Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 125 of 216 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125126127135175 ... LastLast
Results 1,861 to 1,875 of 3233
  1. #1861
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by statquo View Post
    Hope to see all those high horse progressives who sat out or voted 3rd party in 2016 apologize to women across America for losing them their abortion rights. Too bad when they sat out or voted 3rd party they gave an opening for Trump who put all these judges in. Not surprising though. Progressives love losing.
    It was the democratic party and those voting for Hillary in the primaries that put up such a horrible candidate. Why not blame those most responsible for such a bad candidate making it to that point?

  2. #1862
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    19,731
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    It was the democratic party and those voting for Hillary in the primaries that put up such a horrible candidate. Why not blame those most responsible for such a bad candidate making it to that point?
    Now now. That would completely **** up their agenda.

  3. #1863
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    44,245
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    It was the democratic party and those voting for Hillary in the primaries that put up such a horrible candidate. Why not blame those most responsible for such a bad candidate making it to that point?
    Even if I agree with this - and I don't - who was better? Bernie? He ran an objectively terrible campaign, learned absolutely nothing from it, and then made the same mistakes all over again.

    Also, Hillary Clinton was both very popular and had hugely favorable ratings... until she wanted to run for President. Seriously, she's still a net positive favorable rating four days before she announced, and never again after.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemic”" - @LOLGOP

  4. #1864
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,524
    Given that the majority of Americans self-identified as “pro-life” (2018 figures), which included 48% of American women who self-identified as “pro-life” and 48% of American woman who identified as “pro-choice”, maybe, just maybe, America got what was — on balance — what it wanted in electing Trump and not Clinton.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/...ic-tables.aspx

    Pinning the blame on progressives is nothing but a loser’s excuse.

  5. #1865
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Even if I agree with this - and I don't - who was better? Bernie? He ran an objectively terrible campaign, learned absolutely nothing from it, and then made the same mistakes all over again.

    Also, Hillary Clinton was both very popular and had hugely favorable ratings... until she wanted to run for President. Seriously, she's still a net positive favorable rating four days before she announced, and never again after.
    Bernie was a better candidate to me, sure I would agree. So were plenty of the options even in 2020 we saw. The party didn't really seem to want much competition, Sanders was basically an unknown going in. That he was able to put up a challenge at all is telling imo when he was far less known coming in.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/...ating-low.aspx
    This goes further than 2009 and after (which was one of her peak times until she ran again). It shows how variable her approval was and how it dipped last time she ran too. This time around the country was shifting even more away from her values, she ran on policy further right while the party is clearly shifting more to the left. Biden knew this and had a much further left campaign for example to gain support.

    We can get into her hypocrisy of the past around being a champion for women at certain points. She often was using identity politics within her run as well which turns people off especially when you see that sort of hypocrisy above (or #notmyabuela for another example), obvious pandering instead of seeming genuine at all. Emails and Benghazi. The private speeches without transcripts also doesn't necessarily sit well with people. We can get into things said while campaigning like basket of deplorables. Or just running a campaign pretty far right of where the party is now. All in all she wasn't a great candidate that had plenty of flaws to point to and her favorability when all of it comes together in todays world even years after the run is very very low it hasn't recovered because that's how people see her now when the party isn't trying to prop her up and clear a path for her.

  6. #1866
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    5,817
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The GOP is the party of calling vaccines a hoax. They are absolutely not the party of vaccines. You need to look at the vast discrepancy in vaccinations by political party to know that is true.

    The GOP literally took their first act to make it easier for adjudicated mentally ill people guns when Trump won and had both chambers of Congress. They advocate for loopholes like the one that got the SC shooting where if a background check gets held up by 3 days they automatically get their gun.
    You need to show the litany of GOPers that are anti-vax. You haven't and won't. You just can't.

    You can't violate the 2nd amendment.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  7. #1867
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Bernie was a better candidate to me, sure I would agree. So were plenty of the options even in 2020 we saw. The party didn't really seem to want much competition, Sanders was basically an unknown going in. That he was able to put up a challenge at all is telling imo when he was far less known coming in.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/...ating-low.aspx
    This goes further than 2009 and after (which was one of her peak times until she ran again). It shows how variable her approval was and how it dipped last time she ran too. This time around the country was shifting even more away from her values, she ran on policy further right while the party is clearly shifting more to the left. Biden knew this and had a much further left campaign for example to gain support.

