Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren 2020

123468

Comments

  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,604
    BS44325 said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    I hope whomever is nominated next time is in their 40s or 50s. Fucking geriatrics this time around.
    Trump will be the oldest president to swear in, I believe.
    Clinton would have been tied with Ronny, who to date was the oldest to swear in...and as much as I am a child of the Reagan years, the man had some problems by the end of his 8 years.
    Please pick someone younger!

    Tim Kaine 2020
    He will be in 60s then too.
    Yes, the problem is the Democrats needed to start recruiting and training people 25 years ago.

    The problem is that too many liberals are "big picture" type of people who don't understand that every battle is won through a series of small, tactical maneuvers and it takes a long, long time. You don't become a powerful player in the arena by marching through San Francisco burning flags and posting a selfie about it.

    People don't just turn 36 and say "I can run for President now." Obama, as young as he was, had a long-range path that you could trace backwards several decades.

    The Republicans made a huge investment over a long period of time to produce people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.

    The Dems really need to study that playbook because the Republicans currently have a very deep bench and we've got shit.
    Yes and the smart play would have been to have Hillary win in 2008 followed by Obama in 2016. Instead you wasted a talent who wasn't ready and are paying the consequences for his ineptitude.
    Says the guy who accuses others of having blinders on.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    JimmyV said:

    BS44325 said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    I hope whomever is nominated next time is in their 40s or 50s. Fucking geriatrics this time around.
    Trump will be the oldest president to swear in, I believe.
    Clinton would have been tied with Ronny, who to date was the oldest to swear in...and as much as I am a child of the Reagan years, the man had some problems by the end of his 8 years.
    Please pick someone younger!

    Tim Kaine 2020
    He will be in 60s then too.
    Yes, the problem is the Democrats needed to start recruiting and training people 25 years ago.

    The problem is that too many liberals are "big picture" type of people who don't understand that every battle is won through a series of small, tactical maneuvers and it takes a long, long time. You don't become a powerful player in the arena by marching through San Francisco burning flags and posting a selfie about it.

    People don't just turn 36 and say "I can run for President now." Obama, as young as he was, had a long-range path that you could trace backwards several decades.

    The Republicans made a huge investment over a long period of time to produce people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.

    The Dems really need to study that playbook because the Republicans currently have a very deep bench and we've got shit.
    Yes and the smart play would have been to have Hillary win in 2008 followed by Obama in 2016. Instead you wasted a talent who wasn't ready and are paying the consequences for his ineptitude.
    Says the guy who accuses others of having blinders on.
    Yeah. Sorry. I only predicted Trump's victory the minute he went down the escalator.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    edited November 2016
    what dreams said:

    Free said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    I hope whomever is nominated next time is in their 40s or 50s. Fucking geriatrics this time around.
    Trump will be the oldest president to swear in, I believe.
    Clinton would have been tied with Ronny, who to date was the oldest to swear in...and as much as I am a child of the Reagan years, the man had some problems by the end of his 8 years.
    Please pick someone younger!

    Tim Kaine 2020
    He will be in 60s then too.
    Yes, the problem is the Democrats needed to start recruiting and training people 25 years ago.

    The problem is that too many liberals are "big picture" type of people who don't understand that every battle is won through a series of small, tactical maneuvers and it takes a long, long time. You don't become a powerful player in the arena by marching through San Francisco burning flags and posting a selfie about it.

    People don't just turn 36 and say "I can run for President now." Obama, as young as he was, had a long-range path that you could trace backwards several decades.

    The Republicans made a huge investment over a long period of time to produce people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.

    The Dems really need to study that playbook because the Republicans currently have a very deep bench and we've got shit.
    You are so much smarter than us, please master, tell us more. :how_interesting:
    Can you please explain why you are so damned rude? I was having a perfectly pleasant exchange with another poster, agreeing with him/her that we need good, younger candidates -- and then you inject your bullshit. Every. Single. Time. Get the fuck out of my world, won't you please?????
    As long as you post here, it is not your world, it is our world, our shared world.
    And you're completely wrong about liberals being big picture. The majority of people are deep in the details, causing them to not see any big picture view.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,604
    rgambs said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    I hope whomever is nominated next time is in their 40s or 50s. Fucking geriatrics this time around.
    Trump will be the oldest president to swear in, I believe.
    Clinton would have been tied with Ronny, who to date was the oldest to swear in...and as much as I am a child of the Reagan years, the man had some problems by the end of his 8 years.
    Please pick someone younger!

    Tim Kaine 2020
    He will be in 60s then too.
    Yes, the problem is the Democrats needed to start recruiting and training people 25 years ago.

