#NeverHillary-- Is it ever smart to take a step backward to take two steps forward politically?

[Art Vandelay]

As long as we give into the politics of "the lesser of two evils," we are:

1) Tacitly endorsing and openly accepting evil.

2) Enabling the persistence of evil for lack of incentive to change.

Doesn't this framework allow Democrats to always cover up their flaws by pointing to the evil of a Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, or George Bush?

​

Might it be better for Clinton to lose and the Democratic Party to realize that triangulation and Reagan-lite politics are not acceptable any more? If they manage to lose to Trump based on domestic policy, they will certainly see that they have to make major changes.

Is the opportunity to appoint justices more likely to protect voting rights and healthcare too great to pass up? Is the damage that would be done by a party that would dismantle the ACA, ban abortion and forms of birth control, attack medicare and social security, privatize education, redistribute even more wealth to the rich, etc-- without even getting into their crazy foreign aggression-- too great to risk?

Maybe four years of hell is worth it for a greater chance that the Democrats won't think they can advance a candidate who has supported every Republican trade deal from NAFTA to the TPP, who supports bare minimum "progress" on minimum wage out of necessity or is afraid to advocate for the policies needed to fight climate change out of concern over still trying to appeal to Reagan Democrats. Maybe hitting rock bottom is necessary to raise the ceiling on what is achievable and the political battles which will be fought.

Maybe.

 

[Art Vandelay]

“After Trump, Our Turn!”
By Michelle Goldberg, Slate.com
March 29, 2016

Let’s be grateful to Susan Sarandon for exposing just how vapid and callous the left-wing #NeverHillary argument is. Speaking to Chris Hayes on MSNBC on Monday night, Sarandon, a Bernie Sanders surrogate, said she was unsure if she could bring herself to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election. Hayes was shocked, but Sarandon posited that a Trump presidency might be preferable to a Clinton one, because it would hasten the revolution. “Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode,” she said.

It’s unclear how many people Sarandon speaks for. There are lots of posturing radicals on social media who pretend Clinton would be no better than Trump, but my guess is that they are a tiny fraction of Sanders supporters. Sanders himself certainly doesn’t encourage such political nihilism and will surely rally to Clinton’s side if she beats him in the primary. Inasmuch as #NeverHillary is a phenomenon, however, Sarandon, a rich white celebrity with nothing on the line, is a perfect spokeswoman for it.

​

What Sarandon is voicing is the old Leninist idea of “heightening the contradictions,” which holds that social conditions need to get worse in order to inspire the revolution that will make them better. In this way of thinking, the real enemy of progress is incremental reform that would render the status quo tolerable. That was the position of the German Communists in the early 1930s, who refused to ally with the Social Democrats, proclaiming: “After Hitler, our turn!” A similar—if less deadly—assumption underlay Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign, for which Sarandon served as co-chair of the national steering committee. George W. Bush, Nader argued then, could serve as a “provocateur,” awakening the power of the left. “If it were a choice between a provocateur and an ‘anesthetizer,’ I'd rather have a provocateur,”said Nader. “It would mobilize us.”

To be fair to Nader, under Bush, the contradictions got pretty high. He left the Middle East in flames, and the economy hasn’t recovered from the financial implosion he presided over. Had Bush not wrecked so many lives, we might never have gotten President Obama and the Affordable Care Act, or, for that matter, a democratic socialist running a credible presidential primary campaign. Yet the Bush example should also make it obvious that the cost of electing a Republican provocateur is human misery on an inconceivable scale, inflicted on people who lack Sarandon’s many resources.

