SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,288
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 27, 2019 5:54:47 GMT -5
Bone Spurs Trump finally going to Vietnam -- fifty years too late! Trump would have been a drag on any unit. The man is a coward and vastly overestimates his own ability/importance while throwing any- and everyone under the bus to protect himself. In all likelihood, he saved American lives by dodging the draft. Or he would have been fragged by his own unit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 10:25:27 GMT -5
Fox "News"
"Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside."
So, Donns br... oops Roger Ailes gives Trump debate questions in advance. Fox editor buries Stormy Daniels story in 2016 that would've hurt Trump in the general, uses a nondisclosure as a shield to stop the reporter.
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 4, 2019 14:27:11 GMT -5
Fox "News" "Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside." So, Donns br... oops Roger Ailes gives Trump debate questions in advance. Fox editor buries Stormy Daniels story in 2016 that would've hurt Trump in the general, uses a nondisclosure as a shield to stop the reporter. Did you ever stop to consider how toxic Hillary and the continuation of the Obama policies were that a near Electoral landslide held their nose and voted for this flawed person?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 4, 2019 15:47:02 GMT -5
Fox "News" "Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside." So, Donns br... oops Roger Ailes gives Trump debate questions in advance. Fox editor buries Stormy Daniels story in 2016 that would've hurt Trump in the general, uses a nondisclosure as a shield to stop the reporter. Did you ever stop to consider how toxic Hillary and the continuation of the Obama policies were that a near Electoral landslide held their nose and voted for this flawed person? Did you stop to consider responding to the post that you quoted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 16:35:15 GMT -5
Fox "News" "Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside." So, Donns br... oops Roger Ailes gives Trump debate questions in advance. Fox editor buries Stormy Daniels story in 2016 that would've hurt Trump in the general, uses a nondisclosure as a shield to stop the reporter. Did you ever stop to consider how toxic Hillary and the continuation of the Obama policies were that a near Electoral landslide held their nose and voted for this flawed person? Considering those same policies are way more popular than Trump's in every single poll. No, I do not. Obama left office with damn near a 60% approval rating dude. If Obama ran against Trump he would have mopped him. Obama isn't Hillary and vice versa. news.gallup.com/poll/226994/obama-first-retrospective-job-approval-rating.aspxwww.businessinsider.com/evening-news-election-2016-10Republicans like yourself didn't hold your nose to vote for Trump. You guys made excuses for his ignorance/immorality and gleefully voted for him. Same thing you're doing right now. Trump led from start to finish in the Republican primary. That's on you guys, not anyone else.
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 4, 2019 18:37:41 GMT -5
Sorry if you did not get the import of my question. To be clear(er): accepting everything that you say is true about how awful Trump was and is, what does that say about the Democratic alternative in 2016? That is, yes, Trump was/is bad, so how much worse was HRC for a fool like Trump to win? And what does this say about the judgment of the D Party to pick her and her policies in 2016?
I understand that you are horrified by Trump -- but do you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin re: how many felt about Crooked H?
