Trump's high wire act

[Reasonable]

A question for Trump voters/supporters: How comfortable are you with the risks of his presidency?

I'll flesh this out a bit:

It has long been the nature of politics that the pendulum swings - if this party fouls it up, we'll give the other party a chance. And, at least in recent history, the pendulum has swung pretty hard in the opposite direction.

Let's agree that the two parties are as divided as we have seen. And let's consider the possibility that Trump & Co screw the pooch, big time. That's not a prediction, I'm horrible at those, just a thought exercise.

Trump has taken our political environment so far off the rails - and I believe that was the point, yes? - that the snap-back that would result from his administration's failure would be pretty freaking powerful. The GOP brand would be TORCHED for a LONG time, and we would head Left, BIG time.

In other words, this thing really is all or nothing. Are you okay with that?
.

Al Franken has stated that many republicans he speaks to off the record are scared shitless what Trump is doing to their party and country.
Al's a very honest guy too something deplorables can't relate to.

 

[Reasonable]

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him. For whatever reason.

There's just no spin for that.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

The president is elected by the states, not by popular vote. If you're smart, you'll keep that in mind.

How come Trump keeps lying that he had the greatest electoral victory since Reagan?
The type of question that sends Trump supporters fleeing. Lol

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him. For whatever reason.

There's just no spin for that.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

The president is elected by the states, not by popular vote. If you're smart, you'll keep that in mind.

How come Trump keeps lying that he had the greatest electoral victory since Reagan?
The type of question that sends Trump supporters fleeing. Lol

You see, you make my point for me, Clinton supporters have no idea why they voted for her so they talk about stupid stuff like this. In fact, in some ways, Trump had a greater electoral victory than Reagan. Clinton spent more than twice as much money as Trump, had an enormous campaign staff and was vigorously supported by the media, and still she lost. Going against all the odds like that and winning was a stunning victory for Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him. For whatever reason.

There's just no spin for that.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

The president is elected by the states, not by popular vote. If you're smart, you'll keep that in mind.

How come Trump keeps lying that he had the greatest electoral victory since Reagan?
The type of question that sends Trump supporters fleeing. Lol

Doesn't seem like anybody is fleeing to me. In the short time he's been in office, his approval ratings are getting better.

 

[Mac1958]

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him. For whatever reason.

There's just no spin for that.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

The president is elected by the states, not by popular vote. If you're smart, you'll keep that in mind.

Well, I can sit back and watch.

This isn't the first time a minority of narcissistic partisans mistook victory for mandate and tried to cram their agenda down our throats, and it sure as hell won't be the last.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A question for Trump voters/supporters: How comfortable are you with the risks of his presidency?

I'll flesh this out a bit:

It has long been the nature of politics that the pendulum swings - if this party fouls it up, we'll give the other party a chance. And, at least in recent history, the pendulum has swung pretty hard in the opposite direction.

Let's agree that the two parties are as divided as we have seen. And let's consider the possibility that Trump & Co screw the pooch, big time. That's not a prediction, I'm horrible at those, just a thought exercise.

Trump has taken our political environment so far off the rails - and I believe that was the point, yes? - that the snap-back that would result from his administration's failure would be pretty freaking powerful. The GOP brand would be TORCHED for a LONG time, and we would head Left, BIG time.

In other words, this thing really is all or nothing. Are you okay with that?
.

Al Franken has stated that many republicans he speaks to off the record are scared shitless what Trump is doing to their party and country.
Al's a very honest guy too something deplorables can't relate to.

That's been acknowledged even by Republicans. The establishment Republicans hate him. They (like the Democrats) don't like intruders intruding in their game.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

lol You are deluded. She stood nowhere on the issues. On illegal immigration, she wanted to build bridges not walls. On NAFTA she finally said it was a mistake, but what did she say she would do about it? Nothing. On Obamacare, she acknowledged there were a lot of things wrong with it, but what was she planning to do? Nothing. Instead of putting forth an agenda of what she planned to do, Clinton talked about what she claimed were her values and beliefs and left it at that. Donald Trump told voters exactly what he planned to do, but Clinton had nothing to say. During the campaigns, if you asked Trump supporters why they supported him they would tell you because of his positions on Illegal immigration or on trade or on terrorism, or some other issue, but if you asked a Clinton supporter why he or she supported Clinton, you got one of two answers, because she is a woman or like you because you don't like Trump's personal style.

She lost the election because she had nothing to say to the economic Democrats, who used to be the core of the Democratic Party, that addressed their concerns and they gave the swing states to Trump, who told them exactly what he would do to try to save their jobs and bring back jobs that had gone south. If you are following the contest for DNC chair, you know that none of the Democratic leaders have anything to say to these people even now.

