Elizabeth Warren and Her Ancestry. Thoughts?

Halifax2TheMax

dankind said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

curmudgeoness said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I think Biden would have absolutely mopped the floor with him. It would have been a landslide.

But let's not forget that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes.

The popular vote is irrelevant; everyone knew 270 is the magic number, not the amount you won the popular vote by.  The red sox could outscore the dodgers 45-7 in the world series but still lose 4 games to 3.  

The election was decided by approximately 40,000 to 44,000 votes in 3 key electoral college states by 6-7 million voters who swung from Obama to Team Trump Teason or "not Hillary" based on fear of the "other," racism and immigrants. Is it really this dfficult for you guys to understand? Go back and read the scholarly paper thats linked in the article that I posted two days ago. There's supposition and opinion and then there are well researched issues that are confirmed and published.

And I'm not attacking you, jumping down your throat, bullying you, stifling debate or pretending to be the smartest guy in the room. But your free to think so.

How can anyone think that you’re the smartest guy in the room when you make such egregious errors?

Spelling bully.

tempo_n_groove

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I guess. I personally think Hillary was ridiculously villainized way, way, WAY beyond what she deserved. I don't love her or anything, but the hate towards her, based on feelings about past nominees was and is completely disproportional to what she's ever done or said or deserved. It's totally bizarre IMO. If someone voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, well that's a fucking moron right there. A moron without morals.

Or maybe I'm a racist or a biggot or a misogynist or a nationalist or a confederate sympathizer...

Stop it, just stop.

Er, well, I'll try and put it a nicer way... If they aren't any of those things and still voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, they were sorely "misguided". IMO. (Really? You voted Trump? Did I just block that from my mind?)

No, misread.  I did not vote.

PJ_Soul

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I guess. I personally think Hillary was ridiculously villainized way, way, WAY beyond what she deserved. I don't love her or anything, but the hate towards her, based on feelings about past nominees was and is completely disproportional to what she's ever done or said or deserved. It's totally bizarre IMO. If someone voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, well that's a fucking moron right there. A moron without morals.

Or maybe I'm a racist or a biggot or a misogynist or a nationalist or a confederate sympathizer...

Stop it, just stop.

Er, well, I'll try and put it a nicer way... If they aren't any of those things and still voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, they were sorely "misguided". IMO. (Really? You voted Trump? Did I just block that from my mind?)

No, misread.  I did not vote.

Oh good, lol. That's not great, but much, much better.

I'm sure you've been asked before, but... If you could do it all over again, would you do the same thing?

tbergs

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I guess. I personally think Hillary was ridiculously villainized way, way, WAY beyond what she deserved. I don't love her or anything, but the hate towards her, based on feelings about past nominees was and is completely disproportional to what she's ever done or said or deserved. It's totally bizarre IMO. If someone voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, well that's a fucking moron right there. A moron without morals.

Or maybe I'm a racist or a biggot or a misogynist or a nationalist or a confederate sympathizer...

Stop it, just stop.

Sorry, if you didn't vote you have little to no say. Curmudgeoness just made an excellent point.

tempo_n_groove

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I guess. I personally think Hillary was ridiculously villainized way, way, WAY beyond what she deserved. I don't love her or anything, but the hate towards her, based on feelings about past nominees was and is completely disproportional to what she's ever done or said or deserved. It's totally bizarre IMO. If someone voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, well that's a fucking moron right there. A moron without morals.

Or maybe I'm a racist or a biggot or a misogynist or a nationalist or a confederate sympathizer...

Stop it, just stop.

Sorry, if you didn't vote you have little to no say. Curmudgeoness just made an excellent point.

I completely disagree as there are no rules in this and plus it was a question asked and I answered.

I will also feel free to participate on here but you are more than free to disregard what I say.

Thank you

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I guess. I personally think Hillary was ridiculously villainized way, way, WAY beyond what she deserved. I don't love her or anything, but the hate towards her, based on feelings about past nominees was and is completely disproportional to what she's ever done or said or deserved. It's totally bizarre IMO. If someone voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, well that's a fucking moron right there. A moron without morals.

Or maybe I'm a racist or a biggot or a misogynist or a nationalist or a confederate sympathizer...

Stop it, just stop.

