41
   

How will Trump handle losing the election?

 
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 02:53 pm
@izzythepush,
I agree. Max is much more a curmudgeon than a troll.

gooey, krumple, oralloy, McG are trolls.

They work at getting threads shut down. We allow them to shut down threads by feeding them.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Md4cb7fa173d08089cc9fe382cb0dfd7dH0%26pid%3D15.1&f=1
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 02:56 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
A troll is someone who challenges the group think here in a thoughtful way.

That is not the generally accepted meaning of the word "troll" as it applies to Internet discussions.

Quote:
noun
noun: troll; plural noun: trolls

1.
a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.
informal
a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 02:57 pm
@maxdancona,
"Group-think?"

Next, you'll be talking about "the collective."
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 02:57 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I don't lend much credence to journalists and other unqualified pundits--but the statement that Clinton will only win by not being Trump has a lot of truth in it.

As to the qualifications and worth of journalists, pundits or other political thinkers/observers, one has to evaluate that over time. Some are crappy and some are great. I'm not sure what other class of individual or what profession you might deem more worthy of attending to in these matters.

As to that second part, I think there's no question she got lucky in having Trump as her opponent (one of her strategists said as much). But it's impossible to know how she would have fared against Jeb or Rubio or Cruz or even Romney. Anything approaching certainty that would have meant defeat for her isn't a claim I'd find compelling.

But the more important point is that this narrative advanced here by Eric son of Eric was entirely predictable because it is an axiomatic formulation of modern conservatism that Dem political victories are never legitimate.

Edit: I should add here that Trump didn't just fall out of the blue. Conservative voters - the base of the Republican Party - put him as their representative. And that base is a creature which is, in great part, an entity for which the GOP is directly responsible. That has no small bearing on the question of legitimacy.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:00 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

I agree. Max is much more a curmudgeon than a troll.

gooey, krumple, oralloy, McG are trolls.


How am I a troll? Because I dont agree with you on certain subjects? So only your opinion is valid? Anyone who points out a different perspective than you is a troll? You just want to dictate your opinions to everyone.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:02 pm
@DrewDad,
reminds me of Abuzz beehive software
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:12 pm
@izzythepush,
Sorry for being dense but what lion guy?

edit, I get it now, it's somewhere in the video..

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:14 pm
@ossobucotemp,
ossobucotemp wrote:

Sorry for being dense but what lion guy?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dsc-_7RCFArM&ved=0ahUKEwjksLW15OfPAhVLrI8KHeILAmMQuAIIJTAD&usg=AFQjCNGNEiZZ_wqbHIGTHQywNuWccoud3Q&sig2=vmL0cApaRZZhjB322wYu7A
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:15 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
There was no systematic campaign by Hillary to wreck the women who brought forth complaints against her husband.

Every time Bill had a sexual encounter with a woman, whether consensual or non-consensual, Hillary was right there to vilify the woman and discredit her.


Blickers wrote:
There was, however, a systematic effort to get people to lie about Bill Clinton's sexual meetings, such as Troopergate where an Arkansas enemy of Bill Clinton's offered the state troopers gurarding then-Governor Clinton to make up stories about Bill Clinton's sex activity in return for the money from the proceeds of a book he was writing bashing Clinton. The book was never written, so the troopers, who admitted they made up the stories, never got a cent. Now that is systematic smearing of the Clintons, although you never hear conservatives complaining about that.

How do we know that this truly is the case? This could all be one more case of Hillary vilifying people to discredit a true story.

On the other hand, if one person did try to make up stories and failed, what does that have to do with all the stories that were actually true?

I can see how the Clintons would have a complaint against the people involved with making up the stories. But that complaint wouldn't extend to the stories that weren't made up.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:17 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
So the question is: What will these people do and say, how will they present themselves, their values and reasons and their behavior, after even more revelations are published and after Nov 8 when Trump loses big and those losses effect down ticket races in a big way?

I've heard reasonable people predict the Democrats taking the Senate. No one sane is predicting that the Republicans will lose the House.


blatham wrote:
Apologies? Sincere remorse? Honest moral/ethical reflections shared with American citizens or their constituents? Har dee har har har. Overall, we will see almost none of this, I predict.

Damn right. There is nothing to apologize for.


blatham wrote:
Rather more certain will be a defensive and justifying posture that forwards the following line - "I was (or we were) deeply sickened by this man. But we were forced to act to preserve America and never has America faced a candidate who so threatened our values and traditions and who threatened the very existence of America as Hillary Clinton. We had no other choice once Trump was our candidate."

Maybe the spineless will do so. Ideally though most Republicans will see that they have nothing to apologize for.


blatham wrote:
And that story will not only be used to excuse these disgusting people but will also serve as a springboard to their next strategy - to continue demonizing and obstructing everything the Clinton administration sets out to accomplish.

