Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because Wall Street is the economy and helping the economy helps everyone including the poor. Constantly giving freebies to the poor will not help them in the long term. This is something the Left will never get.
Wall Street is NOT supposed to be the economy. You can only wring so much out of actual businesses that are supposed to be the economy until things collapse.
Want to lesson the tax burden on business A? OK you can make a valid argument for that. Want to lesson the tax burden on Capital Gains made on Wall Street? No, that is not a valid argument.
There is no difference in the person who won't work and is poor and the one that doesn't work but still expects his returns to grow.
People who are perceived as an "attack dog" don't have a chance and don't do well. Trump may be the first in my voting life since Nxion and we know how that ended.
Of course we should hold Trump to this standard but anyone that voted for Hillary has no place in condemning Trump supporters that won't.
So only people that abstained from voting or voted for a third party can condemn Trump? The way I see it, there are a few kinds of voters (in 2016):
People that like what Trump had to say regardless of his past
People that didn't necessarily like him but saw Trump as the lesser of the two evils
People that like what Clinton had to say regardless of her past
People that didn't necessarily like her but saw Clinton as the lesser of the two evils
Those that abstained or voted third party
Maybe your argument is true for those that fell in #3. People that had that team mentality - vote Clinton at all costs. However, I think anyone in the other categories have every right to condemn the President and his supporters.
Besides, you are leveraging a false equivalency here. Do the faults of one candidate, regardless of how few, allow us to simply cancel out the faults of another candidate, regardless of how many?
Now, that's a weak argument for Clinton and Trump. They had their issues, certainly. But 2020 is a new election, new candidate (hopefully...). And if one candidate's biggest flaw is something relatively minor - it should not allow for a second to look the other way on Trump's mountain of flaws.
So only people that abstained from voting or voted for a third party can condemn Trump? The way I see it, there are a few kinds of voters (in 2016):
People that like what Trump had to say regardless of his past
People that didn't necessarily like him but saw Trump as the lesser of the two evils
People that like what Clinton had to say regardless of her past
People that didn't necessarily like her but saw Clinton as the lesser of the two evils
Those that abstained or voted third party
Maybe your argument is true for those that fell in #3. People that had that team mentality - vote Clinton at all costs. However, I think anyone in the other categories have every right to condemn the President and his supporters.
Besides, you are leveraging a false equivalency here. Do the faults of one candidate, regardless of how few, allow us to simply cancel out the faults of another candidate, regardless of how many?
Now, that's a weak argument for Clinton and Trump. They had their issues, certainly. But 2020 is a new election, new candidate (hopefully...). And if one candidate's biggest flaw is something relatively minor - it should not allow for a second to look the other way on Trump's mountain of flaws.
6. People wanted a do-er, someone with accomplishments...a git 'er done kind of person. "Fight for you" and "knowing stuff" aren't accomplishments if what you are fighting for never comes to pass and what you know is never applied/implemented by you. Someone needs to tell that to the lawyers (both parties) on Capitol Hill and the academics who are thinking about running for president (all parties) in the future. Lots of BS artists and critics in all parties. Not a lot of do-ers.
I don't think the Democrats have a chance in 2020. Donald Trump has Putin in has pockets and Putin will throw the 2020 election like he did the 2016 election!
So only people that abstained from voting or voted for a third party can condemn Trump? The way I see it, there are a few kinds of voters (in 2016):
People that like what Trump had to say regardless of his past
People that didn't necessarily like him but saw Trump as the lesser of the two evils
People that like what Clinton had to say regardless of her past
People that didn't necessarily like her but saw Clinton as the lesser of the two evils
Those that abstained or voted third party
Maybe your argument is true for those that fell in #3. People that had that team mentality - vote Clinton at all costs. However, I think anyone in the other categories have every right to condemn the President and his supporters.
Besides, you are leveraging a false equivalency here. Do the faults of one candidate, regardless of how few, allow us to simply cancel out the faults of another candidate, regardless of how many?
It does not make the faults go away. It makes it so those who support them care less as those complaining did the same. You can not expect others to act in a way you refused to do. (A general statement not meant to address you directly)
Quote:
Now, that's a weak argument for Clinton and Trump. They had their issues, certainly. But 2020 is a new election, new candidate (hopefully...). And if one candidate's biggest flaw is something relatively minor - it should not allow for a second to look the other way on Trump's mountain of flaws.
There will be disagreements with any candidate. A disagreement is different than a huge character flaw. We will have to see who the (D)'s nominate.
6. People wanted a do-er, someone with accomplishments...a git 'er done kind of person. "Fight for you" and "knowing stuff" aren't accomplishments if what you are fighting for never comes to pass and what you know is never applied/implemented by you. Someone needs to tell that to the lawyers (both parties) on Capitol Hill and the academics who are thinking about running for president (all parties) in the future. Lots of BS artists and critics in all parties. Not a lot of do-ers.
Trump is no different that those who came before him. Blustering on what people want to hear but not actually accomplishing anything positive.
I don't think the Democrats have a chance in 2020. Donald Trump has Putin in has pockets and Putin will throw the 2020 election like he did the 2016 election!
If this is what the (D)'s are going to run on, I want none of it.
The Democrats need a new face; but they also need new ideas with that new face. Most are still goose-stepping to the Party leadership; even Kamala Harris. Today's Democrats have no moderates or conservatives. They have moved left of the term 'liberal'. How do you appeal to a larger audience when you have slammed the door in their face?
I don't think its about how far left the Democratic party has seemed to moved, and actually I don't think that's the issue, and in fact the issue is the fact that the Democratic party has been screwing over the people it's supposed to represent for years. It's more about having a message that resonates with the parts of America that are having it rough. I think Bernie Sanders had a message that resonated with a lot of working class Americans prior to the 2016 election, but there was no way in hell the Democratic party would have ever let him become the nominee. A true progressive will never get anywhere near the white house, just a neo-liberal with progressive ideas like Kamala or Booker. I'm sorry but Russia, Russia, Russia, and Russia is not a message
The truth is, the Democratic party would love to keep Donald Trump than have someone as far to the left as you described, BUT, they want to get in to power and reclaim some lost seats by making Trump and Russia the issue. I myself do not give a **** about Russia.
Maybe if the Democrats would have ran a better candidate than Hillary, they would have faired much better and Russia would not be an issue, and had a better strategy. Trump ran a great campaign, and was brilliantly executed by aiming for the rust belt, making trade an issue, and immigration.
You don't necessarily have to appeal to a larger audience, you need to appeal to the audience that matters and in the U.S with the electoral college, the audience that matters are the swing states in the rust belt, and I would say Florida, Virginia, North Carolina. All the other states are typically going to vote like they've always voted. Many talk about how if we didn't have the electoral college for example, CA and NY would pick our president. But we already have a system like that in place in theory as the current system makes the rust belt states and a couple swing states in the sunbelt with FLA and NC. All the other states really don't have this so called voice like Wyoming for example.
That's what Donald Trump did in 2016. He appealed to the audience that mattered in the rust belt, and that's where he spent the majority of his campaign. He nailed the rust belt down because hammered away on trade, an important issue for that part of the country, and he essentially took what was a progressive idea in being against these trade agreements, and flipped it and made it the new Republican base for half of the party. He was also able to lock down the southern part of the country with his strong message on immigration, and actually that's an issue that resonates with a good portion of America. But it really wouldn't be that hard for the Democrats to win in 2020. All you need to do in 2020 is take back Wisconsin and Michigan, states that Trump won narrowly (by 18k in Wisconsin and by 13k votes in Michigan. If you keep Virginia and everything else close to the same, you win. But you need to have a candidate who inspires people to do that.
You need to put forward a candidate that the blue collar part of America can relate to, and that will listen to their concerns as well as put forth some solutions as well as someone with a good public image which Hillary Clinton did not have what so ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
