President Donald Trump

[The Feral Slasher]

I am mad at Trump and those who actively ignore everything I've spelled out about what makes him dangerous. I don't know how I can be clearer about that. Lots of different people voted for Trump for lots of different reasons, and I think they were all wrong to do so for the reasons I've spelled out time and again. I think Republicans who support Trump are misguided in doing so, because he represents more harm to conservative ideals than good in the long run. And I think Bernie Sanders supporters who voted for Trump are especially wrong-headed in doing that, because he represents the opposite of what Sanders stands for. Your confusion seems to stem from you not seeing a distinction between a Bernie Sanders supporter who refrained from voting for either HRC or Trump and a Bernie Sanders supporter who pulled the lever for Trump. I do see a distinction between them. If someone did not support Sanders for his specific positions, but did so more because Sanders wasn't status quo, I think that person was wrong headed and naive to the notion that as bad as things are, they could be much worse. The idea that ANY candidate, no matter how vile, is better than an establishment candidate just seems absurdly naive to me. Raging against the machine to make a better machine makes sense to me. Supporting someone who wants to replace the current broken machine with a worse one makes no sense to me.

I guess my confusion stems from your statement:

"As a guy who likes Bernie and loved what his successful run forced the Democratic Party to change in response to his tremendous support, his 2016 run will forever be tainted in my mind by the role diehard supporters of his who refused to do what he asked them to do, support HRC to defeat Trump, played in Trump winning."

I don't see how someone who votes for Trump is Bernie's responsibility or taints his campaign, while apparently you do. that is my confusion.

[Hornsby]

True, but those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Examining what led to Trump's win may help make sure we don't make the same mistakes in 2020.

LOL...I really don't think that we're ignoring history here, I just think that the subject has been rehashed to death. Historian will have a field day with this era, but they'll also have the benefit of time and documentation that we're currently not privy to.

Trump's win is pretty easy to understand to me...poor planning and execution by the DNC and HRC. If they'd paid attention to the states that they THOUGHT were locks, and ignored the obvious losers, she would have won and this thread would have a different title.

[Sour Masher]

I guess my confusion stems from your statement:

"As a guy who likes Bernie and loved what his successful run forced the Democratic Party to change in response to his tremendous support, his 2016 run will forever be tainted in my mind by the role diehard supporters of his who refused to do what he asked them to do, support HRC to defeat Trump, played in Trump winning."

I don't see how someone who votes for Trump is Bernie's responsibility or taints his campaign, while apparently you do. that is my confusion.

In my mind, there is a distinction between blaming Bernie for some of his voters switching to support Trump, helping Trump win, and having his campaign in some way tainted by that reality. This is a poor analogy, but one off the top of my head--it isn't the fault of the show House of Cards that Kevin Spacey ended up being a predator, but it nonetheless taints the experience for me of watching the show after discovering that fact. When Bernie's movement first started, I guess I naively believed that almost everyone that was behind him was behind him because of what he stood for. Discovering that a surprisingly large number of those who were behind him really didn't care about his message or agenda as much as they cared that his message and agenda representing a shake up of the status quo changes my perception of those particular Bernie supporters, and changes my perception on the level of popularity of Bernie's message. If 12% of his supporters voted for Trump, in my mind that means his movement was 12% smaller than I thought it was, because no one who would vote for Trump was really part of his movement. As you yourself said, no one that switched from Sanders to Trump would have ever voted for an establishment DNC candidate. Those 12% should not be listened to by Democrats trying to expand their base, because that 12% is not going to be in favor of core democratic stances. The things that 12% are saying are probably being said to undermine the success of the liberal agenda, so we should be mindful of that. Still, I do think the 88% of Sanders supporters who did not vote for Trump are ignored at the peril of the Democrats. I think we need that 88% to make sure Trump loses in 2020.

[Sour Masher]

LOL...I really don't think that we're ignoring history here, I just think that the subject has been rehashed to death. Historian will have a field day with this era, but they'll also have the benefit of time and documentation that we're currently not privy to.

Trump's win is pretty easy to understand to me...poor planning and execution by the DNC and HRC. If they'd paid attention to the states that they THOUGHT were locks, and ignored the obvious losers, she would have won and this thread would have a different title.

On good days, I believe this to be true. I want to believe it was all just horrible planning by the DNC. I want to believe HRC was just an exceptionally arrogant candidate who ran about as bad a campaign as one could run, because that gives me hope that simply running anyone else will mean no Trump re-election in 2020. Sometimes I fear he may have a shot, even against not-HRC. That scares me.

[Teenwolf]

In my mind, there is a distinction between blaming Bernie for some of his voters switching to support Trump, helping Trump win, and having his campaign in some way tainted by that reality. This is a poor analogy, but one off the top of my head--it isn't the fault of the show House of Cards that Kevin Spacey ended up being a predator, but it nonetheless taints the experience for me of watching the show after discovering that fact. When Bernie's movement first started, I guess I naively believed that almost everyone that was behind him was behind him because of what he stood for. Discovering that a surprisingly large number of those who were behind him really didn't care about his message or agenda as much as they cared that his message and agenda represented shaking up the status quo changes my perception of those particular Bernie supporters, and changes my perception on the level of popularity of Bernie's message. If 12% of his supporters voted for Trump, in my mind that means his movement was 12% smaller than I thought it was, because no one who would vote for Trump was really part of his movement. As you yourself said, no one that switched from Sanders to Trump would have ever voted for an establishment DNC candidate. Those 12% should not be listened to by Democrats trying to expand their base, because that 12% is not going to be in favor of core democratic stances. The things that 12% are saying are probably being said to undermine the success of the liberal agenda, so we should be mindful of that. Still, I do think the 88% of Sanders supporters who did not vote for Trump are ignored at the peril of the Democrats. I think we need that 88% to make sure Trump loses in 2020.

Funny that Hillary takes no blame for saying "I don't believe I need to make any concessions to Bernie voters" during the '16 campaign. She alienated herself more from Sanders' voters than anything Sanders did himself. Not sure what more he could have done than campaign for her and urge his voters to vote for her, despite her idiotic standoffishness.

(Sorry Horns, gotta whip it good a 'lil more...)

[Sour Masher]

Funny that Hillary takes no blame for saying "I don't believe I need to make any concessions to Bernie voters" during the '16 campaign. She alienated herself more from Sanders' voters than anything Sanders did himself. Not sure what more he could have done than campaign for her and urge his voters to vote for her, despite her idiotic standoffishness.

(Sorry Horns, gotta whip it good a 'lil more...)

I've conceded this point many times--I'm not a HRC apologists. I do think she was a very qualified candidate, and even if she was also shady and not aligned with my beliefs on several issues, I think she would have made a far better president that Trump. But my defense of her credentials, experience, and massive superiority to Trump is the extent of my defense of her. She made idiotic choices as a candidate and her ineptitude in courting Sanders supporters, especially in key battleground states, was perhaps the biggest of her many failings as a candidate. To borrow the language I am being critiqued for using with regards to Sanders-turned Trump voters, my feelings for HRC will forever be tainted by her losing to Trump. She pushed everyone else out of the way and insisted she take that shot, and she air balled it. She is the Billy Buckner of politics to me till the end of time, and she would be doing a great service to the Democratic party if she left public life until after Trump loses in 2020, so she can't be used to insight in voters the special level of anger and hate that Republicans seem to have for her.

[Teenwolf]

On good days, I believe this to be true. I want to believe it was all just horrible planning by the DNC. I want to believe HRC was just an exceptionally arrogant candidate who ran about as bad a campaign as one could run, because that gives me hope that simply running anyone else will mean no Trump re-election in 2020. Sometimes I fear he may have a shot, even against not-HRC. That scares me.

