Trump interview on ABC

[realibrad]

And it sails right over. OK, it's everyone else's fault. Too bad the dems cut Bernie off at the knees so Hillary would be the only choice, especially since every indicator showed he had a far better chance than Hillary. But that would require being rational and not as dedicated to Hillary as many were with Trump. Yes those who shoved Hillary at us are partially responsible for this mess. Not entirely but this was never all about one thing being causative, but many being contributory. Like Bowfinger said this a very complex situation. Own your part.

I don't think he would have won anyway. What they did hurt the party and its credibility at a time when they were already under attack. Sanders was a dreamer but never fleshed out his big dreams. The Right would vote for a ham sandwich but the Left wont.

 

[Jhhnn]

And it sails right over. OK, it's everyone else's fault. Too bad the dems cut Bernie off at the knees so Hillary would be the only choice, especially since every indicator showed he had a far better chance than Hillary. But that would require being rational and not as dedicated to Hillary as many were with Trump. Yes those who shoved Hillary at us are partially responsible for this mess. Not entirely but this was never all about one thing being causative, but many being contributory. Like Bowfinger said this a very complex situation. Own your part.

Over my head? Hardly.

You're the one going on about the hated Hillary & the evil Democrats in a thread about Trump's insane interview performance on national TV. He got to do that because of the lynch mob mentality about Hillary that you reflect entirely.

Own it? I'll own it. I think she would have made a good president & we'd be building on the progress we've made over the decades & particularly over the last 8 years despite an obstructionist congress & the lingering results of the housing bubble collapse. Her election likely would have shifted the Senate to Dems, as well. It took a whole lot of bullshit negativity to take it the other way, yours included.

Own that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Over my head? Hardly.

You're the one going on about the hated Hillary & the evil Democrats in a thread about Trump's insane interview performance on national TV. He got to do that because of the lynch mob mentality about Hillary that you reflect entirely.

Own it? I'll own it. I think she would have made a good president & we'd be building on the progress we've made over the decades & particularly over the last 8 years despite an obstructionist congress & the lingering results of the housing bubble collapse. Her election likely would have shifted the Senate to Dems, as well. It took a whole lot of bullshit negativity to take it the other way, yours included.

Own that.

What must it be like to be all knowing and always right, with the world against your Divine knowledge? Frustrating that mortals like me just don't obey. Oh well your cross to burn.

 

[Jhhnn]

What must it be like to be all knowing and always right, with the world against your Divine knowledge? Frustrating that mortals like me just don't obey. Oh well your cross to burn.

Did you just run out of arguments & ways to blame Dems for Donald Trump? I believe you did.

 

[1prophet]

What must it be like to be all knowing and always right, with the world against your Divine knowledge? Frustrating that mortals like me just don't obey. Oh well your cross to burn.

Don't waste your time, Some people would never realize the truth or come to terms with it even if it's blowing up all around them.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course it's not simple, but people need enemies they can blame everything on. That's where the brains on both sides fail. All Clinton supporters are Communists and all Trump backers are white supremacists, or so one might think based on comments I've read.

Oh but your brain was the best you saw through all the bullshit and you saw how both sides were bad options! Hell! That's what the polls showed right? And everyone knows that the smartest people always go with what the polls show because that's just smart!

/s

Its like you aren't even aware of how stupid you sound sometimes.

 

[Jhhnn]

What must it be like to be all knowing and always right, with the world against your Divine knowledge? Frustrating that mortals like me just don't obey. Oh well your cross to burn.

Donald Trump is president by dint of a relentless slime attack on Hillary Clinton & the Dems in which you participated & persist even to this day. You can't come up with an excuse that's good enough to get around that but you'll obviously keep trying to convince yourself that there might be.

 

[ivwshane]

And it sails right over. OK, it's everyone else's fault. Too bad the dems cut Bernie off at the knees so Hillary would be the only choice, especially since every indicator showed he had a far better chance than Hillary. But that would require being rational and not as dedicated to Hillary as many were with Trump. Yes those who shoved Hillary at us are partially responsible for this mess. Not entirely but this was never all about one thing being causative, but many being contributory. Like Bowfinger said this a very complex situation. Own your part.

This post indicates you are anything but rational. I've never heard anyone claim that someone who was elected by a majority of the people (I'm speaking of the primary) was "shoved" upon us. At least I've never heard it from anyone who was sane.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This post indicates you are anything but rational. I've never heard anyone claim that someone who was elected by a majority of the people (I'm speaking of the primary) was "shoved" upon us. At least I've never heard it from anyone who was sane.

Of course not my young apologist. You wouldn't know sane if it bit you in the face. But you have Trump now and you can burst into flames and blame people like me all you want. You couldn't win and were beat by a dope.

But what you think is irrelevant, the frustrated past. We have Trump to deal with and blame anyone you like.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course not my young apologist. You wouldn't know sane if it bit you in the face. But you have Trump now and you can burst into flames and blame people like me all you want. You couldn't win and were beat by a dope.

