Liberals Stroking Their Biden
Liberals are celebrating the FBI hunting down the Capitol protesters, rioters, white supremacists, insurrectionists, terrorists, Fascists, or whatever name is appropriate for the occasion. And they're all Republicans! Liberals get to use the police state against their opponents and no one is gonna complain. Lock those Republicans in prison and throw away the key. Can't get better than that. Pass the popcorn and replay the videos, liberals can't get enough.
The police state is on the liberals' side; just quote the General in charge. (No expert can speak more authoritatively about the authoritarian police state than the General.) The President smells blood in the water and goes on the attack against Jim Crow Republicans. (The leader of the party of Jim Crow is using the police state to attack Jim Crow Republicans. Ya can't make this stuff up.) Republicans are being censored and banned using liberal approved facts. The police state is even forcing social media to carry liberal water under threat of inquisition. (Are you now or have you ever been MAGA?) Liberals can even attack Cuban protesters in defense of the Castro regime - and - blame Republicans. It's red, red meat for liberals.
Of course liberals have their own protest problem. But liberals have a ready response. Liberal protesters are fighting for justice and not protesting something as trivial as an election. Liberals gaining control of the police state means justice is at hand. Liberals only use peaceful violence to attack civil society, there's nothing to worry about. No justice, no peace.
Besides, liberals tell us that elections are free, open, fair, and secure. So protesting elections is un-American activity that threatens democracy. Protesting an election is nothing less than a coup and the police state has the guns, assures the General in charge. According to liberals the biggest problem with elections are uneducated, ignorant rednecks voting against their best interests. Liberals can fix that problem with democracy by correcting the vote tallies in the back room. Liberals really care so they go to great lengths to count every friendly vote they can find.
Facts (liberal, naturally) are that voting is already far too difficult. Liberals promise to make voting easier. Liberals eventually will eliminate the overwhelming hardship of registering to vote and the inconvenience of filling out a ballot by casting the votes themselves. Can't get easier than that. No fuss, no muss, nobody has to lift a finger. Liberals will do it all for every voter because Republicans, Fascists, and white supremacists can't be trusted, doncha know.
Fascists are on the run and Communists are on the rise. Or so liberals tell themselves. At this rate, liberals are gonna get hairy palms from stroking their Biden.
Views expressed are not those of the parent company. Any similarity to real voters, living or dead, is purely coincidental. No liberals were harmed in writing the story. Material may be inappropriate for some viewers, viewer discretion is advised.
Tokin', strokin', keep it smokin'. Happiness is a warm Biden.
When liberals don't like the writing on the wall, liberals do a little biased editing and call it CRT.
yup.
Where's the satire? Pfft, false advertising.
TPTB tell us that the stuff described in the story can't happen in real life. So it must be a parody. Didn't you notice the sea tires?
The 6 folks at the bottom of the NT homepage? Ignore them.
Didn't you notice the sea tires?
That I did, they remind me of the one I 'caught' deep sea fishing off the coast of Bermuda circa 1998. Undeterred I went again the next day and 'caught' a Sanyo TV.
A Sanyo? Groovy.
That one I would have thrown back in.
The police state is even forcing social media to carry liberal water under threat of inquisition. (Are you now or have you ever been MAGA?)
Where do you get this shit ? Dude, take a deep breath, we don't live in a police state.
Do you get the feeling someone thinks Liberals are bad....
We don’t just think it. We know it to be true!
nope.
I can understand why D's liberals, progressives would be happy (or at least not disappointed) with Biden. There is nothing even noteworthy about that.
What I cannot reason through (other than by attributing it to gullibility and emotion) is why people still have a sycophantic relationship with Trump. Now that is a genuine and interesting question. The Biden affinity is just plain old fashioned partisan politics.
Because they are uneducated, ignorant rednecks. Didn't you get the memo?
Someone called for the people to rise up. And, be damned, they actually did rise up this time. But they were the wrong kind of people. They weren't liberals. They weren't socialists, democratic or revolutionary. The dreams of revolution have been tarnished by insurrection.
Trump supporters are fighting for justice. It's just not liberal justice. And that's too galling for liberals to bear.
But why are they following Trump? Why follow a proven narcissist and pathological liar who, to top off four years of non-stop lying, is the only PotUS to engage in a massive national lying campaign in a nonsensical attempt to steal an election? Why not follow someone with an ounce of character?