The problems with Sarandon’s position go beyond its tolerance for human sacrifice. There’s also the gormless unreality of her idea of revolution. Does she mean a political revolution, like the one Sanders has proposed? Because the major barrier to such a revolution is not a populace that needs to suffer more in order to reach Sarandon’s superlative level of wokeness. It is the structural obstacles to democracy systematically erected by Republicans and Republican-appointed judges: the widespread erosion of voting rights, the unlimited flood of money into politics unleashed by the Supreme Court, and the epic gerrymandering following the 2010 census that makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to win back the House, even if they win a majority of votes. These things will get worse, not better, in any Republican administration, making the possibility of a peaceful electoral revolution all the more remote.

But maybe that’s not the sort of revolution Sarandon has in mind? Maybe she actually longs for the kind where things “really explode”? If so, one wonders who she thinks is going to fight this revolution. It’s certainly possible that a Trump presidency could lead to violent political conflict. If it comes to that, however, my money is on the side with all the gun fetishists, not subscribers to Jacobin.

The results of a Trump presidency would likely be far less dramatic. They might just include the widespread persecution of undocumented immigrants, the appointment of Supreme Court judges who will jettison Roe v. Wade, the end of any federal action on global warming, and a ramping up of American war crimes. We certainly won’t see any expansion of family leave or early education. Based on what we’ve seen of Trump so far, we can expect him to use the powers of the federal government, including NSA surveillance, to target and humiliate his personal enemies, especially women. One thing, however, is sure. No matter what happens, Susan Sarandon will be just fine.

 

[DaAssWatcher]

We hit rock bottom when ACA couldn't even be brought up if single payer option was on the table and dems sat back and allowed tea party to run the show and gain majority.Seemed like they were in on the whole thing.

 

[BitchI'llKillYa]

We hit rock bottom when ACA couldn't even be brought up if single payer option was on the table and dems sat back and allowed tea party to run the show and gain majority.Seemed like they were in on the whole thing.

#Truth

 

[Art Vandelay]

We hit rock bottom when ACA couldn't even be brought up if single payer option was on the table and dems sat back and allowed tea party to run the show and gain majority.Seemed like they were in on the whole thing.

#Truth

I think that's a good example of the sad shape the Democratic party is in and what will never change if voters allow them to continue playing "good cop" to the scary Republican "bad cop."

But that is far, far from rock bottom. What Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and company would do to this country-- starting with taking away the progress that was made with the ACA-- would make the worst Democratic administration look like water on the Sahara desert.

Recognizing the "good cop" is a crooked son of a bitch doesn't mean forgetting why the bad cop is worse. The Democrats will put you in jail over a lapsed car registration but the Republicans will put a broom stick in your ass, take you for a joy ride and then throw away the key after they lock you up.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Why Hillary Clinton won’t pick Elizabeth Warren for Vice President

 

[Watcher]

This is the dumbest shit...it's mind boggling.

If you knew all the right wing policies Obama has stopped the republicans passing you wouldn't think this way.

It would take 20+ years to recover from a republican president.

White people would be the minority but the only people voting after they got done controlling all branches of the government. Not an exaggeration.

So go ahead with this line of thinking and don't bitch one bit about white people after you cast that vote for trump or don't vote.

 

[Watcher]

• 
  PRINCETON, NJ -- Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89% of Republican self-identifiers nationwide
  
• Republicans are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, at a level that is significantly higher than the self-identified white percentage of the national adult population. Just 2% of Republicans are black, and 6% are Hispanic.

I still can't figure out why BGOL members who claim to be Black stump for an all white party every day on this board.

 

[Art Vandelay]

This is the dumbest shit...it's mind boggling.

If you knew all the right wing policies Obama has stopped the republicans passing you wouldn't think this way.

It would take 20+ years to recover from a republican president.

White people would be the minority but the only people voting after they got done controlling all branches of the government. Not an exaggeration.

So go ahead with this line of thinking and don't bitch one bit about white people after you cast that vote for trump or don't vote.

I said the Republicans would "ban abortion and forms of birth control, attack medicare and social security, privatize education, redistribute even more wealth to the rich." That's a lot of damage, from which a lot of people would never recover and I'm not sure you could ever even say the country would "recover," only reverse and rebalance. 20 years is a huge understatement in some respects. I fully understand the impact a Republican president and congress would have in even just four years.

