Nazis
-Russians
-Israel

#129 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 04:44 PM | Reply

"I notice a total lack of accountability for the candidate's long record of bad judgement and corruption on that list."

What corruption?
Be specific.
Then, specifically explain why Bernie voted for her anyway.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 04:47 PM | Reply

#129: Uh ... Electoral College? You do recognize that the American voters rejected the guy, right?

#131 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-12-19 04:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You knew she was a terrible candidate but supported her anyway because she was the least worst choice you had available to you out of the candidates who had a chance to actually win - she would have delivered better political outcomes for you than Trump has.
#110 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-12-19 03:33 PM | FLAG: Flag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive | NEWSWORTHY 2

^
Which is exactly what Trump voters thought about Trump.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#131

Uh...read the latter part of the thread to get context, especially #123.

#133 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 04:50 PM | Reply

*hands popcorn to JeffJ*

POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

i.imgur.com

#134 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-12-19 04:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So why even be a democrat? If you're accepting plutocrat control of the country, just vote republican and he honest about it.
#101 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

Because regular people including the poor do far better under Democrats, even the corrupt ones like, well, all of them.

Do you disagree, or do you just not care?

Because those are the only two choices.

Disagreeing that most people do better under Democrats, or not caring enough about that to vote Democrat.

I think we all know you choose to not care that people do better under Democrats.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 04:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#132

And those of us who voted for Johnson thought the fact that he had no idea where Aleppo was completely adorable.

#136 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 04:58 PM | Reply

"And those of us who voted for Johnson thought the fact that he had no idea where Aleppo was completely adorable."

Exactly.

You chose "adorable" over "Most people do better under Democrats."

Your thoughts didn't venture beyond your emotional connection to the candidate.

And here you are, pretending to be a rational adult!

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Your thoughts didn't venture beyond your emotional connection to the candidate.

LOL, as if my vote, in a state where Hillary won by 4M votes, had any meaning.

Nice try though.

#138 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 05:17 PM | Reply

--plenty of salt

Any thread that devolves into a rehash of Clinton vs. Sanders ought to be burned to the ground and have salt poured over it.

#139 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-19 05:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then, specifically explain why Bernie voted for her anyway.

#130 | Posted by snoofy

Because smart people vote for the lesser evil. But they apply that to the primary, not just the general.

If hillary weren't in bed with the plutocrats, bernie wouldnt have had to tell his supporters to hold their noses and vote for her. They'd have done it on their own.

#140 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because regular people including the poor do far better under Democrats, even the corrupt ones like, well, all of them.

#135 | Posted by snoofy

So once again, the best defense of corrupt democrats is "theyre not as bad as republicans."

So we'll just accept plutocratic control of the democrats party.

Now who does one vote for if they DONT support the plutocrat's agenda?

#141 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Any thread that devolves into a rehash of Clinton vs. Sanders ought to be burned to the ground and have salt poured over it.

#139 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah anything that leads democrats to never learn their lesson and lose to trump again is great to you.

#142 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 05:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#139

Dammit Nulli, it's probably been more than a decade since I wholeheartedly agree with you.

#143 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-12-19 05:38 PM | Reply

"If hillary weren't in bed with the plutocrats, bernie wouldnt have had to tell his supporters to hold their noses and vote for her. They'd have done it on their own.
#140 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

Except you didn't do it.

You chose to pout over voting Democrat and helping everyday Americans.

You wouldn't deign to let a plutocrat help you, even though they're the ones with all the power.

You want your pride more than you want a better America.

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 05:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So we'll just accept plutocratic control of the democrats party."

Citizens United is the law of the land.

You not wanting to accept that doesn't change it.

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 05:50 PM | Reply

Meanwhile the Democratic Party Platform explicitly calls for a Constitutional amendment to overturn CU and mandate public finance of elections.

The other party is backed by Russian mob money.

But facts don't matter to you.

It's all about your Outrage!

You're the political equivalent of an anti-vaxxer, SpeakSoftly.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 05:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*hands popcorn to JeffJ*

#126 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-12-19 04:29 PM | FLAG: Creepy incel asterisks.

#147 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-19 06:04 PM | Reply

Mueller Probe Could Prove Disastrous for Democrats

One can only hope.

WATERS/PELOSI 2020

#10 | POSTED BY Comrade Anti-American
Well, your history of predictions is not good for you results wise.
You predicted a red wave in the midterms. LMAO.
Keep on predicting, traitor.

Trump/Prison 2019

#148 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-12-19 06:05 PM | Reply

#139 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

They're actually pretty good because people can just debate with the occasional dumb snicker from some confederate. Its much better than dealing with your responses saturating other threads where no debate can be had because half of you are busy claiming the sky is green and the color blue is a liberal conspiracy.

#149 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-19 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sanders ought to be burned to the ground and have salt poured over it.

#139 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Add ketchup and you have a Trump Steak®

#150 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-19 06:11 PM | Reply

Except you didn't do it.

You chose to pout over voting Democrat and helping everyday Americans.

You wouldn't deign to let a plutocrat help you, even though they're the ones with all the power.

You want your pride more than you want a better America.

#144 | Posted by snoofy

I'm on record MANY times saying you have to vote for the lesser evil if your vote has any power. I've argued endlessly with sheeplemoron about it.