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him. For whatever reason.

There's just no spin for that.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

No, only more people that voted voted against him. I'm sure in states where he didn't stand a chance, many of his supporters just stayed home. We will never know who registered voters supported because the popular vote wasn't the race.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, we agree on one thing, Clinton supporters were more interested in style than substance. Clinton running a substance free campaign was a dangerous high wire act, and when she fell, she left the Democratic Party in tatters, so deeply divided the viability of the Party is in question.
Clinton got more votes but when you consider she ran on nothing, it is clear her supporters voted for nothing.

The people who voted for her, did so because (a) they agreed with her more on the issues, and (b) because they felt that Trump was not qualified (professionally or temperamentally) to be President. A quick trip to her campaign web site by a curious person would have clearly explained where she stood on issues.
.

lol You are deluded. She stood nowhere on the issues. On illegal immigration, she wanted to build bridges not walls. On NAFTA she finally said it was a mistake, but what did she say she would do about it? Nothing. On Obamacare, she acknowledged there were a lot of things wrong with it, but what was she planning to do? Nothing. Instead of putting forth an agenda of what she planned to do, Clinton talked about what she claimed were her values and beliefs and left it at that. Donald Trump told voters exactly what he planned to do, but Clinton had nothing to say. During the campaigns, if you asked Trump supporters why they supported him they would tell you because of his positions on Illegal immigration or on trade or on terrorism, or some other issue, but if you asked a Clinton supporter why he or she supported Clinton, you got one of two answers, because she is a woman or like you because you don't like Trump's personal style.

She lost the election because she had nothing to say to the economic Democrats, who used to be the core of the Democratic Party, that addressed their concerns and they gave the swing states to Trump, who told them exactly what he would do to try to save their jobs and bring back jobs that had gone south. If you are following the contest for DNC chair, you know that none of the Democratic leaders have anything to say to these people even now.

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

There are a lot of people that would have voted against Trump if the "D" had another name next to it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong on all counts. Harry Truman was a lot like Trump in terms of publicly expressing his anger and taking personal issue with some of this critics.

People supported Trump because they liked his positions on the issues, unlike empty headed Democrats who voted for a candidates who had no positions on any issues. Apparently you still have no interest in the issues.

Correct, I have no interest in the issues.



And Trump received fewer votes.

So much for "the issues".
.

Lie Detector


You're giving yourself away by bringing up that popular vote Demwit talking point. Only partisan nutcakes are still yapping about that irrelevancy.

Believe what you will. The fact remains that he said this: "People supported Trump because they liked his positions on the issues". Okay, so if we're being honest, that means that more people voted against him on the issues.

Are you going to deny that? Or should I drag out the Lie Detector?
.

Mmm, you are ignoring the possibility that the people that SUPPORTED Trump did so on the issues, while those who opposed him did so for other reasons.

Just saying.

Sure, but the premise here is that, since Trump won, most people agree with him on "issues".

It just isn't true, any more than the notion that the Dems had the right to ramrod their crap after 2008.

The country is split, and anyone who pushes this notion that "the people voted for..." is dreaming.
.

Trump's major issue was immigration. Nobody on the right or left addressed the issue the way we voters wanted it addressed. On the left, they promoted open borders. On the right, they promoted immigration reform. What??? Did you hear anybody on our side cry for immigration reform? No, we cried to close the boarder and throw the illegals out.

Finally somebody listened to us, and we voted for that person for that reason.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Republican Mantra... "I got mine... Fuck you!" Except you don't got yours, buddy. Your one percenter boss ripped you off and blamed the black guy.

You libs are so dense. How many times do I have to tell you who I work for. Small family business. Under a dozen employees.

Yes, the idiot black guy and the rest of his commie friends in Congress. My employer told me exactly why he dropped insurance, and like millions of others, I lost it because of intrusive government. But of course as many times as I've explained it to you, you do the typical liberal thing of putting the palms of your hands against your ears and sing aloud pretending not to hear or learn anything.

None of which would fix the problem. HSA's only work if you have disposable income to put into them. Most of us don't. Texas tried Tort Reform, it didn't bring down costs while denying patients redress from medical negligence. And letting some shifty operation from another state which doesn't regulate policies doesn't help at all.

Why do all Republicans 'Plans" not really involve reducing costs, just making the one percent richer?

Texas became flooded with healthcare workers and doctors. At one point, their population grew faster than the general population.

Healthcare didn't get less expensive because with all the new doctors, hospitals and patients, much equipment was needed to treat these people.

