Sign up  |  Log in

Elizabeth ”Pocahontas” Warren running for president

Maybe its because Hillary lacked a core platform to begin with.  Anyhow, for every Brietbart there’s the dailyl kos or whatever.  It’s really not so different and CNN is just as dirty as Fox.  In the end, I think Hillary lost it by having a weak platform based on identity politics and failing to campaign in swing states aggressively or in some cases at all.  Anything beyond seems like excuse mongering, should have been a layup win for a half decent politician.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

Maybe its because Hillary lacked a core platform to begin with.  Anyhow, for every Brietbart there’s the dailyl kos or whatever.  It’s really not so different and CNN is just as dirty as Fox.  In the end, I think Hillary lost it by having a weak platform based on identity politics and failing to campaign in swing states aggressively or in some cases at all.  Anything beyond seems like excuse mongering, should have been a layup win for a half decent politician.

And that’s something we’ll never agree upon. Hillary’s issue was that her platform was significantly more complex than ‘Build the wall and have mexico pay for it’. Things like climate change and campaign finance reform are boring and uninteresting. Getting into tax reform is harder to understand than a tax cut. But it should still have been an easy win. And as I’ve said before, Trump was able to effectively change the message and new coverage away fom his flaws and win the election, regardless of how anyone feels about his politics.

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Maybe its because Hillary lacked a core platform to begin with.  Anyhow, for every Brietbart there’s the dailyl kos or whatever.  It’s really not so different and CNN is just as dirty as Fox.  In the end, I think Hillary lost it by having a weak platform based on identity politics and failing to campaign in swing states aggressively or in some cases at all.  Anything beyond seems like excuse mongering, should have been a layup win for a half decent politician.

And that’s something we’ll never agree upon. Hillary’s issue was that her platform was significantly more complex than ‘Build the wall and have mexico pay for it’. Things like climate change and campaign finance reform are boring and uninteresting. Getting into tax reform is harder to understand than a tax cut. But it should still have been an easy win. And as I’ve said before, Trump was able to effectively change the message and new coverage away fom his flaws and win the election, regardless of how anyone feels about his politics.

So this is essentially why she lost and why out of touch “coastal elites” still don’t get it.  These things in and of themselves aren’t bad positions and global warming is least worst.  But they aren’t the core of a viable platform to win a national election.  You also don’t really have to “agree” that she didn’t even visit Wisconsin and barely campaigned in Michigan which she needed, those are statements of fact.  But back to the platform, none of the three issues that jumped to your mind resonate with the more immediate needs of the the rustbelt.  You have to win the national platform and your own words highlight the out of sync world view that lost the election, building my point.  What’s truly mind boggling to me (because I like the idea of a strong, functional democratic party) is that nobody seems to have learned anything on that side with absolutely zero introspection and are still finger pointing outside their own strategy like they made no mistakes.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Maybe its because Hillary lacked a core platform to begin with.  Anyhow, for every Brietbart there’s the dailyl kos or whatever.  It’s really not so different and CNN is just as dirty as Fox.  In the end, I think Hillary lost it by having a weak platform based on identity politics and failing to campaign in swing states aggressively or in some cases at all.  Anything beyond seems like excuse mongering, should have been a layup win for a half decent politician.

And that’s something we’ll never agree upon. Hillary’s issue was that her platform was significantly more complex than ‘Build the wall and have mexico pay for it’. Things like climate change and campaign finance reform are boring and uninteresting. Getting into tax reform is harder to understand than a tax cut. But it should still have been an easy win. And as I’ve said before, Trump was able to effectively change the message and new coverage away fom his flaws and win the election, regardless of how anyone feels about his politics.

So this is essentially why she lost and why out of touch “coastal elites” still don’t get it.  These things in and of themselves aren’t bad positions and global warming is least worst.  But they aren’t the core of a viable platform to win a national election.  You also don’t really have to “agree” that she didn’t even visit Wisconsin and barely campaigned in Michigan which she needed, those are statements of fact.  But back to the platform, none of the three issues that jumped to your mind resonate with the more immediate needs of the the rustbelt.  You have to win the national platform and your own words highlight the out of sync world view that lost the election, building my point.  What’s truly mind boggling to me (because I like the idea of a strong, functional democratic party) is that nobody seems to have learned anything on that side with absolutely zero introspection and are still finger pointing outside their own strategy like they made no mistakes.

