Which Would be More Truthful?

[Revoltingest]

More seriously. It seems to me that you can almost always predict the GOP stance on an issue as being pro-profit and everything else be damned. I'd like to hear of important exceptions to this rule?

How about their more theocratic/moralistic tendencies, eg, the war on drugs?
That is the opposite of profitable.

 

[icehorse]

How about their more theocratic/moralistic tendencies, eg, the war on drugs?
That is the opposite of profitable.

populating privatized prisons?

(and I will admit that the whole GOP-god-fearing thing does complicate predicting them)

 

[Revoltingest]

populating privatized prisons?

Species! No....I mean, specious!
There's far more money to be made by legalizing & taxing drugs.
The war on drugs is a drag on the economy (in addition to being
a civil rights nightmare). But Democrats also push that same war.
Does this mean they're all about profit at the expense of people?
And they too have their fingers in the private prison pie?

 

[Mister Emu]

I would (sincerely), like to hear how your perspective differs.

I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It seems to me as an independent that both sides are attempting to create, as best they can, a sort of economic caste system. Though they differentiate themselves in methods and message they are headed to the same place. Dems sell it as though they want the best for everyone. Reps through the offer that it is theoretically possible to move up the system and join the elites.

 

[Akivah]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

Probably. Hillary was predicted to be the winner for months, her media representatives (i.e. the mainstream media) just sang her praises, and even on election day every poll showed her winning. How she managed to pull a defeat from the jaws of victory is a mystery.

However, the election demonstrated the larger problem of all the polls being managed by Democrats. Those self-serving polls concealed the problems that Hillary was facing. If the nation knew that she was behind, that might have rallied the Sanders supporters to come out and vote for Clinton.

 

[icehorse]

Species! No....I mean, specious!
There's far more money to be made by legalizing & taxing drugs.
The war on drugs is a drag on the economy (in addition to being
a civil rights nightmare). But Democrats also push that same war.
Does this mean they're all about profit at the expense of people?
And they too have their fingers in the private prison pie?

i made a late edit to a previous post. i admit that the whole god-fearing thing complicates predicting washington.

 

[icehorse]

I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It seems to me as an independent that both sides are attempting to create, as best they can, a sort of economic caste system. Though they differentiate themselves in methods and message they are headed to the same place. Dems sell it as though they want the best for everyone. Reps through the offer that it is theoretically possible to move up the system and join the elites.

i could buy that. but then i'd say that the Dems are more realistic in terms of understanding that a crippled middle class is bad business. So maybe the Dems want to cripple the population less than the GOP?

 

[Revoltingest]

i made a late edit to a previous post. i admit that the whole god-fearing thing complicates predicting washington.

Religion can muck things up?
Whooda thunk it!

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably. Hillary was predicted to be the winner for months, her media representatives (i.e. the mainstream media) just sang her praises, and even on election day every poll showed her winning. How she managed to pull a defeat from the jaws of victory is a mystery.

However, the election demonstrated the larger problem of all the polls being managed by Democrats. Those self-serving polls concealed the problems that Hillary was facing. If the nation knew that she was behind, that might have rallied the Sanders supporters to come out and vote for Clinton.

I remember it well.....Hilda was so far ahead...she was a shoe in.
Then, when travelling across NE Americastan, I saw many Trump &
Pence yard signs, but only a couple Hillary & what's-his-name signs.
That was one poll they couldn't game.

 

[idav]

Probably. Hillary was predicted to be the winner for months, her media representatives (i.e. the mainstream media) just sang her praises, and even on election day every poll showed her winning. How she managed to pull a defeat from the jaws of victory is a mystery.

However, the election demonstrated the larger problem of all the polls being managed by Democrats. Those self-serving polls concealed the problems that Hillary was facing. If the nation knew that she was behind, that might have rallied the Sanders supporters to come out and vote for Clinton.

Didn't the polls also have trump winning at least half the states. For years presidential elections have been pretty much 50 50, no surprise here.

 

[idav]

I remember it well.....Hilda was so far ahead...she was a shoe in.
Then, when travelling across NE Americastan, I saw many Trump &
Pence yard signs, but only a couple Hillary & what's-his-name signs.
That was one poll they couldn't game.

Well Hillary won in my state as predicted. Also Hillary is closest democrat to winning Texas in years. Hillary must have messed up thinking obamas states were a shoe in.

