PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Election Post Mortem



Mjölnir
11-09-2016, 07:05 AM
President Elect Donald J. Trump.

Hillary Clinton really should have had this in the bag.

What did Trump do right, to win despite all predictions?

What did Clinton do wrong?

efmbman
11-09-2016, 11:49 AM
I bet the Democrats are kicking themselves for not pushing Joe Biden into the race. I wonder if he was told to stand down, it's Hillary's turn.

waveshaper2
11-09-2016, 12:18 PM
I think the Washington DC vote count says it all about what the US voters see as the number 1# problem this election cycle. Washington DC vote count (100% of votes counted as of this morning);
1. Hillary Clinton - 93% (260,223 votes).
2. Donald Trump - 4% (11,553 votes).

efmbman
11-09-2016, 12:28 PM
I think the Washington DC vote count says it all about what the US voters see as the number 1# problem this election cycle. Washington DC vote count (100% of votes counted as of this morning);
1. Hillary Clinton - 93% (260,223 votes).
2. Donald Trump - 4% (11,553 votes).

That says more about the demographics of those that actually live in the district.

sparks82
11-09-2016, 04:51 PM
I bet the Democrats are kicking themselves for not pushing Joe Biden into the race. I wonder if he was told to stand down, it's Hillary's turn.

He was going to run - until his son died. That, I heard, is the reason he didn't run.

garhkal
11-09-2016, 08:12 PM
I think the Washington DC vote count says it all about what the US voters see as the number 1# problem this election cycle. Washington DC vote count (100% of votes counted as of this morning);
1. Hillary Clinton - 93% (260,223 votes).
2. Donald Trump - 4% (11,553 votes).

93 to 4?? WOW.. I was seeing a blow out in the district of corruption in hillary's favor but that big of one??!?

VCO
11-16-2016, 03:20 AM
Hillary was too far left and forgot about a large portion of voters. She assumed everyone in America fit into her little leftist bubble and campaigned accordingly. If she had went a little more center, she would have won.

Rusty Jones
11-16-2016, 07:46 AM
Hillary was too far left and forgot about a large portion of voters. She assumed everyone in America fit into her little leftist bubble and campaigned accordingly. If she had went a little more center, she would have won.

Hillary Clinton? Far too left? BWAHAHAHAHA, pass me whatever the FUCK you're smoking!

MikeKerriii
11-16-2016, 03:08 PM
Hillary was too far left and forgot about a large portion of voters. She assumed everyone in America fit into her little leftist bubble and campaigned accordingly. If she had went a little more center, she would have won.

If you look at the numbers Hillary was too far to the right and ignored a large portion of her voters, Hillary is on the right edge of the Democratic party.

MikeKerriii
11-16-2016, 03:11 PM
Hillary Clinton? Far too left? BWAHAHAHAHA, pass me whatever the FUCK you're smoking! I am not sure tht anything yo smoke cooed cause that kind of delsusion, Either that or live in "Bizzarro world ' from he old comics.

Rainmaker
11-16-2016, 03:18 PM
If you look at the numbers Hillary was too far to the right



Look at what numbers?

You mean like the CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC numbers that said Hillary had a "blue wall" & would win in a Landslide.....those numbers?

Or do you mean like the CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC poll numbers that said Hillary was up by 12% & would win in a Landslide.....those numbers?

Tell us again which numbers we should be looking at Mike?

Mjölnir
11-16-2016, 04:04 PM
I would agree, HRC was far from a 'far left' candidate on some issues.

On things like trade, the economy, defense, foreign policy ... she is not too far from many Republicans.

On things like social issues, immigration, gun control ... she is pretty far left.

I get the feeling a large part of her defeat lay in the lack on substance on issues and the reliance on her being 'her' and the potential historic nature of her being elected. I don't have an issue one way or another voting for a woman to be the President, but I want to vote for a good candidate, not the one who was 'next', not the one who has 'earned this'. Looking past the glitz, she offered more of the status quo in a year when a populist candidate was desired.

Rainmaker
11-16-2016, 04:12 PM
Looking past the glitz, she offered more of the status quo in a year when a populist candidate was desired.

Agreed.

It had less to do with the whole Left vs. Right thing and more to do with the fact that Americans have rejected globalism (read international socialism)

And all the special snow-flakes, having their collective tantrum & screaming about racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic....etc. etc....... is only solidifying President Trump's support.

Because NORMAL people are sick and tired of these progs trying to force everyone else to affirm (and subsidize) their dysfunction.

& The MSM has totally discredited themselves, They'll keep manipulating it. But, no one really listens to them anymore.

So unless Trump really fucks up. (e.g. pulls a Hillary and decides to air state secrets over g-mail) he'll likely win 2020 in a Landslide.

The DemoRats are gonna need to find a new schtick. Because, the writing's on the wall....

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Election-2016-Results-By-County-Closeup.jpg

WILDJOKER5
11-16-2016, 06:02 PM
I would agree, HRC was far from a 'far left' candidate on some issues.

On things like trade,Globalism is a leftist thing, not right.


the economy, What way? She is a progressive, authoritarian, socialist essentially.

defense, Again, how so? Miltary strikes and wars are a democrat thing. Look at all of the wars in the last 100 years, all but 2 started by dems.

foreign policy ... she is not too far from many Republicans.She is a great manipulator of foreign governments. She and her cronies destabilized the middle east. Took Egypt out of peace. Had Libya turned over. Syria is being played to stop the oil pipeline for a ally of Russia in favor for Iran. If she is "right", Trump is further left than she is.

Rainmaker
11-16-2016, 06:40 PM
Globalism is a leftist thing, not right.


Both Bush administrations, McCain and Romney were all stocked full with globalists.

The Bush II administration was especially infested with the neoconservative movement, that put Foreign interests ahead of the National good.

"Compassionate conservatism" was a Doublespeak Euphemism designed to mask their true intentions (of ushering in international socialism).

President Trump exposed the bastards, beat them and left them laying bloody in the ditch.

But, they lived to fight another day & for the time being, He'll still have to deal with them trying to Harpoon the ship.

But, fortunately for America, Trump has a 156 IQ (2nd only to John Quincy Adams (165), in the history of our Nation, and just ahead of Thomas Jefferson @154)) and has dealt with these double-dealing cretins, all of his adult life, in Manhattan's Luxury Real Estate Business ( knows how to keep them guessing).

WILDJOKER5
11-16-2016, 08:25 PM
Both Bush administrations, McCain and Romney were all stocked full with globalists.

The Bush II administration was especially infested with the neoconservative movement, that put Foreign interests ahead of the National good.

"Compassionate conservatism" was a Doublespeak Euphemism designed to mask their true intentions (of ushering in international socialism).

President Trump exposed the bastards, beat them and left them laying bloody in the ditch.

But, they lived to fight another day & for the time being, He'll still have to deal with them trying to Harpoon the ship.

But, fortunately for America, Trump has a 156 IQ (2nd only to John Quincy Adams (165), in the history of our Nation, and just ahead of Thomas Jefferson @154)) and has dealt with these double-dealing cretins, all of his adult life, in Manhattan's Luxury Real Estate Business ( knows how to keep them guessing).

Yes, the republican "progressive". Still leftist. RINOs.

Rusty Jones
11-17-2016, 07:21 PM
Yes, the republican "progressive". Still leftist. RINOs.

LOL, no one here buys that "no true Scotsman" bullshit. Not even you.

efmbman
11-17-2016, 07:42 PM
This is just an observation - not directed to any one person. I've never understood how people can get so upset over a candidate winning or losing an election. Life will go on. Why attach your own ego and emotional well-being to the performance of a political candidate?

Rusty Jones
11-17-2016, 07:53 PM
This is just an observation - not directed to any one person. I've never understood how people can get so upset over a candidate winning or losing an election. Life will go on. Why attach your own ego and emotional well-being to the performance of a political candidate?

Well, for one thing, Trump - or at least one of his goons - are already drafting up a plan for a "Muslim Registry." Just to show some solidarity, there are many non-Muslims - including myself - who plan on registering, in order to render any and all intentions behind that list futile.

I don't know which group is being targeted next but, clearly, there is more at stake here than "my candidate didn't win."

efmbman
11-18-2016, 12:37 AM
Well, for one thing, Trump - or at least one of his goons - are already drafting up a plan for a "Muslim Registry." Just to show some solidarity, there are many non-Muslims - including myself - who plan on registering, in order to render any and all intentions behind that list futile.

I don't know which group is being targeted next but, clearly, there is more at stake here than "my candidate didn't win."

C'mon, Rusty. I may not always agree with you, but I will admit you are one of the most intelligent members here. Do you honestly believe that a Muslim Registry will be a reality?

Rusty Jones
11-18-2016, 05:08 AM
C'mon, Rusty. I may not always agree with you, but I will admit you are one of the most intelligent members here. Do you honestly believe that a Muslim Registry will be a reality?

I don't believe it's Constitutional, but in this country's 240 year history, there are many many laws that have been in place that weren't ruled unconstitutional until after the fact.

Whether or not I believe it will be a reality doesn't matter. Even if it won't be a reality (which I freely acknowledge is the highly likely scenario, by the way) Trump and his advisors want it to be; Congress appears to be willing to support anything he wants to do, and Trump's voters WANT it to be a reality - that's why they voted for him in the first place. Bottom line - Trump won, because he said that he was going to take x action against y people. And the perception is that he's going to carry it out to his utmost ability; whether he legally can or not. That's why "letting it go" isn't as simple as you suggest.

Believe me when I say this: very VERY few people who voted for Hillary Clinton wanted her to be president. I don't know if I said this before; but I probably would have voted for Kasich if that's who she was up against. And I know PLENTY of former Bernie Sanders supporters who have said the same.

