Democrats new slogan talking points are literally Trump's campaign principles.America status - Great

[kpt018]

That's a spectacularly weak response. It's not a matter of whether anyone knows the specific planks in some policy platform she wrote down, it's a matter of whether anyone with an ounce of critical thinking has any reason reason to believe her. If you know this woman's history (remember marriage is "always between a man and a woman") and you hear/read something like that quote of hers above and fail to smell the bullshit, then you're frankly not someone to be taken seriously.

I responded to a poster that incorrectly claimed Democrats didn't have a campaign message and you repeated that false statement. Now, you claim it doesn't matter if one knows the specifics in her policy platform. You're free to think what you want but you're the one with a pathetically weak position. It's also worth noting that you tried to dismiss her policies by "she wrote down" but she actually campaigned on her policy ideas. She brought them up in every debate and spoke about them repeatedly. And there is every reason to believe that she wanted to get her agenda passed.

So you're just proving that you're ignorant. And I don't really care what you take serious since you're so badly informed. It wouldn't shock me at all that you dismiss this stuff since you don't even care about policy or care about learning positions that differ from yours.

 

[splendica]

"Truly it was, a Shawshank Redemption."

Phil Miller

 

[Gunny]

So you're just proving that you're ignorant. And I don't really care what you take serious since you're so badly informed. It wouldn't shock me at all that you dismiss this stuff since you don't even care about policy or care about learning positions that differ from yours.

So which is it? I don't care about policy or I don't care about policy that differs from mine? Better question yet, what do you actually know about my policy preferences? Would "nothing at all" be the answer? Lol, I think so.

In fact, Hillary campaigned on at least one policy position I fully agreed with - tanking TPP. The problem with the old bag is, no one with any intellectual honesty AT ALL believed that she was earnest in that position. I think even her allies would readily admit that she would have reversed her campaign position on the issue just as soon as she got into office (though I might not expect that admission in the context of an argument where an adversary is taking them to task).

 

[kpt018]

So which is it? I don't care about policy or I don't care about policy that differs from mine? Better question yet, what do you actually know about my policy preferences? Would "nothing at all" be the answer? Lol, I think so.

Only you can answer but obviously one of them is true.

In fact, Hillary campaigned on at least one policy position I fully agreed with - tanking TPP. The problem with the old bag is, no one with any intellectual honesty AT ALL believed that she was earnest in that position. I think even her allies would readily admit that she would have reversed her campaign position on the issue just as soon as she got into office (though I might not expect that admission in the context of an argument where an adversary is taking them to task).

Ok.

 

[fallable]

If the dems were down with populist governing, they probably shouldn't have rigged the primaries, and at least let Bernie have a fair shot.

Also, there were a total of 716 super delegates in the democrat party, possessing a total of 712 total votes, it was clear that the vast majority were going to support Clinton from the beginning, and you were hearing people concede that Bernie was doing well, but that he could never win and pointing to Hillary's control of the super delegates as the reason.

Finally, the idea of having a program of "better skills, better jobs, better wages" while still maintaining high levels of immigration and open borders flies in the face of basic economics. Just today, its been reported that UK labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has told the BBC that "the wholesale importation of low paid workers...destroy conditions" for British workers. Also, the GMB trade union has stated that mass immigration results in the "pay, terms, conditions, and job security of British workers" being "undercut" noting that this is a "basic issue of supply and demand." Yes, it is a basic issue of supply and demand.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/24/corbyn-migration-destroy-workers/

And for those who will question the source, Corbyn made the remarks on a BBC show, but they won't let the video be played in the U.S.

 

[fallable]

"...but she actually campaigned on her policy ideas. She brought them up in every debate and spoke about them repeatedly. And there is every reason to believe that she wanted to get her agenda passed..."

Would you say that this new democratic message of "Better skills, better jobs, better wages" is in line with Clinton's campaign platform? If yes, than this new democrat agenda is actually not new. If no than it marks a clear pivot from the agenda of the Clinton campaign. Either way it is a much clearer enunciation of a message than Clinton expressed. Her economic message was overshadowed by her social/cultural message, which was well evidenced by @Gunny in an earlier post.

 

[kpt018]

Would you say that this new democratic message of "Better skills, better jobs, better wages" is in line with Clinton's campaign platform? If yes, than this new democrat agenda is actually not new. If no than it marks a clear pivot from the agenda of the Clinton campaign. Either way it is a much clearer enunciation of a message than Clinton expressed. Her economic message was overshadowed by her social/cultural message, which was well evidenced by @Gunny in an earlier post.

That message is very broad. Shit, that is so broad Republicans could claim that is their goal too. So yeah, Hillary would agree on those but so would many on the right.

What matters is how they presume to achieve those goals and that could be a different direction than Hillary. I am not up to speed on their new agenda so I can't comment on it yet, but I will read up.

I do agree with your sentiment though that Hillary didn't do enough to sell her message. My point to guys like Gunny is they didn't even try to understand her policies. And while I think she needed to do more in the election to win over voters I am going to call out guys like Gunny who want to comment on her agenda without understanding it.