But what you think is irrelevant, the frustrated past. We have Trump to deal with and blame anyone you like.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Pointing out your irrational reasoning doesn't make me an apologist, idiot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pointing out your irrational reasoning doesn't make me an apologist, idiot.

Actually you make the case all on your own. You are now irrelevant as far as your partisanship goes. You can't change and you can't learn, so you'll be marginalized by your own side as they figure out how to counter the change of fortunes. Trump beat your "rational reasoning" because you don't understand people at all and because of that it's their fault. That's crazy, but we're stuck with the partisan fallout on both sides.

Have a fun 4 years, you earned it so have fun being outraged and frustrated because that's what you asked for.

I'm hoping that Trump will cross the line and get tossed and rational people can handle that. Keep ranting bro.

 

[Bowfinger]

Donald Trump is president by dint of a relentless slime attack on Hillary Clinton & the Dems ...

That's true as far as it goes. The problem is it doesn't go nearly far enough. The GOP was going to launch a relentless slime attack against the Democratic candidate, no matter who he or she was. That's the foundation of all their campaigns. The important question is, the question you refuse to discuss, is why was it so effective against Clinton? You really have only two choices here. Either the GOP slime campaigns are so effective that NO Democrat can win ... or, Clinton was especially vulnerable to their slime.

If you want to stop losing elections, you need to be honest about how Clinton's weaknesses made her such an easy target. While I will continue to agree she would have been a decent, to perhaps even very good POTUS, she was always a mediocre candidate. Sorry.

 

[agent00f]

Of course not my young apologist. You wouldn't know sane if it bit you in the face. But you have Trump now and you can burst into flames and blame people like me all you want. You couldn't win and were beat by a dope.

But what you think is irrelevant, the frustrated past. We have Trump to deal with and blame anyone you like.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Speaking of the blame game, which of these two is responsible for Trump:

A. People who support him or otherwise did what they needed to enable him to come into power

B. Those on the opposite side

The actual answer seem pretty clear, but you can always spot the conservatives because they're obliged to protect A and blame everything on B. Of course being conservatives they'll predictably lie about it and pretend they're actually "independent" or something.

 

[Bowfinger]

This post indicates you are anything but rational. I've never heard anyone claim that someone who was elected by a majority of the people (I'm speaking of the primary) was "shoved" upon us. At least I've never heard it from anyone who was sane.

Really? You've never heard that? I see it as a fairly common complaint, that party insiders, special interests, whatever, disenfranchise the public through backroom maneuvers that put their favored mouthpiece on the ballot. You can argue about the extent to which the DNC anointed Clinton in 2016, but it's certainly not a new complaint.

 

[ivwshane]

Really? You've never heard that? I see it as a fairly common complaint, that party insiders, special interests, whatever, disenfranchise the public through backroom maneuvers that put their favored mouthpiece on the ballot. You can argue about the extent to which the DNC anointed Clinton in 2016, but it's certainly not a new complaint.

So, you too, believe that a politician who received a majority of the votes in most states by a large amount, means that that candidate was shoved upon the people?

Yeah, I've heard that argument, I've just never heard it from anyone capable of thinking rationally.

 

[Bowfinger]

Speaking of the blame game, which of these two is responsible for Trump:

A. People who support him or otherwise did what they needed to enable him to come into power

B. Those on the opposite side

The actual answer seem pretty clear, but you can always spot the conservatives because they're obliged to protect A and blame everything on B. Of course being conservatives they'll predictably lie about it and pretend they're actually "independent" or something.

It's been a long time since I've been accused of being a conservative here, but the correct answer is both A and B. You're still clinging to the notion that election results have a single, simplistic explanation. They don't. Candidates win both on their own positives and their opponents' negatives.

Consider the recent Cowboys-Packers game. I saw a lot of Packers support among friends and on social media. The interesting bit was seeing how much of the Packers support came from people who just hated the Cowboys. They don't care who Dallas plays, they root for not-Dallas. The same is true in elections. In this case, Trump votes came from a mix of Trump supporters and Clinton haters. Similarly, Clinton votes came from a mix of Clinton supporters and Trump haters.

TL;DR -- the correct answer is C. Both

 

[JockoJohnson]

Why is that so hard to believe? Do you think Democrats' brains are so superior that they're magically immune to effective propaganda? I've criticized the die-hard Dems here for refusing to look inward for explanations of Clinton's loss. The opposite applies to the anti-Dems, who refuse to accept there were also external factors, including Russian manipulation, Comey, etc. National elections are huge, complex events. They aren't won or lost due to single, simplistic causes.

Yes, the Russians must have hacked Hillary's itinerary and diverted her from Wisconsin and Michigan. And if Trump knew that so many people would be whining about popular vote, maybe he should have visited CA and NY to siphon off some of the votes going towards Hillary.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's true as far as it goes. The problem is it doesn't go nearly far enough. The GOP was going to launch a relentless slime attack against the Democratic candidate, no matter who he or she was. That's the foundation of all their campaigns. The important question is, the question you refuse to discuss, is why was it so effective against Clinton? You really have only two choices here. Either the GOP slime campaigns are so effective that NO Democrat can win ... or, Clinton was especially vulnerable to their slime.

