Dems in Denial

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby Hawktawk » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:53 am

Yknow RD it just isn't good for ones health to worry. None of what I've predicted would I wish to be true, just a hunch.

As for Hillary vs Trump it was bad vs worse. The thing that pisst me off the most is this was MY PARTY that foisted him off on me. Id be shot in the head before voting for Hillary, Trump as well.
Hopefully somewhere between getting the codes for the nuclear football and getting out of bed this morning the sobering reality of this responsibility will begin to seep in.
I will hope for the best and try to relax.Relaxing will include watching Seahawks highlights instead of tuning into the shart show in DC.

HT out.
GO AMERICA!!!!!
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:49 am

Hawktawk wrote:Yknow RD it just isn't good for ones health to worry. None of what I've predicted would I wish to be true, just a hunch.

As for Hillary vs Trump it was bad vs worse. The thing that pisst me off the most is this was MY PARTY that foisted him off on me. Id be shot in the head before voting for Hillary, Trump as well.
Hopefully somewhere between getting the codes for the nuclear football and getting out of bed this morning the sobering reality of this responsibility will begin to seep in.
I will hope for the best and try to relax.Relaxing will include watching Seahawks highlights instead of tuning into the shart show in DC.

HT out.
GO AMERICA!!!!!


I'm with ya there, HT. I sometimes wish that the two parties would return to picking their candidates in smoke filled rooms rather than utilizing the primary process. It seems like the moderate, middle of the road candidates are at a disadvantage against the extreme, radical ones. At least a smoke filled room would wean out the radicals.

Although I am not a deeply religious man, at times like this, I'm buoyed by a prayer I once saw shortly before my dad's death of lung cancer that I feel might apply to your circumstance. It went like this:

"God grant me the Courage to change the things that I can, the Serenity to accept that which I cannot change, and the Wisdom to tell the difference between the two."

Barring some unforeseen circumstance, like it or not, we have Trump for at least the next 4 years, so there's no sense worrying ourselves about something we cannot control. Let's see what happens in the first 100 days.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7295
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby Hawktawk » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:06 am

I 100% agree. Lets wait and see.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:37 pm

You can't condemn a person for what you might think they may do or even what they have said they were going to do and you believe it is odious or even illegal. Indeed, many things that Trump seems to believe he has a "right" to do are indeed illegal and/or unconstitutional. BUT! You have to WAIT until he has actually broken the law BEFORE you call for his impeachment.

Look, I didn't vote for the man but I do intend to give him a chance to prove himself. Just as Trump has common ground with a guy like Bernie Sanders, Trump has taken a few positions that I agree with. The "devil" as always would be in the details.

Take NATO, I believe that NATO has been invaluable in keeping western Europe free for more than 50 years. BUT! Can you remember during the Cold War many member nations actually said "better Red than Dead" rather than honoring their NATO commitments. While the majority of the NATO member of nations didn't feel this way, a large minority of their populations did and they used this dissent to not honor their monetary commitment to NATO 100%. Trump WAS correct when he challenged many (if not most) members of NATO to start fully pulling their weight for their own protection. The money we have to spend SUBSIDIZING other members of NATO the less money we have to spend here at home, like on infrastructure for one instance.

Here in Washington State our legislature in a bi-partisan bill (almost unheard of anymore) we gave Boeing millions of $'s in tax incentives if they kept building the wings of the 777 here in Everett, Wa.

Now, the WTO says that we can't do that because it violates international trade agreements. WE ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION!!! We should NBOT have to answer to a body of "ministers" appointed by other foreign countries in which the citizens of the U.S.A. have absolutely no say on who these people are and who the represent, they certainly do represent the citizens of the U.S.A.

The ONLY time the WTO ruled in our favor (against Airbus) they eventually reversed their decision and let Airbus off of the hook.

