Will Democrats ever admit that the bad policies of Obama lead to President Trump... (wages, illegal)
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.
Barack Obama being a black man is what lead to President Trump. Trump is the far-right's retaliation for America electing it's first AA president. Obama was an intelligent (Harvard law educated), well-spoken, polite person. I'm not a huge fan of him as president, but he seemed like a kind and decent person.
In retaliation for electing a black man.... small-town, uneducated, racist conservatives voted for the most hateful, vile "politician" this country has seen in decades.
If John Edwards had won in 2008 and served two terms, we would not have Donald Trump today. Trump is rural America's "F-you" to electing the first black POTUS Barack Obama, a man who many Trump supporters believed was Muslim and born in Africa.
This. This is absolutely what I believe. And after this, I hope we don't elect a woman president because the blowback will be insane. Flyover country will only accept a white male president and they don't care how obnoxious he is. In fact, they seem to love how obnoxious, boastful and repulsive he is.
Thank you for just saying it and not pretending otherwise.
In all sincerity, this baffles me. Sure, there's something to be said for eliminating something that in its very name is "illegal". But top priority? Not healthcare? Not education? Not jobs? Not productivity-growth?
Well, if a particular voter's #1 issue really is illegal immigration, then it's quite logical that Trump would be that voter's #1 choice. It wouldn't be about tweets or coarseness or bluster, or even matters of policy - be it trade, taxes, environment or whatever else. It would be about... illegal immigration. But I ask again: why would illegal immigration be the #1 issue... instead of say the #274 issue, with 273 more pressing issues ahead of it?
Stopping the illegal immigration does two things that help many of the other issues in this country.
First it eliminates some of the low wage competition for jobs, thereby lowering the unemployment numbers and raising the potential for our own citizens to earn more. This results in more revenue coming into the government for the other projects and solutions.
Secondly, it lowers the cost of government having to take care of healthcare, feeding, schooling, chasing them down and prosecuting them in some cases, and myriad other expenses because they are here and shouldn’t be in the first place. It is cheaper to keep them from coming here in the first place.
You have to start somewhere and usually the simplest and most obvious steps should be taken first. The fact that previous elected politicians failed to see that and act on it is why we have a President Trump today.
Last edited by Cruzincat; 06-28-2018 at 10:47 AM..
Obama had nothing to do with Trump's victory. Absolutely nothing.
Main factors of Trump's victory were:
1. Clinton's lackluster campaign, particularly in the rural rust belt. Many moderate voters in Penn., Mich. and Wisc. decided to roll the dice and give Trump a try.
2. Russian hacking, meddling and Comey's announcement. The constant "drip, drip" of stolen e-mails gradually eroded Clinton's poll numbers. Comey's announcement of reopening the e-mail investigation had a measurable impact on the polls. Together these factors dropped her poll numbers just enough to make Trump's narrow victory possible.
Trump won a fluke election. He lost the popular vote by 3 million. He won the Electoral College by less than 100,000 votes spread across three states. Unless his poll numbers surge above 50%, his chances for reelection remain slim.
No, his re-election hinges on whether the electorate believes that his actions have changed things for the better or if they believe the naysayers who say that he hasn’t. In 2016, the MSM kept saying things negative about Trump and enough people didn’t believe them. Now that he has some results, he can be judged on them, as opposed to what the MSM tries to say the results are. I think he will coast to a second term if nothing changes between then and now.
... Trump is rural America's "F-you" to electing the first black POTUS Barack Obama, a man who many Trump supporters believed was Muslim and born in Africa.
I'm not sure about that. What irritates and disaffects so many, wasn't Obama's race, but his representation of east-coast, "ivory tower" elites (whatever that means). If he were every bit as black - or literally, twice as black - but say a former football player turned infomercial pitch-man turned talk-show-host, who bellowed loudly and offering simplistic, bombastic slogans - he would have been embraced by most of the Heartland. Instead, Obama was the Adlai Stevenson of our time. That he was half-black, with a funny-sounding name, only added to his exoticism, his other-ness.
A large part of America got sick of the philosopher-in-chief, the commentator-in-chief. They wanted the barker-in-chief. And they got him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Trump's election was due to Trump voters....