    We can get into her hypocrisy of the past around being a champion for women at certain points. She often was using identity politics within her run as well which turns people off especially when you see that sort of hypocrisy above (or #notmyabuela for another example), obvious pandering instead of seeming genuine at all. Emails and Benghazi. The private speeches without transcripts also doesn't necessarily sit well with people. We can get into things said while campaigning like basket of deplorables. Or just running a campaign pretty far right of where the party is now. All in all she wasn't a great candidate that had plenty of flaws to point to and her favorability when all of it comes together in todays world even years after the run is very very low it hasn't recovered because that's how people see her now when the party isn't trying to prop her up and clear a path for her.
    Good break down.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  8. #1868
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    44,245
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Bernie was a better candidate to me, sure I would agree. So were plenty of the options even in 2020 we saw. The party didn't really seem to want much competition, Sanders was basically an unknown going in. That he was able to put up a challenge at all is telling imo when he was far less known coming in.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/...ating-low.aspx
    This goes further than 2009 and after (which was one of her peak times until she ran again). It shows how variable her approval was and how it dipped last time she ran too. This time around the country was shifting even more away from her values, she ran on policy further right while the party is clearly shifting more to the left. Biden knew this and had a much further left campaign for example to gain support.

    We can get into her hypocrisy of the past around being a champion for women at certain points. She often was using identity politics within her run as well which turns people off especially when you see that sort of hypocrisy above (or #notmyabuela for another example), obvious pandering instead of seeming genuine at all. Emails and Benghazi. The private speeches without transcripts also doesn't necessarily sit well with people. We can get into things said while campaigning like basket of deplorables. Or just running a campaign pretty far right of where the party is now. All in all she wasn't a great candidate that had plenty of flaws to point to and her favorability when all of it comes together in todays world even years after the run is very very low it hasn't recovered because that's how people see her now when the party isn't trying to prop her up and clear a path for her.
    It has nothing to do with the party wanting competition. There was no one alive that was going to win the nomination over her, and so everyone knew that running would be a waste of time. The sitting Vice President didn't even bother trying, because he knew she'd win the nomination.

    Regardless, I don't think Clinton's positions were as far right as you're making them out to be. Literally part of the reason people hate her is due to a massive advertising campaign the health insurance companies launched against her in the 90's when they were trying to pass universal health care. Ten different, politically motivated, investigations into Benghazi didn't help, either.

    But all of this is doing a thing I saw a lot in 2016: accepting Republican attacks on her as true.

    It is worth pointing out though that she is the only person I'm aware of from that 2016 election that was talking about pandemic preparedness.

  9. #1869
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    It has nothing to do with the party wanting competition. There was no one alive that was going to win the nomination over her, and so everyone knew that running would be a waste of time. The sitting Vice President didn't even bother trying, because he knew she'd win the nomination.

    Regardless, I don't think Clinton's positions were as far right as you're making them out to be. Literally part of the reason people hate her is due to a massive advertising campaign the health insurance companies launched against her in the 90's when they were trying to pass universal health care. Ten different, politically motivated, investigations into Benghazi didn't help, either.

    But all of this is doing a thing I saw a lot in 2016: accepting Republican attacks on her as true.

    It is worth pointing out though that she is the only person I'm aware of from that 2016 election that was talking about pandemic preparedness.
    The person that lost an election to Donald Trump was unbeatable? I am not sure I buy that. Also why did Warren stay in the race so long next time around if her issue was being in a race she clearly wasn't going to win? Further though this is also what I was getting at about blaming the voters that support people like her. She was a poor candidate, if the best response is she had so many (tribal) followers no one could beat her, yikes. That's why I said blame the party and those who voted for her/her followers.

    I don't think she was far right for this country as a whole, she is clearly further right on policy than dems are running on today though is what I was getting at. Of course people were advertising against a POTUS candidate, that's how it works. That she had some specific issues to focus on didn't help even if I agree it was overblown some too in that sense with Benghazi.

    What am I accepting as a fact about her that isn't true? You need to be specific with a claim like that.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 12-04-2021 at 04:07 PM.

  10. #1870
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    104,666
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    You need to show the litany of GOPers that are anti-vax. You haven't and won't. You just can't.

    You can't violate the 2nd amendment.
    It is so clear that you can't even deny it.

    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  11. #1871
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    44,245
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    The person that lost an election to Donald Trump was unbeatable? I am not sure I buy that. Also why did Warren stay in the race so long next time around if her issue was being in a race she clearly wasn't going to win? Further though this is also what I was getting at about blaming the voters that support people like her. She was a poor candidate, if the best response is she had so many tribal followers no one could beat her, yikes. That's why I said blame the party and her followers.