Decades without a true opposition party, however, could have a greater long-term impact. If you knew all the right wing policies the tea partiers stopped Obama and Boehner from passing (because they weren't right-wing enough) you wouldn't think this way. He preserved Bush's high-income tax cuts and, right after his major 2012 victory, tried to switch to chained CPI, which would cut Social Security benefits, veterans benefits and reduce food stamp benefits:

But some of the most heated commentary came from the left, which was furious that the president was enshrining cuts to Social Security as official administration policy. Obama proposed changing the cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in a way that will reduce benefits for most recipients, a key Republican request that he had earlier embraced only as part of a compromise.

“I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the Democrats. “I remember when Obama said he was concerned about retirees struggling to get by and was unequivocal in his opposition to cutting cost-of-living adjustments.”​

The lesser of two enemies is still working against you. I think it makes sense to tolerate harsher opposition in the short-term if it forces the Democratic party to be more representative of the interests of its constituents.

 

[Watcher]

The lesser of two enemies is still working against you. I think it makes sense to tolerate harsher opposition in the short-term if it forces the Democratic party to be more representative of the interests of its constituents.

It wouldn't been short term.

Republicans would make sure minorities couldn't vote if they control all branches and the SP. Game over

 

[gene cisco]

Trump isn't a real republican. Cruz is. Trump has basically trolled the party to support him being important. The general should be interesting indeed. Trump's stance on illegals and Islam doesn't affect black people for the most part.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It wouldn't been short term.

Republicans would make sure minorities couldn't vote if they control all branches and the SP. Game over

Voter ID laws, curtailing early voting, etc isn't going to "make sure minorities couldn't vote." A Democratic base responding to Republican overreach and represented by a people's party would vote in massive numbers, with their elected officials then reversing whatever infringements and implementing significant progressive reform.

 

[Watcher]

Voter ID laws, curtailing early voting, etc isn't going to "make sure minorities couldn't vote." A Democratic base responding to Republican overreach and represented by a people's party would vote in massive numbers, with their elected officials then reversing whatever infringements and implementing significant progressive reform.

You are assuming that's all they have to disenfranchise minorities. They are re-writing history books in republican states to try and erase that slavery happened.

They will come up with more tactics.

 

[older version]

A Republican president would mean to the populace (right or wrong):
- The last 4 years of a Democratic presidency were wrong for the country
- The people "have spoken" and a referendum against liberal policies is in order

In other words, a shakeup in the democratic party is ot served well in a presidential race. Too much is at stake.
Shakeup would have to happen internally.

 

[Art Vandelay]

A Republican president would mean to the populace (right or wrong):
- The last 4 years of a Democratic presidency were wrong for the country
- The people "have spoken" and a referendum against liberal policies is in order

In other words, a shakeup in the democratic party is ot served well in a presidential race. Too much is at stake.
Shakeup would have to happen internally.

It's definitely better for Obama's legacy to have a Democratic successor. A lot of people will make that first point you made-- both of them, really, as one. But the truth would be more complicated. If the Democratic party needed an internal shakeup and didn't do it when they had a chance-- the primary contest between Clinton and Sanders-- and failed to do it, the issue is the direction of the party, which is bigger than Obama. (Though he will have some blame for that, having basically endorsed Clinton during the primary.) The people can speak through silence and the failure of Democrats to really be a party of the people is a referendum on them, not the liberal policies they only half-embraced.

And you said "right or wrong," so I can't argue with anything you said. You're right about the conclusions that would be drawn. But they would be wrong and Democrats could have avoided it. is

 

[Art Vandelay]

You are assuming that's all they have to disenfranchise minorities. They are re-writing history books in republican states to try and erase that slavery happened.

They will come up with more tactics.