Fair point, I’m concerned about things that matter to me.

But I won’t argue with you, instead I’ll ask a question, I’ll try to learn why I’m wrong.

Can you please give me the top 2-3 things that I don’t understand about the Midwest and how Trump has improved upon them? The one request that I do have is that you don’t mention the Dems, the coastal elites, or anything about the ‘opposition’. Keep is strictly to Trump/the GOP’s actions while they’ve held congress and the presidency.

The complete remaking of the judiciary is a huge issue for anti-democrats. Rolling back the Obama years. And the gutting of executive departments is another. 

while hillary not campaigning aggressively in the rust belt is an issue, there is something to be said about the simplicity of platform argument. it is difficult to go to the rust belt and start making their ears bleed with complex platform points. yelling wall wall wall is much simpler and resonates. if hillary tried to match up against wall wall wall in the rust belt, it probably wouldn’t have helped much anyway. this is the key reason why some think that bernie could have held up better than trump. bernie could just yell a couple of emotinally driven phrases that summed up the bulk of his fairly radical platform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtzWkKxVlBU

^ this is basically trump; if hillary tried to talk about reason and the benefit of the innarests, she likely would not be well received.

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Maybe its because Hillary lacked a core platform to begin with.  Anyhow, for every Brietbart there’s the dailyl kos or whatever.  It’s really not so different and CNN is just as dirty as Fox.  In the end, I think Hillary lost it by having a weak platform based on identity politics and failing to campaign in swing states aggressively or in some cases at all.  Anything beyond seems like excuse mongering, should have been a layup win for a half decent politician.

And that’s something we’ll never agree upon. Hillary’s issue was that her platform was significantly more complex than ‘Build the wall and have mexico pay for it’. Things like climate change and campaign finance reform are boring and uninteresting. Getting into tax reform is harder to understand than a tax cut. But it should still have been an easy win. And as I’ve said before, Trump was able to effectively change the message and new coverage away fom his flaws and win the election, regardless of how anyone feels about his politics.

So this is essentially why she lost and why out of touch “coastal elites” still don’t get it.  These things in and of themselves aren’t bad positions and global warming is least worst.  But they aren’t the core of a viable platform to win a national election.  You also don’t really have to “agree” that she didn’t even visit Wisconsin and barely campaigned in Michigan which she needed, those are statements of fact.  But back to the platform, none of the three issues that jumped to your mind resonate with the more immediate needs of the the rustbelt.  You have to win the national platform and your own words highlight the out of sync world view that lost the election, building my point.  What’s truly mind boggling to me (because I like the idea of a strong, functional democratic party) is that nobody seems to have learned anything on that side with absolutely zero introspection and are still finger pointing outside their own strategy like they made no mistakes.

Fair point, I’m concerned about things that matter to me.

But I won’t argue with you, instead I’ll ask a question, I’ll try to learn why I’m wrong.

Can you please give me the top 2-3 things that I don’t understand about the Midwest and how Trump has improved upon them? The one request that I do have is that you don’t mention the Dems, the coastal elites, or anything about the ‘opposition’. Keep is strictly to Trump/the GOP’s actions while they’ve held congress and the presidency.

Let me preface this by saying I’m not arguing that Trump is good or that he’s helped in saying Hillary blew the campaign.  What I did say is that misguided or not, his points did “resonate with the more immediate needs of the rustbelt.”  So my takeaway I was aiming for is that a viable platform needs to address those needs and arguably if you believe he is doing a poor job of doing that, then to my point (and yours) there is a wide margin of opportunity there for a Democratic candidate with an ounce of introspection to capitalize on the flaws of Hillary’s campaign and better target the mid-west.  They’re called “swing states” for a reason.  But if you don’t acknowledge / can’t see that her campaign blew that opportunity then it will be hard to do that.  That’s the essence of what I’m saying.