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Mar 4, 2019 19:16:12 GMT -5
Sorry if you did not get the import of my question. To be clear(er): accepting everything that you say is true about how awful Trump was and is, what does that say about the Democratic alternative in 2016? That is, yes, Trump was/is bad, so how much worse was HRC for a fool like Trump to win? And what does this say about the judgment of the D Party to pick her and her policies in 2016? I understand that you are horrified by Trump -- but do you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin re: how many felt about Crooked H? There is no question that Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, and that she was reviled by many. However, the fact is that she effectively took a premature victory lap in the last three weeks, by not campaigning at all in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; she lost those three states, by a combined mere 60,000 votes, and that decision cost her the election. I'd be surprised if the Democrats haven't filed that away for future reference in the "do-not-take-anything-for-granted" file in the 2020 election.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,746
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 4, 2019 19:30:12 GMT -5
Sorry if you did not get the import of my question. To be clear(er): accepting everything that you say is true about how awful Trump was and is, what does that say about the Democratic alternative in 2016? That is, yes, Trump was/is bad, so how much worse was HRC for a fool like Trump to win? And what does this say about the judgment of the D Party to pick her and her policies in 2016? It's a false equivalence. The Democrats picked HRC because the alternative was a cranky old socialist from Vermont who sold to the Ben & Jerry's Democrats but would have been eviscerated between the coasts. They also picked her for the same reason the Republicans went nowhere picking Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008--the "next up" idea. Hilary Clinton was a victim of her own hubris and the inability to understand (and probably, to this day) why the Rust Belt was important. The reason the US did not have a President Kerry in 2005 is because GW Bush understood the issue and won Ohio. She did not. The lack of any sustained effort in 2016 from Youngstown to Milwaukee was entirely a strategic blunder by the Wasserman-Schultz wing of the leadership that it was a done deal. One has to think Joe Biden looks back and understands that had he run in 2016 and secured the nomination, Donald Trump is a Saturday night host on Fox with Diamond & Silk and not an unindicted co-conspirator with a predilection for sitting at the feet of Communist dictators. Whether Biden can make that argument in 2020, who knows.
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 4, 2019 21:18:30 GMT -5
If an amateur like Trump was smart enough to campaign in WI and MI, but HRC and her “pros” weren’t, who is the stupid one?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 4, 2019 21:53:33 GMT -5
Sorry if you did not get the import of my question. To be clear(er): accepting everything that you say is true about how awful Trump was and is, what does that say about the Democratic alternative in 2016? That is, yes, Trump was/is bad, so how much worse was HRC for a fool like Trump to win? And what does this say about the judgment of the D Party to pick her and her policies in 2016? I understand that you are horrified by Trump -- but do you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin re: how many felt about Crooked H? You do realize that this is an entirely different question than the first one you posed, no? This is part of the issue with discussing the topic with many Republicans. The goalposts continually get moved.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Mar 4, 2019 22:05:41 GMT -5
If an amateur like Trump was smart enough to campaign in WI and MI, but HRC and her “pros” weren’t, who is the stupid one? This is not an either/or situation.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,746
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 4, 2019 23:26:06 GMT -5
If an amateur like Trump was smart enough to campaign in WI and MI, but HRC and her “pros” weren’t, who is the stupid one? This is a time honored political tradition - missing the forest for the trees. In 1948, prohibitive Republican favorite Tom Dewey saw crowds dwindling as November neared. His aides insisted that voters made up their minds after the conventions (when Dewey was up 15) and more recent polls couldn't be trusted, so he did not change course. He lost three states by 1% each that would have swung the election. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey fails to get Eugene McCarthy to endorse him until the last week of the election race. Had McCarthy campaigned for HHH, Humphrey likely wins California and throws the election into the (Democratic) House. In 2000, Al Gore refused Bill Clinton's offer of campaigning in Arkansas and Tennessee at the eve of the election, reportedly claiming he didn't want to be beholden of the Clintons anymore when elected. Had Gore carried either state (including his home state), Florida never matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 10:50:28 GMT -5
It tells you you get your reality from what station you watch.
FoxNews: "Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside."
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,288
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 5, 2019 13:51:24 GMT -5
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 5, 2019 15:15:20 GMT -5
It tells you you get your reality from what station you watch. FoxNews: "Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside." This proves the point about propaganda media on all sides - Fox for the right and virtually everything else for the left.