People overlook that Trump's popular appeal came from groin kicking the Republican Party, his own party. Trump was the penultimate anti-establishment candidate. Trump proved it with a no-holds-barred war against the Republican Party. Trump didn't unify the Republican Party; Trump conquered the Republican Party. And that happened before he began running against Hillary Clinton.
True that Trump seems controlled by his own ego. Trump seems easily distracted by the petty. Trump seems to enjoy adolescent scrimmage. But Trump was a justice warrior. Just not liberal justice. And Trump did not waver from MAGA justice. Trump didn't take his eye off the ball. Trump ended his Presidency with the same message he brought to the Presidency. That's where trust in Trump comes from.
Hahaha
Wait a minute....
Hahaha
Or Trump was just a Ross Perot redux. Ross left a large swath of disgruntled voters in his wake.
The status they elevate the buffoon to astounds me.
Just when I think they can't jump the shark anymore, they do.
yeah, total bullshit...
Same message, certainly. So as long as Trump says the right words it does not matter what he actually does and it does not matter how big a lie he is telling??
The inmates have taken over the insane asylum.
All he has to do is use the keywords Liberal and hate.
Ie Liberals hate the police...
Now they all the sudden think it is the truth and every Liberal is against any and every police department.
It is all lies but who cares right?
By the way, weren't social justice warriors suppose to be bad...
How is saying the right words different than plain old partisan politics?
Naturally the claims that Republicans are Fascists, history is racist, and investigations aren't politically motivated are all liberal truths. No lies there.
Still trying to claim Republicans are old, white men? Ross Perot ran before a lot of the insurrectionists were born. But then Bill Clinton was President before a lot of the BLM justice warriors were born.
But, hey, liberals have a knack for rewriting history to fit their version of truth. It's called CRT.
Yeah, the head inmate has to watched all the time or he'll go off script.
Still in the satire mode.
Remember my question @6.1.1. Trump is not just a typical lying politician:
I repeat the question so that the context is fresh in your mind.
It is a given that lies and exaggerations are part of politics; my point was about the person the R party is following who is now the poster child for pathological lying and absence of character.
It's my party and I'll satire if I want to.
Damn you ear worm!
Haha
How is this an answer to: "But why are they following Trump?"? You note why people would not follow him. I asked why they do follow him? Why is Trump still the figurehead?
He has been out of office for ½ year now. Step one of the process would be to distance the R party from Trump. Break free of the parasite and start the healing process. Why is the R party doing the opposite and just increasing its infection of Trumpism?
Someone who wins nomination by going to war with their own party obviously isn't a typical politician. Ross Perot wasn't a party politician so he didn't have to fight for a nomination so the comparison between Trump and Perot really doesn't work.
I surmise people continue to support Trump for much the same reasons people continue to support Al Sharpton and Andrew Cuomo. Sharpton and Cuomo have large egos, both have checkered pasts, both have questionable character, neither are humble. Sharpton and Cuomo are outspoken fighters not adverse to telling lies and twisting facts.
The Republican Party follows Trump because there are enough Trump supporters to influence their incumbency. The Republican Party doesn't want to fight another war with Trump that the party could very well lose. That's the same reason Democrats are deferential toward Sanders; Democrats don't want to fight a war with Sanders followers because the party might lose.
Apparently enough Republican voters agreed with your assessment of Trump's character for Trump to lose the election. But MAGA Republicans didn't fare badly down ballot. So, it seems the 2020 election was a referendum on Trump's character and not on Trump's MAGA policies. And Trump is still the messenger for MAGA justice regardless of his character.
Sorry 'bout that. But you would too if it happened to you.
What?? I did not mention Perot and I stated that Trump is NOT a typical politician. Are you replying to someone else?
Agreed. Now, why are so many Trump supporters still around? (They are part of the R party.)
Agreed. Trump's policies were very well suited for the R party. The miserable character, all the lying, etc. was overlooked by the R base because he stated (policy wise) what they wanted to hear.
But now he has no power and his words carry little weight. And if the two month post election loss con job did not expose his abysmal character then these people are blind. Thus:
Detach from Trump and follow a person with something North of low character who supports Trump policies.
Wasn't that Coach's girlfriend.
Lesley Gore? I don't know about Coach. Did you know that Lesley Gore was a Jew, a feminist, and lesbian? "You don't own me" was a little controversial when it was released.
Yes, you stated Trump is not a typical politician. I agreed and stated why I agreed. I mentioned Ross Perot because Perot wasn't a typical politician. But the comparison between Perot and Trump as non-typical politicians doesn't work.
