One thing was clear, the Russians f*cked with the 2016 U.S. elections. The question seems to be, what to do, and how to you get around Trump and the GOP's laziness or unwillingness to investigate or put up cyber security measures...and don't forget he defunded it.

So pretend for a moment you're in charge or you have a cabinet post and the POTUS is not a a Russkie boot lickers... What measure do you put in place to curtail further interference? Also are we in a new cold war?

Further, since the question of America's soul was brought up...this is what I'm talking about. We live independent of foreign interests and keep our soul...or look the other way and forgetaboutit.

Another Bear said:

---

One thing was clear, the Russians f*cked with the 2016 U.S. elections. The question seems to be, what to do, and how to you get around Trump and the GOP's laziness or unwillingness to investigate or put up cyber security measures...and don't forget he defunded it.

So pretend for a moment you're in charge or you have a cabinet post and the POTUS is not a a Russkie boot lickers... What measure do you put in place to curtail further interference? Also are we in a new cold war?

Further, since the question of America's soul was brought up...this is what I'm talking about. We live independent of foreign interests and keep our soul...or look the other way and forgetaboutit.

---

So, the Russians f+cked with the 2016 elections. Other than hacking, what specifically did they do that affected one vote. Inquiring minds want to know. Were some voters drugged with spiked vodka? Were some votes changed on their way to centers where they were to be counted?

Now, be specific.

wifeisafurd said:

---

---

Ah yes, Dean Vernon Wormer...playing Attorney General William Barr...most EXCELLENT.

And now...let's look a the GOP nomination meeting...

Sonofoski said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

---

So, the Russians f+cked with the 2016 elections. Other than hacking, what specifically did they do that affected one vote. Inquiring minds want to know. Were some voters drugged with spiked vodka? Were some votes changed on their way to centers where they were to be counted?

Now, be specific.

---

When the full report is released I'll read it and get back to you. In the meantime, have a look at these...

I would love to get the RWNJ read on these...of course don't let the redaction bother you...just make it up.

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

Frankly I've had enough. Let the whole pile slide over the cliff and let the reset be brutal. Let the economy dump totally collapse and screw western democracy.

Time to start thinking like a conservative. I know I'll be fine...so break it all up...and buy guns, lots and lots of guns.

Another Bear said:

---

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

---

I wasn't aware that tRump left any Republicans with balls. They all got bullied by a dude with hips wider than his shoulders and hands like a Ken doll.

Another Bear said:

---

Sonofoski said:

---

So, the Russians f+cked with the 2016 elections. Other than hacking, what specifically did they do that affected one vote. Inquiring minds want to know. Were some voters drugged with spiked vodka? Were some votes changed on their way to centers where they were to be counted?

Now, be specific.

---

When the full report is released I'll read it and get back to you. In the meantime, have a look at these...

I would love to get the RWNJ read on these...of course don't let the redaction bother you...just make it up.




Just like a liberal; when backed into a corner, they have no response, they just avoid.

---

I don't know what school you went to but I was taught to get all the information and then read it.

Did they fill you in on this secret while at Cal?

Another Bear said:

---

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

Frankly I've had enough. Let the whole pile slide over the cliff and let the reset be brutal. Let the economy dump totally collapse and screw western democracy.

Time to start thinking like a conservative. I know I'll be fine...so break it all up...and buy guns, lots and lots of guns.

---

You probably don't get the irony of double secret probation, but Congress, in its wisdom, already hit Russia with sanctions for the election tampering which the Trump administration, while grumbling a lot, actually enforced. What is the Democratic proposal now (or for that matter the bi-partisan proposal)? Double secret sanctions? It obviously isn't up to the Dems to fix the mess (or maybe they lack the ability), since they have pushed no proposal forward now that they are in power. They really don't seem to be focused on a fix.

Another Bear said:

---

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

Frankly I've had enough. Let the whole pile slide over the cliff and let the reset be brutal. Let the economy dump totally collapse and screw western democracy.

Time to start thinking like a conservative. I know I'll be fine...so break it all up...and buy guns, lots and lots of guns.

