dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

I honestly cannot believe how dumb and tone deaf they still are. Finding a way to lose 

Scarborough called it what it was... a clown show.  Here's the other thing that vexes me.  There's this 'thought' that even the NYT and MSNBC has bought into, that the party is radically left.  I don't believe it is.  I think the loudest voices are hard left and it's pulling both the candidates and the media that way, to the chagrin of me and I'm sure many US Democrats here on the board.  

I mean, here we are, the actual voting Democrats on the board of a liberal band like PJ.com, and we all seem to be in shock.  The people here that seem to  gravitate to the policies of the very progressive wing are our friends from Canada, Australia and Europe.  I mean no disrespect to them, but the point is that every time I see an opinion from someone that I know is in the US, it's much closer to the moderate position than the hard progressive.  I'm very, very worried because these candidates are not representing mainstream views.  

I don't think it's a Canadian or Australian or European thing. And using the members that post in here -- and I try to avoid this place at all costs, but I occasionally do find myself regretfully clicking through here (when the rest of the site seems to be slow) to see what everyone is not listening to each other at all about this time -- is a ridiculously thin reed.

Anyway, I am an American, and I have not voted in a presidential election since 2000 (maybe 2004) simply because there has not been a candidate who was young enough and progressive enough for me to check the box next to his or her name. I still vote for issues and local candidates who meet my criteria, but I imagine I'll be leaving a blank box again in 2020.

I don't think I'm the only American out there like this. I'm sure some hold their nose and check a box, but I would guess that more progressives show up, vote for legal weed, against existing discriminatory policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community, for their local progressive candidates, and throw up in their mouth a little when they see the presidential candidates who have to put their teeth in to eat breakfast, leaving that spot blank.

There are a couple of candidates who would actually get me excited to go to the polls this time around, but I'm almost certain that they'll be put back in their place by the establishment jackasses, their media mouthpieces and their donors by the time November 2020 rolls around.

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

I honestly cannot believe how dumb and tone deaf they still are. Finding a way to lose 

Scarborough called it what it was... a clown show.  Here's the other thing that vexes me.  There's this 'thought' that even the NYT and MSNBC has bought into, that the party is radically left.  I don't believe it is.  I think the loudest voices are hard left and it's pulling both the candidates and the media that way, to the chagrin of me and I'm sure many US Democrats here on the board.  

I mean, here we are, the actual voting Democrats on the board of a liberal band like PJ.com, and we all seem to be in shock.  The people here that seem to  gravitate to the policies of the very progressive wing are our friends from Canada, Australia and Europe.  I mean no disrespect to them, but the point is that every time I see an opinion from someone that I know is in the US, it's much closer to the moderate position than the hard progressive.  I'm very, very worried because these candidates are not representing mainstream views.  

I don't think it's a Canadian or Australian or European thing. And using the members that post in here -- and I try to avoid this place at all costs, but I occasionally do find myself regretfully clicking through here (when the rest of the site seems to be slow) to see what everyone is not listening to each other at all about this time -- is a ridiculously thin reed.

Anyway, I am an American, and I have not voted in a presidential election since 2000 (maybe 2004) simply because there has not been a candidate who was young enough and progressive enough for me to check the box next to his or her name. I still vote for issues and local candidates who meet my criteria, but I imagine I'll be leaving a blank box again in 2020.

I don't think I'm the only American out there like this. I'm sure some hold their nose and check a box, but I would guess that more progressives show up, vote for legal weed, against existing discriminatory policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community, for their local progressive candidates, and throw up in their mouth a little when they see the presidential candidates who have to put their teeth in to eat breakfast, leaving that spot blank.

There are a couple of candidates who would actually get me excited to go to the polls this time around, but I'm almost certain that they'll be put back in their place by the establishment jackasses, their media mouthpieces and their donors by the time November 2020 rolls around.

So you are saying that you would vote for:
1. Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants
2. Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans
3. Reparations
4. Re-instituting federally mandated busing

Legal weed and equal rights are pretty mainstream items.  I wouldn't even call them progressive.  

I'm not saying any of that. And I wouldn't do so in this forum. 

Well those are the type of policy proposals that could cause four more years of Trump.  It's not weed and LGBTQ rights. 

So be it.

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

I honestly cannot believe how dumb and tone deaf they still are. Finding a way to lose 

Scarborough called it what it was... a clown show.  Here's the other thing that vexes me.  There's this 'thought' that even the NYT and MSNBC has bought into, that the party is radically left.  I don't believe it is.  I think the loudest voices are hard left and it's pulling both the candidates and the media that way, to the chagrin of me and I'm sure many US Democrats here on the board.  