There's a reason for that. Medicare isn't paying it's CEO 9 figures or providing dividends for stockholders. It's just paying for the care. As a result, until recently, it had a surplus the GOP looted to buy bombers until those baby boomers started retiring and asking where their money is.

No, the reason is that Medicare and Medicaid both rip off healthcare providers. My father had several procedures and surgeries and they only paid 2/3 of the bill. In order to recoup that money, they need to raise fees for the rest of us, and those increased costs have to be paid by the insurance companies. When that happens, insurance premiums increase, and then individuals and employers can't keep up with the costs.

The only one that "looted" Medicare was your big-eared bozo you put in as President. He raided Medicare for his own commie plan.

"Government is not the solution to our problems--government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The real problem is that we have a way to fix it.

Single Payer. Everyone gets the same level of care, paid for by the government. Then we can decide what that's worth to us after we've eliminated non-value factors such as 9 figure CEO salaries and six employees in every doctor's office figuring out insurance paperwork.

Well DUH! Did you ever stop and think who forced medical providers and insurance companies to have all that paperwork???

You see, the real problem Republicans have is that they DID have a plan. It was called "RomneyCare". And Obama, instead of going to single payer like every other civilized country has, decided to adopt the Republican idea instead, in the vain hope of having a bi-partisan effort.

Every single Republican voted against Commie Care. Romney is hardly a Republican, and he did what he thought the liberals wanted in his state. Commie Care is not a Republican plan and never was. Otherwise, Bush would have introduced in in all the years he had a Republican Congress and Senate to approve it for him.

He didn't realize how racist the Republicans were that they'd reject their own plan when a black guy endorsed it.

Keep spouting those race lies. It's helping us to bury the Democrat party even more. In the last eight years, people just got sick of that cheap lame excuse.

 

[JoeB131]

Well DUH! Did you ever stop and think who forced medical providers and insurance companies to have all that paperwork???

Every single Republican voted against Commie Care. Romney is hardly a Republican, and he did what he thought the liberals wanted in his state. Commie Care is not a Republican plan and never was. Otherwise, Bush would have introduced in in all the years he had a Republican Congress and Senate to approve it for him.

So...um, the Republican Party nominated a guy who wasn't a Republican in 2012, but they did nominate a guy who had been a registered Democrat all the way up until 2008 because he appealled to your racism in 2016.

Got it.

Okay, because you aren't very bright, where do you think the initial template for RomneyCare came from? It came from the Heritage Foundation, that wanted a private sector alternative to HillaryCare, which would have just created a public option paid for by taxes on businesses that weren't providing health care to their employees.

And when Romney ran in 2008 on the basis of taking Romneycare nationwide, no Republican had a problem with it. They had problems with him being a Mormon (which is why McCain got the nomination). They didn't have a problem with his healthcare plan.

After the Black Guy Did It, though, No one wanted to say it was their idea, and Republican totally forgot Romney was a Mormon. Because, shit, he could have been sacrificing virgins to C'Thulhu and the GOP would have supported him

Keep spouting those race lies. It's helping us to bury the Democrat party even more. In the last eight years, people just got sick of that cheap lame excuse.

Guy, Trumpenfuhrer got less votes than Romney did. You haven't changed any minds. You lost by 3 million votes and another 7 million voted for 3rd party candidates.

 

[JoeB131]

You libs are so dense. How many times do I have to tell you who I work for. Small family business. Under a dozen employees.

Yes, the idiot black guy and the rest of his commie friends in Congress. My employer told me exactly why he dropped insurance, and like millions of others, I lost it because of intrusive government. But of course as many times as I've explained it to you, you do the typical liberal thing of putting the palms of your hands against your ears and sing aloud pretending not to hear or learn anything.

Right. Rich person screws you, and you blame the government.

You know what I do when my employer screws me? I send out resumes and find one that pays better.

Texas became flooded with healthcare workers and doctors. At one point, their population grew faster than the general population.

Healthcare didn't get less expensive because with all the new doctors, hospitals and patients, much equipment was needed to treat these people.

Cool Story Bro.... reality .

On Tort Reform, It's Time to Declare Victory and Withdraw

This latest study follows numerous others that deflated other tort reform myths: that making it harder for victims to file medical malpractice lawsuits would reduce the number of “frivolous” suits that “clog the courts;" that imposing caps on the damages victims could receive would reign in "out of control" juries that were awarding lottery-size sums to plaintiffs; and that malpractice insurance premiums would fall, thereby reversing a doctor shortage caused by specialists "fleeing the profession."