---

This is your response to a comment the Dems are focused on the wrong thing? In any event, here is my response: Geoffrey S. Berman. Either you get it or you just continue your slide over the cliff.

You are correct. I don't get the double irony because I'm not an Animal House scholar. Glad you have imersed yourself in modern politics and early 80s American comedy metaphors.

Of course there's no irony with the Omega initiation. Just a bunch of conservative lads having an intimate evening at the frat.

Doug Neidermeyer does remind me Rudy Giuliani and Stephen Miller, and Babs Jansen reminds me of Kelly Ann Conway.

In any case...why is it on the Dems to fix this problem? Still waiting for that answer.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

Frankly I've had enough. Let the whole pile slide over the cliff and let the reset be brutal. Let the economy dump totally collapse and screw western democracy.

Time to start thinking like a conservative. I know I'll be fine...so break it all up...and buy guns, lots and lots of guns.

---

You probably don't get the irony of double secret probation, but Congress, in its wisdom, already hit Russia with sanctions for the election tampering which the Trump administration, while grumbling a lot, actually enforced. What is the Democratic proposal now (or for that matter the bi-partisan proposal)? Double secret sanctions? It obviously isn't up to the Dems to fix the mess (or maybe they lack the ability), since they have pushed no proposal forward now that they are in power. They really don't seem to be focused on a fix.

---

Have we just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the Senate permanently?

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

I get where you are coming from, but both might be true.

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

Frankly I've had enough. Let the whole pile slide over the cliff and let the reset be brutal. Let the economy dump totally collapse and screw western democracy.

Time to start thinking like a conservative. I know I'll be fine...so break it all up...and buy guns, lots and lots of guns.

---

You probably don't get the irony of double secret probation, but Congress, in its wisdom, already hit Russia with sanctions for the election tampering which the Trump administration, while grumbling a lot, actually enforced. What is the Democratic proposal now (or for that matter the bi-partisan proposal)? Double secret sanctions? It obviously isn't up to the Dems to fix the mess (or maybe they lack the ability), since they have pushed no proposal forward now that they are in power. They really don't seem to be focused on a fix.

---

Have we just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the Senate permanently?

---

So why you are saying is only the House, in Democrat hands, exists. So when is the impeachment vote?

wifeisafurd said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

Frankly I've had enough. Let the whole pile slide over the cliff and let the reset be brutal. Let the economy dump totally collapse and screw western democracy.

Time to start thinking like a conservative. I know I'll be fine...so break it all up...and buy guns, lots and lots of guns.

---

You probably don't get the irony of double secret probation, but Congress, in its wisdom, already hit Russia with sanctions for the election tampering which the Trump administration, while grumbling a lot, actually enforced. What is the Democratic proposal now (or for that matter the bi-partisan proposal)? Double secret sanctions? It obviously isn't up to the Dems to fix the mess (or maybe they lack the ability), since they have pushed no proposal forward now that they are in power. They really don't seem to be focused on a fix.

---

Have we just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the Senate permanently?

---

So why you are saying is only the House, in Democrat hands, exists. So when is the impeachment vote?

---

You're the one saying the Democrats are in power, not me.

Another Bear said:

---

You are correct. I don't get the double irony because I'm not an Animal House scholar. Glad you have imersed yourself in modern politics and early 80s American comedy metaphors.

Of course there's no irony with the Omega initiation. Just a bunch of conservative lads having an intimate evening at the frat.

Doug Neidermeyer does remind me Rudy Giuliani and Stephen Miller, and Babs Jansen reminds me of Kelly Ann Conway.

In any case...why is it on the Dems to fix this problem? Still waiting for that answer.

---

There is no fix. We had countless hearings, pompous, self-righteous political statements, and the like, and guess what, no one provided any solution. I did hear that Hilary thought she looked more like Babs than that skinny ***** Conway.

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Why is it on the Dems to fix this mess? Are conservatives opting out or just more sitting on the hands and balls?

Frankly I've had enough. Let the whole pile slide over the cliff and let the reset be brutal. Let the economy dump totally collapse and screw western democracy.

