According to Socks' wiki some republican got a bit miffed that White House resources went into replying to his fan mail, corrupt little sod.

You should be really proud microbet. Pvn is basically the godfather of the "It's your fault I'm wrong because you're not teaching me well enough" defense that you are going for.

Probably was in some meetings with some foreign ambassadors too

Of course. Cats are for spineless libruls! Socks?!?!?!? Can you get any more latte sippin' than that?

Then why do you feel the need to tell everyone what my views are?

Are you really ok with how you come off in this whole exchange? Like how hard would it have been just to say "my bad i overstated my position" or something?

Please, micro. Nobody is denying that he is a centrist. It's your tea partyesque "nobody who is right of me and my moron friends can be even a little left" nonsense.

Look at the first post. You threw a **** fit because of "not a little bit" left (despite being a centrist?) before I went on to say it's not that you are wrong. Lol. Baby.

If I was throwing a fit I would have called you a troll and accused you of lying. I was just pretty calmly explaining why I think your views are wrong.

Anyway, we can just end it here. If you can't even retract the lying accusations after being shown that exchange I can't give you the assumption of good faith on this topic.

Real presidents have dogs ldo

You're free to not respond at anytime, troll. But that's exactly what you are and why you can't be engaged in good faith. And lol at you not having a **** fit just because you phrased things indirectly "people would call you a crackpot" instead of "you are a crackpot." Coward.

I 100% think you are a crackpot. I'm not using any linguist tricks there and am willing to defend my statement.......unlike when you say cowardly stuff like "You could very well be lying also" rather than "You're a liar" and don't even apologize/retract when clearly proven wrong.

Seems pretty obvious the troll shoe is on the other foot.

I agree, but Trump was at least speaking to the economic issues facing a lot of those voters in the Rust Belt. Granted, his plan was, "I'm going to bring your jobs back," and the farthest he went into detail was basically tariffs that economists said would cost the US like 7M jobs, but when it comes to getting votes, "I'm going to bring your jobs back," >>>>> "Your jobs are never coming back, we'll do retraining for some new tech jobs."

The move for the Dems was to hit hard on: "We're going to create NEW manufacturing jobs in new industries, because under my administration America will be a leader in tech/green/whatever. We'll give tax breaks to companies creating these jobs and keeping the manufacturing right here in PA/MI/OH/WI/MN/wherever we are today."

I agree with the second half, but I still think if you're up like 2 points instead of 7 points in your internal polling, but the opponent isn't campaigning there, that going there and letting him know you think it's close may not be the best move. It's debatable, is all I'm really saying.

I don't know about that. Millenials are woke on income inequality, the system being rigged, all of that. They aren't going to vote for a radical white nationalist who says it, but in a hypothetical 2016 Obama/Romney rematch, I would predict lower turnout from millenials. It's been a long time since hope, change, and yes we can. I think Obama was a fantastic president, but I also didn't see enough from him on some of the things he ran on.

I don't think millenials flocked to Sanders because of Democratic socialism, I think they flocked to him because of Citizens United, income inequality and corruption.

The 2020 candidate needs to be someone who millenials can get behind, who they believe is not bought and paid for already. Dems can't just trot out a center-left establishment shill who gives a good speech but isn't all that inspired on getting money out of politics and helping the lower and middle class.

I mean, said candidate may beat Trump, but they'll lose four years later unless they're running against LePage or some alt-right nutjob.

The Democratic party needs to be the champion of the working lower/middle class. Otherwise, it's in trouble.

We'll see. I'm a millennial also, but I don't really see Occupy Wall St types being important to the future of the party or the country. It's never good to base very strong, out of the mainstream views on things you don't really understand and I think alot of my peers will grow out of it.

RIP Socks, you were too good for this world

I have trouble with putting Warren and Sanders in the same camp. I think somebody like Warren can work together with the Obamas and Clintons of the world to make some positive changes in the right (progressive) direction.
While Sanders is a never-compromise populist cult leader who will never get things done.

Someone hasn't been following Sanders lately

You're right. I'm not a member of the cult. I don't think the Democratic Party need Messiahs. I think they are a problem actually.

I don't know man, I really don't know. I want to respond to this post with a bunch of angry words, but really it's just me letting out my anger over the trump victory, and I don't think there's really any value in me typing those words.

But like, things are not going to be good going forward, and it's important to highlight that fact. People who either don't know what they're dong or have nefarious objectives are in charge of our government. It will not go good for anyone. The fact that this wasn't a 400-158 or better electoral college victory for clinton means that there are a huge, huge amount of people out there that are just morons. There's no other word for it. Things are going to be bad as a result of trump, and they're going to be bad for everyone. And we knew this would happen, and a literal sixty million people voted for him. How can we even go on?

this doesn't even make sense

if something progressive is on the table, then (theoretically) warren wouldn't need to compromise her ideas to get something done, since she's (theoretically) a progressive. Likewise, Bernie wouldn't obstruct progressive proposals.

You asked for an example and then ninja-edit.

The example would be the 2016 election. For me, it was pretty clear the different approach by Warren and Sanders.

We'll see how Bernie reacts when he discover most Dems don't want him as their leader.

Pretty sure Sanders already found that out when he lost the primary.

Good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/op...ist-trump.html

Drawing form this, the trouble with this trying to defeat Trump this election was that the message people heard about Hillary was EMAILS, she had the antithesis of a populist personality, and everyone, including the media, knew that she couldn't deliver on the populist ideas she co-opted from Bernie because of Washington gridlock.

Way forward is to hold Donald to account on delivering his populist message and bring in a new fresh face for 2020. I think Obama and Trump have shown experience is a huge liability in politics, your record is 10x more likely to hurt you than help you. As a newcomer, you can just say you agreed with all the good things your opponent did anyway.

If Donald does hold true to his populist message then he is going to be tough to beat. I would define delivering on the populist message as big, public infrastructure spending (not these BS private tax breaks for infrastructure), tweaking and fixing Obamacare rather than repealing, leaving Medicare/SS alone, and things like the "Ivanka plan" for real child tax credits (not the BS where middle class actually pays higher taxes).

If he does the above, I think the public is split enough on things like immigration, lower taxes that disproportionately go to the rich, etc. that he would be tough to beat.

And while it would be sad that Rs would be getting credit for co-opting Obama's ideas that they blocked for years, from the public's perspective the bottom line is that by force of personality and will, Trump was able to get the agenda they want through.

No but she is probably the First Lady the most disliked in most everyone's lifetime. That's not saying much though as First Ladies range from being beloved to completely innocuous.

That's not saying much because your statement is kind of ridiculous for somebody who has been the most admired woman in the world for some 14 years (maybe more?), and who had a 69% approval rating when she left as Secretary of State.

lol yanks.

Been a while since I saw such a yank centric view as this one they pop up from time to time, but this is a doozy.