Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

[Pete at Home]

Yeah, sure that disabled white kid probably had it coming.

NH, are two different people using your account?  Because I have a hard time believing the [insert mean word here] that wrote that last bit, inhabits the same body as the guy that writes most of your stuff.

I'm feeling contrary and channeling some of the less decorous people on my twitter feed. They're pretty sick of the whole just get along with white people and stop calling them racists thing.

But you were just saying that white Christians were more dangerous than Islamic terrorists because they largely control government. What has that got to do with what poor white people do in their daily lives? In one instance you're discussing systemic abuse, and in the other personal bigotry. Comparing government abuses to abuses incurred by foreign parties is one thing; but comparing the state of race relations on the street level to Islamic terrorism seems silly to me.

Street level relations and day-to-day experience has to do with why "the Left" treat white Christians as enemies. The government abuse is on the same continuum as street level stuff.

It goes both ways. The stupid friends you are channelling just got Trump elected.  I told you there would be a backlash to all that hate talk and brainwashing.  If more lefties had been like your previous incarnation, we wouldn't be here. Brexit. Trump. Now who knows what I in France and Germany.  White conservatives are playing the hand the left has dealt them.  Came to believe what your friends told them about themselves.  White Supremacy was on the brink of extinction, but your buddies went around beating the white identity drum and brought it back from the dead.

[Pete at Home]

Street level relations and day-to-day experience has to do with why "the Left" treat white Christians as enemies.

Bullpoo. How the left treats poor whites isn't determined on the street but in college teach ins.

https://medium.com/@sarahlerner/liberals-stop-the-self-loathing-and-get-to-*censored*ing-work-8574a548f126#.dxz6fodhb

Since there's an effing word in the link name, ornery filter edits it out, but you can fill it in to get the URL.

The writer, Sarah Lerner, bashes Jon Stewart and other "white liberal men" for daring to question the ugliness of leftist extremism.  And to back herself up, she quotes some other white male who's words she treats as the unquestionable word of God:

All of this culminates in a deep sense of self-loathing among liberals that is counterproductive to the cause. When progressives co-opt right-wing talking points about how Democrats are “latte-sipping” “smug elites,” who “live in bubbles,” they’re doing Republicans’ rhetorical dirty work for them. What’s more, these characterizations are wholly inaccurate — Trump voters have a HIGHER median income than Clinton supporters, and blue urban centers more closely resemble America than red rural areas. As George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at UC Berkeley, underlines about the importance of establishing your own narrative:
When arguing against the other side, don’t use their language because it evokes their frame and not the frame you seek to establish. Never repeat their charges! Instead, use your own words and values to reframe the conversation.
And yet, I hear way too much deference toward conservative voters from my fellow liberals. They argue that we should try to “understand” Trump voters’ motivations and see if we can convert them over to our side of the aisle.

[NobleHunter]

Part of the left, sure. But "the Left" isn't just college students and professors. Though, to be fair, I think the two particular people on twitter have taught/worked at university. But their ornery politics come from their own experience rather than "teach ins."

Or, white conservatives recognized that they were approaching a tipping point where their power and influence was about to hit a steep downward slope and riled up racist nationalism to stem the rising tide.

[Pete at Home]

Consider the sheer viciousness of the tactic Lerner espouses here. Requote:

When arguing against the other side, don’t use their language because it evokes their frame and not the frame you seek to establish. Never repeat their charges! Instead, use your own words and values to reframe the conversation.

No wonder they get bad feedback from the white dude on the street.  You're talking Maoist brainwashing 101.

[Fenring]

Street level relations and day-to-day experience has to do with why "the Left" treat white Christians as enemies.

This makes sense, whether or not it's true (I don't think it's all that accurate).

The government abuse is on the same continuum as street level stuff.

This doesn't make sense, though. What does it even mean?

[NobleHunter]

That the street-level stuff is connected to government abuses, especially since one of the main abuses of government has been to ignore street level stuff.

[NobleHunter]

Consider the sheer viciousness of the tactic Lerner espouses here. Requote:

When arguing against the other side, don’t use their language because it evokes their frame and not the frame you seek to establish. Never repeat their charges! Instead, use your own words and values to reframe the conversation.

No wonder they get bad feedback from the white dude on the street.  You're talking Maoist brainwashing 101.

At least you didn't quote Alinksy.

[Pete at Home]

Consider the sheer viciousness of the tactic Lerner espouses here. Requote:

When arguing against the other side, don’t use their language because it evokes their frame and not the frame you seek to establish. Never repeat their charges! Instead, use your own words and values to reframe the conversation.