Time to start thinking like a conservative. I know I'll be fine...so break it all up...and buy guns, lots and lots of guns.

---

You probably don't get the irony of double secret probation, but Congress, in its wisdom, already hit Russia with sanctions for the election tampering which the Trump administration, while grumbling a lot, actually enforced. What is the Democratic proposal now (or for that matter the bi-partisan proposal)? Double secret sanctions? It obviously isn't up to the Dems to fix the mess (or maybe they lack the ability), since they have pushed no proposal forward now that they are in power. They really don't seem to be focused on a fix.

---

Have we just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the Senate permanently?

---

So why you are saying is only the House, in Democrat hands, exists. So when is the impeachment vote?

---

You're the one saying the Democrats are in power, not me.

---

Your Emperor hypothetical. No Senate just leaves the House.

blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

I get where you are coming from, but both might be true.

---

I'm just concerned the Dems will screw this up. My ultimate desire is to select from two pro-business candidates with liberal social views facing each other. Which means: (1) Trump is not on the ballot , (2) someone beat Pence in the primary and 3) someone like Mayor Pete wins the Dem primary. Weirder things have happened.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm just concerned the Dems will screw this up. My ultimate desire is to select from two pro-business candidates with liberal social views facing each other. Which means: (1) Trump is not on the ballot , (2) someone beat Pence in the primary and 3) someone like Mayor Pete wins the Dem primary. Weirder things have happened.

---

Dems screwing it up is like Cal screwing it up, almost a certainty. The Dems should be in the political equivalence of Hawkins 5 yards from the goal line with no one around about to send the Bears to the Rose Bowl, and yet they/he will trip.

I like Pete too. Is there another Dem you see as a good choice even if they are more Left than you politically, and that you think can win?

Philosophically I am "pro-business" too, but I think that the real world actions we have seen and continue to see that pro-business has become unregulated greed and lobbying without contributing to the greater good or social contract. I want business to thrive, but I also want it to payback the society and work for all tiers of the company and society rather than an executive class. The pendulum has simply swung too far to corporate power and places at the table in government.

We need to correct.

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

Mueller didn't really exonerate on collusion either. My understanding is that he said there is no such thing as collusion under federal law and that they didn't have enough evidence to charge a case on conspiracy. He did more or less confirm all facts that had been previously reported on the Trump Tower meeting and the Trump campaigns other efforts to share information with Russia and their knowledge of and receptiveness to assistance from Russia, including knowledge that Putin was involved. The report also provided a number of new facts that hadn't been reported - like Trump ordering Flynn to find out if Russia had the emails, etc. So while technically true that Mueller wasn't able to "prove" collusion, he didn't exonerate Trump or his campaign from their efforts to engage with Russia.

I would say the only thing missing from this report is evidence that Trump provided assistance to Putin's interference in our election. Everything else seems to confirm what actual patriots have been saying for the last few years.

The fact that this is falling on deaf ears says more about American weakness in the face of foreign interference in our democracy than it does about Trump's innocence.

blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm just concerned the Dems will screw this up. My ultimate desire is to select from two pro-business candidates with liberal social views facing each other. Which means: (1) Trump is not on the ballot , (2) someone beat Pence in the primary and 3) someone like Mayor Pete wins the Dem primary. Weirder things have happened.

---

Dems screwing it up is like Cal screwing it up, almost a certainty. The Dems should be in the political equivalence of Hawkins 5 yards from the goal line with no one around about to send the Bears to the Rose Bowl, and yet they/he will trip.

I like Pete too. Is there another Dem you see as a good choice even if they are more Left than you politically, and that you think can win?

Philosophically I am "pro-business" too, but I think that the real world actions we have seen and continue to see that pro-business has become unregulated greed and lobbying without contributing to the greater good or social contract. I want business to thrive, but I also want it to payback the society and work for all tiers of the company and society rather than an executive class. The pendulum has simply swung too far to corporate power and places at the table in government.

We need to correct.