These international trade agreements do not and never have benefitted Americans or American businesses unless you mean those American businesses that pack up and move off shores and then ship/import their products back across our borders and/or ports. Yet another reason to have both our southern AND our northern borders made secure.

I want immigration reform but I don't want another amnesty. I want the law breakers deported out yet whenever possible to keep families together and kids kept in school, Trump has stated as much and he should be allowed to keep his word BEFORE he is criticized for something he hasn't yet done.

I will take a wait and see before I complain that he is a "bad" POTUS. I have been surprised before I hope I am surprised this time and he ends up being a better POTUS that he seemed he would be with all of that TWEETING. Oh, BTW, I don't want him to stop tweeting. He is communicating directly with us voters on a daily basis and that has NEVER happened before. It is interesting that he lets everyone know exactly what he is thinking at any given time, unless, he just wants ISIS or China, or N. Korea or someone else to "think" they know what he is thinking.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby Hawktawk » Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:29 am

Ok whatever.
It's always been about the man far more than the message. Anyone catch the bizarre speech to the CIA where a rambling trump referenced his feud with the media and defended his crowd size at his inauguration?

Meanwhile he was blaming the media for making up a feud where he had called the CIA nazi Germany only days earlier via twitter ? Brennan was furious at his disrespectful tone in front of the wall of honor saying he should be ashamed. Good luck with that. Senior intelligence officials were said to be appalled .

Later the same day press sec spicer was marched out to angrily berate the media again over crowd size while telling provable lies and taking no questions.
My bottom line the guy is a self absorbed nut case unfit to be commander in chief.

He will be sued in federal court by an ethics watchdog group this morning charging he has violated the constitution for failing to divest of his worldwide assets rife for abuse by foreign nations.

It's already an orange hair fire.
I'm trying to stay out of this and I will not respond further at this time but if you aren't somewhat concerned about THE MAN you are delusional.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby RiverDog » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:29 am

Seahawks4Ever wrote:You can't condemn a person for what you might think they may do or even what they have said they were going to do and you believe it is odious or even illegal. Indeed, many things that Trump seems to believe he has a "right" to do are indeed illegal and/or unconstitutional. BUT! You have to WAIT until he has actually broken the law BEFORE you call for his impeachment.

Look, I didn't vote for the man but I do intend to give him a chance to prove himself. Just as Trump has common ground with a guy like Bernie Sanders, Trump has taken a few positions that I agree with. The "devil" as always would be in the details.

Take NATO, I believe that NATO has been invaluable in keeping western Europe free for more than 50 years. BUT! Can you remember during the Cold War many member nations actually said "better Red than Dead" rather than honoring their NATO commitments. While the majority of the NATO member of nations didn't feel this way, a large minority of their populations did and they used this dissent to not honor their monetary commitment to NATO 100%. Trump WAS correct when he challenged many (if not most) members of NATO to start fully pulling their weight for their own protection. The money we have to spend SUBSIDIZING other members of NATO the less money we have to spend here at home, like on infrastructure for one instance.

Here in Washington State our legislature in a bi-partisan bill (almost unheard of anymore) we gave Boeing millions of $'s in tax incentives if they kept building the wings of the 777 here in Everett, Wa.

Now, the WTO says that we can't do that because it violates international trade agreements. WE ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION!!! We should NBOT have to answer to a body of "ministers" appointed by other foreign countries in which the citizens of the U.S.A. have absolutely no say on who these people are and who the represent, they certainly do represent the citizens of the U.S.A.

The ONLY time the WTO ruled in our favor (against Airbus) they eventually reversed their decision and let Airbus off of the hook.

These international trade agreements do not and never have benefitted Americans or American businesses unless you mean those American businesses that pack up and move off shores and then ship/import their products back across our borders and/or ports. Yet another reason to have both our southern AND our northern borders made secure.

I want immigration reform but I don't want another amnesty. I want the law breakers deported out yet whenever possible to keep families together and kids kept in school, Trump has stated as much and he should be allowed to keep his word BEFORE he is criticized for something he hasn't yet done.

