Democrats finally admit Putin did not defeat Hillary!

[Value Buy]

It took a few months, but the Democratic party has finally figured out why Hillary lost to Trump.
It was not the Russian conspiracy theory.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-say-they-now-know-exactly-why-clinton-lost/ar-BBAyW55

This morning this was on the MSN homepage, but tonight it was buried at the very bottom of the politcal page of MSN.

I do not think the Dems want their people to hear this.......easier to blame Putin.

[Tennesseer]

Doesn't mean someone in trump's organization didn't conspire with Russia to leak the emails.

[Gardening Grandma]

May 1, 2017 20:45:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Doesn't mean someone in trump's organization didn't conspire with Russia to leak the emails.

Treason is not determined by success or failure. If Trump or any of his team colluded with Russia to influence the election, then they are guilty of treason. Makes no difference whether they were successful or not.

[Deleted]

Read the article. I disagree that they figured out what the problem was.

The problem was that Hillary sucked as a candidate. That's what cost the Democrats the White House. They never even considered that as a possibility from what I saw.

[dondub]

They should have consulted you so you could set them straight.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2017 22:30:25 GMT -5 dondub said:

They should have consulted you so you could set them straight.

No. They should have consulted people that voted for Trump. They should have consulted facts. They should have consulted people that left the Party over the Party's pushing of her as their newest savior.

There are a lot of people that they should have consulted before they got to little ole me.

[Value Buy]

May 1, 2017 22:42:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 1, 2017 22:30:25 GMT -5 dondub said:

They should have consulted you so you could set them straight.

No. They should have consulted people that voted for Trump. They should have consulted facts. They should have consulted people that left the Party over the Party's pushing of her as their newest savior.

There are a lot of people that they should have consulted before they got to little ole me.

The one organization did interview the democrats that switched to Trump.
I imagine they did only interview Dems that switched in the few vital states they need to maintain their control of the government.
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan

Why bother with all the states when a select few carry the party.
The actual article was sort of vague and twisted mightily defining what the cause really was.
Shows the Dems are still shell shocked.

[resolution]

My anaylsis is that they were defeated by hubris. Same reason that either party ends up losing after they have been in power for a while.

[Value Buy]

For Hillary at least, Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
She disagrees with the Democratic assessment of her loss to Trump.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-blames-comey-wikileaks-for-election-loss/ar-BBAEnsD?li=BBnb7Kz

Hopefully her and her female followers will continue to believe this rather than fix the Democrat's problem with Democratic party members who jumped ship.

[Tennesseer]

May 2, 2017 14:15:23 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

For Hillary at least, Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
She disagrees with the Democratic assessment of her loss to Trump.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-blames-comey-wikileaks-for-election-loss/ar-BBAEnsD?li=BBnb7Kz

Hopefully her and her female followers will continue to believe this rather than fix the Democrat's problem with Democratic party members who jumped ship.

Women were not the only gender who supported Clinton. A rather sexist comment on your part.

And it's "She (or Clinton) and her female followers..."

[Rukh O'Rorke]

I admit to fucking nothing of the sort
😇

[Deleted]

May 2, 2017 8:57:12 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 1, 2017 22:42:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No. They should have consulted people that voted for Trump. They should have consulted facts. They should have consulted people that left the Party over the Party's pushing of her as their newest savior.

There are a lot of people that they should have consulted before they got to little ole me.

The one organization did interview the democrats that switched to Trump.
I imagine they did only interview Dems that switched in the few vital states they need to maintain their control of the government.
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan

Why bother with all the states when a select few carry the party.
The actual article was sort of vague and twisted mightily defining what the cause really was.
Shows the Dems are still shell shocked.

They may have interviewed them... but they sure as hell didn't use the data that they collected.


ETA:
Interviewer: "So, why did you switch from supporting your party to supporting Trump?"
Party switcher: "Because Hillary sucked donkey balls as a candidate. I couldn't vote for her and face my children with a clear conscience."
Interviewer: {writing on his notepad} "refuses to answer why she changed parties" {looks at interviewee and says} "Thanks for your time." then leaves.

[Virgil Showlion]

The new DNC chair, Mr. Perez, recently regurgitated that old chestnut: "No human being is illegal."

I suspect Paul is halfway right about the Democrats being forever lost in the wilderness. When your party chair--supposedly the more moderate voice of the party--is spewing banalities like "No human being is illegal." and refusing to say the president's name, you've got more than a small problem.

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2017 20:45:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Doesn't mean someone in trump's organization didn't conspire with Russia to leak the emails.

it also doesn't mean that this didn't affect turnout.  it probably did.

therefore, the conclusions of the OP are dubious at best.

[Deleted]

May 3, 2017 3:15:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2017 20:45:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Doesn't mean someone in trump's organization didn't conspire with Russia to leak the emails.

it also doesn't mean that this didn't affect turnout.  it probably did.

therefore, the conclusions of the OP are dubious at best.

They are the politically approved results of a political investigation by a political party... they started out as "dubious at best" to begin with.