---

I tend to agree with Pete that corporate power may be too strong among the largest companies, but that small companies are being made uncompetitve by the government, whether federal, state or local. For example, Pete points out that big companies should be held accountable for diversity, but small companies are lucky just to retain the employees they can get to even worry about diversity. They wish they had those choices. Things are much more nuanced than politicians want to understand.

I view Harris as somewhat liberal on certain issues, but perfectly satisfactory for my voting tastes. Biden, Beto, and Klobachur are running as moderates who probalby could get my vote (not sure how viable a candidate Beto really is), so I assume you want my opinion on others. In term of the "socialist" type candidates, I won't vote for Sanders, Gilibrand, and Warren. Not sure what Booker stands for. He seems like a blowhard, so he is a no. I find Williamson and Yang weird so a no, but I'm sure Yang has an appeal to the under 30 set. I don't know enough about Mayor Wayne, Ryan, Swalwell (sp?), Hickenlooper, Delaney, etc. to comment. What are your thoughts on the candidates?

wifeisafurd said:

---

I tend to agree with Pete that corporate power may be too strong among the largest companies, but that small companies are being made uncompetitve by the government, whether federal, state or local. For example, Pete points out that big companies should be held accountable for diversity, but small companies are lucky just to retain the employees they can get to even worry about diversity. They wish they had those choices. Things are much more nuanced than politicians want to understand.

I view Harris as somewhat liberal on certain issues, but perfectly satisfactory for my voting tastes. Biden, Beto, and Klobachur are running as moderates who probalby could get my vote (not sure how viable a candidate Beto really is), so I assume you want my opinion on others. In term of the "socialist" type candidates, I won't vote for Sanders, Gilibrand, and Warren. Not sure what Booker stands for. He seems like a blowhard, so he is a no. I find Williamson and Yang weird so a no, but I'm sure Yang has an appeal to the under 30 set. I don't know enough about Mayor Wayne, Ryan, Swalwell (sp?), Hickenlooper, Delaney, etc. to comment. What are your thoughts on the candidates?

---

We align very closely and I agree with your takes on them. The one exception is that despite obvious weaknesses as a candidate, as a person I really like Warren. I don't think it will ever happen, but I think 4-8 years of her as president with the right support around her (that's the key) and the commitment for an American experiment, I could see her taking the country to a really good place. But it would have to be an America that like a young or controversial coaching hire, does so knowing it's a rebuild and that they are in it for the long haul.

I would love to see what an American version of regulated Free Market Democratic Capitalistic Socialism would look like. Is there some version of our economy sitting out there where the middle class gets healthy again and we thrive in education and innovation and lead the world in addressing Climate Change, internet security/privacy (a Bill of Rights for the Cyber Age?), universal healthcare, and reducing income inequality?

I think it would be fascinating to see our spin on what is working so well in Scandinavia. Make it distinctly American with small businesses driving the economy whose workers are invested in and owning that success.Collective capitalism with shared profits to workers and the fiduciary responsibility of ownership to a mix of profit AND the public good. Reduce the power and profit motive of the investor class and shift it to the inventors and workers and doers.

I think there are too many vested interests that would obstruct a vision like that and would stop it even if it would work and it would make the country a better place.

If I had to vote today. In order: 1) Pete, 2) Warren, 3) Grudgingly Biden, 4) Harris.

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

I get where you are coming from, but both might be true.

---

I'm just concerned the Dems will screw this up. My ultimate desire is to select from two pro-business candidates with liberal social views facing each other. Which means: (1) Trump is not on the ballot , (2) someone beat Pence in the primary and 3) someone like Mayor Pete wins the Dem primary. Weirder things have happened.

---

Your idea that the Dems would screw it up by nominating someone who appeals to a pro business Trump voter is pretty funny. That constituency doesn't matter at all.

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

I get where you are coming from, but both might be true.

---

I'm just concerned the Dems will screw this up. My ultimate desire is to select from two pro-business candidates with liberal social views facing each other. Which means: (1) Trump is not on the ballot , (2) someone beat Pence in the primary and 3) someone like Mayor Pete wins the Dem primary. Weirder things have happened.

---

Your idea that the Dems would screw it up by nominating someone who appeals to a pro business Trump voter is pretty funny. That constituency doesn't matter at all.