"Etc." means it wasn't meant to be all-encompassing. Again, Democrats need to turn out the people they claim to represent. Modern voter suppression is only impactful at the margins in this country. Nothing Republicans can do in the next four years can fend off the demographic changes that are turning them into a minority party.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Trump isn't a real republican. Cruz is. Trump has basically trolled the party to support him being important. The general should be interesting indeed. Trump's stance on illegals and Islam doesn't affect black people for the most part.

The majority of native-born Muslims in this country are black. Trump's stance on "illegals" is just the latest manifestation of Nixon's silent majority politics of the 60s and 70s. He's a real Republican in the worst way, his white supremacist policies that very greatly impact black people.

Also, don't forget Nixon started the EPA and implemented price controls. The party has become more hardline and Trump is a huge departure from the party of Reagan in that he isn't anti-government across the board. Many Republicans would say he's not a "real Republican" and that's true in the ways Reagan redefined the party. But the Republican coalition goes back to the civil rights era and I think Trump represents the pro-white glue that has really held the party together.

 

[Art Vandelay]

A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016
Is there one? A Trump presidency needn't be a nightmare for the left. On many issues, Clinton presidency might be
WALKER BRAGMAN

There are perhaps no three words more jarring to liberals than “President Donald Trump.” The GOP front-runner and presumptive nominee has undoubtedly made enemies with his nativist rhetoric and bellicose persona. That said, now that the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is effectively over, with the former secretary of state essentially guaranteed the nomination, many liberals and progressives are preparing, once again, to vote for the lesser of two evils. The choice may not be as clear as some Democrats believe — especially if Democrats can take back the Senate and assure themselves of a check on a GOP House.

Once you’ve let that sink in, try this: There is a liberal case to be made for Donald Trump. The prospect of Trump defeating Clinton this November is not necessarily the apocalypse that some would lead you to believe. Here are some of the reasons why.

1.) He’ll Change the Conversation

Perhaps the best thing I can say about Trump is that he speaks his mind. This sometimes leads to some pretty outlandish things, but not always. As Shane Ryan of Paste magazine, pointed out in a recent article, Trump has spent much of his time lately, railing against free trade and NAFTA, as well as the gross inequality in our system. Trump often talks about raising taxes on “hedge fund guys,” and he has acknowledged that the primary process is skewed in favor of the establishment.

Like Sanders, Trump is neither beholden to special interests, nor coordinating with a Super PAC. This alone sets him apart from the other candidates in the race —especially Hillary Clinton. If he wins the presidency, it will send shock waves through our political system, much like what would happen if Bernie were elected, but with a twist.

Trump’s brand of populism has been enabled by the roughly 40-year decline of our middle class that both parties have facilitated through the abandonment of Franklin D. Roosevelt in favor of Ronald Reagan. Trump may not offer policy specifics, but he does not need them because the political establishment on both sides of the aisle, have failed the American people so badly, and the people have caught on. The United States is an oligarchy — at least that’s what professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern concluded in their recent study.

Trump’s candidacy is further served by the fact that we do not have publicly financed elections, and by our corporate, ratings-obsessed mainstream media. He has a personality for prime time, and enough money to run himself in spite of the powers lined up against him.

If he were to be elected, it would force our leaders to have a real conversation about these problems that they simply won’t have if the people elect an establishment candidate like Hillary Clinton. If anything, the narrative that would emerge from a Clinton presidency would be that change isn’t possible. The parties pick the candidates, and regardless of what their policies are, the people fall in line with them eventually. Power never truly changes hands.

Excusing the fact that Trump, himself, is a corporate interest, he would shake the current system to its core — which needs to happen.