None of these promised benefits became reality. That’s because the alleged problems were themselves non-existent. Perhaps the most telling fact is that the Department of Justice found that the median med mal award in jury-decided cases was $400,000. In bench trials, where the judge also serves as the jury, the median award was $631,000.

No, the reason is that Medicare and Medicaid both rip off healthcare providers. My father had several procedures and surgeries and they only paid 2/3 of the bill. In order to recoup that money, they need to raise fees for the rest of us, and those increased costs have to be paid by the insurance companies. When that happens, insurance premiums increase, and then individuals and employers can't keep up with the costs.

The only one that "looted" Medicare was your big-eared bozo you put in as President. He raided Medicare for his own commie plan.

Wow... so, um, your Dad is participating in a Communist Program? Okay.

Actually, Medicare does it about right. they have set schedules of what they will pay for procedures. The insurance companies get into this complicated dance of what the medical companies will rip them off for, like when I had my knee surgery and they charged my insurance company $100 for liquid tylanol.

"Government is not the solution to our problems--government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan

"I Pooped Myself" - Ronald Reagan, right before he died of Alzheimers. Good Riddance.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wrong on all counts. Harry Truman was a lot like Trump in terms of publicly expressing his anger and taking personal issue with some of this critics.

People supported Trump because they liked his positions on the issues, unlike empty headed Democrats who voted for a candidates who had no positions on any issues. Apparently you still have no interest in the issues.

Correct, I have no interest in the issues.



And Trump received fewer votes.

So much for "the issues".
.

Lie Detector


You're giving yourself away by bringing up that popular vote Demwit talking point. Only partisan nutcakes are still yapping about that irrelevancy.

Believe what you will. The fact remains that he said this: "People supported Trump because they liked his positions on the issues". Okay, so if we're being honest, that means that more people voted against him on the issues.

Are you going to deny that? Or should I drag out the Lie Detector?
.

Mmm, you are ignoring the possibility that the people that SUPPORTED Trump did so on the issues, while those who opposed him did so for other reasons.

Just saying.

Sure, but the premise here is that, since Trump won, most people agree with him on "issues".

It just isn't true, any more than the notion that the Dems had the right to ramrod their crap after 2008.

The country is split, and anyone who pushes this notion that "the people voted for..." is dreaming.
.

To the Victor Go the Spoils

That's another rhetorical trick, demanding a situation where nothing can ever get done because everybody has to agree, or at least some supermajority has to. So Trump can only follow through on a percentage of his issues that reflect his percentage of the electoral vote?

 

[Mac1958]

Correct, I have no interest in the issues.



And Trump received fewer votes.

So much for "the issues".
.

Lie Detector


You're giving yourself away by bringing up that popular vote Demwit talking point. Only partisan nutcakes are still yapping about that irrelevancy.

Believe what you will. The fact remains that he said this: "People supported Trump because they liked his positions on the issues". Okay, so if we're being honest, that means that more people voted against him on the issues.

Are you going to deny that? Or should I drag out the Lie Detector?
.

Mmm, you are ignoring the possibility that the people that SUPPORTED Trump did so on the issues, while those who opposed him did so for other reasons.

Just saying.

Sure, but the premise here is that, since Trump won, most people agree with him on "issues".

It just isn't true, any more than the notion that the Dems had the right to ramrod their crap after 2008.

The country is split, and anyone who pushes this notion that "the people voted for..." is dreaming.
.

To the Victor Go the Spoils

That's another rhetorical trick, demanding a situation where nothing can ever get done because everybody has to agree, or at least some supermajority has to. So Trump can only follow through on a percentage of his issues that reflect his percentage of the electoral vote?

He can choose to make decisions based on the fact that we're a large, diverse, dynamic, complicated society, or he just cram a narrow agenda down our throats. That's his call, and we'll see what happens.
.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The people who voted for her, did so because (a) they agreed with her more on the issues, and (b) because they felt that Trump was not qualified (professionally or temperamentally) to be President. A quick trip to her campaign web site by a curious person would have clearly explained where she stood on issues.
.

lol You are deluded. She stood nowhere on the issues. On illegal immigration, she wanted to build bridges not walls. On NAFTA she finally said it was a mistake, but what did she say she would do about it? Nothing. On Obamacare, she acknowledged there were a lot of things wrong with it, but what was she planning to do? Nothing. Instead of putting forth an agenda of what she planned to do, Clinton talked about what she claimed were her values and beliefs and left it at that. Donald Trump told voters exactly what he planned to do, but Clinton had nothing to say. During the campaigns, if you asked Trump supporters why they supported him they would tell you because of his positions on Illegal immigration or on trade or on terrorism, or some other issue, but if you asked a Clinton supporter why he or she supported Clinton, you got one of two answers, because she is a woman or like you because you don't like Trump's personal style.