Er, well, I'll try and put it a nicer way... If they aren't any of those things and still voted for Trump because they thought Hillary was worse, they were sorely "misguided". IMO. (Really? You voted Trump? Did I just block that from my mind?)

No, misread.  I did not vote.

Oh good, lol. That's not great, but much, much better.

I'm sure you've been asked before, but... If you could do it all over again, would you do the same thing?

I would. I voted for Hillary and if knew she wouldn’t win I’d not have done that as I felt dirty.

my2hands

I certainly didnt feel dirty... i was proud of the thought I would cast a vote and help elect the first woman... that was the only thing I was excited about... her platform was pretty much "I'm not THAT guy" lol... 

And who in the hell told her it was ok to skip the fucking purple midwest??? Did she lose on purpose?

brianlux

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

No.  Huh?  No.  Stein.   Seymour Stein. 

my2hands

Ok just wondering. 

You REALLY didnt vote for Obama in 2008?

curmudgeoness

oftenreading said:

curmudgeoness said:

my2hands said:

She was villianized...she was also a horrible candidate 

I like to consider myself a pretty solid progressive and I voted against her in the 2008 primary, voted against her in the 2016 primary... voted for her in 2016, mostly because she was a woman, a Democrat, and not Donald Trump... out of 3 chances I had to vote for her as a registered Democrat, I only hit the button once

But morons and racists are easier to blame

I think (speaking as a woman) that women in positions of power have to work very hard to present a persona that is tough but not too tough, soft but not too soft, assertive but not "shrill." Etc. She seemed over-rehearsed and inauthentic to some people because she felt she needed -- or she actually needed -- to walk that tightrope. Because misogyny remains pervasive in our society, in subtle and less-subtle forms.

But I voted for her because I feel that she is smart, experienced, and tough as -- I don't want to say "balls" here -- leather? steel? a uterus? (sorry, had to go there). I never got the whole notion of voting for GWB over Al Gore because, "who would you rather have a beer with?" We're voting for president of the United States -- someone who ought to be way too busy presidenting to meet me for a beer or to spend the morning watching "Fox & Friends."

When we talk about how "likable" a politician is, we're making it a popularity contest. It's not like choosing class president in high school. You don't want the cool guy, the hot girl, or whoever promises to install a latte machine in the cafeteria. Does the candidate have the skills, the knowledge, the ethics, the leadership skills needed for the role?

Clinton was unusually experienced. And she's tough and damn smart. What we ended up with, instead, because Hillary is "not likable" or "too shrill," is someone who has no experience, no inclination to learn anything, who was of at-best average intelligence to begin with and who now seems to be suffering some cognitive impairment, who is utterly devoid of ethics, empathy, and leadership ability. It's not just a matter of whether I like or dislike his policies, such as they are: he is fundamentally unfit for the role and for most roles. I wouldn't buy a car from him, and I say with some confidence that at least 85% of the people posting on here are more qualified for the job than he is.

So... yeah. I question the thought processes that led people to vote for him over her. I'm not a progressive, but this was the easiest choice i ever made.

I’m curious what makes you say you’re not a progressive? Maybe you mean something different by that than the way I interpret it. 

I've long described my political views as "due south of center." I'm a small-"L" libertarian. Big, big fan of the Constitution and of leaving people alone to be themselves and live their lives as they see fit, as long as nobody is getting hurt. I like balanced budgets, free trade, and a tough stance on Russian shenanigans. I'm pro-choice, pro-legalized marijuana, pro-marriage equality, and pro-Second Amendment (but I think many people have gone crazy with the kinds of weapons they think private citizens "need"). I'm not a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I am a big fan of the ACLU, and I believe, very strongly, that our nation's laws and freedoms should apply equally to everyone, whether we are talking about mass incarceration, prosecution of drug crimes, or the rights of alt-right and racist groups to demonstrate. I think we need to take better care of our servicemen and women, and that includes not getting into stupid conflicts. I'm troubled by a general lack of critical thinking. I think both ends of the political spectrum tend to engage in similar behaviors, and "othering" is a troubling trend, whether we are talking about "welfare queens," "rapists and murderers," or "the one percent."

curmudgeoness

mcgruff10 said:

curmudgeoness said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I think Biden would have absolutely mopped the floor with him. It would have been a landslide.

