mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
dems had a better candidate (sanders) and they chose Hilary instead.
Did the Bernie crowd hate women? Or just prefer the alternative?
dems had a better candidate (sanders) and they chose Hilary instead.
And wouldn't a candidate who inspires people to get out and vote help to get more people involved?
There is a big difference between uninspiring and untrustworthy, dishonest, and unlikable. To say Hillary was somewhere along the lines of a Kasich type candidate is completely false.
There is a big difference between uninspiring and untrustworthy, dishonest, and unlikable.
Bull****. Anyone without blinders on knew she was a ****ty candidate. Hate to say I told you so, but.....
This is heresy for some. They feel like any sh-t sandwich they put up we have to vote for.
Personally, I did in fact vote for the sh-t sandwich. But I don't blame the consumer when a product fails.
She suxAnd I say again, to you and everyone else, why then didn't you concerned citizens vote Dem in 2010, 2014, or downballot in 2016? See, that's the point you always run away from - why did she outvote all the Dems in swing states with the exception of Cooper running for Gov in NC? All the Senate candidates in FL, WI, PA, NC - etc? 24 House districts she won that elected Republicans? Unfortunately, your attitude is doing the Republicans bidding. You're exactly what they want to see.
Hillary was not objectively untrustworthy and dishonest. That was noise machine BS.
She was, objectively, unlikable.
She was ordained the dem candidate in 2008.dems had a better candidate (sanders) and they chose Hilary instead.
Trump was the real **** sandwich. Clinton was an edible sandwich.....
You're exactly what they want to see.
Jeezus, did you even read the post? Of course it would. Do you expect your kids to jump for joy and give you a great big hug every time you tell them to eat their vegetables and do their homework? As citizens Americans could do themselves a great big favor and get over themselves. Abraham Lincoln was ugly as sin and sounded like a girl when he was excited. He would inspire very few people in the United States in 2017. I guess he wouldn't move you enough to get out and vote for him either.
Yeah ideally Americans would do a lot of things like exercise regularly so that 2/3 of the country isn't obese. At the same time to win elections you need to work within the parameters of reality, ie Americans are lazy. And when you have a ton of voting restrictions in key states they might not be willing to take of work to go to the DMV or whatever just so they can vote for someone who is the epitome of everything that's wrong with the democratic party. Especially when Trump had no chance anyhow (doh!).Jeezus, did you even read the post? Of course it would. Do you expect your kids to jump for joy and give you a great big hug every time you tell them to eat their vegetables and do their homework? As citizens Americans could do themselves a great big favor and get over themselves. Abraham Lincoln was ugly as sin and sounded like a girl when he was excited. He would inspire very few people in the United States in 2017. I guess he wouldn't move you enough to get out and vote for him either.
dems had a better candidate (sanders) and they chose Hilary instead.
Because the one thing the GOP is terrified of is the Democrats continuing to run candidates who voters find unpleasant and disconnected. Yes, that is their worst nightmare.
Take some responsibility, Rover. The Bernie wing understands they have to rally behind the eventual candidate and vote. We accept our portion of blame for this. But the centrists have to accept responsibility that their 90's message -- Don't Mention The Inequality -- no longer sells. Since the Great Recession at the very latest most Americans realize that our economy no longer works for anybody but the super rich and systemic changes have to be made. To the extent that the Democratic party has been captured by the 1% we have to expunge that influence and drive it back to its natural habitat in the Republican party. We have to retake up the mantle of the wealth distributionist, socialist, honest leftist party, because having two plutocratic parties is lethal to the US.
That cranky old ($%*$% who has never sponsored a bill of any consequence, was not a better choice than a former Secretary of State.
I don't have a problem with people who choose not to vote. It's their choice, and I'd rather see that than a vote cast out of pure ignorance. We'd all prefer to see everyone vote because the system works better if everyone is engaged, but it aint gonna happen.
I do have a problem with people who do not make at least a minimal effort to objectively assess choices in candidates and policy, though. I suppose we all fail at that to some degree, but, for example, the extent to which people are rationalizing Trump's off-the-chart idiocy is mind boggling and depresses me about our prospects.
I have to agree, even though I supported Bernie during the primary because I wanted to move my party and the country further left I think Clinton was more qualified to be president. I believe in single payer universal healthcare, universal higher education (not sure exactly how this would look exactly, but at a minimum trade schools and community college should be tuition free), higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy, reduced military spending