TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 41 of 170
Bernie Sanders: Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone who voted for me.
www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sanders-message-20160805-snap-stor
y.html
by Bernie Sanders, August 5, 2016
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and I will vigorously support her.
Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance — improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the “birther movement,” he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That’s the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.
In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.
On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working families, Clinton’s positions are far superior to Trump’s. Our campaigns worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history of American politics. Trump’s campaign wrote one of the most reactionary documents.
Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy. She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her court appointees also would protect a woman’s right to choose, workers’ rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants and the government’s ability to protect the environment.
Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees would preserve the court’s right-wing majority.
Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000 a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces student debt.
Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.
Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.
Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.
Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes that climate change is a “hoax,” and that there’s no need to address it.
Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare. She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.
And what is Donald Trump’s position on healthcare? He wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.
During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution to transf
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RF
So Obama didn't have a supermajority. You know what? He still had MAJORITIES in BOTH HOUSES for TWO YEARS.
You know how you deal with a filibuster? You call the bluff. Let them yak ... and yak ... and yak .. as long as they want. You do that a few times. It gets to be a spectacle and makes the party doing it look ridiculous. It gets to be expensive, politically speaking.
Instead, the democratic senators couldn't be fucking bothered to put themselves out. They shrugged their shoulders, said what can we do?, and politely handed over their entire agenda.
AND THAT COST THE SENATE.
People felt pissed on and kicked aside. They needed to see someone stand up and FIGHT for them. What they got was pampered lapdogs, who, frankly, didn't deserve to be there.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
second
Are you trying to say the biggest loss of seats in House history was just another ordinary year of poor democratic mid-term turnout? Your strained mental contortions boggle the mind.
And are you really so afraid of facts you can't admit them?
"Cokie Roberts (said) "He’s lost almost 70 Democrats since he’s been president," Roberts said of Congress, "and more than 900 state legislators."
We had heard iterations of Democratic losses on the congressional level, but never such a large number of losses for Democrats in legislatures across the country.
Turns out, Roberts is correct."
It wasn't just a bloodbath in the House ... and the Senate ... it was in governorships and state legislatures as well.
And what do YOU think is the common factor, second? Just another average, ho-hum, ordinary year of poor midterm democratic turnout?
And speaking of misleading -- Your graph shows TOTAL voter turnout. You know who came out in 2010? Republicans. And independents. NOT DEMOCRATS.
DEMOCRATS specifically STAYED HOME.
these results were fueled primarily by a depressed turnout among Democratic base groups ... In 2010, turnout among (Hispanics, African Americans, union members and young people) dropped off substantially, even below their previous midterm levels
Maybe you should just be a little more - truthful. Even when it hurts. Especially when it hurts.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is not what happened. The Dem voters sit on their asses for 4 years, missing every opportunity to vote except the Presidential election.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You know how you deal with a filibuster? You call the bluff. Let them yak ... and yak ... and yak .. as long as they want. You do that a few times. It gets to be a spectacle and makes the party doing it look ridiculous. It gets to be expensive, politically speaking.
Instead, the democratic senators couldn't be fucking bothered to put themselves out. They shrugged their shoulders, said what can we do?, and politely handed over their entire agenda.
AND THAT COST THE SENATE.
People felt pissed on and kicked aside. They needed to see someone stand up and FIGHT for them. What they got was pampered lapdogs, who, frankly, didn't deserve to be there.
This is what you are claiming, 1kiki: If only the Democrat’s Senators had forced the Republican filibusterers to yak-yak until they were hoarse, the Democratic voters would have appreciated their Senators’ efforts and voted in the midterm primaries and elections. What a load of bullshit you’re selling, 1kiki. Dem voters pay no attention to Senate filibusters and fights, they can’t even remember to vote more often than once every 4 years.
For decades the Dem Voters have NOT been bothering to vote during the midterms. The Dem Senators can’t change that with some antics in the Senate. The Dem voters ought to realize, but they have NOT for brain dead reasons, that they can NOT get what they want from Congress if they skip every election except one. The Republican voters don’t skip elections. The Dem voters could learn that lesson, but they have not, leaving Republicans politicians in control at local, state and national levels of government. 1kiki even made the point I am making:
Quote:Democratic voters are always excusing themselves from voting -- "I'm busy." They are unaware of early voting, which gives them two weeks to cast a vote. If they can't make it to the polls on election day, surely they could find time during the 2 weeks before the election to cast an early ballot? The Republican voters always find the time to vote early.
