Correct, you supported the most despicable politician in American history. We agree on this, you can stop telling me I'm right.
There's certainly plenty of blame to go around. Although Americans voted for Clinton in significantly higher numbers than Trump, too many voted for Trump, resulting in his Electoral College win. To be honest, I don't know how much the Russians factored into that. It could have been a lot or very little. Because their involvement in the election was a chronic condition, rather than a single event, you can't look to the polls to determine what the impact was, the way we can with the deplorables comment (a one-time incident with no discernible impact), or Comey's October surprise (a one-time incident with a large enough impact to sway the overall election outcome).
How so? As a reminder, Clinton won the popular vote and came within a fraction of a point of winning each of the three states she'd have needed to win the electoral vote. She was on track to win it until Comey took the extraordinary step, days before the election, of abusing his office in order to get his fellow Republican elected. That's not destiny. That's a corrupt decision by one man cursing American with a Trump presidency (and, amusingly, ultimately leading to Trump firing Comey).
I don't think so. As you're well aware, Hillary Clinton's policy agenda was substantially identical to the agendas of Obama and Bill Clinton. We had terrific results following such agenda both those times. During both those presidencies, unemployment and poverty fell, median real incomes and real GDP per capita rose, US approval ratings abroad strengthened, we enjoyed periods of lower combat death tolls than in the preceding presidencies, murder rates fell dramatically, as did violent crime rates overall and property crime rates, teen pregnancy plummeted, drop out rates fell, we had a couple of the longest economic growth cycles in American history, and we moved dramatically away from record budget deficits. I'd like to have seen whether a third go with such policies would also have been so very successful. Wouldn't you?
Tell me, did you also think it was "all good" when GW Bush enacted similar policies as Trump is pursuing (radical upper-class tax cuts, and orgy of military spending, etc.)? As you'll remember, it didn't turn out to be "all good" that time. In fact, on Bush's watch, poverty rose, incomes fell, we had the worst recession since the Great Depression, the worst run of job creation over a period of that length in American history, collapsing US approval ratings abroad, the worst security failure in American history, the start of a catastrophic war fought on the basis of a pack of lies, a big decline in stock values, the first national bear market for real estate since the Great Depression, and most of the positive sociological trends of the Clinton years either reversing or at least losing nearly all their momentum. I hope you're right, that "it's all good." Experience, though, says you'd have to be a complete fool not to worry.
Trump? No. I didn't. I supported Bernie Sanders. He's not perfect, but it's impossible to make a serious argument that he's more despicable than Trump.
About what, specifically? Do you think I'm wrong about the various positive trends I listed that happened in the Clinton and Obama eras? About the various negative trends I listed that happened in the Bush era? About Hillary Clinton planning to pursue policies that were fundamentally similar to those that were in place during those earlier successes? About trump pursuing policies that are fundamentally similar to those that were in place during that earlier catastrophe? It would be helpful if I knew what, specifically, you thought was wrong?
To what end?
I'm trying to nail down what, specifically, you're saying is wrong. In your refusal to address the specifics of what I actually said, while still insisting you believe I'm wrong, it sounds like you're content to do the usual right-wing thing of "feeling" at an issue, rather than thinking about it. My facts irritate your prejudices, so you feel I'm wrong, even if you can't identify how. I guess that kind of vague touchy-feely approach to issues is just your thing. If you're satisfied with it, so be it.
No. As you know, I've never said anything remotely like that. That's just a lie you've decided to tell. Shouldn't you take a step back and think about why it is you so often have to invent things to attribute to me, rather than addressing things I've actually said?
I'm quite happy, thank you. Life is phenomenal, and so much to look forward to besides.
He's waiting for Ginsberg or Kennedy to croak
Glad to hear it. But what I'm hoping is that you'll improve yourself, morally, so that you can help others towards a happier life, rather than only caring whether your own life is phenomenal. Good luck.
Keep you focus squarely on me at all times........:>)
I'd rather not. As I mentioned, my focus is on the vulnerable. My hope is that by waking you up to the opportunity for moral self-improvement, I can end up helping them. If that also leads to a deeper fulfillment for you, that's great, but it's not my focus.
Since you know, deep down, that I'm your moral superior, I understand that you'll defensively ascribe no weight to my advice, in order to excuse your continuing turpitude. That's fine. All I can do is continually offer you the opportunity to better yourself. Only you can take that opportunity. Good luck!
Sorry you weren't able to understand. I know you have a problem with that.
Nonsense. Anyone who refers to 64 million Americans as sub-human scum has moral superiority over no one. In fact, that person has no morality at all.
If you'd like people to think you're referring to someone other than Trump, best not to refer to such person as "the most despicable politician in American history," since naturally people will assume that's a description of him.
Obviously, that depends entirely on whether those 64 million Americans are, in fact, sub-human scum. If so, then it's just being honest.
Everyone got it except you. Again.
