***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[rico x hood]

You k ow you aint gonna ever really seriously reply to it.

Talking like you gonna learn the basic fundamentals of economics and the ins and out of this issue and find a feasible solution/talking point in a matter of weeks

Liberal smugness is back to pre election levels I see.

 

[Belgium]

You k ow you aint gonna ever really seriously reply to it.

Talking like you gonna learn the basic fundamentals of economics and the ins and out of this issue and find a feasible solution/talking point in a matter of weeks

Still a whole lot better than Ninja and TT, they should take notes. At least he is (supposedly) taking his time to learn something. 

 

[Master Zik]

You k ow you aint gonna ever really seriously reply to it.

Talking like you gonna learn the basic fundamentals of economics and the ins and out of this issue and find a feasible solution/talking point in a matter of weeks

Liberal smugness is back to pre election levels I see.

You mistake smugness for reality?

As we've seen, post election alt-right delusion is at an all time high.

 

[gry60]

gry60 I'm still skeptical because Trump is a flip flopper
It would be dumb for him to try to withdraw from NAFTA anyway unless he had a good deal where all countries benefit.

Capitalists love their open borders too much to do anything about them. Cheap labor keeps their operating costs low, and it keeps employees from asking raises. Open borders also allow business owners to move factories in and out of the country at will if it helps their bottom line. Why would they give up any of that for patriotism? I mean, look at who Trump is putting in charge. If Iran gave them all the same protections they are afforded here and a consumer market similar to ours in exchange for access to capital, they'd all drop Bibles and pick up Korans.

The problem with staying in trade agreements that pit our workers against their cheaper colleagues across borders is that without sound social policies (education, healthcare, families) and without fiscal policies to support them, we might effectively condemn a large number of Americans to multigenerational poverty either through lack of qualifications for the existing job market or through educational/medical debt.

 

[rico x hood]

You mistake smugness for reality?

As we've seen, post election alt-right delusion is at an all time high.

Don't talk to me about delusional when you got Jill Stein an faithless electors trying to hijack an election by nominating John Kasich because they think they can get bipartisan support.

 

[EddieDoyers]

gry60 I'm still skeptical because Trump is a flip flopper
It would be dumb for him to try to withdraw from NAFTA anyway unless he had a good deal where all countries benefit.

Capitalists love their open borders too much to do anything about them. Cheap labor keeps their operating costs low, and it keeps employees from asking raises. Open borders also allow business owners to move factories in and out of the country at will if it helps their bottom line. Why would they give up any of that for patriotism? I mean, look at who Trump is putting in charge. If Iran gave them all the same protections they are afforded here and a consumer market similar to ours in exchange for access to capital, they'd all drop Bibles and pick up Korans.

The problem with staying in trade agreements that pit our workers against their cheaper colleagues across borders is that without sound social policies (]education, healthcare, families) and without fiscal policies to support them, we might effectively condemn a large number of Americans to multigenerational poverty either through lack of qualifications for the existing job market or through educational/medical debt.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance program was supposed to help with those problems......however the big problem with that the program was inefficient and the majority of those that went through the program took worse jobs.
Government needs to pay more attention to what they are doing with TAA and other unemployment agencies instead.
It's going to be a rough 4 years I'm tellin yah

 

[whywesteppin]

It's cute how you guys dust each other off after such an epic fail.

Here's difference. When I'm wrong. I say my bad, laugh at myself and move on and learn from it. I don't try and deflect, dodge or double down.

I say my bad....and keep it moving. Like a real one. You wouldn't know....

this x1000.

it's really just about having some damn intellectual honesty. that's what bugs me most about Trump and his supporters. it's not his positions (which do bug me but not as much) but his intellectual dishonesty.

admit mistakes like a man and do better next time.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bernie Sanders, Serrod Brown, and people that have been parroting their "economics over social issues" talking points and giving Trump's base a past, need to read this article in the Atlantic today.

Straight barz.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

Perhaps the clearest takeaway from the November election for many liberals is that Hillary Clinton lost because she ignored the working class.