---

First of all, that is your idea, not mine. Not what I said at all. Swing voters often vote based on business issues, and though this may come as a shock to you, so do plenty of Dems. Does it make a difference:


The Real Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Lost In 2016 https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-real-reason-why-hillary-clinton-lost-in-2016/ via @IBDeditorials

When 40% plus of swing voters that left Obama for Trump thought Clinton's policies favored the rich (only 20% said Trump's policies favor the rich), you might want to rethink how working people, who actually work for a living, run or work in small business and pay taxes, think about the welfare state, higher taxes, etc.


There will have something like 20 lefties splitting votes before everyone is in, Creepy Joe who may just too establishment, old or weird for this cycle, and just a few moderate faces like Mayor Pete or Harris. I'm not sure why a moderate like, for example, Harris (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-generalcouldn't get the nomination), especially if the Dems decide to be practical in order to beat Trump. You don't win without taking swing voters in the Presidential race.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

I get where you are coming from, but both might be true.

---

I'm just concerned the Dems will screw this up. My ultimate desire is to select from two pro-business candidates with liberal social views facing each other. Which means: (1) Trump is not on the ballot , (2) someone beat Pence in the primary and 3) someone like Mayor Pete wins the Dem primary. Weirder things have happened.

---

Your idea that the Dems would screw it up by nominating someone who appeals to a pro business Trump voter is pretty funny. That constituency doesn't matter at all.

---

First of all, that is your idea, not mine. Not what I said at all. Swing voters often vote based on business issues, and though this may come as a shock to you, so do plenty of Dems. Does it make a difference:


The Real Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Lost In 2016 https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-real-reason-why-hillary-clinton-lost-in-2016/ via @IBDeditorials

When 40% plus of swing voters that left Obama for Trump thought Clinton's policies favored the rich (only 20% said Trump's policies favor the rich), you might want to rethink how working people, who actually work for a living, run or work in small business and pay taxes, think about the welfare state, higher taxes, etc.


There will have something like 20 lefties splitting votes before everyone is in, Creepy Joe who may just too establishment, old or weird for this cycle, and just a few moderate faces like Mayor Pete or Harris. I'm not sure why a moderate like, for example, Harris (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-generalcouldn't get the nomination), especially if the Dems decide to be practical in order to beat Trump. You don't win without taking swing voters in the Presidential race.

---

Well you are a pro business Trump voter are you not? so why is my characterization wrong.

I don't know what to make of this article you linked. It says that many voters thought that Clinton's policies favored the rich. No argument there. And Trump's policies did not. Well that was a bit of sleight of hand . He did the very smart thing of criticizing two things Americans hate- corporations and government. Clinton was the nexus of the two.

I don't get what your pro business angle is. When you talk about Obama- Trump voter the motivation wasn't "business" it was about not having real wages rise in decades, the hollowing out America, the destruction of unions, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the shortening of life spans and all the other horror that brings. All this is the result of Republican and neo-liberal Democratic policies favoring return on capital over return on labor- that is pro business. Trump spoke to this and about America First and a new improved health care. But of course his tax cut was pro business not worker and he has no health care plan. So he is pro business

As to why Clinton lost that's been studied to death but here is the most revealing number. Romney had a higher % of the vote than Trump. Clinton failed among white working class, minorities and young people- all of whom didn't show up or voted third party ( up from 1-5%). The so called economic- conservative/ socially liberal voter wasn't the reason she lost- that self described person represents less than 5% of the electorate. She lost because a lot of working class black, brown and white and struggling Democrats thought she sucked and she did.

The idea that the Democrats need another corporate tool to get these voters back makes no sense.

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

I get where you are coming from, but both might be true.

---

I'm just concerned the Dems will screw this up. My ultimate desire is to select from two pro-business candidates with liberal social views facing each other. Which means: (1) Trump is not on the ballot , (2) someone beat Pence in the primary and 3) someone like Mayor Pete wins the Dem primary. Weirder things have happened.

---

Your idea that the Dems would screw it up by nominating someone who appeals to a pro business Trump voter is pretty funny. That constituency doesn't matter at all.

