Just because Clinton has plans and experience does not mean that people should think that they were reasonable and and better than whatever Trump was offering; the election showed that enough people did not think so.
because Trump and the people he empowers are the direct existential threat to the causes they were passionate about. And those were, as they say, "intersectional" not exclusively classic "women's issues" like equal pay and abortion rights. That's everything from BLM, to LGB/T to defending Planned Parenthood to standing up for immigrants and refugees And yes, there's no demographic reason at all to assume that all those folks didn't vote. Simple logic says that if you are too lazy to vote, you don't invest the effort into events like yesterday.
Again, completely off the point. Tuttle said "she didn't have plans" not "she had plans people didn't like" I said she did have plans and even if you didn't like them, you can't use "she didn't have plans" as reasoning to vote for Trump because he didn't even off the pretense of plans. Your rebuttal does nothing to address that claim.
About half the people who could have voted didn't so there are very good reasons to believe a large share didn't bother to vote but are now whining about the results.
So your argument is that people who couldn't be bothered to show up at their local polling place would somehow find the time, energy, motivation, and financial resources to travel hundreds if not thousands of miles in the middle of winter to get on the Metro at 5 a.m. and stand outside in the cold for hours in such numbers that the D.C. march was not so much a march as people standing in place because there were so many of them they couldn't move before they were told to disperse? That's about as idiotic as most of the "explanations" you've offered since you got dropped on your head and turned Muslim hater.
I am saying people who can't be bothered to vote are stupid to whine about the results. See how easy that was, Granny? Simply asking rather than making up giant stupid responses guessing about other people's positions.
Read carefully. I said her *campaign.* Not her million page manifesto on how she'd run people's lives.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Your brilliant observation has nothing to do with what happened globally yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/17/us/womens-march.html
Not even remotely did I say that. Look, Trump is distasteful. But you can quote a half dozen specific points that he harped on in his campaign. Sustained, over many weeks and months. Name me *two* points that Hillary harped on during her campaign beside 'stronger together' and 'it's my turn.' I mean a sustained message, over many weeks and months. Even Obama had 'soak the rich.'
well you said "campaign" - I took that as an all inclusive term, not just what makes it into the 30 second commercials you happened to hear. I mean, really, you were not attending her stump speeches were you? And I think we can agree the words "It's my turn" never appeared in any campaign setting. As for what she did talk about, someone did a supercut video of all the times she spoke of jobs on the trail, it was almost certainly her #1 issue, yet millions of red state voters trundled off to the polls believing the Republican lie that she hasn't said anything about jobs. Most of the rest of the things you could list would be pretty standard fare Democrat stuff (Reproductive freedom, LGB/T rights, equal pay, refining health care, and so forth) - but the thing is, if you had ask her specifically "what do you intend to do about better jobs?" she could ACTUALLY give you a detailed answer, and point you to her site for hundreds of pages of details. Trump just said "We're gonna bring back so many jobs your head will spin!" How? "We're gonna have great plans, I'm great at making plans, they'll be the best plans you'll ever see, but I'm not telling you now" And y'all voted for that shit.
that's idiotic even for you. 3-4 million people marched yesterday, almost 66 million voted for Clinton - there's no logical reason whatsoever to assume that the 4 were not part of the 66, and as g pointed out, all sorts of reasons to assume that they were.
HRC represented the status quo and people were tired of that. Trump took advantage of that. Trump could have said anything and he did. It was all about despising Hillary.
Let's get out our alternative fact decoders: Window-smashing anarchist dropouts: dedicated Hillary Clinton supporters. Marchers and political activists who organized the events: whiners who didn't bother to vote.
Well, then, move the goalposts already and find this sane world of yours. Less than half the country generally votes in non-presidential years. You certainly know the difference between policy papers and campaigns, but maybe it's convenient for your current position/argument to gloss over it. A successful campaign is much like a successful presidency. A successful campaign conveys the bullet points of promise (Obama "soak the rich), just like a successful presidency finds a way to build a consensus, instead of cramming shit down people's throat with the risk of seeing it all dismantled.
Back to the reading disability, huh? I said, on average about half probably did not vote. Did you understand it this time? It is the tgird or fourth time I said it so maybe you need it repeated a few more times. You can usually do better than the garamet make stuff up gambit but I guess recent events have traumatized you so I will cut you some slack.
Liberals: Anyone who doesn't see the world through my candy ass lens is a racist and misoginyst. Also liberals: Bitch about police brutality while ignoring deaths due to inner city violence ,muslem terrorists and illegal immigrants
Yeah...the problem is that very few people I'm aware of actually thought that she would make a serious effort to implement the platform. And it's hard to blame them considering the record of the Democrats generally and the Clintons specifically on the economic issues have not been good. This is what happens when you spend thirty years pushing right-wing economic policy. No one and I mean no one votes for 'hundreds of pages of details.' People don't really vote for policies at all. If this election did anything good it was making that obvious to everyone. Yep. And the problem isn't so much Trump, it's his supporters, who will clearly vote for any monster or idiot who tells them things they want to hear. In my view the fact that 62 million people voted for Trump indicates an existential threat to American democracy.
I agree that I wish details mattered to more people when they vote. Where I disagree is where you basically say anyone who disagrees with you for any reason, and that is basically what you said, is some how a threat to democracy.