I will take a wait and see before I complain that he is a "bad" POTUS. I have been surprised before I hope I am surprised this time and he ends up being a better POTUS that he seemed he would be with all of that TWEETING. Oh, BTW, I don't want him to stop tweeting. He is communicating directly with us voters on a daily basis and that has NEVER happened before. It is interesting that he lets everyone know exactly what he is thinking at any given time, unless, he just wants ISIS or China, or N. Korea or someone else to "think" they know what he is thinking.


On his trade stance, it's not always a good idea to negotiate every trade agreement with an "America First" mindset. There may be some industries that are not as dependent on foreign trade as others, so they may have to be sacrificed to some degree in order to obtain favorable agreements in other, more desperate industries. Additionally, as a matter of national security, it might be wise to engage in trade with a potential rival, such as China, to make them dependent on trade with us and reduce the likelihood that they'd ever go to war with us.

And if it wasn't for the fact that most of his tweets are personal and defensive rather than informative, I wouldn't mind a POTUS communicating with us daily over social media. But all his tweets are doing is fueling the fire, giving the left a rallying cry and guaranteeing that we will have a divisive, tumulus 4 years. He needs to let most of that BS roll off his back like water off a duck's ass.

As far as his immigration stance goes, I am for strengthening our borders, but I don't want us to return to the way things were 30-40 years ago, when INS agents actually used to chase down suspected illegals, hog tie them like animals, put them on busses, and not even let them go home to pick up their kids. They need to crack down on those that hire undocumented workers and give them more of an incentive to register. The vast majority of illegals are otherwise law abiding and simply want a better life for themselves and their families. He also needs to be a little more discrete about it as his rhetoric is really scaring the beejeezus out of not only illegals, but legal aliens and immigrants in general.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7295
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby NorthHawk » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:29 am

I wonder how much effect the polling numbers had on voters decisions for the lower levels (other than President).
I can see where people who otherwise wouldn't vote Republican saw the polls with her ahead and thought they could counter her by electing an opposition congress. Effectively not wanting Trump, but not wanting Hilary to get all the power, either.
To many peoples surprise, Trump won and their strategic voting backfired.
It would be interesting to know the numbers of voters that did that.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby RiverDog » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:52 am

NorthHawk wrote:I wonder how much effect the polling numbers had on voters decisions for the lower levels (other than President).
I can see where people who otherwise wouldn't vote Republican saw the polls with her ahead and thought they could counter her by electing an opposition congress. Effectively not wanting Trump, but not wanting Hilary to get all the power, either.
To many peoples surprise, Trump won and their strategic voting backfired.
It would be interesting to know the numbers of voters that did that.


I heard an interesting commentary immediately after Trump's SCOTUS nomination regarding how many people voted for Trump simply because he would have an opportunity to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and perhaps as many as 3. They did not want a liberal like Hillary changing the direction of the Supreme Court as it could last decades.

As late as May, a majority of evangelical leaders said they intended to vote against the thrice-married adulterer and longtime supporter of Planned Parenthood. But now white evangelicals are overwhelmingly backing Mr. Trump. James C. Dobson and Richard Land are among the Christian right heavyweights — some of whom expressed grave reservations about the candidate — who are serving on an evangelical advisory board for the candidate. Nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals plan to vote for Mr. Trump, according to summer polling.

Conservative evangelicals are fully aware of Mr. Trump’s flaws, but they are supporting him anyway because they believe his election is the only way they can regain control of the Supreme Court. At this moment, control of the court is worth more to them than any other political goal. Nothing that Mr. Trump now says or does is likely to shake their support, because their endorsement was never based on any faith in Mr. Trump’s own character or agenda, but primarily on his promise to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/opin ... trump.html

My point is that people that voted for Trump voted for him for a variety of reasons. The fact that Trump won the election doesn't mean that anyone and everyone that voted for him is an Islamophobic or racists as many in the media and most of the protestors would have you believe.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7295
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby NorthHawk » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:00 am

My point is that people that voted for Trump voted for him for a variety of reasons. The fact that Trump won the election doesn't mean that anyone and everyone that voted for him is an Islamophobic or racists as many in the media and most of the protestors would have you believe.