No wonder they get bad feedback from the white dude on the street.  You're talking Maoist brainwashing 101.

At least you didn't quote Alinksy.

I quoted Lerner quoting. lakoff, the white male who's words she credits as if they were the word of God. Alinski was HE's guru, neh?

[Kasandra]

   

As for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:

No you can't.  Nothing you've ever said, leads to any ability to believe you understand why other rational thinking people would reach different logical conclusions than yourself.

I thought I could think for myself, but I guess you know better.  I suppose I should just take what you say as fact instead of risking thinking differently.

Enough, you know better than me.

Get off your soap box, you weren't thinking for yourself where I criticized you.  You were "thinking" for the pool of "Trump voters" and ascribing them motivations that you made up.  They've told everyone repeatedly why they think Trump is better for the country than Hillary, or in come cases just think he's good for the country period.  If you want to argue about their motivations start by accurately stating them.

Note the highlighted portion.  You've done far more than your share of imputing motives and thoughts onto people who you don't like (aka liberals, democrats) with great confidence that you know more about those things than they do.  Those were my opinions, if you'll allow them.

[Seriati]

That highlight doesn't help your case, just confirms that you believe you know better why people did something than they do.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, the bottom line is that there is no one reason why Trump won.

Trump won the election by less than 120,000 votes, distributed across three closest states that Trump took.  If those 120,000 had voted differently--or if 240,000 in those same states has gone for Hillary (to avoid a recount)--then we would have a Democratic Presidency coming up.

How many groups of 240,000 do you think there are in those three states that could have been swayed by any given issue?

I would guess that there are dozens of reasons that could have persuaded 240,000 Trump voters to go for Hillary.  At the very least a handful.  But certainly more than one.

So just about any reason that Trump won (or Hillary would have won) is plausible.  And not because anyone is smarter than anyone else.  Because there are multiple reasons why people voted for either Trump or Hillary, and the election was close enough that any one of them could have tipped it the other way.

[Pete at Home]

When you consider she outspent him ten to one, and had her campaign managed by professionals while he ran his out of his back pocket, just getting close would have been a stunning victory.

[Seriati]

So just about any reason that Trump won (or Hillary would have won) is plausible.  And not because anyone is smarter than anyone else.  Because there are multiple reasons why people voted for either Trump or Hillary, and the election was close enough that any one of them could have tipped it the other way.

Lol, his claim was these were reasons that resonated, not that they were fringe issues that implausibly were the primary motivator for 120k highly "relevant" (but actually no different than the millions in their state) voters.  I have no doubt there are voters out there who picked their candidate because they think one is secretly an undercover alien (ala Men in Black), but that doesn't make it a reason that swayed any significant portion of the tens of millions of voters it took to win.

If I had to pick a single "reason" why Hillary didn't win, I'd say I still can't identify five issues that Hillary Clinton actively campaigned on.  Sure I can tell you what's on her website, or what her proxies said, but that she actively brought focus too?  Nope.  She had no message, heck she kept changing her campaign slogan.  It was like a test marketing campaign.

[Pete at Home]

She campaigned on gun control in the Sanders debates and then denied she was coming after guns. 

[Wayward Son]

I have no doubt there are voters out there who picked their candidate because they think one is secretly an undercover alien (ala Men in Black)...

Right idea, wrong politician.

If I had to pick a single "reason" why Hillary didn't win, I'd say I still can't identify five issues that Hillary Clinton actively campaigned on.  Sure I can tell you what's on her website, or what her proxies said, but that she actively brought focus too?  Nope.  She had no message, heck she kept changing her campaign slogan.  It was like a test marketing campaign.

Oddly enough, I had the same idea just the other day, although I put it down to media overload.

To get through to the average voter, you need to do something memorable.  A well thought out, detailed immigration policy is far less memorable than "build a wall."  So the average Joe, who is more worried about making his car payment this month than who is President, and is bombarded by dozens of commercials each day for hair care, a new auto, etc., not to mention the talking heads from Fox and MSNBC, will remember the guy with the simple, albeit unworkable slogan than the gal with the detailed plan he fell asleep halfway through or has to look up.  Thus, "Trump will stop immigrants," and "Hillary has no plan."

Thus the arguably least-qualified candidate in living memory beats out one of the most qualified candidates because no one has the time or impetuous to find out what she really wanted to do.

But that is just what got him close.  What pushed him over the edge--that's a whole number of reasons, as many as the number of disparate groups that he was able to hold.

[Wayward Son]

She campaigned on gun control in the Sanders debates and then denied she was coming after guns.

But, of course, that was because she didn't intend on banning all guns, or even a majority.  But details like that are too much for a sound bite.

[Pete at Home]

She campaigned on gun control in the Sanders debates and then denied she was coming after guns.

But, of course, that was because she didn't intend on banning all guns, or even a majority.  But details like that are too much for a sound bite.

Gun nuts are more informed than you might think about gun proposals.  They understand just how broad and how reaching "assault weapons" can be.  So does Sanders. And that's why Hillary exoriated him.

[Seriati]

Oddly enough, I had the same idea just the other day, although I put it down to media overload.

No way!  I have to put it down to deliberate media avoidance.  What kind of Presidential candidate (ie person who's paying for as much media coverage as possible) avoids free media by not having a press conference for almost a year?  Her campaign was over scripted to the point that she would not come out with positions because they might motivate opposition.  It was a rehash of the, 'we have to pass it to find out what's in it,' idea.  We were just supposed to trust that she has positions that we'd agree with once she got into office. 

To get through to the average voter, you need to do something memorable.  A well thought out, detailed immigration policy is far less memorable than "build a wall."  So the average Joe, who is more worried about making his car payment this month than who is President, and is bombarded by dozens of commercials each day for hair care, a new auto, etc., not to mention the talking heads from Fox and MSNBC, will remember the guy with the simple, albeit unworkable slogan than the gal with the detailed plan he fell asleep halfway through or has to look up.  Thus, "Trump will stop immigrants," and "Hillary has no plan."

Didn't hear a well thought out plan from Hillary, didn't hear her even try to articulate it.  She had opportunities to speak to the country, and she choose to forego other ones.  Her paid commercials most often focused on one of two things, Donald Trump is bad (or scary), or Hillary is inspirational.  I get why, after President Obama won on a "Hope and Change" message she thought she didn't have to have a message either, but expecting to get an equal resonance effect to one of the most gifted public speakers we've seen in ages in silly.

Thus the arguably least-qualified candidate in living memory beats out one of the most qualified candidates because no one has the time or impetuous to find out what she really wanted to do.

Disagree, she deliberately obfuscated and tried not to have a message, it's a not a failure on anyone else's part that she made that choice.  I really think her strategy was tied to her own awareness of how unlikeable she is, she did not want to be out there with the focus on herself.  A mistake?  Probably, could it have worked for her if she'd be a fiery and passionate advocate on issues?  It would have motivated her base, but I think her team was paralyzed by not believing she could keep it up and aware that any missteps would alienate people who'd otherwise vote for her on autopilot.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on her being one of the most qualified candidates, honestly, she should have been disqualified based on her record.  Trump is a bad example, because he personally has so many ridiculous negatives he also should have been effectively disqualified, however, the idea that a non-politician with success in another field is not qualified to be President should be thrown out the window.  Highly successful people may have gaps in their experience but they also have a great amount of experience in overcoming obstacles and in self education.

[Kasandra]

That highlight doesn't help your case, just confirms that you believe you know better why people did something than they do.

Well, that's just your opinion, eh?  Restating my own just "confirms" what I didn't say or mean?

When you consider she outspent him ten to one, and had her campaign managed by professionals while he ran his out of his back pocket, just getting close would have been a stunning victory.

Technically, but he got $B in free airtime that she didn't.

[Pete at Home]

 Trump was given most of that "free airtime" by people trying to destroy him.

She ran away from every chance to say something unscripted, Kassandra.  She was the anti-Mockingjay,

[D.W.]

One thing we can say for Trump.  He's unscripted! 
The man's in rare form since last night.

[Seriati]

It takes some interesting mental gymnastics to complain about a candidate not getting "free" airtime when they refused to interact with the press.  How was this free airtime supposed to work?  The leaks pretty much established that the press was going out of its way to fawn over her as much as possible, and that the campaign knew it, and yet they still couldn't bring themselves to use that access and bias. 

[Pete at Home]

It takes some interesting mental gymnastics to complain about a candidate not getting "free" airtime when they refused to interact with the press.

Chutzpah.  Pure Chutzpah.  Like the classic killing one's parents and then asking for mercy because you're an orphan.  The leaked information from the DNC didn't make her lose, but documents why she lost.  By making sure everything was carefully scripted and controlled.  Every interview, debate prearranged.  That's how she lost to her own straw man.

[D.W.]

Somewhere in between.  A lot of people are addicted to plausible deniability.  To me, the leaks confirmed what I already believed about Hillary. 

I voted for her despite this, but there are no doubt a lot of people who decided not to vote because of it.  Whether it would have been enough if "kept hidden" for her to win, I don't know.  It certainly wasn't her only problem.  I don't think it's fair to ignore it entirely either.

[Seriati]

I'm kind of with D.W. on that analysis, I think she would have won, if the leaks hadn't occurred or Comey hadn't reopened the investigation, both together suppressed her vote too much.  On the other hand, I'm not broken up about either part as Comey should have recommended prosecution in the first place, and all the leaks did was prevent her campaign from actually lying to win.

[Pete at Home]

She lost because she's white, and used a strategy that only Obama could have gotten away with.  She lost because her core constituents didn't show up to the polls in sufficient numbers.  That constituency didn't give a damn about the leaks.  They just weren't going to turn out for a white lady to take Obama's place.

Take your pick, either visit WIsconsin and all those rusty places, or don't be white.

[D.W.]

That's interesting.  Another part of why she lost IMO was the "first woman president".  Not (just) the sexists angle keeping people from voting for a woman; but also the idea that people didn't want to vote as a statement on race or gender.

I honestly believe the "safe bet" of an "old white man" was another advantage of Sanders.  Now, it could be a matter of lining up the correct strategy for the correct candidate as Pete suggests... But I'm not sure.  There was a combination of socially liberal voters having decided they patted themselves on the back enough for "the first African-American president" and didn't need to bookend that with "the first woman president" this time around.  They wanted a leader.  A leader who would be more than a figure head.  (not to suggest I think that is all Obama was, though at the time of his election, I would bet many decided based upon it.)  One that would lead!  Preferably in a direction they agreed with rather than one who just said all the right things.

We were (IMO) robbed of that candidate.  This depressed voting (and the party). 

I also think that she WAS a symbol.  But not a symbol of progress or an end to sexism.  She was a symbol of the career politician.  The symbol of someone too close to Wall street.  The symbol of an elite ruling class who felt leadership was their right.

All of that together made some Democratic voters stay home.  It also made some Republican voters hold their nose and vote for Trump where otherwise they would never consider doing so.  She needed someone as awful as Trump to have a real shot at the White House.  He needed someone as awful as Hillary to confound the nation and actually win.

[Pete at Home]

Sanders was by no means "safe."  But he did, IIRC, campaign in Wisconsin.  In fact, he even went back to Wisconsin to campaign for Hillary Clinton: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2016/10/02/bernie-sanders-coming-wisconsin/91447792/

Sanders didn't campaign as Obama part two.  He went to "flyover country." He didn't threaten their guns.  If Hillary had followed a Sanders strategy, and talked freely to the media, she would have won.

[Pete at Home]

And I don't think people were freaked about having a first woman president.  I think the problem was too much self-congradulatory talk about her breaking the glass ceiling.  If Team Obama had made as much of a deal of him being the first black president, I don't think he would have won.  Hell, the day Obama went to announce his candidacy,  no one bothered to show up to the press conference because they were all babbling about the death of some middle aged soft porn star.

[D.W.]

Would you have believed her Pete? 

I'm a bad person to analyze that suggestion as I voted for her anyway.  I would have "seen through it" and was already a bit sickened by her claiming credit for the "most progressive platform ever" when I felt she had been dragged kicking and screaming from the center by Sanders and his movement/supporters.

[Wayward Son]

Sanders was by no means "safe."  But he did, IIRC, campaign in Wisconsin.  In fact, he even went back to Wisconsin to campaign for Hillary Clinton: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2016/10/02/bernie-sanders-coming-wisconsin/91447792/

Sanders didn't campaign as Obama part two.  He went to "flyover country." He didn't threaten their guns.  If Hillary had followed a Sanders strategy, and talked freely to the media, she would have won.

That sounds kinda iffy to me, Pete.  You're saying that Bernie would have won the "flyover country" because he would have gone to them and convinced people to trust him that he would be in their court, but he couldn't convince people in the same areas that Hillary was in their court?

If they would have trusted him so much as a candidate, why didn't they trust him as a spokesman for the candidate?  Or is this just one of the reasons the 110,000 decisive Trump voters might have voted the other way?

