International What happened to this Democrat party?

"We" voted for Trump because the working blue-class thought he would reverse their fading economic prospects in an economy that is increasingly moving towards a skill-based service economy. "You" foolishly believed a fundamentally corrupt human being would somehow clean up corruption when all he's doing is introducing his own brand of corruption.

I also forgot about your hatred for brown people. He played up to that, as well.

This was actually a post worth debating, up until you went the cowardly route of race baiting.
 
Ok buddy. Have a good day. I personally got hurt by the mandate so I'm not going to support it. UHC needs to be the future. Everybody knows Obamacare ended up failing because prices went up like always happens when insurance is mandated by government gun.

The ACA is still in effect, and the attempt to repeal it failed miserably precisely because even critics realize that it was a huge improvement over the previous status quo. I think that you probably were hurt by the mandate because you couldn't figure out how to navigate it, but most of us didn't notice it and were helped by it without noticing. With regard to price increases, note that they have been far lower since the ACA than they were in the preceding decades.
 
Lol I've been following yall convo and I gotta admit this legit made me laugh out loud in real life. Are saying he's broke and relies on Gimme-Free insurance? lol. He doesn't strike me as the type.

Yeah, that was a weird one. I'm a stock analyst who lives in the SF Bay Area, and generally between my wife and I clear over $400K. We have one kid. Pretty sure we don't qualify, but maybe I'll check it out.
 
Russia was caught interfering with our elections, that's what happened.


Interfering is such a disingenuous term...the actual term is influencing. Problem is everybody is guilty of trying to influence our elections so the left needed a more dramatic term to differentiate. And you are happy to further propagate their bullshit.
 
Interfering is such a disingenuous term...the actual term is influencing. Problem is everybody is guilty of trying to influence our elections so the left needed a more dramatic term to differentiate. And you are happy to further propagate their bullshit.

Committed crimes against Americans as part of the effort to influence it, though. Not everyone does that.
 
Nothing happened to the Democrat party. They are the same idiots they've always been. They hated Republicans when we freed their slaves before, and they hate us for trying to do it again.
 
Yes, they interfered by committing crimes against Americans and how they handled the data acquired as a result.


You're wrong. The elections were carried out unimpeded. Whatever some 3rd party did to influence those participating in the elections is immaterial.
 
You're wrong. The elections were carried out unimpeded. Whatever some 3rd party did to influence those participating in the elections is immaterial.

It's true that attempts to hack voting machines don't appear to have succeeded, but you're needlessly quibbling over semantics. The reason that people who believe in American democracy and the principle that we should choose our own leaders frown on Russia's actions is clear.
 
"We" voted for Trump because the working blue-class thought he would reverse their fading economic prospects in an economy that is increasingly moving towards a skill-based service economy. "You" foolishly believed a fundamentally corrupt human being would somehow clean up corruption when all he's doing is introducing his own brand of corruption.
Sure, manufacturing means more to the right than the left but people vote based on what the other side is about, more often than not. The economy has done quite well, though. Honestly, I don't think anyone went to the voting booth solely because of any of the reasons you mention. The truth is the other side just isn't offering anything of value to us.


I also forgot about your hatred for brown people. He played p to that, as well.

Fuck off, for fuck's sake. Stop being such a stupid puppet.
 
Intelligence is becoming less connected to financial success every day, unfortunately.

Lol I couldn't disagree more man. The celebrities or lottery winners are the 0.00001%. Advancing our intelligence whether it's school, knowledge in your industry, etc is absolutely connected to financial success. It might be the most impactful of all. There's probably a zero percent chance my wife and I would have the life we have now just winging it or lacking education.
 
Yeah, that was a weird one. I'm a stock analyst who lives in the SF Bay Area, and generally between my wife and I clear over $400K. We have one kid. Pretty sure we don't qualify, but maybe I'll check it out.
Good for you. Then you are wealthy and were not impacted by it.
 
Lol I couldn't disagree more man. The celebrities or lottery winners are the 0.00001%. Advancing our intelligence whether it's school, knowledge in your industry, etc is absolutely connected to financial success. It might be the most impactful of all. There's probably a zero percent chance my wife and I would have the life we have now just winging it or lacking education.
Specific area of expertise is still very valuable. I'm glad you are doing well.
 
:) "Centrism" is defined relative to the electorate.

I look at what you're saying as simply wrong, and disproven by the numbers you cited. You're essentially arguing that the preferences of a strong majority of voters should have been ignored--it's an argument that elites *should have* hijacked the process; not an argument that they did.

First, "anti-Russian sentiment" was something there was a strong bipartisan consensus about before 2016. There was a small uptick among Democrats following Russian attacks on our democracy and a large shift toward a more pro-Putin sentiment among Republicans.

It's not.

But clearly the hacking, election meddling, and contacts with the Trump campaign during that period would be investigated and covered regardless of the outcome of the election. Say there's no Comey letter and resulting 4-point boost for Trump. Clinton wins the popular vote by 6 points and the EC in a landslide. Trump and many associates are probably in prison by now, and America is collecting breathing a sigh of relief.

The Mueller report confirmed the reporting in the period leading up to it. I don't see how anyone who cares about the good of the country or the rule of law can call it a nothingburger. Likewise, ending the Trump presidency should be a high priority for all people who believe in the American experiment and of democracy and rule of law.

I didn't define it like that - I was using centrist as a stickier concept, more related to party norms than electorate ideology. If you want to define it as you did, then the problem was simply that Hillary ran right of center / the Democratic party backed a right of center candidate, since the median voter shifted to the left.

Nope, I disagree on your second point. If you plotted the prevalence of "Russia" in the western media in a time series, there would be a huge "jump" discontinuity when Hillary loost the election. It just wasn't a big issue before.