---

First of all, that is your idea, not mine. Not what I said at all. Swing voters often vote based on business issues, and though this may come as a shock to you, so do plenty of Dems. Does it make a difference:


The Real Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Lost In 2016 https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-real-reason-why-hillary-clinton-lost-in-2016/ via @IBDeditorials

When 40% plus of swing voters that left Obama for Trump thought Clinton's policies favored the rich (only 20% said Trump's policies favor the rich), you might want to rethink how working people, who actually work for a living, run or work in small business and pay taxes, think about the welfare state, higher taxes, etc.


There will have something like 20 lefties splitting votes before everyone is in, Creepy Joe who may just too establishment, old or weird for this cycle, and just a few moderate faces like Mayor Pete or Harris. I'm not sure why a moderate like, for example, Harris (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-generalcouldn't get the nomination), especially if the Dems decide to be practical in order to beat Trump. You don't win without taking swing voters in the Presidential race.

---

Well you are a pro business Trump voter are you not? so why is my characterization wrong.

I don't know what to make of this article you linked. It says that many voters thought that Clinton's policies favored the rich. No argument there. And Trump's policies did not. Well that was a bit of sleight of hand . He did the very smart thing of criticizing two things Americans hate- corporations and government. Clinton was the nexus of the two.

I don't get what your pro business angle is. When you talk about Obama- Trump voter the motivation wasn't "business" it was about not having real wages rise in decades, the hollowing out America, the destruction of unions, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the shortening of life spans and all the other horror that brings. All this is the result of Republican and neo-liberal Democratic policies favoring return on capital over return on labor- that is pro business. Trump spoke to this and about America First and a new improved health care. But of course his tax cut was pro business not worker and he has no health care plan. So he is pro business

As to why Clinton lost that's been studied to death but here is the most revealing number. Romney had a higher % of the vote than Trump. Clinton failed among white working class, minorities and young people- all of whom didn't show up or voted third party ( up from 1-5%). The so called economic- conservative/ socially liberal voter wasn't the reason she lost- that self described person represents less than 5% of the electorate. She lost because a lot of working class black, brown and white and struggling Democrats thought she sucked and she did.

The idea that the Democrats need another corporate tool to get these voters back makes no sense.

---

Actually wrong, swing voter. Bill Clinton pro business voter for example.

Ok, sorry for characterizing you as a Trump voter

Anarchistbear said:

---

Ok, sorry for characterizing you as a Trump voter

---

Why? He is a Trump voter. And he gets to own that, whether he wants to or not.

I'll let him clear this up.

Yogi Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Ok, sorry for characterizing you as a Trump voter

---

Why? He is a Trump voter. And he gets to own that, whether he wants to or not.

---

And you voted for a candidate that sucked (not my words). You get to own that.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Ok, sorry for characterizing you as a Trump voter

---

Why? He is a Trump voter. And he gets to own that, whether he wants to or not.

---

And you voted for a candidate that sucked (not my words). You get to own that.

---

Unlike you, I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Wasn't my first choice by a long shot, but still would have been miles better as a president than Trump.

And I ain't ever gonna let you forget it.

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Ok, sorry for characterizing you as a Trump voter

---

Why? He is a Trump voter. And he gets to own that, whether he wants to or not.

---

And you voted for a candidate that sucked (not my words). You get to own that.

---

Unlike you, I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Wasn't my first choice by a long shot, but still would have been miles better as a president than Trump.

And I ain't ever gonna let you forget it.

---

I certainly agree that there's nothing 'embarrassing' about placing a vote for either 1 out of a total 2 candidates for a political election.

There is something embarrassing and infantile about asserting that that vote in any way encapsulates somebody's character, or in any way confers that candidate's character and value attributes onto those who voted for them. It's a failure of logic, correlation, and an exhibition in bigotry.

To assert that you simply can't understand the rationale of tens of millions of people for voting for one candidate over the other, and vice versa, is an indictment of your depth of thinking and ability to understand human nature and the totality of the political landscape. It' not an indictment, or "embarrassment" , for anybody else.