[Pete at Home]

Sanders was by no means "safe."  But he did, IIRC, campaign in Wisconsin.  In fact, he even went back to Wisconsin to campaign for Hillary Clinton: http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2016/10/02/bernie-sanders-coming-wisconsin/91447792/

Sanders didn't campaign as Obama part two.  He went to "flyover country." He didn't threaten their guns.  If Hillary had followed a Sanders strategy, and talked freely to the media, she would have won.

That sounds kinda iffy to me, Pete.  You're saying that Bernie would have won the "flyover country" because he would have gone to them and convinced people to trust him that he would be in their court, but he couldn't convince people in the same areas that Hillary was in their court?

Did you miss the Democratic convention?  Sanders could not convince his own supporters to stop booing Hillary.

[Seriati]

People like their candidates for specific reasons, why you think that the candidate can transfer people who support them to another person?  Sure their voters are likely to find their arguments more persuasive than not, but they're not sheep that will replace their own judgments with their candidates.

End of day, how can Bernie convince people that Hillary stands for something, when Hillary herself won't say it when she has the opportunity?

[rightleft22]

Actually most people are sheep that overestimate the ability of ego concussions.

Consciousness -- the internal dialogue that seems to govern one's thoughts and actions -- is far less powerful than people believe, serving as a passive conduit rather than an active force that exerts control,

[Pete at Home]

Would you have believed her Pete? 

I didn't believe her and I still felt compelled to vote for her. so I'm a oddball.  In retrospect, I'm angry that I let the obvious lie of the false rape charge dupe me.  I wouldn't have voted for him without it, but I wouldn't have felt compelled to vote for her.


I would have believed she wasn't going to undermine the 2nd Amendment if she hadn't attacked Sanders over it during the debates.  But she made clear there that she was in the Orlando-was-a-gun-control-issue camp, so I thought that the folks that said "hillary is coning for our guns" were more accurate than those that said, what, no she isn't.  Specifically, she would have appointed folks to overturn the Chicago 2nd amendment case which made self-defense a right even in the inner cities.

Sanders can only convince people that he believes what he says, or that his reasoning is sound.  Once upon a time "trust" meant "trust my judgment," and if those days are over, then it's about bloody time.  "Trust my judgment that we can trust Hillary's judgment" just didn't fly.  Bernie campaigning for her was just a reminder of how the DNC had screwed him over.

[D.W.]

Bernie campaigning for her was just a reminder of how the DNC had screwed him over.

I think his campaigning for her was an appeal to reason and a lesser of two evils argument.  The problem with running on a platform (and your character) as a moralist and idealist is that even the lesser evil is not to be tolerated.  No matter what the leader of that movement implores you to do.

[Kasandra]

End of day, how can Bernie convince people that Hillary stands for something, when Hillary herself won't say it when she has the opportunity?

Tone deaf, as usual.

[D.W.]

It's like Karaoke.  If enough people are singing along it doesn't matter how tone deaf you are.

[rightleft22]

Why the frack are we still talking about Hillary and Bernie. Hillary is done

The sooner Trump followers stop justifying anything Trump does because of 'the specter of was Hillary' (though I doubt they ever will) the sooner they can take responsibility for the fool that they chose to be their and Americas voice.

[D.W.]

Think of how long the Democrats blamed (still do) Bush Jr. for our woes.  They believe they are correct about Obama and Hillary just as we/I do about Bush.

The only reason I was talking about Hillary/Sanders is I would like for my party to rally (and IMO come to its senses) and start gaining ground moving forward.

[rightleft22]

The only reason I was talking about Hillary/Sanders is I would like for my party to rally (and IMO come to its senses) and start gaining ground moving forward.

I am very disappointed in the DNC and expect they will only end up getting mired down in the Hillary/Sanders retrospective without learning anything.

Hillary has never owned her narrative and it was foolish for  her and the DNC to think that after her 2008 loss she should run again. It was a pure fantasy that I suspect went no deeper then a hoped for vision of some symbolic moment of a 'glass' ceiling being broken and self congratulations. 

[Wayward Son]

It was far more than "pure fantasy," rightleft22. 

Remember who got far and away the most votes in the last election.

Really, it was only by a quirk that Hillary lost the election, by not getting enough votes in the right places.  Sure, she should have blown Donald out of the water.  But she still got the most votes, which was the old definition of how you won an election.