Trump has been out of office six months. The next major election are the midterms. The auditions for the next Presidential election won't really begin for another two years and six months.
Support for Hillary Clinton didn't fade that quickly, either. Clinton remained in the news well into Trump's first year as President. And no one emerged to replace Clinton until after the midterms.
That's the way plain old partisan politics works.
Trump's policies were also well suited for the Democratic Party before Bill Clinton changed the party. Trump's policies fit with either party as they were before Reagan won the Presidency. In the Republican Party, Trump was the anti-Reagan. And for the Democratic Party, Trump was the anti-Clinton.
How is Trump's Big Lie different than Clinton's post-election blame tour? Clinton didn't just walk away from her supporters. Clinton retaining her support was supposed to help Democrats in the midterms.
That's how plain old partisan politics works.
Right now Trump is the messenger for MAGA justice and Trump is the one to hold support. Attention won't begin to shift to another MAGA politician until after the midterms.
MAGA is here to stay. Right now Democrats are shifting their policies to try to convince the electorate that Democrats invented MAGA.
One could compare Clinton with Romney, McCain, Dole, etc. None of them brought disgrace and shame to the R party.
Trump, however, is demonstrably a despicable character. Again, his post election loss con job where he unabashedly abused his influence as PotUS to whip his supporters into a frenzy to question the integrity of our election system with 60+ lawsuits, attempts to bully officials into taking dishonest actions in his favor, etc. is historic. As Trump likes to phrase things: 'never has a PotUS engaged in such a damaging campaign to steal an election based on nothing but lies'.
The R party should have distanced itself from him as soon as he lost and engaged in his outrageous lying campaign. All he has done to the party since is damage it. It is one thing to have a mistake like Trump in the party's past. It is another thing to continue supporting this abysmal character when he is out of office because that now goes to the integrity of the party itself.
Irrelevant. My point was that there is nothing special about Trump's policies; that any R could run on those policies and appeal to the R base (via those policies). To wit, Trump is unnecessary.
Terrorism compared to whining / licking one's wounds.
Yes, so the R party is free to replace Trump and not harm what they seek. That has been part of my point. The other part of my point is that Trump is a parasite that continues to infect and damage the R party.
And, in summary, this is not how old partisan politics works. Trump is a stark exception. Note how the R party distanced itself from Nixon who (in direct contrast to Trump) had been a key legacy figure in the party as Representative, Senator, VP and two elected term (and with 1972 landslide) PotUS. In terms of dishonesty, Trump makes Nixon look veracious.
IMO it's too early to make that prediction. I believe Democrats in-the-know recognize that MAGA is not a small government movement. Trump wasn't trying to shrink the size of government; Trump was trying to make government work the way it's supposed to work. The Federal government is supposed to work for the benefit of the United States before worrying about problems elsewhere around the world.
Trump is the anti-Reagan. Trump went to war with the small government Republicans and beat them.
Democrats were caught flatfooted by Trump shifting the Republican Party onto their playing field. MAGA is now a competition over how to best use government to address domestic problems and benefit the United States.
Democrats using the Treasury to buy the midterms is a direct response to the challenge of MAGA priorities for government. Democrats have been talking about the role of government for a very long time but had prepared for a fight with small government Reagan Republicans. But MAGA Republicans aren't as reticent about negotiating big spending proposals and are more open to negotiations over taxes. Trump has broken the status quo establishment politics of the last 40 years.
The question is whether the Democrat's kitchen-sink profligate spending will wreck the economy before the midterms or after the midterms. It's clear Democrats are not following any sort of plan; Democrats are just making it up as they go because they were unprepared. Democrats didn't expect MAGA to hold without Trump and had planned for a return to the status quo. And Democrats are stuck with social justice politics that proved effective against small government Republicans and, now, has become a hindrance.
I live in a state that elected Jesse Ventura governor. I've seen how this plays out. From that perspective I can also say you don't know what you are talking about.
Trump wasn't a mistake. The Republican Party needed to ditch the small government crap. And based on what I've seen with Jesse Ventura, only someone like Trump could have done what the Republican Party needed to do.
A party that nominated Hillary Clinton doesn't have any standing to chastise the character of another party's President.
That's incorrect. MAGA is not a small government movement. MAGA isn't based upon the Reagan status quo. Mitt Romney leading the MAGA movement would be ludicrous. A vulture capitalist claiming he believes in America first would be a bad joke.