    I don't think she was far right for this country as a whole, she is clearly further right on policy than dems are running on today though is what I was getting at. Of course people were advertising against a POTUS candidate, that's how it works. That she had some specific issues to focus on didn't help even if I agree it was overblown some too in that sense with Benghazi.

    What am I accepting as a fact about her that isn't true? You need to be specific with a claim like that.
    I meant in the Democratic primary. I'm not sure what Warren has to do with it? There was a clear frontrunner when things started in 2020, but there's a reason there were 6 people running in 2016, and 29 different candidates in 2020. No one was going to beat Clinton for the nomination. The closest Sanders ever got to her was being within 8 points in April, but there wasn't a single day of the 2016 nomination campaign when she wasn't the frontrunner. You can't say the same for 2020, though Biden did lead for most of it.

    And, again, if Clinton is a bad candidate, what does that make Sanders? The guy ran twice, the second time with far more money and name recognition, backed by people that got tattoos of him for some reason, and he was out earlier the second time than he was the first time around.

    I wasn't talking about the country as a whole. You said that Biden has "a much further left campaign" because of the movement of the party, but I'll bet you'd have trouble telling their positions apart if you saw them unattached to the candidate. Clinton, for example, wanted anyone in the country to be able to use the ACA Marketplace, regardless of immigration status; that is not in Biden's health plan. Clinton wanted to end family detention and close private detention centers; Biden only talked about closing private detention centers. Both Clinton's and Biden's LGBTQ policies look remarkably similar - the biggest differences are mostly found in Biden addressing things Trump did, that obviously hadn't happened yet for Clinton. Clinton wanted 12 weeks of paid family leave for a new child or seriously ill family member, and 12 weeks medical leave for a serious illness; Biden had it in the Build Back Better Act initially, but it was removed in the end. Their climate policies are fairly similar, but Clinton was calling for half a million solar panels to be installed on homes by the end of her first term; Biden didn't have anything regarding solar as far as I can tell. Both wanted to end subsidies to oil companies.


    I could keep going on this, but I think you're getting the idea. But this is my point: to you, Clinton was "further right," while Biden ran "much further left," but it's not remotely as simple as that. Clinton was painted as out of touch and opportunistic and disingenuous; Biden is simply responding to changes in the party, and moving with the times. Their policies are much more similar than most people seem to realize, but one is far enough left to be a pleasant surprise, and the other is so far right that it's unacceptable. Little of it seems to actually be based in reality, though.


    Edit: Wes unknowningly provided me a fine example of what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    Hillary is a democrat power broker even out of office. Kamala is her girl and she pushed for her over Stacey Ahrams. So you best care what Hillary thinks because she still affect the party.
    Did Stacy Abrams want the VP position? Did Biden even talk to Clinton about his VP, or about Harris? Has Clinton been pushing Harris, for VP or anything else? Beats me, and I have no idea if he actually has any evidence of any of this either, but who cares? Clinton hasn't been in public office in almost a decade and hasn't been a part of a campaign in six years, but who cares! She's a convenient boogeyman and oh my god I think she's right behind you!

    It's worth pointing out that, unless I missed it somewhere, no one was even talking about Clinton in that thread before this random post about her.
    Last edited by natepro; 12-04-2021 at 05:14 PM.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemic”" - @LOLGOP

  12. #1872
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I meant in the Democratic primary. I'm not sure what Warren has to do with it? There was a clear frontrunner when things started in 2020, but there's a reason there were 6 people running in 2016, and 29 different candidates in 2020. No one was going to beat Clinton for the nomination. The closest Sanders ever got to her was being within 8 points in April, but there wasn't a single day of the 2016 nomination campaign when she wasn't the frontrunner. You can't say the same for 2020, though Biden did lead for most of it.

    And, again, if Clinton is a bad candidate, what does that make Sanders? The guy ran twice, the second time with far more money and name recognition, backed by people that got tattoos of him for some reason, and he was out earlier the second time than he was the first time around.