Well, Arizona's special election last night had the R win by +6 in a district that was +25 Trump in the general, and that follows national trends, down 20 pts from '16... Methinks the Republicans are in serious trouble, unless Trump bombs the middle east and they work themselves into a furious circle-jerk over it... that's the only thing I see swinging the mid-terms to Trump.

May 8th (I think?) Trump decides on the Iran deal... wheeeee.... let's get back to bombing, yeah? This is my fear, the historical support for Presidents during wartime, no matter how crap they are.

[B-Fly]

On good days, I believe this to be true. I want to believe it was all just horrible planning by the DNC. I want to believe HRC was just an exceptionally arrogant candidate who ran about as bad a campaign as one could run, because that gives me hope that simply running anyone else will mean no Trump re-election in 2020. Sometimes I fear he may have a shot, even against not-HRC. That scares me.

I think it would be naïve and dangerous to think that Trump doesn't have a shot at winning a second term, regardless of whom the Democrats nominate, whether it's Bernie Sanders himself, an "outsider" like Oprah Winfrey, or an "insider" like Joe Biden, or a mainstream Democrat like a Booker, Harris or Cuomo. Trump has a base level of very firm, unwavering support plus a significant additional cadre who can be persuaded to distrust the Democratic nominee enough to vote against him/her or to stay home. Defeating Trump will require more than just figuring out the "right candidate", assuming such person exists. It will require hard work and coordination across disparate voter constituency groups across all swingable states.

[Sour Masher]

This is my fear, the historical support for Presidents during wartime, no matter how crap they are.

Yeah, I fear this as well. I could see Trump deciding to start a war for this reason--that is how little I think of him. Still, while that has been historically true--I think that not wanting to change horses in the war race was a big part of why H.W Bush was re-elected--I want to believe that there is so much war fatigue in this country that it would be a big strategic blunder for Trump to get us involved in yet another war. I think/hope at least some of his supporters would certainly be turned off by that.

[Sour Masher]

I think it would be naïve and dangerous to think that Trump doesn't have a shot at winning a second term, regardless of whom the Democrats nominate, whether it's Bernie Sanders himself, an "outsider" like Oprah Winfrey, or an "insider" like Joe Biden, or a mainstream Democrat like a Booker, Harris or Cuomo. Trump has a base level of very firm, unwavering support plus a significant additional cadre who can be persuaded to distrust the Democratic nominee enough to vote against him/her or to stay home. Defeating Trump will require more than just figuring out the "right candidate", assuming such person exists. It will require hard work and coordination across disparate voter constituency groups across all swingable states.

Yes, even if that isn't entirely true, it certainly is the attitude we should be taking. Nothing should be left to chance with stakes this high.

[TS Garp]

I think it would be naïve and dangerous to think that Trump doesn't have a shot at winning a second term, regardless of whom the Democrats nominate, whether it's Bernie Sanders himself, an "outsider" like Oprah Winfrey, or an "insider" like Joe Biden, or a mainstream Democrat like a Booker, Harris or Cuomo. Trump has a base level of very firm, unwavering support plus a significant additional cadre who can be persuaded to distrust the Democratic nominee enough to vote against him/her or to stay home. Defeating Trump will require more than just figuring out the "right candidate", assuming such person exists. It will require hard work and coordination across disparate voter constituency groups across all swingable states.

I completely agree. People who think he has no shot to be reelected are fooling themselves and walking right into the trap that helped to get him elected in 2016.