This is true. Rarely does one hear confessions from Trump voters, that they merely chose the lesser of two evils, or were seduced by an enticing message that's since then been belied by reality. Most of them remain committed, even if they admit that one or another aspect of Trump's behavior disappoints them. In other words, the Trump coalition is less one of accident or grudging acquiescence, than one of what appears to be sincere belief. This gives Trump a considerable advantage in 2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat
No, his re-election hinges on whether the electorate believes that his actions have changed things for the better or if they believe the naysayers who say that he hasn’t.
There's another factor: if things have indeed improved, do we assign to Trump the credit? Exhibit #1 is the stock market, which for me personally, is also issue #1. Recent fluctuations notwithstanding, the market has done relatively well since November 2016. Do we assign credit to Trump? If so, there accumulates a compelling narrative, that bluster and buffoonery be damned, the economy is evidence for Trump's "effectiveness", making him deserve a second term. But if we regard the rising market as correlation rather than causation, the narrative changes. And of course, if the tariff-escalation ruins the market, the narrative changes entirely.
Trump's win for one main reason only: Hillary ran a very poor and lackluster campaign. She failed to even campaign in many swing states. The loss was no one's fault but her own.
I agree with you but I feel that Obama was the straw that broke the camels back as Obama ignored our side completely.
You are right that it is combined and therefor the past living Presidents seems to be big buddies as they share the knowledge of their empires to have ended!
And now your side will ignore liberals completely and rage will continue to accumulate and metastasize until it's unleashed in another furious, massive pendulum swing. The bi-polarization of America is exhausting and quite frankly not an environment I want to expose my children to.
No, his re-election hinges on whether the electorate believes that his actions have changed things for the better or if they believe the naysayers who say that he hasn’t. In 2016, the MSM kept saying things negative about Trump and enough people didn’t believe them. Now that he has some results, he can be judged on them, as opposed to what the MSM tries to say the results are. I think he will coast to a second term if nothing changes between then and now.
What is underreported and remains under the radar is that the anti-Trump "base" or bloc is just as firm and rock solid as the Trump base is. It doesn't matter how well the economy performs, how high the stock market goes, or how low the unemployment number is -- there is a large bloc of voters who absolutely will not vote for Trump under any circumstances.
The "never Trump" bloc of voters, consisting of many Dems, Independents and a smattering of principled conservatives think that Trump is an unethical liar who is unfit for office and is not qualified to serve. They want him out no matter how well the economy does.
I'm not sure about that. What irritates and disaffects so many, wasn't Obama's race, but his representation of east-coast, "ivory tower" elites (whatever that means). If he were every bit as black - or literally, twice as black - but say a former football player turned infomercial pitch-man turned talk-show-host, who bellowed loudly and offering simplistic, bombastic slogans - he would have been embraced by most of the Heartland. Instead, Obama was the Adlai Stevenson of our time. That he was half-black, with a funny-sounding name, only added to his exoticism, his other-ness.
A large part of America got sick of the philosopher-in-chief, the commentator-in-chief. They wanted the barker-in-chief. And they got him.
This is true. Rarely does one hear confessions from Trump voters, that they merely chose the lesser of two evils, or were seduced by an enticing message that's since then been belied by reality. Most of them remain committed, even if they admit that one or another aspect of Trump's behavior disappoints them. In other words, the Trump coalition is less one of accident or grudging acquiescence, than one of what appears to be sincere belief. This gives Trump a considerable advantage in 2020.
There's another factor: if things have indeed improved, do we assign to Trump the credit? Exhibit #1 is the stock market, which for me personally, is also issue #1. Recent fluctuations notwithstanding, the market has done relatively well since November 2016. Do we assign credit to Trump? If so, there accumulates a compelling narrative, that bluster and buffoonery be damned, the economy is evidence for Trump's "effectiveness", making him deserve a second term. But if we regard the rising market as correlation rather than causation, the narrative changes. And of course, if the tariff-escalation ruins the market, the narrative changes entirely.
Remember what got Clinton elected, or re-elected anyway? "It's the economy Stupid!"
So would it be agreed that now that Trump not only ignores our side, but insults our side constantly, they we would be correct in treating Trump supporters the same while also not even having hearings for Trump's Supreme Court Justice nominee? Would Trump supporters agree that after Trump, the same should happen to them? The exact same thing? All of it? Sooner or later, the elections will go against Trump's worshipful supporters. Democrats are so disgusted by them that they cannot wait to give it back hard. Would Trump supporters agree that they should be treated the same? Because as it is, we seem destined to a cycle of election and revenge.
Much of that is due to the media acting as an amplifier to all things political.
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.