Ted Cruz could not have led the MAGA movement. Jeb Bush could not have led the MAGA movement. Marco Rubio could not have led the MAGA movement. There were sixteen other Republican primary candidates; eleven survived until the primaries. They had their chance and Trump beat them. Trump was the anti-Reagan, anti-TEA party candidate and Trump won the Republican nomination. The Republican Party was ready to change - and - Trump led the way.
And the point I made is it is too early in the cycle for the Republican Party to replace Trump. Trump ended a full term as President and Trump is still the messenger for MAGA.
The reason the Republican Party is still following Trump is because the Republican Party is not going to abandon MAGA. Until someone emerges to replace Trump then Trump is the guy.
You deny that continued support for Trump is damaging the R party??
Amazing. You would actually vote for Trump in 2016 if you had the chance to go back in time?
I think Clinton was a horrible candidate but even she towers over Trump in terms of character. Good grief man.
You deny that Trump's policies were R policies? Trump did not run on 'big government' (which normally translates into extensive social programs). He ran on nationalism, isolationism, American exceptionalism, etc. His message was different from the standard R politicians because he did not even attempt to be politically correct. But his words were clearly R policy.
MAGA was Trump's theme so none of those politicians would have gone there. Skip the theme and focus on policies (which is what I have been arguing). All of the above could have engaged in R policies that would have been very close to Trump's. But limiting the choices to the 2016 candidates is silly. I have been talking about 2021 and following an individual now who supports R policies similar to Trump. They are popular and very much R-centric so it is not great trick to have someone else lead that charge ... and maybe with a little character.
They should have distanced themselves from him when he lost and engaged in that disgusting spectacle.
The policies of MAGA do not require Trump. He is not necessary. His ongoing presence simply damages the party. A party that supports demonstrably absurd lies that Trump actually won the election is shooting itself in the foot.
Continued support for Trump is changing the Republican Party which is needed. The only thing being damaged is the status quo which is a good thing.
Knowing what I know now, I would have given Trump more serious consideration. At the time I thought Trump was just an opportunistic clown trying to prove a personal point. After seeing MAGA policies at work and how MAGA has changed the Republican Party I would reassess my original opinion. No question Trump is highly flawed and not someone I would want to associate with but Trump brought the right kind of policies to the table.
Trump's policies weren't like Reagan's or Clinton's policies. You seem to be trying to do a CRT rewrite of MAGA or you need a translator. Let me try to help.
The government has an important role to play in all those priorities. Small government can't pursue those priorities. Those are traditional conservative priorities embraced by conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats prior to Reagan and Clinton.
That's true, MAGA does not require Trump. But no one has emerged to take leadership of the MAGA movement. There are still a lot of establishment Republicans that desire to backslide to Reagan policies. That's easy because the playbook has already been written and tested. But a return to the Reagan legacy is not what the Republican Party needs. And it looks like the Republican base wouldn't accept a return to the Reagan legacy.
No, the R party is being damaged by associating with a proven malignant narcissist and pathological liar. This should be obvious, Nerm. Continuing to support such an abysmal character damages the credibility and integrity of the party.
Well that it pretty much how most people I have talked to see it. They are willing to put a lying sack of shit as PotUS because he says the right things.
Strawman! I have stated that Trump's policies were those that appeal to an R base. I did not define them, list them nor did I equate them with Reagan's or Clinton's. So argue your strawman with yourself.
And that is a fatal flaw in the R party right now. Trump is a parasite that continues to infect the party.
Trump demanded fairness based upon the philosophical model of the Protestant work ethic. The Protestant work ethic encompasses traditional conservative values of both Republicans and Democrats.
Trump was not isolationist. Trump demanded fairness (based on the Protestant work ethic) in foreign policy. Our relationship with NATO was not fair. Our involvement in COP21 was not fair. Free trade is not fair trade.
If Trump had been more of a statesman-like politician then he could have brought conservative Democrats into the Republican Party. But Trump pursuing normal politics would not have changed the Republican Party; Trump's Presidency would have followed the same pattern as Jimmy Carter's.
A normal, charismatic politician embracing MAGA priorities will peel conservatives away from the Democratic Party. Republicans embracing MAGA priorities and returning to traditional conservative values based on the Protestant work ethic will allow the Republican Party to flip the suburbs.
