Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Three things*:

 

31% of the electorate is now minority, up from 29% in 2012

 

Of the 11 million new voters since 2012, 7.5 million are either black, hispanic or Asian

 

Can't remember the number of deaths since 2012, but of them, something like 76% were white

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Doing this from memory. It was on Rachael Maddow last night.

Posted

 

 

Again, nobody is disagreeing with the phenomenon. What's confounding is that people picked Trump as that agent of change. But if you actually take time to listen to what he says and what he stands for, he's a hell of a lot closer to Obama than he is to Reagan. He's just blustering his way to the top, Yet once he gets there, DC is going to get a hell of a lot bigger and more powerful.

 

Listen to the GOP establishment's criticism. They're not afraid of getting tossed out of DC. They're afraid that liberals will run the roost whether Hillary or Trump sits in the White House.

 

Don't believe me? Always follow the money

 

 

You may well be right about everything you're saying. My original point was simply that the disconnect between the party leadership and the rank & file across the nation is what set the stage for Trump to gain the nomination, and that things might have been different had the party leaders paid closer attention to the people who put them in Washington in the first place.

Posted

 

You may well be right about everything you're saying. My original point was simply that the disconnect between the party leadership and the rank & file across the nation is what set the stage for Trump to gain the nomination, and that things might have been different had the party leaders paid closer attention to the people who put them in Washington in the first place.

 

I disagree. What set the stage for Trump was the very short attention spans by the average voter. It started with the Bush bad syndrome and followed on to Obama and has hit full peak with Trump.

Posted

 

You may well be right about everything you're saying. My original point was simply that the disconnect between the party leadership and the rank & file across the nation is what set the stage for Trump to gain the nomination, and that things might have been different had the party leaders paid closer attention to the people who put them in Washington in the first place.

what set the stage was citizens united. interestingly, I don't hear trump supporters screaming for campaign finance reform but that is the bedrock, fundamental change required to alleviate the proble you describe. Bernie talks more about this than all the other candidates combined.

Posted

 

I disagree. What set the stage for Trump was the very short attention spans by the average voter. It started with the Bush bad syndrome and followed on to Obama and has hit full peak with Trump.

 

 

what set the stage was citizens united. interestingly, I don't hear trump supporters screaming for campaign finance reform but that is the bedrock, fundamental change required to alleviate the proble you describe. Bernie talks more about this than all the other candidates combined.

 

Then we will agree to disagree. I don't have a horse in this race and I don't support anybody. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Posted

what set the stage was citizens united. interestingly, I don't hear trump supporters screaming for campaign finance reform but that is the bedrock, fundamental change required to alleviate the proble you describe. Bernie talks more about this than all the other candidates combined.

Wrong, again. The Tea Party movement preceded the Citizens United ruling. The Tea Party ideals are in contrast with the Republican party establishment.

Posted

what set the stage was citizens united. interestingly, I don't hear trump supporters screaming for campaign finance reform but that is the bedrock, fundamental change required to alleviate the proble you describe. Bernie talks more about this than all the other candidates combined.

 

This is crazy. How many times does it need to be said that Citizens United helps the established candidates? How can you still use CU as the example when 2 of 3 remaining candidates got there 100% based on grassroots support and virtually no big ticket funding?

 

Keep repeating a lie long enough, it will become true, right?

Posted (edited)

 

 

 

Then we will agree to disagree. I don't have a horse in this race and I don't support anybody. I'm just calling it as I see it.

so you disagree that campaign finance laws are an important factor in " party leaders paid closer attention to the people who put them in Washington in the first place"? or by "the people" were you referring to superpacs and corporations?

 

This is crazy. How many times does it need to be said that Citizens United helps the established candidates? How can you still use CU as the example when 2 of 3 remaining candidates got there 100% based on grassroots support and virtually no big ticket funding?

 

Keep repeating a lie long enough, it will become true, right?

the fact that they have calmost exclusively grassroots support is a large part of their appeal...which is directly attributable to CU and Buckley. nuch of their appeal is due to backlash against the type of candidate CU and Buckley give advantages to.

Edited by birdog1960
Posted

Three things*:

 

31% of the electorate is now minority, up from 29% in 2012

 

Of the 11 million new voters since 2012, 7.5 million are either black, hispanic or Asian

 

Can't remember the number of deaths since 2012, but of them, something like 76% were white

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Doing this from memory. It was on Rachael Maddow last night.

And there are about 8 million more Americans excersisng their 2nd aammendment right and have their conceal carry permits. You think they are going to vote for hillary?

Posted

so you disagree that campaign finance laws are an important factor in " party leaders paid closer attention to the people in Washington in the first place"? or by "the people" were you referring to superpacs and corporations?

the fact that they have calmost exclusively grassroots support is a large part of their appeal...which is directly attributable to CU and Buckley. nuch of their appeal is due to backlash against the type of candidate CU and Buckley give advantages to.

 

What kind of logic is that?

Posted

so you disagree that campaign finance laws are an important factor in " party leaders paid closer attention to the people in Washington in the first place"? or by "the people" were you referring to superpacs and corporations?

 

I wasn't speaking broadly, just sharing my opinion on how Trump gained the nomination, and what I believe the Republican party did to cause that to happen. Citizens United doesn't factor into my observation at all.

Posted

 

 

 

Then we will agree to disagree. I don't have a horse in this race and I don't support anybody. I'm just calling it as I see it.

 

Since when do we agree to disagree on PPP? Are you new here?

Posted

 

Since when do we agree to disagree on PPP? Are you new here?

 

:lol:

 

The irony is that I'm not even sure how to reply to that.

Posted

 

lol Yeah let's act like it's news that a Republican has shown allegiance to leftist causes by their actions.

 

...What?

 

This is crazy. How many times does it need to be said that Citizens United helps the established candidates? How can you still use CU as the example when 2 of 3 remaining candidates got there 100% based on grassroots support and virtually no big ticket funding?

 

Keep repeating a lie long enough, it will become true, right?

 

:lol: :LOL:

Yet, the candidate the money that owns the government wants to win and who was most helped by CU is conveniently left out of your narrative.

 

If you keep ignoring the reality smacking you in the face long enough... it'll still be reality.

×
×
  • Create New...