But I happen to live in a state where it doesn't matter which presidential candidate I vote for in the general because the dem nominee will always win. Therefore I can use my vote to tell the DNC that their corrupt corporate puppet candidates aren't getting my support.

The plutocrats have all the power because idiots don't vote for alternatives when they're available.

#151 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Meanwhile the Democratic Party Platform explicitly calls for a Constitutional amendment to overturn CU and mandate public finance of elections.

Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 05:53 PM | Reply

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

publicintegrity.org

Hillary Clinton fashions herself as the ultimate general in a war against big-money politics.

"You're not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance reform than me," Clinton said following the New Hampshire primary.

But the Democratic presidential front-runner stands poised to bludgeon her general election opponent with Republicans' favorite political superweapon: the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which earlier this decade launched a new era of unbridled fundraising.

Clinton's massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff -- super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions -- she says she'll attack upon winning the White House.

Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton's own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. While Clinton rails against "unaccountable money" that is "corrupting our political system," corporations, unions and nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political organizations. That's on top of the tens of millions an elite club of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, have contributed.

HAHAHAHA Just shoot me now. The insanity of certain people is too much LMFAO.

#152 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-19 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"So we'll just accept plutocratic control of the democrats party."

Citizens United is the law of the land.

You not wanting to accept that doesn't change it.

#145 | Posted by snoofy

Your entire argument is built on this total falacy that citizens united means the only way to win is to be a puppet of plutocrats. That fundraising = winning.

Trump didn't win the primary by raising more money than jeb, he did it by speaking "truth" that he was able to speak because he wasn't owned by the usual donor class.

When the people are sick of the corrupt system, the way to victory is no longer trying to be the best at the corrupt system.

#153 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But I happen to live in a state where it doesn't matter which presidential candidate I vote for in the general because the dem nominee will always win."

In other words, you don't really live in a democracy, and the contest is rigged.

Thanks, plutocrat Founding Fathers!

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 06:17 PM | Reply

"When the people are sick of the corrupt system, the way to victory is no longer trying to be the best at the corrupt system.
#153 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

Is that how Trump won?

By being worse at being corrupt than the Democrats?

History and current events don't support that idea.

#155 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 06:19 PM | Reply

"Trump didn't win the primary by raising more money than jeb, he did it by speaking "truth" that he was able to speak because he wasn't owned by the usual donor class."

Sounds like you should have voted for Trump.

It also sounds like you decided your vote doesn't matter.

So why do you keep bringing up voting, when by your own words it wouldn't have mattered? That only makes your vote seem like am even bigger act of vanity...

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*hands popcorn to JeffJ*

#126 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-12-19 04:29 PM | FLAG: Creepy incel asterisks.

#147 | Posted by IndianaJones

Not surprising that you are unfamiliar with the use of asterisks to denote actions in informal writing, junior, like my reaction to all of your posts:

*yawn*

#157 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-19 06:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Is that how Trump won?

By being worse at being corrupt than the Democrats?

History and current events don't support that idea.

#155 | Posted by snoofy

No trump won by colluding with putin and convincing gullible americans who are sick of the status quo rigged system that he was more likely to fight for them than a person who is fully captured by the status quo rigged system.

And your message to those voters in 2020 will be what? "We hope you reconsider and support a plutocrat puppet next time?

#158 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#157

And like Boyduhh he is probably shocked that occasionally I can see that he is following me sniffing my behind...which, not coincidentally, smells like his wife's tongue.

#159 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 06:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#159

Your fake plonking continues to amuse, coward.

#160 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-19 06:38 PM | Reply

#157 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I know how they were used, nulli. Before they were hijacked by you "proud boys". Now its a sure sign someone watches too much jordan peterson and thinks ben shapiro know's what he's talking about.

#161 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-19 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Alt-Right scum love being obtuse.

#162 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-19 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Annnnnd like a dog whistle, my two chief ankle biters come a-runnin, especially when the topic of sniffing my --- is mentioned.

#163 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-19 06:50 PM | Reply

Rightostupid's scatology fetish is showing again.

#164 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-19 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"No trump won by colluding with putin and convincing gullible americans who are sick of the status quo rigged system that he was more likely to fight for them than a person who is fully captured by the status quo rigged system."

Oh, so Trump was lying about that to the gullible Americans?

The plutocrat who is fully captured by the status quo rigged system would actually have been more likely to fight for them?

Hmmm.

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 07:22 PM | Reply

Oh, so Trump was lying about that to the gullible Americans?

#165 | Posted by snoofy

Of course he was. Trump doesnt care about fighting the powers that be. But he could make a case that he WOULD more than hillary since he wasn't part of their corrupt system and she was the master of it.

You still haven't addressed the central lesson -

Trump embraced populism and won. Dems rejected populism and lost.
And your strategy for 2020 appears to be to pretend that didn't happen.

#166 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trump embraced populism and won. Dems rejected populism and lost."

Obama embraced populism and won in 2008.

But... you think Obama is a fake.

And you think Trump is a fake.

But you still want a populist.

You. Never. Learn.

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Trump embraced populism and won. Dems rejected populism and lost." - #166 | Posted by sheepleschism at 2018-12-19 07:40 PM

sheepleschism wants Democrats to lie like Donald Trump.

I report...You decide.

#168 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 08:01 PM | Reply

But... you think Obama is a fake.