2.) That said, most of his policies are DOA

In all likelihood, Trump will not accomplish anything. He has made serious enemies in both parties and the media, whom he feels have slighted him, and I cannot see him working with those people. Trump holds grudges. He has filed more frivolous lawsuits than anyone in the public eye — or maybe we just hear about them more. Either way, politics do require compromise to one degree or another, and without it, nothing gets done. As such, when Trump finds himself up against institutional and bureaucratic resistance, it is unlikely he will deliver. For example, his wall — paid for by Mexico — is never going to happen. Ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.? Not a chance.

But what if he does work with Congress?

Well, first off, we do not know what his platform will be when he hits the general election. He likely tack to the middle. Second, even if he does work with Congress, he is still not going to get his social policies passed. The Senate with its filibuster and cloture rules is enough of a check on that, even if Democrats do not have a majority. Basically, we will not have immigration reform, but we will not have people rounded up in the streets and deported. Third and most important of all: I do not need to trust Donald Trump in the same way I would have to trust Hillary Clinton were she elected. The reason for this is very simple: Trump represents the GOP brand, and Clinton claims the mantle of progressive. If Trump fails to accomplish anything in office, or if he manages to do whatever damage he can do, he will represent the Republicans. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, he represents America’s crypto-fascist element. The best way to discredit both of these groups is to let them fail on their own. Trump will not succeed as a president.

On the flip side, if Hillary Clinton screws up by compromising too much (which is likely) or doing too little (also likely), progressivism will take a big hit in the public eye, which is something we cannot afford.

3.) The 2020 election looms

Now we arrive at the point where I start sounding old Jud Crandall from Stephen King’s “Pet Sematary.” Progressives and Democrats should be focusing on the election in 2020 because 1) it is a census year — meaning the makeup of the House of Representatives for the following decade will depend on down-ballot voting — and 2) there may be openings on the Supreme Court.

The last consecutive two-term presidents from the same political party were James Madison and James Monroe. In other words, Democrats face long historical odds if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, of winning again in four years.

Historically, the party in control of the White House loses seats in the midterm. A Trump presidency would force Democrats to organize and turn out in the off-year. And it might provide a head-start on taking back the chamber in 2020.

Clinton is also one of the weakest candidates ever to secure the nomination for president from either party. As Gallup pointed out, the word most associated with her name is “dishonest.” Her favorability ratings are abysmal, she’s prone to secrecy which opens her up to perceptions of scandal, and she has an FBI investigation hanging over her head. Unlike her rival, Bernie Sanders, but like Donald Trump, she underperforms among Independents — a necessary voting bloc for any president.

Trump will also struggle in 2020 due to his lack of policy understanding, unwillingness to work with others, and lack of popularity. As I mentioned, he will probably be defending a record of little by way of achievement at a time when voters are demanding serious overhauls.

Trump now would enable the Democratic Party to regroup, and reform under a more economically populist banner in order to tap into the American zeitgeist. Perhaps 2020 could see President Elizabeth Warren.

4.) I’m Not Afraid of Donald Trump

Some of you might be reading this and thinking to yourselves: “That’s all well and good, but Trump is dangerous.” I understand those feelings. Donald Trump’s messages on social policy have been mixed at best, and fascistic at worst. His approach to climate science is frightening considering the dire situation our planet is in. Trump is also the kind of man who would use the office of the president to aggrandize himself, and punish his detractors — well, attempt to do so, like in his many libel and slander suits. Over the last twenty years the powers of the president have expanded considerably as commander-in-chief, and that’s concerning, too. Additionally, there is the matter of the Supreme Court of United States.

But let’s step back for a moment, and address some important points:

Trump will not transform America’s oligarchy into a fascist dictatorship, nor is he the second coming of Hitler. Our political culture precludes such a shift within any one presidency.