 

[Pwent]

No one hates America more than a conservative

yeah thats why they want to "conserve" it

vs "progressives" whos goal is to change it because its not good enough

clearly the "i like it the way it is, stop changing it" party is the one who hates it

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

yeah thats why they want to "conserve" it

vs "progressives" whos goal is to change it because its not good enough

clearly the "i like it the way it is, stop changing it" party is the one who hates it

Yes conservatives can't accept the future and don't want to bring the country into the future because they hate America.

 

[Pwent]

Yes conservatives can't accept the future and don't want to bring the country into the future because they hate America.

pretty sure nobody can stop the future from happening

they just disagree with your vision on what the US should look like in the future

hopefully someday, you will have the mental capacity to understand this

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

pretty sure nobody can stop the future from happening

they just disagree with your vision on what the US should look like in the future

hopefully someday, you will have the mental capacity to understand this

Except you just said they want to conserve. Lol meaning not adapting and changing.


Stop letting your dog play with the keyboard.

 

[fallable]

That message is very broad. Shit, that is so broad Republicans could claim that is their goal too. So yeah, Hillary would agree on those but so would many on the right.

What matters is how they presume to achieve those goals and that could be a different direction than Hillary. I am not up to speed on their new agenda so I can't comment on it yet, but I will read up.

I do agree with your sentiment though that Hillary didn't do enough to sell her message. My point to guys like Gunny is they didn't even try to understand her policies. And while I think she needed to do more in the election to win over voters I am going to call out guys like Gunny who want to comment on her agenda without understanding it.

I know this is true with all politicians to an extent, but in my opinion, a lot of the dismissal of Clinton's message/platform was the fact that it wasn't the same in public as it was in private, so it's hard to gauge what her policies really were or were going to be. This is evidenced by her leaked emails and closed door speeches to big donors. Once again, this is true with all politicians to an extent, but Hillary had the misfortune of this fact becoming public. It's easy to tune out or dismiss a politician you are skeptical of. When you, as a voter, are detecting a conflicting or dishonest policy agenda from a politician it becomes even easier.

 

[Pwent]

Except you just said they want to conserve. Lol meaning not adapting and changing.


Stop letting your dog play with the keyboard.

cool, so it will look like it does now. in the future

wheres the contradiction

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

cool, so it will look like it does now. in the future

wheres the contradiction

If the republicans had their way we'd be going back to the early 20th century.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I understood her position...



Her position was, "Please SJW's and cultural Marxists! PLEEEEAASE! I need you to cheer loudly and help me say as little as I possibly can on topics that might disrupt my corporate backing."

She pandered to that group of 2nd Amendment attacking moms by giving lip service to another "assault weapons" ban. Coupled with my previous strong dislike, that was all I needed to know about her policy positions. The open borders comment in her big banker speech was just icing on the cake.

 

[FIMN]

yeah thats why they want to "conserve" it

Which is funny because there is nothing conservative about Trump. He is a radical in almost every way, with seemingly no understanding of US history or political norms required to know what he is suposed to be conserving.

 

[lifelessheap]

The huge problem with your thesis is that Trump is the total opposite of his campaign with regards to policy and governing.

Here is the biggest example that will get voted on this week. He claimed that he wanted every American to get healthcare coverage, with lower costs and better healthcare. The actual plan he supports will knock 22-23 million (Senate & House versions) off of insurance or over 30 million with a full repeal, which he is on the record as supporting as well and there is no mechanism to reduce premiums or healthcare costs. What benefits do we get? Lower taxes for the wealthy, medical device companies and insurance companies. It's the total fucking opposite of his claims. Standard right wing stuff there.

And yeah, there were moments where Trump did sound like a Democrat during the campaign. He had a moment where he even suggested regulating drug prices, like Bernie Sanders! That shit only lasted a week though then he met with big Pharma and sucked their dicks.

How can 23 million people be knocked off of ACA insurance when only 11 million have signed up for it?

What about the people who willingly choose to not have insurance? Why are you counting them in your numbers? lol

 

[RhinoRush]

Truly, a President who's done remarkably well








Isn't named Donald Trump

Urgh. What are you, 12?

 

[Sir Galahad]

Democrat spokesman on fox literally just went point by point though their new agenda and it is word for word taken right from Trumps campaign, with the exception of immigration and crime.

Not only has Trump fulfilled his promise to MAGA by,

1) Making the America hating portion of their party pretend they love America, as a way to "resist" Trump. As if Trump didn't run on America First...

2) Making it so the only difference between the party messages is democrats are ok with illegal immigration and crime.

Democrats have just surrendered. They've admitted the resist movement has failed. This is as close to a admission of a mistake you will see in politics.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

The huge problem with your thesis is that Trump is the total opposite of his campaign with regards to policy and governing.

Here is the biggest example that will get voted on this week. He claimed that he wanted every American to get healthcare coverage, with lower costs and better healthcare. The actual plan he supports will knock 22-23 million (Senate & House versions) off of insurance or over 30 million with a full repeal, which he is on the record as supporting as well and there is no mechanism to reduce premiums or healthcare costs. What benefits do we get? Lower taxes for the wealthy, medical device companies and insurance companies. It's the total fucking opposite of his claims. Standard right wing stuff there.

And yeah, there were moments where Trump did sound like a Democrat during the campaign. He had a moment where he even suggested regulating drug prices, like Bernie Sanders! That shit only lasted a week though then he met with big Pharma and sucked their dicks.

Give Trumpy a break. He didn't read the bill. He asked Ryan to make it into podcast.