I mean, I don’t know if 2-3 things people “don’t understood” is accurate so much as 2-3 things that aren’t adequately acknowledged or addressed, or maybe people just don’t understand the severity.  Those things being the impact of the structural economic shift on the rustbelt and then the host of knock on effects like the scale of the opioid epidemic in those areas and cultural backlash.  I also think most people still aren’t grasping the underlying validity of the complaints against China and the fact that a healthy steel and aluminum industry is possible under fair trade terms without being globalist.  IE making sure you have an inclusive economy with pointed measures.  Were Trump’s policies misguided, possibly.  But indisputably (I cover this space) his policies have supported a major recovery in US metal producers and a new wave of investment in high quality alloy and advanced strength steel production.  Even the push to redesign NAFTA which focuses on trade of goods which disproportionately effects that region after ~25 years of being forgotten shows focus on the region.  I’m more than happy to agree that these efforts could have been handled much more competently by another administration.  My point is just that there needs to be a better focus there by the next campaign to ensure there’s not another implosion and I don’t think it’s a one or the other thing either.

I think you can do these things pretty safely within the Democratic platform (am I allowed to use that).  I just think they weren’t in the prior campaign and should be better addressed in the next attempt if people acknowledge the mistep.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

I guess the simple point I’m making is Democrats can either acknowledge missteps and come out with a platform that takes their goals like you listed but also puts emphasis on policies aimed at the rust belt and most likely win, or they can push some form of anti-Trump to stick it to all the deplorables and double down on a coastal agenda and likely lose.  One path acknowledges the mistake and fixes it (what I’d like to see) and one only acknowledges that everything was done right and everyone else was the problem.  I actually would put my money on the first because from what I understand the campaign strategists were furious and dumbfounded at H’s move, so I doubt that community will sign on for a repeat.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

I agree with the spirit of BS’s post, but I am actually of the opinion that not being Trump is going to be basically all it takes to win in 2020 (far from purely anti-Trump). Things can change, but where we sit today it looks like it’s just as likely Trump loses as the Dems win.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

brain_wash_your_face wrote:

I agree with the spirit of BS’s post, but I am actually of the opinion that not being Trump is going to be basically all it takes to win in 2020 (far from purely anti-Trump). Things can change, but where we sit today it looks like it’s just as likely Trump loses as the Dems win.

Who knows, I can’t pick an outcome, although I think its not as easy as you’re expecting.  Just to clarify, I’m saying an anti-Trump would struggle but a real candidate partially targeting the rust belt would have better odds.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

I’d agree that Clinton missed the boat on campaigning in the midwest, but that’s not endemic to the democratic party.

Like, let’s take Elizabeth Warren. Some of her things like universal health care and treating drug abuse as a mental health issue instead of a criminal issue are better than our current ways of addressing the opioid crisis. Going after drug manufacturers for pushing dangerous drugs is a good idea too.

Getting rid of tax giveaways to companies like FoxConn, or increasing taxes on corporations (and spending it on people through things like Education or Food Security Programs) are the best way to foster long-term economic growth in underserved areas. Education and Healthcare are the 2 biggest requirements for being able to achieve any kind of success.

But here we are in a thread calling her Pocahontas because Harvard decided to list her as a POC 20 years ago after giving her tenure. While at the same time ignoring the fact that Trump was given over 500 million dollars by his dad in order to commit tax fraud. That’s the double standard I’m talking about. Criticize Elizabeth Warren for her positions, not for something her employer did.

There is a wide margin of opportunity but the messaging is difficult to achieve.Becuause whenever I’ve been to the midewest, people watched Fox News and believed what they heard on the news. That they think the democratic party is only for coastal elites and tune out things to the contrary.

Yeah, I mean, I think the false claim has real merit that she misrepresented herself (not just Harvard unilaterally) given the other surrounding evidence, so I disagree there.  Although I also agree with you though that even given that realistically it shouldn’t be a big problem given all the other stuff that gets overlooked.  I also think her platform is closer to reaching those groups so I don’t disagree with you there.  The difference I think is that Trump bridged the divide with a Tax Cut to get both high and low pieces of the vote within the party.  Realistically I think Warren will struggle to get the high dollar vote.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

all jokes aside, i think the us will be more latino in the future. i really hope they remember this **** from the republican party and end them for life. id be happier with a 1 party system! less conflict is better!

my favorite song in pocahantas is savages:

https://youtu.be/3oEWA7UglB4?t=44

Ratcliffe:
What can you expect from filthy little heathens?
Here’s what you get when races are diverse! (Soundtrack version: “Their whole disgusting race is like a curse!”)