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 5, 2019 15:17:08 GMT -5
Sorry if you did not get the import of my question. To be clear(er): accepting everything that you say is true about how awful Trump was and is, what does that say about the Democratic alternative in 2016? That is, yes, Trump was/is bad, so how much worse was HRC for a fool like Trump to win? And what does this say about the judgment of the D Party to pick her and her policies in 2016? I understand that you are horrified by Trump -- but do you at least acknowledge the other side of the coin re: how many felt about Crooked H? You do realize that this is an entirely different question than the first one you posed, no? This is part of the issue with discussing the topic with many Republicans. The goalposts continually get moved. [br It is amazing that the left does not wish to address this question. And there is no “shifting of the goal post”, etc. Once again why did the country reject Clinton? There were two major candidates – – Trump and Clinton. Why did Trump win? Why did Clinton lose? And please, do not bring up mother Russia…
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,908
|
Post by Filo on Mar 5, 2019 15:28:08 GMT -5
It tells you you get your reality from what station you watch. FoxNews: "Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside." This proves the point about propaganda media on all sides - Fox for the right and virtually everything else for the left. The problem is that FoxNews is tool of a sitting President, basically acting as a state-run propaganda outlet. There is no such problem for "virtually everything else" - and please don't try to argue that any past President had anything remotely resembling the Fox Propaganda tool.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,293
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 5, 2019 15:44:17 GMT -5
You do realize that this is an entirely different question than the first one you posed, no? This is part of the issue with discussing the topic with many Republicans. The goalposts continually get moved. [br It is amazing that the left does not wish to address this question. And there is no “shifting of the goal post”, etc. Once again why did the country reject Clinton? There were two major candidates – – Trump and Clinton. Why did Trump win? Why did Clinton lose? And please, do not bring up mother Russia… Clinton won the popular vote, but pretty much ignored three/four key states and lost the electoral college. That's where she lost it and its her fault. And yes, mother Russia also influenced the elections.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 5, 2019 16:01:06 GMT -5
You do realize that this is an entirely different question than the first one you posed, no? This is part of the issue with discussing the topic with many Republicans. The goalposts continually get moved. [br It is amazing that the left does not wish to address this question. And there is no “shifting of the goal post”, etc. Once again why did the country reject Clinton? There were two major candidates – – Trump and Clinton. Why did Trump win? Why did Clinton lose? And please, do not bring up mother Russia… DFW already gave one answer to the question: Clinton did not aggressively campaign in areas that she believed she had wrapped up. I'll give you a few others: First, your premise is faulty. The country did not "reject Clinton." More people voted for her than did Trump. And it wasn't close. It was 3 million more. Two percentage points. In that sense, her defeat (or rejection, in your words) is entirely a function of the electoral college. Second, Trump won because he was able to tap into fears and anxieties regarding the place of white males in American society. Those fears were particularly powerful because country had just had eight years of a black President and his current opponent was a female. They were (and continue to be) powerful also because of the changing demographics of the country. Third, Trump won because he is a gifted communicator, particularly when it comes to saying things in very snippy and concise ways and utilizing social media to his advantage. He recognized that any publicity was good publicity. He turned any attack -- any allegation against him -- as an attack against him and, thus, an attack against those who might support him. Like his supporters, he was aggrieved. And he did not shy away from any rhetoric, no matter how inflammatory. Fourth, Trump won because he was willing to make promises to people (many of whom were the same white males he was targeting above) that he could improve their economic lives. This is no different than what many other politicians have done since the beginning of time. But what differentiated him from others in the past (and certainly from Clinton) is that a certain portion of the population believed he could actually achieve it based on his (perceived) past successes in business. He had no compunction about simply making things up and out and out lying about what was true, what could be true, and what he would or would not do. Again, that's not different in substance from other politicians (including Hillary), but its scope and brazenness was. Fifth, substantively, Hillary was a flawed and bruised candidate and communication has never been her strength. Her "crookedness" was easily explainable had she more readily done so. Sixth, people vote for uniforms. Again, that's always been true to a certain extent, but it's even more true now. The vast majority of the people that voted for Trump (that is, those that "rejected Clinton") would have voted for literally anyone that ran with an "R" before their name. And the same is true of the Democrats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 18:27:38 GMT -5
It tells you you get your reality from what station you watch. FoxNews: "Good reporting Kiddo, but Rupert Murdoch wants Donald Trump to win. So set it aside." This proves the point about propaganda media on all sides - Fox for the right and virtually everything else for the left. Can you show me a similar example on the left where a news chief had his network not report a huge story because he wanted one candidate to win an election over another? Killing or refusing to cover stories that are in the publics interest because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative is the very definition of propaganda.
|
|