Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Joe Biden running against Trump and adopting 100% of Hillary's positions beats Trump in a landslide.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
AAABatteries
Footballguy
The country is run by two parties - the people running these parties will do just about anything to keep their party in power whether it's the right thing to do or is good for the majority of Americans. The people backing those parties are the elite of the country who have no vested interest in things changing as long as they stay rich and powerful. There's a few good eggs mixed in but for the most part the people we elect are #######s in one direction or another. Obstruction is the name of the game if you aren't in power but more importantly do every thing to keep your position.
Whether you lean left or right the above is almost certainly true and the vast majority of us take it in the shorts while the elite buy another car/house/yacht. I don't understand why more people aren't angry - I'm probably top-5 % wage earner in the country and I'm fed up with it myself.
</Bernie-rant>
beavers
Footballguy
By no means am I blaming anyone other than Hillary for this loss.
But to say that Biden would've won in a landslide is not true. People wanted change. Biden was an extension of Obama. Hillary tried unsuccessfully to campaign on 4 more years.
Trump campaigned on lies, and said what people wanted to hear. Late in his campaign, he steared away from the polls and hired a data analytics firm. He knew what sold to a demographic that would put him over the top. He built a psychographic profile of every voter and pursuaded voters on the fence to vote Trump. This is why his message resonated so well with the areas he flipped, even though his message was flat out lies.
eta: data analytics link.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-plan-for-a-comeback-includes-building-a-psychographic-profile-of-every-voter/2016/10/27/9064a706-9611-11e6-9b7c-57290af48a49_story.html
Last edited by a moderator:
beavers
Footballguy
We do quite well financially as well, but something about Bernie turned me off. I'm not quite sure, but at the time he reminded me of some over the top hippie who's ideas were just as extreme at Trumps (but on the opposite side).
timschochet
Footballguy
I hope not. I think what Obama, Warren, and Sanders have had to say is the right thing so far: they will only oppose Trump when he does stuff they disagree with, but they will work with him when they can. That is the correct approach to governance. Just because the Republicans didn't do this with Obama doesn't mean the Dems should follow their example. To the contrary.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I get that but it was refreshing to have someone you felt cared and seemed to highlight the struggle of many. We still have a lot of social issues we need to work through as a country and I'm confident we'll get there. I'm less confident that we can overcome the enormous gap between the haves and the have nots.
beavers
Footballguy
I'm all for helping others. I realize I'm very fortunate, and I give back when I can. But, I never thought Bernie had a chance. Way too far left, and didn't remember a candidate elected that was so extreme. I did vote Clinton in the primary, but would've been happy if Bernie was the candidate. I felt like she had the best shot. I had no clue how relentless the attacks on her would be. Unprecedented really.
beavers
Footballguy
Given Trumps choices so far with Bannon and Sessions, I expect nothing less Tim. I'm sorry, but I can't get behind this administration. And anything to get them out of power is fine with me.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Nobody gave Bernie a chance until they heard him. I have no idea whether Bernie would have beaten Trump but he came much closer than anybody expected against Hillary. If he were 5-10 years younger I would feel pretty good betting on him to be the next DNC nominee.
beavers
Footballguy
Could've would've should've. There were many good candidates who didn't dare to run against Clinton. ?
pantagrapher
Footballguy
The emails are a serious issue.
The Commish
Footballguy
Yeah...this is a big part of the problem. We just got done setting the bar for a Hillary Presidency at "Trump"...that didn't work so let's set it even lower
The Commish
Footballguy
attacks <> not being able to get out of her own way. It was amazing to watch her whiff at every turn when it came to this server thing. Sometimes it was even hard for ME to watch and I am a big fan of the train wreck
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Loan Sharks
Not a Wolf
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
She obviously could have done better, but the idea that the outsize reaction was her fault alone is total nonsense. The media was complicit, giving Trump a relative pass on the 500ish worse stories that came out about him while exaggerating the meaning of things like the first Comey letter under the guise of "balanced coverage" or whatever they told themselves.
As are many of the people who frequented this thread and those like them, frankly. We were told that Trump was so obviously awful that there wasn't much need to make the case so it was OK to spend lots of time exploring why Clinton is bad too and devote almost no time to battling Trumpism. Well, congratulations. Here we are. And now Trump is a week into being president-elect and he's already got way more potential conflict of interest issues going on with his businesses than Clinton had with the Foundation. Just yesterday his daughter, who supposedly will be helping manage his business interests while he's in office and has no official role in his administration, sat in on his meeting with the Japanese PM. Where are the faithful ethics warriors who spent countless hours detailing tenuous-at-best links between Clinton Foundation donors and State Department decisionmaking here and elsewhere? They sound a lot like crickets so far.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I'm so tired of your endless over simplification of this. So tired. The current brand of free trade and globalism does not benefit all the American workers. That's the point. We export jobs (or automate them out of existence), cultivate sweatshops and labor exploitation world wide (but hey, 1 buck a day and no health benefits is better than nothing, right?) export ecological damage that we all end up having to pay for eventually, and in return we get cheap crap that we have to go into debt to buy. Things like the TPP are contrary to what benefits all American workers, and that's the brand of free trade and globalism we've been dealing with for the last 20 to 30 years. It needs an adjustment. If she stood up there and said more of the same, she'd have gotten beaten even worse than she did. That's what Trump tapped into, and that's what Sanders has identified as well. Why don't you step away from the keyboard and contemplate this for a bit. Please. Because if people like you keep trying to spread this nonsensical message we're going to be in this bad place for a while.