[Phoenix84]

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

[Tennesseer]

May 3, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

Your #4 had nothing to do with the election.

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

I'm going to have to do this is several posts.

#4 is ironic, given some of the voters actually believe a billionaire is for the poor and middle class simply because he says he is and eats fast food. Earning money does not have to be a corrupting influence, but unfortunately way to many folks seem to assume it doesn't corrupt Republicans but somehow only corrupts Democrats. If you believe otherwise, and support Trump, how is it OK he earns what he does, cheats his contractors and then claims he is for the Americans losing their jobs? The billionaire that is known for hiring people from other countries to work at his hotels who is for rejecting American applicants to those positions?

Should Obama turn down big speaking fees just to make his opponents happy?

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

I will agree with some of that, but Hillary did not court LGBT the way Obama and Holder did, nor do I think she was as interested as pushing as hard as they did on those issues. I do think some of the pushback came from people uneasy with Obama's and Holder's push for transgender rights way before a tipping point of the population was ready.

She should have reached out to others. I agree on that. Those economic struggles are not limited to the Midwest and South though.

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 8:58:40 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

At this point the Democratic party is far more visibly aligned with the wealthy. Look at Davos or celebrity fundraisers.

I think visible is the keyword here. Republicans tend to be more clandestine, so things get revealed only when things go wrong, like Romney's comment at a private fundraiser. George Clooney's fundraiser's got a lot of press simply because he was George Clooney. Yet some forget the billionaires were there for Trump when he did his military fundraiser/PR.

[Tennesseer]

May 3, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

trump also appealed to the poort and middle class too.  So the poor and middle class voters who would have voted for Clinton voted instead for trump, an alleged billionaire who in 2006-2007, received $1.5 million each of the 17 times he spoke for one hour at the The Learning Annex’s real estate wealth expo.

In Demand: Washington's Highest (and Lowest) Speaking Fees

And from a 2005 article announcing trump's speaking engagement and price at the Learning Annex. It does not include the information of speaking twice in 2007 for $1.5 million each 1 hour speech.

The Learning Annex Pays Donald Trump $15 Million in 2006

[Tennesseer]

May 3, 2017 8:57:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 3, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

I will agree with some of that, but Hillary did not court LGBT the way Obama and Holder did, nor do I think she was as interested as pushing as hard as they did on those issues. I do think some of the pushback came from people uneasy with Obama's and Holder's push for transgender rights way before a tipping point of the population was ready.

She should have reached out to others. I agree on that. Those economic struggles are not limited to the Midwest and South though.

Speaking of trump and the LGBT community, while campaigning, trump said this in June, 2016:

“Ask the gays what they think and what they do in not only Saudi Arabia, but many of these countries, and then you tell me who’s your friend: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?”

Donald Trump Said to 'Ask the Gays' Who Would Be a Good President


There is noise out there that trump is going to sign the Religious Liberty executive order tomorrow and it may not be so good for the LGBT community.

White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order


Information about the alleged leaked copy of the order:

Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination


Time will tell what is in the executive order.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 3, 2017 8:51:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

Should Obama turn down big speaking fees just to make his opponents happy?

He should turn them down to show solidarity and respect for the people he claims to represent.

Barring this, if he believes he can be a positive influence on Wall Street and an ambassador for the underclassman, he should waive the speaking fee. But even this half-measure only qualifies as "less unacceptable". The only acceptable thing to do is to turn them down entirely.

He's a liar and panderer, and was so throughout his presidency. He doesn't deserve your advocacy here, regardless of how he measures up against other US presidents. If you want to advocate for him, wait until he does something that reflects the values he claims to represent and call our attention to it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

Allow US citizens to exercise their own judgment?

Over the courts' cold dead bodies.

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 10:20:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 3, 2017 8:51:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

Should Obama turn down big speaking fees just to make his opponents happy?

He should turn them down to show solidarity and respect for the people he claims to represent.

Barring this, if he believes he can be a positive influence on Wall Street and an ambassador for the underclassman, he should waive the speaking fee. But even this half-measure only qualifies as "less unacceptable". The only acceptable thing to do is to turn them down entirely.

He's a liar and panderer, and was so throughout his presidency. He doesn't deserve your advocacy here, regardless of how he measures up against other US presidents. If you want to advocate for him, wait until he does something that reflects the values he claims to represent and call our attention to it.

If there are a bunch of people he claims to represent who are unhappy with the speaking fee, I'd like them to post or see comments or articles displaying such. So far, it is people who don't support him who want him to change his actions alleging it shows solidarity.

Personally I think the content of his speech would show me more about whether he is for or against what I believe. Not speaking or speaking to Wall Street or getting paid or not, does not support me or affect me much. He's no longer President.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 3, 2017 11:01:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 3, 2017 10:20:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

He should turn them down to show solidarity and respect for the people he claims to represent.

Barring this, if he believes he can be a positive influence on Wall Street and an ambassador for the underclassman, he should waive the speaking fee. But even this half-measure only qualifies as "less unacceptable". The only acceptable thing to do is to turn them down entirely.