I mean, here we are, the actual voting Democrats on the board of a liberal band like PJ.com, and we all seem to be in shock.  The people here that seem to  gravitate to the policies of the very progressive wing are our friends from Canada, Australia and Europe.  I mean no disrespect to them, but the point is that every time I see an opinion from someone that I know is in the US, it's much closer to the moderate position than the hard progressive.  I'm very, very worried because these candidates are not representing mainstream views.  

I don't think it's a Canadian or Australian or European thing. And using the members that post in here -- and I try to avoid this place at all costs, but I occasionally do find myself regretfully clicking through here (when the rest of the site seems to be slow) to see what everyone is not listening to each other at all about this time -- is a ridiculously thin reed.

Anyway, I am an American, and I have not voted in a presidential election since 2000 (maybe 2004) simply because there has not been a candidate who was young enough and progressive enough for me to check the box next to his or her name. I still vote for issues and local candidates who meet my criteria, but I imagine I'll be leaving a blank box again in 2020.

I don't think I'm the only American out there like this. I'm sure some hold their nose and check a box, but I would guess that more progressives show up, vote for legal weed, against existing discriminatory policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community, for their local progressive candidates, and throw up in their mouth a little when they see the presidential candidates who have to put their teeth in to eat breakfast, leaving that spot blank.

There are a couple of candidates who would actually get me excited to go to the polls this time around, but I'm almost certain that they'll be put back in their place by the establishment jackasses, their media mouthpieces and their donors by the time November 2020 rolls around.

So you are saying that you would vote for:
1. Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants
2. Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans
3. Reparations
4. Re-instituting federally mandated busing

Legal weed and equal rights are pretty mainstream items.  I wouldn't even call them progressive.  

I'm not saying any of that. And I wouldn't do so in this forum. 

Well those are the type of policy proposals that could cause four more years of Trump.  It's not weed and LGBTQ rights. 

So be it.

Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.

I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.

We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)

We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.

It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.

(It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

I honestly cannot believe how dumb and tone deaf they still are. Finding a way to lose 

Scarborough called it what it was... a clown show.  Here's the other thing that vexes me.  There's this 'thought' that even the NYT and MSNBC has bought into, that the party is radically left.  I don't believe it is.  I think the loudest voices are hard left and it's pulling both the candidates and the media that way, to the chagrin of me and I'm sure many US Democrats here on the board.  

I mean, here we are, the actual voting Democrats on the board of a liberal band like PJ.com, and we all seem to be in shock.  The people here that seem to  gravitate to the policies of the very progressive wing are our friends from Canada, Australia and Europe.  I mean no disrespect to them, but the point is that every time I see an opinion from someone that I know is in the US, it's much closer to the moderate position than the hard progressive.  I'm very, very worried because these candidates are not representing mainstream views.  

I don't think it's a Canadian or Australian or European thing. And using the members that post in here -- and I try to avoid this place at all costs, but I occasionally do find myself regretfully clicking through here (when the rest of the site seems to be slow) to see what everyone is not listening to each other at all about this time -- is a ridiculously thin reed.

Anyway, I am an American, and I have not voted in a presidential election since 2000 (maybe 2004) simply because there has not been a candidate who was young enough and progressive enough for me to check the box next to his or her name. I still vote for issues and local candidates who meet my criteria, but I imagine I'll be leaving a blank box again in 2020.

I don't think I'm the only American out there like this. I'm sure some hold their nose and check a box, but I would guess that more progressives show up, vote for legal weed, against existing discriminatory policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community, for their local progressive candidates, and throw up in their mouth a little when they see the presidential candidates who have to put their teeth in to eat breakfast, leaving that spot blank.

There are a couple of candidates who would actually get me excited to go to the polls this time around, but I'm almost certain that they'll be put back in their place by the establishment jackasses, their media mouthpieces and their donors by the time November 2020 rolls around.

So you are saying that you would vote for:
1. Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants
2. Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans
3. Reparations
4. Re-instituting federally mandated busing

Legal weed and equal rights are pretty mainstream items.  I wouldn't even call them progressive.  

I'm not saying any of that. And I wouldn't do so in this forum. 

Well those are the type of policy proposals that could cause four more years of Trump.  It's not weed and LGBTQ rights. 

So be it.

Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.

I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.

We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)

We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.

It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.

(It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))

Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.

That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

I honestly cannot believe how dumb and tone deaf they still are. Finding a way to lose 

Scarborough called it what it was... a clown show.  Here's the other thing that vexes me.  There's this 'thought' that even the NYT and MSNBC has bought into, that the party is radically left.  I don't believe it is.  I think the loudest voices are hard left and it's pulling both the candidates and the media that way, to the chagrin of me and I'm sure many US Democrats here on the board.  

I mean, here we are, the actual voting Democrats on the board of a liberal band like PJ.com, and we all seem to be in shock.  The people here that seem to  gravitate to the policies of the very progressive wing are our friends from Canada, Australia and Europe.  I mean no disrespect to them, but the point is that every time I see an opinion from someone that I know is in the US, it's much closer to the moderate position than the hard progressive.  I'm very, very worried because these candidates are not representing mainstream views.  