If Ted Cruz had become president, or if Marco Rubio had - I guarantee you, people protesting Trump right now would have been able to suck that up until the next election.

Again, like I said, this isn't simply whining over "my candidate didn't win." People are literally afraid for their safety right now.

efmbman
11-18-2016, 11:58 AM
I don't believe it's Constitutional, but in this country's 240 year history, there are many many laws that have been in place that weren't ruled unconstitutional until after the fact.That's how it works. You can't challenge the constitutionality of a proposed law. It must be passed and in effect for a court challenge to be made.



Believe me when I say this: very VERY few people who voted for Hillary Clinton wanted her to be president.I absolutely believe that. I believe the converse as well - very few people that voted for Trump wanted him to be president. This election was nothing but voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate. It will probably be this way for quite some time.

Mjölnir
11-18-2016, 01:06 PM
Believe me when I say this: very VERY few people who voted for Hillary Clinton wanted her to be president. I don't know if I said this before; but I probably would have voted for Kasich if that's who she was up against. And I know PLENTY of former Bernie Sanders supporters who have said the same.

Concur. Plenty of people I know who voted for either candidate were not as much voting for that candidate, but against the other.

I also know many people who voted for a candidate based on the cult of personality around that candidate. I know quite a few who were energetic HRC supporters who didn't know too much about her policies, but knew she would be the first female President. I know many DJT supporters who couldn't talk about his policies too much either.

We are saturated with information, but starving for knowledge.

Bos Mutus
11-18-2016, 02:24 PM
Concur. Plenty of people I know who voted for either candidate were not as much voting for that candidate, but against the other.

I wish more of them would've voted against both.


I also know many people who voted for a candidate based on the cult of personality around that candidate. I know quite a few who were energetic HRC supporters who didn't know too much about her policies, but knew she would be the first female President. I know many DJT supporters who couldn't talk about his policies too much either.

We are saturated with information, but starving for knowledge.

The Misinformation Age.

Mjölnir
11-18-2016, 03:31 PM
I wish more of them would've voted against both.

Yeah, but there was no viable third (or fourth) party candidate.

Gary Johnson could have been a much more viable candidate, when he doesn't know what / where Aleppo Syria is and why it is significant to our foreign policy right now ... that tells me he isn't serious about his own candidacy. Give him a second chance and he can't name one single foreign leader he has respect for -- it wasn't that the answer was "zero" ... he could not recall any names -- he struck me as the kid that showed up for a test but didn't bother to study.

Jill Stein ... far too out there to be viable ...

In a year where the vast majority of the electorate was demanding change, they were offered:

-A highly qualified/experienced, highly unlikable candidate with a lot of 'baggage' who seemed to promote a lot of the same vice change and who could not form a good message on why to vote for her other than to make history and not vote for the other guy.

-A political novice, with a polarizing personality / history who promised to change things and "drain the swamp".

HRC (& her SuperPAC's etc.) outspent DJT at least 2:1, outstaffed him 3 or 4:1 and should of had the political machine in place to get her to 270 electoral votes regardless of the popular vote. They got beat.

Long term, Trump may not be a Lincoln or Reagan, but he may provide benefit to both the GOP and the Democrats, he may "drain the swamp" of political entrenchment within the GOP during his administration. The Democrats are taking a serious self reflection on why they lost the Presidency in a year when they had every advantage, and did not regain the Senate when they had a (albeit outside) shot at it. They never had a chance at flipping the House, but severely underperformed in districts they should have won. Trump may force the Democrats to return to what made them so strong for so long, which was not pandering to the extreme left of the Party.

Mjölnir
11-18-2016, 03:37 PM
I wish more of them would've voted against both.

Yeah, but there was no viable third (or fourth) party candidate.

Gary Johnson could have been a much more viable candidate, when he doesn't know what / where Aleppo Syria is and why it is significant to our foreign policy right now ... that tells me he isn't serious about his own candidacy. Give him a second chance and he can't name one single foreign leader he has respect for -- it wasn't that the answer was "zero" ... he could not recall any names -- he struck me as the kid that showed up for a test but didn't bother to study.

Jill Stein ... far too out there to be viable ...

In a year where the vast majority of the electorate was demanding change, they were offered:

-A highly qualified/experienced, highly unlikable candidate with a lot of 'baggage' who seemed to promote a lot of the same vice change and who could not form a good message on why to vote for her other than to make history and not vote for the other guy.

-A political novice, with a polarizing personality / history who promised to change things and "drain the swamp".

HRC (& her SuperPAC's etc.) outspent DJT at least 2:1, outstaffed him 3 or 4:1 and should of had the political machine in place to get her to 270 electoral votes regardless of the popular vote. They got beat.

Long term, Trump may not be a Lincoln or Reagan, but he may provide benefit to both the GOP and the Democrats, he may "drain the swamp" of political entrenchment within the GOP during his administration. The Democrats are taking a serious self reflection on why they lost the Presidency in a year when they had every advantage, and did not regain the Senate when they had a (albeit outside) shot at it. They never had a chance at flipping the House, but severely underperformed in districts they should have won. Trump may force the Democrats to return to what made them so strong for so long, which was not pandering to the extreme left of the Party.

WILDJOKER5
11-18-2016, 04:00 PM
LOL, no one here buys that "no true Scotsman" bullshit. Not even you.

In a word were you can call yourself anything you want, white person can claim black or indian, male can be female. Whatever you choose, especially to the left, and how the left disavows conservative blacks as "not really black", can you believe that Trump is still a republican? If he walks, and swims and flies like a duck, but claims to be dog, what do you call it?

Rusty Jones
11-18-2016, 04:24 PM
In a word were you can call yourself anything you want, white person can claim black or indian, male can be female. Whatever you choose, especially to the left, and how the left disavows conservative blacks as "not really black", can you believe that Trump is still a republican? If he walks, and swims and flies like a duck, but claims to be dog, what do you call it?

Well, let's see here:

-You're a right-winger. Whenever Rainmaker makes a post defending or supporting Trump, you "like" it.

-If Trump is a "leftist," then why didn't he run as a Democrat? Is it because he knew he couldn't win the nomination. But, he knew he could win the Republican nomination (after all, he DID win it). Hmmm... why is that?

You then go on to call McCain, Romney, and the Bush family RINO's too. The funny thing is, there appears to be no general consensus on who is or isn't a "RINO." That's something that appears to be a the personal discretion of the person using the term.

Bos Mutus
11-18-2016, 06:17 PM
Yeah, but there was no viable third (or fourth) party candidate.

There were no viable first or second party candidates, either.


Gary Johnson could have been a much more viable candidate, when he doesn't know what / where Aleppo Syria is and why it is significant to our foreign policy right now ... that tells me he isn't serious about his own candidacy. Give him a second chance and he can't name one single foreign leader he has respect for -- it wasn't that the answer was "zero" ... he could not recall any names -- he struck me as the kid that showed up for a test but didn't bother to study.

He definitely stepped in it a few times. He's a little kooky, but probably a better choice than the first two, IMO.


Jill Stein ... far too out there to be viable ...

Yeah...


In a year where the vast majority of the electorate was demanding change, they were offered:

-A highly qualified/experienced, highly unlikable candidate with a lot of 'baggage' who seemed to promote a lot of the same vice change and who could not form a good message on why to vote for her other than to make history and not vote for the other guy.

-A political novice, with a polarizing personality / history who promised to change things and "drain the swamp".

HRC (& her SuperPAC's etc.) outspent DJT at least 2:1, outstaffed him 3 or 4:1 and should of had the political machine in place to get her to 270 electoral votes regardless of the popular vote. They got beat.

Long term, Trump may not be a Lincoln or Reagan, but he may provide benefit to both the GOP and the Democrats, he may "drain the swamp" of political entrenchment within the GOP during his administration. The Democrats are taking a serious self reflection on why they lost the Presidency in a year when they had every advantage, and did not regain the Senate when they had a (albeit outside) shot at it. They never had a chance at flipping the House, but severely underperformed in districts they should have won. Trump may force the Democrats to return to what made them so strong for so long, which was not pandering to the extreme left of the Party.

Too late now, but would've been interesting to have someone like Bloomberg, Independent in this. Maybe would have just hurt HIllary even more and I think that's why he didn't. He'd be getting the blame for Trump instead.

Rainmaker
11-19-2016, 03:23 PM
There were no viable first or second party candidates, either.

Actually, the definition of "viable candidate" has changed.

See, " a viable candidate" no longer means: "someone willing to abandon our borders, offshore our industrial base & take all of our wealth and transfer it to a numerically small clique of international-socialists"

....there were plenty of candidates in the primaries willing to continue doing so.......But, They all lost.


He definitely stepped in it a few times. He's a little kooky, but probably a better choice than the first two, IMO.

Johnson was a SJW posing as a libertarian. He was a RINO plant that backfired. Because he was so far out in Left field, that he ended up pulling more votes from Shitlery than Trump.

WILDJOKER5
11-21-2016, 04:26 PM
Well, let's see here:

-You're a right-winger. Whenever Rainmaker makes a post defending or supporting Trump, you "like" it.Nope, not the reason I like his post. Usually my liking his post has to do with something other than what he said about Trump. Either the hypocritical nature of the left, or the straight talk about pc culture.


-If Trump is a "leftist," then why didn't he run as a Democrat? Is it because he knew he couldn't win the nomination. But, he knew he could win the Republican nomination (after all, he DID win it). Hmmm... why is that?Cause the left already picked out Hillary to win. With Bernie getting the popular vote, he still lost.(ironic). He didn't "know" he could win the GOP nom, look how poorly he did in 2012. He said buzzwords that the majority of the right want, but I doubt he will follow through. Also, the reason why he won is because of all this over sensitivity with safe spaces and SJW PC culture, those who are tired of the pussies of the right tiptoeing around issues came to the breaking point.