In the days after her shocking loss, Democrats complained that Clinton had no jobs agenda. A widely shared essay in The Nation blamed Clinton's "neoliberalism" for abandoning the voters who swung the election. “I come from the white working class,” Bernie Sanders said on CBS This Morning, “and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from.”

But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

Trump’s white voters do support the mommy state, but only so long as it’s mothering them. Most of them don’t seem eager to change Medicare or Social Security, but they’re fine with repealing Obamacare and its more diverse pool of 20 million insured people. They’re happy for the government to pick winners and losers, so long as beleaguered coal and manufacturing companies are in the winner’s circle. Massive deficit-financed spending on infrastructure? Under Obama, that was dangerous government overreach, but under Trump, it’s a jobs plan by a guy they know won’t let Muslims and Mexicans cut in line to get work renovating highways and airports.

Many liberals—including those who supported Clinton enthusiastically, those who supported her only grudgingly, and even those who didn’t vote—share a vision for America’s future. Call it “pluralist social democracy.” In other words, most left-of-center people would like the U.S. to move toward a more European-style system of universal health care, subsidized education and childcare, and greater support for those born in poverty or displaced by globalization; that’s social democracy. But unlike in many European countries, they also want to see these values combined with a distinctly American flavor of pluralism: support for immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and a celebration of America’s multiethnic culture.

After the election, some people called for an end to “identity politics” that promotes niche cultural issues over economic policy. But any reasonable working-class platform requires the advancement of policies that may disproportionately help non-whites. For example, hundreds of thousands of black men stay out of the labor force after being released from prison sentences for non-violent crimes. For them and their families, criminal justice reform is essential economic reform, even if poor whites see it as a distraction from that “real” issues that bedevil the working class, like trade policy.

The long-term future of the U.S. involves rising diversity, rising inequality, and rising redistribution. The combination of these forces makes for an unstable and unpredictable system. Income stagnation and inequality encourage policies to redistribute wealth from a rich few to the anxious multitudes. But when that multitude includes minorities who are seen as benefiting disproportionately from those redistribution policies, the white majority can turn resentful. (This may be one reason why the most successful social democracies, as in Scandinavia, were initially almost all white.) Nobody has really figured out how to be an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy, except, perhaps, for one of the few American adults who is legally barred from running for the U.S. presidency in the future.

So, the country is wobbling between two extremely different futures: pluralist social democracy on the one hand, and white nativist protectionism on the other. The election’s bizarre schism, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Trump winning the electoral college, is a sign of how razor-thin the margin between those dramatically opposed futures is.

Rising diversity isn’t going away. Income inequality isn’t going away. Support for redistribution isn’t going away. For liberals, pluralist social democracy is the project of the future, and any alternative falls somewhere between xenophobic and amoral. But what if the vast majority of white voters who voted for Trump aren’t interested in any version of that future, no matter who the messenger is?

Yes, talk that ****.

Most social issues are also economics issues to minorities.

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a past, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

They are just opening the door for a more economic centrist democrat that has a robust social justice platform to wash Bernie 2.0 in the 2020 primary.

 

[ninjahood]

Trump aint been in Office 1 day to make "mistakes" though

 

[RustyShackleford]

Trump aint been in Office 1 day to make "mistakes" though

Ya man outchea championing crony capitalism, and his cabinet is just adding more gators to the swamp.

Ya man already playing you'll like suckas

 

[Nike Jordan]

I've never heard use the term "identity politics" in real life.

 

[ninjahood]

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a pass, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

cuz

identity politics got ya nearly wiped out.

and Democrats aint even looking good for 2018 cuz they gotta defend more senate seats in more swing States that lean GOP...

ya wanna keep da same path of identity politics? might as well throw on suicide vest while ya at it.

going to da middle is what got Democrats out da wilderness in da 90's..

 

[RustyShackleford]

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a pass, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

cuz

identity politics got ya nearly wiped out.

and Democrats aint even looking good for 2018 cuz they gotta defend more senate seats in more swing States that lean GOP...

ya wanna keep da same path of identity politics? might as well throw on suicide vest while ya at it.

going to da middle is what got Democrats out da wilderness in da 90's..

You're such a hypocrite, because you never criticizing the white identity politics of the right, or bring up the fact they practice the Southern Strategy.

