How The Democrats Are Blowing It.

[Maine farmer]

Yes that's what the reviews over here are saying as well. Doesn't help anyone: she's just spinning herself a cocoon of self-justification. What hurts her, I suppose, is to have lost to Trump, of all people.  

Has anyone else, besides me, seen any similarities between Hilary and Donald?  They both seem to think they can do no wrong, for one.  Neither one seems to know when to stop talking, either.

[scherado]

What's wrong with Her Thighness can be summed in several hundred, small-font type pages, double-sided, no spaces between lines, all of which beginning with that significant date January 1993, the moment the "Two-Fer" Presidency began and two years after I began studying American politics.

 

What is wrong with President Trump, I have not seen any reason to modify. I quote myself--which means it's a bad day--from November, 12 2016:

.

[President] Trump is a tyro--a novice. Does anyone know what motivates the man? I don't know. He as the air of a "people-pleaser"--searching for acceptance. What people need to do--those who can't quite figure out what motivates the man--is to get to an idea about what animates the man and then relax and wait to confirm your idea.

 

Now, I'm not a psychoanalyst, but when I learned a bit about Trump's family--that his brother died of alcoholism--I wondered about his parents. Alcoholism is known as a "family disease" and I asked, but have not found an answer, were either of his parents alcoholic?

 

Whenever a person runs for American President, I ask myself, what's wrong with that person? The reason is that, if there is some neurotic motivation for running, then I want to know sooner than later.

.

Further, there is a branch of the 12-step recovery groups for alcoholics and addicts known as Adult Children of Alcoholics, which was formed for the syndrome that I mean in this quote.

[Maine farmer]

What's wrong with Her Thighness can be summed in several hundred, small-font type pages, double-sided, no spaces between lines, all of which beginning with that significant date January 1993, the moment the "Two-Fer" Presidency began and two years after I began studying American politics.

 

What is wrong with President Trump, I have not seen any reason to modify. 

 

First of all, I feel we would all be better off if Trump would break his twitter addiction, and that isn't all.... but that's a discussion, I think for a different thread.

 

What I had hoped to discuss here were the causes of  the Democratic parties failures in light of our President Trump's divisiveness.

 

The Democratic platform for quite some time has essentially been "Free stuff for everyone, and we're going to make the rich pay for it all!"  Which, of course, they never do.

 

I recall Hillary saying in her first run for President that she didn't need the Bush tax cut, but she'd take it.  Where was her dedication to her supposed principles?  Bush didn't force her to take that cut.  If she believed she should pay more in taxes, she could instruct her accountants to not claim any deductions on her taxes.

 

Likewise with Warren Buffet.  Remember how he bemoaned the fact that he paid less (as a percentage, I think) in taxes than did his secretary?  Well, if he didn't think that was right, no one was in a better to make him pay more taxes than himself.

 

In my state, the Democrats lost the last 2 elections for Governor.  I can recall the first losing candidate in the local newspaper had answered a series of questions the paper put to both candidates, and the one that jumped out at me was one about prioritizing spending.  Her answer was that she couldn't prioritize, because the money had to be spent on everything.  Absolutely no regard was given to the fact that the state has a limited amount of revenue available.  The second Democrat was absolutely no better on that issue.

 

Now, as we approach the midterm elections, I see the field of Democrat candidates for the House and the Senate, and I see a few people I could potentially vote for, but they are fiscally conservative, and I know they have almost no chance of receiving the nomination.

 

So here I am at a point where I have never been more unhappy with the Republican party, and the Democrats are yet not more appealing. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Farming guy

[scherado]

First of all, I feel we would all be better off if Trump would break his twitter addiction, and that isn't all.... but that's a discussion, I think for a different thread.

 

What I had hoped to discuss here were the causes of the Democratic parties failures in light of our President Trump's divisiveness.

...

So here I am at a point where I have never been more unhappy with the Republican party, and the Democrats are yet not more appealing.

.

Without any speculation as to it being an addiction, I'm quite comfortable with his twitter-ing, though I read or hear about a tiny fraction of his content--there may be examples that would lead me to agree with your first sentence.

