Yeah, because what we really, really want is for New York and California to decide what is good for all the rest of us.
M
Obama won those states. He would have won them again.
Hillary was running. NOT OBAMA. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE REMINDED OF THAT.
I’m not claiming Obama was running, as you well know.
I’m claiming that the candidate who took up the mantel of Obama’s policies - his HAND-PICKED successor, was Clinton, who helped him ennact his policies and who praised his policies and the American people knew that. They rejected that approach.
And winning a state doesn’t mean you will automatically always win them, as you are surely counting on.
M
People rejected Clinton. She was a very polarizing person that a lot of undecided voters did not want.
Clinton didn’t spend time in the states that mattered. She focused too many ads in Trump’s personality and no ads on what her positions.
What you don’t want to admit is that one of the reasons they rejected her was because she was Obama’s policy successor.
All of us on the right rejected his policies and then you had enough from the left who also did to give Trump the win, despite being hugely outspent and out-supported by the Clinton-willing press.
M
I think your assessment is inaccurate. Clinton’s failure was 3 fold:
1 - She was not liked. It was a last name that was tiring and over exposed. She had baggage. As I said, independents were not enthused by her.
2 -Her ads weren’t focused on what she was going to do with policies, it was constant ads on Trump’s demeanor. Being in a potential purple state (VA), all of the ads I saw were all about Trump’s character.
3 - She failed to focus on those important blue collar worker states like MI and WI. She even ignored some of her campaign managers who insisted she spend more time in those states.
How many times do I need to tell you: REPEATING THE SAME FALEHOODS DOES NOT MADE THEM TRUE.
But here’s what you’re not GETTING.
Obama policies were NOT GOOD for the very people who rejected Clinton. He was destroying manufacturing jobs and doing nothing on our terrible trade policies, while trying to kill off coal.
That very specifically hurt rust-belt Americans who rejected that tack.
Just showing up in those states would NOT give them any belief that she was going to help them, because the policies were wrong. She - like Obama - simply took them for granted, because of unions and history, but had no plan to help them. Quite the opposite, and they saw that.
Trump policies were aimed at returnng their jobs with tax cuts and deregulation, and saving others by reversing very bad trade deals.
That was all counter-Obama and counter-Clinton who did nothing on trade, who said that manufacturing will never come back and who said that coal must die.
M
My answer would be to look in the mirror.
M
Why hasn’t Ttump done something about this?
Obama’s policies were not killing manufacturing.
Obama’s trade policies are’t have as bad as the tariffs Trump imposed that is killing farming.
Obama knew that coal is/was dead. It still is. The Trump promise to bring back coal has not yielded anything.
Batting 1000 on making no sense.
You’re making the same mistake.
First of all, Obama’s policies WERE killing manufacturing as many manufacturers will tell you. Since Trump’s deregulation they have opened up manufacturing to the highest level in more than a decade, and they credit Trump for that, whereas Obama was squelching it, unless it was a preferred business that he wanted to help - like solar panels.
Secondly, the tarrifs have already resulted in the best trade deals we have seen in many decades and more are coming. The tarrifs are the ONLY thing that has moved that needle in the right direction.
Only certain crops are affected and they are being redirected to other buyers - again with good trade policy - so that will shortly not be any problem.
Lastly, coal is not gaining in US use but it becoming a great overseas commodity - again, because of trade policy - and they will gain in the years to come as we sell it overseas.
But even if it never recovers you MISS THE POINT: Obama and Clinton were telling states that they wanted to kill it, while Trump was telling them he wanted to save it.
And the states VOTED based on what both said they would do. It was a rejection of Obama/Clinton policy - no matter how it ends up, years from now.
M
We could go through all your talking points, show how they’re all wrong(like has been done before)…but you’ll just be back here tomorrow saying it all again, so what’s the point.
Trump is cool?
1 Like
There is a big difference. Elizabeth Warren earned her name by being a fake, and using her so called native American heritage to get ahead in life.
What did Mr. Trump do to earn his nickname? The fact that the Democrats
hate him? President Trump is Original. Maybe Mrs. Warren can drink another bottle of
beer, to try and look cool?
That is what you call spin.
My guy good, your gal bad.
no. that’s what’s called logic.
That’s a huge reason why I’m a Conservative politically.
Because believing what most Dems do was insane to me! lol.
No that absolutely is NOT logic.
I suggest you look up the definition.
Completely agree. I’d just add that some of Clinton’s negatives were cec propaganda though.