Regardless of what Donald Trump has said in this primary, like Hillary Clinton, his past positions and financial ties belie his sincerity. He’s been a consistent ally (and donor) to the Clintons for decades — so similar, he even shares the same Delaware address as they do, to avoid taxes:

In 1999, he supported efforts to eliminate our national debt. In 2000 he supported “tough on crime” policies, called for prosecuting hate crimes against homosexuals, criticized U.S. dealings with China, saying we’re “too eager to please,” and criticized the Communist country for their record on human rights. He has supported the assault weapon ban, waiting periods, and background checks, called for universal health care. and was tentatively pro-collective bargaining, arguing that unions “fight for pay, managers fight for less, and consumers win.” In 2010, he called for government partnering with environmentalists before undertaking “projects.”

Trump has also been consistently to the left of the Clintons on trade. In 1999, he said that the world views U.S. trade officials as “saps,” and in 2000, when Hillary Clinton was still very much pro-NAFTA, he called for renegotiating our trade deals to be more tougher and more fair for American workers.

Even today, Trump is to the left of Hillary Clinton on some issues. He supports medical marijuana, while she says “more research” needs to be conducted. He’s against super PACs — instructing those supporting his campaign to return all the money to the donors. I would not be the least bit surprised to see Trump run to Clinton’s left on economic policy in a general election — especially given the fact that he just announced that he will be using many of Sanders’ attacks on her then. The implications of such a move are a subject for a separate article.

As for foreign policy, Trump and Clinton are both talking about bombing ISIS, and have aggressive outlooks. For her part, Clinton recently announced, on the verge of a lasting peace, that the U.S. could “obliterate Iran.” Both have, at one point or another,supported torture. She voted for the war in Iraq, he opposed it. They each want to escalate some U.S. involvement overseas. They have at one point or another, both supported torture.

Their rhetoric makes my inner dove cringe. Hillary Clinton, for example, has pandered to Netanyahu and AIPAC. She couldn’t even say, during the Brooklyn debate, that the Israeli prime minister wasn’t “always right.” She recently announced that the U.S. would “obliterate” Iran in the event of a nuclear conflict. The U.S. and Iran are on the verge of a lasting peace deal that she supposedly supports.

Trump’s foreign policy talk has alienated our allies like the United Kingdon, and that isn’t something to take lightly. However, it has also earned praise from Vladimir Putin. That is interesting and of course potentially disingenuous, yet we’ve not had a good relationship with Russia for some time and Clinton’s “reset” as secretary of state failed.

There is one important distinction between the Clinton and Trump: she has a body count. Her foreign policy blunders — voting for the Iraq War, legitimizing the coup regime in Honduras, and supporting violent regime change in Libya — have cost thousands of lives.

Finally, let’s talk about the Supreme Court.

We have no way of predicting who Trump would appoint, but we can speculate with Hillary Clinton. While she has said that her litmus test for nominees will be commitment to overturning Citizens United v. FEC, there is little reason to trust her given how much she benefits from the current campaign finance system that is a product of that ruling and others. Clinton’s reliance on dark money and coordination with super PACs, along with her lack of serious discussion and failure to prioritize this issue belie her promise to reform.

This is the single most important, and inclusive problem today because it affects our ability to deal with every other issue. It is also the one area Democrats are not necessarily better than Republicans. President Barack Obama’s recent Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, is one of the judges responsible for the disastrous SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling which gave us Super PACs, and upheld Citizens United. Trump has talked about appointing additional Scalias. That’s dangerous — and all the more reason to hope Democrats take back the Senate, but also play hardball as well as Republicans have in the last year.

In the end, it is doubtful that the more negative aspects of Trump’s platform will ever come to pass. In 2016, the lesser-of-two-evils is not so clear.

 

[easy_b]

Obama has made alot of progress over his eight years...why do want to set home and start all over again???? I know Hillary has her issues but she would keep most of Obama policies in place. We could have had more but we Obama put into a bad position when Dems didn't vote in 2010 and 2014!!

 

[ballscout1]

This is the dumbest shit...it's mind boggling.

If you knew all the right wing policies Obama has stopped the republicans passing you wouldn't think this way.

It would take 20+ years to recover from a republican president.