On your third point, remember, we're talking about why the Democrats chose to harp on Russia. The difference between Hillary winning by a small margin due to Russia's interference or a landslide without it would be, in my opinion, inconsequential. As long as she won, it wouldn't make sense to talk about it so much. You think the Democrats are concerned with civic integrity - most politicians are not - they only care when it hurts their side. Again, this is my opinion.

The Mueller report was a big failure by all accounts. They found nothing worthy of impeachment - if they did, they wouldn't have needed to wait for the Ukraine 'quid pro quo' call to push for impeachment, they would have moved forward. Its failure shows that there was nothing there to begin with, and bolsters my point: The Dems were grasping at straws to regain some measure of strength after losing in such an embarrassing way to a joke of a candidate (Trump).

If you don't want to agree, fine, this is my opinion. But nothing you've presented represents some incontrovertible fact that makes my opinion dead wrong.
 
It's true that attempts to hack voting machines don't appear to have succeeded, but you're needlessly quibbling over semantics. The reason that people who believe in American democracy and the principle that we should choose our own leaders frown on Russia's actions is clear.

Whoever released Hillary’s emails ensured the American people made a decision based on the truth. Voting based on the truth is democracy, is it not?
 
I didn't define it like that - I was using centrist as a stickier concept, more related to party norms than electorate ideology. If you want to define it as you did, then the problem was simply that Hillary ran right of center / the Democratic party backed a right of center candidate, since the median voter shifted to the left.

Clinton was perceived as too far to the left by more voters than saw her as too far to the right. I suspect you're just making up the claim about the median voter.

Nope, I disagree on your second point. If you plotted the prevalence of "Russia" in the western media in a time series, there would be a huge "jump" discontinuity when Hillary loost the election. It just wasn't a big issue before.

There was no jump after the election. There would have been an increase as more information came out, though. I agree that it was underplayed when the Wikileaks dump started.

On your third point, remember, we're talking about why the Democrats chose to harp on Russia.

It's not only Democrats. People of conscience in all parties were troubled by the revelations as they have come out, and as pointed out, the investigation originated in the executive branch.

The Mueller report was a big failure by all accounts. They found nothing worthy of impeachment - if they did, they wouldn't have needed to wait for the Ukraine 'quid pro quo' call to push for impeachment, they would have moved forward.

I think you're confused. The Mueller investigation turned up multiple instances of obstruction of justice and re-established what reporting had shown. It was worthy of impeachment, though it wasn't pursued until Trump, emboldened by apparently getting away with it once, resumed abusing his office.

If you don't want to agree, fine, this is my opinion. But nothing you've presented represents some incontrovertible fact that makes my opinion dead wrong.

Your comments about an alleged shift in the electorate are objectively wrong. Your comments about the timing of media mentions of Russia's election meddling are objectively wrong. Your theory that if the meddling had failed, it wouldn't have been covered as much are trivially true. I suppose your assertion that obstruction of justice is not worthy of impeachment is subjective, but IMO, deranged.
 
It's true that attempts to hack voting machines don't appear to have succeeded, but you're needlessly quibbling over semantics. The reason that people who believe in American democracy and the principle that we should choose our own leaders frown on Russia's actions is clear.


It's not semantics. Interfering and influencing are two completely different concepts...use the correct term and I have no issues. Use the misleading, sensationalized term and you're full of shit.
 
Clinton was perceived as too far to the left by more voters than saw her as too far to the right. I suspect you're just making up the claim about the median voter.

Your comments about an alleged shift in the electorate are objectively wrong. Your comments about the timing of media mentions of Russia's election meddling are objectively wrong. Your theory that if the meddling had failed, it wouldn't have been covered as much are trivially true. I suppose your assertion that obstruction of justice is not worthy of impeachment is subjective, but IMO, deranged.

You sound like a card-carrying liberal Democrat - which is why you don't want to admit a shift in the electorate and are playing up the impotent Russiagate investigation. Even hardcore Democrats have given up on Russiagate, but not you... lol. At least you agree that it is trivially true that had the meddling failed, it wouldn't have been covered as much - this lends credence to my actual theory, which is that this fact implies that the Democrats pushed Russiagate as a way to weaken Trump and to not have to admit their own miscalculations and strategic errors.

Here's a hint on how the median voter did shift: the entire Democratic field is talking about Medicare for all, cancelling student debt, etc. and 2 of the top candidates in the primary are very leftist - this wouldn't have been possible without economic conditions making people more amenable to these kind of things - 5 or 10 years ago, these issues would have gotten no traction. Now, they're mainstream. This is a hugely important fact. For you to ignore this as evidence for a shift in the American public is a decision to be deliberately obtuse. Hillary missed the boat on this, and so did the Democratic party elite - it cost them the election.

There's no sense in talking to you anymore, you have blinders on.
 
You sound like a card-carrying liberal Democrat - which is why you don't want to admit a shift in the electorate and are playing up the impotent Russiagate investigation.

And you sound like a nutter, which is why you're fabricating a shift in the electorate for which no evidence exists and are trying to downplay Russia's interference in our election.

At least you agree that it is trivially true that had the meddling failed, it wouldn't have been covered as much - this lends credence to my actual theory, which is that this fact implies that the Democrats pushed Russiagate as a way to weaken Trump and to not have to admit their own miscalculations and strategic errors.

No, it's just common sense. If the 9/11 plot had failed, it similarly would not have gotten nearly as much coverage as it actually did. That's not because the evil liberals (or whatever your preferred boogeyman is) was looking for some kind of excuse to complain about being attacked.

There's no sense in talking to you anymore, you have blinders on.

Yes, that's the typical response of nutters to reasonable folks.
 
Back
Top