Why the pessimism about Donald Trump here?

[Calthrina950]

Because he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to lead? Every day since the election, he has shown more and more how unqualified he is to lead.

So you would rather have a woman who, "qualified" by virtue of holding different offices, nevertheless had no accomplishments of her own to speak of; who took advantage of others for her own purposes; and who is known to be a heartless, repulsive woman concerned only about her own advancement? I would rather have a political rookie win the White House than someone marred by scandal, who is also untrustworthy and greedy.

First off, experience counts when you are running for President and I think would rather have someone who has held office before as President over a complete novice. Second, Clinton has a substantial amount of accomplishments that she achieved on her own, whereas Trump was given a check by his father. If you think Trump isn't out for himself, then you are not well informed.

If we want to talk about heartless and repulsive, just read about Trump's past antics. And untrustworthy and greedy describe Trump's entire career. But at the end of the day, it's pointless making these comparisons, because the election is over and Trump is President.

Ha ha! Hillary Clinton has achieved nothing. She failed the bar in D.C., and made her way only because of moving to Arkansas and marrying Bill Clinton. It was him that got her set up in the Rose Law Firm, and it was his position, his image, that allowed for her to win that safe Democratic seat in New York. She had no significant policy proposals of her own while in the Senate (unless if you count naming post offices and banning flag-burning as being such). Hillarycare in 1994 failed; and then, while Secretary of State, her Russian "reset" failed. The e-mail server and Benghazi further clouded her service; her policies in the Middle East and towards China were disastrous. To say nothing of the Clinton Foundation, "pay to play", and the uranium deal in Russia, from which she and her husband gave profit to their friends. Also, her high-priced speeches on Wall Street, her attacks on women, her lies before Congress, her lies to the American public, her antics against Bernie Sanders, her ties to Hollywood and Wall Street, her support for TPP, her lack of understanding for the average man, her comment about the "basket of deplorables", etc. I could go on and on.

And don't forget Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Filegate, Travelgate, and all of that mess during her husband's administration. Hillary Clinton demonstrated, through all of this, that she was unfit to be President. I am so glad that we are done with Clintons and Bushes, at least for now.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Any time somebody starts out saying, "I first thought they were both equally bad," there's a 99.9% chance they're going to come out within 3 or 4 posts as a far right hack.

[Calthrina950]

Any time somebody starts out saying, "I first thought they were both equally bad," there's a 99.9% chance they're going to come out within 3 or 4 posts as a far right hack.

Not necessarily. I am actually registered as a political independent, and I preferred Obama over McCain and Romney, in both 2008 and 2012. But I absolutely despise Hillary Clinton, and I have no qualms about showing my happiness that she lost.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Any time somebody starts out saying, "I first thought they were both equally bad," there's a 99.9% chance they're going to come out within 3 or 4 posts as a far right hack.

Not necessarily. I am actually registered as a political independent, and I preferred Obama over McCain and Romney, in both 2008 and 2012. But I absolutely despise Hillary Clinton, and I have no qualms about showing my happiness that she lost.

You posted all sorts of stuff from far right think tanks, along with every anti Clinton talking point from the last quarter century. Color me unconvinced.

[BoAtlantis]

These sources: http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency and http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/10-ways-obama-has-failed-as-president/ list many of the reasons why Obama's Presidency did not turn out be as "good" as many in this country had hoped for. From this, it is clear to me why Trump won, and Hillary did not. Voters in the Rust Belt, in particular, were turned off by the excessive focus of the Democratic Party upon "identity politics", their leftward turn on so many issues in regards to society and economics, and the stagnation of their economic conditions. I am not saying that Trump will bring back all of their jobs, or that the situation will be completely reversed. What I am saying is that voters saw, and believed, that Hillary Clinton would not be the one to reverse the situation.

Moreover, I think the county-by-county map shows the extent of Hillary's weakness. More than two hundred counties, which had voted for Obama twice, switched to Trump. Trump won six states (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida) which had voted for Obama twice, and two (Indiana, North Carolina) which had gone for him in 2008. He came within a hair's breath of winning Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and he had a serious chance in Colorado, Nevada, and even New Mexico. To me, this is the definition of appeal. Yes, you say Hillary won the popular vote, but all of that is from the numbers she obtained in California and in New York (primarily NYC). Outside of those two populous states, she lost the popular vote. She lost the Rust Belt, she lost independents, and she lost the critical battleground states.

Consequently, I feel that if Trump does well these next four years, then we will have some sense restored. Hillary Clinton would have continued and worsened our stagnation, and she would have not lifted a finger to help workers and others who feel left behind in today's economy.

Since when does GOP care about people other than the rich? I thought if you are left behind, it's all your fault and should take personal responsibility?

And exactly what has Trump done to lift a finger to help workers? By stiffing workers?

[Calthrina950]

These sources: http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency and http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/10-ways-obama-has-failed-as-president/ list many of the reasons why Obama's Presidency did not turn out be as "good" as many in this country had hoped for. From this, it is clear to me why Trump won, and Hillary did not. Voters in the Rust Belt, in particular, were turned off by the excessive focus of the Democratic Party upon "identity politics", their leftward turn on so many issues in regards to society and economics, and the stagnation of their economic conditions. I am not saying that Trump will bring back all of their jobs, or that the situation will be completely reversed. What I am saying is that voters saw, and believed, that Hillary Clinton would not be the one to reverse the situation.

Moreover, I think the county-by-county map shows the extent of Hillary's weakness. More than two hundred counties, which had voted for Obama twice, switched to Trump. Trump won six states (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida) which had voted for Obama twice, and two (Indiana, North Carolina) which had gone for him in 2008. He came within a hair's breath of winning Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and he had a serious chance in Colorado, Nevada, and even New Mexico. To me, this is the definition of appeal. Yes, you say Hillary won the popular vote, but all of that is from the numbers she obtained in California and in New York (primarily NYC). Outside of those two populous states, she lost the popular vote. She lost the Rust Belt, she lost independents, and she lost the critical battleground states.

Consequently, I feel that if Trump does well these next four years, then we will have some sense restored. Hillary Clinton would have continued and worsened our stagnation, and she would have not lifted a finger to help workers and others who feel left behind in today's economy.

Since when does GOP care about people other than the rich? I thought if you are left behind, it's all your fault and should take personal responsibility?

And exactly what has Trump done to lift a finger to help workers? By stiffing workers?

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

[Virginiá]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

[Cashew]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

Haha, putting "savior" in quotes as though anybody but you said it.

[Torie]

When one is under the impression that somebody about to be vested with great power, has very poor judgment, and tends to shoot from the hip, that leads to pessimism. That is the short answer.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

Haha, putting "savior" in quotes as though anybody but you said it.

But that doesn't address what I have been arguing.  And it was meant as a symbolic descriptor of what people have expressed here.

[Virginiá]

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

Quite a bit of this forum isn't as supportive of her as you may think. Supporting Democrats and defending Hillary against the more absurd and factually-challenged attacks doesn't mean they are stalwart supporters. I don't particularly like her at all, but if you say something stupid or Breitbart-esque, I'll call you out on it, regardless of what I think of her. As for Trump, well, I think there has been a decent & diverse range of answers to that part so far.

Either way, whether or not you know it, you're practically using Hillary as a whipping boy right now.

[Cashew]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

What in the world makes you think there is a pro Hillary consensus on this forum? Have you seen some of the threads from early 2016?

Hint: Bashing Trump does not equal supporting Hillary.

[Calthrina950]

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

I'm curious what your point is. What you posted doesn't seem to tie much into your original post. You've been taking this large deviations from your original question to bash Hillary on just about everything there is.

This reminds me of jfern's "but hillary" games.

I am just trying to rebut the points made by everyone else here. And my original post does relate to these contentions. I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton. Hence, my question as to why the views on Trump are so dark.

You have to be feigning ignorance not to know of his vile character.

I am not "feigning ignorance". I'm just astonished that people here to seem to think Hillary was an angel, above reproach, and posed to become our "savior". When nothing could be further from the truth.

What in the world makes you think there is a pro Hillary consensus on this forum? Have you seen some of the threads from early 2016?

Hint: Bashing Trump does not equal supporting Hillary.

The posts I have seen and the arguments made. I know that there are Trump supporters here, but as with many forums on the Internet, liberals greatly outnumber conservatives. Moreover, I get the feeling that as goes with Hillary, so goes with Obama. Most people here seem to have a very high opinion of him, though he has failed as President. I am befuddled by why certain opinions come together in such a manner.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I honestly don't really understand the point of this thread. Even the most delusional democratic hacks on this forum have recognised that Hillary was a terrible candidate whatever her merits as a potential President. You seem to be arguing against a straw man in that regards. However, she is now irrelevant. From now on, whatever she may or may not have done only exists as a hypothetical, so we can fully start to pick apart what Trump plans for his time in office. So far, his actions have confirmed he is a moronic hack, a slave to the most basal of republican orthodoxy, borderline incoherent in his messaging and outright crooked in his deals. The fact that Hillart said calllous stuff occasionally and was lax with her email security is now by the by.

[Calthrina950]

I honestly don't really understand the point of this thread. Even the most delusional democratic hacks on this forum have recognised that Hillary was a terrible candidate whatever her merits as a potential President. You seem to be arguing against a straw man in that regards. However, she is now irrelevant. From now on, whatever she may or may not have done only exists as a hypothetical, so we can fully start to pick apart what Trump plans for his time in office. So far, his actions have confirmed he is a moronic hack, a slave to the most basal of republican orthodoxy, borderline incoherent in his messaging and outright crooked in his deals. The fact that Hillart said calllous stuff occasionally and was lax with her email security is now by the by.

That is true, but the main point of this thread was to examine attitudes towards Trump. And the fact is that everyone here, who has commented here, is united in opposition to Trump. What gives? I would give the man a chance. What would you say if Trump succeeded, and was reelected to a second term?

In my mind, the majority of the electorate voted for change, and Hillary Clinton didn't embody that. Political dynasty was rejected.

[Torie]

I honestly don't really understand the point of this thread. Even the most delusional democratic hacks on this forum have recognised that Hillary was a terrible candidate whatever her merits as a potential President. You seem to be arguing against a straw man in that regards. However, she is now irrelevant. From now on, whatever she may or may not have done only exists as a hypothetical, so we can fully start to pick apart what Trump plans for his time in office. So far, his actions have confirmed he is a moronic hack, a slave to the most basal of republican orthodoxy, borderline incoherent in his messaging and outright crooked in his deals. The fact that Hillart said calllous stuff occasionally and was lax with her email security is now by the by.

That is true, but the main point of this thread was to examine attitudes towards Trump. And the fact is that everyone here, who has commented here, is united in opposition to Trump. What gives? I would give the man a chance. What would you say if Trump succeeded, and was reelected to a second term?

In my mind, the majority of the electorate voted for change, and Hillary Clinton didn't embody that. Political dynasty was rejected.

One can give somebody a chance while still being pessimistic. And of course Trump should be given a chance.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I honestly don't really understand the point of this thread. Even the most delusional democratic hacks on this forum have recognised that Hillary was a terrible candidate whatever her merits as a potential President. You seem to be arguing against a straw man in that regards. However, she is now irrelevant. From now on, whatever she may or may not have done only exists as a hypothetical, so we can fully start to pick apart what Trump plans for his time in office. So far, his actions have confirmed he is a moronic hack, a slave to the most basal of republican orthodoxy, borderline incoherent in his messaging and outright crooked in his deals. The fact that Hillart said calllous stuff occasionally and was lax with her email security is now by the by.

That is true, but the main point of this thread was to examine attitudes towards Trump. And the fact is that everyone here, who has commented here, is united in opposition to Trump. What gives? I would give the man a chance. What would you say if Trump succeeded, and was reelected to a second term?

In my mind, the majority of the electorate voted for change, and Hillary Clinton didn't embody that. Political dynasty was rejected.

I would say the democratic party should be annointed the most incompetent political party on earth alongside the Democratic Party of Japan. Because I genuinely do believe the Dems are a rubbish party, I would not be surprised if he won again, even if he is as incompetent as he seems.

And not to be rude, but this forum is supposed to be a mature and nuanced analysis of politics. We don't need shallow media #analysis like "voting for change". Certainly there was a wide revulsion against a political elite and a tendency for the American left to drown itself in data and THR DEMOGRAPHOC FUTURE!!!! That doesn't mean the country as a whole is particularly fond of Trump, and they certainly ain't fond of his party. There are plenty of politicians who were immensely popular in their time and now frowned upon by posterity.

[Hermit For Peace]

I honestly don't really understand the point of this thread. Even the most delusional democratic hacks on this forum have recognised that Hillary was a terrible candidate whatever her merits as a potential President. You seem to be arguing against a straw man in that regards. However, she is now irrelevant. From now on, whatever she may or may not have done only exists as a hypothetical, so we can fully start to pick apart what Trump plans for his time in office. So far, his actions have confirmed he is a moronic hack, a slave to the most basal of republican orthodoxy, borderline incoherent in his messaging and outright crooked in his deals. The fact that Hillart said calllous stuff occasionally and was lax with her email security is now by the by.

That is true, but the main point of this thread was to examine attitudes towards Trump. And the fact is that everyone here, who has commented here, is united in opposition to Trump. What gives? I would give the man a chance. What would you say if Trump succeeded, and was reelected to a second term?

In my mind, the majority of the electorate voted for change, and Hillary Clinton didn't embody that. Political dynasty was rejected.

I'm giving the man a chance. I even started a thread about it. But that doesn't mean that he isn't all the negative things people said of him because he is. And it doesn't mean we are supposed to forget what a deplorable human being he is.

And by the way, I thought this was a thread about Trump, not Hillary. What's with all the Hillary bashing? She is history.

[OneJ]

Trump didn't pay his taxes in '95 and likely didn't do so for the next at least decade if not more.

Trump scammed numerous people involved with his "university."

Trump deliberately discriminated against Blacks from housing (Jeff Sessions is now his pick for Attorney General).

He let his casinos (like in Atlantic City, New Jersey) go bankrupt and out of business.

It is projected that we would lose 3.5 million jobs under his plans.

He is a pathological liar.

I don't think Trump will be a terrible president, I know he'll be a terrible president. He's a deplorable, conniving bully.

This country deserves better.

[BoAtlantis]

These sources: http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency and http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/10-ways-obama-has-failed-as-president/ list many of the reasons why Obama's Presidency did not turn out be as "good" as many in this country had hoped for. From this, it is clear to me why Trump won, and Hillary did not. Voters in the Rust Belt, in particular, were turned off by the excessive focus of the Democratic Party upon "identity politics", their leftward turn on so many issues in regards to society and economics, and the stagnation of their economic conditions. I am not saying that Trump will bring back all of their jobs, or that the situation will be completely reversed. What I am saying is that voters saw, and believed, that Hillary Clinton would not be the one to reverse the situation.

Moreover, I think the county-by-county map shows the extent of Hillary's weakness. More than two hundred counties, which had voted for Obama twice, switched to Trump. Trump won six states (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida) which had voted for Obama twice, and two (Indiana, North Carolina) which had gone for him in 2008. He came within a hair's breath of winning Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and he had a serious chance in Colorado, Nevada, and even New Mexico. To me, this is the definition of appeal. Yes, you say Hillary won the popular vote, but all of that is from the numbers she obtained in California and in New York (primarily NYC). Outside of those two populous states, she lost the popular vote. She lost the Rust Belt, she lost independents, and she lost the critical battleground states.

Consequently, I feel that if Trump does well these next four years, then we will have some sense restored. Hillary Clinton would have continued and worsened our stagnation, and she would have not lifted a finger to help workers and others who feel left behind in today's economy.

Since when does GOP care about people other than the rich? I thought if you are left behind, it's all your fault and should take personal responsibility?

And exactly what has Trump done to lift a finger to help workers? By stiffing workers?

But you haven't looked at what I said in the post. Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate on the county-level since at least Walter Mondale, and she suffered the worst defeat in the Electoral College for a Democrat in any election since Mondale. She did not have the charisma or the appeal of her husband (such as it was, considering he was a scoundrel who took advantage of women) and she was tied to the failures of recent times.

Trump does not define appeal. He appealed to more states. There is a difference. His appeal to non-college whites happened to get him the benefit of stealing the Midwest just enough.

Hillary appealed to more voters and more type of voters. It's not her fault they just prefer to live in urban areas.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I'm trying to figure out why people on this forum are so opposed to Trump, and so supportive of Clinton.

Before the election, this forum consisted of 72% Hillary Supporters, 25% Trump supporters and 3% who still have not figured out what this forum actually is, but hang around anyway. That's me.

Immediately after the election, some of the loudest Hillary supporters simply vanished. But the number of democratic leaning members would still be in the 60-70% range.

Looking from outside the USA in, as a whole right now, it needs a full frontal lobotomy back to 1956 and start again.

The USA has lost the freakin' plot. $20 Trillion in debt is non-negotiable. You need the toe-cutter brought in.

[The Dowager Mod]