Whether Bernie would have gotten more votes than Hillary, or in the right places, is unknown.  (How many fewer votes would he have received from minorities?  After the RNC labeled him a Communist, would his popularity have gone down?  Would the Rust Belt really have embraced him, or would he have been seen as "just another Democrat?")  But it was a close race, and Hillary almost won.

Losing by 110,000 votes isn't a "pure fantasy" run.

[rightleft22]

It was far more than "pure fantasy," rightleft22. 

It was a fantasy the relied and gambled on running against a person such as Trump.

[Pete at Home]

It was far more than "pure fantasy," rightleft22. 

Remember who got far and away the most votes in the last election.

Really, it was only by a quirk that Hillary lost the election, by not getting enough votes in the right places.  Sure, she should have blown Donald out of the water.  But she still got the most votes, which was the old definition of how you won an election.

Old definition from when?  Andrew Jackson's the one who said it should work like you said, when he lost to John Q Adams.

It's not a quirk, but a design feature intended to keep the US from descending into civil war, that a candidate could not win on votes alone, but had to achieve a measure of nationwide popularity.  Fail to visit key states, and you lose, unless you're black or have some other extraordinary appeal.  Hillary knew this, and thought that being the first woman would be sufficient appeal.  Despite plenty of early evidence that it wasn't.

[cherrypoptart]

Pete at Home

"In retrospect, I'm angry that I let the obvious lie of the false rape charge dupe me.  I wouldn't have voted for him without it, but I wouldn't have felt compelled to vote for her."

We don't see anything about that huge bit of fake news anymore, the story about Trump being a child rapist. If I had believed it I wouldn't have voted for him either. So Hillary gained votes because of a vicious lie of a fake news story about Trump being a child rapist and you don't see anyone talking about that or how it would have delegitimatized her Presidency and was also an attempt to influence and rig the election by our own media but we all need to freak out because the Russians revealed the truth to us about how corrupt the DNC was?

It's an issue, certainly. But the Democrats and our media lying like that and let's face it, they got away with it and still aren't really called on it, is a much bigger issue that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. Thanks Pete for reminding people that it happened and it was effective fake news designed specifically with malice aforethought to slander a candidate and influence an election.

Is it going too far to accuse Hillary of being involved in it personally? Maybe, but it's right up the DNC's alley to coordinate an attack like this, and that assertion could easily be dismissed as paranoia except we have the wikileaks hacks to prove it, not that this was done by the DNC but that this type of dirty trick is in their playbook. It could certainly have been done completely independently too by Hillary supporters without any coordination. We'll probably never know that, but we do know that the media ran like hounds after a rabbit with the fake news story and nobody suffered any consequences for it except for Trump in the general election.

[rightleft22]

Hillary’s political aspirations should have ended after her 1993 National health care reform failed.

It was only a blowjob in the oval office and false negative of the safety of a NY senate seat that re-kindled the aspirations. Her loss of 2008 and experience as sectary of State should have been enough to tell her and the DNC this far and not further. But they were too far out of touch.

[rightleft22]

It's an issue, certainly. But the Democrats and our media lying

I don't think you have a understanding of what the media is or does or what fake news actually is

[Kasandra]

Think of how long the Democrats blamed (still do) Bush Jr. for our woes.  They believe they are correct about Obama and Hillary just as we/I do about Bush.

The only reason I was talking about Hillary/Sanders is I would like for my party to rally (and IMO come to its senses) and start gaining ground moving forward.

'Splain me exactly what they "blame" Obama and Hillary for?  Bush *censored*ed things up royally and left his successor an economic disaster and a rising wave of global terrorism, all of which Obama had to fight to get the US out of.  He wasn't a magician, so he didn't solve every problem he was faced with, but he leaves an economy that has been growing steadily throughout his term in office, no current US involvement in any war, 7 years of continuous job growth (and the lowest unemployment rate in decades), health care for more Americans than ever before.  There is no equivalency between the negative outcomes of Bush's and Obama's times in office.

[D.W.]

Everything.  And what they don't feel Obama already did/ruined/is to blame for, they believe Hillary will do or will ruin, not to mention the shopping list of things they already believe she is at fault for.

'Splain it to you?  Is your bubble really THAT small that this is the first you've heard of it?  If you are asking me to defend their accusations/suspicions, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

The things I "blame" either for are not the things their opponents blame them for (or much care about).

[Pete at Home]

Can anyone other than Lassandra tell me that the phrase "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" isn't blood curdling?  Doesn't sound like a justification for murdering blasphemers?  I don't think he meant us to take it that way, but dann.  Way to scare white Christians.