Their skin’s are hellish red
They’re only good when dead!
They’re vermin, as I said, and worse!

English Settlers:
They’re savages!
Savages!

Ratcliffe:
Barely even human!

English Settlers:
Savages! Savages!

Ratcliffe:
Drive them from our shore!
They’re not like you and me, which means they must be evil
We must sound the drums of war!
 

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Maybe its because Hillary lacked a core platform to begin with.  Anyhow, for every Brietbart there’s the dailyl kos or whatever.  It’s really not so different and CNN is just as dirty as Fox.  In the end, I think Hillary lost it by having a weak platform based on identity politics and failing to campaign in swing states aggressively or in some cases at all.  Anything beyond seems like excuse mongering, should have been a layup win for a half decent politician.

And that’s something we’ll never agree upon. Hillary’s issue was that her platform was significantly more complex than ‘Build the wall and have mexico pay for it’. Things like climate change and campaign finance reform are boring and uninteresting. Getting into tax reform is harder to understand than a tax cut. But it should still have been an easy win. And as I’ve said before, Trump was able to effectively change the message and new coverage away fom his flaws and win the election, regardless of how anyone feels about his politics.

So this is essentially why she lost and why out of touch “coastal elites” still don’t get it.  These things in and of themselves aren’t bad positions and global warming is least worst.  But they aren’t the core of a viable platform to win a national election.  You also don’t really have to “agree” that she didn’t even visit Wisconsin and barely campaigned in Michigan which she needed, those are statements of fact.  But back to the platform, none of the three issues that jumped to your mind resonate with the more immediate needs of the the rustbelt.  You have to win the national platform and your own words highlight the out of sync world view that lost the election, building my point.  What’s truly mind boggling to me (because I like the idea of a strong, functional democratic party) is that nobody seems to have learned anything on that side with absolutely zero introspection and are still finger pointing outside their own strategy like they made no mistakes.

Fair point, I’m concerned about things that matter to me.

But I won’t argue with you, instead I’ll ask a question, I’ll try to learn why I’m wrong.

Can you please give me the top 2-3 things that I don’t understand about the Midwest and how Trump has improved upon them? The one request that I do have is that you don’t mention the Dems, the coastal elites, or anything about the ‘opposition’. Keep is strictly to Trump/the GOP’s actions while they’ve held congress and the presidency.

1. Pulling out of foreign wars

2. Reforming the prison system, opioid & sex trafficking legislation 

3. Tax cuts

4. ISIS is essentially marginalized 

5. Job growth/unemployment 

6. Restructured trade agreements

7. Made allies invest more into NATO

8. Returned Americans from oversea jails

9. US now the largest oil producer

10. Pushing for an immigration solution

11. Will likely legalize, in every sense, cannabis 

If DT changes his stance on climate change, moves forward with his initiative of infrastructure spending, continues to remove the US as the world police, and influences health care/education he will be one of the presidents that is remembered. That said, I think it’s important to recognize what he’s already accomplished. 

Before I am attacked - make no mistake about it, I do not defend what trump says, in fact I despise the way he presents himself. You can have opposing views with him - I know I do with practically everything that pertains to the environment - but he gets things done.  

Most of those are either not his accomplishments (unless the advent of the internet boom is Bill Clinton’s) or are not necessarily good. Politically, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think you can point to that list and say he “gets things done.”

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

^Remove 4,5,9 which I agree, cannot be chalked up to him. The rest however are hard to argue - that includes 11 which i thought of removing. So i think its fair to make the assertion. 

whatsyourgovt wrote:

^Remove 4,5,9 which I agree, cannot be chalked up to him. The rest however are hard to argue - that includes 11 which i thought of removing. So i think its fair to make the assertion. 

What Wars did Trump pull out of?

Can you please expand upon what Trump did for the opioid crisis?

Also, what was the dollar impact of the USMCA v NAFTA?

Schopenhauer wrote:

whatsyourgovt wrote:

^Remove 4,5,9 which I agree, cannot be chalked up to him. The rest however are hard to argue - that includes 11 which i thought of removing. So i think its fair to make the assertion. 

What Wars did Trump pull out of?

Can you please expand upon what Trump did for the opioid crisis?

Also, what was the dollar impact of the USMCA v NAFTA?