White people would be the minority but the only people voting after they got done controlling all branches of the government. Not an exaggeration.

So go ahead with this line of thinking and don't bitch one bit about white people after you cast that vote for trump or don't vote.

really ? is it 20 years post Bush?

did it take 20 years after the first Bush ?

just fear tactics..

your whole post is an exaggeration

you just so happy to keep the status quo.

 

[ballscout1]

Obama has made alot of progress over his eight years...why do want to set home and start all over again???? I know Hillary has her issues but she would keep most of Obama policies in place. We could have had more but we Obama put into a bad position when Dems didn't vote in 2010 and 2014!!

no she won't.....

she is polar opposite of Obama when it comes to foreign policy..she has been paid to be a war Hawk and she will get involved in a war with Iran for Israel.

the only thing she will keep is the ACA and that is only if the GOP doesn't get a veto proof senate.

she is soft on Wall Street.....i mean she did go there and tell them to cut it out.

so with the exception of the ACA what policies will she be keeping exactly

 

[woodchuck]

This is the dumbest shit...it's mind boggling.

If you knew all the right wing policies Obama has stopped the republicans passing you wouldn't think this way.

It would take 20+ years to recover from a republican president.

White people would be the minority but the only people voting after they got done controlling all branches of the government. Not an exaggeration.

So go ahead with this line of thinking and don't bitch one bit about white people after you cast that vote for trump or don't vote.

I truly believe this.

 

[easy_b]

really ? is it 20 years post Bush?

did it take 20 years after the first Bush ?

just fear tactics..

your whole post is an exaggeration

you just so happy to keep the status quo.

It would had took 20 years but Obama was the right man for the job...any one else it would have taken 20 years to fix. Bill C. kind of fix Ronald mess from the 80's

 

[easy_b]

no she won't.....

she is polar opposite of Obama when it comes to foreign policy..she has been paid to be a war Hawk and she will get involved in a war with Iran for Israel.

the only thing she will keep is the ACA and that is only if the GOP doesn't get a veto proof senate.

she is soft on Wall Street.....i mean she did go there and tell them to cut it out.

so with the exception of the ACA what policies will she be keeping exactly

i agree she is opposite of Obama on foreign policy but she is 98% lock step with Obama on Domestic issues. Sander is opposite of Obama on everything which could be problematic.

 

[woodchuck]

It would had took 20 years but Obama was the right man for the job...any one else it would have taken 20 years to fix. Bill C. kind of fix Ronald mess from the 80's

Actually, Bill doubled down on some of Reagan's buffoonery.

 

[easy_b]

Actually, Bill doubled down on some of Reagan's buffoonery.

Not to me coming out of High school in 1994 I found job like crazy and each job paid more than the other. The only thing Bill fuck up on was the Media deregulation....this gave rise to fox news and Rush L. and others crazy Republicans in media

 

[ballscout1]

i agree she is opposite of Obama on foreign policy but she is 98% lock step with Obama on Domestic issues. Sander is opposite of Obama on everything which could be problematic.

easy to make a statement with no specifics..

what is she lock step on and what is Sanders against ?

domestically

Not to me coming out of High school in 1994 I found job like crazy and each job paid more than the other. The only thing Bill fuck up on was the Media deregulation....this gave rise to fox news and Rush L. and others crazy Republicans in media

Bill Clinton went even further right than the republicans wanted with the welfare reform and crime bill which was doubling down on Reagan.

And NAFTA is a big contributing factor in manufacturing leaving. Which is why those coming out of HS today can't find jobs. Shit many coming out of college can't find them....and Now let's add TPP

Bill also deregulated the financial industry.

You cats have no clue what Trump would do or won't do and that is why I say it's fear tactics.

