So once again, as usual, eskimo caught in yet another lie. He said nothing about sex with his daughter. You might need to seek help with that lying problem you have.... or maybe just go work for the media, they're good with it
No it isn't. Talking about having sex with somebody is about talking about having sex with somebody.
So once again, as usual, eskimo caught in yet another lie. He said nothing about sex with his daughter. You might need to seek help with that lying problem you have.... or maybe just go work for the media, they're good with it
Speaking of lies, I'm still eagerly awaiting your parsing of the definition of ban and/or an admission that you lied. Any ETA on that?
What is stupid is that a man who thinks he is just a meat machine could think anybody else's sex life is his business. Your chemical experiment in your brain can be completely fooling you.Nice attempt at being purposefully dense.
By the way, wasn't that gif of Jesus pretty funny? It really puts into perspective how stupid the idea is that a magical man in the sky would care about sex, doesn't it?
You'll be eagerly awaiting for a long time then, since obviously there can't be an admission of something that did not happen. Nice try though.
Romney wouldn't do what Trump did. The problem on the Democratic side is that Hillary failed to take into account the discontent of the majority, the sense of "shut up and be happy or I'll label you a racist" impression- remember her Romney moment.
The Onion had what I think was a fair assessment of the attitude Hillary projects. http://www.theonion.com/article/hillary-clinton-to-nation-do-not-fuck-this-up-for--38416
Now whether Dems agree with this or not, that's the message she gave to those middle class workers mentioned in the last sentence. She should have been more inclusive, appealing to Americans as citizens and not selected demographics. Yes everyone has problems which are real and varied, but it makes no one pleased to be called racists because they feel a candidate does not care for their situation.
It is a great failing of our political system.
Agreed. I think it is true that Trump definitely pulled a ton of racists out of the woodwork and spoke to their..."concerns" but their influence was largely irrelevant in the EC when you address the fact that Hillary lost by losing her "guaranteed" supporters. That is damn pathetic. I can accept that some part of that was simply that Hillary was inarguably an unpopular candidate, but she simply ignored their real concerns, assumed their unmitigated support and, although not intentional with what she actually said in the statement, the "basket of deplorables" was definitely a label that they felt was aimed at them, and I can see why they would think this. This is what tons of dems and the media were saying about them, again and again, when they refused to understand why in the hell they would support this clown. I count myself among that group of idiots.
Dems that have still spent the last week explaining this away from any other means than by accepting their own hubris and naivete as the root cause of their failure really need to get their shit together and start working on a real strategy: Yes, plenty of racists supported Trump, but you can't explain away Trump's support from former Obama and Bill Clinton democratic voters as "racists." It's petty, ignorant, and flat out stupid.
Keep it up, dems, and watch your asses get handed to you again in 2016 and 2020. Trump's support was low as hell and the fascist turnip still won. No data point supports a wave of white racism that was the deciding factor. Even if white racist anger was up compared to last several elections, it wouldn't have been enough if Hillary and the rest of the dems didn't shit all over their actual base.
Except those "guaranteed" supporters were the fucking bigots, just like the right wingers said all along. Just look at the exit survey vs 2012. +14% swing of uneducated whites. Hmm, I wonder what states those guys were in.
Where is the talk of sex!? He's not literally saying he would date her. You're a sicko if that is what you get out of it. Get help
So once again, as usual, eskimo caught in yet another lie. He said nothing about sex with his daughter. You might need to seek help with that lying problem you have.... or maybe just go work for the media, they're good with it
Hey if Hillary wants to label 47% as racists at least be a little more discreet. It cost Romney a whole lot more than Clinton to be sure, but she had no interest outside of her selected demographics. The point isn't that there are racists, but pretending that only those under her wing matter. It wasn't the brightest idea to discriminate like that, and yes that's what it amounted to.
Until we have people in office who understand that there are groups with unique needs but that does not mean that everyone else is immaterial, but have real concerns too, we will always have racial tensions, cultivated in part by those who do or would represent us. "Liberty and Justice for All" should be more than part of a slogan.
This nails it, I think. Clinton was an infinitely better candidate than Trump, but her attitude made her seem uncaring... and of course, the fact that she not only ran but was practically preordained (even if the Russians hadn't hacked the DNC, you could tell). Never mind that her policies really would have helped a much broader swath of the population, and would acknowledge truths like, say, science -- she didn't give that impression, and it cost her dearly.
And yeah, the "basket of deplorables" was this year's "47 percent" (although, unlike Romney, Clinton's statement had some basis in reality). Even if it's true that your rival courts racists, sexists and other thugs, you don't draw attention to those supporters... you draw attention to the candidate. You sympathize with people frustrated with how things are and show them why your approach is better.
Her attitude made her seem uncaring? Lol. So in essence: bitchy bitch was bitchy.
I completely agree with the bolded though.
Except those "guaranteed" supporters were the fucking bigots, just like the right wingers said all along. Just look at the exit survey vs 2012. +14% swing of uneducated whites. Hmm, I wonder what states those guys were in.
You tell me. Which states were those guys in?
You tell me. Which states were those guys in?
The ones that went for Obama the last 2 elections, LOL. Only racists voted this year.
The ones more segregated than the south and get easily riled up against illegals a thousand miles away.
Obama's one of the good ones, and even then he might just have lost against trump in 2012.
So basically, nearly very single state that isn't on the Pacific or in the Rockies is a racist white state. Got it. Whitey is racist.
Oh and here you prove what a dumbass you are. Do yourself a favor and check the number of votes Obama got in 2012. Unless you're saying the same uneducated white racists that turned out for Trump in 2016 went Obama in 2012?
Don't blame me, that's what they admit to themselves in every study on the matter.
Some of them probably did, but regardless the lot got real excited about the prospect of shutting out them illegals on the other side of country. Illegals who can't even speak english takin der 70k jerbs.
Now imagine if Obama rose to Harvard law not from white grandparents in hawaii but out of the ghetto on welfare, and his daughter had a kid out of wedlock. Would that obama, saying the same things he did 2008, have won against someone like Trump. Don't think so.
Not that (goodness knows Trump made Clinton look warm and affectionate) so much as aloof, like she didn't need to reach out or fight hard for the vote.
What studies?
Clinton still trails behind Obama's 2012 turnout by more than 4 million votes. Trump against a 2012 Obama would have been a massive loss for Trump.
lmao, what is this even supposed to prove? Are you saying that racist whites held their noses and voted for Obama because at least he was half-white and had one o them fancy Harvard degrees, and not a real black person?
Consider the fact that everyone said Trump had to make that turn (ie. off the bigotry) after the primaries to be viable, and the almost certain fact that he would've lost had he taken that advice.
At this point you're basically blaming clinton for telling it like it is, which I can agree is her weakness at times.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to make assumptions here that can't be tested. Remember that picking one candidate over another is not in anyway a sign of support. The disfavorability ratings of both candidates are sky high. To be certain one factor is bigotry, however that is THE factor? That would be difficult to demonstrate. People might have held their nose and picked him for a number of reasons, and the same for Hillary.
Facts are that we haven't access to what must have been a very complex process of decision for many people and I don't think we can know much. Speculate on scenarios, but I caution Democrats to not play the race card next time but return to the principles embodied by MLK, and that is all deserve rights and real hope, that we can be united. Division has brought this nation where it is and we need a more inclusive system, and yes that means not dismissing economic fears of whites nor the abuse of blacks or any other minority.
Trump's in. So are we going to continue on as we have been?