He's a liar and panderer, and was so throughout his presidency. He doesn't deserve your advocacy here, regardless of how he measures up against other US presidents. If you want to advocate for him, wait until he does something that reflects the values he claims to represent and call our attention to it.

If there are a bunch of people he claims to represent who are unhappy with the speaking fee, I'd like them to post or see comments or articles displaying such. So far, it is people who don't support him who want him to change his actions alleging it shows solidarity.

Personally I think the content of his speech would show me more about whether he is for or against what I believe. Not speaking or speaking to Wall Street or getting paid or not, does not support me or affect me much. He's no longer President.

We'll never know what he says behind closed doors, and he's being called out by his critics because America is so party-locked that pigs will fly before his supporters utter a bad word against their own side.

I don't consider you a party hack, hence I'm appealing to your reason.

If his taking half a million dollars to chat up a cabal of Wall Street power brokers straight out of his presidency truly doesn't bother you, if it doesn't strike you as antithetical to everything he's claimed to represent since those early days in 2007 and 2008, proclaiming hope and change for the little people, then you'll have to explain your reasoning to me.

As I see it, for anyone who still has post-election faith in his concern for the moms and pops of Main Street, he could not possibly sell out harder or faster than he just did.

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 11:46:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 3, 2017 11:01:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

If there are a bunch of people he claims to represent who are unhappy with the speaking fee, I'd like them to post or see comments or articles displaying such. So far, it is people who don't support him who want him to change his actions alleging it shows solidarity.

Personally I think the content of his speech would show me more about whether he is for or against what I believe. Not speaking or speaking to Wall Street or getting paid or not, does not support me or affect me much. He's no longer President.

We'll never know what he says behind closed doors, and he's being called out by his critics because America is so party-locked that pigs will fly before his supporters utter a bad word against their own side.

I don't consider you a party hack, hence I'm appealing to your reason.

If his taking half a million dollars to chat up a cabal of Wall Street power brokers straight out of his presidency truly doesn't bother you, if it doesn't strike you as antithetical to everything he's claimed to represent since those early days in 2007 and 2008, proclaiming hope and change for the little people, then you'll have to explain your reasoning to me.

As I see it, for anyone who still has post-election faith in his concern for the moms and pops of Main Street, he could not possibly sell out harder or faster than he just did.

Sen. Bernie Sanders believes former President Barack Obama's plan to receive $400,000 for speaking at a September Wall Street health conference is "distasteful," The Vermont Independent reported Friday.

www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/politics/bernie-sanders-obama-wall-street-speech/

Former Presidents make the most in speaking fees when they first depart office. Its fairly common for most Presidents to take advantage of this. If he was speaking to Wall Street on how to take advantage of the federal government or going to a school administrator's conference telling them how to fight transgender laws, I'd agree with you. I'm not sure what great value there is in a Wall Street health conference, having never attended one, but its likely he was asked to speak because of the ACA.

[swamp]

May 3, 2017 11:46:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 3, 2017 11:01:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

If there are a bunch of people he claims to represent who are unhappy with the speaking fee, I'd like them to post or see comments or articles displaying such. So far, it is people who don't support him who want him to change his actions alleging it shows solidarity.

Personally I think the content of his speech would show me more about whether he is for or against what I believe. Not speaking or speaking to Wall Street or getting paid or not, does not support me or affect me much. He's no longer President.

We'll never know what he says behind closed doors, and he's being called out by his critics because America is so party-locked that pigs will fly before his supporters utter a bad word against their own side.

I don't consider you a party hack, hence I'm appealing to your reason.

If his taking half a million dollars to chat up a cabal of Wall Street power brokers straight out of his presidency truly doesn't bother you, if it doesn't strike you as antithetical to everything he's claimed to represent since those early days in 2007 and 2008, proclaiming hope and change for the little people, then you'll have to explain your reasoning to me.

As I see it, for anyone who still has post-election faith in his concern for the moms and pops of Main Street, he could not possibly sell out harder or faster than he just did.

Nope, good old capitalism and free market.  If GWB gets $400k in speaking fees, God bless him.  

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 12:07:22 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Republican House members voted yesterday to allow employers to compensate employees with paid time off in lieu of overtime pay.


Nice!  This makes my scheduling headaches a bit easier.  I can work you like a dog this week, and next week when we're slow I don't have to worry about you working. And I hate paying overtime anyway.  Sweet! 

Hopefully it will fail in the Senate like prior similar bills. The bad thing about a bill like this is most times the employee is never allowed to take that time off, because its always the wrong time. And its not much of a plus to an employee to work extra hours only being allowed to use hours off at the employer's discretion.

[Deleted]

May 3, 2017 12:07:22 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Republican House members voted yesterday to allow employers to compensate employees with paid time off in lieu of overtime pay.


Nice!  This makes my scheduling headaches a bit easier.  I can work you like a dog this week, and next week when we're slow I don't have to worry about you working. And I hate paying overtime anyway.  Sweet! 

Works for me too . I hate ot, love pto.