Trump takes credit for Obama’s gains for vets

Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
Cause gubmint sux.

Been that way a long time.

I thought you knew...
There's the "conservative" propaganda two-step: step one, screw government up badly; step two, claim that government being screwed up means your anti-government ideology is right. It's like someone killing his parents then pleading for mercy because he's an orphan.

That's the fundamental choice facing voters: vote for a Democrat if what you want is positive results, or vote for a Republican, if what you want is finely honed propaganda about how poor results support the conservative worldview.
 
Jul 2014
40,602
11,073
midwest
There's the "conservative" propaganda two-step: step one, screw government up badly; step two, claim that government being screwed up means your anti-government ideology is right. It's like someone killing his parents then pleading for mercy because he's an orphan.

That's the fundamental choice facing voters: vote for a Democrat if what you want is positive results, or vote for a Republican, if what you want is finely honed propaganda about how poor results support the conservative worldview.
I guess you've got your system down for deciding who YOU will vote for.

Now, how bout the rest of us?

And, remember 2016, when both nominees were so bad that lots of people refused to vote for EITHER of them...

Better luck next time, eh?
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
I guess you've got your system down for deciding who YOU will vote for.

Now, how bout the rest of us?
Us the same method as I do: start by looking at the real-world evidence, to see which policies work. Then figure out which politicians support more of those policies that work, and vote for them.

And, remember 2016, when both nominees were so bad that lots of people refused to vote for EITHER of them...
In 2016, we had one terrible nominee and one pretty good one -- a hard-working, well-informed, highly-experienced, and even-tempered politician who favored center and center-left policies. But, of course, there were a lot of stupid people who hated her on command, because they were highly susceptible to right-wing propaganda.
 
Jul 2014
40,602
11,073
midwest
Us the same method as I do: start by looking at the real-world evidence, to see which policies work. Then figure out which politicians support more of those policies that work, and vote for them.



In 2016, we had one terrible nominee and one pretty good one -- a hard-working, well-informed, highly-experienced, and even-tempered politician who favored center and center-left policies. But, of course, there were a lot of stupid people who hated her on command, because they were highly susceptible to right-wing propaganda.
That's YOUR opinion, and was not shared by a whole bunch of American voters.

Most people were going to hold their nose and vote for the one who was less horrible than the other.

Then, there were lots of us who refused to support either of them.

They were the worst pair of major party nominees ever...
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
That's YOUR opinion, and was not shared by a whole bunch of American voters.
Granted, there are millions of deeply stupid and prejudiced people in America. So, even when presented with a candidate who is, on paper, a pretty solid option, millions of people will fall for the propaganda that tells them she's a monster. The key is that the right-wing propaganda outlets knew there were two varieties of marks out there. First, there were the kinds of dummies whom they could talk into supporting Trump, generally by way of an appeal to naked racial prejudice, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. Then there was the variety of dummies who wouldn't fall for that, but at least could be convinced to stay home if you just hit them with constant smears of Clinton. They could be rendered meaningless in the process by playing on their gullibility, misogyny, cynicism, or just plain laziness.
 
Jul 2013
59,502
66,647
Nashville, TN
Granted, there are millions of deeply stupid and prejudiced people in America. So, even when presented with a candidate who is, on paper, a pretty solid option, millions of people will fall for the propaganda that tells them she's a monster. The key is that the right-wing propaganda outlets knew there were two varieties of marks out there. First, there were the kinds of dummies whom they could talk into supporting Trump, generally by way of an appeal to naked racial prejudice, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. Then there was the variety of dummies who wouldn't fall for that, but at least could be convinced to stay home if you just hit them with constant smears of Clinton. They could be rendered meaningless in the process by playing on their gullibility, misogyny, cynicism, or just plain laziness.
Ouch...
 
Jul 2014
40,602
11,073
midwest
Granted, there are millions of deeply stupid and prejudiced people in America. So, even when presented with a candidate who is, on paper, a pretty solid option, millions of people will fall for the propaganda that tells them she's a monster. The key is that the right-wing propaganda outlets knew there were two varieties of marks out there. First, there were the kinds of dummies whom they could talk into supporting Trump, generally by way of an appeal to naked racial prejudice, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. Then there was the variety of dummies who wouldn't fall for that, but at least could be convinced to stay home if you just hit them with constant smears of Clinton. They could be rendered meaningless in the process by playing on their gullibility, misogyny, cynicism, or just plain laziness.
Well, it seems you have a high opinion of her, but she must have had SOME problems.

I mean she was more qualified, favored right up to election day, and STILL couldn't not win an election against Donald Trump!

There had to some problems SOMEWHERE, dontcha think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangecat
Sep 2013
48,097
39,947
On a hill
I guess you've got your system down for deciding who YOU will vote for.

Now, how bout the rest of us?

And, remember 2016, when both nominees were so bad that lots of people refused to vote for EITHER of them...

Better luck next time, eh?
In 2000 Hillary was so bad she got 55.27% of the vote. She did such a bad job in the senate, that in 2006, New Yorkers gave her 67% of the vote.

In 2016 New Yorkers who know both trump, and hillary best, gave hillary 59% of the vote to trumps 37%.

When it came to confirming hillary as Sec of State, only 2 republicans out of 39 voted no. Amazing that Republicans, who worked with her in the Senate over 12 years, overwhelmingly gave her the thumbs up when she was so bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkady
Sep 2013
48,097
39,947
On a hill
That's YOUR opinion, and was not shared by a whole bunch of American voters.

Most people were going to hold their nose and vote for the one who was less horrible than the other.

Then, there were lots of us who refused to support either of them.

They were the worst pair of major party nominees ever...
Then there were the government hating voters who chose trump because they figured he was so bad, he'd tear the system down.