What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

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!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

FlagDUDE08 said:
Uhhh... Michael Savage was one of the first in media to promote Donald Trump. And given Savage's credo (Borders, Language, Culture) is what Trump had been professing throughout the campaign, I'd say he's staunch. The biggest difference is that he's not a cheerleader, and he will hold elected officials accountable regardless of campaign support.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh...I was referring to the True Believers here that are still coming strong with genius takes like "Kellyanne didn't lie, because if she had said different words it would have been true".
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
If those are the two options Trump wins a second term in a landslide. The Safe act won't play in most of the country and Warren is incredibly unlikable.
Click to expand...

Warren may be the most respected politician in America right now. I don't think the inevitable hit job the rightwing media does on her will extend past the Echo Chamber.

You guys got very lucky with Hillary. That's not gonna happen again unless the Dems do something asinine like Caroline Kennedy or, well, Hillary again.
 
Last edited:
Spartanforlife4 said:
What makes Warren unlikeable?
Click to expand...

I think it is a combination of a holier than thou attitude and talking down to people. Since she has been a senator she hasn't really gotten anything accomplished other than attending rallies and trying to troll Trump on Twitter. There was a poll done recently(God only knows how accurate it actually was) where only around 40% of people in mass said she deserved another term. If it was accurate that is surprising and telling when you consider how liberal mass is.
 
Kepler said:
Warren may be the most respected politician in America right now. I don't think the inevitable hit job the rightwing media does on her will extend past the Echo Chamber.

You guys got very lucky with Hillary. That's not gonna happen again unless the Dems do something asinine like Caroline Kennedy or, well, Hillary again.
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't even bother running if Biden is in the race.

See my other post regarding Warren.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Rover said:
Because lefties need to learn a hard lesson and look in the mirror. Otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes with disastrous consequences. Like 2000. This needs to be reinforced constantly. Complacently and a quest for purity amongst liberals will keep knuckledraggers in power for eons. Saying "my bad" but lets move on doesn't cut it. The time to defeat the real enemy was 3 months ago but we kept getting kneecapped by our alleged allies, while every Mittens voter turned around and supported Trump even though they were supposed to be horrified by him.

So, let me give you a hypothetical. 2020 rolls around and we have two choices in the primaries. Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Cuomo. Not a far fetched scenario. Warren is my favorite pol and I hope she gets the nomination. However, say she doesn't and Cuomo wins out. I will enthusiastically support his candidacy, not because I'm crazy about the guy, but because he's light years better than the alternative, Trump 2.0. My extreme worry Kep, and it starts with you, is that the temptation for you to spend all primary blasting the guy, then sticking a "Warren...okay Cuomo I guess" bumper sticker on your car while claiming there's be no difference between him and Trump on key issues would be too great to resist. This is something the left needs to reconcile with itself BEFORE election day, not afterwards like they're doing now.
Click to expand...
Obviously people who didn't vote Hillary over Trump screwed up but you need to put some blame on Dem leadership for putting their full weight behind a relatively unexciting candidate who likely was going to be slightly worse than Obama. Not to mention the strategy of "well we already have it in the bag nothing to worry about here".
 
trixR4kids said:
Obviously people who didn't vote Hillary over Trump screwed up but you need to put some blame on Dem leadership for putting their full weight behind a relatively unexciting candidate who likely was going to be slightly worse than Obama. Not to mention the strategy of "well we already have it in the bag nothing to worry about here".
Click to expand...

The only two democrats elected president in the last 40 years were young and not very well known before they ran. Biden could have been an exception but you guys should stick with what has worked.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
I think it is a combination of a holier than thou attitude and talking down to people. Since she has been a senator she hasn't really gotten anything accomplished other than attending rallies and trying to troll Trump on Twitter. There was a poll done recently(God only knows how accurate it actually was) where only around 40% of people in mass said she deserved another term. If it was accurate that is surprising and telling when you consider how liberal mass is.
Click to expand...
There was a poll done recently
Click to expand...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/23/warren-popularity-plummets-in-latest-poll/
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

What could go wrong?

As a clandestine officer at the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002, Gina Haspel oversaw the torture of two terrorism suspects and later took part in an order to destroy videotapes documenting their brutal interrogations at a secret prison in Thailand.

On Thursday, Ms. Haspel was named the deputy director of the C.I.A.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Kepler said:
I have more sympathy with your argument than you probably realize.

However, look at it from the other side for a moment. Do you really think telling liberals "you suck and it's all your fault!" twenty times a day is going to build the party unity you recognize we need? Particularly when from the liberal perspective it isn't our fault at all and the lesson to be learned from the election is listen to your base and nominate a liberal when liberalism matches the country's anger with the plutes?

