Trump Talk™

The only people who care about "drink with her/him" are straight white guys. This vote will be them vs everyone else. They will finally lose.

Discriminatory statement is discriminatory.

And if you want to be technical, Republicans have, at least over the past generation or two, carried the white male vote pretty handily.

Which means they "lost" in 92, 96, 08, and 12.

I don't particularly begrudge you any specific aspect of your statement, but it speaks to a mindset that is not exactly open-minded, which everyone needs to be if we're to get anywhere.

Trump doesn't want me counting his money. I might pocket some and escape in my helicopter made of spooned out watermelon rinds.

SMELL YA LATER.

Which white male vote though? Trump cleans up with the HS diploma crowd but move up the socioeconomic ladder and Clinton has a comfortable cache of white voters. With women it turns into a landslide.

What he should say is with blue collar, HS diploma, older white voters Trump is cleaning up. With many other groups it's comically lopsided. I saw one poll with Trump at 0% of the black vote.

Is that even possible? Well, I left reality a while ago so who knows.

"As a whole."

Dunno how the demographics break down. I just know the right has carried the white male vote pretty handily for a long time.

Don't forget all those upper-middle class/lower-upper class baby boomers who are afraid of getting railroaded right up the poop chute by all the people they've taken advantage of for the past 30 years, including their own children.

Apologies for an egregious use of the term "poop chute," I've been listening to Frank Zappa.

Even Bush/McCain/Romney carried a mix of white voters which included women and higher socioeconomic groups. Bush even carried Hispanics. Trump is polling bad with anyone not in the lower end of the white male spectrum.

Its hard to argue that this vote is about shaking up the system when the only people buying your message is a very pure subset of a racial group as every other racial group regardless of socioeconomic standing is in full rebellion.

It's the whole old white male syndrome problem that Republicans face but even if you try to spin this as Trump being the great breaker of chains, father of dragons come to be the one true king it only resonates with one group. One group.

That's a statement.

Come, come, Trump appeals to a broad spectrum that includes white nationalists, racists, and Islamophobes as well, I suppose, as some good people.

Surely they can put him over the top.

This isn't the type of comment that I would normally [+], but it gets one for being clever.

Yes and no. The GOP has reliably had Congress for a long time now, and that's quite honestly a bigger deal. Presidential power typically goes back and forth - which is why the GOP putting out a total turd buffet of candidates is the unforced error of the century. They should have had this thing in the bag, and instead we get to watch two lunatics slug it out to see who the independents hate less.

(Also, Congressional control is the big problem with the narrative that Obama's responsible for all the ills of America. We've had a Republican Congress for years and years, they are just as responsible for this mess as anyone, maybe moreso.)

And by Congress, I'm assuming that you're referring specifically to the House? I'm not defending the 'Pubs in Congress, as Congress pretty much sucks as a whole, but the Dems had the Senate for a good chunk of Obama's presidency and complete control of both houses for 4 years straight.

I was, and I should have clarified. The House controls spending; I'd put it higher than the Senate or the President in terms of importance. The House is the single most important piece of the puzzle for accomplishing one's agenda.

I had honestly forgotten that the Dems held it for a couple years though, so thank you for the chart.

You're not stupid enough to forget what filibusters are.

Thanks Rav.

I tend to +1 post that make me think or laugh no mater if there is a political disagreement in them. I've +1 a few of yours.

Yeah... but it was the first two years that Obama REALLY had such a lead. IIRC they only needed to pick up 4 in the senate at the time. I could be wrong.

Honestly, he should have opened with single payer after assuring all the democrats in both houses who were on long term lease to the insurance industry that this was only openers and their corporate bosses would really continue to get their cut.

This, BTW, is the kind of negotiating that Trump excels at.

Scenario: Open with single payer with a few Democratic holdouts in the house, just enough to encourage the Republicans to come to the table. Wave Romnycare around. "How about this as a start?" Invite Romney to head a bipartisan commission, which would include representatives from all aspects of the health profiteers of course.

Wind up with better than we got and Republican signatures on it to boot.

You are forgetting the most important Trump supporters FFXIAH.

We can classify Clinton supporters as ISIS terrorist supporters. Which shows you how blind people are with what government has been up to these past 30 years or more.

This in the news 50 Republicans on capital hill write a angry letter at Trump saying they won't support him.

These are the same establishment elite that agree with the Democrats and voted to fund terrorist organizations, the same traitors that voted for Obama care, the same two faced puppets that approved of bush's Patriot act and both bush's and Obama's and Clinton's global war agendas on the taxpayers dime without them knowing a god damn thing.

I see we have a lot of willfully ignorant cowards who like business as usual.

It was just a case of my wording being off. When I said "complete" I didn't mean with a super majority. Regardless, filibusters don't stop everything, don't work in the House, and are basically a lame excuse that people like to throw out when the party in control of the Senate can't get the job done.

Filibusters do indeed stop everything except for budget reconciliation, as we have witnessed for the last 8 years. No other legislation can pass without 60 votes.

I really wish they were forced to do Mr. Smith goes to washington type filibusters, instead of saying they are doing one, then leaving for the day.

Was it Cruz who read green eggs and ham on the senate floor? I could at least respect him for hanging around and actually filibustering.

And did that stop anything? Oh wait, no it didn't. Failed filibusters gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Patriot Act, the ACA, and some other notable legislation.

I wonder why you guys instead of the stupid comparison with Warren's statement(that had nothing to do with Trump's) didn't use what Hillary Clinton herself said in 2008...when she said she wasn't dropping out of the race cause Obama could still be assassinated(which sounds supercreepy coming from someone like her lol).

edit: she hinted, not said* siilarly to what Trump did

It is a better comparison, still not apples to apples, but at least it's fruit to fruit.

Hillary, however, almost immediately realized how poorly worded that was and how awful it sounded it, acknowledged it, and apologized for a very poorly-worded statement that could absolutely be taken in a bad way.

*shrug*

Whatever. I'm slowly coming to peace with the fact that no matter who wins, we all lose. It's like Freddy vs. Jason, but actually scary.

I must emphasize the "slowly," however. I'm certainly not there yet. I really need to learn how to just sit back and enjoy watching the world burn. Like Nik!

This is among the most ignorant things that you've ever posted. Your lack of understanding for why people support or rally against certain candidates is staggering in scope.

Even when I vehemently disagree with Aman or Nausi, 95% of the time (on political issues. Nausi, especially, I tend to get along with wonderfully on non-political issues), I still understand their reasoning for feeling how they do on topics and even if I think they're wrong and really need an attitude adjustment on how they approach an issue/group of people, I don't generally feel like they're being completely unreasonable (at least, not any more than they feel like I am.)

You, on the other hand, throw about statements like this with such a casual disregard for truth, facts, or nuance of a situation that you actively make a conversation worse simply by being part of it.

That you can't understand why someone would support Hillary at all speaks to your complete failure to understand issues beyond what you're convinced is true by the conspiracy theory YouTube videos you watch.

You're basically a Tumblr Feminist for your causes of choice.

Total agreement. Again, Dem failure. The GOP was faux filibustering some popular legislation. The Dems should have forced them to actually filibuster.