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!
Again, elementary school reasoning. "He's not doing something therefore we're not gonna do something." And, be specific. Quit talking using vague points of discussion. You're sounding more like Trump than a person with some intelligence. McConnell and the Republicans came out right away and said they will not follow the rules and give anyone a hearing... and you're okay with that? Why? Please, give good argumentative reasons why anyone is okay with that.
Nothing there contradicts anything I said. I agree that the stimulus helped in the short term by putting money in the pockets of the poor and creating tempory jobs building a bunch of marginally-beneficial infrastructure projects. But that is not what ended the panic in the fanancial markets and the economic meltdown which followed. The stimulus was an adrenaline shot in the arm which provided temporary relief. Unfortunately, the little parts of the stimulus which was focused on getting private-sector businesses to create better jobs was largely isolated to green energy loans, which there were more failures in than successes. There was nothing wrong with what I said, and there is nothing wrong with what the economists said.
"Let's ignore all the laws the guy I support is not enforcing, but instead let's get all outraged at the guys who I don't support and the laws they aren't enforcing"
IIRC this is the only comment I've made in the discussion. I'd likely agree with you if your point is that Congress should pass laws and make appointments and the president should enforce all laws regardless of type. Do we have an agreement?
Jokes on you. I voted for Obama in 08 and Romney in 12. Go back to the store and buy a broader brush why don't you?
Broader brush? I'm talking about you. It's impossible to get any LESS broad.
The head of the CBO said that the stimulus package "saved or created more than 3 million" - is that not pulling us out of recession? Maybe 4 million jobs is your magic recession number, I don't know.
I am not arguing against the stimulus or that it help. But no, it came no where close to pulling us out of recession. We lost nearly 9 million jobs in the recession. As big as the stimulus was, fed policy with their zero interest rates did a lot more. And the bottom line is that the stimulus is not what change the fundamental issue which caused the recession, which was the panic in the financial markets. This economy was going to recover no matter who was president or how the stimulus was structured. I would have favored one more focused on stimulating business and creating per many jobs than one focused on dropping money into the pockets of lower income people to provide immediate relief. Either way we were going to bounce back as the crisis disappeared regardless.
You think coming across as a hypocrite is the way to go? Interesting approach....not sure she can pull that off though. If it were me, I wouldn't mention him. I wouldn't contrast to him. I'd simply talk about my policies and plan and I wouldn't answer a single question that was about Trump either.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
She's not Bill. She can't carry off sly truth telling irony with a wink. Hillary is a clubber, a ham fisted pounder. She needs to bash away at his policies and lack of knowledge until he crumbles. If she goes with the name calling it becomes a slapfest of epic proportions, which he would love. Be the professional, knowledgeable, smart career politician and diplomat she has been advertising herself as.
Disagree. She doesn't need to insult him or call him names. But she can and should attack his policy proposals and things he has said. She was very effective IMO at attacking Bernie's policies. It's part of her debate skills and she absolutely should use it.
I have no problem with her being condescending in a "There you go again" manner when he doesn't know what he's talking about.
She needs to draw a contrast between Trump and her on the issues and the outrageous comments he has made. What few undecided voters are left need to be presented with a clear choice between the two candidates as to who looks the most presidential and who is best able to lead this country in the next four years.
I think Hillary should poll Ohio and Florida voters ahead of time, determine what issues are most important to voters in those states, and then enter the debate ready to win on those issues.
What I responded to is:
You say you disagree, then say she should attack his policy proposals and things he said.....so what are you disagreeing with exactly? I objected to her pointing out all the things in Trump that she is as well. I DID NOT say she shouldn't attack his policy proposals etc. I said I don't think she has to and that I wouldn't.
You wrote, "I wouldn't mention him. I wouldn't contrast to him." That's the part I disagree with. She SHOULD contrast to him.
Not in the context of " hammer Trump about his two-faced, inconsistent, and ever present lying " she shouldn't, which is what I was talking about if you read what I posted. There's no need to go this path at all, but she can't help herself. We all know she will.
I think this is why the Hillary campaign is making all the noise about fact checking from moderators. Really that's the candidate's job, it's a debate, but they can't seem to imagine a world in which Hillary can correct Trump without yelling 'liar!' which of course poses problems for Hillary. It's like her own campaign doesn't think she can do this, which is weird.
I'm sure Trump would love Hillary to #### up like this. Maybe her team didn't watch how he beat his GOP opponents....
She can't.....that's the point. However, if the target is "undecided" voters perhaps there's a chance they'd fall for it. I can't imagine the lack of brain cells one has to have to NOT have made up their mind about Hillary one way or the other.
What policies can she really attack? He doesn't have very many domestic ones, and several of the ones he does have on trade are left of her.
A buddy and I were talking about this exact thing the other night. We wildly underestimated the deep down ugliness and stupidity of Americans.
It will be interesting. I'm going to need to see more from the Turd Sandwich besides how awful the Giant ##### is
I think those are different kinds of threats . Some might underestimate the threat posed by the America First movement back in the 30s or the Red Scare back in the 50s, and the Society of Cincinnatus during and after the Constitutional Convention could be in this group as well, I think what we are dealing with is more like that.
I agree with Panta (frame that btw). I think Hillary wins convincingly still. But can she blow it and at times will it seem like she's trying to? Yeah.