That's the case in most elections. I don't know anyone who truly thinks their candidate is perfect in every way, but it's the candidate that leans in the direction that they are most comfortable with.
If everyone that voted for Trump were Islamaphobes or racists, it would mean 40% of the nation were so, and that's clearly not the case.
I wouldn't be surprise if many of the protesters either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate and now regret their decision.

I was more interested in the strategic voting angle. Did a lot of votes go to Republican Congress candidates because the polls said Hilary was going to win? I'm sure there were some, but I wonder if it was statistically relevant.
We'll never know, but it might show that strategic voting can blow up in your face if things take an unexpected turn.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby RiverDog » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:27 pm

NorthHawk wrote:That's the case in most elections. I don't know anyone who truly thinks their candidate is perfect in every way, but it's the candidate that leans in the direction that they are most comfortable with.
If everyone that voted for Trump were Islamaphobes or racists, it would mean 40% of the nation were so, and that's clearly not the case.
I wouldn't be surprise if many of the protesters either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate and now regret their decision.

I was more interested in the strategic voting angle. Did a lot of votes go to Republican Congress candidates because the polls said Hilary was going to win? I'm sure there were some, but I wonder if it was statistically relevant.
We'll never know, but it might show that strategic voting can blow up in your face if things take an unexpected turn.


3rd party candidates only got about 5% of the popular vote, so it's unlikely that a large number of protesters voted for 3rd party candidates, especially considering that the 3rd party candidate that won the most votes, Gary Johnson at 3.2%, was a staunch conservative. Off the reservation Dems would have voted for Stein or McMullin, who got 1% and .4% respectively. But I don't doubt at all that many of the protesters didn't vote, assuming that Hillary would win.

The Dems lost ground in Gubernatorial races as well as other state and local contests, and strategic voting has absolutely no advantage when it comes to non federal state and local elections. When you combine that with the fact that despite the Republicans having 24 Senate seats up for re-election while the D's had just 10 and the R's were still able to hold onto their majority, there was a clear trend against Democrats this fall, and IMO a major part of the reason why Trump won the White House.

That was my whole point of the thread. The nation spoke quite clearly, that they did not like the Democrat's candidates and/or their message. They have some soul searching to do.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7295
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby Largent80 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:25 am

Who's in denial now? :lol:

EVERYONE associated with Rump.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby Old but Slow » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:55 pm

Is it possible to change the topic to Rebubs in Denial? Glad you bumped this one L80, I ended up reading it again from the beginning.

First off, props to HawkTawk. It is very possible that I have not ever agreed with you politically, although we meld about the Seahawks, but you obviously can spot a phony, and I agree. It is unbelievable that a man involved in dozens of current lawsuits, with more than one bankruptcies and business failures, and with no political experience can gain the presidency.

You can laugh, I would not have said this a few months ago, but I don't think that Hillary really wanted the job. In my demented mind, I think that she felt obliged to take the nomination because it was generally thought that she would be shoo-in and nobody else was readily available. She is a career-long politician and party loyalist. I would have been difficult to turn it down. Her efforts during the campaign were not the best, and she put on a good show, but her heart was not really in it.
Old but Slow
Legacy
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:05 pm
Location: Bellingham, WA 98225

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:53 am

Old but Slow wrote:Is it possible to change the topic to Rebubs in Denial? Glad you bumped this one L80, I ended up reading it again from the beginning.

