Slicer is an Rnc flak with no insight into Trump. Trying to spin every crazy trump tweet makes his job one of the worst of all times. I would say if he is still doing the job in 10 months it would be shocking.

This also ties back to why Trump is the worst. When you are President words mean things. How, when and where you say things matter. Precise wording is important.

I'm curious as to who we would be racing arms with by the way.

China.

Tax credits for clean energy industries, military or other government industry and stimulus spending directed specifically at communities which have lost jobs due to technology or trade. It's not necessarily the best economic policy in a vacuum, but it's a combination of social and economic policy. And it might be a band-aid, but band-aids are pretty useful sometimes.

So yeah, instead of welfare or junior college, promise them jobs.

Sanders would've crushed.

Well, I voted for Hillary and even donated money to her, but you got us into that mess. And there were a lot more of you than chanting Bernie Bros and most of those chanting Bernie Bros were NEVER voting for Hillary, probably not voting and some voting Republican. It's not Bernie's fault or his supporters generally, it's mostly Trump supporters' fault, but HRC primary voters come in 2nd.

As a side note, Voted4Kodos was my screen name on one of the poker sites.

Isn't it Bernie's fault for not figuring out how to get black folks to vote for him?

And the meaning of "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" is that both candidates were the same so it didn't matter. Vote for Kang and you get enslaved, vote for Kodos and you also get enslaved. In this context it's hard to figure out how the analogy works when the primaries were a separate vote anyway. It just seems legit to say "Don't blame me, I voted for Bernie" so long as you voted for Hillary in the general. If you didn't vote in the General or voted Trump, it doesn't seem like a perfect slogan from anyone's perspective anymore.

In that it's one of the infinite number of things that led up to the present, yes.

I think Bernie made a fair effort and had unexpectedly good results, perhaps nearly as good as possible. I don't see what he could have done other than start campaigning a year earlier or spend the last 20 years jockeying for the white house, but perhaps either of those would have been counterproductive.

You could just as well say it's Hillary's fault for not figuring out how to get white women to vote for her.

And Bernie did figure out how to get young black people to vote for him.

Nice screen name.

My comments were specifically about what I was mentioning earlier. You say Bernie Bros chanting "Lock her up" were never voting for Hillary, then I must conclude that they were disingenuous in their support for Bernie to begin with. By actively campaigning against the one available candidate who might possibly advance Bernie's values, they were, in essence, spitting in the face of the man they insisted they supported. I simply do not see how that is possible.

People supported Bernie for different reasons. Not all of them were that liberal. For many I think campaign-finance and the perception that he was generally honest was more important than other specific policies.

Right... and of the two viable candidates, which one was more likely to put in a supreme Court Judge that could overturn citizens United, and which one was judged more honest by every fact checking site in existence?

Again, they cut off their nose to spite their face. Once the primary was over, there was a total of 2 viable candidates. Anybody choosing to throw shade at one was, by extension, supporting the other. And those who wanted Bernie for campaign finance reform, and then supported Trump over Hillary, must not have had much interest in it to begin with.

Case in point. Were I to ask Wagsat which of the two viable candidates was most likely to implement Bernie's policies, what would he say?

Wag, what is the answer to the above question?

Another big part of Bernie's problem was firing up a bunch of people who were too lazy to go vote that day, either because they were young (20's) and stereotypically lazy and apathetic about doing so, or too young to vote period.

I attended the Prospect Park, Brooklyn rally for Bernie just before the NY primary. 28,300 in attendance. I would be stunned if much more than half of that figure actually showed up to vote for him. And it showed in the results; the surrounding ultra-liberal neighborhoods, which should have been great for him, went heavily for HilDawg.

There's no death. 15-20 years from, it'll be the Republican Party struggling to stay alive at any level outside of Alabama and Kentucky. Their base is dying off, and younger, educated people have no interest in the God-and-guns, anti-abortion, anti-gay message.

I'd love to see him help the middle class with jobs and wages, fix the infrastructure, and drain the swamp of both corruption and lifetime politician Washington insiders who do nothing.

Problem is, he and his odious team seem more interested in xenophobia, and social regression in the form of idiocy like the First Amendment Defense Act, which belongs in the 1800's.

I rest my case

lol. Master got tarped. Thought this guy was a Berniebro, instead he's a concern trolling Trumpkin.

Also repealing Obamacare aside, the rest of those are slogans, not policies. A big part of the post fact world is the growing inability of people to distinguish the two. Probably related to sharing articles on social media after only reading the headlines. Headlines all that matters now.

Yeah, check out his post in the other thread. "95 PERCENT OF ALL JOBS CREATED DURING OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WERE PART TIME!"

Even repealing Obamacare is kind of a slogan in that there's no information on what will replace it. But at least its a statement of specific policy, as far as it goes.

Sorry, not part time, temporary

If you think about it, all jobs are temporary.

It's funny, because what the article really talks about is the rise of alternative employement, like driving for Uber, but does not compare these jobs to the overall workforce, nor is there any indication that the conclusion is that 95% of all new jobs during the Obama administration were temporary.

Especially considering the time frame for the study was 2005-2015, so 40% of the study didn't take place during Obama's tenure, and is there really a huge surprise that alternative employment rose following... I dunno, the biggest ****ing jump in jobs loses we have seen since the great depression.

These people duped by these headlines are ****ing morons.

Just a red blooded American who can't stop spouting right wing talking points. Totally liberal guise, not a Trump supporter at all