You then go on to call McCain, Romney, and the Bush family RINO's too. The funny thing is, there appears to be no general consensus on who is or isn't a "RINO." That's something that appears to be a the personal discretion of the person using the term.
All of whom had very far left leaning ideologies. Bush family was even open about how they were voting for HRC. Romney is easily a socialist. And McCain has done nothing to stop the left from doing what ever they wanted in congress for decades.

WILDJOKER5
11-21-2016, 05:42 PM
Well, let's see here:

-You're a right-winger. Whenever Rainmaker makes a post defending or supporting Trump, you "like" it.Nope, not the reason I like his post. Usually my liking his post has to do with something other than what he said about Trump. Either the hypocritical nature of the left, or the straight talk about pc culture.


-If Trump is a "leftist," then why didn't he run as a Democrat? Is it because he knew he couldn't win the nomination. But, he knew he could win the Republican nomination (after all, he DID win it). Hmmm... why is that?Cause the left already picked out Hillary to win. With Bernie getting the popular vote, he still lost.(ironic). He didn't "know" he could win the GOP nom, look how poorly he did in 2012. He said buzzwords that the majority of the right want, but I doubt he will follow through. Also, the reason why he won is because of all this over sensitivity with safe spaces and SJW PC culture, those who are tired of the pussies of the right tiptoeing around issues came to the breaking point.


You then go on to call McCain, Romney, and the Bush family RINO's too. The funny thing is, there appears to be no general consensus on who is or isn't a "RINO." That's something that appears to be a the personal discretion of the person using the term.
All of whom had very far left leaning ideologies. Bush family was even open about how they were voting for HRC. Romney is easily a socialist. And McCain has done nothing to stop the left from doing what ever they wanted in congress for decades.

Rusty Jones
11-21-2016, 06:51 PM
Nope, not the reason I like his post. Usually my liking his post has to do with something other than what he said about Trump. Either the hypocritical nature of the left, or the straight talk about pc culture.

Bullshit. You've defended Trump yourself numerous times. You're not fooling anyone; not even yourself.


Cause the left already picked out Hillary to win. With Bernie getting the popular vote, he still lost.(ironic). He didn't "know" he could win the GOP nom, look how poorly he did in 2012. He said buzzwords that the majority of the right want, but I doubt he will follow through. Also, the reason why he won is because of all this over sensitivity with safe spaces and SJW PC culture, those who are tired of the pussies of the right tiptoeing around issues came to the breaking point.

Dude, you don't really believe this bullshit. This is a lame attempt to win an argument.

Trump didn't run as a Democrat, because he couldn't win as a Democrat, and you know it. Those who vote Democrat are the ones who hate Trump the most. Hell, look at the numbers of registered Democrats who voted for Trump compared to the numbers of registered Republicans who did.

He followed the GOP's Southern Strategy playbook, line by line. He even pushed its boundries.


All of whom had very far left leaning ideologies. Bush family was even open about how they were voting for HRC. Romney is easily a socialist. And McCain has done nothing to stop the left from doing what ever they wanted in congress for decades.

In other words, these candidates weren't alt-right. Got it.

WILDJOKER5
11-21-2016, 08:29 PM
Bullshit. You've defended Trump yourself numerous times. You're not fooling anyone; not even yourself.Nope, never have. I have always claimed he was a liberal, and always have been against him and didn't vote for him. What I have done is call you and many like you out on the hypocrisy of wanting to see his tax returns but dismissing HRC classified emails.


Dude, you don't really believe this bullshit. This is a lame attempt to win an argument.So you are denouncing the DNC emails that said they rigged the primaries for HRC? You deny the DNC saying they have super delegates incase the people make the wrong choice?


Trump didn't run as a Democrat, because he couldn't win as a Democrat, and you know it. Those who vote Democrat are the ones who hate Trump the most. Hell, look at the numbers of registered Democrats who voted for Trump compared to the numbers of registered Republicans who did.He couldn't win as a democrat why? He said the exact same thing as Bill on immigration. He has been praised many times over by the NAACP. He is as crass towards women as Bill. If he was a democrat, his transgressions would have been over looked just as you over look HRC. The left wing media straight up went on and on about Trumps comment about grabbing pussy, but ignored all the stuff about HRC emails, the same emails that the left is calling for Obama to pardon her on any wrong doing.


He followed the GOP's Southern Strategy playbook, line by line. He even pushed its boundries.He won the north, got many Women votes, and more black votes than Romney. Real southern huh?

Rusty Jones
11-21-2016, 09:52 PM
Nope, never have. I have always claimed he was a liberal, and always have been against him and didn't vote for him.

Yes, you have. You've defended Trump whenever his racism was called out.

But, surely, let someone accuse Hillary Clinton of racism, and there'll be "thanks" and "likes" all over that post from you. That shows the difference between how you view the left and the right.


What I have done is call you and many like you out on the hypocrisy of wanting to see his tax returns but dismissing HRC classified emails.

You never called ME out on that. Frankly, I don't think either of those would have change anyone's minds.


So you are denouncing the DNC emails that said they rigged the primaries for HRC? You deny the DNC saying they have super delegates incase the people make the wrong choice?

The RNC selected Jeb Bush as its golden child. No matter which party he selected, he would have been going against a "chosen one."

That brings us back to square one. Trump chose the party where he felt he would find greater success, going by who he felt he'd appeal to the most. You can't talk about "Muslim registries," cutting Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid; and expect Democrats to vote for you. You know who you CAN get to vote for you by saying all of that? Republicans.


He couldn't win as a democrat why? He said the exact same thing as Bill on immigration.

Yeah, and the south wasn't completely red back then as it is now. Clinton actually won a few southern states, and still had to play to them.


He has been praised many times over by the NAACP.

Oh, you mean that medal he supposedly won from the NAACP? That's been debunked.


He is as crass towards women as Bill.

Nah, I'd actually compare Slick Willy to movie characters played by Michael Douglas.

But that aside, both 1992 and 1996 were well before the age of social media - hell, before the age of "everyone" having the internet in general. The Monica Lewinski thing popped off after Clinton's reelection.

Bottom line - Bill Clinton won both terms before the general public was aware of anything.


If he was a democrat, his transgressions would have been over looked just as you over look HRC.

You mean, "build that wall," "Muslim registries," and all that shit? Nah, that's Republican shit.


The left wing media straight up went on and on about Trumps comment about grabbing pussy, but ignored all the stuff about HRC emails, the same emails that the left is calling for Obama to pardon her on any wrong doing.

Have you heard of all of the incidents lately of men groping pussies? About Muslim women having hijabs ripped off of their heads, or high school kids chanting "build that wall" at home football and basketball games where the visiting teams are from majority Latino high schools?

THIS is why people give less fucks about emails than the shit Donald Trump has been saying.


He won the north, got many Women votes, and more black votes than Romney. Real southern huh?

It doesn't matter what he won. It matters what his strategy was. How many states down south went blue as to opposed to up north, again?

WILDJOKER5
11-22-2016, 01:12 PM
Yes, you have. You've defended Trump whenever his racism was called out.Ah, you mistake defending the sentiment of building a wall vs defending Trump.


But, surely, let someone accuse Hillary Clinton of racism, and there'll be "thanks" and "likes" all over that post from you. That shows the difference between how you view the left and the right.Generic and vague paraphrasing to weasel your point in huh? There is much more to any claim of HRC being racist or just pandering to blacks while calling them super predators or Mexicans "taco bowls" that I would like. Yet building a wall to protect the citizens is the racists thing to do right?


The RNC selected Jeb Bush as its golden child. No matter which party he selected, he would have been going against a "chosen one."And he beat both of them. The only difference is, the RNC didn't have super delegates to subvert the will of the people.


That brings us back to square one. Trump chose the party where he felt he would find greater success, going by who he felt he'd appeal to the most. You can't talk about "Muslim registries," cutting Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid; and expect Democrats to vote for you. You know who you CAN get to vote for you by saying all of that? Republicans.He could have gone to the democrats and said how he'd give everyone a brand new car, house, "free" college etc but could never win cause the DNC uses super delegates to bypass their electorate. He could say what ever he wanted since he doesn't have a voting past just like Obama in 2008.


Yeah, and the south wasn't completely red back then as it is now. Clinton actually won a few southern states, and still had to play to them.What does this have to do with building a wall and being applauded by democrats? Its like the anti war left, they've been hibernating these past 8 years as Obama has bombed and killed many women and children, oh but dear gawd if Trump says that some families MIGHT get hurt if he goes after ISIS.


Oh, you mean that medal he supposedly won from the NAACP? That's been debunked.Did I say medal or did I say praise?


Nah, I'd actually compare Slick Willy to movie characters played by Michael Douglas.

But that aside, both 1992 and 1996 were well before the age of social media - hell, before the age of "everyone" having the internet in general. The Monica Lewinski thing popped off after Clinton's reelection.

Bottom line - Bill Clinton won both terms before the general public was aware of anything.
But his wife, HRC, silenced the many other women who accused him of flat out rape, but that's ignored and claims to be a champion of women.


You mean, "build that wall," "Muslim registries," and all that shit? Nah, that's Republican shit. No, that is pandering. The "grab them by the pussy" or someone in his company evicting Obama's half brother would have been inconsequential as much as HRC making trips to orgy island.



Have you heard of all of the incidents lately of men groping pussies? About Muslim women having hijabs ripped off of their heads, or high school kids chanting "build that wall" at home football and basketball games where the visiting teams are from majority Latino high schools?
THIS is why people give less fucks about emails than the shit Donald Trump has been saying.?
Men grabbing pussy? Nope. But is this really a new thing? Did this really just start in the last 2 months? This is like the dog wagging his tail story. Happens throughout history.
The Muslim woman and the hijab was proven to be another liberal fake hate story. Know whats not fake hate? Supposed Trump voters being beaten out of their cars, homes and businesses being vandalized or burnt down because a bunch of babies didn't get their way.
Those student who are chanting that, you know full well will vote mostly democrat till they are 30 yo.


It doesn't matter what he won. It matters what his strategy was. How many states down south went blue as to opposed to up north, again?
Yes, it does matter. Southern states don't need to be convinced to vote republican. That "southern strat" is BS in this day and age. No southern state will vote democrat because of what they stand for. Dems want to pull the 2nd amendment out. They put down the south as stupid, racist, backwards thinking. It take republicans zero effort to control the south, and that "strat" you cling to has zero bearing. There was lower turnout in the south among whites, but as long as the dems accuse the south of being what dems are, they will always vote GOP. The north and women and blacks however, how do you suppose they switched sides if Trump's female campaign manager was imploring a "southern (racist and misogynist) strat"?

Rusty Jones
11-22-2016, 04:27 PM
Ah, you mistake defending the sentiment of building a wall vs defending Trump.

I regret to inform you that those straws you're grasping at are out of your reach.

"Build that wall" is what Trump campaigned on. You can't separate the two. Nice try, but that was a fail.


Generic and vague paraphrasing to weasel your point in huh? There is much more to any claim of HRC being racist or just pandering to blacks while calling them super predators or Mexicans "taco bowls" that I would like. Yet building a wall to protect the citizens is the racists thing to do right?

And... you just proved my point. You're over hear calling Trump a leftist, but will defend him from any accusation of being racist. But you'll join in on any accusation against Hillary.

If they're both "leftists," then should you be defending them both? Or joining in on accusations against both?

But you don't. Why? Because Trump, unlike Clinton, is a right wing conservative and you know it. You even see it. That's why you treat Trump differently.


And he beat both of them. The only difference is, the RNC didn't have super delegates to subvert the will of the people.

In the end, Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders in pledged delegates exceeded the total number of superdelegates. So if, despite that, the DNC still rigged the primaries, then it had to have been through the pledged delegates.

That brings us back to square one, yet again. Trump picked the party that he believed he would be successful in; i.e., the GOP, not the Democratic Party.


He could have gone to the democrats and said how he'd give everyone a brand new car, house, "free" college etc but could never win cause the DNC uses super delegates to bypass their electorate. He could say what ever he wanted since he doesn't have a voting past just like Obama in 2008.

In the 35 year history of superdelegates, not once have the superdelegates ever decided the Democratic nominee. EVER.

You're gonna have to come back with something else.


What does this have to do with building a wall and being applauded by democrats?

Nothing, because that's not what it's in response to. It was in response to you quoting Bill Clinton on illegal immigration during his campaign. And, like I said, Democrats were still able to win some portions of the south back that. The Southern Strategy started in 1964, but t would take well over 30 years for the GOP to have complete control of the south.


Its like the anti war left, they've been hibernating these past 8 years as Obama has bombed and killed many women and children, oh but dear gawd if Trump says that some families MIGHT get hurt if he goes after ISIS.

I equate it to spanking your children.

The sensible parent doesn't want to do it, but there are times when it needs to be done.

But, you know... you've got those abusive parents out there that are eager to physically harm their children. So when Trump is all eager to go to war and shit, people who have full knowledge of what Obama is doing are going to have something to say about Trump.

Sounds logical to me.


Did I say medal or did I say praise?

Semantics. If you're talking about something other then the medal, let's see some links.


But his wife, HRC, silenced the many other women who accused him of flat out rape, but that's ignored and claims to be a champion of women.

Donald Trump, HIMSELF, actually COMMITTED rape. Against a MINOR. But I don't see you talking about THAT. Why? Because you only attack leftists, and you don't see Trump as one. And you know it.


No, that is pandering.

In other words, part of the Southern Strategy. Got it. Only it's not merely "pandering." Even after the election, Trump's team is already moving forward with the Muslim Registry.


The "grab them by the pussy" or someone in his company evicting Obama's half brother would have been inconsequential as much as HRC making trips to orgy island.

Right wing conspiracy theory. Next.


Men grabbing pussy? Nope.

Well, you heard of it now.


But is this really a new thing? Did this really just start in the last 2 months? This is like the dog wagging his tail story. Happens throughout history.

You know what makes it new? Increased numbers of it happening, and quoting Trump while doing it.


The Muslim woman and the hijab was proven to be another liberal fake hate story.

Maybe one was. But there are dozens more that aren't fake.


Know whats not fake hate? Supposed Trump voters being beaten out of their cars, homes and businesses being vandalized or burnt down because a bunch of babies didn't get their way.
Those student who are chanting that, you know full well will vote mostly democrat till they are 30 yo.

Babies that didn't get their way? It takes being a minority to understand that there was more to this election than simply "getting one's way."

In any case, the numbers of those incidents pale in comparison to those that minorities spoken out against in Trump's campaign are now facing since the election.


Yes, it does matter. Southern states don't need to be convinced to vote republican. That "southern strat" is BS in this day and age. No southern state will vote democrat because of what they stand for. Dems want to pull the 2nd amendment out. They put down the south as stupid, racist, backwards thinking. It take republicans zero effort to control the south, and that "strat" you cling to has zero bearing. There was lower turnout in the south among whites, but as long as the dems accuse the south of being what dems are, they will always vote GOP. The north and women and blacks however, how do you suppose they switched sides if Trump's female campaign manager was imploring a "southern (racist and misogynist) strat"?

Ooooh, look! A Southern Strategy denier! It's already been captured in peer reviewed academic literature, so dismissing it amounts to nothing more than covering your ears and repeatedly shouting "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

Bos Mutus
11-22-2016, 06:55 PM
"Build that wall" is what Trump campaigned on. You can't separate the two. Nice try, but that was a fail.

So, you can't be in favor of building a wall, but still hate Trump?

He also campaigned on jobs...does that mean if you want more jobs you also love Trump?

C'mon, man.

WILDJOKER5
11-22-2016, 07:28 PM
I regret to inform you that those straws you're grasping at are out of your reach.

"Build that wall" is what Trump campaigned on. You can't separate the two. Nice try, but that was a fail.
Sigh, that's what he campaigned on, but that's not what he will do. Bush and Clinton passed laws for a wall, still not built. Can Trump do it? Maybe, but I don't believe he will. Either way, still not racist since there is nothing racist about protecting ones own country and citizens, that includes legal immigrants.


And... you just proved my point. You're over hear calling Trump a leftist, but will defend him from any accusation of being racist. But you'll join in on any accusation against Hillary.Again, "building a wall" is not racist. Calling a race of people "super predators" is. More than just Mexicans cross the southern boarder illegally. If we were having a problem of drug cartels from Canada, I bet there would be a youge call for a wall there too.


If they're both "leftists," then should you be defending them both? Or joining in on accusations against both?BTW, were communists in Germany left or right after WWII? Walls are particular to which ideology again?

Also, BIG DIFFERENCE in calling for a wall and calling a certain race of people something.


But you don't. Why? Because Trump, unlike Clinton, is a right wing conservative and you know it. You even see it. That's why you treat Trump differently.I didn't vote for either, so how did I treat him differently? I call out those who think everything a so called republican does as "racist" while leaving the glaring racist left out of the conversation.


In the end, Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders in pledged delegates exceeded the total number of superdelegates. So if, despite that, the DNC still rigged the primaries, then it had to have been through the pledged delegates.And? When people see that their "vote wont count" if they don't vote for the winner or "viable option" which was already decided to be HRC, they tend to be persuaded to vote a certain way. Why wont people vote for a third party? Cause they are told their votes are thrown away.


That brings us back to square one, yet again. Trump picked the party that he believed he would be successful in; i.e., the GOP, not the Democratic Party.Ron Paul was scoring big in the beginning last election primaries, but he was ignored by the media and got no traction later on. Trump had so much free advertising on the media that his buzz words took hold.


In the 35 year history of superdelegates, not once have the superdelegates ever decided the Democratic nominee. EVER.

You're gonna have to come back with something else.That's speculative. The DNC even said they are there incase the populace makes "the wrong choice".


Nothing, because that's not what it's in response to. It was in response to you quoting Bill Clinton on illegal immigration during his campaign. And, like I said, Democrats were still able to win some portions of the south back that. The Southern Strategy started in 1964, but t would take well over 30 years for the GOP to have complete control of the south.Wanna do your math again? Bill won some south states in 96. Bush 1 had the entire south in 88. Reagan had all but MN and DC in 84. Jimmy only had his home state in 80. That "southern strat" sucks apparently. And keep saying the south is racist, you are proving my point of why the GOP never needs to worry about the way the south votes. You are so narrow minded to think that the GOP needs to focus on the south when apparently to you, all they are are racist hicks who will vote for republicans forever. Guess its so racist, that's why blacks and Hispanics are thriving there right? But the utopian urban areas of "enlightenment" in liberal cities, blacks are getting poorer.


I equate it to spanking your children.

The sensible parent doesn't want to do it, but there are times when it needs to be done.

But, you know... you've got those abusive parents out there that are eager to physically harm their children. So when Trump is all eager to go to war and shit, people who have full knowledge of what Obama is doing are going to have something to say about Trump.

Sounds logical to me.Sounds like you are just giving Obama a pass for being black. He has kept up the exact same policies as Bush, but bombed even more countries, making 2 more unstable like Libya and Syria, sold weapons to ISIS, and pushed Russia back into a corner where they felt that if we elected HRC, world war III would break out with nukes. Putin said that btw.



Semantics. If you're talking about something other then the medal, let's see some links.
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/739869-jesse-jackson-once-praised-racist-trump-for-great-work-hes-done-for-small-business-in-black-community/


Donald Trump, HIMSELF, actually COMMITTED rape. Against a MINOR. But I don't see you talking about THAT. Why? Because you only attack leftists, and you don't see Trump as one. And you know it.No, he didn't. Not a single trial has taken place. It was just an accusation. Bill and HRC BOTH visited orgy island, several times, where underage sex slaves were located with their pedophile friend.


In other words, part of the Southern Strategy. Got it. Only it's not merely "pandering." Even after the election, Trump's team is already moving forward with the Muslim Registry.
And? IS he rounding them up? How do you suppose we get a background check on "refugees" without a registry?


Right wing conspiracy theory. Next.Wikileaks is right wing now? Is this part of the ideology "switch" that happened part of the southern strat?


Well, you heard of it now.
You know what makes it new? Increased numbers of it happening, and quoting Trump while doing it.
Links.


Maybe one was. But there are dozens more that aren't fake.Links


Babies that didn't get their way? It takes being a minority to understand that there was more to this election than simply "getting one's way."People who voted for Romney were a minority. Men are a minority. If you come back with "institutional minority", women are a minority. People who vote for Johnson are a minority. Any of them rioting? Nope, just leftist babies.


In any case, the numbers of those incidents pale in comparison to those that minorities spoken out against in Trump's campaign are now facing since the election.Like who? He never spoke out against blacks, other than to say the left has done nothing for them and he was going to get them back to work. Illegals? 12-30 million of them, but then again only like 1% of people are murders, that's a minority of the population that still gets locked up for committing a crime. Muslims? Only coming from areas known to have had sleeper terrorist who want to cause harm like in France.


Ooooh, look! A Southern Strategy denier! It's already been captured in peer reviewed academic literature, so dismissing it amounts to nothing more than covering your ears and repeatedly shouting "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"
Did I deny that it was in play at one point in time? I said today, there is no need for it. Glad you balked at the points I highlighted. Guess Trump got more black votes cause of Don King. Got the blue collar workers of OH and PA because he is all about the rich and spouting off about how they could be rich too right? Just admit that Trump won because the US didn't like HRC. She wanted to kill the 2A, she wanted to kill the jobs in the coal mines. She lies, and calls people who disagreed with her names. Obama stepped out and said he would be personally insulted if Trump won cause everything he'd done would be erased. Admit it, most people who voted didn't want more of Obama/Bush legacy of a down ward spiral of America. They didn't want HRC shipping more jobs overseas like Bill. They are tired of the BLM sympathizers in office who do and say nothing when they kill cops and flame the fire when a cop does his legal job.

WILDJOKER5
11-22-2016, 07:30 PM
So, you can't be in favor of building a wall, but still hate Trump?

He also campaigned on jobs...does that mean if you want more jobs you also love Trump?

C'mon, man.Well, when Trump was pleading for the black vote by saying he could get them jobs, and then blacks vote against him, that does kind of show where his thinking is at.

WILDJOKER5
11-22-2016, 07:32 PM
So, you can't be in favor of building a wall, but still hate Trump?

He also campaigned on jobs...does that mean if you want more jobs you also love Trump?

C'mon, man.Well, when Trump was pleading for the black vote by saying he could get them jobs, and then blacks vote against him, that does kind of show where his thinking is at.

Mjölnir
11-22-2016, 08:42 PM
So, you can't be in favor of building a wall, but still hate Trump?

He also campaigned on jobs...does that mean if you want more jobs you also love Trump?

C'mon, man.

You are hitting on what is my biggest frustration of the 2016 post-election narratiive:

-Voted for DJT does not equal a racist, but I am sure that some of his votes were from racists.
-Voted for HRC does not equal a radical feminist, but I am sure some of her votes were from radical feminists.

I have heard too often that racism, misogyny or sexism prevailed in the election, along with too much radical progressivism and political correctness was defeated. I don't necessarily like Trump ... I do like some of his policy points, others I don't. I liked some of Clinton's, others I did not. Fact is he will be the next President and I am encouraged to see him meeting with people like Rep. Gabbard (a Democrat) and Mitt Romney (who vilified him in the primaries); I am equally encouraged to hear the next Senate Minority Leader offering to work with him on key issues.

Something to ponder as we go ahead, Trump will get the cabinet he wants; in 2013 when Democrats controlled the Senate they changed a procedural rule and now Senate confirmation of Presidential appointees (except Supreme Court Justices) only require a simple majority vice 60 votes to achieve cloture ... Right now the Republicans will control 51 seats ... Possibly 52 after the Louisiana runoff in December. Short of pushing through a Supreme Court nomination, Republicans have two years to do almost anything they can unify behind. The Patient Protection and Affoardable Health Care Act is likely to be largely dismantled using budgetary procedures which only require a simple majority in the Senate as well.

The bully pulpit eight years ago from the first two years of the Obama Administration is now shifted 180 degrees ... It will be interesting to see what Republicans do.

Mjölnir
11-22-2016, 09:01 PM
Nah, I'd actually compare Slick Willy to movie characters played by Michael Douglas.

But that aside, both 1992 and 1996 were well before the age of social media - hell, before the age of "everyone" having the internet in general. The Monica Lewinski thing popped off after Clinton's reelection.

Bottom line - Bill Clinton won both terms before the general public was aware of anything.

I don't disagree with most of your post. On the point about WJC specifically, you are right ... He was elected before the Internet and social media. Really took off; few people knew about what he had repeatedly been accused of doing. What severely hurt HRC with a demographic she expected to dominate (white, college educated women) was the HRC knew and actively sought to vilify these women. It is hard to appeal to a swing voter who is an educated female that you are a champion for women when you have sought to dismantle accusations of sexual assault by your husband ... It hurt her in a demographic that could have put her in the White House.

Don't get me wrong.... DJT has said a lot of stupid things about women, veterans, immigrants etc. the women who in the last weeks of the election were accusing him of assault have pretty much vanished ... In contrast to some of the WJC accuser who have told their stories for years. DJT is no saint, but HRC's inability to own her actions in covering for her husband (on whose coattails she rose to power) definitely hurt her.

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 04:48 AM
So, you can't be in favor of building a wall, but still hate Trump?

Very disingenuous.

Do you remember anyone shouting "build that wall" at Latinos back in 2014? No? Me neither. Glad we agree that question is BS.


He also campaigned on jobs...does that mean if you want more jobs you also love Trump?

C'mon, man.

Again, very disingenuous. I'm 36 years old and, my whole life as far back as I can remember, EVERY candidate running for executive or legislative office at the federal, state, and local level has campaigned on jobs. Every. Last. One.

So clearly, "jobs" didn't make Trump stand out. Other things did. And you know this.

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 08:16 AM
Sigh, that's what he campaigned on, but that's not what he will do. Bush and Clinton passed laws for a wall, still not built. Can Trump do it? Maybe, but I don't believe he will. Either way, still not racist since there is nothing racist about protecting ones own country and citizens, that includes legal immigrants.

Doesn't matter if he will do it or not. He campaigned on it, and that's what attracted the people who voted for him - that's the point I'm making. The kind of people that should "build that wall" at Latinos.

And, yes, it's racist. Under the guise of protecting one's country and citizens? Shows what you think of Mexicans. (i.e., that they pose a threat of some sort).

Again, "building a wall" is not racist.

Yes it is, and I explained why.


Calling a race of people "super predators" is.

It is, but you know something? The big difference between Clinton and Trump? Clinton retracts her gaffes. Trump doubles down on his. I've said this before; I was a Bernie Sanders supporter... but he wasn't an option two weeks ago.

But, again; the fact remains... you treat Trump and Clinton differently; and you've made no attempt to disprove it.


More than just Mexicans cross the southern boarder illegally. If we were having a problem of drug cartels from Canada, I bet there would be a youge call for a wall there too.

Oh, but there is! Drugs not approved by the FDA but are legal in Canada cross the border all the time. Good thing for you, you didn't place an actual bet.

Remember Rick Santorum talking all that shit about illegal immigrants? Dog whistle politics. Because it was later revealed that he was financially supporting illegal immigrants from Germany. They're "different." Because they're white. Kind of like Melania, when she was here illegally.

If they're both "leftists," then shouldn’t you be defending them both? Or joining in on accusations against both?


BTW, were communists in Germany left or right after WWII? Walls are particular to which ideology again?

False analogy. The Berlin Wall that was built by East Germany was not to keep West Germans out. It was built to keep East Germans IN.

Got an example of leftists building a wall to keep people out? No?

Moving on...


Also, BIG DIFFERENCE in calling for a wall and calling a certain race of people something.

There sure is a BIG DIFFERENCE. One is calling a group of people a name. The other is actually making POLICY against a group of people. Glad we agree.


I didn't vote for either, so how did I treat him differently?

You talk about them differently.


I call out those who think everything a so called republican does as "racist" while leaving the glaring racist left out of the conversation.

But, according to you, Trump isn't a "real" Republican. He's a "leftist." A "RHINO." Remember?

And, so I say again, Trump, unlike Clinton, is a right wing conservative and you know it. You even see it. That's why you treat Trump differently.


And?

And if the DNC could have rigged trough pledged delegates, then so could have the RNC. That puts us at square one. Since there was a chosen one on both sides, Trump made a choice based on who he thought would vote for him.
BTW, you need to give up on trying to convince anyone that Trump is a leftist. Furthermore, you need to give up on trying to convince anyone that you yourself actually believe it. Just stop. You’ve already failed a long time ago.


When people see that their "vote wont count" if they don't vote for the winner or "viable option" which was already decided to be HRC, they tend to be persuaded to vote a certain way. Why wont people vote for a third party? Cause they are told their votes are thrown away.

Not relevant to anything I've said.


Ron Paul was scoring big in the beginning last election primaries, but he was ignored by the media and got no traction later on. Trump had so much free advertising on the media that his buzz words took hold.

This doesn't refute the quote that you were responding to.


You're gonna have to come back with something else. That's speculative. The DNC even said they are there incase the populace makes "the wrong choice".

I don't have to come back with shit. Look at all of the Democratic primaries since the superdelegates were introduced. In all of the Democratic primaries, the nominee won the nomination by a margin in pledged delegates that exceeded the number of possible superdelegates. In other words, even if the losing candidate got every single superdelegate, every winner of the Democratic nomination since superdelegates were introduced would have still won. With that being said, the superdelegates have never decided the Democratic nominee.


Wanna do your math again?

Why, to prove myself right?


Bill won some south states in 96.

I said this.


Bush 1 had the entire south in 88.

WRONG. He had EVERY state south of the Mason-Dixon line. The only state that's culturally southern that he didn't win was West Virginia. Can't tell if you're lying or talking out of your ass on that one but, in either case, you need to stop.


Reagan had all but MN and DC in 84.

True, but as he still won the south, this still supports the Southern Strategy.


Jimmy only had his home state in 80.

GASP! You mean Reagan won every state in the south except for one? That Southern Strategy works like a charm, doesn’t it?


That "southern strat" sucks apparently.

Well… you, yourself, have just proven that it most certainly does not.


And keep saying the south is racist,

I do? Please quote me. But will say this: Republican politicians think this way about southerners. That's how they were able to design the Southern Strategy in the first place.


you are proving my point of why the GOP never needs to worry about the way the south votes. You are so narrow minded to think that the GOP needs to focus on the south when apparently to you, all they are are racist hicks who will vote for republicans forever.

You said all that, not me.


Guess its so racist, that's why blacks and Hispanics are thriving there right? But the utopian urban areas of "enlightenment" in liberal cities, blacks are getting poorer.

Thriving where? How are whites doing in these states? Funny, it's the southern states that get all the welfare and other public assistance.


Sounds like you are just giving Obama a pass for being black.

LOL, I though you conservatives don't "play the race card?"

Again, there's a difference between using force when deemed necessary, and being eager to use it just because. That race thing just came out of nowhere.


He has kept up the exact same policies as Bush, but bombed even more countries, making 2 more unstable like Libya and Syria, sold weapons to ISIS, and pushed Russia back into a corner where they felt that if we elected HRC, world war III would break out with nukes. Putin said that btw.

Sold weapons to ISIS? You mean the organizatin that Bush created and armed? LOL, do you really want to go there?

And fuck Putin. Conservatives claim that Obama got handled by Putin (when, by their own standards, so did Bush) - but look at Trump. He is kissing Putin’s ass.


http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/7398...ack-community/
Umm, nope. You said NAACP. Not Jesse Jackson. I’ll go out on limb and say that most Americans – including black Americans – have never heard of the Rainbow Coalition, let alone know what it is. In any case, most blacks have written him off the same way they’ve written off Don King.


No, he didn't.
Yes he did. And it was against a minor.

Not a single trial has taken place.
Yeah, because she dropped it in response to death threats.
But, hey - I’ve run red lights many times, and I’ve never gotten tickets for it. Guess that means I’ve never run red lights before, huh?

It was just an accusation.
That Trump strong-armed his way out of.

Bill and HRC BOTH visited orgy island, several times, where underage sex slaves were located with their pedophile friend.
LOL, you need to stay off of Conservative Tribune, News Max and all those other bullshit sites that have you bamboozled with conspiracy theories.


Wikileaks is right wing now?
Nope, but all the sites that claim it was on Wikileaks are.

Is this part of the ideology "switch" that happened part of the southern strat?
LOL, quotation marks. Still in denial.


Links.
http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=increased+hate+crime+since+trump


Links
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/muslim-girls-hijab-ripped-off-in-front-of-students-in-us/1/811983.html

People who voted for Romney were a minority. Men are a minority.
Jesus fucking Christ, man…


If you come back with "institutional minority", women are a minority. People who vote for Johnson are a minority.
Your disingenuity in attempt to avoid discussing this isn’t going to work. The fact is, you’re a heterosexual white male. Possibly Christian, but certainly not Muslim. Here’s a cool meme to illustrate your position:
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/15123357_1226128144100434_1278528576110940093_o.jp g?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 08:19 AM
Any of them rioting? Nope, just leftist babies.
Who’s rioting?
I think that the message is going to be clear: this shit conservatives are pulling by harassing minorities because Trump is going to get them hurt or killed.
You want to talk about rioting like babies over something stupid? Look at the pictures of people rioting because their local college football team lost.


Like who? He never spoke out against blacks, other than to say the left has done nothing for them and he was going to get them back to work.

Oh, and saying “the blacks.” Leading the Birther Movement. Claiming that blacks are lazy on two different occasions. Campaigning against the Central Park Five. Let’s not forget housing discrimination dating back 40 years.
Even if those things never happened… it’s not as if black people have the luxury of listening to a white man speak ill of non-black minorities, and being able to think that black people are in the clear. Black people know better than that.


Illegals? 12-30 million of them, but then again only like 1% of people are murders, that's a minority of the population that still gets locked up for committing a crime.
You need to go educate Trump on that.

Muslims? Only coming from areas known to have had sleeper terrorist who want to cause harm like in France.
Nope. He didn’t specify. In fact, his moratorium on immigration applies to ALL Muslims.


Did I deny that it was in play at one point in time?
You put “switch” in quotation marks. Looks like a denial to me.

I said today, there is no need for it.
Right. Explains why Trump came out at the top and Kasich came out at damn near the bottom, despite campaigning for far longer than GOP candidates with way more delegates than he had. The less racist a Republican was, the less delegates he got.
Looks like a “need” to me.

Glad you balked at the points I highlighted. Guess Trump got more black votes cause of Don King. Got the blue collar workers of OH and PA because he is all about the rich and spouting off about how they could be rich too right?
More like the story we all know of poor whites voting against their own economic best interests by appealing to racism against minorities. Making poor whites feel like they’re in some elite club because of the color of their skin, when they’re really not.

Just admit that Trump won because the US didn't like HRC.
The popular vote says the US disliked Trump more.

She wanted to kill the 2A,

LOL, “Thar comin’ to take yer gunnnnsssss!”


she wanted to kill the jobs in the coal mines.
Link.

She lies, and calls people who disagreed with her names.
Funny, because Trump is the one getting his ass kicked all over the place by PolitiFact.
Calling names? You mean names like nasty woman? Lyin’ Ted? Little Marco? Low-Energy Jeb? Crazy Bernie? Crooked Clinton? Lightweight? Loser? Moron? Dummy? Overrated? Thug?
Err, no, wait… Trump called all those names. Nevermind.

Obama stepped out and said he would be personally insulted if Trump won cause everything he'd done would be erased. Admit it, most people who voted didn't want more of Obama/Bush legacy of a down ward spiral of America. They didn't want HRC shipping more jobs overseas like Bill.
He specifically was referring to the people who voted for him that were in the “Bernie or Bust” crowd. Right wingers took that out of context in order to make a “cool” comeback.

They are tired of the BLM sympathizers in office who do and say nothing when they kill cops and flame the fire when a cop does his legal job.
LOL, when they kill cops? Every cop killed over the last month or so was killed by white men; some of whom were even in hate groups. In fact, the majority of cops in general are killed by white men. Sorry, what you said here is invalid.

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 08:21 AM
-Voted for DJT does not equal a racist

That's debatable. But you know what's not? That, at the minimum, racism in a political candidate wasn't a deal breaker for those that voted for him.

Mjölnir
11-23-2016, 09:26 AM
That's debatable. But you know what's not? That, at the minimum, racism in a political candidate wasn't a deal breaker for those that voted for him.

I don't think that is debatable.

IRT racism in a candidate, let's be fair, racism by HRC wasn't a deal breaker for those that voted for her either. I know you were not a fan of HRC, but I think you are focusing on an issue with DJT that you had or were otherwise willing to overlook by the democratic candidate.

-Trump stoked the fires of the birther movement (which I am not convinced was a racists issue but ...), however the birther movement was started by HRC's campaign in 2007.

-HRC referred to WJC's campaign manager as a "f*cking Jew bastard".

-HRC made jokes about Indians including Gandhi owning gas stations.

-HRC referred to "Colored people's time", referencing that blacks are always running late.

-HRC referred to (some) black men as "super-predators" - regarding the disproportionate percentage of crimes committed by black males compared to their overall share of the population.

-Then you could have a long debate on whether her policies and proposals were really helpful to the minority community.

IRT race/racism and Trump. He has said a lot of stupid things, he also showed evidence of discrimination for decades ... at the same time he has hired and put minorities in various positions to include executive positions within his organization.

I won't say he isn't racist, but am inclined to think he's less racist than ambivalent about race if you are a hard worker. I get the impression he's a businessman with little time to spend on ensuring he has a diverse staff or executive boardroom, top performers rise to the top regardless of gender or race.

-I know you preferred Sanders, but I never saw him as strong on race, particularly when Sanders insinuated that all blacks live in ghettos?

-Not really racism, but following the Democrat Primaries in Nevada Sanders supporters sent death threats to a female Democratic Party official because they were outraged at what occurred at the Nevada state convention, I was not overly surprised. but when Bernie Sanders declined to denounce such behavior vigorously, I was very surprised, this does not to me embody someone I would consider tolerant or ... but ... progressive isn't necessarily tolerant. Just as Donald Trump’s supporters would not demonstrate thuggish behavior, such as assaulting protesters, without getting signals from their leader that it’s acceptable, the same is could be considered true of Sanders’s supporters.

After decades of the DNC practicing racially or gender polarizing politics, I don't think anyone should be surprised that it is now prominent with portions of the GOP as well; but I would argue not to only think that the candidate or politician you don't like is the only one doing it.

WILDJOKER5
11-23-2016, 11:46 AM
Very disingenuous.

Do you remember anyone shouting "build that wall" at Latinos back in 2014? No? Me neither. Glad we agree that question is BS.Dude, before 2014, chanting "U.S.A." was the equivalent. It's nothing new and the kids are just trolling the other school. They have zero understanding of what they are saying or the mechanics that will go into building the wall.

Bos Mutus
11-23-2016, 02:57 PM
Very disingenuous.

Do you remember anyone shouting "build that wall" at Latinos back in 2014? No? Me neither. Glad we agree that question is BS.

What?

I'm not following you at all let alone agreeing. The Trump package included a lot of objectionable stuff. I don't think a border wall was one of those things.

Shouting "Build that wall" at a heavily Latino school is objectionable...but the idea of a wall, I don't think is any more objectionable than restrictions on who can immigrate here...it's just a method of enforcement...same as checking credentials the border...searching cars, etc. Or having a visa system.


Again, very disingenuous. I'm 36 years old and, my whole life as far back as I can remember, EVERY candidate running for executive or legislative office at the federal, state, and local level has campaigned on jobs. Every. Last. One.

So clearly, "jobs" didn't make Trump stand out. Other things did. And you know this.

He didn't invent the idea of a wall, either.

The whole point was...just because he campaigned on some ideas doesn't mean that if you like or support one or more than you endorse him as a candidate and subscribe to everything he campaigned on.

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 05:01 PM
I don't think that is debatable.

IRT racism in a candidate, let's be fair, racism by HRC wasn't a deal breaker for those that voted for her either. I know you were not a fan of HRC, but I think you are focusing on an issue with DJT that you had or were otherwise willing to overlook by the democratic candidate.

-Trump stoked the fires of the birther movement (which I am not convinced was a racists issue but ...), however the birther movement was started by HRC's campaign in 2007.

-HRC referred to WJC's campaign manager as a "f*cking Jew bastard".

-HRC made jokes about Indians including Gandhi owning gas stations.

-HRC referred to "Colored people's time", referencing that blacks are always running late.

-HRC referred to (some) black men as "super-predators" - regarding the disproportionate percentage of crimes committed by black males compared to their overall share of the population.

-Then you could have a long debate on whether her policies and proposals were really helpful to the minority community.

You could say that it wasn't a deal breaker under the following conditions:

1. The majority of the people who voted for her knew what she has said about minorities,
2. She actually CAMPAIGNED on these sentiments, and expressed them to get votes, and
3. She promised to make laws and policies against these groups.

Clinton does not meet any of those conditions. Trumps meets all three.

By the way, in reference to "colored people time," it's pretty much a self-depreciatory inside joke within the black community. Because she's married to Bill Clinton (whom many in the black community consider to be an "honorary" black man), she felt that she was "down" enough to use it. Many black people thought she was, others didn't. That's what all the fuss was about.


IRT race/racism and Trump. He has said a lot of stupid things, he also showed evidence of discrimination for decades ... at the same time he has hired and put minorities in various positions to include executive positions within his organization.

I won't say he isn't racist, but am inclined to think he's less racist than ambivalent about race if you are a hard worker. I get the impression he's a businessman with little time to spend on ensuring he has a diverse staff or executive boardroom, top performers rise to the top regardless of gender or race.

You're saying that some minorities were simply given a "pass" based on work ethic?


-I know you preferred Sanders, but I never saw him as strong on race, particularly when Sanders insinuated that all blacks live in ghettos?

He didn't. He simply said that white people don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto. That doesn't insinuate that all blacks live in ghettos.


-Not really racism, but following the Democrat Primaries in Nevada Sanders supporters sent death threats to a female Democratic Party official because they were outraged at what occurred at the Nevada state convention, I was not overly surprised. but when Bernie Sanders declined to denounce such behavior vigorously, I was very surprised, this does not to me embody someone I would consider tolerant or ... but ... progressive isn't necessarily tolerant. Just as Donald Trump’s supporters would not demonstrate thuggish behavior, such as assaulting protesters, without getting signals from their leader that it’s acceptable, the same is could be considered true of Sanders’s supporters.

Bernie Sanders has defended Hillary Clinton from his own supporters, and to his detriment. Numerous times. Something that Trump would never do.


After decades of the DNC practicing racially or gender polarizing politics, I don't think anyone should be surprised that it is now prominent with portions of the GOP as well; but I would argue not to only think that the candidate or politician you don't like is the only one doing it.

But what you can't argue is that both sides are campaigning for making policies based on racism or sexism.

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 05:04 PM
Dude, before 2014, chanting "U.S.A." was the equivalent. It's nothing new and the kids are just trolling the other school. They have zero understanding of what they are saying or the mechanics that will go into building the wall.

That's all besides the point. BM was suggesting that one could be in favor of building the wall and still hate Trump. I pointed out that this wasn't the case here, because they were referencing Trump.

Pay attention, man!

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 05:20 PM
What?

I'm not following you at all let alone agreeing. The Trump package included a lot of objectionable stuff. I don't think a border wall was one of those things.

Trump specifically stated that he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. You must be living under a rock if you didn't know that. When called on it, he doubled down every time.

So you didn't know? Now you do.


Shouting "Build that wall" at a heavily Latino school is objectionable...but the idea of a wall, I don't think is any more objectionable than restrictions on who can immigrate here...it's just a method of enforcement...same as checking credentials the border...searching cars, etc. Or having a visa system.

What makes walls stand out is their symbolic nature. It tells people on the other side that they're not wanted or welcome on our side of the wall.


He didn't invent the idea of a wall, either.

But he invented the idea of campaigning on it, though.


The whole point was...just because he campaigned on some ideas doesn't mean that if you like or support one or more than you endorse him as a candidate and subscribe to everything he campaigned on.

The problem? Trump really didn't campaign on much more than that.

He only campaigned on things that could be referenced in qualitative language, not quantitative.

Rainmaker
11-23-2016, 05:21 PM
He simply said that white people don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto.

Wasn't your Mom white & supposedly living in a housing project in Connecticut?

Rusty Jones
11-23-2016, 05:23 PM
Wasn't your Mom white & supposedly living in a housing project in Connecticut?

No, my father is white.

Bos Mutus
11-23-2016, 06:43 PM
Trump specifically stated that he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. You must be living under a rock if you didn't know that. When called on it, he doubled down every time.

So you didn't know? Now you do.

Yes...I know this. It's not that I didn't know he said that, it's that I didn't find that one item objectionable....I found plenty other things objectionable.


What makes walls stand out is their symbolic nature. It tells people on the other side that they're not wanted or welcome on our side of the wall.

Well, we don't let just any old Mexican in the country, do we? No, they have to get a proper visa or whatever.


But he invented the idea of campaigning on it, though.

So?


The problem? Trump really didn't campaign on much more than that.

He said many objectionable things...racist, sexist things...that could cause one to vote against him even if one were in favor of building a wall on the Mexican border.


He only campaigned on things that could be referenced in qualitative language, not quantitative.

I do not like Trump, I did not vote for him, I think he's pretty much a buffoon and campaigned on a lot of racist thinking and appeal.

However, I'm not opposed to the idea of a physical barrier on our border with Mexico. Does not have to be a continuous 2,000 mile wall...I understand parts of the terrain make that difficult...but...building some walls doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, in fact, I'm pretty sure we already have some walls.

I don't think Mexico will pay for it...but from what I gather he plans to leverage the power of our trade deficit to make them do it. i.e. "Build that wall or we'll stop buying your shit or put tariffs on it, etc." yes, there are a lot of ripple effects to that...that said, I'm not endorsing the plan to have Mexico pay for it, but the idea of a wall on the border alone seems sensible to me.

Rainmaker
11-23-2016, 11:28 PM
I don't think Mexico will pay for it...but from what I gather he plans to leverage the power of our trade deficit to make them do it. i.e. "Build that wall or we'll stop buying your shit or put tariffs on it, etc." yes, there are a lot of ripple effects to that.

Actually, he plans to pay for it by cutting off the remittances for the $24 Billion a year in cash currently getting sucked out of the country by Mexican Foreign Nationals working here illegally. Perfectly reasonable idea.

But, Of course "in-depth analysis by CNN" failed to adequately cover it, as they were too busy warning us that Donald Trump is literally Adolph Hitler

Bos Mutus
11-23-2016, 11:45 PM
Actually, he plans to pay for it by cutting off the $ 24 Billion a year in cash remittances currently getting sucked out of the country by Mexican Foreign Nationals working here illegally. Perfectly reasonable plan.

That's not a reasonable plan at all. It's not his money to spend.

If there were no illegals working here, couldn't we assume that the employers would pay someone here legally to do the work...still not Trump's money to spend.

OR, maybe they don't get the work done and keep the money themselves...still not Trump's administration money to spend.

What you're talking about is farmworker Jose works the farm for farm owner Chad. Chad pays Jose $1,000 and Jose sends $800 of it back to Mexico for his family.


But, Of course "in depth analysis by CNN" failed to mention it, as they were too busy telling us how Donald Trump is literally Adolph Hitler

I haven't seen that in his plan...but, if it is, it's a big fail. How does Trump get that money to build the wall? It is the employer's money.

I assumed he had some kind of plan to actually get Mexico to pay for it leveraging the fact that our economy buys a lot from them and they don't buy as much from us.

Rainmaker
11-24-2016, 12:18 AM
That's not a reasonable plan at all. It's not his money to spend.

If there were no illegals working here, couldn't we assume that the employers would pay someone here legally to do the work...still not Trump's money to spend.

OR, maybe they don't get the work done and keep the money themselves...still not Trump's administration money to spend.



What you're talking about is farmworker Jose works the farm for farm owner Chad. Chad pays Jose $1,000 and Jose sends $800 of it back to Mexico for his family.



I haven't seen that in his plan...but, if it is, it's a big fail. How does Trump get that money to build the wall? It is the employer's money.

I assumed he had some kind of plan to actually get Mexico to pay for it leveraging the fact that our economy buys a lot from them and they don't buy as much from us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-explains-how-donald-trump-plans-to-pay-for-border-wall/2007/?tid=a_inl

If you rob a bank and get caught, your kids don't get to keep the money......Pretty simple. we're either a Nation of laws or we aren't.

Bos Mutus
11-24-2016, 01:00 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-explains-how-donald-trump-plans-to-pay-for-border-wall/2007/?tid=a_inl

If you rob a bank and get caught, your kids don't get to keep the money......Pretty simple. we're either a Nation of laws or we aren't.

The govt doesn't get the money when they stop robbers, either.

The memo posted basically says he will use the threat of stopping the banks from transferring money in order to convince Mexico to pay for the wall...not to use that money...nor to actually stop the transfers.

Think about it, though, in order for that to work, he has to agree to continue to allow the transfers if Mexico pays for the wall. If he's gonna just 'stop the robbers'...then why would Mexico build the wall?

Memo also mentions threats of tariffs as was my understanding of his leverage.

Rainmaker
11-24-2016, 03:53 AM
The govt doesn't get the money when they stop robbers, either.

.gov currently seizes Billions $ worth of assets a year thru DOJs assets forfeiture program. Much of the proceeds get recycled to fund other law enforcement operations.

Bos Mutus
11-24-2016, 04:15 AM
.gov currently seizes Billions $ worth of assets a year thru DOJs assets forfeiture program. Much of the proceeds get recycled to fund other law enforcement operations.

Not even in the ballpark of what we're talking about...and not what your memo is talking about.

read it again...on day 3, Trump ceases to enforce the order, according to his plan.

Mjölnir
11-24-2016, 07:48 AM
You could say that it wasn't a deal breaker under the following conditions:

1. The majority of the people who voted for her knew what she has said about minorities,
2. She actually CAMPAIGNED on these sentiments, and expressed them to get votes, and
3. She promised to make laws and policies against these groups.

Clinton does not meet any of those conditions. Trumps meets all three.

Those facts about HRC have been out there for years, some people may not have heard about them, many people have and don't believe it / deny it or don't care because they decided they would vote for her regardless -- many people decided they would vote for Trump regardless. Which explains in some ways #1. I would argue that HRC absolutely campaigned and organizes her policies around race and gender based politics, which explains her underperformance in places Democrats have traditionally done well. Much of her platform did well in very progressive population centers which are traditionally Dem, in rural areas that Dems have also done well ... That tactic / platform is loosing its resonance ...


By the way, in reference to "colored people time," it's pretty much a self-depreciatory inside joke within the black community. Because she's married to Bill Clinton (whom many in the black community consider to be an "honorary" black man), she felt that she was "down" enough to use it. Many black people thought she was, others didn't. That's what all the fuss was about.

I am familiar with the reference, would it have been less appropriate for DJT to say it? Would it have been different if she walked into a meeting with black leaders and said "How are all my ni**ers?" something I have also heard blacks say. Inappropriate is inappropriate, regardless if someone is "down" or not.


You're saying that some minorities were simply given a "pass" based on work ethic?

I think he like nearly anyone has his opinions about race or gender, he is on record expressing some of those. He is a businessman, I have the impression that whatever his opinions are that ability to perform 'trumps' his personal / general opinion of any demographic. I have the impression that in his businesses he wanted to get things done and doesn't care if the best person for the job is white, black, male or female etc. (unless it is one of his kids ... He would pick them regardless).

My father had a small machine shop, he would've never hired a black man regardless of ability. The owners of the restaurant I worked at in high school where racist, I heard them state "the blacks belong in the kitchen and dish room, not on the floor with customers". Whatever Donald Trump's real feelings are, I don't see him Letting race or gender override ability.

Understanding that sometimes ... people just want / need a job. It also matters if someone get's a job based on their gender or race or based on their ability. Some people voted for Obama because he was black, some voted against him because he was black. Many HRC supporters wanted the first woman President, period; some didn't vote for her because she is a woman. In either case, it is wrong. I want our society to be fair and present equal opportunity but we cannot guarantee equal outcomes without being unfair. In some cases (athleticism, height, sight etc.) we are born with those things, more often than notpeople work hard to develop them.

My brother has always been a physical beast, as a high school freshman he was 5'11 and 200 pounds as a junior he was 6'3 and over 250. He was a starting lineman from 6th grade through 11th ... But he relied and his physical gifts and did not work. He was eventually overcome by physically smaller players who spent time developing strength, speed and skill and was put on the second string a few games into his junior year. After years of being bitter about it he did admit he blew an opportunity to use what he had and be great at football.

I care if someone is discriminated against if they earn a seat in medical school, understanding that educational opportunity in many places in our country are better than others ... Which is why I feel fixing education is key to breaking the cycle of under, low quality and/or unemployment. When I need a surgeon for myself or my family, I don't care if the surgeon is white, black, atheist, Christian or Muslim .. I want the best available surgeon. I don't want a surgeon who maybe should not have their job over a more qualified candidate simply because of race or gender. Provide the equal opportunity, but the outcome eventually should be based on ability.


He didn't. He simply said that white people don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto. That doesn't insinuate that all blacks live in ghettos.

He said "being white means you don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto". To an extent it insinuates that being black means you do. Ironically, many whites also live in ghettos in the US in areas like South Boston, Hell's Kitchen NYC in the 50's-80's, Montgomery AL, the Delray section of Detroit etc. ... it was pandering.


Bernie Sanders has defended Hillary Clinton from his own supporters, and to his detriment. Numerous times. Something that Trump would never do.

Trump started to once he won, no need to attack her anymore.


But what you can't argue is that both sides are campaigning for making policies based on racism or sexism.

They are. Race and gender based politicking have been the norm as long as both of us have been paying attention to politics. I think that HRC relied too much on it in her campaign, her two biggest points was she would be the first woman President, and he wasn't DJT. The DNC blurred the line between the the GOP's stance on illegal immigration and legal immigration in an attempt to turn the narrative that the GOP is against all immigration.

I am not trying to 'defend' DJT, just pointing out that many of the arguments against him are fluff, things people were willing to overlook in either HRC or Sanders. There are legitimate things to criticize him on ... some is clearly just hypocrisy.

Mjölnir
11-24-2016, 07:54 AM
The govt doesn't get the money when they stop robbers, either.

The memo posted basically says he will use the threat of stopping the banks from transferring money in order to convince Mexico to pay for the wall...not to use that money...nor to actually stop the transfers.

Think about it, though, in order for that to work, he has to agree to continue to allow the transfers if Mexico pays for the wall. If he's gonna just 'stop the robbers'...then why would Mexico build the wall?

Memo also mentions threats of tariffs as was my understanding of his leverage.

I have also heard that an option is increasing the cost of Visas for immigrants to cover some of the cost (doubling the current cost would raise $5B in 7 years just in Visas from Mexico) ... not enough to pay for a wall ... but significant.

What I could see happening, is that cutting off electronic transfers to Mexico provides leverage. I think that Mexico might be convinced to offer to pay a portion based on that over xx number of years, which would also acknowledge that Mexico is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration into the US.

What I don't see is a full on 'embargo' of goods or people from Mexico.

Rainmaker
11-24-2016, 02:40 PM
read it again...on day 3, Trump ceases to enforce the order, according to his plan.

He ceases to enforce the order if Mexico, will contribute $ X Billion To the United States to PAY FOR THE WALL.

Now, if they pay for the wall, then there's no reason to enforce the order, because It'll be OBE at that point.


If there were no illegals working here, couldn't we assume that the employers would pay someone here legally to do the work.

Yes. And we could also assume that the employers would have to allow wage inflation to take its natural course and start paying someone here legally more than $10 an hour in exchange for their back-breaking work.

Rainmaker
11-24-2016, 03:22 PM
I have also heard that an option is increasing the cost of Visas for immigrants to cover some of the cost (doubling the current cost would raise $5B in 7 years just in Visas from Mexico) ... not enough to pay for a wall ... but significant.

What I could see happening, is that cutting off electronic transfers to Mexico provides leverage. I think that Mexico might be convinced to offer to pay a portion based on that over xx number of years, which would also acknowledge that Mexico is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration into the US.

What I don't see is a full on 'embargo' of goods or people from Mexico.

Politicians and leftist pundits always want to make enforcing the law into some kind of an esoteric concept.

Up till now, Mexico's really had no incentive to control it. Which is why they haven't

We've been propping up the Mexican government for decades.

They can either pay for the wall or we cut off $24B a year in wire transfers. (Which would collapse their economy and cause unrest).

Most people would be fine with just enforcing current immigration law. Rainmaker's not a big fan of walls (because they can also be used to keep people in)

So, there's room to give on the wall. But, a wall is definitely doable. Mexico can take a little less money or they can take no money. It's a no brainer.

They'll pay for the wall (if we decide to build it).

ACME_MAN
05-13-2019, 09:06 PM
EDIT: use the conspiracy / alt news section for that type of thing