[The Feral Slasher]

In my mind, there is a distinction between blaming Bernie for some of his voters switching to support Trump, helping Trump win, and having his campaign in some way tainted by that reality. This is a poor analogy, but one off the top of my head--it isn't the fault of the show House of Cards that Kevin Spacey ended up being a predator, but it nonetheless taints the experience for me of watching the show after discovering that fact. When Bernie's movement first started, I guess I naively believed that almost everyone that was behind him was behind him because of what he stood for. Discovering that a surprisingly large number of those who were behind him really didn't care about his message or agenda as much as they cared that his message and agenda representing a shake up of the status quo changes my perception of those particular Bernie supporters, and changes my perception on the level of popularity of Bernie's message. If 12% of his supporters voted for Trump, in my mind that means his movement was 12% smaller than I thought it was, because no one who would vote for Trump was really part of his movement. As you yourself said, no one that switched from Sanders to Trump would have ever voted for an establishment DNC candidate. Those 12% should not be listened to by Democrats trying to expand their base, because that 12% is not going to be in favor of core democratic stances. The things that 12% are saying are probably being said to undermine the success of the liberal agenda, so we should be mindful of that. Still, I do think the 88% of Sanders supporters who did not vote for Trump are ignored at the peril of the Democrats. I think we need that 88% to make sure Trump loses in 2020.

I probably overreacted to your comment on Bernie's campaign being tainted because others have a much harsher view of Sanders and he seems to get a lot of blame from some or many establishment Dems. Anyway, your mention of "core democratic stances" is a key one, because in my mind they are not very clear and getting back to Heyelander's article (woot !) the majority of Americans don't believe that the Democratic party and it's stances are working well for them. I think that is what started this whole exchange. I'm not as willing as you are to write off anyone who voted for Trump, I think that after years and years of business as usual in Washington people have a right to be dissatisfied. I don't think Donald Trump was the right answer, but i don't deny that people should be unhappy with our government.

[chancellor]

LOL...I really don't think that we're ignoring history here, I just think that the subject has been rehashed to death. Historian will have a field day with this era, but they'll also have the benefit of time and documentation that we're currently not privy to.

Trump's win is pretty easy to understand to me...poor planning and execution by the DNC and HRC. If they'd paid attention to the states that they THOUGHT were locks, and ignored the obvious losers, she would have won and this thread would have a different title.

Quit making me agree with Hornsb...oh, never mind.

[Sour Masher]

I probably overreacted to your comment on Bernie's campaign being tainted because others have a much harsher view of Sanders and he seems to get a lot of blame from some or many establishment Dems. Anyway, your mention of "core democratic stances" is a key one, because in my mind they are not very clear and getting back to Heyelander's article (woot !) the majority of Americans don't believe that the Democratic party and it's stances are working well for them. I think that is what started this whole exchange. I'm not as willing as you are to write off anyone who voted for Trump, I think that after years and years of business as usual in Washington people have a right to be dissatisfied. I don't think Donald Trump was the right answer, but i don't deny that people should be unhappy with our government.

Yeah, we agree on the right of those to feel disenfranchised by our government. We agree Democrats have been paying lip-services to the country on a lot of issues that they have not delivered on very effectively. We also agree that Donald Trump was not the right answer. I totally get voting for someone that represents radical change from the status quo, especially after many felt betrayed by the Obama administration not living up to the transformative promises of his campaign (I think too many had way too high of expectations of what Obama could accomplish given the constraints he had to deal with). The fact that Donald Trump, and all that he represents, was the answer to that frustration is just highly disturbing to me. There is backing someone who challenges what hasn't been working and then there is backing someone whose response to that is to call into question the very foundations of the ideals of our nation. I don't believe Trump believes in the ideals of our republic, or even in the concept that a republic is better than a dictatorship. I don't believe he believes, or even fully understands our constitution. I don't think he stands for equality or decency or science or facts. I don't think he stands for, in any way, positive change from the status quo. He stands, mostly, for himself and his interests, and yet he got elected, which means a lot of Americans stood behind him.

[Bernie Brewer]

I'll start with an olive branch.

I understand why you feel a need to defend Trump voters. They're your family and friends, and whether they've been co-erced into voting for Satan himself, you can't simply abandon them as 'bad people', just because they voted for one...

However, I believe Sour Masher summed it up better than I can, so I recommend you go back and re-read his thoughts on it. Have a better day, we're not enemies, and we share more viewpoints than you'd suspect.

I'd also like to apologize again for my weeks-old rant about the US being a "s-hole" country... I know it strikes a nerve when I use the terms your President uses, but my point was completely lost in my offensiveness. I also hold no feelings of superiority via my country of origin, Canada has it's share of Trump-ists, as well as problems.

I'll accept your olive branch and offer one to you in return.

So, now that that's outta da way, "Hey, Maude, Clean up in Aisle 7!" I guess I have some explaining, clarifying, and/or responding to do.

But stop and consider for a moment that when you post the following: "Does it make you feel good to mock people like Sour Masher, who basically had his mother's personality warped and distorted by Trump media? You're so damn short-sighted." Is this a conversation starter?

As my response to Soul Masher's post that followed your quoted post above will reveal, I am a Soul Masher fan. I hear his frustration and I hear his displeasure with our President and his unconventional, to say the least, approach to the office he now holds. I, as Soul Masher points out, am not a Trump fan, but I am not anti-Trump. If I'm anything, I'm anti-anti-Trump, which is not to be confused as being a Trump supporter. We as an electorate put this guy in office, however, I think as Horns points out later in this thread, its time to move on. The election is over, and we can't change that. We can do better in future elections, and I hope we do. But, what we can do is have respectful interactions with those whose opinions are different and learn from their experiences. I was not an Obama fan, but I wasn't anti-Obama, either. That said, I was ready for a change, and HRC wasn't the change I was looking for, but then again, Trump wasn't it either.

I get it that reasonable people, particularly ones who are closest to us and maybe the ones we care the most about (like parents, sibling, spouses and children) can say and do things that are simply confounding at times. But, that doesn't make them wrong, it just means that if I truly care or want to understand that I need to put the time in and listen to them. I may, and likely will, still be in disagreement, but I won't be confounded. Each of us is an individual and we, at least in the US and Canada, are free to express our opinions, speak our minds and think independently, and vote for whomever we so desire, regardless of how frustrated that may make others.

I also completely get that well-intended people can, and do, disagree and can, and do, have very difficult times in understanding each other, especially in the when religion and politics are involved.

To your quoted post above, I never mentioned Soul Masher or his Mother's experience in any of my posts and didn't even pretend to allude to it. If you inferred that from my response, for reasons that aren't exactly clear to me, then I will attempt to be clearer in the future, and would ask you to not read into something that isn't there.

Finally, rest assured that I read everything that Soul Masher's posts, as I do many others on the opposite side of my belief patterns, because I find him/them to thought provoking so many ways and, and this is important, always respectful. I also hear Soul Masher genuinely searching for engagement and allowing himself to be open to alternative viewpoints. In fact, craving to understand what he doesn't. I respect and commend him, and several others, for this. While it may not seem like it, that's why I stick around here. I'm craving this engagement as well. This whole Trump thing isn't OK, but how do we fix it, with "it" being how we got here, not impeachment or Russian investigations, but how do we as a United States go forward. I, shamefully, have gotten pretty frustrated watching the pack beat the crap out of those of us who offer contrarian opinions and positions, to the point where I've also thought of just leaving this board, like Baldy and others on the right (if that's really where I am or he was) have done. I have instead gotten saltier in my responses, knowing they will be dismissed out of hand any way.

To gcstomp's question/comment: "Also, you use labels anti-Trump resistance, and Trump Derangement Syndrome. What do these mean to you, other than being an out rather than post meaningful dialogue. Who are these people that mean so much to you that you dismiss with these labels. Actually, how about we take a mulligan, and you post some real thoughts." I have shared real thoughts and my opinions on various topics. If you want this to continue, not just from me, but from other what I'd like to think are reasonable people, then try to be more open. Don't brow beat and impugn. I still hope that we can learn from one another, and I'd like to do that, but think about how you respond. I'll try to do better. In fact, I will do better.