We're with her, in 2020

[dank69]

If only Bernie did something about the DNC rigging the primaries. He would have taken those critical states that Hillary did not win. Tis a shame... although I don't agree at all with Bernie's political ideology... he did not have the political machine (Soros) behind him like Hillary. He would have been a much more compromising president in order to get things done. Instead we have a divide which will likely roll over into the next election.

Look at this fool. Election long since over and still clinging to the lie that the DNC did anything to hurt Bernie.

 

[HomerJS]

The 2020 version of what we have now would be Winfrey/Weiner

We get billionaire and sexual predator in one ticket.

 

[Thebobo]

From what I've read on Carter he was quite weak on foreign affairs. I know he was critized fir not doing more with the hostage situation in Iran. Plus, the economy was performing pretty badly under his leadership.

Ever hear about the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter

 

[werepossum]

OP is a Democrat that voted Trump because he's hated Hillary for 30+ years.

I'm certainly no fan of Hillary, but what specifically do you hate about Hillary that does not also apply to Trump?

I do understand that "Trump is not Hillary". I just get lost on the part where "Hillary is not Trump" isn't just as meaningful. I have absolutely no problem with anyone voting for either, and I'm sure there are things (like Trump's business experience and obvious appreciation for capitalism) that make some people want to vote for Trump. After all, he beat about a gazillion other Pubbies to get the party nod before going up against the other great evil in the general, so he obviously has some appeal. But I remain honestly confused as to why "Trump is not Hillary" is more potent that "Hillary is not Trump" for a Democrat. Seems to me that other than the rampant dishonesty and corruption (which I certainly expect in at least equal measure from a Trump administration) Hillary is pretty much mainstream 21st century Democrat Party doctrine.

 

[brycejones]

I'm certainly no fan of Hillary, but what specifically do you hate about Hillary that does not also apply to Trump?

I do understand that "Trump is not Hillary". I just get lost on the part where "Hillary is not Trump" isn't just as meaningful. I have absolutely no problem with anyone voting for either, and I'm sure there are things (like Trump's business experience and obvious appreciation for capitalism) that make some people want to vote for Trump. After all, he beat about a gazillion other Pubbies to get the party nod before going up against the other great evil in the general, so he obviously has some appeal. But I remain honestly confused as to why "Trump is not Hillary" is more potent that "Hillary is not Trump" for a Democrat. Seems to me that other than the rampant dishonesty and corruption (which I certainly expect in at least equal measure from a Trump administration) Hillary is pretty much mainstream 21st century Democrat Party doctrine.

Most be something very personal. If he has hated Hillary for 30+ years it goes all the way back to Arkansas when Bill was governor.

 

[Kazukian]

Most be something very personal. If he has hated Hillary for 30+ years it goes all the way back to Arkansas when Bill was governor.

LOL, you know me too well, I lived in Texas, and they were pretty well universally hated. We knew they were ambitious, and the rumors about the Clinton machine were rampant, and TBH, I still find some of them credible, hell, Bill's philandering was proven, and while I'm not a huge conspiracy theorist, there were some bizarre deaths, and financially, they had some very improbable luck. Hillary was director of Wal Mart's BOD for 6 years, union busting, inner city bankrupting, mom and pop business destroying Wal Mart.

 

[agent00f]

Look at this fool. Election long since over and still clinging to the lie that the DNC did anything to hurt Bernie.

In all fairness segregation & such are longer since over and Trump's alt-right strategy still won.

 

[Jaskalas]

In all fairness segregation & such are longer since over and Trump's alt-right strategy still won.

Just look at the EC map, the red and blue states. It was typical R VS D aside from the ones that flipped. His strategy "won" the rust belt and coal mining states. That's over jobs and economics, those rural people are hurting. Trump played into their hopes for a better future. Obama tackled the same issue in 2008.

 

[agent00f]

Just look at the EC map, the red and blue states. It was typical R VS D aside from the ones that flipped. His strategy "won" the rust belt and coal mining states. That's over jobs and economics, those rural people are hurting. Trump played into their hopes for a better future. Obama tackled the same issue in 2008.

To bad his supporters aren't actually poor, and they absolutely loved it when he blamed whatever problems they might have on the mexican rapists or chinese hoaxes and so on.

It's a hardly a mystery now why the GOP kept losing elections until someone taught them how to rile up massive crowds of rednecks, and hardly a coincidence it happened to be the birther-in-chief turned head alt-right recruiter just doing his thing.

The democrats tried that job-saving strategy to some great success with the auto bailouts & such, and look how that turned out for them when the mexican-rapist guy came to town.

 

[vi edit]

To bad his supporters aren't actually poor, and they absolutely loved it when he blamed whatever problems they might have on the mexican rapists or chinese hoaxes and so on.

It's a hardly a mystery now why the GOP kept losing elections until someone taught them how to rile up massive crowds of rednecks, and hardly a coincidence it happened to be the birther-in-chief turned head alt-right recruiter just doing his thing.

The democrats tried that job-saving strategy to some great success with the auto bailouts & such, and look how that turned out for them when the mexican-rapist guy came to town.

His voters in eastern KY, WV, western PA and SE Ohio most definitely are poor. Eastern parts of Kentucky are some of the poorest counties in the entire US. They actually have 4 of the 5 poorest counties in the US.

 

[agent00f]

His voters in eastern KY, WV, western PA and SE Ohio most definitely are poor. Eastern parts of Kentucky are some of the poorest counties in the entire US. They actually have 4 of the 5 poorest counties in the US.

Would you say whatever minorities or other undesirables in those areas are richer or poorer than the trump base which manages to be somehow a deviation above the norm despite their education? The data sure don't support this popular narrative of them having it bad.

 

[vi edit]

Would you say whatever minorities or other undesirables in those areas are richer or poorer than the trump base which manages to be somehow a deviation above the norm despite their education? The data sure don't support this popular narrative of them having it bad.

These are 98% white and 100% poor as hell counties. There is no deviation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ky-people-live-running-water-electricity.html

 

[agent00f]

These are 98% white and 100% poor as hell counties. There is no deviation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ky-people-live-running-water-electricity.html

Also keep in mind Appalachia is not the rust belt, refer to a map if that's not clear.

 

[vi edit]

Also keep in mind Appalachia is not the rust belt, refer to a map if that's not clear.

It's the coal belt and and area that has a lot of overlap in similar resentment.

 

[agent00f]

It's the coal belt and and area that has a lot of overlap in similar resentment.

Sure if you mean race resentment: https://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/racial-resentment-and-the-rise-of-donald-trump/

 

[vi edit]

No just government and politicians in general. But keep on beating that drum and see if changes the tune of what happened last month.

 

[agent00f]

No just government and politicians in general. But keep on beating that drum and see if changes the tune of what happened last month.

The democrats sure learned their lesson from supplying endless white welfare to save their good jobs. One of us is certainly doubling down and it doesn't appear to be me.

Conservatives are quite open about how much they hate cucks; folks always ready to please no matter how much the prisoner's dilemma bites them in the ass.

 

[bshole]

[

The democrats sure learned their lesson from supplying endless white welfare to save their good jobs.

Conservatives are quite open about how much they hate cucks; always ready to please no matter how much the prisoner's dilemma bites them in the ass.

What does "supplying endless white welfare to save their good jobs" mean? I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Welfare does not save your job, it compensates you if you lose your job. I consider it a critically important component of any 1st world democratic system and is a benefit to all of us, no matter what our race. Are you advocating the end of welfare to poor white folks?

 

[agent00f]

What does "supplying endless white welfare to save their good jobs" mean? I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Welfare does not save your job, it compensates you if you lose your job. I consider it a critically important component of any 1st world democratic system and is a benefit to all of us, no matter what our race. Are you advocating the end of welfare to poor white folks?

White welfare is what I call all the fed funding to these red states to subsidize what good jobs they have, disproportionately worked by their white population in contrast to the much less lucrative subsidies to the minorities they're always complaining about.

Since they're always complaining about gubmint welfare so often, I figure liberals should agree for once and cut them off instead of paying even more to get stabbed in the back again.

 

[KMFJD]

White welfare is what I call all the fed funding to these red states to subsidize what good jobs they have, disproportionately worked by their white population in contrast to the much less lucrative subsidies to the minorities they're always complaining about.

Since they're always complaining about gubmint welfare so often, I figure liberals should agree for once and cut them off instead of paying even more to get stabbed in the back again.

 

[agent00f]

More accurate to label that "defense" subsidies. It's 25+% gdp in a lot of these places, and around half of federal discretionary spending.

Nobody wants to talk lucrative (largely) white welfare because everyone wants the votes, even if it means bombing a bunch of expendable brownies every so often to create & justify everlasting threats.

 

[bshole]

White welfare is what I call all the fed funding to these red states to subsidize what good jobs they have, disproportionately worked by their white population in contrast to the much less lucrative subsidies to the minorities they're always complaining about.

Since they're always complaining about gubmint welfare so often, I figure liberals should agree for once and cut them off instead of paying even more to get stabbed in the back again.

It is my understanding that the differences in funding are due to more military bases in Red states and more poor people in Red states. I could be way off, that is an assumption on my part.

In any event, a less divisive way of thinking of the discrepancy is that the federal government is putting a bottom line under which it will not allow any entire state to fall below. In other words, like individual welfare but applied to an entire state. I certainly don't want Red states to become poorer and less educated. Prosperous states should help struggling states and the federal government is the perfect entity to implement that help.

 

[KMFJD]

More accurate to label that "defense" subsidies. It's 25+% gdp in a lot of these places, and around half of federal discretionary spending.

Nobody wants to talk lucrative (largely) white welfare because everyone wants the votes, even if it means bombing a bunch of expendable brownies every so often to create & justify everlasting threats.

 

[agent00f]

It is my understanding that the differences in funding are due to more military bases in Red states and more poor people in Red states. I could be way off, that is an assumption on my part.

Seems to me it's in large part due to disproportionate congressional senate representation, where some animals are simply more equal than others. The EC in the news as of late also comes to mind for similarly defective design.

In any event, a less divisive way of thinking of the discrepancy is that the federal government is putting a bottom line under which it will not allow any entire state to fall below. In other words, like individual welfare but applied to an entire state. I certainly don't want Red states to become poorer and less educated. Prosperous states should help struggling states and the federal government is the perfect entity to implement that help.

But you can see the moral hazard in helping people who only look to take advantage of kindness.

 

[bshole]

But you can see the moral hazard in helping people who only look to take advantage of kindness.

I see the EXISTENTIAL hazard of the wealth discrepancy getting too large. This is one of the primary objectives of wealth redistribution, it heads off French revolutions and armed gated communities.

You are treating the Red states as your enemy. They aren't.