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.
She voted for and supported every single war that we are stuck with in the middle east. She voted for every program that benefited all of America's defense contractors.
Hilary was right there on that Freedom Fries band wagon after 9/11 and enthusiastically voted for the war in Iraq.
Hillary said she was against TPP.
So Hillary Clinton did all 3 things you stated. Trump only did one.
Yet Trump won the election, Bigly.
I feel bad for the poor Democrat party. They still haven't accepted that American doesn't want them anymore, and refuse to address why.
On the first issue the clintons have always supported nuclear disarmament, this actually makes america more vulnerable.
One issue number two, Hillary is a Clinton, Americans have seen how the Clintons fight wars and the pathetic rules of engagement we had during Kosovo emboldened bin laden to attack us on 9/11. Bush actually did much better than Clinton on that front winning credibly in first Afghanistan and then Iraq. The mistake that Bush made was made later in the occupation phase of Iraq and that was the attempt to nation-build. Also the democrats have usually been the dove party which is why the antiwar left vote democrat. Also 9/11 has still not been properly avenged, yes Bin Laden is dead but Zawahiri and several other Al-Qaeda leaders are still at large and continue to plot against our country. Also Al-Qaeda offshoots mutated into an even more evil force, ISIS.
Hillary's claim to be for economic protectionism was an obvious lie, that was transparent from the get go. She was one of the biggest supporters for NAFTA and was one of the biggest advocates for TPP, only abandoning that stance for the election. For This she was rightly attacked by sanders during the primary. Trump on the other hand had always been for economic protectionism even during his interviews in the early 1990s and during his largely unknown campaign for the reform party in 2000.
As for social issues the main ones that people are hostile toward the democrats are their support for unchecked immigration/open-borders and their support for abortion. Also a proposed "muslim ban" would actually be very popular if properly implemented.
Obama was NOT tolerant. Did NOT believe in equality & his Administration was NOT just.
His administration was like NEW COKE. A bad idea that we've dismissed and have now moved on.
He was a community organizer and a child. Children like to spend money they didn't earn and have cool things. Adults have to make adult decisions and balance the checkbook.
.
More blah, blah, blah as if gospel truth...
You don't get tired of all the repetition as if repeating the same old mantra will somehow change hearts and minds any better than it did 1 month ago, 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago...?
If it is the sugar water analogy you like, I'd suggest that Obama was more like when Pepsi came along, and ultimately some people just prefer Pepsi now over Coke, no matter what anyone says to convince them otherwise. Taste, something like political ideology, makes more the difference over all the propaganda either way.
Comments like yours above do little more than just add to the big old propaganda dung heap that just keeps smelling up the place!
Trump won in part because the bigots want to Make America White Again. They're trying their best to at least make it a couple of shades lighter but it's going to back fire on these fools.
While there's certainly a degree of racism to it (we did, after all, put a proud, open bigot in the oval office), I really don't think that's it.
Trump was able to get where he is by pushing the right buttons on the working class. He went with the proven method of making lots of big, vague promises that are purely fantasy. That appeals to people who don't like their situation but who don't want to actually be required to do anything to change it. It appeals to people who want bumper sticker slogans because thought out policy is just too hard/boring/whatever.
You shouldn't really insult ALL of the working class. Just those who were more inclined to believe whatever Trump meant by "making America great again," as if that meant they would somehow be better off if whatever that meant were somehow going to happen.
He knew exactly how to run an effective campaign. To be clear, I don't think he'd even be important enough to the the butt end of a joke if he ran as he did today back in 2001. He'd not even be in the ranks of Vermin Supreme.
But this time was different.
People feel as if Washington, now more than ever, doesn't care for them. They feel it serves the interests of money and that too much is happening behind closed doors. They feel that all politicians are liars.
In comes Donald Trump.
By not acting like a politicians, he gains a certain kind of credibility. Or at least innocence. He's not guilty of what other politicians are guilty of. What's more, he played the media. He almost certainly saw how they report things; it's for entertainment value and if there's anything Donald Trump is, it's entertaining. The over the top persona he plays is exactly wha the media would latch on to, consequently ignoring what would under normal circumstances be viable candidates.
The success of Bernie Sanders is also related to this. While not over the top, he does have an intensity that not only strikes people as being extremely charismatic, but is generally entertaining to watch. He also spoke out against the elitism in Washington.
Maybe at least partly true, but I think you again give Trump more credit than is due...
Trump has proven that he simply says and does what comes to mind without much thought or reflection. We've got all "caught on tape" and all the tweets that well demonstrates that Trump is impulsive, not exactly the sort of analytical and methodical thinker like Obama is often noted to be.
So Trump simply did his thing without any real thinking and turns out there was just a large enough void within the GOP to allow Trump an easy trip to front-and-center on the national debate stage. All Trump's money helped him grease the skids there too of course, or we wouldn't even know who Trump is. Then, finally, just enough people who were enamored with all they saw in Trump, real and/or imagined. Topped off with Hillary's inability to "win the hearts and minds" as necessary, and the rest is history...
NOT because Trump is any kind of smart. Again, let's not go too far trying to explain how Trump became POTUS and by all means let's not try and suggest it is because MOST Americans support or voted for Trump. That's just not true given what we know from the vote count and all the polls that measure Trump's support/popularity then or now.
I don't know how many times I've read these exact same talking points, presented as if gospel truth instead of the typical alt-right slant that some simply can't resist repeating, over and over and over again.
"When in reality." Good one!
"Destroyed our healthcare system." The cost of health care wasn't going up on your planet? Do tell what got "destroyed" to the millions of people who couldn't even access health care coverage due to a pre-existing condition. I mean just for starters...
I mean..., no. Please don't. Thought maybe we avoid just repeating the same old ridiculous "Obozo" crappola yet again.
Possible?
Dare to dream.
Countless posts about how much better things were back when people were going bankrupt over medical bills or worse yet, dying over turned-down of insurance claims.
Read or watch The Rainmaker. It's enough to break a stone heart.
Who would want to go back to that?
Who would want to live in such a heartless nation?
Why aren't the wealthy people speaking up? Surely, they don't need $50K that bad.
A candidate who campaigns on the following platforms can easily win a presidential election:
1.) Rebuild the military to cold war levels and rebuild the nuclear arsenal.
2.) Campaign against Islamist terror to properly avenge 9/11. Contrary to myth a candidate who advocates for example the committing of tens thousands of ground troops to defeat ISIS would win massive amounts of votes as long as voters are assured that the troops would not be retained in nation-building operations. The "antiwar dividend" is a myth.
3.) Campaigning on protectionism economically and against free trade, this is why trump won in 2016, why Obama won in 2008, and why bushco lost in 2006 and 2008.
Good points, hard to disagree, and at least a bit more than the empty rhetoric about all that is Trump/good vs Obama/bad.
If political understanding where something like understanding how to play tic tac toe, or checkers or chess, it is easy to see which comments in these threads might be associated with which of those three games.
"I don't like him. For starters, his name is Obama."
"I can't even look at him on TV." Reporter: "Is it because he's black?" Stupid Republican: "No, it's because he's a half-breed. Well, and he's black too."
So how many of the 63 million Trump voters are running around in white sheets or have swastikas on their arm?
What's an "enormous amount" of 63 million?
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.