But let's not forget that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes.

The popular vote is irrelevant; everyone knew 270 is the magic number, not the amount you won the popular vote by.  The red sox could outscore the dodgers 45-7 in the world series but still lose 4 games to 3.  

They're up 4-2 right now. ;-)

Yes, for better or worse, for now, the electoral votes are what matter. But the result of the popular vote suggests that she wasn't a "terrible" candidate. I have seen a fair amount of wondering/ questioning if her campaign failed by not spending more time in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. Maybe. But the idea that the other side ran a masterful campaign is rubbish, too. There was ample news coverage of how bare-bones and haphazard the T---- campaign was, that he didn't expect to win and didn't really want to win.

Like many people, I was watching the polling obsessively in the weeks leading up to the election. I'm embarrassed to say how much time I spent refreshing 538.com. I was well aware that a 15% chance of winning was a very real chance of winning, so while friends would crow about the polls I kept saying that I wouldn't exhale until the results were in. And yet --

I wonder if we ever will know the full extent of Russia''s influence on the election.

Halifax2TheMax

curmudgeoness said:

mcgruff10 said:

curmudgeoness said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation

Are you referring to Voter turnout?

If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh

Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.

Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.

When they do that, turnout will take care of  itself

Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls.  Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.

Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awful

I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).

Did you vote for Obama?

That's a real question.

My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary. 

Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss. 

Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary. 

I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.

Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion

Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.

I was going to vote for Trump because I couldn't stand Hilary and didn't want her in office.

I ended up not voting at all.

Blame the Dems for choosing Hillary as their candidate and Trump winning.

My $.02

I think Biden would have absolutely mopped the floor with him. It would have been a landslide.

But let's not forget that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes.

The popular vote is irrelevant; everyone knew 270 is the magic number, not the amount you won the popular vote by.  The red sox could outscore the dodgers 45-7 in the world series but still lose 4 games to 3.  

They're up 4-2 right now. ;-)

Yes, for better or worse, for now, the electoral votes are what matter. But the result of the popular vote suggests that she wasn't a "terrible" candidate. I have seen a fair amount of wondering/ questioning if her campaign failed by not spending more time in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. Maybe. But the idea that the other side ran a masterful campaign is rubbish, too. There was ample news coverage of how bare-bones and haphazard the T---- campaign was, that he didn't expect to win and didn't really want to win.

Like many people, I was watching the polling obsessively in the weeks leading up to the election. I'm embarrassed to say how much time I spent refreshing 538.com. I was well aware that a 15% chance of winning was a very real chance of winning, so while friends would crow about the polls I kept saying that I wouldn't exhale until the results were in. And yet --

I wonder if we ever will know the full extent of Russia''s influence on the election.

Yes, yes we will. We know enough already. There’s no way that putin on the ritz’s troll farm campaign and Wikileaks releasing the stolen emails didn’t have an effect. It did. And it was done in collusion and knowingly. “Worst cover up ever.”

Organizations, whether state actors, campaigns, allied organizations or political parties do not go forth with such concerted effort unless they’re confident of some level of success. And putin on the ritz got to practice on their techniques during the primaries.

Team Mueller will get to the bottom of it because his kind doesn’t take kindly to Team Trump Treason’s kind.
 

oftenreading

curmudgeoness said:

oftenreading said:

curmudgeoness said:

my2hands said:

She was villianized...she was also a horrible candidate 

I like to consider myself a pretty solid progressive and I voted against her in the 2008 primary, voted against her in the 2016 primary... voted for her in 2016, mostly because she was a woman, a Democrat, and not Donald Trump... out of 3 chances I had to vote for her as a registered Democrat, I only hit the button once

But morons and racists are easier to blame

I think (speaking as a woman) that women in positions of power have to work very hard to present a persona that is tough but not too tough, soft but not too soft, assertive but not "shrill." Etc. She seemed over-rehearsed and inauthentic to some people because she felt she needed -- or she actually needed -- to walk that tightrope. Because misogyny remains pervasive in our society, in subtle and less-subtle forms.

But I voted for her because I feel that she is smart, experienced, and tough as -- I don't want to say "balls" here -- leather? steel? a uterus? (sorry, had to go there). I never got the whole notion of voting for GWB over Al Gore because, "who would you rather have a beer with?" We're voting for president of the United States -- someone who ought to be way too busy presidenting to meet me for a beer or to spend the morning watching "Fox & Friends."

When we talk about how "likable" a politician is, we're making it a popularity contest. It's not like choosing class president in high school. You don't want the cool guy, the hot girl, or whoever promises to install a latte machine in the cafeteria. Does the candidate have the skills, the knowledge, the ethics, the leadership skills needed for the role?

Clinton was unusually experienced. And she's tough and damn smart. What we ended up with, instead, because Hillary is "not likable" or "too shrill," is someone who has no experience, no inclination to learn anything, who was of at-best average intelligence to begin with and who now seems to be suffering some cognitive impairment, who is utterly devoid of ethics, empathy, and leadership ability. It's not just a matter of whether I like or dislike his policies, such as they are: he is fundamentally unfit for the role and for most roles. I wouldn't buy a car from him, and I say with some confidence that at least 85% of the people posting on here are more qualified for the job than he is.

So... yeah. I question the thought processes that led people to vote for him over her. I'm not a progressive, but this was the easiest choice i ever made.

I’m curious what makes you say you’re not a progressive? Maybe you mean something different by that than the way I interpret it. 

I've long described my political views as "due south of center." I'm a small-"L" libertarian. Big, big fan of the Constitution and of leaving people alone to be themselves and live their lives as they see fit, as long as nobody is getting hurt. I like balanced budgets, free trade, and a tough stance on Russian shenanigans. I'm pro-choice, pro-legalized marijuana, pro-marriage equality, and pro-Second Amendment (but I think many people have gone crazy with the kinds of weapons they think private citizens "need"). I'm not a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I am a big fan of the ACLU, and I believe, very strongly, that our nation's laws and freedoms should apply equally to everyone, whether we are talking about mass incarceration, prosecution of drug crimes, or the rights of alt-right and racist groups to demonstrate. I think we need to take better care of our servicemen and women, and that includes not getting into stupid conflicts. I'm troubled by a general lack of critical thinking. I think both ends of the political spectrum tend to engage in similar behaviors, and "othering" is a troubling trend, whether we are talking about "welfare queens," "rapists and murderers," or "the one percent."

Okay, thank you; I see what you mean. You have some progressive positions, particularly socially, but don’t overall identify as a progressive. 

my2hands

curmudgeoness said:

oftenreading said:

curmudgeoness said:

my2hands said:

She was villianized...she was also a horrible candidate 

I like to consider myself a pretty solid progressive and I voted against her in the 2008 primary, voted against her in the 2016 primary... voted for her in 2016, mostly because she was a woman, a Democrat, and not Donald Trump... out of 3 chances I had to vote for her as a registered Democrat, I only hit the button once

But morons and racists are easier to blame

I think (speaking as a woman) that women in positions of power have to work very hard to present a persona that is tough but not too tough, soft but not too soft, assertive but not "shrill." Etc. She seemed over-rehearsed and inauthentic to some people because she felt she needed -- or she actually needed -- to walk that tightrope. Because misogyny remains pervasive in our society, in subtle and less-subtle forms.

But I voted for her because I feel that she is smart, experienced, and tough as -- I don't want to say "balls" here -- leather? steel? a uterus? (sorry, had to go there). I never got the whole notion of voting for GWB over Al Gore because, "who would you rather have a beer with?" We're voting for president of the United States -- someone who ought to be way too busy presidenting to meet me for a beer or to spend the morning watching "Fox & Friends."

When we talk about how "likable" a politician is, we're making it a popularity contest. It's not like choosing class president in high school. You don't want the cool guy, the hot girl, or whoever promises to install a latte machine in the cafeteria. Does the candidate have the skills, the knowledge, the ethics, the leadership skills needed for the role?

Clinton was unusually experienced. And she's tough and damn smart. What we ended up with, instead, because Hillary is "not likable" or "too shrill," is someone who has no experience, no inclination to learn anything, who was of at-best average intelligence to begin with and who now seems to be suffering some cognitive impairment, who is utterly devoid of ethics, empathy, and leadership ability. It's not just a matter of whether I like or dislike his policies, such as they are: he is fundamentally unfit for the role and for most roles. I wouldn't buy a car from him, and I say with some confidence that at least 85% of the people posting on here are more qualified for the job than he is.

So... yeah. I question the thought processes that led people to vote for him over her. I'm not a progressive, but this was the easiest choice i ever made.

I’m curious what makes you say you’re not a progressive? Maybe you mean something different by that than the way I interpret it. 

I've long described my political views as "due south of center." I'm a small-"L" libertarian. Big, big fan of the Constitution and of leaving people alone to be themselves and live their lives as they see fit, as long as nobody is getting hurt. I like balanced budgets, free trade, and a tough stance on Russian shenanigans. I'm pro-choice, pro-legalized marijuana, pro-marriage equality, and pro-Second Amendment (but I think many people have gone crazy with the kinds of weapons they think private citizens "need"). I'm not a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I am a big fan of the ACLU, and I believe, very strongly, that our nation's laws and freedoms should apply equally to everyone, whether we are talking about mass incarceration, prosecution of drug crimes, or the rights of alt-right and racist groups to demonstrate. I think we need to take better care of our servicemen and women, and that includes not getting into stupid conflicts. I'm troubled by a general lack of critical thinking. I think both ends of the political spectrum tend to engage in similar behaviors, and "othering" is a troubling trend, whether we are talking about "welfare queens," "rapists and murderers," or "the one percent."

Great post 

dankind

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

Reagan was 69 when he took office.  Trump is 70.  But God forbid we have a 70 year old Democratic old woman run for president.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!

And Reagan's second term was a fucking shitshow, with poor old Nancy changing the goddamn diapers. And we know how Trump's faculties are holding up.

People age differently.  I know or know of people well into there 70's who are sharp, smart as a tack and graced by years of wisdom. 

Some examples:

Wendell Berry:  A well known and respected long time bookseller recently told me, "Wendell Berry [who is 84 years old] is the greatest living writer in America today.  Berry is still producing fine works.

John Muir: Muir was still doing great writing into his 70's

Judi Dench: still doing great work at 83

I know this very well, Brian. But I'm not taking that chance with the leader of the free world, especially when the 25th Amendment was apparently just written for shits and giggles.

I'm just ageist when it comes down to something like this. I own it. I think it's pragmatic more than anything.

Well... it's just ageist. I'm sure sexists think they're being pragmatic too.

Ignoring you once again (or trying to anyway) tagging anything I've written with sexism--apparently, I'm not communicating well, so I'll stop after this--but I'll just ask, where's our dreamy, cool-sock-wearing young-ish person who would have a chance on the presidential ticket (for either party)?

So far, I've heard Trump, Warren, Biden, even Sanders. Holy shit! will those last two even be alive in 2020?

Is Kamala considering? Booker? Hickenlooper? Klobuchar? Cuomo?

Would anyone dare primary Trump? Haley? Sasse? Walker? Flake? Baker? McMaster?

Wow. I have never once thought you're sexist, so I have no clue where you're getting that from. If I do happen to be referencing sexism in reply to your posts a lot, it's not deliberate or targeted in any way, and I'm truly not aware of it ... If that's how it's turning out, well, maybe shit you say warrants it, one way or another?

But in any case, I don't know what you mean by "tagging". I used the comparison because I thought it was apt.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you'd like someone to respond to openly ageist posts. Don't get me wrong, some old people totally aren't fit for office, but if they actually make it far enough to be nominated, it's certainly not because they don't have all their faculties (normally - Trump is the exception to every rule). I think some old people aren't fit for the position just because their views are way outdated because they aren't the type of person who can absorb new ideas and concepts. They can't move with the times. But other older people can do that perfectly well, so it's not their actual age that I'm focusing on. It's the ability to be open to new things and ideas.

Damn, it feels good to be an ageist!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/03/08/too-old-president-science-says-yes/oMgYxC6waKIIyKWuHciJCJ/story.html

Of course, feel free to argue with science. It's very popular these days.

Meltdown99

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

Because it is funny... whether people realize it or not she looks like a total ass to most people now because of this, not him

You just explained what is so seriously wrong with America right now.

Why?  Trump looks like an ass for a lot of things, his nicknaming is one.

But in this specific situation, she certainly looks pretty bad herself.

You just explained why. Because so many people apparently think she is the total ass and not him, just because of this. This one thing has been blown wildly out of proportion, while everything Trump does on a day to day basis is being minimized.

Exactly!  And how crazy is that!?

Say, how difficult is it to emigrate to Canada these days?  My step daughter lives in Alaska, my sister in the Bay Area, and my brother and some nephews in Washington state.  BC would put me about half way between the extremes and would be a release from this insane asylum we live in.

 Just google "how to immigrate (or emigrate) to Canada" Brian, and you will find all the answers you're looking for.

Or search for how to freeze your ass off and live in a country that can't even win a trophy in the sport it invented while eating maple syrup.

When we assemble a team of players just from Canda

Meltdown99

Brian just remember BC=bring cash

brianlux

Meltdown99 said:

Brian just remember BC=bring cash

Oh man, and here all along I thought it meant Bodacious Crops!

Meltdown99

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

Brian just remember BC=bring cash

Oh man, and here all along I thought it meant Bodacious Crops!

Well, that too...LOL

PJ_Soul

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

Reagan was 69 when he took office.  Trump is 70.  But God forbid we have a 70 year old Democratic old woman run for president.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!

And Reagan's second term was a fucking shitshow, with poor old Nancy changing the goddamn diapers. And we know how Trump's faculties are holding up.

People age differently.  I know or know of people well into there 70's who are sharp, smart as a tack and graced by years of wisdom. 

Some examples:

Wendell Berry:  A well known and respected long time bookseller recently told me, "Wendell Berry [who is 84 years old] is the greatest living writer in America today.  Berry is still producing fine works.

John Muir: Muir was still doing great writing into his 70's

Judi Dench: still doing great work at 83

I know this very well, Brian. But I'm not taking that chance with the leader of the free world, especially when the 25th Amendment was apparently just written for shits and giggles.

I'm just ageist when it comes down to something like this. I own it. I think it's pragmatic more than anything.

Well... it's just ageist. I'm sure sexists think they're being pragmatic too.

Ignoring you once again (or trying to anyway) tagging anything I've written with sexism--apparently, I'm not communicating well, so I'll stop after this--but I'll just ask, where's our dreamy, cool-sock-wearing young-ish person who would have a chance on the presidential ticket (for either party)?

So far, I've heard Trump, Warren, Biden, even Sanders. Holy shit! will those last two even be alive in 2020?

Is Kamala considering? Booker? Hickenlooper? Klobuchar? Cuomo?

Would anyone dare primary Trump? Haley? Sasse? Walker? Flake? Baker? McMaster?

Wow. I have never once thought you're sexist, so I have no clue where you're getting that from. If I do happen to be referencing sexism in reply to your posts a lot, it's not deliberate or targeted in any way, and I'm truly not aware of it ... If that's how it's turning out, well, maybe shit you say warrants it, one way or another?

But in any case, I don't know what you mean by "tagging". I used the comparison because I thought it was apt.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you'd like someone to respond to openly ageist posts. Don't get me wrong, some old people totally aren't fit for office, but if they actually make it far enough to be nominated, it's certainly not because they don't have all their faculties (normally - Trump is the exception to every rule). I think some old people aren't fit for the position just because their views are way outdated because they aren't the type of person who can absorb new ideas and concepts. They can't move with the times. But other older people can do that perfectly well, so it's not their actual age that I'm focusing on. It's the ability to be open to new things and ideas.

Damn, it feels good to be an ageist!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/03/08/too-old-president-science-says-yes/oMgYxC6waKIIyKWuHciJCJ/story.html

Of course, feel free to argue with science. It's very popular these days.

I have never and will never argue against science. What I am arguing is that there are old people who absolutely and completely capable of performing the job well (again, the assumption is that they DO have all their faculties if they get into office). I'm arguing against the conclusion of the editorial there, not the science they're basing their conclusion on. The general decline of old people is a universal truth that nobody ever debated. But what I will argue is that there are old people who are extraordinary enough to properly serve as POTUS (and all POTUSs should be extraordinary... something that many Americans seem to have forgotten). To say that ALL old people should be kept from the position just because they're old, discounting the facts of their actual capabilities, even in the name of science (which is generalized in the context of the article you posted) is 100% ageist. FWIW, I also find it very ageist that there is a minimum adult age for the position. Again, just like with the old people, there are also young people extraordinary enough to be capable of doing the job well.