The Commish
Footballguy
The only people "complicit" in giving Trump a pass in these threads are the Trump supporters. We've had the discussion on the media, but it's interesting to see your comment. You and I agree there. If they were doing their job, this is far less likely to have happened. I was ticked at the coverage of this email thing because it missed the true and legitimate point of the whole thing and focused on email content. There wasn't enough emphasis on her initial actions IMO. People fell for the "everyone before me did it" shtick and glossed over the most troubling part of the "scandal" and what it told us (me) about her judgment and decision making.
I am all for ripping Trump....let's go for it. Let's discuss the conflict of interest. It's not gonna be a whole lotta fun having this "debate" with Trump supporters. You'll feel like you're talking to a brick wall. I don't really see the point, but let's do it...it's Friday!! I just want to point out that Trump is still not in any sort of official position of power just yet, so it's not quite apples to apples. So far, "potential for conflict of interest" <> "conflict of interest". I KNOW it will happen soon enough, but we aren't there yet. They seem very similar to me though, so for my part, I'll probably just be going back and replacing Hillary's name with Trump's in a lot of my bashing.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This is just as much an oversimplification as Tim's post. The costs and benefits of free trade are complex. Does it cost us jobs in the short run? Probably. Does it also provide an overall economic benefit that reaches the middle class in a variety of ways? Also probably. Acting like it's a no-brainer is silly. If it was you wouldn't have widespread agreement on the benefits of free trade from economists.
It would be nice if we could all stop oversimplifying things and recognize that there are legitimate costs and benefits to every policy position. For example, Sanders supporters who decry the job loss associated with free trade don't seem nearly so concerned about exporting jobs when it comes to their position on fracking. If you oppose it as just too much of an environmental risk, fine. That's a good and defensible position. But if you do so you have to acknowledge that eliminating the practice will eliminate American jobs in the short term and raise energy costs, which will disproportionately impact the poor.
The vast majority of policy issues, including trade policy, raise difficult questions. Our widespread insistence that there are easy answers is one of many reasons we've got a ####ing idiot getting ready to move into the White House.
David Dodds
Administrator
so will Obama pardon her and her cohorts for crimes they never committed?
Gr00vus
Footballguy
. Fracking is an ecologically damaging practice, completely externalizing the cost of that damage. We all pay in the long run, to a greater extent than any financial benefit gained short term, both in terms of money spent to correct the ecological damage and in terms of money spent (and plain old human suffering) in dealing with health issues and things like earthquakes that result. if this is your best example of lousy business as usual policies actually being a good thing, you've got nothing. There are better jobs to be had working renewable energy projects. We can't afford fracking, we can't afford coal.Things like the TPP, forcing the U.S.'s overreaching IP laws on the rest of the world, stifling innovation and the free flow of information, little to no protection for labor, zero protection for the environment - that's the kind of thing we can't afford anymore.
What's simple is "free trade is good". That's all Tim ever says. So excuse me for only going one level beyond that in my response. But your response is patently ridiculous. I'm not saying there are easy answers, but Tim never, ever bothers to get past his simplistic approach to these things.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ksquared
Footballguy
This is rich coming from the most partisan four years of government in my life time. Do happen to remember .... "elections have consequences"... or all the non-Democrats that were allowed to even be present let alone have input on the wonderful Affordable Care Act... Obama made it real clear that the Republicans needed to join him/compromise because he was not going to. For leftists like you, it is real simple. Republicans need to compromise with all the Democrats ideas, but Democrats are only going to support what they believe in/want. Again the classic hypocritical one way street.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
This, combined with the ratings chase by the cable news outlets, is fascinating and frankly disappointing. The collective attention span has been reduced to 140 characters, and we have our first Twitter based President as a result.
Being so conditioned to headlines and slogans, Trump had MAGA and Hillary had weakness (I'm with her, among others). I blame Mook and others for having no message. "Trump is deplorable" only went so far, and they never pivoted to a simple message of why to vote for her. Heck, they didn't need to look far for examples on message-based campaigning, Bill invented "its the economy stupid" and "I feel your pain".
beavers
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Nah.
Things like the TPP, forcing the U.S.'s overreaching IP laws on the rest of the world, stifling innovation and the free flow of information, little to no protection for labor, zero protection for the environment - that's the kind of thing we can't afford anymore.
What's simple is "free trade is good". That's all Tim ever says. So excuse me for only going one level beyond that in my response. But your response is patently ridiculous. I'm not saying there are easy answers, but Tim never, ever bothers to get past his simplistic approach to these things.
You're acting like these are easy questions. They are not. They have costs and benefits, and I disagree with an approach that refuses to acknowledge them even as you advocate passionately for your side. Fracking was just the easiest example, because of the obvious contrast between the prioritizing of American jobs by those who oppose free trade. There are not better jobs to be had working renewable energy projects, at least in the short term. Banning it would result in fewer domestic jobs and/or higher energy prices in the short term. You can think it's still an easy call based on the environmental costs of fracking, but you can't refuse to even acknowledge the benefits.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
No, no I'm not. We've had the fracking discussion before at length. So you should already know that I haven't just rolled out of bed and had some kind of epiphany. But to remind you, I'm saying the benefits don't outweigh the costs - short term or long term. Short term "fixes" like fracking don't get abandoned so easily either. People get entrenched, and it makes it much more difficult to end that short term fix.
But all this is beside the point. Tim's never really gone beyond the "free trade is unequivocally good anything that promotes fee trade is good" reasoning. That's what I'm questioning. Not all free trade is good, not everything that promotes free trade is good. The brand of free trade we've been practicing has definitely made losers of too many people both in the U.S. and worldwide. It's come with benefits too, but the benefits are being applied in an extremely uneven manner. Some adjustments are necessary to make sure free trade works for most of the people.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I remember that too. I remember the rhetoric of "we have a mandate" and "this is what the voters want". I also remember in response to the 2010 elections where so many dems lost their seats, Obama said they needed to work better with the republicans because by voting dems out, the people have spoken.
Ultimately I don't want the reps to do what the dems did post 2008, which was to ram through legislation, many times saying they had to get it done now while they have all the branches. That's not good for any of us... but I don't buy Tim's argument that the dems don't do such. Of course they do... and did.
timschochet
Footballguy
Groovus, there are pluses and minuses to free trade. For the people that it leaves behind, it can be very negative. And even beyond this, the TPP is problematic in terms of intellectual property rights.
I get all that. I don't think I am oversimplifying anything. I believe that overall free trade is a net benefit. I believe that overall TPP is a net benefit for our society. But I find the opposition to be increasingly dogmatic. And the only alternative that anybody seems to offer are tarrifs which I believe would be catastrophic to our economy.
Youre welcome to disagree with me on all of this. I respect your POV. But please respect mine.
I get all that. I don't think I am oversimplifying anything. I believe that overall free trade is a net benefit. I believe that overall TPP is a net benefit for our society. But I find the opposition to be increasingly dogmatic. And the only alternative that anybody seems to offer are tarrifs which I believe would be catastrophic to our economy.
Youre welcome to disagree with me on all of this. I respect your POV. But please respect mine.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Gotcha. I'm with you on the bolded, but it wasn't reflected in your earlier posts. Of course I was sticking my nose into a conversation you've probably been having with Tim for months, so what do I know.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
By the way, while everyone acts like some sort of watershed change in the electorate has taken place and asks how our country can do this, keep in mind that Clinton is going to win the popular vote by over a million votes and more than 1%. Trump wasn't Americans' choice for president. He won because we have a weird system for presidential elections. To the extent that any change in party messaging or campaign strategy is necessary, it's to accommodate the quirks of that system as much as anything else.
It's still super duper ####ed up that 46.8% of American voters chose Donald Trump, but at least it's slightly less ####ed up.
It's still super duper ####ed up that 46.8% of American voters chose Donald Trump, but at least it's slightly less ####ed up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ksquared
Footballguy
Change of strategy like maybe caring about the "fly over " parts of the country? The mainstream democrat policies of the last 10-15 years from the left have given the non-mega populated states the middle finger. Lets get rid of the EC so you liberals from NY and Cali can decide every election from this point forward.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eephus
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
"Liberals from NY and Cali" are just as entitled to select the president as everyone else. The derision of the "coastal elite" from the "flyover states" exceeded the levels of derision in the other direction a long time ago.
Oh, and by the way ... isn't it weird how "working class" and "blue collar" have somehow become synonymous with "white people in the midwest/great lakes region" even though minorities make up a third of union workers and are clearly a disproportionately large percentage of the lower middle class? Which politicians are giving whom the middle finger, again?
That said, a change in strategy would serve the party well. But that's all it is, strategy. I'd much prefer a message that resonates with everyone in the working class victimized by the increasing wage gap, not just those in states that get to decide presidential races.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Hillary lost those key states that Obama carried. She knew the rules, and misinterpreted the game plan. She needed a broad nationalist message, but played instead to mobilize traditional big tent identities like women, Millennials and AAs. She and her campaign failed miserably to GOTV like Obama did with those groups.
If anyone should be ashamed it's women in those flipped states who voted for Trump. Frankly how any women supported him at all is baffling. The best I could tell they hated Hillary more, and were willing to overlook it. That's where I figured the repudiation to come from, and it didn't.
If anyone should be ashamed it's women in those flipped states who voted for Trump. Frankly how any women supported him at all is baffling. The best I could tell they hated Hillary more, and were willing to overlook it. That's where I figured the repudiation to come from, and it didn't.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Wasn't this you GB??
There is a single tactical error that Hillary made that turned this thing on it's ear...she ignored the people who feel like they've been ignored for the last X number of years. Now, that doesn't mean I really look at the popular vote as evidence of anything, but I can see why some would want to hold on to and remember that. We need to also remember that this election the public didn't like either candidate and IMO, THAT'S what we need to remember as voters moving forward. Hopefully that reminder is one that motivates people to be involved more locally as well as in the national primaries.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm not sure about the bolded. There's some truth to what you said in the rest of the post. And it's understandable to be emotional and angry considering the consequences of the loss. But Obama beat her popular vote margin by just 2%. She's currently only 2 million behind his raw vote total despite the far more significant presence of third party candidates in 2016 (about 5 million more votes) and new voting laws and policies aimed at limiting minority turnout.
She made strategic mistakes, but I think those were mostly geographic. It's not like there are no women or African-Americans in Pennsylvania and Michigan, she just didn't target those states specifically as much as she should have because she wasted time and money chasing Georgia and Arizona and North Carolina.
Ksquared
Footballguy
As to the first bolded, not even close. I live in rural California and are constantly dealing with decisions, regulations, and laws that are rooted and make sense in the big urban areas but are destroying the rural areas. And who do you think the liberals have been referring to the last year as mouth breathing knuckle draggers???? Certainly not the residents of urban NY and California.
The second is all on you and the left.....you are the ones that break everything into racial groups. How about poor Americans...but you do not really care about them anyway.
BTW, I am continuing to make broad blanket statements about what you think from the fact you support a position....your probably extremely unAmerican as well.
The Commish
Footballguy
Weebs210
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
We need more than net benefit. We need even benefit. The TPP's IP, labor and environmental provisions are either dead set against the workers or so vague as to be non-existent. You can't make blanket statement claims about the positive quality of the thing when it has massive problems in it like that. Even HRC was smart enough to recognize that and walk her support of it back (which I give her credit for). And this is my problem with you. You haven't bothered to get familiar with these problems, you just assume that because it says it's free trade it's a universally good thing. Stop doing that. I'm not against free trade, I'm not against globalism. I fully realize both of those things can be beneficial. Further, globalism (this election, brexit, rise in nationalism all over the place not withstanding) is inevitable. So we have to make sure free trade deals are good for everyone, not just the heavy monied interests who've been writing them the last few decades. We have to make sure more people reap the benefits of globalism. Otherwise you're headed for either plutocracy or anarchy. We're having a tiny taste of anarchy right now through who just got elected and the riots in response. You keep blanket statement supporting anything bearing the free trade brand, you'll experience more.
Not all tariffs are bad. We need to enforce tariffs on those who deliver cheap goods through neglect of the environment and race to the bottom labor approaches. If your production does not meet U.S. environmental and/or labor law standards, then your products need to be taxed accordingly. Otherwise we're just temporarily outsourcing ecological damage and labor exploitation. We end up paying for it in the long run. If a TFT ends up costing $5 more a unit as a result, fine. That's not going to kill the economy, and it's not going to unduly harm U.S. workers. If anything it might direct more jobs back to the U.S. if the workers here get a level playing field with workers elsewhere because that field has been elevated rather than lowered.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I try to be accepting of all viewpoints initially. But this kind of sentiment is a non starter. Knock it off. You want to disagree with Tobes, that's fine, but this kind of language has dangerous repercussions whether you intended it in a McCarthy kind of way or not.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Appreciate it, GB. But as someone who is uber-patriotic, this one was good for a chuckle. It's like if someone called you a Lakers hater.
Plus need these sort of signals about Peens (and Peens-like) aliases so we can put them on ignore. It's hard to keep up these days. I wasted several minutes taking that guy seriously.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Given the current socio/political environment, I can't find the humor in it. Folks want to make fun of people for being concerned about the potential for fascism with this administration, and then we get a statement like that from a supporter. Can't have it both ways. That's exactly the kind of stuff we have to stop in its tracks before it becomes as mainstream as cuck or whining about reverse racism.
- Status
Similar threads