And speaking of misleading -- Your graph shows TOTAL voter turnout. You know who came out in 2010? Republicans. And independents. NOT DEMOCRATS.
DEMOCRATS specifically STAYED HOME.
www.votetexas.gov/voting/when/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"This is what you are claiming, 1kiki: If only the Democrat’s Senators had forced the Republican filibusterers to yak-yak until they were hoarse, the Democratic voters would have appreciated their Senators’ efforts and voted in the midterm primaries and elections."
Obama and the House had enough to answer for, too.
For decades, people who identified as 'd' remained constant, though a single, remarkable John Kennedy, by himself, raised the national average by 5%. I made the point more than once - with figures and cites - that democrats lost their audience during Reagan, as numbers of people who identified as 'd' dropped precipitously while numbers of people who identified as 'r' zoomed up briskly. That's because Reagan at least TALKED about what was ailing the American worker, and that was the loss of - hope/ optimism/ confidence/ security - as wages fell dramatically after 1970 - which I've also supported with figures, graphs and cites. Then Reagan came along, people felt they had been heard, and 'd' dropped while 'r' went up. 
But the dems just kept playing the same old backroom party politics and failed to come up with any answering position at all.
Then Obama came along and lost even more 'd's off the books.
A SINGLE PRESIDENT CAN BY THEMSELF BOOST OR HURT A NATIONAL PARTY.
Harry Reid didn't help the Senate though, either.
But anyway, the numbers don't lie. And those are numbers you keep avoiding. DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME IN ABOVE NORMAL NUMBERS. And that's how democrats lost the house in a historic debacle, lost the senate, lost 6 governorships, and lost over 900 state legislators in a single election.
So if you want to dispute that, find a way to dispute the numbers.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by reaverfan:
I've never seen such a disgusting person so close to the office. It's insane.
I missed this so I'd like to comment now. People are desperate to be heard. Trump seems to be the only one listening. And I think that Donald is doing as well as he is, simply points up how a weak candidate Hillary is. In fact, she's SO weak she has to court republicans. How did Hillary lose so many democrats and independents? That, too, is insane.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They could feel whatever delusion they want, but they did not get anything tangible to go with the feeling. Reagan's and (Bush Senior's) talk was cheap, but they didn't spend money to make that promised future to go with the "hope/ optimism/ confidence/ security". Not so oddly, Bill Clinton did delivery, partially, despite the strong objections (remember all the partisan fury and investigations of Bill's past?) of the Republican Party. Then Bush Jr promised to do even better than Bill. Didn't happen, did it? You didn't even notice the failure to try to live up to the promises, did you?
Originally posted by 1kiki:
That's because Reagan at least TALKED about what was ailing the American worker, and that was the loss of - hope/ optimism/ confidence/ security - as wages fell dramatically after 1970 - which I've also supported with figures, graphs and cites. Then Reagan came along, people felt they had been heard, and 'd' dropped while 'r' went up.
The reason was as simple as it was stupid: Bush Jr would not spend the money to make his version of the promised future happen.
Quote:Now the Dems have answers. Dems aren't playing that same old game. Dems say there is Global Warming, Trump says it is a Hoax. Dems want Obamacare, Trump says he will abolish it. Dems oppose Trump's multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthy. If that tax cut happens, it will kill any hope of a better future -- except for the rich beneficiaries of the tax cut. Dems want freedom of religion, Trump wants Muslim citizens in concentration camps or deported. It is impossible to tell how far Trump would go. It is definitely not the same-old game of two parties each taking a turn in power before politely stepping aside.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But the dems just kept playing the same old backroom party politics and failed to come up with any answering position at all.
Then Obama came along and lost even more 'd's off the books.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Then Bush Jr promised to do even better than Bill. Didn't happen, did it? You didn't even notice the failure to try to live up to the promises, did you?"
I never expected anything. Did you?
But the republican faithful did notice. Hence teaparty1, new teaparty2. new, new teaparty, ever more pure and faithful teaparty, a 2016 slate of teapartyesque primary candidates, and finally, the ultimate expression of populistic political rejection of republican business as usual - Trump. So yeah, I'd say they noticed.
And your thinking still doesn't counter the fact that the democrats are still mired in the backroom party political maneuvering of 1960. And decades later, have yet to come up with a structural, intellectual, and moral answer for voter economic angst - aside from the so called third way, which is thinly disguised republican economics on top of faux liberal social issues, a bedrock of neocon foreign policy - and all topped off with a personal-enrichment cherry. Which is why they've lost voter share, going from 55% down to 30%; and lost voter turnout. Voter share down 50% from previous levels! Do YOU have an explanation for that?
Is Hillary the answer to what voters are looking for? The ONLY thing that's pulling her numbers higher is that somewhat more people are running away from Donald than from her. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for her or for democrats. And Donald is not an excuse for the truly insane foreign policies Hillary intends, or for the trade deals she wants. If the dnc wants the party to become politically viable at all levels, rather than barely hanging on by its fingernails in the presidential race as the last, desperate, bastion of relevance, it needs to address what the voters have been saying since Reagan.
In any case - 2010 was the democrats' election to lose. The only people you can blame that loss on is the Obama democratic administration.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Remember 9/11? Remember how it was impossible to pin the blame on Bush? Remember his approval ratings above 90%? Even Democrats approved of Bush. What were they thinking? If it had been Al Gore as President, he would have been crucified by Democrats as an incompetent for 9/11. Such is the power of the Republican Party. That is why they keep coming back into the White House and hold on to at least a near majority in Congress. Voters forget what really happened, no matter how memorable and huge the event, and are reminded with false history written by Republicans that it was always the Democrats' fault.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I never expected anything. Did you?
But the republican faithful did notice. Hence teaparty1, new teaparty2. new, new teaparty, ever more pure and faithful teaparty, a 2016 slate of teapartyesque primary candidates, and finally, the ultimate expression of populistic political rejection of republican business as usual - Trump. So yeah, I'd say they noticed.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-311154/9-11-inquiry-blames-US-governm
ent.html
As time passes and memories fade, Reps get ever more determined to shift ALL blame for 9/11 to Dems: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/20/fox-news-rewrites-history-
to-blame-bill-clinton/206294
The Tea Party is very forgiving of failure. They still voted for Bush in 2004. They didn't toss aside Bush and find their evil-twin equivalent of Bernie Sanders for the Tea Party candidate running against Bush.
Bush's reaction when he hears the second tower at the World Trade Center has been hit. If it had been Pres. Al Gore sitting like a doofus in the video, the Republican majority in Congress would have impeached him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump’s enablers will have to take a stand
David Brooks says there’s no more middle ground to keep dancing between embracing mogul and disowning him.
Trump cannot be contained because he is psychologically off the chain. With each passing week he displays the classic symptoms of medium-grade mania in more disturbing forms: inflated self-esteem, sleeplessness, impulsivity, aggression and a compulsion to offer advice on subjects he knows nothing about.
His speech patterns are like something straight out of a psychiatric textbook. Manics display something called “flight of ideas.” It’s a formal thought disorder in which ideas tumble forth through a disordered chain of associations. One word sparks another, which sparks another, and they’re off to the races. As one trained psychiatrist said to me, compare Donald Trump’s speaking patterns to a Robin Williams monologue, but with insults instead of jokes. Trump insults Paul Ryan, undermines NATO and raises the specter of nuclear war. Advisers can’t control Trump’s brain because Trump can’t control it himself
He also cannot be contained because he lacks the inner equipment that makes decent behavior possible. So many of our daily social interactions depend on a basic capacity for empathy. But Trump displays an absence of this quality.
He looks at the grieving mother of a war hero and is unable to recognize her pain. He hears a crying baby and is unable to recognize the infant’s emotion or the mother’s discomfort. He is told of women being sexually harassed at Fox News and is unable to recognize their trauma.
The same blindness that makes him impervious to global outrage makes it impossible for him to make empathetic connection. Fear is his only bond.
Some people compare Trump to the great authoritarians of history, but that’s wrong. They were generally disciplined men with grandiose plans. Trump is underdeveloped and unregulated.
He is a slave to his own pride, compelled by a childlike impulse to lash out at anything that threatens his fragile identity.
Republicans are not going to be able to help the 70-year-old man-child grow up over the next few months. Nor are they going to be able to get him to withdraw from the race. A guy who can raise $82 million mostly in small donations has a passionate niche following.
www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/trumps-enablers-will-finally-have-t
o-take-a-stand.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME