Trump's high wire act

[jc456]

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.
.

Sure, but the premise here is that, since Trump won, most people agree with him on "issues".
why wouldn't that be true? All the man is doing is doing what he said he would do. Isn't that fking refreshing?
It just isn't true, any more than the notion that the Dems had the right to ramrod their crap after 2008.
sure it is true. The whiners who want failure to the country are at odds with his positions, but damn son, the people who voted for him like what we've seen.
The country is split, and anyone who pushes this notion that "the people voted for..." is dreaming.
Why? What I asked of him he's doing, despite the left trying to fowl the water. He's been spectacular. Given he still doesn't have his full cabinet yet. hmmm when was the last pres that didn't have their full cabinet by week four?

Your driving a bus that goes nowhere.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.
.

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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.
.

No, you just dodged the issue. When you asked people who supported Clinton during the campaigns why they supported her they almost always said they didn't like Trump's temperament or they repeated some slander the Clinton campaign had put out about him, not that they disagreed with him on the issues.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

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.
.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.
.

I didn't vote for because, well, she's HRC. I do wish I had a different choice... but so far, I'm liking Trump for the most part. He's a bit much at times, but it is refreshing to not hear speeches about the 1%'rs, climate change, transgender, etc. The last 8 years we essentially heard one speech:


"You suck, we suck but I'm wonderful".

 

[yiostheoy]

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?
.

Everyone I know who voted for DJT mostly hated Hillary more.

The poor old lady has gotten too comfortably with lying and almost everyone could see through it.

I did not vote for Hillary nor Donald.

But I am really glad Hillary lost.

That was some miracle !!!

 

[yiostheoy]

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

Everything else is noise.
.

A lot of nonpartisans/unaffiliated's like me did NOT vote "DEM" this time.

The reason was because of Hillary's lies.

 

[AntonToo]

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

Everything else is noise.
.

A lot of nonpartisans/unaffiliated's like me did NOT vote "DEM" this time.

The reason was because of Hillary's lies.

...but not Trump's many many many more lies?

You think Hillary lied to you that she would protect Obamacare? You think she lied to you that she would nominate Garland to supreme court? That she's looking at policies that would mildly add to deficit?

I don't know if anyone explained to you how it works - but you didn't have to date Clinton if she won. Her presidency substantively would be quite close to what her husband Clinton would do. What don't you like about that proposition? How she handled emails? Seriously? This is what you wanted to prevent by helping to put that half-baked clown in the White House?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?
.

While true, thus far Trump has done a masterful job, doing what he said he would do is a refreshing change that I have NEVER before seen from any president, including Reagan.

Yes, the Court blocked his terrorist ban, but even in that Trump won, solidified his base.

The democrats have been taken over by George Soros and the fringe left, Trump has spent the last month baiting these Stalinist thugs, enticing them to the worst possible behavior. Each time this thugs have eagerly taken the bait and shown the nation just what gutter scum they truly are.

I think the DNC may be done for, may never recover from being this radical left collection of whining children demanding their participation trophies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Idiots like you are responsible for the destruction that is happening.

It's your Fuhrer who is responsible for the complete destruction of the democratic party. You chose to blindly follow Soros as dictator, and he has led your party to ruin.

America sees you Stalinists as evil little trolls who riot in your soiled diapers because you didn't get your way - in other words the nation sees you as you are.

It is for this reason that the next democratic president hasn't been born yet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?
.

California is an antebellum state. We have illegal aliens as the slave caste with the tiny elite in Palo Alto running the plantations, The middle class has been all but eradicated, with thugs like Brown working tirelessly to finish the job.

That the slaves were induced to support the democrats based on promises of welfare and open borders has little impact on the majority of the nation. Take away California, and Trump won the popular vote by a landslide. So if we are being honest, then we see tha the majority of the nation strongly supported Trump with Antebellum California opposing.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

I didn't vote for because, well, she's HRC. I do wish I had a different choice... but so far, I'm liking Trump for the most part. He's a bit much at times, but it is refreshing to not hear speeches about the 1%'rs, climate change, transgender, etc. The last 8 years we essentially heard one speech:


"You suck, we suck but I'm wonderful".

I'm pretty nervous, and nothing has really happened to this point that has changed my mind.

But will remain hopeful. I could be wrong. Hell, I'm wrong all the time.

Just ask my wife.
.

 

[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?
.

Everyone I know who voted for DJT mostly hated Hillary more.

The poor old lady has gotten too comfortably with lying and almost everyone could see through it.

I did not vote for Hillary nor Donald.

But I am really glad Hillary lost.

That was some miracle !!!

Man oh man, no shit. I still remember waking up that morning and checking the news.

I wonder how many times I said "holy shit" that morning.


.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the DNC may be done for, may never recover from being this radical left collection of whining children demanding their participation trophies.

Well, I'd just be careful with the predictions.

After 2008 the GOP looked pretty bad, and then adding in demographics, it looked even worse for the future.

These parties share a rare ability to over-interpret their "mandate" (cough) and proceed to shoot themselves in the foot.
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

]Well, I'd just be careful with the predictions.

After 2008 the GOP looked pretty bad, and then adding in demographics, it looked even worse for the future.

These parties share a rare ability to over-interpret their "mandate" (cough) and proceed to shoot themselves in the foot.
.

I don't know about mandate. It isn't that the GOP is beloved, far from it. But the disgust the nation has for the left is palpable. Even left of center people I know here in California, mock the leftist protestors in complete disgust. Soros has sullied the democrat brand, possibly beyond redemption. Being hated is far better than being laughed at, and the democrats are being laughed at from coast to coast.

 

[Mac1958]

]Well, I'd just be careful with the predictions.

After 2008 the GOP looked pretty bad, and then adding in demographics, it looked even worse for the future.

These parties share a rare ability to over-interpret their "mandate" (cough) and proceed to shoot themselves in the foot.
.

I don't know about mandate. It isn't that the GOP is beloved, far from it. But the disgust the nation has for the left is palpable. Even left of center people I know here in California, mock the leftist protestors in complete disgust. Soros has sullied the democrat brand, possibly beyond redemption. Being hated is far better than being laughed at, and the democrats are being laughed at from coast to coast.

Well, this warped version of the party, yeah.
.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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?
.

I'm not sure it matters. We're heading for an article 5 anyway.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.
.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

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.
.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.
.

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