She lost the election because she had nothing to say to the economic Democrats, who used to be the core of the Democratic Party, that addressed their concerns and they gave the swing states to Trump, who told them exactly what he would do to try to save their jobs and bring back jobs that had gone south. If you are following the contest for DNC chair, you know that none of the Democratic leaders have anything to say to these people even now.

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

They Get in Our Way. We Must Run Them Over.

Despite their Right Wing classmates' lies about the Debutante Democrats being pro-union, snooty little rich girls like Missy Rodham passionately hate and fear those born in the working class.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

lol You are deluded. She stood nowhere on the issues. On illegal immigration, she wanted to build bridges not walls. On NAFTA she finally said it was a mistake, but what did she say she would do about it? Nothing. On Obamacare, she acknowledged there were a lot of things wrong with it, but what was she planning to do? Nothing. Instead of putting forth an agenda of what she planned to do, Clinton talked about what she claimed were her values and beliefs and left it at that. Donald Trump told voters exactly what he planned to do, but Clinton had nothing to say. During the campaigns, if you asked Trump supporters why they supported him they would tell you because of his positions on Illegal immigration or on trade or on terrorism, or some other issue, but if you asked a Clinton supporter why he or she supported Clinton, you got one of two answers, because she is a woman or like you because you don't like Trump's personal style.

She lost the election because she had nothing to say to the economic Democrats, who used to be the core of the Democratic Party, that addressed their concerns and they gave the swing states to Trump, who told them exactly what he would do to try to save their jobs and bring back jobs that had gone south. If you are following the contest for DNC chair, you know that none of the Democratic leaders have anything to say to these people even now.

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

Winner Takes All

Another self-serving lie to comfort your cult, but it has no effect on rational people. On the contrary, you hope he's stupid enough to take those Coastie losers, misfits, and moochers seriously. Voting rights will change and they will be stricken from the rolls they never should have been allowed on in a nationalist country.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him. For whatever reason.

There's just no spin for that.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

The president is elected by the states, not by popular vote. If you're smart, you'll keep that in mind.

Hillary, Dillary, Dock

Only if the Hillaloser had a mind could he keep that in mind.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Lie Detector


You're giving yourself away by bringing up that popular vote Demwit talking point. Only partisan nutcakes are still yapping about that irrelevancy.

Believe what you will. The fact remains that he said this: "People supported Trump because they liked his positions on the issues". Okay, so if we're being honest, that means that more people voted against him on the issues.

Are you going to deny that? Or should I drag out the Lie Detector?
.

Mmm, you are ignoring the possibility that the people that SUPPORTED Trump did so on the issues, while those who opposed him did so for other reasons.

Just saying.

Sure, but the premise here is that, since Trump won, most people agree with him on "issues".

It just isn't true, any more than the notion that the Dems had the right to ramrod their crap after 2008.

The country is split, and anyone who pushes this notion that "the people voted for..." is dreaming.
.

To the Victor Go the Spoils

That's another rhetorical trick, demanding a situation where nothing can ever get done because everybody has to agree, or at least some supermajority has to. So Trump can only follow through on a percentage of his issues that reflect his percentage of the electoral vote?

He can choose to make decisions based on the fact that we're a large, diverse, dynamic, complicated society, or he just cram a narrow agenda down our throats.
.

The GOP is going to keep that section of Obamacare that covers throat doctors. So no worry about permanent damage from what the Trump Train is going to do to you.

 

[Mac1958]

The fact that you don't agree with what someone says, doesn't mean they're saying nothing.

It just means that you don't agree with them. That's okay. And they can disagree with you.
.

lol She said nothing to disagree with. She dodged the issues by telling us about her beliefs and values and then slamming Trump. From your posts it is clear that you voted for her because you didn't like Trump's style and not because of something she proposed to do. It was this substance free campaign that has left the Democratic leaders unsure of what the Party is all about now.

Come on, the reason you didn't vote for Hillary was because she had a (D) after her name.

Everything else is noise.
.

For you, perhaps, that was the only important thing, but for the economic Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other swing states, it was the fact she had nothing of substance to say to them.

More people voted against him than for him.

If he's smart he'll keep that in mind.
.

Winner Takes All

Another self-serving lie to comfort your cult, but it has no effect on rational people. On the contrary, you hope he's stupid enough to take those Coastie losers, misfits, and moochers seriously. Voting rights will change and they will be stricken from the rolls they never should have been allowed on in a nationalist country.

The fact that more people voted against him than for him is a lie?

From which website to you pick THAT gem?
.