If you want to stop losing elections, you need to be honest about how Clinton's weaknesses made her such an easy target. While I will continue to agree she would have been a decent, to perhaps even very good POTUS, she was always a mediocre candidate. Sorry.

She wasn't an easy target, just one they worked on for decades. She won the popular vote handily but not the electoral college. If what you claim were true she'd have lost both.

Trump was not an ordinary opponent at all. She stood up a helluva lot better than his primary opponents.

 

[ivwshane]

That's true as far as it goes. The problem is it doesn't go nearly far enough. The GOP was going to launch a relentless slime attack against the Democratic candidate, no matter who he or she was. That's the foundation of all their campaigns. The important question is, the question you refuse to discuss, is why was it so effective against Clinton? You really have only two choices here. Either the GOP slime campaigns are so effective that NO Democrat can win ... or, Clinton was especially vulnerable to their slime.

If you want to stop losing elections, you need to be honest about how Clinton's weaknesses made her such an easy target. While I will continue to agree she would have been a decent, to perhaps even very good POTUS, she was always a mediocre candidate. Sorry.

I have said as much and I recognized that fact before she won the primary. She has always been a horrible politician. That's a negative when dealing with an uneducated and uninformed populace. People who don't like trump but didn't vote for Hillary (or at all) shouldn't complain when they are lumped in with that group of uninformed/uneducated people (like hayabusa).

 

[Bowfinger]

So, you too, believe that a politician who received a majority of the votes in most states by a large amount, means that that candidate was shoved upon the people?

I wouldn't and haven't claimed Clinton was shoved upon us. I think she was given an inside track, however. It helped her in her race against Sanders, but I don't think it was the single deciding factor. Again, elections are more complex than that.

Yeah, I've heard that argument, I've just never heard it from anyone capable of thinking rationally.

Yawn. You're being disingenuous to avoid acknowledging your hyperbole.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes, the Russians must have hacked Hillary's itinerary and diverted her from Wisconsin and Michigan. And if Trump knew that so many people would be whining about popular vote, maybe he should have visited CA and NY to siphon off some of the votes going towards Hillary.

/rolleyes

Reading is hard. What part of, "I've criticized the die-hard Dems here for refusing to look inward for explanations of Clinton's loss." was over your head?

 

[ivwshane]

I wouldn't and haven't claimed Clinton was shoved upon us. I think she was given an inside track, however. It helped her in her race against Sanders, but I don't think it was the single deciding factor. Again, elections are more complex than that.



Yawn. You're being disingenuous to avoid acknowledging your hyperbole.

What inside track was Hillary given, be specific?

 

[Jhhnn]

Really? You've never heard that? I see it as a fairly common complaint, that party insiders, special interests, whatever, disenfranchise the public through backroom maneuvers that put their favored mouthpiece on the ballot. You can argue about the extent to which the DNC anointed Clinton in 2016, but it's certainly not a new complaint.

Yes, it's pretty much standard conspiracy theory.

 

[Bowfinger]

She wasn't an easy target, just one they worked on for decades. She won the popular vote handily but not the electoral college. If what you claim were true she'd have lost both.

Trump was not an ordinary opponent at all. She stood up a helluva lot better than his primary opponents.

You are contradicting yourself. "She wasn't an easy target," but here's why she was an easy target. I agree, they worked against her for decades. That's exactly why she was so vulnerable to the sliming. You have to accept that elections happen in the real world, not some ideal world where all the unfair stuff is erased first. It's not fair that Clinton was so easy to slime. That doesn't change the unfortunate fact that she was.

 

[agent00f]

It's been a long time since I've been accused of being a conservative here, but the correct answer is both A and B. You're still clinging to the notion that election results have a single, simplistic explanation. They don't. Candidates win both on their own positives and their opponents' negatives.

Consider the recent Cowboys-Packers game. I saw a lot of Packers support among friends and on social media. The interesting bit was seeing how much of the Packers support came from people who just hated the Cowboys. They don't care who Dallas plays, they root for not-Dallas. The same is true in elections. In this case, Trump votes came from a mix of Trump supporters and Clinton haters. Similarly, Clinton votes came from a mix of Clinton supporters and Trump haters.

TL;DR -- the correct answer is C. Both

No, that's just a misclassification, usually by people trying to rationalize their own actions. For example, a Sanders fan who in a raging tizzy either votes for Trump or doesn't vote for Clinton out of spite. Of course they're hardly going to blame themselves for the undesirable outcome; much better to cast the blame elsewhere, and I'll leave it as an exercise why they would choose Clinton instead of the Trump camp (which now arguably includes themselves).

For all the obfuscation, elections are really not that hard to understand; easier certainly than score in a ball game. The voter chooses one person or other based on which they believe is better. If some chose Trump over Clinton, that's their cross to bear and not oh that old hag/witch made them do it.