I think that is probably a bit harsh. Certainly some people are ugly and/or stupid. But, I suspect most of Trump's "support" fits into two categories; "Not Clinton" and "Republican" - both are somewhat related.
I think this applies here - what policies are there for us to discuss?
You hate Hillary so much you're making excuses for bigotry and racism.I think that is probably a bit harsh. Certainly some people are ugly and/or stupid. But, I suspect most of Trump's "support" fits into two categories; "Not Clinton" and "Republican" - both are somewhat related.
I am not ready to call people "stupid" if they have a different perspective than me - mis-informed, maybe. But, more likely it comes down to different life experiences. There are a lot of people who are not feeling the economic recovery - working harder, for less money. I suspect their attachment to the Trump movement is more about wanting someone to stand up for them, than it is supporting overt racism or bigotry. I am not sure that Trump is really the person to do that - Bernie would have been - but I can at least understand why they might buy into his message of "Making America Great".
There is no right answer in this election. Both candidates are flawed, and those flaws make it difficult for people to find reasons to vote for a particular candidate. I think the candidate that can create the best "vision" for their presidency will ultimately win. Trump has the sound bite, not sure he has anything to support it. Clinton seems to have lots of detailed plans - but no central unifying theme to show why she wants to be president - ultimately this is a poor message, delivered by a poor messenger. She spends too much time putting out fires and not enough time honing that message.
Make America Great >>>>> I am with her
One tells the story people want to hear, one says "vote for me, I am a woman"
I think there's two threats here. The one you mention- the threat to our fundamental principles- is certainly the clearer and more likely one.
There is a very ugly "other" fear that he is preying on and feeding in people that is as toxic as anything in national politics since George Wallace. Anybody seeing things in his mostly imaginery platform that are more significant than that are either stupid, racist, or insane. And that is just the tip of the iceberg of why he is dangerous.I think that is probably a bit harsh. Certainly some people are ugly and/or stupid. But, I suspect most of Trump's "support" fits into two categories; "Not Clinton" and "Republican" - both are somewhat related.
I am not ready to call people "stupid" if they have a different perspective than me - mis-informed, maybe. But, more likely it comes down to different life experiences. There are a lot of people who are not feeling the economic recovery - working harder, for less money. I suspect their attachment to the Trump movement is more about wanting someone to stand up for them, than it is supporting overt racism or bigotry. I am not sure that Trump is really the person to do that - Bernie would have been - but I can at least understand why they might buy into his message of "Making America Great".
There is no right answer in this election. Both candidates are flawed, and those flaws make it difficult for people to find reasons to vote for a particular candidate. I think the candidate that can create the best "vision" for their presidency will ultimately win. Trump has the sound bite, not sure he has anything to support it. Clinton seems to have lots of detailed plans - but no central unifying theme to show why she wants to be president - ultimately this is a poor message, delivered by a poor messenger. She spends too much time putting out fires and not enough time honing that message.
Make America Great >>>>> I am with her
One tells the story people want to hear, one says "vote for me, I am a woman"
You may be right.
It is telling that you twice left out the most troubling word his this four-word slogan. The one that suggests that things were a lot better in a (fictional) past, one that by definition excludes progress that's been made on many issues in the interim.
Grow up. I don't like either candidate. I am fascinated by the dynamics of the race.
This. In fairness, it's not just Trump supporters who have surprised me. Fellow liberals and moderates who I never would have expected to fall for the false equivalence game have been extremely disappointing, perhaps even more so because they should know better.
To be honest, I could not remember if "again" was part of it, and was too lazy to go look it up.
I'm almost worried enough to go vote for the lesser of two evils...we'll see how she does.Terrible polls yesterday and today. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that if Trump doesn't have an epic bad performance in one of the three debates he's going to win this thing. See, the thing about being taken by a scam is that once you've been had you generally do everything you can to avoid acknowledging that. I think this is why he's generally added support through the entire process- nobody leaves his camp once they're leaning his way, because to do so is to admit you've been had.
Anyway, in the continuing effort to convince any voters wary of Clinton that she's a good person and would make a good president, here's a comment that appeared under the NY Times endorsement. There are many, many stories like this one. Here, in case you missed it or need a reminder, is that Facebook post from the cancer survivor.
She's not perfect, but she's a good person and she deserves your vote. I'm taking a break from most of this crap for a while, it's stressing me out, but if anyone has real questions about her and wants to know more about why I think she'd be a good president, I'm happy to answer.
If you haven't read it yet, you should read this column by the legendary Roger Angell, who call this the most important election of his 96 years, including one cast while he was fighting WWII: My Vote. Most of it is about the unique threat of a Trump presidency, which he calls "a danger unmatched in our history since the Cuban missile crisis, in 1962, or perhaps since 1943, when the Axis powers held most of Continental Europe, and Imperial Japan controlled the Pacific Rim, from the Aleutians to the Solomon Islands, with the outcome of that war still unknown."
But he also voices his opinion on Clinton:
But the "again" part is the key to the whole thing. It totally changes the message, from "make America better" to "return America to its glorious past." There is a reason it has resonated so deeply with white men and pretty much nobody else.
No one took me up on this. I think this is still the sweet spot for Hillary.
Maybe, but I think you are reading too much into that message, and why it resonates. Bernie had a similar message along the lines of economic prosperity, but he never connected with minorities. Nothing racist about that message. It just does not resonate - perhaps trust issues - with minorities.
