Getting rid of the Clintons was good, whatever else happens.
Not sure how we'll get by without Victoria Nuland at State and the even-tempered Neera Tanden as chief of staff.
the options were between awful and god awful. to pretend otherwise is puerile. ill take the devil i know in this instance over an amoral, incurious charlatan and his ghoulish bland of zombies.
Clinton and her people treated voters with contempt and deserved to lose.
hey look, i get it. trump is a uniter not a divider. anyone that can heal the decade long rift between you and frank must be taken seriously as a statesmen and humanitarian. i look forward to your podcast.
Exactly. Rather than admit Hillary's negatives and note a few things Trump did right, her supporters got personal and negative, which is what you are doing here (equating me with a rude anonymous commenter) and what Bill did earlier in the year ("tell it to the Marines, Tom.") This was the Clinton camp MO and a big reason for her defeat. "Let them eat our contempt" is not an election-winner.
Bernie. the Greens, and angry Trump voters all got the same treatment from Clinton supporters.
I love you Dave.
im all about admitting hillarys negatives, tom. i just dont think they outweigh his. opposing the trade deals, dialing back the russia aggression are things i can get behind. but i have zero confidence in his ability or desire to govern. get back to me when he appoints one person that will be a positive force for change.
With names like Christie, Giuliani, Dimon and Palin in the running, I'm sure it will be a horrorshow. But I feel the same way about Nuland/Kagan, Summers, Rubin, Podesta, and the rest of the Clinton ghoul camp. Better to have an enemy than a person who pretends to be my friend and tells me to keep quiet all the time for the sake of "unity."
Tom, tell it to the Mexicans. Easy to sit on your high horse when you haven't got much skin in the game so to speak. Frank, I appreciate your considering taking back the neocon tag.
Again, this is why Clinton lost -- abusing her critics. You don't defend her; you come after me for high horsiness or whatever. This is like calling people concerned about health and jobs a "basket of deplorables." Even after the election and Hillary's loss, you are still doing it.
Exactly, high horsiness. You are a privileged middle aged white guy with a lot less to lose. Tell the black family how it's no worse with Trump in office once he has appointed Giuliani the head of HUD or attorney general or whatever.
This is ad hominem argument, Steve. You don't convince people by calling them hypocrites and unqualified to speak. Also, you're implicitly saying I want Giuliani back in power. These kinds of debate tactics turned off voters.
And I agree that Trump is possibly preferable to Hillary in some major areas, but I can't understand you arguing with anyone for being more bummed out that he won. On a platform of nativism and bigotry.
You imply I want nativism and bigotry because I'm opposed to corruption and warmongering. That's not very fair! This is my point about the tone of Hillary supporters, generally. A Green vote means you get called a pale male pig (implicitly if not overtly) etc. And then Greens are supposed to be gentle as Hillary supporters cry and moan about the lost election.
Sorry Tom, but Steve calling you privileged middle aged white IS NOT an hominem argument. What, you watched one you tube video about ad hominem arguments? Calling you a smug middle age white prick is ad hominem, you smug prick. Steve is calling out the obvious advantage of your bias. That is not ad hominem. And besides: yer not funny. And to claim you know" why Clinton lost". That's some world class irony deficit disorder.
Tom, I have no problem with you voting green, I have a problem with your smug attitude about it. You come across as so sure of yourself. Blogging has never brought out the best in you.
That's two more personal digs. I feel kind of like y'all wanted to rip into a Trump voter and I was available as a surrogate. I do feel very confident that Clinton was dirty and not worth all this energy and invective on your part. Sorry if that comes across as "smug."
Don't take it too personally. I like you in person.
Steve am I the same person on line and in person??
It was very personal. First Bill was griping about Bernie Bros on his Facebook feed and now you're calling me out as a "middle aged" bro (and bad writer). This is the Clinton playbook. Pay no attention to that Foundation over there -- look, a privileged dude. The tactic worked all the way to a lost election.
Always play the victim Tom.
Being a middle aged white guy and bad writer myself I think it's fair to hit you in those areas.
Your first comment basically says to hell with the well founded fears of millions of mexicans, muslims, momen, lgbt folks, jews, disabled people...It's good that Hillary is gone no matter what else happens.
Yes, Mike, the same. Very personalbe.
And I don't imply that you "want nativism and bigotry." I'm saying your argument isn't taking those factors into account.
Let's add "always plays the victim" to the list of digs! Keep 'em coming, guys!
I told a friend about this conversation and he recommended this clip;
As long as we're getting personal, might as well go full psycho.
To those well-founded fears, let's add the well-funded hopes of Monsanto. A filmmaker I know went to a conference where Clinton was present and spoke briefly at the beginning. She started her remarks by saying everyone should give a big thank-you to Monsanto. He couldn't believe how brazen it was.
Tom is right and right on now that Bill is tweaked.
sticks and stones baby
Bill slipped the Bernie Bro smear-term into this reasonable-sounding comment from February. He asked rhetorically if Bernie supporters would support Clinton, in a kind of leading way that assumes the answers. It is an argument for "strategic voting." That didn't work out so well.
>>Most of the political noise in my FB news feed is pro Bernie as i would expect since most of my friends and the people I follow are pro Bernie. Last week some of the media characterized some of the more negative personal smear rhetoric as Bernie-bro activity. I'm familiar with HRC negativity and it can often get pretty nasty. It's offered as self evident. She is any easy mark and in comparison Bernie is Mr. Clean by most standards. I still think HRC will receive the nomination and I wonder if the Bernie followers will be able to change gears and make the compromise most HRC followers have already made. Q: Will the Bernie followers "refuse to vote the lesser of two evils" Will they "insist on voting our conscience for what we believe." Because even if they "lose and lose badly we retain our integrity." Or will they vote strategic?
Tom, I interpreted the part of your comment "whatever else happens" to be dismissive of any harm that may come from Trump's presidency. I guess I misread it.
And I'm sorry for attacking you personally.
Thanks, I appreciate it. As I see it we had two big problems, Clinton and Trump. One is now out of the way (hopefully forever, please God) and we can concentrate on on the other! "We," meaning the people who prefer not to have Monsanto et al running the earth. "Concentrate" also includes noting when the Enemy gets it right, such as with Trump's statements on trade and defense. As for smugness and blogging, first drafts can come off as smug because I'm PO'd. I try to go back and rewrite (noting edits). Online convos are hard.