Hillary will have to choose her strategy. If she charts a path of extremism and refuses to compromise, of course the Republicans will fight to block her.

If Hillary wastes all her political capital throwing a tantrum at the NRA, her presidency will be shattered just like Obama's was.

If Hillary complies with the NRA and offers to compromise with Republicans, she may very well be a successful president.


Hopefully when Bill rapes another woman and Hillary then revictimizes her, that woman will not have been a Trump voter. If some woman votes to put the Clintons back in power and then ends up being raped by Bill and metaphorically raped by Hillary, we can all laugh and ask what did she expect. But if that woman had done her bit to try to keep the Clintons out of power, it would be a tragedy if she were to then become one of their victims.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:21 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I don't think this is going to fly.

It will do just fine as an excuse if the Republicans find that they need to block an extremist agenda.


maxdancona wrote:
I think you are going to see a section of the Republican party wanting to be reasonable and work with a Hillary Clinton administration.

The Republicans were willing to work with the Obama Administration after coming to power in the 2010 election. But Mr. Obama chose extremism and conflict instead of compromising with Republicans. So the Republicans ended up blocking him.

Then Mr. Obama chose to wreck his entire second term in a big temper tantrum over the NRA.

If Hillary chooses to compromise with the Republicans and chooses to not pick fights with the NRA, she may very well have a successful presidency.

If she chooses to follow Mr. Obama's path, she will follow Mr. Obama's path.


maxdancona wrote:
Either way, Hillary Clinton comes into office with a great deal of political capital.

We shall see if she is wiser in her use of political capital than Mr. Obama was.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:23 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
As to that second part, I think there's no question she got lucky in having Trump as her opponent (one of her strategists said as much). But it's impossible to know how she would have fared against Jeb or Rubio or Cruz or even Romney.

Not impossible to know at all. The 2013 gun control debacle led to a very strong wind for change this election. All a Republican needs to do to defeat Hillary in 2016 is to be plausible as a president.

Trump might not have been able to clear that bar, but most other Republicans would have cleared it easily.


blatham wrote:
Anything approaching certainty that would have meant defeat for her isn't a claim I'd find compelling.

Considering that you don't even do your own thinking, but merely point to other smart liberals and say "I think what they think", what you find compelling isn't terribly compelling.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:24 pm
@Krumple,
Thanks - I have trouble with videos these days - people speak too fast, sometimes even to follow with closed caption that will whiz on by, or I can hear them but they're blurry sounding sportscasters who also yell for emphasis...

Lion guy looks better to me than Stein or Johnson.. (not that I read what he said - something to Trump, I gather.)

I'd prefer the lion itself, actually.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:27 pm
@ossobucotemp,
ossobucotemp wrote:

Thanks - I have trouble with videos these days - they speak too fast, sometimes even to follow with closed caption, or I can hear them but they're blurry sounding sportscasters who also yell for emphasis...

Lion guy looks better to me than Stein or Johnson.. (not that I read what he said - something to Trump, I gather.)

I'd prefer the lion itself, actually.


Yeah he is a little nutty but he fits right in on the circus we have for this election.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:29 pm
@ossobucotemp,
Lionguy does look interesting. Maybe some Floridians can write him in.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:38 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The Republicans were willing to work with the Obama Administration after coming to power in the 2010 election. But Mr. Obama chose extremism and conflict instead of compromising with Republicans. So the Republicans ended up blocking him.


You mis-remember history so poorly I think you should give Clinton a pass on the mis-remembering sniper fire thing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311


This is from BEFORE the 2010 election, before republicans knew if they were taking over power.
Quote:

Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Quote:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:40 pm
@oralloy,
And in regards to Hillary...what do you think about what McCain said just a couple days ago??

-- Sen. McCain Says Republicans Will Block All Court Nominations If Clinton Wins --
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 03:56 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
You mis-remember history so poorly I think you should give Clinton a pass on the mis-remembering sniper fire thing.

This episode of PBS Frontline (one hour show) describes the Republican leadership's willingness to compromise with the Obama Administration after 2010:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/cliffhanger/
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2016 04:02 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

maporsche wrote:
You mis-remember history so poorly I think you should give Clinton a pass on the mis-remembering sniper fire thing.

This episode of PBS Frontline (one hour show) describes the Republican leadership's willingness to compromise with the Obama Administration after 2010:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/cliffhanger/


Does that 54 minute video (that I don't care to watch; can you provide some highlights?) address the statements made by the two most powerful republicans before the 2010 election?

Those same statements that directly contradict your claim that they wanted to work with Obama?
Below viewing threshold (view)
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 02:53:36