And you think Trump is a fake.

But you still want a populist.

You. Never. Learn.

#167 | Posted by snoofy

Say that in the mirror.

Obama won by promising populist change.

Trump won by promising populist change.

Hillary lost by promising the elitist status quo.

The message couldn't be more obvious.

#169 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Not so clear, actually.

Is the message that the populist winners are plutocrat sellout liars?

Because you sure think they both sold out.

Of course, the losers were plutocrat sellout liars too, right?

#170 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 08:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Hillary lost by promising the elitist status quo.

You seriously haven't the first clue. I'm just glad you don't coach Pop Warner football. The first thing you would do is tell the other team your game plan... and that they suck.

Hillary Clinton's quiet revolution
Nobody's noticed, but she's running on an ambitious plan to remake the American social compact.

www.vox.com

Had even half those policies been put into effect, we would be closer to many long-time progressive goals than we would be had Bernie been elected, as if, and none of his policies made it into law.

Slow and steady beats fast and scary to voters every time. But then, some people are more concerned about being correct in their evaluation of what is perfect policy than winning elections and getting at least good enough policy into place as a step in the right direction.

I blame McDonalds for the fast-food generation of immature voters.

#171 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-19 08:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not so clear, actually.

Is the message that the populist winners are plutocrat sellout liars?

Because you sure think they both sold out.

Of course, the losers were plutocrat sellout liars too, right?

#170 | Posted by snoofy

Dont know why this is so confusing for you.
How the legislate is irrelevant.
They both convinced voters they were going to be a populist.
Hillary told voters populism wasn't realistic.
They won. She lost.
I'm not sure how many more ways I can rephrase this for you.
Need me to draw it with crayons?

#172 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 08:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"- Hillary lost by promising the elitist status quo."

You get your Hillary Facts from Russian Bots.

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nobody's noticed, but she's running on an ambitious plan to remake the American social compact.

#171 | Posted by Corky

Nobody BELIEVED.

People are stupid, but even stupid people know you're not going to fight the elites for them after taking a boatload of bribe money from said elites.

#174 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Need me to draw it with crayons?" - #172 | Posted by sheepleschism at 2018-12-19 08:28 PM

sheepleschism wants Democrats to lie like Donald Trump.

The message couldn't be more obvious.

#175 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 08:30 PM | Reply

"How the legislate is irrelevant."

Really, it's irrelevant if the job markey goes up or down, if Obamacare gets passed or gets repealed?

You must live a life of privilege to not have to worry about these things.

And you must be callous and selfish to not care how they impact America.

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 08:33 PM | Reply

You get your Hillary Facts from Russian Bots.

#173 | Posted by snoofy

Hillary wrote a book on why she lost. Seems she's more able to admit her mistake than you are.

www.vox.com
"She has this interesting chapter where she is working through what is clearly some uncertainty on her end as to whether or not she approached policy ideas in the campaign too technocratically. Whether or not she was too reticent on coming out with big galvanizing ideas like single-payer or college for all or the wall between Mexico."

Are you going to tell me the russians made her do that?

#177 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Really, it's irrelevant if the job markey goes up or down, if Obamacare gets passed or gets repealed?

#176 | Posted by snoofy

It's irrelevant to the ELECTION stupid. Populism got them the job. Do you want a democrat to get the job next time?

#178 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Hillary told voters populism wasn't realistic.
They won. She lost."

No, the voters lost too.
The voters picked Hillary.
Electoral college didn't care.

#179 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Are you going to tell me the russians made her do that?" - #177 | Posted by sheepleschism at 2018-12-19 08:33 PM

sheepleschism wants Democrats to act like Donald Trump.

The message couldn't be more obvious.

#180 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-19 08:35 PM | Reply

"Do you want a democrat to get the job next time?"

Do you?
You didn't last time.
Did something change?

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 08:36 PM | Reply

No, the voters lost too.
The voters picked Hillary.
Electoral college didn't care.

#179 | Posted by snoofy

Talk about changing the subject

#182 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 08:43 PM | Reply

"Do you want a democrat to get the job next time?"

Do you?
You didn't last time.
Did something change?

#181 | Posted by snoofy

As I said ALREADY, smart people vote for the lesser evil, but you appear to need to have things stated to you multiple times before it sinks in.

let me know how many more times you'd like me to post that until it penetrates your grey matter.

If I could write this in emojis and crayons for you I would: If you want to win the next election, don't follow the strategy that made you lose the last one. The fact that you even need this said to you is not a good sign.

#183 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As I said ALREADY, smart people vote for the lesser evil"

Who was the lesssr evil in 2016???

#184 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 08:57 PM | Reply

A Hillary Clinton die hard and a trump supporter are driving along a road when a "Bernie Bro" going in the other direction flashes his brights and signals they slow down. They stop and roll down the window. "Road is closed up ahead," he said. "No its not." said the Hillary fan, before rolling up the window and continuing onward. The trump supporter grunted and gestured to a sign off the road. Road Closed Ahead the Hillary fan read to herself. Undeterred and confident in the roadmap she had drawn decades ago, they drove onward. After another quarter mile or so, they came upon a large barrier across the road indicating construction up ahead. "Damnit" said the Hillary fan, "I wish we were warned before we got to this mess."

Some people just won't believe you until they see something with their own eyes. Bernie or another real progressive will show the Clinton holdouts in 2020 or 2016's second greatest disappointment will repeat itself.

#185 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-12-19 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who was the lesssr evil in 2016???

#184 | Posted by snoofy

In the primary it was sanders. In the general it was hillary.

PS duh.

#186 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Some people just won't believe you until they see something with their own eyes.

#185 | Posted by IndianaJones

And some people will see it with their own eyes, and then deny what they just saw, and demand repeating the same actions which led to failure 4 years later.

#187 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't feel quite qualified to offer an opinion with so many hardliners and experts here, but in one respect I think Corky is right: both men and women don't like ------------ is what Trump painted Hillary Clinton as. If a man is a reputation for being an -------, he can at least be generally reasonable. But a bitch cannot be reasoned with. I'm sure there are plenty of holes to poke in that logic, but when it comes to gut feelings at the poll, people had to ask themselves a question: Do I want an ------- or a bitch in the office. Popularly, more people chose the bitch, but the electoral college won out.

#188 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-12-19 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"smart people vote for the lesser evil"
"In the general it was hillary."

You didn't vote for Hillary.
You're not smart.
QED.

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-19 09:16 PM | Reply

You didn't vote for Hillary.
You're not smart.
QED.

#189 | Posted by snoofy

I dont live in a swing state dum dum. Who I vote for in the general doesn't matter.

#190 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-19 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"This is so critical that I'm going to post it a few more times for you.
We've already watched the Dems run a centrist and lose to Trump, so this isn't even theoretical. It's proven not to work."

Yeah, because all those Obama swing voters who voted for Trump (or stayed home) didn't vote for Hillary because she wasn't progressive enough.

#191 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-19 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#191 NOT.

#192 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-19 10:02 PM | Reply

when it comes to gut feelings at the poll, people had to ask themselves a question: Do I want an ------- or a bitch in the office.

Thats a ------------- deep ------- question.

I need a joint.

#193 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-19 10:14 PM | Reply

And yet it is centrism and coziness with the establishment that repels average voters. Want proof? Look at the small-donor fundraising and excitement generated by candidates like Sanders and O'Rourke. Want more proof? A centrist lost to a racist game show host. You can ignore this obvious writing on the wall at your own peril.

#102 | Posted by JOE

The highlighted part is the pertinent part.

The electorate showed with Obama's eight years that they want somebody that isn't business as usual. Trump's campaign used those lessons against the Dems, who fielded a candidate that was the antithesis of those lessons.

Both sides of the aisle are tired of government working against them at the behest of the donor class. They're not concerned with most of the social issues progressives want to push the moment they have a semblance of power.

#194 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-19 10:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sherrod Brown / Tulsi Gabbard 2020

#195 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-12-20 03:31 AM | Reply

Trump is a criminal and a role model for some people. Democrats first and fundamental mission is to tell people what you are for. not that they're against Trump.

If Trump's election was illegitimate, so is Pence. Any change can only happen if Democrats control Congress. But, that leads to Nancy Pelosi. Trumpsters will be in the streets screaming coup d'état if she's president. There is no good ending to this story.

#197 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-20 06:51 AM | Reply

- Nobody BELIEVED.

Most people who voted believed..... you didn't.

#198 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 10:45 AM | Reply

#194 What does a government that stands up to the donor class look like to you, if not the type championed by people like Bernie Sanders?

#199 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-20 10:57 AM | Reply

#199

At this point it's the party that has overcoming CU in it's platform. And in a 2 party system that is yet another example of the two parties not being the same.

#200 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 11:41 AM | Reply

Not a response to my post. Thanks.

#201 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-20 12:30 PM | Reply

It's a gov that looks like the Dem party platform... if that helps clarify what I said for you.

#202 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trumpsters will be in the streets screaming coup d'état if she's president."

There will be no impeachment. Elections are the only way to rid ourselves of the traitor Trump. Whoever runs should openly call him a traitor in every speech, commercial, etc.

#203 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-20 12:55 PM | Reply

"#194 What does a government that stands up to the donor class look like to you, if not the type championed by people like Bernie Sanders?"

Do you really see that big a delta between Clinton and Sanders?

As big as the gulf between Clinton and Trump, say?

#204 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-20 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah, because all those Obama swing voters who voted for Trump (or stayed home) didn't vote for Hillary because she wasn't progressive enough.

#191 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Te voters who went from obama to trump are the anti establishment voters. And hillary was the most establishment candidate dems could find. They basically told the anti establishment voters that they weren't wanted.

#205 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-20 01:10 PM | Reply

Do you really see that big a delta between Clinton and Sanders?

As big as the gulf between Clinton and Trump, say?

#204 | Posted by snoofy

Clinton and trump both would have more bankers in their white houses than sanders would.

#206 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-20 01:11 PM | Reply

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

#207 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 01:20 PM | Reply

Sun Tzu, the brilliant Chinese military strategist and Al Pacino of "The Godfather" give the same wise business advice!

#208 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 01:21 PM | Reply

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

#207 | Posted by Corky

haha yeah that's what hillary was doing taking all the bankers money. Keeping her enemies closer. She's just playing the long long long game of taking their bribes and doing their bidding for decades before she finally brings the hammer down.

The delusion hillary supporters engage in to dismiss her corruption is hilarious.