You keep claiming that Trump is damaging the Republican Party while Trump is appealing to the Republican base. That's a contradictory argument searching for a gap.
But your argument is premised upon that R base not having changed. The establishment of the Republican Party rejected MAGA, fought Trump's appeal to the R base, dug up dirt on Trump, campaigned for Clinton, and boycotted the election. And the R base rejected the status quo of the Republican Party establishment; rejected the Reagan legacy politics and the TEA Party politics. It's not the same R base that turned out for Mitt Romney.
Trump changed the R base and that has forced the Republican Party to change. MAGA is a grassroots movement and not a political agenda crafted by the political establishment of the Republican Party.
You haven't listed or defined anything because your argument is premised upon the status quo of the Republican Party over the last forty years. And now you are trying to claim that transformative change is a strawman? Simply amazing.
You do not understand how Trump can appeal to the base and simultaneously damage the party??? You do not understand that I am saying the base is foolishly allowing Trump to harm the R party???
I never made any such claim. The political base of parties is constantly changing.
Why is it that people constantly resort to bullshit strawman arguments?
Endless intellectual dishonesty.
As I have stated, I don't see Trump damaging the Republican Party. So, I guess the question is why do you see Trump damaging the Republican Party?
Trump cost the gop the Senate, the Presidency and House of Representatives in just two years.
If he was good for the gop they wouldn't lose.
I have repeatedly stated why.
I will try now using abstraction.
Is it good for any party to have, as its figurehead, a malignant narcissist, pathological liar who has lied to the American people on a daily basis while in office and engaged in likely the most egregious con-job attempt in history (lying campaign, trying to bully officials, 60+ frivolous lawsuits, working supporters into a frenzy by convincing them the US electoral system is a fraud, etc.) to steal a presidential election?
Imagine if the above were true of the D party. Would you not find the D party to be damaged if it were to continue being led by such a character after the character is out of office after being denied a second term by the electorate?
How does a party, which by virtue of being led by a low-life character has diminished integrity and credibility, attract enough people, outside of its sycophant base, to ensure it is viable? How many independents would be inclined to vote for a candidate who supports such a the low-life leader?
Imagine that in 1980 instead of honorably retiring to build homes for the poor Jimmy Carter had never conceded, fought it out in court and immediately started running again.
Imagine how badly that would've hurt Dems.
Indeed. And you have presented a much milder version.
Imagine if while doing this, Carter unabashedly made false claims about the integrity of the US electoral process, attacked the officials, attacked the judges that ruled against his many lawsuits (let's say Carter only issued 50 lawsuits), whipped his sycophantic supporters up into a frenzy, demanded his VP break his oath of office, etc.
And imagine if Carter had the earned reputation of being a self-centered, lying sack-of-shit.
Hard for me to imagine Nerm dismissing that as merely:
Arguing that losing the Senate and House weakens the party means that Barack Obama weakened the Democratic Party. Yet Barack Obama won reelection after that weakening of the Democratic Party.
The argument that Trump costing the GOP the Senate, the Presidency, and the House weakened the Republican Party seems to be liberal wishful thinking. No doubt liberals will apply a little CRT to rewrite history, though.
Worked for Bill Clinton, didn't it?
Clinton changed the Democratic Party and put the Democratic Party on Republican's playing field. Clinton was damaged during his last term. Gore even distanced himself from Clinton. And Al Gore losing to George Bush didn't end Clinton's third-way influence on the Democratic Party.
Worked for Bill Clinton, didn't it?
I understand liberals rewrite history to sweep the Democrats' skeletons under the rug. But Trump ain't the first time the country has seen a low-life leader in the White House. And that's a matter of record, not an abstraction.
So, why did Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton? Yeah, I realize that's a rhetorical question because no liberal will answer it.
There really is nobody on the D or the R side that you can compare with Trump. Bill Clinton, in spite of his flaws, is not even in the same league as Trump.
My suspicion has always been that it was 'her turn'; the same reason I suspect the R's nominated Bob Dole and John McCain.
Because I thought Bernie would lose. Guess we will never know though...
I was traveling through Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino counties in Cali over Memorial weekend in 2016. I saw a few Hilary yard signs, no trump signs but lots and lots of Bernie signs. I think the Dems flubbed it and no doubt Hilary's pugnacious attitude didn't help either.
Yep. Really crappy campaign. Her attitude definitely didn't help.
You are lucky, this area was trump country.
Your logic, if you can call it that, escapes me.
Trumpism has been repudiated by the voters!
Yeah, part of Nerm's logic is that the R party has changed due to a change of its base. The new R party is that defined by the MAGA electorate.
Well, okay, that is pretty much why I deem the R party damaged (and sick). An R party defined by the MAGA sycophants is a loser.
What would cause an independent voter to consider voting for an R candidate under these conditions? I can tell you with high confidence that any R candidate who supports Trump (especially if s/he supports Trump's election fraud lie) will not get my vote.
Trump's rallies and him hinting at running again nationalizes the midterms, which is actually very very bad for the gop in 2022...
An opinion shaped by opinionated news reporting? The advent of the internet, social media, and lax editorial review of news since Bill Clinton was President has democratized the dissemination of information - and - disinformation. Opinion today is shaped and not formed.
Bill Clinton really was in the same league as Donald Trump. But opinion of Bill Clinton wasn't shaped by the internet, social media, and citizen journalism. Granted Trump provided a lot to work with but what Trump provided has been twisted into the most sensational, salacious, sinister opinion disseminated as news.
But Hillary Clinton wasn't immune to the democratized dissemination of information - and - disinformation. We know public opinion concerning Hillary Clinton that was shaped by the internet, social media, and opinion published as news. Just keep in mind that Bill Clinton really was worse than Hillary Clinton.
My suspicion is that Hillary Clinton provided the DNC a lot of cash that avoided the DNC going bankrupt. Hillary Clinton received the same deferential treatment as did Michael Bloomberg for the same reason, money.
Hillary Clinton had been in politics as long as Joe Biden; she was First Lady of Arkansas in 1979. In 35 years of politics Hillary Clinton won two terms as Senator and did not complete her last term. It seems it has always been Hillary Clinton's turn.
Trump is not the result of the media shaping him. I again point out his historic and disgusting two-month con-job (which continues to the present). That was all Trump.
Good grief, if you are going to just make claims like that there is no point continuing.
Repudiated? Joe Biden campaign very little and Biden's signature campaign argument was 'I'm not Trump'. The 2020 election was a referendum on Trump's character and not on Trump's policies. Biden did not receive a policy mandate from the 2020 election.
Liberals seem to think that obtaining power by any means possible allows them to do as they wish if they get that power. A win is a win. Liberals are only champions of democracy until they obtain power.
I knew Bernie would lose. I voted for Bernie anyway.
You voted for Sanders?? I never pegged you for a big government, massive spending type.
And the Clinton defense applies; Trump isn't doing anything illegal.
Trump brought a lot of new voters into the Republican base. Stop the Steal (or the Big Lie, as liberals prefer) keep that contingent of voters engaged and motivated. Those motivated voters aren't going to allow the Republican Party to backslide. And those motivated voters are going to make damn sure Democrats don't rig the midterm elections.
Trump is using the courts and government bureaucracy for political purposes. And it's legal. Liberals should understand what Trump is doing since abusing courts, regulations, and government bureaucracy is the core of their political activity.
Trump threatens liberals because he is playing their game on their playing field.
Legality has nothing to do with the point I made.
I've said it before but I'll reiterate. I was a lifelong, True Blue Democrat. I leaned toward what was euphemistically known as a Blue Dog Democrat which, today, is known as an irrelevant Democrat. Until Hillary Clinton. I'm a Democrat no more.
And some say, until donald, I am a republican no more.
Both are figures that need to be in the dustbin of history.
Your point was to express liberal opinion as fact. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Bill Clinton is a sleazy, slimy southern politician who grew up in the segregated south. Bill Clinton appeals to people's lowest unprincipled instincts just as did Lyndon Johnson. That's how southern politics works. A southern politician can sell dog shit and make people feel good about it. Hillary Clinton can't do that because she didn't grow up in the south.
Bill Clinton really is just as bad as Donald Trump. Clinton's southern style of politics can make you feel good about it. Trump's brash, confrontational, insulting New York style of politics won't. Trump's style of politics isn't different than that of Andrew Cuomo. Or Hillary Clinton, for that matter.
The Clinton defense is that whatever they've done may be sleazy and slimy but it was legal. That's an artifact of southern politics, too. What's legal is acceptable. And what Trump is doing is legal.
Why would a former Blue Dog Democrat vote for Sanders??
It is a good question, but Nerm seems to be all over the place with his views on any given issue.
So you admit that what both have done or are doing is sleazy yet somehow repudiate Clinton while praising trump.
