Trump's high wire act

[JoeB131]

Commie Care was bad because it was all politics. It gave likely Democrat voters easier access to healthcare at the cost to likely Republican voters. You'll never come up with anything good if politics is more of the motive than actually solving the problem.

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.

They are looking to put cost saving measures in already. They are talking about things like Medical Savings Accounts, tort reform, and making it a federal law to allow all insurance companies to compete regardless of where they are located at.

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?

They also need to look into Medicare since that plays a big part in our unaffordable insurance. I hate to say it, but if we want that plan, we need to fund it. I can't remember the last time we had an increase in payroll contributions for Medicare.

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.

There may be no other real choice but to go to socialized healthcare at this point. Get rid of all government plans including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIPS, VA, and just have everybody covered.

You mean... Single Payer. Yes. We should have done that 40 years ago.

 

[JoeB131]

[
The 7-headed beast: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Individual, Group, Worker's Comp, Indigent care. Madness. Fucking madness.

But not Single Payer. Just expand Medicare/Medicare Supplements/Medicare Advantage to all. An already-functioning blend of a public foundation and private competition & innovation, and take a huge monkey off the backs of American employers.
.

Except it's the big greedy insurance companies that are the problem, not the sensible government programs designed to help people when Republicans aren't slashing them to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Single Payer. Just like Canada. Done.

 

[ding]

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?
.

Isn't that what just happened? If so, how long did it take to happen?

I don't know what you mean.
.

The snap back led to Trump becoming president and it took 8 years to do so.

 

[Mac1958]

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?
.

Isn't that what just happened? If so, how long did it take to happen?

I don't know what you mean.
.

The snap back led to Trump becoming president and it took 8 years to do so.

Yes, the Democrats over-reached, they over-interpreted their "mandate", which is what partisans always do. Partisans are nothing if not predictable.

Trump isn't your garden-variety Republican President, though, and that's what got him elected. So I'm wondering if a (hypothetical) failure would cause an even more severe snap-back than we have usually seen, further to the Left.
.

 

[ding]

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?
.

Isn't that what just happened? If so, how long did it take to happen?

I don't know what you mean.
.

The snap back led to Trump becoming president and it took 8 years to do so.

Yes, the Democrats over-reached, they over-interpreted their "mandate", which is what partisans always do. Partisans are nothing if not predictable.

Trump isn't your garden-variety Republican President, though, and that's what got him elected. So I'm wondering if a (hypothetical) failure would cause an even more severe snap-back than we have usually seen, further to the Left.
.

You should read "The 4th Turning" by Howe and Strauss.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Yes, the Democrats over-reached, they over-interpreted their "mandate", which is what partisans always do. Partisans are nothing if not predictable.

Trump isn't your garden-variety Republican President, though, and that's what got him elected. So I'm wondering if a (hypothetical) failure would cause an even more severe snap-back than we have usually seen, further to the Left.
.

3 Million more people voted for Hillary. ANother 7 million voted for Non-Trump candidates (because the press told them Hillary had this in the bag.)

Trump got less of a percentage of the vote than the Weird Mormon Robot got in 2012.

Quit pretending things happened that didn't. Trump won because of an archaic system, not because he changed any minds.

Trump WILL fail because he never had any business being president to start with. The GOP has decided it doesn't care, because they know that demographically, they are doomed regardless. Might as well get all those things in before the voters wise up and vote them out.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

All or nothing? What planet are you on? Dems have steadily lost power across the nation. Nor is this a simple party issue, Trump brought in many blue collar dems to win. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated before it can penetrate your brain. For some odd reason your mind can't accept it.

This isn't all or nothing. And predicting any failures at this point is just weird. Did you do that to Obama? My guess is no.

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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 candidate who had no positions on any issues. Apparently you still have no interest in the issues.

 

[Mac1958]

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

All or nothing? What planet are you on? Dems have steadily lost power across the nation. Nor is this a simple party issue, Trump brought in many blue collar dems to win. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated before it can penetrate your brain. For some odd reason your mind can't accept it.

This isn't all or nothing. And predicting any failures at this point is just weird. Did you do that to Obama? My guess is no.

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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".
.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

All or nothing? What planet are you on? Dems have steadily lost power across the nation. Nor is this a simple party issue, Trump brought in many blue collar dems to win. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated before it can penetrate your brain. For some odd reason your mind can't accept it.

This isn't all or nothing. And predicting any failures at this point is just weird. Did you do that to Obama? My guess is no.

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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".
.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

All or nothing? What planet are you on? Dems have steadily lost power across the nation. Nor is this a simple party issue, Trump brought in many blue collar dems to win. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated before it can penetrate your brain. For some odd reason your mind can't accept it.

This isn't all or nothing. And predicting any failures at this point is just weird. Did you do that to Obama? My guess is no.

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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".
.

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.
.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

All or nothing? What planet are you on? Dems have steadily lost power across the nation. Nor is this a simple party issue, Trump brought in many blue collar dems to win. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated before it can penetrate your brain. For some odd reason your mind can't accept it.

This isn't all or nothing. And predicting any failures at this point is just weird. Did you do that to Obama? My guess is no.

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

All or nothing? What planet are you on? Dems have steadily lost power across the nation. Nor is this a simple party issue, Trump brought in many blue collar dems to win. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated before it can penetrate your brain. For some odd reason your mind can't accept it.

This isn't all or nothing. And predicting any failures at this point is just weird. Did you do that to Obama? My guess is no.

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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?
.

 

[Correll]

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

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?
.

That goes without saying with any popular vote lead. But no one ran on it, Trump never even went to California so you are just reciting empty rhetoric.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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".
.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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.
.

 

[jc456]

It won't happen. Sure, something bad could happen to the economy, the Republicans could screw something up or back a bad position, and yes, the country will put Democrats in leadership again, but it's the normal way of things in a country like ours.

So are you look at his presidency as pretty much standard - failure would damage the party to a normal extent, and the pendulum continues to swing as normal?
.

why wouldn't it? it's logical.

 

[Mac1958]

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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".
.

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.
.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol There is no high wire act here. President Trump laid out a clear set of goals during the campaign and now he is working on achieving in an orderly fashion. You are allowing yourself to be distracted by noise from confused, often hysterical Democrats and reporters who are trying to convince you there are problems when there are none.

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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?
.

Not a good reader? I said the people who voted for Trump voted for him because of his positions on the issues and not as you claimed because they liked his style, but the people who voted for Clinton voted for nothing but style because she had no real positions on any of the issues.

 

[Mac1958]

There has never been a President like this guy. There has never been a temperament/personality in the White House like this guy.

That was a huge part of his appeal to his followers in the FIRST PLACE.

It's a risk for the party to have him representing them. That's what I mean by "high wire act".

If we can't even agree on that, never mind. We'll pretend this is just another presidency.
.

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?
.

Not a good reader? I said the people who voted for Trump voted for him because of his positions on the issues and not as you claimed because they liked his style, but the people who voted for Clinton voted for nothing but style because she had no real positions on any of the issues.

And I disagreed.
.