Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

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.

I blame HRC for her loss. She is almost as unlikable as Mr Trump, and that is saying a lot. I'm sure, for many, she is more unlikable.

I would for sure Clinton is more unlikable. Trump has some charisma and charm and does a phenomenal job of connecting with normal people. This is what won him the rust belt. I think most rationally thinking people can agree that's he's fake, but a lot of people don't care to look more than skin deep. I feel the general consensus is that Hillary comes across as arrogant and pretentious.

I agree about Hilary, but to me, Trump has no charm or charisma. he comes across as a con-man who only cares about himself to me. Nothing else.

I have always said that HRC is the epitome of a politician. In my view, that is not a good thing.

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 1/29/2019 8:47:00 AM (view original):

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.

all3, I agree with you for the most part. No one takes responsibility anymore. Where I think we probably disagree is why no one takes responsibility anymore. I'm pretty sure you blame "the libs". I doubt any one group is to blame. It is just society in general.

For sure. You see it all the time in sports. When I was struggling, I never once considered blaming a coach for my failures. If I got rocked, I didn't execute. I needed to work harder. Now, almost always blame someone other than themselves. It makes coaching miserable.

I think it's important as a society to honestly ask ourselves why. This deflection mindset could prove very dangerous for our country if it continues.

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

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.

I blame HRC for her loss. She is almost as unlikable as Mr Trump, and that is saying a lot. I'm sure, for many, she is more unlikable.

I would for sure Clinton is more unlikable. Trump has some charisma and charm and does a phenomenal job of connecting with normal people. This is what won him the rust belt. I think most rationally thinking people can agree that's he's fake, but a lot of people don't care to look more than skin deep. I feel the general consensus is that Hillary comes across as arrogant and pretentious.

I agree about Hilary, but to me, Trump has no charm or charisma. he comes across as a con-man who only cares about himself to me. Nothing else.

See, but you actually look past the surface. Do you really think most Americans do?

well, its hard to ask myself why, since I don't deflect responsibility. If I mess up, I will admit it. It is important to figure out why society is like that, but the people who know that it is important are most likely the ones who accept responsibility. The ones who don't, see nothing wrong.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

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.

I blame HRC for her loss. She is almost as unlikable as Mr Trump, and that is saying a lot. I'm sure, for many, she is more unlikable.

I would for sure Clinton is more unlikable. Trump has some charisma and charm and does a phenomenal job of connecting with normal people. This is what won him the rust belt. I think most rationally thinking people can agree that's he's fake, but a lot of people don't care to look more than skin deep. I feel the general consensus is that Hillary comes across as arrogant and pretentious.

I agree about Hilary, but to me, Trump has no charm or charisma. he comes across as a con-man who only cares about himself to me. Nothing else.

See, but you actually look past the surface. Do you really think most Americans do?

No, unfortunately.

hillary is over....is she bengazi now....who cares about hillary........i care about how the trump team cheated the electoral process with russia.

Posted by dino27 on 1/29/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/29/2019 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 9:33:00 AM (view original):

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.

I believe you have missed the point entire, my good man.

Besides, if Schultz had the same amount in his bank account as I did, nobody would care if he ran as an independent either. It is, and always will be, about money.

it is about siphoning votes...no dem would be against him if he ran as a dem.
he could gain a lot of support.

Hey dino...

Schultz was on the CBS morning show (the one with Norah O'Donnel, whatever it is called) and during the interview he admitted that he no longer identifies as a Democrat (I'm guessing because the party has moved too far left since he says he is a Centrist) and, at the same time, also doesn't identify as a Republican.

If he wants to run for President, Independent is his only option.

i dont believe him......look at his policies....he is for medicare for all. and the other democratic policies...........he is the same as bernie and the others.......the hot dancing girl is the one on the left......schultz is a bullshitter...another ego guy.
if he was honest he would run as a dem and take his chances.....to me he is just breaking the unwritten rules of the 2 party system.
kasich may have the same choice to make.

Posted by dino27 on 1/29/2019 1:13:00 PM (view original):
i dont believe him......look at his policies....he is for medicare for all. and the other democratic policies...........he is the same as bernie and the others.......the hot dancing girl is the one on the left......schultz is a bullshitter...another ego guy.
if he was honest he would run as a dem and take his chances.....to me he is just breaking the unwritten rules of the 2 party system.
kasich may have the same choice to make.

lol, can't agrue any of that. That pretty much supports by bourgeois theory from an earlier post.

Bloomberg, Spanky, and Shultz should battle it out; mano vs mano vs cheeto

Bloomberg wins it rather easily

On a somewhat related note, I would love to hear from the left where Trump has hurt our democratic process. Dino has alluded to Russian collusion, but there really hasn't been any hard evidence released that supports this yet. In fact, I feel the Roger Stone arrest points to the contrary. I have seen the wikileaks argument alluded to, I have yet hear anyone deny the information released. While I do not believe that the ends justify the means, I think more information about candidates is a good thing.

I do not believe Trump has hurt our democracy in the slightest. Change my mind.

Posted by bronxcheer on 1/29/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):
Bloomberg, Spanky, and Shultz should battle it out; mano vs mano vs cheeto

Bloomberg wins it rather easily

The way this is phrased, Schultz is the cheeto.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/29/2019 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 1/29/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/29/2019 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 9:33:00 AM (view original):

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.

I believe you have missed the point entire, my good man.

Besides, if Schultz had the same amount in his bank account as I did, nobody would care if he ran as an independent either. It is, and always will be, about money.

it is about siphoning votes...no dem would be against him if he ran as a dem.
he could gain a lot of support.

Hey dino...

Schultz was on the CBS morning show (the one with Norah O'Donnel, whatever it is called) and during the interview he admitted that he no longer identifies as a Democrat (I'm guessing because the party has moved too far left since he says he is a Centrist) and, at the same time, also doesn't identify as a Republican.

If he wants to run for President, Independent is his only option.

More liberals would vote for Schultz than conservatives.

I'm not sure a single conservative would vote for him.