Syria and withdrawing from Afghanistan

Bill limits addicting prescriptions and funds research on nonaddicting substances

Trade deals (pulling out of TPP which I think would have been devastating). I’ll give you a dollar figure on USMCA as soon as you can quantify the loss… 

The other countries aren’t dragging their feet because we’re giving them better terms…

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

wait US withdrew from Syria?

"You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???"

RIP

Poopenhaur, if maritime shipping were a country it would be the sixth largest polluter.  Maybe Trump’s war on trade is really a war on global warming?

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

whatsyourgovt wrote:

^Remove 4,5,9 which I agree, cannot be chalked up to him. The rest however are hard to argue - that includes 11 which i thought of removing. So i think its fair to make the assertion. 

Keep in mind he has relied primarily on executive orders for most of these “accomplishments” – at a time when repubs had majorities in both houses of congress.   He couldn’t even lead his own party with the deck stacked in his favor.  Is that really getting things done?

Malee wrote:

whatsyourgovt wrote:

^Remove 4,5,9 which I agree, cannot be chalked up to him. The rest however are hard to argue - that includes 11 which i thought of removing. So i think its fair to make the assertion. 

Keep in mind he has relied primarily on executive orders for most of these “accomplishments” – at a time when repubs had majorities in both houses of congress.   He couldn’t even lead his own party with the deck stacked in his favor.  Is that really getting things done?

Not surprising - I wouldnt necessarily call established republicans his biggest allies. The democrats and the republicans are fairly similar contrary to popular opinion. They focus our attention over petty, heated battles, while passing major legislation in the background. There are exceptions to this, I’d put Bernie in there, but not many.  

Also, Congress has really abdicated it’s authority in many cases (particularly on major issues) and left it up to presidential executive order. This has been an increasing trend for a long time. It would be nice to see Congress address climate change, social security, gun reform, income inequality, food insecurity, education and immigration in some sort of positive manner.

It seems likely that generational shift may be the only thing that shakes things up.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

Black Swan wrote:

Poopenhaur, if maritime shipping were a country it would be the sixth largest polluter.  Maybe Trump’s war on trade is really a war on global warming?

If he believed global warming existed, I’d agree with you.

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Poopenhaur, if maritime shipping were a country it would be the sixth largest polluter.  Maybe Trump’s war on trade is really a war on global warming?

If he believed global warming existed, I’d agree with you.

Sometimes the best of things are done obliviously with the worst of intentions.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Poopenhaur, if maritime shipping were a country it would be the sixth largest polluter.  Maybe Trump’s war on trade is really a war on global warming?

If he believed global warming existed, I’d agree with you.

Sometimes the best of things are done obliviously with the worst of intentions.

Fair point, gotta look for the silver linings.

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Poopenhaur, if maritime shipping were a country it would be the sixth largest polluter.  Maybe Trump’s war on trade is really a war on global warming?

If he believed global warming existed, I’d agree with you.

Sometimes the best of things are done obliviously with the worst of intentions.

Fair point, gotta look for the silver linings.

4D CHESS

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

This Schopen guy is painful to read. Hillary had a platform - it was “It’s Time for Hillary”. In other words, “I deserve to be President”. She changed her slogan to “Fighting for You” after the first one received poor feedback. Then, her campaign filled in the blanks with vague promises based on what they thought would be popular. By the end, she decided to market herself as a successor to Obama. Her campaign was pointless, selfish and entitled. She was not a good candidate. 

I believe America will be receptive to a moderate Democratic candidate in 2020. However, this candidate will need to offer positivity and hope for party reform. Voters want this, and it’s why a low tier Democratic party member like Beto is considered the statistical frontrunner for their nomination, ahead of top rate sht slingers like Pocahontas. I just hope they don’t decide to promote a party senior again and shove that person down everyone’s throat like Mandingo. 

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-p...

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

whatsyourgovt wrote:

Trade deals (pulling out of TPP which I think would have been devastating).

TPP seems to remain really unpopular, but I find few convincing reasons why we should have pulled out.  It’s easy to point to who would be the immediate job losers in the US.  However, over the long-term, it seems TPP would have a been a great strategic play to let the US and it’s allies better set the rules of the road for trade and regulations in Asia.  I’d like to hear your thoughts on why it would have been “devastating?”