 

[columbus]

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

This is definitely true. Clinton lost rather than Trump won. The post election numbers were not ambiguous at all.

The turnout was bad, even by the low standards of USA presidential elections. Trump's turnout was way off Romney and McCain's performance. But it was the Democratic voters who stayed home in droves, or voted third party. Those people effectively voted for whoever won. There's lots of reasons for that.
I think Sanders did a lot more damage with his "Wasserman-Schultz is stealing the election from me!" crap than the DNC realized. He got a bunch of low information liberals all riled up who then were too ideologically pure to support the real Democratic candidate. The fact that Clinton was so very far ahead in all the polls made it easy to defect from the Party. Also, she was doing especially well in some states that in the past reliably produced small margins in favor of the Republicans, like North Carolina. So the campaign put more effort into such states than usual, instead of solidifying support in reliably Democratic states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Again, because with her so far in the lead, taking a chance on an even yuuuger victory looked like a good strategy for the Democrats.

If there is anything one thing that Putin could have done to influence the election, it was to keep pushing the pollsters giving Clinton a 95+% odds of getting the presidency. That seriously impacted the turnout, especially among the fringier Democratic voters. Who are notoriously low turnout voters to start with.

So I strongly believe that Clinton lost, instead of Trump winning.
Tom

 

[bobhikes]

Not true.

What is the main policy of democrats that you take most offense with?

Both parties aren't the same, not even close. One party represents the elitists, the other represents the middle class.

Both parties represent the extremes, The republicans extreme conservatives the democrats extreme liberalism.

I and most Americans are moderates, I believe with have a duty to help others in many different ways and I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe everyone is entitled to rights but forcing rights on people is not the solution. Those are just some of my beliefs.

 

[McBell]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

Trump won the Presidency.
Clinton cannot lose something she never had to begin with.

However, to say she lost the election is is different than saying she lost the Presidency.

Like I tell my kids when they say after a job interview that they lost the job: You didn't lose the job because you did not have it to begin with.

 

[tytlyf]

Both parties represent the extremes, The republicans extreme conservatives the democrats extreme liberalism.

I and most Americans are moderates, .

That's fine. But the extremes are the base of the republican party. Progressives aren't the majority in the democratic party. The republican party represents corporate policy over middle class. Ever heard of 'trickle-down?'
The catch is it's gonna trickle down your leg and nothing is produced. Hence confidence men.

 

[idav]

That's fine. But the extremes are the base of the republican party. Progressives aren't the majority in the democratic party. The republican party represents corporate policy over middle class. Ever heard of 'trickle-down?'
The catch is it's gonna trickle down your leg and nothing is produced. Hence confidence men.

Who could have thought that if you let rich people keep their money they still won't spend it.

 

[bobhikes]

That's fine. But the extremes are the base of the republican party. Progressives aren't the majority in the democratic party. The republican party represents corporate policy over middle class. Ever heard of 'trickle-down?'
The catch is it's gonna trickle down your leg and nothing is produced. Hence confidence men.

The Democrats represent poor and minority investment while billing the middle class. Either way the middle class gets screwed.

 

[tytlyf]

The Democrats represent poor and minority investment while billing the middle class. Either way the middle class gets screwed.

Democrats represent the middle class. I understand your media has 'crafted' the word to mean a lot of things.
You would just never EVER vote democratic because you don't want to be lumped in with those 'poor and minority investment' right?

Bill the middle class? That's republicans. Republicans are responsible for the vanishing middle class in America. Don't you understand that?

 

[BSM1]

Democrats represent the middle class. I understand your media has 'crafted' the word to mean a lot of things.
You would just never EVER vote democratic because you don't want to be lumped in with those 'poor and minority investment' right?

Bill the middle class? That's republicans. Republicans are responsible for the vanishing middle class in America. Don't you understand that?

Uhh...you do realize that the last eight years we had a Democrat president?

 

[columbus]

Trump won the Presidency.
Clinton cannot lose something she never had to begin with.

There's something going on in this thread that I actually find more interesting than the OP. It's the many and various meanings that people are using for the word "won".
We're all talking about the exact same event. Almost none of the important facts are in dispute. But many posters are making diametrically opposed assertions by using subtly different meanings for the word.
Tom