 

[easy_b]

no she won't.....

she is polar opposite of Obama when it comes to foreign policy..she has been paid to be a war Hawk and she will get involved in a war with Iran for Israel.

the only thing she will keep is the ACA and that is only if the GOP doesn't get a veto proof senate.

she is soft on Wall Street.....i mean she did go there and tell them to cut it out.

so with the exception of the ACA what policies will she be keeping exactly

 

[ballscout1]

Oh so Nation Building .....

 

[easy_b]

 

[BKF]

We have the BLM folks not looking to run for office and the Berney Sanders folks not looking ti run a third party.
So where is the revolution and/or evolution of the democratic party?

 

[Big Tex]

The naivety is assuming that 4 years of Trump would lead to the country accepting a progressive instead of someone even more centrist that Hillary.

It's the hardest thing for people on the far left or right to accept, but the vast majority of the country doesn't agree with them. They always say, if you would just nominate a true conservative/liberal we would win in a landslide. Literally the tea party and the far left are saying the same exact shit.

As much as both those groups hate centrists, they one day will have to grow up and realize that the majority of people in this country want someone in the center. They don't want a hardcore conservative or progressive.

Thems just facts.

All 4 years of Trump would do is allow Republicans to get rid of the ACA, make sure the Supreme court is stacked with conservatives for the next 30 years, and allow them to go even further in shifting wealth to the top 1 percent.

8 years of Reagan didn't bring about this progressive revolution they keep talking about. 8 years of Bush didn't either. 4 years of Trump won't.

A centrist Dem would run in 4 years and win the White House. Or a far left Dem would lose and give the country 4 more years of Trump.

 

[BKF]

The naivety is assuming that 4 years of Trump would lead to the country accepting a progressive instead of someone even more centrist that Hillary.

It's the hardest thing for people on the far left or right to accept, but the vast majority of the country doesn't agree with them. They always say, if you would just nominate a true conservative/liberal we would win in a landslide. Literally the tea party and the far left are saying the same exact shit.

As much as both those groups hate centrists, they one day will have to grow up and realize that the majority of people in this country want someone in the center. They don't want a hardcore conservative or progressive.

Thems just facts.

All 4 years of Trump would do is allow Republicans to get rid of the ACA, make sure the Supreme court is stacked with conservatives for the next 30 years, and allow them to go even further in shifting wealth to the top 1 percent.

8 years of Reagan didn't bring about this progressive revolution they keep talking about. 8 years of Bush didn't either. 4 years of Trump won't.

A centrist Dem would run in 4 years and win the White House. Or a far left Dem would lose and give the country 4 more years of Trump.

We would not only have a republican president and congress. We'd also have mostly republican governors and state legislatures.
That spells disaster and a return to the 1950's. No thanks.

 

[BDR]

no she won't.....

she is polar opposite of Obama when it comes to foreign policy..she has been paid to be a war Hawk and she will get involved in a war with Iran for Israel.

the only thing she will keep is the ACA and that is only if the GOP doesn't get a veto proof senate.

she is soft on Wall Street.....i mean she did go there and tell them to cut it out.

so with the exception of the ACA what policies will she be keeping exactly

Bruh I'm convinced something is coming down the pipe where Hillary will forced to drop out of the nomination... Call me crazy but the investigation already places the state department in the cross hairs of helping Hillary to delete them emails so now it's not a matter of if Hillary knew but when she knew... She's going down in a ball of flames and the dem party is going to put up Biden to go the rest of the way in the General..

 

[ballscout1]

Bruh I'm convinced something is coming down the pipe where Hillary will forced to drop out of the nomination... Call me crazy but the investigation already places the state department in the cross hairs of helping Hillary to delete them emails so now it's not a matter of if Hillary knew but when she knew... She's going down in a ball of flames and the dem party is going to put up Biden to go the rest of the way in the General..

Very possible..

Although if it happens and it's late that could do more harm..

Not sure if Biden could get any excitment in a small amount of time...But those unwilling to vote for Hillary should be more willing to vote for Biden.

He should have never stepped aside