    The problem is that too many liberals are "big picture" type of people who don't understand that every battle is won through a series of small, tactical maneuvers and it takes a long, long time. You don't become a powerful player in the arena by marching through San Francisco burning flags and posting a selfie about it.

    People don't just turn 36 and say "I can run for President now." Obama, as young as he was, had a long-range path that you could trace backwards several decades.

    The Republicans made a huge investment over a long period of time to produce people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.

    The Dems really need to study that playbook because the Republicans currently have a very deep bench and we've got shit.
    True
    It is. Also, when you are in the White House the President of course becomes the head of the party. For better or worse they are the focus. When you are in opposition, as the Republicans have been for eight years, that allows for figures like Cruz and Ryan to emerge as party leaders in Congress. We will see over the next few years what Democrats in Congress rise up in that way.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    JimmyV said:

    rgambs said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    I hope whomever is nominated next time is in their 40s or 50s. Fucking geriatrics this time around.
    Trump will be the oldest president to swear in, I believe.
    Clinton would have been tied with Ronny, who to date was the oldest to swear in...and as much as I am a child of the Reagan years, the man had some problems by the end of his 8 years.
    Please pick someone younger!

    Tim Kaine 2020
    He will be in 60s then too.
    Yes, the problem is the Democrats needed to start recruiting and training people 25 years ago.

    The problem is that too many liberals are "big picture" type of people who don't understand that every battle is won through a series of small, tactical maneuvers and it takes a long, long time. You don't become a powerful player in the arena by marching through San Francisco burning flags and posting a selfie about it.

    People don't just turn 36 and say "I can run for President now." Obama, as young as he was, had a long-range path that you could trace backwards several decades.

    The Republicans made a huge investment over a long period of time to produce people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.

    The Dems really need to study that playbook because the Republicans currently have a very deep bench and we've got shit.
    True
    It is. Also, when you are in the White House the President of course becomes the head of the party. For better or worse they are the focus. When you are in opposition, as the Republicans have been for eight years, that allows for figures like Cruz and Ryan to emerge as party leaders in Congress. We will see over the next few years what Democrats in Congress rise up in that way.
    They only became party leaders in congress when the democratic president destroyed the electoral chances of all the down ballot candidates in his own party.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    edited November 2016
    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.
  • tweedyfanjen
    tweedyfanjen Posts: 881
    BS44325 said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    what dreams said:

    F Me In The Brain said:

    I hope whomever is nominated next time is in their 40s or 50s. Fucking geriatrics this time around.
    Trump will be the oldest president to swear in, I believe.
    Clinton would have been tied with Ronny, who to date was the oldest to swear in...and as much as I am a child of the Reagan years, the man had some problems by the end of his 8 years.
    Please pick someone younger!

    Tim Kaine 2020
    He will be in 60s then too.
    Yes, the problem is the Democrats needed to start recruiting and training people 25 years ago.

    The problem is that too many liberals are "big picture" type of people who don't understand that every battle is won through a series of small, tactical maneuvers and it takes a long, long time. You don't become a powerful player in the arena by marching through San Francisco burning flags and posting a selfie about it.

    People don't just turn 36 and say "I can run for President now." Obama, as young as he was, had a long-range path that you could trace backwards several decades.

    The Republicans made a huge investment over a long period of time to produce people like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.

    The Dems really need to study that playbook because the Republicans currently have a very deep bench and we've got shit.
    Yes and the smart play would have been to have Hillary win in 2008 followed by Obama in 2016. Instead you wasted a talent who wasn't ready and are paying the consequences for his ineptitude.
    I had this same conversation with someone last weekend (without the ineptitude part). Didn't happen, though, so here we are.
    I'm through with screaming
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
    I haven't looked at the post election data yet, but I am telling you, I don't know a single racist who voted for Clinton and I don't know a single Trump voter that isn't racist. Racism is so deep and wide, you truly don't understand it at all. I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, fuck, a 35 year home economics teacher!
    I don't see how any data can discount this, racism isn't confined to demographics here, it is across the board.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Though I agree, they are tired of being called out as racist, most don't think they are. They think they are realists.
    They talk shit about black people that have a weave and cell-phone on welfare or food stamps and feel justified, and then when they begin to hit hard times they scam unemployment and think nothing of it. They blame black and hispanic people who took out loans for houses they can't afford and absolve the banks, meanwhile they bought land and built a house they can't afford because the wife is out of work.
    This isn't abstract, this is real Trump voters.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    what part of hilary is a horrible candidate are people not getting!??

    and to suggest all trump voters are racist speaks to the inability of some people to come to terms with facts ... a lot of blue counties that voted for a black president for 2 terms turned red because they all of sudden became racist!??

    hilary would be an excellent president for those that are ok with the continued corporatization of american gov't where money and influence dictate policy domestic and foreign ... outside of that her only redeeming quality in this election was that she wasn't trump and for her to only beat him by 400,000 votes should re-affirm that ...
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited November 2016
    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
    I haven't looked at the post election data yet, but I am telling you, I don't know a single racist who voted for Clinton and I don't know a single Trump voter that isn't racist. Racism is so deep and wide, you truly don't understand it at all. I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, fuck, a 35 year home economics teacher!
    I don't see how any data can discount this, racism isn't confined to demographics here, it is across the board.
    What post election data is left?
    President-elect Trump is the post election data.
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    rgambs said:

    Though I agree, they are tired of being called out as racist, most don't think they are. They think they are realists.
    They talk shit about black people that have a weave and cell-phone on welfare or food stamps and feel justified, and then when they begin to hit hard times they scam unemployment and think nothing of it. They blame black and hispanic people who took out loans for houses they can't afford and absolve the banks, meanwhile they bought land and built a house they can't afford because the wife is out of work.
    This isn't abstract, this is real Trump voters.

    You're very angry.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    polaris_x said:

    what part of hilary is a horrible candidate are people not getting!??

    and to suggest all trump voters are racist speaks to the inability of some people to come to terms with facts ... a lot of blue counties that voted for a black president for 2 terms turned red because they all of sudden became racist!??

    hilary would be an excellent president for those that are ok with the continued corporatization of american gov't where money and influence dictate policy domestic and foreign ... outside of that her only redeeming quality in this election was that she wasn't trump and for her to only beat him by 400,000 votes should re-affirm that ...

    It's all about turnout. Those blue counties were always full of racists, they didn't suddenly change.

    Also, I know that not ALL Trump voters are racist, just most of them.
    Aren't you Canadian? Normally I wouldn't mention it, but when it comes to understanding white bread America, you have to have experienced it to understand it.
    I posted a while back about the subtle and not so subtle racism of the midwest and a poster that never agrees with me backed me up, racism is truly ubiquitous in middle America.

    Even city folk in the US don't quite get how deep and wide it is.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    edited November 2016
    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
    I haven't looked at the post election data yet, but I am telling you, I don't know a single racist who voted for Clinton and I don't know a single Trump voter that isn't racist. Racism is so deep and wide, you truly don't understand it at all. I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, fuck, a 35 year home economics teacher!
    I don't see how any data can discount this, racism isn't confined to demographics here, it is across the board.
    As with the maps of primary results, Hillary won the cities or high income areas. Trump won the rural. Bernie Sanders won all the rural counties in NY at the primary, but because NY City is highly populated they win the bulk - Hillary voters.

    I live in a very rural area, and Trump hands-down won this area. Very redneckish, and yes, a racist area. I am pretty out of place. There are by far more Hillary haters, then likers. And we knew that months ago. Sanders would've had a better chance by far over Hillary.
    Post edited by Free on
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Free said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
    I haven't looked at the post election data yet, but I am telling you, I don't know a single racist who voted for Clinton and I don't know a single Trump voter that isn't racist. Racism is so deep and wide, you truly don't understand it at all. I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, fuck, a 35 year home economics teacher!
    I don't see how any data can discount this, racism isn't confined to demographics here, it is across the board.
    As with the maps of primary results, Hillary won the cities or high income areas. Trump won the rural. Bernie Sanders won all the rural counties in NY at the primary, but because NY City is highly populated they win the bulk - Hillary voters.

    I live in a very rural area, and Trump hands-down won this area. Very redneckish, and yes, a racist area. I am pretty out of place. There are by far more Hillary haters, then likers. And we knew that months ago. Sanders would've won here.
    We agree! Back me up lol

    The racists I talk about aren't out lynching and wearing white hoods, but they have been irked by a First black family and they weight every negative story involving a person of color double what they weight the same of a white person.
    They say things like "we should just nuke the Middle East" and "they need to get their families back together and get off the government tit" and other such cognitive disonance bullshit.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    rgambs said:

    Free said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
    I haven't looked at the post election data yet, but I am telling you, I don't know a single racist who voted for Clinton and I don't know a single Trump voter that isn't racist. Racism is so deep and wide, you truly don't understand it at all. I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, fuck, a 35 year home economics teacher!
    I don't see how any data can discount this, racism isn't confined to demographics here, it is across the board.
    As with the maps of primary results, Hillary won the cities or high income areas. Trump won the rural. Bernie Sanders won all the rural counties in NY at the primary, but because NY City is highly populated they win the bulk - Hillary voters.

    I live in a very rural area, and Trump hands-down won this area. Very redneckish, and yes, a racist area. I am pretty out of place. There are by far more Hillary haters, then likers. And we knew that months ago. Sanders would've won here.
    We agree! Back me up lol

    The racists I talk about aren't out lynching and wearing white hoods, but they have been irked by a First black family and they weight every negative story involving a person of color double what they weight the same of a white person.
    They say things like "we should just nuke the Middle East" and "they need to get their families back together and get off the government tit" and other such cognitive disonance bullshit.
    Although extreme, yes there are people out here like that. But not the majority. People are generally good to each other. But there are also those who fly the confederate flags, I stay away from.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Free said:

    rgambs said:

    Free said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
    I haven't looked at the post election data yet, but I am telling you, I don't know a single racist who voted for Clinton and I don't know a single Trump voter that isn't racist. Racism is so deep and wide, you truly don't understand it at all. I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, fuck, a 35 year home economics teacher!
    I don't see how any data can discount this, racism isn't confined to demographics here, it is across the board.
    As with the maps of primary results, Hillary won the cities or high income areas. Trump won the rural. Bernie Sanders won all the rural counties in NY at the primary, but because NY City is highly populated they win the bulk - Hillary voters.

    I live in a very rural area, and Trump hands-down won this area. Very redneckish, and yes, a racist area. I am pretty out of place. There are by far more Hillary haters, then likers. And we knew that months ago. Sanders would've won here.
    We agree! Back me up lol

    The racists I talk about aren't out lynching and wearing white hoods, but they have been irked by a First black family and they weight every negative story involving a person of color double what they weight the same of a white person.
    They say things like "we should just nuke the Middle East" and "they need to get their families back together and get off the government tit" and other such cognitive disonance bullshit.
    Although extreme, yes there are people out here like that. But not the majority. People are generally good to each other. But there are also those who fly the confederate flags, I stay away from.
    Here in Ohio, the "nuke the middle east" crowd is not extreme, they are almost average.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    rgambs said:

    Free said:

    rgambs said:

    Free said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    People who are interested in introspection should read this...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic

    Granted this isn't AMT approved media but maybe if some of you spent time reading different media without immediately calling it racist you wouldn't be so surprised by this week's result. This article is by a #nevertrump conservative but it is bang on. It was not the candidate but the progressive agenda that lost. It is not successful and it is not liked. Throwing up a a Warren and/or Sanders in 2020 could get a short term win but it will essentially be a repeat of the same mistake.

    Data shows that it IS successful, but you are right, it isn't accepted.
    You are dead wrong about racism though, you clearly haven't spent much time in rural America.
    1) The data you cite while possibly correct was not felt broadly enough. Way too many people being left behind in specific regions. Growth was anemic, types of jobs were only in certain sectors, plus wage stagnation on top of that. That is not success for those who needed it. 2) The post-election data doesn't support your racism theory. #whitelash is a myth.
    I haven't looked at the post election data yet, but I am telling you, I don't know a single racist who voted for Clinton and I don't know a single Trump voter that isn't racist. Racism is so deep and wide, you truly don't understand it at all. I'm talking about doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, fuck, a 35 year home economics teacher!
    I don't see how any data can discount this, racism isn't confined to demographics here, it is across the board.
    As with the maps of primary results, Hillary won the cities or high income areas. Trump won the rural. Bernie Sanders won all the rural counties in NY at the primary, but because NY City is highly populated they win the bulk - Hillary voters.

    I live in a very rural area, and Trump hands-down won this area. Very redneckish, and yes, a racist area. I am pretty out of place. There are by far more Hillary haters, then likers. And we knew that months ago. Sanders would've won here.
    We agree! Back me up lol

    The racists I talk about aren't out lynching and wearing white hoods, but they have been irked by a First black family and they weight every negative story involving a person of color double what they weight the same of a white person.
    They say things like "we should just nuke the Middle East" and "they need to get their families back together and get off the government tit" and other such cognitive disonance bullshit.
    Although extreme, yes there are people out here like that. But not the majority. People are generally good to each other. But there are also those who fly the confederate flags, I stay away from.
    Here in Ohio, the "nuke the middle east" crowd is not extreme, they are almost average.
    Disturbing and I would not want my children growing up in an area like that.

Categories