 

I can state without blushing or hesitation this: That I hope Democrats to fail at every turn; I did not support candidate Trump prior to his nomination, after which I supported the defeat of nominee Clinton, a third party not an option for the simple fact that the best way to avoid a second "Two-Fer" abomination was to elect D.J. Trump; I work within the well-established two-party system (I'm American) and oppose the Parlimentary systems and any watering-down of the two-party dominance; hence, I'll take the name of the party which most-closely aligns to my political beliefs; I did not vote for Clinton in either of his Presidential runs; I've never contributed to a political campaign, the closest being my purchases of Unfit For Command, nor worked for one.

 

I hope you get the discussion you want, without regard to your explicit or implicit "intent." I'll read from here on out, unless I'm badgered for something by one of those who can ban me without explanation or consequence.

[serenesam]

So now Hillary is on a book tour, blaming everyone else for her not winning the election.  Not particularly useful or helpful to the Democrats, except perhaps for raising cash. 

If memory serves me correctly, I saw a clip from Alex Jones where Alex said something about Hillary not taking it well after losing the general election according to a "source" whatever that was supposed to mean. 

 

Some people think Hillary Clinton is an INTJ but it's actually quite possible she's an ExTJ because it just seems like ExTJs are thirsty or in need of power, control, and the desire to lead. In other words, it's strong Te or Extraverted Thinking taking a dominant role. Celebrity Types typed her up as an ESTJ but I personally think she's ENTJ. I watched all the debates between her and Trump and I kept picking up the cognitive functions of Ni and Se or Se and Ni whereas with Trump, I kept seeing Ne and Si or Si and Ne. 

[serenesam]

Has anyone else, besides me, seen any similarities between Hilary and Donald?  They both seem to think they can do no wrong, for one.  Neither one seems to know when to stop talking, either.

Yes, I think they're quite similar because Hillary is an ENTJ and Donald is an ESTJ. Both of those MBTI types are Dominant Te types. 

 

I know lots of people think Donald is an ESTP or ENTJ but that's just bullshit. I've been following Donald Trump for a very, very long time back to the very early days of the premiere of The Apprentice. Trump is not Dominant Se as he is Dominant Te. Perhaps former CIA agent Robert David Steele was right when he said that Trump only cares about himself (if memory serves me correctly) or that it's more of Trump having a tendency to care about his people like the way some people would say or have documented Trump being a covert racist so there's some kind of subconscious nationalistic agenda going on. Trump might not be the smartest guy on the planet but he would be smart enough to pull something off like that. The guy clearly has Ne over Ni and so neither ESTP or ENTJ would match that. 

 

Dominant Te types in conjunction with their big letter of being a J-type would think they can do no wrong or that they're probably or most likely right (about a variety of things). The E or extroversion could equate to high energy in the ability to continually talk without feeling tired (as well as the ability/capacity to talk over each other say like in a debate/discussion). 

[serenesam]

Yes, I think they're quite similar because Hillary is an ENTJ and Donald is an ESTJ. Both of those MBTI types are Dominant Te types. 

 

I know lots of people think Donald is an ESTP or ENTJ but that's just bullshit. I've been following Donald Trump for a very, very long time back to the very early days of the premiere of The Apprentice. Trump is not Dominant Se as he is Dominant Te. Perhaps former CIA agent Robert David Steele was right when he said that Trump only cares about himself (if memory serves me correctly) or that it's more of Trump having a tendency to care about his people like the way some people would say or have documented Trump being a covert racist so there's some kind of subconscious nationalistic agenda going on. Trump might not be the smartest guy on the planet but he would be smart enough to pull something off like that. The guy clearly has Ne over Ni and so neither ESTP or ENTJ would match that. 

 

Dominant Te types in conjunction with their big letter of being a J-type would think they can do no wrong or that they're probably or most likely right (about a variety of things). The E or extroversion could equate to high energy in the ability to continually talk without feeling tired (as well as the ability/capacity to talk over each other say like in a debate/discussion). 

Remember when Trump made those remarks about the Charlottesville incident, got criticized for it, came back a new day giving a different statement/speech but then on yet another new day, appear to return back to saying the things he said on the first day? Could that be the Te-Fi axis at work? Do you think an ESTP would do something like that? It is as if he needs to feel like he's right.

[TomKalbfus]

First of all, I feel we would all be better off if Trump would break his twitter addiction, and that isn't all.... but that's a discussion, I think for a different thread.

 

What I had hoped to discuss here were the causes of  the Democratic parties failures in light of our President Trump's divisiveness.

 

The Democratic platform for quite some time has essentially been "Free stuff for everyone, and we're going to make the rich pay for it all!"  Which, of course, they never do.

 

I recall Hillary saying in her first run for President that she didn't need the Bush tax cut, but she'd take it.  Where was her dedication to her supposed principles?  Bush didn't force her to take that cut.  If she believed she should pay more in taxes, she could instruct her accountants to not claim any deductions on her taxes.

 

Likewise with Warren Buffet.  Remember how he bemoaned the fact that he paid less (as a percentage, I think) in taxes than did his secretary?  Well, if he didn't think that was right, no one was in a better to make him pay more taxes than himself.

 

In my state, the Democrats lost the last 2 elections for Governor.  I can recall the first losing candidate in the local newspaper had answered a series of questions the paper put to both candidates, and the one that jumped out at me was one about prioritizing spending.  Her answer was that she couldn't prioritize, because the money had to be spent on everything.  Absolutely no regard was given to the fact that the state has a limited amount of revenue available.  The second Democrat was absolutely no better on that issue.

 

Now, as we approach the midterm elections, I see the field of Democrat candidates for the House and the Senate, and I see a few people I could potentially vote for, but they are fiscally conservative, and I know they have almost no chance of receiving the nomination.

 

So here I am at a point where I have never been more unhappy with the Republican party, and the Democrats are yet not more appealing. 

The most important thing to know is that stupid people vote, what the Democrats try to do is fool a stupid voter, and if they get enough stupid voters to vote for them, then they win the election. Smart voters are harder to get to vote for you, to get their vote, you have to promise them something that makes sense, you have to give them reason to believe that you will keep your promises and that what you promise to do will work for them. Democrats haven't done that in a long time, they play on emotion, not reason!

[Maine farmer]

The most important thing to know is that stupid people vote, what the Democrats try to do is fool a stupid voter, and if they get enough stupid voters to vote for them, then they win the election. Smart voters are harder to get to vote for you, to get their vote, you have to promise them something that makes sense, you have to give them reason to believe that you will keep your promises and that what you promise to do will work for them. Democrats haven't done that in a long time, they play on emotion, not reason!

So, do you think Trump calling everyone who disagrees with him a "loser", leading a chant of "Build the wall" and promising Mexico will pay for it were appeals to reason?

 

What I saw this last election among the people of both parties that I know, was that most of them were voting against someone instead of voting for them.   People I know who voted for Hillary were mostly voting against Trump and almost all of  my friends and associates who voted for Trump just wanted to stop Hillary at any cost.  Almost all of them had hoped Trump's tone would change if he got elected, and they are dismayed that he has only gotten worse. 

 

Labeling people as "stupid" doesn't help anyone.  Kind of like Hilary's "Basket of deplorables" comment.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Farming guy

[TomKalbfus]

So, do you think Trump calling everyone who disagrees with him a "loser", leading a chant of "Build the wall" and promising Mexico will pay for it were appeals to reason?

 

What I saw this last election among the people of both parties that I know, was that most of them were voting against someone instead of voting for them.   People I know who voted for Hillary were mostly voting against Trump and almost all of  my friends and associates who voted for Trump just wanted to stop Hillary at any cost.  Almost all of them had hoped Trump's tone would change if he got elected, and they are dismayed that he has only gotten worse. 

 

Labeling people as "stupid" doesn't help anyone.  Kind of like Hilary's "Basket of deplorables" comment.

 

​I'm not labeling any particular person as stupid, what I am saying is that with the way Hillary Clinton was campaigning, she was assuming that at least some of the voters were stupid and could easily be fooled! Hillary is not the only politician who ever attempted to play the stupid card with his voters, it is just that Hillary, even with the help of the Media, wasn't very good at fooling people. You see Hillary made some rather blatant lies, lies that were obviously false, and she expected her voters to be so stupid that they would never catch on. Other politicians were more successful at lying to their voters and getting elected, one of the more infamous examples is Adolf Hitler. I am one of those people that assume the German People were suffering from a bout of idiocy when they put Hitler in charge of their country, rather than credit Adolf with a high level of charisma. You have people who should have known better putting Hitler in power, so I guess they were just stupid. I'll tell you one thing, I would not have supported him. I am not a follow the crowd type. Lots of people followed the crowd, they went along to get along, they put this monster in charge of their country because they felt it was cool or hip! Where did it get them? A bunch of destroyed cities and one third of their country occupied by the Soviets! I guess the Germans really were stupid in those years, though you had some smart people like Werner von Braun working for idiots and imbeciles. Scientists work for religious fanatics and tyrants all the time, society puts the stupid people on top!

Edited October 17, 2017 by TomKalbfus

[Maine farmer]

​I'm not labeling any particular person as stupid, what I am saying is that with the way Hillary Clinton was campaigning, she was assuming that at least some of the voters were stupid and could easily be fooled! Hillary is not the only politician who ever attempted to play the stupid card with his voters, it is just that Hillary, even with the help of the Media, wasn't very good at fooling people. You see Hillary made some rather blatant lies, lies that were obviously false, and she expected her voters to be so stupid that they would never catch on. Other politicians were more successful at lying to their voters and getting elected, one of the more infamous examples is Adolf Hitler. I am one of those people that assume the German People were suffering from a bout of idiocy when they put Hitler in charge of their country, rather than credit Adolf with a high level of charisma. You have people who should have known better putting Hitler in power, so I guess they were just stupid. I'll tell you one thing, I would not have supported him. I am not a follow the crowd type. Lots of people followed the crowd, they went along to get along, they put this monster in charge of their country because they felt it was cool or hip! Where did it get them? A bunch of destroyed cities and one third of their country occupied by the Soviets! I guess the Germans really were stupid in those years, though you had some smart people like Werner von Braun working for idiots and imbeciles. Scientists work for religious fanatics and tyrants all the time, society puts the stupid people on top!

Are you completely blind to Trump's  faults, or do you just prefer to ignore them?  Trump played every bit the very campaign style you claim belongs to the Democrats.  The whole point for me to start this thread is that in spite of Trump and the Republican's contorting their principles to support him, the Democrats can't gain ground. My opinion is  it's because they are clinging to their base and preventing any of their fiscal conservatives from getting any toeholds.  I have seen some Democrats that I could vote for, but they are always swept aside by their party.  If we could put the reasonable adults back in control of both parties we could possibly see a government that functions effectively.

[TomKalbfus]

Are you completely blind to Trump's  faults, or do you just prefer to ignore them?  Trump played every bit the very campaign style you claim belongs to the Democrats.  The whole point for me to start this thread is that in spite of Trump and the Republican's contorting their principles to support him, the Democrats can't gain ground. My opinion is  it's because they are clinging to their base and preventing any of their fiscal conservatives from getting any toeholds.  I have seen some Democrats that I could vote for, but they are always swept aside by their party.  If we could put the reasonable adults back in control of both parties we could possibly see a government that functions effectively.

Everyone has faults, my only problem is when those faults get in the way of one being a good President. Donald Trump has quite a list of accomplishments to his name, it was not all smoke and mirrors, in fact most of it was not. Hillary's accomplishments are all linked to her chance marriage to a rising politician, her argument is "Because I married Bill Clinton, I should be a Senator from New York, I got connections in the Democratic Party establishment after all, because of my marriage to Bill Clinton, People in my party got out of my way so I could be a Senator, and my famous last name due to my marriage to Bill, got me elected in the State of New York, there I served for a couple of years, and I got a hankering to be President of the United States, you know the United States never had a female president before, so I figured why shouldn't it be me, after all my husband got to be president. Well Darn, this black dude got to be President instead of me, but he's offering me a consolation prize of Secretary of State to unify the party under him, so I was secretary of state. Impressive resume isn't it? Well That's why I should be President of the United States rather than Donald Trump, because I got more political experience than he has, after all, all he did was build hotels and resorts and make lots of money!"

[Maine farmer]

Everyone has faults, my only problem is when those faults get in the way of one being a good President. Donald Trump has quite a list of accomplishments to his name, it was not all smoke and mirrors, in fact most of it was not.

Hmm, Trump had a wealthy father who got him started and he still filed for bankruptcy more than once.   If I was a contractor, I would stay away from any dealings with Trump, because I'd be afraid he would never pay.   A lot of his money came from the taxpayers of New York because he was able to take advantage of some foolish politicians there, and he managed to bluff his way around simply by threatening to sue.  He demonstrates nothing but contempt for nearly everyone, and I'm convinced the only person on the planet that Trump truly likes is himself.  I believe he may be mentally ill, and I believe he is demonstrating that he is the worst president in my lifetime.  I have disliked presidents before, but none before him have made me dread reading the news every day   

 

 Hillary's accomplishments are all linked to her chance marriage to a rising politician, her argument is "Because I married Bill Clinton, I should be a Senator from New York, I got connections in the Democratic Party establishment after all, because of my marriage to Bill Clinton, People in my party got out of my way so I could be a Senator, and my famous last name due to my marriage to Bill, got me elected in the State of New York, there I served for a couple of years, and I got a hankering to be President of the United States, you know the United States never had a female president before, so I figured why shouldn't it be me, after all my husband got to be president. Well Darn, this black dude got to be President instead of me, but he's offering me a consolation prize of Secretary of State to unify the party under him, so I was secretary of state. Impressive resume isn't it? Well That's why I should be President of the United States rather than Donald Trump, because I got more political experience than he has, after all, all he did was build hotels and resorts and make lots of money!"

Did you know that there are a fair number of people who think Hilary was the brains behind Bills success?  He was rather preoccupied with having fun and messing about with an intern.  (Which is no different than the recent news about Harvey Weinstein and clearly an abuse of his power.)  Yes Hilary did have an outsize sense of entitlement, and I in no way believe she would have been a very good president

[TomKalbfus]

"Hmm, Trump had a wealthy father who got him started and he still filed for bankruptcy more than once.   If I was a contractor, I would stay away from any dealings with Trump, because I'd be afraid he would never pay.   A lot of his money came from the taxpayers of New York because he was able to take advantage of some foolish politicians there, and he managed to bluff his way around simply by threatening to sue.  He demonstrates nothing but contempt for nearly everyone, and I'm convinced the only person on the planet that Trump truly likes is himself.  I believe he may be mentally ill, and I believe he is demonstrating that he is the worst president in my lifetime.  I have disliked presidents before, but none before him have made me dread reading the news every day "

 

 

What do you think would have happened if Hillary Clinton were in charge of that money?

 

 

"Did you know that there are a fair number of people who think Hilary was the brains behind Bills success?  He was rather preoccupied with having fun and messing about with an intern.  (Which is no different than the recent news about Harvey Weinstein and clearly an abuse of his power.)  Yes Hilary did have an outsize sense of entitlement, and I in no way believe she would have been a very good president​"

 

 

​​Well the choice was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Donald Trump has some executive experience running organizations that are not funded by the government. Hillary Clinton ran the State Department for a brief stint. Trump had plenty of responsibilities in running his businesses, and when you look at what Hillary did when she was the head of the State Department under Obama, with the comingling of her private and government e-mails, do you really think she would have been a better choice for President? Being a junior Senator is hardly any responsibility at all, all you do is vote and talk. There were 99 other votes other than hers so she was only 1% responsible for all the decisions made in the Senate. Sarah Palin would have been a better choice for president, she was a governor of Alaska.