If you don't let it go and start moving back towards a union between moderates and liberals we will spend all our time beating on each other and not opposing an actual fascist coup. If we don't start winning elections immediately the GOP will distort our elections to create self-perpetuating rule. THAT is the motivation that both sides can unite on. You and I can fight until the end of time on why we lost the election (hint: our candidate was literally less appealing than a cut-rate Mussolini with a clown car of negatives) and be no closer to power. Or we can unite against the real threat and leave our differences for when we have the luxury to thrash them out.
Click to expand...

See Kep I agree with most of this but you're failing to learn a really important lesson, which is if Hillary was the problem, why did she get more votes than all of our candidates in key races? Now I don't expect you to answer that right now, but its something you need to ponder. As another progressive poster who worked on the Feingold race admitted, its worth examining why he got less votes than she did in Wisconsin.

I made this mistake in 2004, blaming Kerry solely for the loss. Kerry was in fact a dink, but he was merely a symptom of a much larger problem. That problem was an entire party trying to have it both ways on the Iraq War. This muddle continued for another 2 years until Murtha went lone wolf and not only forced the party into a clear position (total opposition) but also neutered Dick Cheney with the famous "I like it when people with 5 deferments question my patriotism" line.

Similarly, you'd like to blame Hillary for the loss because of your undying affection for Bernie. What I'm telling you is that Bernie-like candidates be it the aforementioned Feingold or Teachout in NY or all the other liberal heroes ALL LOST and got less votes than Hillary in their states/districts. So, you need to recalculate your theory based on actual math. Remember, math is our friend.

So, what I'd say to liberals/progressives/whatever is that you may have to enthusiastically (that's the key word) accept someone as the nominee who's not quite as liberal or progressive as you are (not you personally) and who may at one point have attended a cocktail party or two on Wall St. You (again not you personally) need to accept, make peace, and put that far, far behind you long before election night or we'll be saying Hi to 8 years of uninterrupted GOP rule. If Warren/Sherrod Brown/etc is our nominee we're in sync. If Cuomo or Kaine is our nominee I fear we won't be and that's a problem.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

And people laughed at me when I was so alarmed about him becoming President. This is WORSE than I ever dreamed.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Rover said:
See Kep I agree with most of this but you're failing to learn a really important lesson, which is if Hillary was the problem, why did she get more votes than all of our candidates in key races? Now I don't expect you to answer that right now, but its something you need to ponder. As another progressive poster who worked on the Feingold race admitted, its worth examining why he got less votes than she did in Wisconsin.

I made this mistake in 2004, blaming Kerry solely for the loss. Kerry was in fact a dink, but he was merely a symptom of a much larger problem. That problem was an entire party trying to have it both ways on the Iraq War. This muddle continued for another 2 years until Murtha went lone wolf and not only forced the party into a clear position (total opposition) but also neutered Dick Cheney with the famous "I like it when people with 5 deferments question my patriotism" line.

Similarly, you'd like to blame Hillary for the loss because of your undying affection for Bernie. What I'm telling you is that Bernie-like candidates be it the aforementioned Feingold or Teachout in NY or all the other liberal heroes ALL LOST and got less votes than Hillary in their states/districts. So, you need to recalculate your theory based on actual math. Remember, math is our friend.

So, what I'd say to liberals/progressives/whatever is that you may have to enthusiastically (that's the key word) accept someone as the nominee who's not quite as liberal or progressive as you are (not you personally) and who may at one point have attended a cocktail party or two on Wall St. You (again not you personally) need to accept, make peace, and put that far, far behind you long before election night or we'll be saying Hi to 8 years of uninterrupted GOP rule. If Warren/Sherrod Brown/etc is our nominee we're in sync. If Cuomo or Kaine is our nominee I fear we won't be and that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Kerry reminder. That makes 2 Presidential elections now, not one, where Liberals learned nothing from the Nader fiasco.

Basically what we need to know is we need an overwhelming majority of votes in polls prior to election day to have any chance of winning. People are lying to pollsters now because they don't want to admit they are voting for an Orc, AND the Liberals out there are all over the map with their ridiculous demands about needing to fall in love with their candidate or they're not voting for him/her.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Rover said:
See Kep I agree with most of this but you're failing to learn a really important lesson, which is if Hillary was the problem, why did she get more votes than all of our candidates in key races? Now I don't expect you to answer that right now, but its something you need to ponder. As another progressive poster who worked on the Feingold race admitted, its worth examining why he got less votes than she did in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

I admit that is an excellent point. I will ponder it and hey it may even change my mind.

But I think the lesson we should learn is "in for a penny, in for a pound." You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had, and at that point the effort must be maximal. I will definitely admit that in being snide about Hillary after the nomination I was wrong. But I think you are equally wrong when you paint large swaths of the party as intransigent or delusional or spoiled. If nothing else, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Three cliches in one paragraph is my limit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top