    I wasn't talking about the country as a whole. You said that Biden has "a much further left campaign" because of the movement of the party, but I'll bet you'd have trouble telling their positions apart if you saw them unattached to the candidate. Clinton, for example, wanted anyone in the country to be able to use the ACA Marketplace, regardless of immigration status; that is not in Biden's health plan. Clinton wanted to end family detention and close private detention centers; Biden only talked about closing private detention centers. Both Clinton's and Biden's LGBTQ policies look remarkably similar - the biggest differences are mostly found in Biden addressing things Trump did, that obviously hadn't happened yet for Clinton. Clinton wanted 12 weeks of paid family leave for a new child or seriously ill family member, and 12 weeks medical leave for a serious illness; Biden had it in the Build Back Better Act initially, but it was removed in the end. Their climate policies are fairly similar, but Clinton was calling for half a million solar panels to be installed on homes by the end of her first term; Biden didn't have anything regarding solar as far as I can tell. Both wanted to end subsidies to oil companies.


    I could keep going on this, but I think you're getting the idea. But this is my point: to you, Clinton was "further right," while Biden ran "much further left," but it's not remotely as simple as that. Clinton was painted as out of touch and opportunistic and disingenuous; Biden is simply responding to changes in the party, and moving with the times. Their policies are much more similar than most people seem to realize, but one is far enough left to be a pleasant surprise, and the other is so far right that it's unacceptable. Little of it seems to actually be based in reality, though.
    Warren didn't run in 2016 despite considering it and you said the reason people didn't run is they couldn't win. She stayed in the next race despite clearly having no chance to win by the time others also dropped out so I just don't think that's necessarily why she (or anyone else) didn't run in 2016. She didn't care about having no chance at that point, I believe it was around super Tuesday. I also am not denying Clinton was a frontrunner but that normally isn't a reason to stop others from entering the race. Clinton leading Sanders isn't surprising so not sure what you think this is showing, as I said he was largely an unknown. That even he closed the gap to that extent hurts the idea no one else would have had a chance imo (as does Trump winning).

    Do you think whoever wins an election is always the best person? Do you think that of Trump too? Sanders isn't going to beat an establishment dem with the tribalism being noted (even you seem to think she had so many followers no one else would even consider a run). Many of those voters are the types to flock to the next establishment choice which was pretty clearly Biden this time around. If anything I was more surprised at the impact he had in sort of shifting the party a bit than being shocked he didn't win (even though I do think individually he is better). I am also of the belief that the primaries aren't a great representation of what the country as a whole will want as opposed to what the more staunch defenders of each party might want. So just because someone can't win a primary in one of the two parties certainly doesn't mean I think they make a worse candidate.

    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...234890482.html
    This is an analysis of each of their policies and came to the conclusion Bidens was far more liberal as a whole. I will have to take a closer look at every individual aspect you point out but there is so much that goes into a campaign it would be easy to cherry pick certain areas, not sure if that is what you did or not until I have time to dig in.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-p...ft-11584361269
    Wall street Journal noted similar about how the party had shifted although not necessarily an all around analysis either.

    It seems like you disagree from the general belief that overall Biden shifted left but from what I had seen previously like the articles above that was the case. I will dig into your links more later but want to give an idea of what I am getting at here as most in total type of analysis done often said the same from my memory.

    I never said it was just as simple as that and I literally noted why she was seen as disingenuous with a couple of examples. Also I think what I noted gets a little into how she seemed out of touch even without the policy aspect. She had individual flaws/history etc. that played into why she was viewed that way completely outside of the policy discussion. Biden responding to the changes in party and moving with the times is why he got enough support to win imo. If you just blame progressives and do everything the same you probably lose, that's why I was noting blame those responsible which would be Hillary and her followers. Biden changed with the times unlike her and it seemed to help him win despite clearly being in decline imo/having his own individual flaws too.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 12-04-2021 at 05:47 PM.

  13. #1873
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    33,066
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You think it's a dumb comparison because you care about the fetus baby but you don't care about those who are killed in school shootings.
    not true at all, I've commented about school shootings, blaming the nutjob that pulls the trigger.

    can you find any statistics for the number of school shooters compared to the number of registered gun owners?


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  14. #1874
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    La Puente, CA
    Posts
    15,525
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    It is so clear that you can't even deny it.

    Not surprising.

    Future Hall of Shamers:
    (1) B.A.L.C.O. Barroids (2) Mark McJuicer (3) Jose Chem-seco (4) Rafael Palmeiroids (5) Ken Chem-initi (6) Jason Gi-andro (7) Ryan Fraud (8) Muscle Melk (9) Woman-Ram (10) Shammy Sosa (11) Roger Clear-mens (12) A-Roid (13) Ryan HGHoward

  15. #1875
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    104,666
    Quote Originally Posted by dodgerdave View Post
    Not surprising.
    There’s no arguing. The base of the party and even filtering into some of the more moderate elements are fighting the vaccine at every turn.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •