This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Actually I have done bids on government projects for years. They are pretty competitive in my experience and while there can be some favoritism to a local I have won bids anyway as the process is highly regulated. And I can assure you those bids I won while profitable weren't usually as profitable as private sector gigs with limited competition.
Not sure which policies you claim are to far left but the ones Bernie ran on often enjoy bipartisan majority support.
Wow, if you think Bernie's idea's are not Far Left you absolutely are going to continue to lose. He's a socialist. I'd say most of his ideas are far left. I'm not saying they wernt popular with a segment of the Democrat base but that small segment of their base has too large a sway in their party IMO. It's great to have energized kids at your rally saying they want free education, free healthcare etc but getting the rest of the middle class to pay for it is a no go. And no I do not believe all his ideas could have been paid for by taxing the 1%'ers.
They are popular with bipartisan majorities in many cases and not just kids. This is the guy that got a standing ovation from Trump voters on his support for single payer.
Agree to disagree then
I dont think thats the case at all. As I said, democrats are concentrated in very high density locations. I think this election proved me correct. They couldn't beat a poor candidate like Trump. Something is wrong with their message clearly (and the candidate they put up obviously). 
As a Dem, I'd argue the opposite. The "old guard" are the ones with way too much sway IMO.
Well then it certainly isn't a problem of too far left. Hillary is not all that liberal. If you think she is then you are looking from a far right position.Agree to disagree then
I think that in theory, your post makes sense, but I'm not entirely convinced about your ending. With the news media as fractured and biased, on both sides, as it is today, it's easy to find stories spun to fit whatever narrative you're seeking. It's possible to pick nearly any major news story and compare media coverage on both sides and walk away thinking both sides won (see the MSNBC vs. Fox coverage of the Comey testimony).
I do find this post enlightening, and after reading a number of similar comments during last year's campaign it became clear to me that Trump had a legitimate chance to win. Trump absolutely dominated the campaign narrative on jobs while providing very little in the way of substantive policy. Hillary, on the other hand, hammered policy positions in her speeches.
There were 16 other options to Trump. All of which, except Carson, had mostly well reasoned "adult" positions on conservative and liberal issues. But the voters went with the least equipped, most childish candidate who surrounds himself with some people who can only through the rosiest of rose colored lenses could kindly be referred to as "Nationalist".
1. I don't think people trusted Hillary when her mouth moved, so the nature of what came out of it didn't resonate. Most people realize she says what the focus group recommends (on many but not all topics). She's basically a 'bot.
Considering Trump has had exactly ZERO legislative accomplishments to this point, I'd say it's working pretty well.
Right, and those are fair points, but if you'll notice his wording - and it was a common refrain from many voters throughout the course of the election - it's not that Hillary isn't credible. I don't find Hillary necessarily credible, though that's neither here nor there. It's that she and the Democratic Party in general are ignoring / not acknowledging the problem. That's just simply not true, and that's what I find interesting. If you turned on the nightly news, it was a 30-second blurb about whatever city Hillary is visiting followed by a 5-minute rant on <insert something silly that Trump said that day>. By showboating and self-promotion, which Trump is surely great at, he stole the entire story. No one cared what Hillary said in a random campaign speech....she could talk about substantive economic policy until blue in the face - and she did, figuratively - and no one would notice or care. Why? Because Trump controlled the narrative from the start.
I don't take issue with what you are saying, except for the bolded. Most people are not that engaged in politics. They have no idea who Trump surrounds himself with. They distrust Washington and the media (both of which I think there is ample justification for) and simple slogans like 'drain the swamp' and 'make America great again' appeal to them. It's not much different than the 'hope and change' message which Obama rode to victory. Ask the average person why they voted for someone, and you get simple answers. I think it is wrong to project ill will on large groups of people.
The coal miners made a yuge mistake.
Agreed. Of course a huge part of Trump's message was anti-immigrant and it was stated in the most inflammatory way possible. Perhaps his most quoted line from the entire election cycle was the whole Mexican rapists thing.
I don't think Trump is anti immigrant or are the folks who voted for him for this reason. I think people want controlled immigration and controlled borders. Sadly Trump had to say this in the most inflammatory way possible thus making reform all the more difficult. Americans in general are the most accepting and welcoming in the world.
Americans used to be among the most accepting in the world, I am not so sure that holds up today. Plenty of Americans have a vile hatred of any immigrants legal or illegal. Trump's message resonated with that group. I am shocked at how some people refuse to admit/recognize/acknowledge that the Stormfront segment of our population that had previously been marginalized came out in force for Trump and no longer live in the fringes where they belong.
Sorry, but I don't believe this. Are they irrationally afraid of immigrants and buy in to the rhetoric about them? Sure, but I don't believe plenty of Americans hate them. I think it's a very small minority who truly hate them.
I believe you are correct, AAA, but it fits the narrative of a lot of Dem's when they lose an election.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center
I'm rather of the impression that Trump has gotten self-described evangelists to abandon their religion.
I think this is the threat to the Republic, this creeping racialism and racial identification blended into nationalism. I see shades of separatism, political violence, and rejection of institutions which can lead to downfall of societies. I'm not being hystrionic, I certainly think we can overcome this period and this threat and I think we already are but only because people defend those institutions. But I do think that is where the weak point in our society lies.
It feels like this scene from Animal House:
Seriously? Stormfront? Okay, broad strokes then.
Moving on from Stormfront, the religious zealots are, even if they don't do it knowingly (yet), slowly working on implementing their own "Christian" versions of Sharia Law. It's still in a more nascent stage but they are definitely working the "Religious Freedom" angle for all they can make it worth. It's another path that, if allowed to continue unchecked eventually leads to taking the vote from those who don't believe the same as they do and becoming a true Theocracy ruled under someones interpretation of God's Law.
Chaka said:
The one where you don't sacrifice your country to fringe lunatics in the long term just to get a short term gain for your party.
If that were the case we'd have president Bernie. This country is pretty balanced IMO. Bernie and his scoicalist Ideas are Far Left. But keep believing this please as this will guarantee continued Ruplician wins....like we've seen the last 4 special elections.
All of that, and it would have only taken about 5,000 votes out of 260,000 to flip and make the difference and give the Democrats a win in a district that the Republican usually wins with a 20% cushion. Republicans are dumb to take this result as some great victory and vindication of their brand if you ask me.