#209 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-20 01:23 PM | Reply

- hillary was doing taking all the bankers money

What's hilarious is you claiming that almost all Dems are corrupt bribe takers who vote they way they are bribed... with no proof whatsoever of specific incidences.

When you've never been able to argue the fact that Clinton never voted against the Dem caucus on any banking issue. You tell this generalized lie about her all the time with no proof at all.

#210 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 01:35 PM | Reply

#204 Why don't you read my post and the one I was responding to before asking irrelevant questions?

#211 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-20 01:45 PM | Reply

#210 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 01:35 PM

Corky, please do us all a favor and stop replying to SheepleSchism.

He's incapable of learning.

#212 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-20 01:45 PM | Reply

Sun Tzu, the brilliant Chinese military strategist and Al Pacino of "The Godfather" give the same wise business advice!

Actually, no translation of Sun Tzu ever has that statement in it, the closest that comes to it is the following:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

Niccolò Machiavelli came closer in The Prince:

"It is easier for the prince to make friends of those men who were contented under the former government, and are therefore his enemies, than of those who, being discontented with it, were favourable to him and encouraged him to seize it."

But regardless of the source of their inspiration, Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola should get full credit for the line:

"My father taught me many things here. He taught me in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

#213 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-20 01:59 PM | Reply

What's hilarious is you claiming that almost all Dems are corrupt bribe takers who vote they way they are bribed... with no proof whatsoever of specific incidences.

#210 | Posted by Corky

Yeah except for bill clinton signing the wall street deregulation act that lead to the entire economic meltdown.

And obama with full democratic congressional control doing NOTHING to the bankers afterward.

But if you put corky's corporate blinders, then there's nothing to see!

#214 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-20 02:10 PM | Reply

#214

If your brush were any broader, it would be larger than RoCheney's opinion of himself.

So, nationwide.

#215 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 02:33 PM | Reply

#215 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2018-12-20 02:33 PM | FLAG: BUTTHURT

#216 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-20 03:02 PM | Reply

#215 | Posted by Corky

Corky : No proof whatsoever!

Speak: Here's some proof.

Corky: That proof doesn't count!

#217 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-20 03:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Corky: Here's my proof!

#218 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-20 03:14 PM | Reply

when it comes to gut feelings at the poll, people had to ask themselves a question: Do I want an ------- or a bitch in the office.

Thats a ------------- deep ------- question.
I need a joint.
#193 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK
______________________________________________

Scanning for sarcasm...perhaps...perhaps not. ☺

#219 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-12-20 04:37 PM | Reply

- Speak: Here's some proof.

Your opinion of someone else's motivation is proof? When you assign that same motivation to almost all Dems?

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

#218

Thinks people click on his links, lol. Thanks for confirming what I said.

#220 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 08:02 PM | Reply

#220 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-20 08:02 PM

Please Corky...

... please do us all a favor and stop replying to SheepleSchism.

Even if he gets the last word.

Please.

Please.

Please stop replying to SheepleSchism.

#221 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-20 08:13 PM | Reply

Your opinion of someone else's motivation is proof? When you assign that same motivation to almost all Dems?

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

#218

Thinks people click on his links, lol. Thanks for confirming what I said.

#220 | Posted by Corky

Their motivation is irrelevant. Their actions are.

Bill clinton signing the wall street deregulation act that lead to the entire economic meltdown.

And obama with full democratic congressional control doing NOTHING to the bankers afterward.

Both took big money from wall street. And you're dumb enough to think that's a coincidence.

#222 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-20 09:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

SpeakSoftly,
Not having a banking system would be worse than having the corrupt banking system we have.

Just try to imagine what happens when ADP runs payroll for the millions of corporate workers they cut checks for, and then millions of those checks bounce because the bank went out of business.

Now imagine what happens to people whose banks went out of business write a mortgage check on a check that will bounce because the bank is out of business.

Your understanding of the world is such that you've literally never thought about those things.

That's called privilege.

#223 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-20 09:23 PM | Reply

Your understanding of the world is such that you've literally never thought about those things.

That's called privilege.

#223 | Posted by snoofy

Your flailing attempts to defend democrat corruption has reduced you to making weak ass arguments, such as pretending we have to pick between a corrupt system where the bankers control the government, or not having banks.

Like when republicans pretend we have to either build the full wall or get rid of national sovereignty. Your argument is equally stupid.

#224 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-20 09:44 PM | Reply

"Your flailing attempts to defend democrat corruption has reduced you to making weak ass arguments,"

"We need a banking system" isn't a weak argument.
It's a very real one.

You need to do what I asked: Think about what happens when millions of payroll checks bounce.
Then we can talk more.

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-20 10:42 PM | Reply

While we're on the topic, the reason the GOP party platform opposes a national ID card is because it would largely render their state-level voter disenfranchisement ID schemes null and void.

Since a Federal ID would qualify as proof of identity, and it would almost certainly be free, it's like Kryptonite to Republicans who only seek to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters.

#226 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-20 10:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL, wrong thread snoofy.

#227 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-20 10:48 PM | Reply

Wish you guys on the left half of the divide could stop replaying the 2016 election with such bitterness. Hillary was not my first choice by any stretch. But considering the alternative in the general, I could not have had a clearer conscience in voting for her.

Establishment? Yes. Beholden to the monied elite? Possibly, but we'll never know. I like to think her experience, critical thinking skills and, most importantly, her conscience would help ground her when decisions needed to be made. She'd likely be no more beholden than Trump, whose promises of draining the swamp were lies, like everything else he says. At least she is rational. What we have now is a disaster. I try to avoid disaster.

I also don't buy the premise of this article. I think Trump is damaged goods -- and not just because of Mueller.

#228 | Posted by cbob at 2018-12-21 08:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not having a banking system would be worse than having the corrupt banking system we have.
Just try to imagine what happens when ADP runs payroll for the millions of corporate workers they cut checks for, and then millions of those checks bounce because the bank went out of business.
Now imagine what happens to people whose banks went out of business write a mortgage check on a check that will bounce because the bank is out of business.

People who criticize politicians for being cozy with the banking industry have never said we should abolish the FDIC, so your entire post is a strawman. There are a lot of pieces of legislation that hurt regular people getting passed at the behest of giant financial institutions; the Federal Deposit Insurance Act isn't one of them.

#229 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-21 09:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We need a banking system" isn't a weak argument.
It's a very real one.

You need to do what I asked: Think about what happens when millions of payroll checks bounce.
Then we can talk more.

#225 | Posted by snoofy

You're still being an intentional idiot, pretending we have to choose between having banks run the government, or having NO banks.

Are those the only 2 choices moron?

#230 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 11:23 AM | Reply

- And you're dumb enough to think that's a coincidence.

They also took money from all kinds of donors for which they never did a damn thing. And you are just dumb enough to "think" that's a conspiracy.

On lobbyists: "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here."

- Big Daddy Unruh, was an American Democratic politician and the California State Treasurer.

But hey, we get it. All the libs here and the Dem platform can be against corp PACs, CU, and for campaign finance reform.... but YOU are the Purist of the Puridopians.

You can have that title, as it's self-serving and self-defeating all at once.

#231 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-21 11:48 AM | Reply

All the libs here and the Dem platform can be against corp PACs
#231 | Posted by Corky

You're not "against" something you vote for.

#232 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 12:09 PM | Reply

Saying you're AGAINST corporate PACs while voting for clinton is like saying youre AGAINST racism while voting for david duke.

#233 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 12:12 PM | Reply

* the above comments apply to situations where you have an alternative. Before you make your usual false argument that opposing clinton = supporting trump, in the general election you have to always vote for the lesser evil.

#234 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 12:16 PM | Reply

- You're not "against" something you vote for.

They vote for campaign finance reform and overturning CU.... and lose. They are not "voting for corp PACs", they are abiding by current law until it is changed.

#233

Voting for Clinton would have given you the below policies. Tell me which ones you hate...

www.vox.com

Had even half those policies been put into effect, we would be closer to many long-time progressive goals than we would be had Bernie been elected, as if, and none of his policies made it into law.

Slow and steady beats fast and scary to voters every time.

But then, some people are more concerned about being correct in their evaluation of what is perfect policy than winning elections and getting at least good enough policy into place as a step in the right direction.

#235 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-21 12:22 PM | Reply

You're not "against" something you vote for.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-21 12:09 PM | REPLY

I am. I am at war with myself constantly, for lack of any other worthy foe. I don't even agree with what I am posting right now.

#236 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-21 12:27 PM | Reply

They are not "voting for corp PACs", they are abiding by current law until it is changed.

#235 | Posted by Corky

They take bribes from people who don't want it to change, and then you're dumb enough to think they'll change anything.

#237 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 01:19 PM | Reply

I blame McDonalds for the fast-food generation of immature voters.
#171 | POSTED BY CORKY

I think at this point we've seen you blame everyone except your own candidate and the person in the mirror.

#238 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-12-21 01:45 PM | Reply

"You're still being an intentional idiot, pretending we have to choose between having banks run the government, or having NO banks.
Are those the only 2 choices moron?
#230 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Yes.
The problem being, you can't wish a new banking system into existence overnight... or even in time for payroll to run on Friday.
If you weren't either so poor you don't know how money works, or so rich you don't know how money works, you'd know this.

#239 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 01:55 PM | Reply

Yes.
The problem being, you can't wish a new banking system into existence overnight... or even in time for payroll to run on Friday.
If you weren't either so poor you don't know how money works, or so rich you don't know how money works, you'd know this.

#239 | Posted by snoofy

So your thesis is that our entire banking system is based on banks being able to bribe and control the government, and without that ability, our entire economy would collapse.

Keep going. You're looking dumber and dumber.

#240 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 02:00 PM | Reply

- blame everyone except your own candidate and the person in the mirror.

Just stating the facts, ma'm.

The First Woman President? The First Third Term for Dem in over half a century? Easy peasy going out the gate, right?

A fraction of a percent loss in the EC after an unprecedented, against policy letter release by the FBI that voters said kept them home is some kind of devastating, game-changing loss?

But then, some people are more concerned about being correct in their evaluation of what is perfect policy than winning elections and getting at least good enough policy into place as a step in the right direction.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me which of the horrible policies in #235 you hate most?

Speaks certainly won't.

#241 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-21 02:10 PM | Reply

"So your thesis is that our entire banking system is based on banks being able to bribe and control the government"

No, I never said that.

"and without that ability, our entire economy would collapse."

No, you're still playing dumb.

You still haven't done what I ask.

Imagine payroll runs on Friday... but tens of millions of paychecks bounce because multiple major banks are bankrupt.

Describe the impact would that have on the economy, in a nation where most of us live paycheck to paycheck, something you've obviously never done.

Do that and we can talk.

I can see why you're afraid to. Can you?

#242 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 02:29 PM | Reply

How Clinton lost 'blue wall' states of Mich., Pa., Wis.

Comey had little to do with young voters and African-Americans not turning out. Hillary failed to get in there and fire them up. But she had plenty of time that October for fundraising in the sure-thing State of California.

Your girl failed all by herself, Corky.

Now, can we move on?

#243 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-12-21 02:30 PM | Reply

#243

lol.... an article right after the election, not one that since studied voter reactions and patterns.

How about an authoritative article much later from actual experts?

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election
So why won't the media admit as much?

By Nate Silver
Filed under The Real Story Of 2016

"The impact of Comey's letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona.

At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

fivethirtyeight.com

Now, can we move on?

Maybe to you and Speaks telling us how horrible Hil's policies that I gave you a link to would have been for the country?

#244 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-21 02:45 PM | Reply

I haven't said a word about her policies on this thread, Corky. All I have said is that if she had showed up and fired up more voters in those three states, she probably would have won.

As a side note, in my swing state of Colorado, where Bernie won the caucus, Hillary still won the general. So I guess we can also add your state of Florida to YOUR failure.

So we're still at your girl didn't show and your mirror is broken.

My best suggestion; if you want a different outcome in 2020, try a better candidate... Somebody that knows how to play the entire board, instead of just the states she was already going to win.

#245 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-12-21 03:10 PM | Reply

Imagine payroll runs on Friday... but tens of millions of paychecks bounce because multiple major banks are bankrupt.

What is the purpose of such a hypothetical when literally zero people have called for abolishing the FDIC?

#246 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-21 03:11 PM | Reply

The FDIC won't cash a bad check from a failed bank.

#247 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 03:15 PM | Reply

Do you have any clue what you're talking about? When a bank fails, its assets and liabilities are bundled up and sold to a thriving bank on Friday and the place reopens on Monday like nothing ever happened.

#248 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-21 03:34 PM | Reply

- All I have said is that if she had showed up and fired up more voters in those three states, she probably would have won.

And as Nate Silver showed, you are wrong about that; the FBI letter lowered her polling numbers below the fraction of a percent she lost by in the EC.

- try a better candidate.

Really? The Dem party should pick a "better" candidate in a backroom somewhere rather than have a primary election and let the voters decide?

The primary voters decided on the candidate, in a landslide, even after the Dem party allowed a fake Dem to run and gave him undemocratic Caucuses to in which to excel.

- I haven't said a word about her policies on this thread, Corky.

Neither has Speaks. He just relies on assigning motivation, unproven assertions about bribery, and refuses to admit how progressive her policies actually were.

#249 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-21 03:39 PM | Reply

The First Woman President? The First Third Term for Dem in over half a century? Easy peasy going out the gate, right?

A fraction of a percent loss in the EC after an unprecedented, against policy letter release by the FBI that voters said kept them home is some kind of devastating, game-changing loss?

#241 | Posted by Corky

Excuses excuses excuses. And none of them include her massive unfavorability ratings due to her decades of poor judgement and accepting bribes from sociopaths.

#250 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 03:57 PM | Reply

Imagine payroll runs on Friday... but tens of millions of paychecks bounce because multiple major banks are bankrupt.

#242 | Posted by snoofy

Explain how that would happen.

Pretend a president who doesn't take bribes from banks gets elected.

Explain how we go from there to millions of paychecks bouncing.

#251 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 03:59 PM | Reply

"Explain how that would happen."

It would happen because of Math(TM).
You know nothing about money or finance.
Fix that.

#252 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 04:03 PM | Reply

"When a bank fails, its assets and liabilities are bundled up and sold to a thriving bank on Friday and the place reopens on Monday like nothing ever happened."

Who buys when they're all broke?

Were you an adult in 2008?

#253 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 04:05 PM | Reply

Who buys when they're all broke?
Were you an adult in 2008?

I was. Did the FDIC cease to exist that year? Or did it function entirely as intended?

#254 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-21 04:09 PM | Reply

"accepting bribes from sociopaths."

Link?

#255 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-21 04:25 PM | Reply

"Did the FDIC cease to exist that year? Or did it function entirely as intended?"

How would the FDIC solve the liquidity crisis?

Maybe you can find me an artice from back then explaining how all we need to do was let the global banking system collapse because the FDIC can cover it and that will prevent a global financial meltdown.

I'll wait.

#256 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 05:11 PM | Reply

Or did it function entirely as intended?

Since when was the FDIC intended to bail out the banks from a global liquidity crisis of their own making?

The FDIC was intended to help people with less than $250,000 in assets to have confidence in the banks.

You think Walmart can run payroll for two million workers with $250,000?

#257 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 05:16 PM | Reply

"Explain how that would happen."

It would happen because of Math(TM).
You know nothing about money or finance.
Fix that.

#252 | Posted by snoofy

So explain the math, mr expert.
Teach us all how electing politicians who don't take bribes from banks would make millions paychecks bounce.

Because right now it sounds like you're dodging.

#258 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 05:16 PM | Reply

"So explain the math, mr expert."

See: Walmart trying to pay two million workers with only $250,000.

"Teach us all how electing politicians who don't take bribes from banks would make millions paychecks bounce."

That's not a math problem, that's a you not understanding politics or finance problem.

#259 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 05:19 PM | Reply

"Teach us all how electing politicians who don't take bribes from banks would make millions paychecks bounce."

That's not a math problem, that's a you not understanding politics or finance problem.

#259 | Posted by snoofy

The thing about making a ridiculous claim is that you have to defend it. You can't simply say "you wouldnt understand"

So if you understand it so well - how would electing a president who didn't take banks' bribe money result in millions of paychecks bouncing?

The burden of supporting that stupid claim is on you, not me.

If I claim "the sky is pink" and you say "prove it" and I say "you're not smart enough to understand" does that mean I just proved something or won an argument?

#260 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 05:28 PM | Reply

"So if you understand it so well - how would electing a president who didn't take banks' bribe money result in millions of paychecks bouncing?"

It's an absurd "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

If the banks did not get bailed out, checks would have been worthless because there was insufficient liquidity to cash them.

Are you so financially insulated from reality that you've never bounced a check -- or tried to cash one that bounced??? Yes or no.

#261 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 05:46 PM | Reply

Perhaps you are confusing the global banking system with the banking system in the game of Monopoly.

While there are many similarities, one difference is that the rules of Monopoly state that the bank can never run out of money -- if all the bills are in circulation but the bank has to pay someone $200 for passing Go, the banker simply writes 200 on a piece of paper and that's money.

That is close to but not exactly the same as the real world.

#262 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 05:59 PM | Reply

If the banks did not get bailed out, checks would have been worthless because there was insufficient liquidity to cash them.

Are you so financially insulated from reality that you've never bounced a check -- or tried to cash one that bounced??? Yes or no.

#261 | Posted by snoofy

Ahh so your reasoning was that if a candidate didn't take the banks' bribe money, they would have let the entire financial system collapse.

You're so brainwashed to accept their puppets that you can't even conceive that a non-puppet would be able to act in the interests of the country.

#263 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 06:04 PM | Reply

"Ahh so your reasoning was that if a candidate didn't take the banks' bribe money, they would have let the entire financial system collapse."

I never said anything about bribes, that's your bizarre fetish that you can't keep in check.

I'm saying that without the bailout, the entire financial system would have collapsed.

You know I'm right. Right? Or do you still not get it, ten years later.

#264 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 06:10 PM | Reply

"You're so brainwashed to accept their puppets that you can't even conceive that a non-puppet would be able to act in the interests of the country."

The bailout was in the interests of the country.

Arguably, probably, more in the intersts of the banks, but still in the interests of Americans.

You must be so rich (or so poor) you simply don't understand how or why normal people use banks.

#265 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 06:13 PM | Reply

I'm saying that without the bailout, the entire financial system would have collapsed.

You know I'm right. Right? Or do you still not get it, ten years later.

#264 | Posted by snoofy

But you're implying that without taking bribes from the bank, a president wouldn't have taken any measures to prevent the collapse of the banks.

A massive leap in logic and a total fallacy.

Every once in a while a poster makes an argument so stupid that it attaches to them forever.

With goatman it was - if you use any oil, you can't say we should use less oil.

With you, you just laid claim to - if presidents don't take bribes from banks, the economy collapses. I'll be reminding you of this argument for quite a while.

#266 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 06:27 PM | Reply

"But you're implying that without taking bribes from the bank, a president wouldn't have taken any measures to prevent the collapse of the banks."

You are inferring something I never once implied.

Nowhere have I suggested that the only way to have a banking system is if politicians take bribes.

And to be clear, when you say bribes, you mean legal campaign contributions, which is another sign you really just don't get it.

#267 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 06:31 PM | Reply

Nowhere have I suggested that the only way to have a banking system is if politicians take bribes.

And to be clear, when you say bribes, you mean legal campaign contributions, which is another sign you really just don't get it.

#267 | Posted by snoofy

Legal bribes are still bribes. They're not giving money to politicians because it DOESNT get them what they want.

"You are inferring something I never once implied."

#223 | Posted by snoofy : "Not having a banking system would be worse than having the corrupt banking system we have."

That absolutely WAS your implication, and now you're backing away from it. You tried to portray a false choice between taking banker bribes or letting the economy collapse, because it's the only way you can feel good about supporting someone who takes bribes from bankers.

#268 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-21 06:55 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

I am cooking steaks and sweet potatoes on a charcoal cooker at the moment and have been perusing the comments section from my phone. I don't have the time to flag any posts but if I did have the time I want you to know you would have gotten multiple NW flags from me on this thread.

#269 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-21 06:57 PM | Reply

"#223 | Posted by snoofy : "Not having a banking system would be worse than having the corrupt banking system we have."

That absolutely WAS your implication"

No, it really isn't.

Bailing out the corrupt banks was better for the average American than letting the corrupt system collapse.

Because the corrupt system is necessary for the daily lives of just about every American, honest and corrupt alike, to not be dramatically upended for the worse and cast into financial dire straits.

Nowhere in that understanding of financial reality is an endorsement of Citizens United or an interpretation of the First Amendment that money is speech.

Your relentless need to put words in my mouth only belies your inability to understand fiscal reality.

#270 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-21 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort