Yes incompetent people running federal agencies is a laughing matter. Why do you hate America?
Hope everyone loves #2 in charge. A known climate denier. LMAO
First off your conclusion was wrong. You are seemingly taking this one example of the 2016 election and act like I am applying that to every election for every seat in government.
The issue I highlighted is that people don't vote. Namely young people.
The first result on google shows "57.6 million people, or 28.5% of estimated eligible voters" voted in the 2016 election. I have also seen other numbers that say up to 50% of eligible voters voted. Either way, its too small a number.
I am speaking of personal experience, but I fail to see how you all don't know at least some people in my boat. Perhaps you two (you and john) are simply much older then I am, and your circle all agree to vote for the democrat regardless of that candidates positions. But most people don't care about the side, they care about the person. Those are the people the democrats have to win over, and they can do so with the right person. Obama was the right person. Hillary was not.
I wonder what kind of P.O.S. is going to replace him....hopefully he will have to pay restitution on all the money he pilfered from the U.S. people.
Now let the investigations begin....again.
So my point doesn't stand?That's a fundamental misrepresentation. The article in question refers to primary voters, not general election voters.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/
"Pruitt will be replaced by Andrew Wheeler, who served as EPA’s deputy administrator. Wheeler served 14 years with Inhofe’s staff on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
“Andrew Wheeler is the perfect choice to serve as Acting Administrator,” Inhofe said in a statement issued after Pruitt announced his resignation on Thursday.
“Andrew worked for me for 14 years, has an impeccable reputation and has the experience to be a strong leader at the EPA,” Inhofe said. “I have no doubt and complete confidence he will continue the important deregulatory work that Scott Pruitt started while being a good steward of the environment. I applaud President Trump for placing him in this position.” "
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/05/jim-inhofe-staffers-epa/
That's "snowball" Jim Inhofe, right?
So my point doesn't stand?
You don't think number of people who vote is an issue?
I completely understand and agree with your point, but I understand Bob's point as well.
He said "I hope that moderate Democrats learned the lesson from 2016... it's going to take more than "Vote for us, she's at least 25% less crooked than Trump!" to win the next election."
And this echo's my feelings exactly. The big thing many democrats on this board seem to keep forgetting is that people don't vote. This country is a liberal country, and all things being equal, the democrats should be winning most of the time. I can go through issue by issue and show where studies have absolutely shown most of the US is on the same page, whether it's abortion, health care, etc etc.
Since I was born, 7 of the 8 elections that have taken place have had more votes for the democratic nominee (popular vote), including this last one and the one in 2000 when W was elected. Only in 2004 did a republican win the popular vote. That means most people are voting for the democrats.
The issue lies in the 3rd party voters (Jill Stein, libertarian, etc) which become wasted votes along with the millions upon millions of people who didn't vote at all. With the latter obviously being a much larger problem.
How are the democrats going to affect change if the best they can offer is the 2nd most hated candidate in the history of this country? Sure, Trump just happened to be the 1st most hated candidate in the history of this country, so it made sense that the democrats should match that up against the 2nd most hated, and roll the dice. Right?
The DNC should be winning almost all the time, if they weren't so ignorant of the people who don't votte. They would have won with Hillary any way, if they weren't so stupid. We can go over the numerous mistakes she made, some of which were blatantly stupid to anyone with a brain, its not important, but the facts should always be known. The people who don't vote, don't vote for a reason, and Hillary made voting for a lot of people seem irrelevant.
If we isolate ourselves, as liberals, as democrats, as whatever you ascribe to be, away from the faults of the DNC, the democratic party and the democratic nominations, we simply look like cultists like the GOP undoubtedly is. That's not who we are. We won't be winning votes from those people who aren't voting (namely people my age). We are about the facts, even if they are facts we don't like. Hillary was as corrupt a politician as we've ever seen, with 2 decades of it to back up anyone who looks at her record. She was not the person America wanted and now we are all paying the price because of their hubris. They didn't think they could lose. They were wrong.
What is it about other people on the left that can't see the criticism with the dems and Hillary and simply admit that its true? You can both hate Hillary, and have voted for her - and wish she was president. While also hate the DNC and the democrats for putting you in that situation to begin with, and hate them even more for helping to elect Trump. Because make no mistake, the DNC and the democrats are, even in some small part, responsible for Trump winning by putting up Hillary against him, or at the very least for not campaigning more in the states that would have made it harder to lose.
The Dems put up a moderate conservative in 2016 and lost. The Dems win when they put up more liberal candidates and lose when they put up mealy-mouthed moderates.Dems will lose in 2020 if they allow radical activists to win interim elections. The moderate right will hunker down and elect Trump. Their only chance is putting up someone moderate that the right can accept over Trump.
The Dems put up a moderate conservative in 2016 and lost. The Dems win when they put up more liberal candidates and lose when they put up mealy-mouthed moderates.
Republicans aren't moderates and haven't been since Nixon. Modern Republicans range from far right to fascists.Moderate conservatives, the majority of the right, viewed Hillary as another Obama for another 4/8 years and voted for Trump to break the cycle even though they didn’t really want or like him.
Republicans aren't moderates and haven't been since Nixon. Modern Republicans range from far right to fascists.
Republicans aren't moderates and haven't been since Nixon. Modern Republicans range from far right to fascists.
That thinking is why liberal dems will lose in 2020.
First off your conclusion was wrong. You are seemingly taking this one example of the 2016 election and act like I am applying that to every election for every seat in government.
The issue I highlighted is that people don't vote. Namely young people.
The first result on google shows "57.6 million people, or 28.5% of estimated eligible voters" voted in the 2016 election. I have also seen other numbers that say up to 50% of eligible voters voted. Either way, its too small a number.
I am speaking of personal experience, but I fail to see how you all don't know at least some people in my boat. Perhaps you two (you and john) are simply much older then I am, and your circle all agree to vote for the democrat regardless of that candidates positions. But most people don't care about the side, they care about the person. Those are the people the democrats have to win over, and they can do so with the right person. Obama was the right person. Hillary was not.
How are the democrats going to affect change if the best they can offer is the 2nd most hated candidate in the history of this country? Sure, Trump just happened to be the 1st most hated candidate in the history of this country, so it made sense that the democrats should match that up against the 2nd most hated, and roll the dice. Right?
The DNC should be winning almost all the time, if they weren't so ignorant of the people who don't votte. They would have won with Hillary any way, if they weren't so stupid. We can go over the numerous mistakes she made, some of which were blatantly stupid to anyone with a brain, its not important, but the facts should always be known. The people who don't vote, don't vote for a reason, and Hillary made voting for a lot of people seem irrelevant.
If we isolate ourselves, as liberals, as democrats, as whatever you ascribe to be, away from the faults of the DNC, the democratic party and the democratic nominations, we simply look like cultists like the GOP undoubtedly is. That's not who we are. We won't be winning votes from those people who aren't voting (namely people my age). We are about the facts, even if they are facts we don't like. Hillary was as corrupt a politician as we've ever seen, with 2 decades of it to back up anyone who looks at her record. She was not the person America wanted and now we are all paying the price because of their hubris. They didn't think they could lose. They were wrong.
What is it about other people on the left that can't see the criticism with the dems and Hillary and simply admit that its true? You can both hate Hillary, and have voted for her - and wish she was president. While also hate the DNC and the democrats for putting you in that situation to begin with, and hate them even more for helping to elect Trump. Because make no mistake, the DNC and the democrats are, even in some small part, responsible for Trump winning by putting up Hillary against him, or at the very least for not campaigning more in the states that would have made it harder to lose.
Dems will lose in 2020 if they allow radical activists to win interim elections. The moderate right will hunker down and elect Trump. Their only chance is putting up someone moderate that the right can accept over Trump.
You either misunderstood me, or you intentionally left out the preface I made regarding all of thatOh, so you didn't say:
Since I was born, 7 of the 8 elections that have taken place have had more votes for the democratic nominee (popular vote), including this last one and the one in 2000 when W was elected. Only in 2004 did a republican win the popular vote. That means most people are voting for the democrats.
The issue lies in the 3rd party voters (Jill Stein, libertarian, etc) which become wasted votes along with the millions upon millions of people who didn't vote at all. With the latter obviously being a much larger problem.
I disagree.Dems will lose in 2020 if they allow radical activists to win interim elections. The moderate right will hunker down and elect Trump. Their only chance is putting up someone moderate that the right can accept over Trump.
And became cultists for their effort.Moderate conservatives, the majority of the right, viewed Hillary as another Obama for another 4/8 years and voted for Trump to break the cycle even though they didn’t really want or like him.
That's "snowball" Jim Inhofe, right?
You either misunderstood me, or you intentionally left out the preface I made regarding all of that
Which should have made it abundantly clear that I was referring to national elections. Elections for the POTUS.
Why leave out half my post unless you are doing it intentionally.
When has there been a national election for the potus that didn't include a democratic nomination? LolI left out half your quote because it's the setup and the reasoning behind your conclusion.
You claim: people don't vote because Democrats don't put out vote worthy candidates.
That is false. People don't vote for Democrats because Democrats have a habit of not bringing anyone to the table for them to vote for.
I left out half your quote because it's the setup and the reasoning behind your conclusion.
You claim: people don't vote because Democrats don't put out vote worthy candidates.
That is false. People don't vote for Democrats because Democrats have a habit of not bringing anyone to the table for them to vote for.