I think you put Hillary number one on the list and remove debate questions, journalists, campaign funding, and women under pressure from men.

A combo of the rest definitely didn't help.

Nope, all of the topics you want removed were the target of either Hillary's supporters or Hillary herself for her loss.

Most of the left is blind to the fact that she lost because she was a bad candidate.

Well, there's no way to prove it either way, so arguing the point is a waste of time. You will believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe.

There actually probably has never been many, if any, that have been a more qualified candidate for President, as she was.

Of course she's also the greatest serial killer in the history of mankind and she's run sex trafficking rings in the basement of pizza parlors. Those were kind of unqualifying qualities I guess. Oh yeah, she sold Uranium to the Russians. LOL

Yes, she proves that credentials don't make a good candidate. To win an election, you have to have other qualities.

I am a Ted Cruz fan. He is a great constitutional conservative. He has the resume to be president, but like Hillary, is a bad presidential candidate because he has an unlikable personality.

Obama had a poor resume. He was a one-term senator with no military experience and no commercial experience, but he turned out to be a really strong candidate.

The point is that just because she has made a career out of politics doesn't mean that she was a good candidate.

Gomiami, feel free to post here. Civil debate on any topic is healthy for America. Taint and I have been going at it for a couple of years now, but I hope he knows that if he is ever in GA we will go play 18 at the Georgia Club and then go have a beer.

I agree with most of your post, but I would not call Marx Brilliant. I have read "The Communist Manifesto" and have a brother who is a Marxist. His theories appeal to those who can't think past the surface.

Just for clarity, I have respect for Dino and his opinions as well. I'm not sure there's one that I agree with, but that okay. I still respect of points of view. There is actually only one person on here that I have no respect for and I have him blocked. He comes across as a very bad person. Other than that, I appreciate the diversity in thought on here.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:08:00 AM (view original):
Gomiami, feel free to post here. Civil debate on any topic is healthy for America. Taint and I have been going at it for a couple of years now, but he I hope he knows that if he is ever in GA we will go play 18 at the Georgia Club and then go have a beer.

I agree with most of your post, but I would not call Marx Brilliant. I have read "The Communist Manifesto" and have a brother who is a Marxist. His theories appeal to those who can't think past the surface.

Thank you very much. I love to debate but hate when it devolvs into the personal.

I do not care for neither Dan Kapital nor The Communist Manifesto. However, his keynote address to the Communist International (1850ish) where he lays out exactly how a social revolution can topple central authority is brilliant. Elements of those tactics are being used in American scoiety as we speak and they are having some success. Unfortunately for Marxists, they are breaking some of his key tenets which reduces their chances of ultimate success by a considerable percentage. Marx deserves recognition for his own work but more as an inspiration to future authors. It's like Freud. A lot of his theories have been discredited but he was the launching point for what the field of psych is today. Give Marx his due even if we both disagree with his beliefs.

Yeah, i've quit posting here as much as well because I get tired of skimming through pages of "you're an idiot". "No, you're; an idiot". We've even seen a "you're dad's an idiot" mixed in. I like to see substance in the disagreements on here.

Spring training starts in two weeks. Oh, and Starbucks coffee sucks!

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/28/2019 11:18:00 PM (view original):
I almost ****** my pants laughing the first time I read something blaming Jill Stein for Hillary's loss. Reasons Clinton lost according to the left:

Russia, FaceBook, James Comey, The DNC, Jill Stein, Sexism, A Democratic predecessor, Bernie, Wikileaks, the debate questions, journalists, campaign funding, low-information voters, women under pressure from men

The problem is very few people actually blame Hillary.

NOBODY takes blame for their errors or losses in Government, or in anything, anymore. It's always somebody or something else's fault.
Just another accepted f'd-up norm in today's moral-free, everybody-do-what-they-want, trophy-for-everybody society.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/28/2019 10:49:00 PM (view original):
I really hope some conservatives primary Trump. While I do not see him as a danger to our democracy, the guy is a scumbag.

Primary is not the same as an independent bid.

Really, you don't say, Tang? ;)

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/28/2019 11:00:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing Dino, if the Democrats would run a good candidate it doesn't matter if there is a 3rd party candidate or not. When you run HRC as your nominee, you should expect to lose. I thought Obama did a lot very poorly, but he was a good candidate. He energized people. He was articulate. He was likable. Hillary screeched her way through the process with nothing of substance to say. "Vote for me because i'm a woman." Most rational people would agree that is a terrible reason to vote for someone. I think Bernie is a blithering idiot, but people rally around his ideas because he speaks directly to the average person. Hillary speaks like people should listen to her because she is better than them.

And BL always says that if Bernie was the better candidate he would have won the primary. Here's where that argument falls short. Both Trump and Clinton won because they invite/incite drama. People love drama. That excitement loses its flare over time. The excitement behind Bernie would have carried into the general election.

That is false. Regardless of the candidate, an independent challenge always hurts. Schultz would take far more dem votes away than republican votes.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/28/2019 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Here I go posting on a political thread.

Nobody should be surprised by a person like Schultz wanting to run for president. The bourgeois literally can't help themselves in this regard. In the future, even more of the wealthiest bourgeoisie will be throwing their hat in the ring, thinking they can too do what Trump accomplished.

For those that think Schultz is upper class, he is not. Trump, Gates, Schultz, Buffet, Oprah, Koch, Bezos, Musk...all middle class...like the Fugger and Medici banking families of Europe used to be. A very rich banker (or fill in your own pet middle class profession) is still just a banker. Wealth does not elevate one's sociological class because it doesn't change the inherent values that represent the bourgeois way of life - the accumulation of material objects, money, prestige, exclusivity, social and political influence/power along with many other intrinsic traits. For those keeping score, I am NOT referring to the Marxist definition of bourgeois. Marx, as brilliant as he was, muddled the middle class definition to suit his own dogmatic purposes.

It's less that Schultz is rich and more that he is running as an independent.

If it was a primary challenge than no one would care.