I don't think it's a Canadian or Australian or European thing. And using the members that post in here -- and I try to avoid this place at all costs, but I occasionally do find myself regretfully clicking through here (when the rest of the site seems to be slow) to see what everyone is not listening to each other at all about this time -- is a ridiculously thin reed.

Anyway, I am an American, and I have not voted in a presidential election since 2000 (maybe 2004) simply because there has not been a candidate who was young enough and progressive enough for me to check the box next to his or her name. I still vote for issues and local candidates who meet my criteria, but I imagine I'll be leaving a blank box again in 2020.

I don't think I'm the only American out there like this. I'm sure some hold their nose and check a box, but I would guess that more progressives show up, vote for legal weed, against existing discriminatory policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community, for their local progressive candidates, and throw up in their mouth a little when they see the presidential candidates who have to put their teeth in to eat breakfast, leaving that spot blank.

There are a couple of candidates who would actually get me excited to go to the polls this time around, but I'm almost certain that they'll be put back in their place by the establishment jackasses, their media mouthpieces and their donors by the time November 2020 rolls around.

So you are saying that you would vote for:
1. Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants
2. Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans
3. Reparations
4. Re-instituting federally mandated busing

Legal weed and equal rights are pretty mainstream items.  I wouldn't even call them progressive.  

I'm not saying any of that. And I wouldn't do so in this forum. 

Well those are the type of policy proposals that could cause four more years of Trump.  It's not weed and LGBTQ rights. 

So be it.

Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.

I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.

We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)

We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.

It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.

(It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))

Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.

That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.

Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.

I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.

We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)

We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.

It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.

(It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))

Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.

That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.

Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.

A basic truth, to me, is that opinion is not a fact.  A fact is a fact. 

We were talking general elections.

I agree with your idea, just not enough to think it is a fact and that it should then be shared by everyone.  Other people can have their own opinions and one might be that it is always the best time to be principled. 

That is for them to think and to say, or not.

Also, both Dan and I lived in states that voted Blue despite his not voting and my voting for Weedman.

How can we know that people who really hated Trump voting would have made the difference, or that it would this time.  Perhaps the states line up the way the states line up...and that is just a sad reality about the USA right now?

Oh well.  Continue...we could probably bat this back and forth a bunch w/o really getting anywhere.

I don't feel the need to qualify things like that on message boards. That my statement "The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle" is obviously an opinion, so I doubt that it's necessary for you qualify it like that, nor to take my saying that the same way as me saying "it is 100% FACT". I never claimed it was FACT, and actually that isn't even a point that can be fact in any case, since it's just about people making a choice, so the concept doesn't even apply IMO.

I do think it's very safe to assume that, given the very slim margin by which Trump won and the voter turn out, liberals who didn't bother to vote were absolutely the reason Trump won (I would also say that about Comey's fuck up before the election was also a reason all on its own, but that is impossible to verify). I think that if you crunched the numbers there, you would likely end up with a real fact showing that no-show libs put Trump in office. 

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.

I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.

We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)

We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.

It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.

(It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))

Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.

That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.

Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.

A basic truth, to me, is that opinion is not a fact.  A fact is a fact. 

We were talking general elections.

I agree with your idea, just not enough to think it is a fact and that it should then be shared by everyone.  Other people can have their own opinions and one might be that it is always the best time to be principled. 

That is for them to think and to say, or not.

Also, both Dan and I lived in states that voted Blue despite his not voting and my voting for Weedman.

How can we know that people who really hated Trump voting would have made the difference, or that it would this time.  Perhaps the states line up the way the states line up...and that is just a sad reality about the USA right now?

Oh well.  Continue...we could probably bat this back and forth a bunch w/o really getting anywhere.

I don't feel the need to qualify things like that on message boards. I thought my statement "The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle" is obviously an opinion, so I doubt that it's necessary for you qualify it like that, nor to take my saying that the same way as me saying "it is 100% FACT". I never claimed it was fact, and actually that isn't even a point that can be fact in any case, since it's just about people making a choice, so the concept doesn't even apply IMO.

I do think it's very safe to assume that, given the very slim margin by which Trump won and the voter turn out, liberals who didn't bother to vote were absolutely the reason Trump won (I would also say that about Comey's fuck up before the election was also a reason all on its own, but that is impossible to verify). I think that if you crunched the numbers there, you would likely end up with a real fact showing that no-show libs put Trump in office. 

A difference of opinion, I do feel that this is a place for people to express opinions and not have someone else's truth presented as 100% what they should do...but that is fine.  You be you, I will be me, and this crazy rock will keep on spinning.

I hope that Trump loses and I hope that next time around (or sometime in the near future) we actually have an intelligent way to select candidates. 

Time to revolt!

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Source?