Hell you dismiss Trump's bigotry and act like all he had was an economics message

 

[everysingletime]

Bernie Sanders, Serrod Brown, and people that have been parroting their "economics over social issues" talking points and giving Trump's base a past, need to read this article in the Atlantic today.

Straight barz.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

Perhaps the clearest takeaway from the November election for many liberals is that Hillary Clinton lost because she ignored the working class.

In the days after her shocking loss, Democrats complained that Clinton had no jobs agenda. A widely shared essay in The Nation blamed Clinton's "neoliberalism" for abandoning the voters who swung the election. “I come from the white working class,” Bernie Sanders said on CBS This Morning, “and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from.”

But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

Trump’s white voters do support the mommy state, but only so long as it’s mothering them. Most of them don’t seem eager to change Medicare or Social Security, but they’re fine with repealing Obamacare and its more diverse pool of 20 million insured people. They’re happy for the government to pick winners and losers, so long as beleaguered coal and manufacturing companies are in the winner’s circle. Massive deficit-financed spending on infrastructure? Under Obama, that was dangerous government overreach, but under Trump, it’s a jobs plan by a guy they know won’t let Muslims and Mexicans cut in line to get work renovating highways and airports.

Many liberals—including those who supported Clinton enthusiastically, those who supported her only grudgingly, and even those who didn’t vote—share a vision for America’s future. Call it “pluralist social democracy.” In other words, most left-of-center people would like the U.S. to move toward a more European-style system of universal health care, subsidized education and childcare, and greater support for those born in poverty or displaced by globalization; that’s social democracy. But unlike in many European countries, they also want to see these values combined with a distinctly American flavor of pluralism: support for immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and a celebration of America’s multiethnic culture.

After the election, some people called for an end to “identity politics” that promotes niche cultural issues over economic policy. But any reasonable working-class platform requires the advancement of policies that may disproportionately help non-whites. For example, hundreds of thousands of black men stay out of the labor force after being released from prison sentences for non-violent crimes. For them and their families, criminal justice reform is essential economic reform, even if poor whites see it as a distraction from that “real” issues that bedevil the working class, like trade policy.

The long-term future of the U.S. involves rising diversity, rising inequality, and rising redistribution. The combination of these forces makes for an unstable and unpredictable system. Income stagnation and inequality encourage policies to redistribute wealth from a rich few to the anxious multitudes. But when that multitude includes minorities who are seen as benefiting disproportionately from those redistribution policies, the white majority can turn resentful. (This may be one reason why the most successful social democracies, as in Scandinavia, were initially almost all white.) Nobody has really figured out how to be an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy, except, perhaps, for one of the few American adults who is legally barred from running for the U.S. presidency in the future.

So, the country is wobbling between two extremely different futures: pluralist social democracy on the one hand, and white nativist protectionism on the other. The election’s bizarre schism, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Trump winning the electoral college, is a sign of how razor-thin the margin between those dramatically opposed futures is.

Rising diversity isn’t going away. Income inequality isn’t going away. Support for redistribution isn’t going away. For liberals, pluralist social democracy is the project of the future, and any alternative falls somewhere between xenophobic and amoral. But what if the vast majority of white voters who voted for Trump aren’t interested in any version of that future, no matter who the messenger is?

Yes, talk that ****.

Most social issues are also economics issues to minorities.

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a past, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

They are just opening the door for a more centrist economics democrat that has a robust social justice platform to wash Bernie 2.0 in the 2020 primary.

It's just sad man. So basically if I understand the article, poor whites like the **** that Hilary was talking about. But the catch was they only wanted that **** to benefit them. They was against any of that **** benefiting minorities

That's incredibly sad.

They basically voted for Trump thinking that they were going to get ahead of minorities again. Now they're going to realize that they're going to take the L too...word to the people in Kansas realizing they about to lose their health care

 

[gry60]

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a pass, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

cuz

identity politics got ya nearly wiped out.

and Democrats aint even looking good for 2018 cuz they gotta defend more senate seats in more swing States that lean GOP...

ya wanna keep da same path of identity politics? might as well throw on suicide vest while ya at it.

going to da middle is what got Democrats out da wilderness in da 90's..