First off, props to HawkTawk. It is very possible that I have not ever agreed with you politically, although we meld about the Seahawks, but you obviously can spot a phony, and I agree. It is unbelievable that a man involved in dozens of current lawsuits, with more than one bankruptcies and business failures, and with no political experience can gain the presidency.

You can laugh, I would not have said this a few months ago, but I don't think that Hillary really wanted the job. In my demented mind, I think that she felt obliged to take the nomination because it was generally thought that she would be shoo-in and nobody else was readily available. She is a career-long politician and party loyalist. I would have been difficult to turn it down. Her efforts during the campaign were not the best, and she put on a good show, but her heart was not really in it.


I'm not sure what it is that the R's would be denying. They won the election. At least in the way I've presented it in this thread, denial is the act of rationalizing defeat.

I disagree with your ascertain that Hillary didn't really want to be the POTUS. It is my opinion (and no, I do not have any facts to support my opinion) that the reason that she continued her marriage to Slick Willy was that she figured that staying with him was the option that would best increase her chances of attaining the Presidency. Most self respecting women I know would have booted his ass out of their life for the things he had done during their marriage. I know that my wife would have. Her whole adult life, including running for the Senate and accepting the Secretary of State position, was done in order to pad her resume, not because she had some type of personal commitment to public service. She was and is a cold hearted, calculating individual that eats and breathes politics much like LBJ.

I think that Hillary and her staff were over confident. I can think of no other explanation as to why she wouldn't have even set foot in a state like Wisconsin when the polls showed that the election was going to be close and that it could have held the key to victory. And it's not like the state was way off the beaten path as our state is. It's right across the lake from Michigan, which was also a battleground state.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7295
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby c_hawkbob » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:51 am

"the act of rationalizing defeat" is an awfully narrow description of denial.

And like Trump talking to the boy scouts you need to stop focusing on the election; it's over, you won, now how about we get on with what is taking place right now? Like Repubs being in denial about their guy just plain being the wrong guy for the job, whether he won or not. He's unqualified and doing a horrible job of running the country. If the Republican party continues to enable, and/or stand by and do nothing while he trashes the place that state of denial is going to cost them down the road, all of them, as individual lawmakers and as a party. He/you/the party/whoever else needs to stop playing the "us against them, ain't it fun to be the winner" game and commence the "we need to start working together" game.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: K-evil Kentucky, 42053

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:08 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:"the act of rationalizing defeat" is an awfully narrow description of denial.

And like Trump talking to the boy scouts you need to stop focusing on the election; it's over, you won, now how about we get on with what is taking place right now? Like Repubs being in denial about their guy just plain being the wrong guy for the job, whether he won or not. He's unqualified and doing a horrible job of running the country. If the Republican party continues to enable, and/or stand by and do nothing while he trashes the place that state of denial is going to cost them down the road, all of them, as individual lawmakers and as a party. He/you/the party/whoever else needs to stop playing the "us against them, ain't it fun to be the winner" game and commence the "we need to start working together" game.


I'll focus on the election of I damn well please. Who are you to tell me what I can talk about and what I can't? Besides, I'm not the one that dug up the thread, Largent 80 did. I was replying to ObS who made a few observations I disagreed with, so perhaps you need to subject them to your reprimand as well. And for the love of God, would you PLEASE quit telling me that Trump is 'mine' or that I 'won.' I have told you and others repeatedly that I did not vote for the C.S. and do not intend to vote for him if given another opportunity. He is no more my man than he is yours.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7295
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Dems in Denial

Postby burrrton » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:39 pm

He/you/the party/whoever else needs to stop playing the "us against them, ain't it fun to be the winner" game and commence the "we need to start working together" game.


Agreed (honestly)- further, that would would have been useful for Dems to have told President RepublicansCanSitInBack. If they'd done so at some point in his 8 years in office, they might have been able to get elected to something more than dog catcher by 2016.

And yeah, I think the same thing can happen to Rs come 2018 for much the same reasons.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2985
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest