President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[hound dog]

Originally Posted by bigtrain45

As a Sanders supporter I felt he represented the traditional values of the Democratic Party much better than HRC did.

As a Sanders supporter, do you think Bernie could have won where Hillary failed?

Republicans are up in arms about Hillary hi-jacking the nomination, why, I don't understand. It had no impact on their choosing a candidate, and It's my personal belief that the republican candidate was going to win regardless of which of the two names, Clinton or Sanders, was on the ticket. I understand registered democrats anger, but the republican outrage strikes me as an act, just another topic on the list for them to express outrage over, when in reality they personally couldn't care less about it as long as their candidate beats whoever the dem's field in the election.

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by hound dog

Republicans are up in arms about Hillary hi-jacking the nomination, why, I don't understand.

They're not up in arms. They're just driving the point home since it proves what they've said all along: HRC is totally corrupt and unfit for the White House. Obama said as much in 2008: "She will says anything and do anything.".

I'm always amused at how politicians change their tune so quickly. Bush 41 had plenty of unflattering things to say about Reagan until Reagan defeated him in the primaries and offered him the under study gig. Obama spared no effort to tell us how unfit HRC was to govern in 2008. Then he turns around throws her a bone as Secy of State to shut her up only to change horses entirely by 2016 when he couldn't kiss her ass fast enough.

Could Bernie have fared better? Maybe. I'm sure that Trump's camp had a file as thick as the New York City phone book on Bernie to use against him. However, Sanders didn't have the tarmac meeting and email server scandals hanging over his head and he seems smart enough not to attack the other candidate's supporters directly. That cost her dearly.

It honestly frightens me to imagine who Bernie might have nominated to the SCOTUS.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by bigtrain45

Various well-funded 3rd party candidates have failed utterly in US elections, from Ross Perot in '92 and '96, to John Anderson in 1980. George Wallace in '72, and Strom Thurmond in '48. If you hope to have a chance in November you have to be the nominee of either the Repubs or the Dems. As a Sanders supporter I felt he represented the traditional values of the Democratic Party much better than HRC did.

I don't know that Sanders represented the traditional values of the Democratic Party. Sanders is a self described socialist. Hillary Clinton is actually very much in the traditions of Al Smith, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, both Richard Daleys, Robert Kennedy, Stuart Symington, Pat Brown (Jerry Brown's father,) Hubert Humphrey, Fritz Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, etc. She may be even a little more left of center than many of those folks.

The Democratic Party has tended to govern a little left of center. It also has a long history of rough and tumble politics. Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi were raised in that tradition.

One must remember that the Republican Party has drifted ever farther to the right since Ronald Reagan. Barry Goldwater would look like a moderate compared to the current bunch. The Republican Party has also been quite willing to engage in the dirtiest type of politics and hypocrisy dating back to the Nixon days. Folks may criticize HRC, Boxer, and Pelosi, but you can't play nice with people like Newt Gingrich.

The fact remains that Bernie Sanders has never been a loyal Democratic Party regular and the party leadership never owed him a damn thing.

[hound dog]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

They're not up in arms. They're just driving the point home since it proves what they've said all along: HRC is totally corrupt and unfit for the White House.

Driving the point home, eh? More like beating a dead horse, one of the few things conservative's are exceptionally good at, that, and gerrymandering.

Her political career is over; kaput; finished. The most she can do now to influence an election is endorse a particular candidate, but that endorsement will come with all her baggage as well. I don't think her endorsement would even be considered an asset at this point.

As for being totally corrupt and unfit for the office, well, that's at least something she and Trump have in common. I do think HRC could and would have been better at representing the country on the diplomatic world stage. She can at least be diplomatic when she wants to be. Trump has never had to be diplomatic in his business career. Being diplomatic is so foreign to him, he doesn't even attempt it except for very, very rare occasion's, and then it's almost always ham-fisted, (very small hams ), and received poorly.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by hound dog

I don't think her endorsement would even be considered an asset at this point.

HRC has officially moved onto her new career as a grandmother.

Once upon a time it was understood in this country that the only way to get things done in government was to elect crooks. The corrupt have nothing but their word, which must be kept when deals are made.

Nowadays we only elect the stupid and inept who are totally co-opted by some special interest, or hypocritical crooks handicapped by trying to preserve an image of not being crooks.

[hound dog]

I concede the likability quotient to Bernie, especially in comparison to every other single candidate who sought nomination, from either party. It was certainly an interesting and event filled election year, one that will long be remembered from a historical perspective.

Who was the person who said "May you live in interesting times."? I'd like to tell them to go to hell right about now.

Both Clinton and Trump, the most polarizing candidate either party has fielded since Lincoln, IMO.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by hound dog

Who was the person who said "May you live in interesting times."? I'd like to tell them to go to hell right about now.

The expression is of unknown origin. It was mentioned in speeches by British diplomats in the early part of the last century as being an ancient Chinese curse. Efforts to trace its Chinese origins have been unsuccessful according to my sources.

In any event, it is entirely possible that its originator has indeed gone to hell.

[BustyWomenLovr]

"May you live in interesting times." - I think I saw that listed in a book of curses as being Irish origin. Book by noted funnyman Steve Allen.

Another funny - people lining the Trump motorcade route today in Hawaii with signs saying "Welcome to Kenya"

[scoundrel]

It seems that the Bush family has started to come into the open to express their disdain for President Trump. Perhaps this is not very surprising; it is very unlikely that they would feel warm towards him after the way he comprehensively humiliated Jeb Bush in the primaries. Also, given the track record of the Bush family in office, I would doubt if Mr Trump is much concerned about what they have to say. I did however sense a certain unknowing irony in the official White House response to the public rejection of Mr Trump by the Bush family.

The American people voted to elect an outsider who is capable of implementing real, positive, and needed change - instead of a lifelong politician beholden to special interests...If they were interested in continuing decades of costly mistakes, another establishment politician more concerned with putting politics over people would have won.

The originator of this statement? Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Drain the swamp...

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

.... the way he comprehensively humiliated Jeb Bush in the primaries.

Bush was not humiliated - he was insulted, denigrated, subject to specious ad hominem attacks. He was one of dozens.

Fill in the cess pit.