Bullshit Nerm. Not only am I not a liberal, there is no disputing that Trump is a narcissistic lying sack of shit. If you cannot see that with your own eyes during his term of office (and his life prior to that) you certainly cannot miss his historic post-election-loss con-job.
That disgusting display of poor character and lack of concern for anyone but himself was there for the world to see. That is a fact. There is no comparing Trump with any other PotUS.
Just imagine any other PotUS (including Bill Clinton) engaging in the crap that Trump did when he lost (and continues to do). It is inconceivable. Trump is in a league of his own.
Yeah, that's quite possible. Even quite likely. But they won't become Democrats.
To be a Democrat it's necessary to figure out which special interest demographic you belong to. Black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, feminist, LGBTQ, Dreamer, refugee, poor, educated, disadvantaged, secular, Antifa, liberal; the list is quite long. The Democratic Party represents so many special interest demographics that double standards won't cut it any longer.
Disaffected Republican would be a tiny special interest demographic among a diversity of special interest demographics. Democrats can't do anything without offending someone in their own party. That's why Democrats only resist instead of doing something.
Yes the Dems have a wide tent. Of course there will be some infighting in what direction some want to go.
The republicans have been waging a social war and nothing more.
Trump displayed that disgusting poor character during the primaries. And beat the Republican Party. Voters knew more about Trump before the general election campaign began than they knew about Sanders or Clinton.
Look, liberals wanted Trump to be the Republican candidate because Trump displayed disgusting poor character during the primaries. Liberals thought it would be an easy win for Clinton. How could a buffoon of such low character beat a seasoned career politician? Clinton only had to show she wasn't Trump.
The 2016 election was a referendum on the establishment. Trump was the anti-establishment candidate. And Trump defeated every challenge by any establishment. Trump beat the Republicans, the Democrats, the media, the pollsters, the movers-and-shakers, the influencers, the wealthy, and the connected. Trump defeated conventional wisdom.
So, yes, Trump is in a league of his own.
Liberals want to focus attention on Trump's disgusting display of poor character as a appeal to the baser, unprincipled instincts of people. But liberals have done a CRT to rewrite the display of disgusting poor character by the establishment.
Yes but there are different levels. Trump's character was largely overlooked for other factors. But what he did after losing exposed just how miserable a character the man is. This should be obvious to everyone but apparently not.
Irrelevant to my point ... deflection.
You entirely ignored my point (which you quoted). This is a waste of time.
Whoo boy, that's a biggie. Liberals turn everything into a social issue. So, any questions or opposition to liberal proposals is a social war. I guess that's okay since Republicans turn everything into a class issue and a class war. Both are pretty nonsensical.
The problem for Republicans is that Trump has given a voice to more people lower on the ladder. Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet would likely cause today's Republican base to erupt. Trump has brought 'fairness; back to the Republican Party. There's still resistance to 'fairness' but the Republican establishment has to tread lightly. Liberal media using Mitt Romney to attack Trump only strengthens the resolve of Trump's base of support.
The fight for the Republican Party is over. Trump won.
No, I didn't ignore your point. Your point missed the point.
The conventional wisdom is that a PotUS will curry support of the establishment. As long as the PotUS conforms to what the establishment wants, that PotUS can be as disgusting and of as low character as they wish. The establishment controls the message and hides any flaws or sins because that is in the best interest of the establishment.
Trump is anti-establishment. Trump defeated conventional wisdom. But you are still only seeing what the establishment wants you to see.
Sanders proposed to end the influence of finance on government. Sanders proposals were more in-line with FDR's programs which were based upon earned entitlements rather than charity. Sanders proposed benefits that supported workers.
Medicare for All takes healthcare out of the hands of the financial sector; ends socialism for banks. Expanding public education is an appropriate role for government and takes education out of the hands of the financial sector. Nationalizing public utilities and services is an appropriate role for government and takes public utilities and serves out of the hands of the financial sector.
Many of Sanders proposals were what used to be called progressive based upon values of the Protestant work ethic.
I'm not praising Trump; I'm explaining Trump. Liberals tend to be more ignorant because they rely on carefully selected facts. That's why CRT is an important issue for liberals.
Why not? I'm having fun.
You know this blog was written from comments that were flagged, ticketed, and selectively edited. How's that 'not Trump' thing workin' for ya'?
Is this the New Normal or the New Nerm_L? I get confused when I'm too sobre.