That is not why they lost though. Identity politics is alive and well; the reason why the dems lost is because the smear campaign against Clinton worked. Nothing more, nothing less. Your man Trump is showing that he is no stranger to the swamp, and he even enjoys partaking in swampish activities considering who he is surrounding himself with. Meanwhile, his supporters are waking up.

But hey, you won I guess.

 

[ninjahood]

I've never heard use the term "identity politics" in real life.

cuz your not supposed to know its political strategy... you're only supposed to accept da premise.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/monday-morning-politics-van-jones

here's a NPR segment of Van Jones explaining how identity politics failed da democrats this cycle.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Anyone with any economic sense could see Clinton's and Dem's plans were better for the working class and poor, especially the white working class and poor.

 

[AZwildcats]

Identity politics is how Trump got the nomination though

 

[gry60]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Bernie Sanders, Serrod Brown, and people that have been parroting their "economics over social issues" talking points and giving Trump's base a past, need to read this article in the Atlantic today.

Straight barz.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

Perhaps the clearest takeaway from the November election for many liberals is that Hillary Clinton lost because she ignored the working class.

In the days after her shocking loss, Democrats complained that Clinton had no jobs agenda. A widely shared essay in The Nation blamed Clinton's "neoliberalism" for abandoning the voters who swung the election. “I come from the white working class,” Bernie Sanders said on CBS This Morning, “and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from.”

But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

Trump’s white voters do support the mommy state, but only so long as it’s mothering them. Most of them don’t seem eager to change Medicare or Social Security, but they’re fine with repealing Obamacare and its more diverse pool of 20 million insured people. They’re happy for the government to pick winners and losers, so long as beleaguered coal and manufacturing companies are in the winner’s circle. Massive deficit-financed spending on infrastructure? Under Obama, that was dangerous government overreach, but under Trump, it’s a jobs plan by a guy they know won’t let Muslims and Mexicans cut in line to get work renovating highways and airports.

Many liberals—including those who supported Clinton enthusiastically, those who supported her only grudgingly, and even those who didn’t vote—share a vision for America’s future. Call it “pluralist social democracy.” In other words, most left-of-center people would like the U.S. to move toward a more European-style system of universal health care, subsidized education and childcare, and greater support for those born in poverty or displaced by globalization; that’s social democracy. But unlike in many European countries, they also want to see these values combined with a distinctly American flavor of pluralism: support for immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and a celebration of America’s multiethnic culture.

After the election, some people called for an end to “identity politics” that promotes niche cultural issues over economic policy. But any reasonable working-class platform requires the advancement of policies that may disproportionately help non-whites. For example, hundreds of thousands of black men stay out of the labor force after being released from prison sentences for non-violent crimes. For them and their families, criminal justice reform is essential economic reform, even if poor whites see it as a distraction from that “real” issues that bedevil the working class, like trade policy.

The long-term future of the U.S. involves rising diversity, rising inequality, and rising redistribution. The combination of these forces makes for an unstable and unpredictable system. Income stagnation and inequality encourage policies to redistribute wealth from a rich few to the anxious multitudes. But when that multitude includes minorities who are seen as benefiting disproportionately from those redistribution policies, the white majority can turn resentful. (This may be one reason why the most successful social democracies, as in Scandinavia, were initially almost all white.) Nobody has really figured out how to be an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy, except, perhaps, for one of the few American adults who is legally barred from running for the U.S. presidency in the future.

So, the country is wobbling between two extremely different futures: pluralist social democracy on the one hand, and white nativist protectionism on the other. The election’s bizarre schism, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Trump winning the electoral college, is a sign of how razor-thin the margin between those dramatically opposed futures is.

Rising diversity isn’t going away. Income inequality isn’t going away. Support for redistribution isn’t going away. For liberals, pluralist social democracy is the project of the future, and any alternative falls somewhere between xenophobic and amoral. But what if the vast majority of white voters who voted for Trump aren’t interested in any version of that future, no matter who the messenger is?

Yes, talk that ****.

Most social issues are also economics issues to minorities.

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a past, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

They are just opening the door for a more centrist economics democrat that has a robust social justice platform to wash Bernie 2.0 in the 2020 primary.

It's just sad man. So basically if I understand the article, poor whites like the **** that Hilary was talking about. But the catch was they only wanted that **** to benefit them. They was against any of that **** benefiting minorities

That's incredibly sad.

'Murica in a nutshell. That's what "Keep the government out of my medicare" summarizes so well.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I've never heard use the term "identity politics" in real life.

cuz your not supposed to know its political strategy... you're only supposed to accept da premise.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/monday-morning-politics-van-jones

here's a NPR segment of Van Jones explaining how identity politics failed da democrats this cycle.

Why do you give the white identity politics of the right a pass?

 

[EddieDoyers]

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a pass, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

cuz

identity politics got ya nearly wiped out.

and Democrats aint even looking good for 2018 cuz they gotta defend more senate seats in more swing States that lean GOP...

ya wanna keep da same path of identity politics? might as well throw on suicide vest while ya at it.

going to da middle is what got Democrats out da wilderness in da 90's..

That is not why they lost though. Identity politics is alive and well; the reason why the dems lost is because the smear campaign against Clinton worked. Nothing more, nothing less. Your man Trump is showing that he is no stranger to the swamp, and he even enjoys partaking in swampish activities considering who he is surrounding himself with. Meanwhile, his supporters are waking up.

But hey, you won I guess.

As long as he eliminates da cafe laws, ninja can get da hemi in 2025

 

[ninjahood]

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a pass, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

cuz

identity politics got ya nearly wiped out.

and Democrats aint even looking good for 2018 cuz they gotta defend more senate seats in more swing States that lean GOP...

ya wanna keep da same path of identity politics? might as well throw on suicide vest while ya at it.

going to da middle is what got Democrats out da wilderness in da 90's..

That is not why they lost though. Identity politics is alive and well; the reason why the dems lost is because the smear campaign against Clinton worked. Nothing more, nothing less. Your man Trump is showing that he is no stranger to the swamp, and he even enjoys partaking in swampish activities considering who he is surrounding himself with. Meanwhile, his supporters are waking up.

But hey, you won I guess.

Clinton had no campaign other than to smear Donald...

her own campaign manager conceded that fact

identity politics failed ya something awful.

by all means, get Elison there...go balls in

 

[RustyShackleford]

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a pass, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

cuz

identity politics got ya nearly wiped out.

and Democrats aint even looking good for 2018 cuz they gotta defend more senate seats in more swing States that lean GOP...

ya wanna keep da same path of identity politics? might as well throw on suicide vest while ya at it.

going to da middle is what got Democrats out da wilderness in da 90's..

That is not why they lost though. Identity politics is alive and well; the reason why the dems lost is because the smear campaign against Clinton worked. Nothing more, nothing less. Your man Trump is showing that he is no stranger to the swamp, and he even enjoys partaking in swampish activities considering who he is surrounding himself with. Meanwhile, his supporters are waking up.

But hey, you won I guess.

Clinton had no campaign other than to smear Donald...

her own campaign manager conceded that fact

identity politics failed ya something awful.

by all means, get Elison there...go balls in

What is wrong with Elison? May I ask?

 

[gry60]

Why so many on the left want to give the bigotry of Trump supporters a pass, and stick there head in the sand again about race issues is beyond me.

cuz

identity politics got ya nearly wiped out.

and Democrats aint even looking good for 2018 cuz they gotta defend more senate seats in more swing States that lean GOP...

ya wanna keep da same path of identity politics? might as well throw on suicide vest while ya at it.

going to da middle is what got Democrats out da wilderness in da 90's..

That is not why they lost though. Identity politics is alive and well; the reason why the dems lost is because the smear campaign against Clinton worked. Nothing more, nothing less. Your man Trump is showing that he is no stranger to the swamp, and he even enjoys partaking in swampish activities considering who he is surrounding himself with. Meanwhile, his supporters are waking up.

But hey, you won I guess.

As long as he eliminates da cafe laws, ninja can get da hemi in 2025

And drive on roads full of potholes and pay tolls every mile. Good thing he'll learn how to work on suspensions.

 

[rolaholic]

Spoken like a true Fox news shill