Presidential election, 2016

[Marypoza]

(11-30-2016, 12:42 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-30-2016, 02:18 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-30-2016, 12:33 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You've already lost the majority of the country. If the country were to split, how much of the country would you have left? The majority of the country wants its independence back. The majority of the country voted to retain its national sovereignty.

From FDR through LBJ, from the New Deal through the Great Society, there was a relatively constant Democratic control.  These were the days when America was great, the days of tax and spend liberalism.  From Nixon to Trump, through the unravelling, we have had a swinging pendulum.  After a few years of either party, the country gets disgusted enough to hand the presidency back to the other party.

I'm not denying the real disgust.  The Democrats have a persistent habit of pushing too many urban solutions on the rural population.  If they don't learn from what just happened, should they get the presidency back in another four or eight years, they will lose it again if they don't start serving the needs of the whole country rather than push the supposed urban cultural superiority.

But Republican borrow and spend trickle down is apt to crash the economy again.  If the Republicans can't correct their economic policies, they are apt to lose the presidency.  If the Republicans can't stop making their usual mistake, they will give the Democrats the opportunity to make their usual mistake.

There is more to it than that, but I'm not seeing the basic situation changing.  If these boards are a reflection of the country, I'm seeing Taramarie as about the only person with me in seeing the extreme partisan divide as the core problem.  The board, like the country, is locked into screaming extreme partisanship while refusing to listen.

But then, I don't anticipate that you are listening.  Trump isn't the typical politician.  He might break the pattern.  We will have to see.

RE: Bold and italicized text.

As I've previously noted I'm an NRA life member. Therefore, as you might imagine, in addition to reading every American Rifleman from cover to cover, I've received my share of various monetary appeals from the NRA-ILA. This past election season, the NRA cast their lot with Trump even before he had sewn up the nomination. The NRA had strategically determined that the white poor and white downward mobile middle class, who constitute a large portion of NRA membership, would be going with Trump for the long haul. One of the reasons for this is, from the PoV of the NRA-ILA, the Clintons are evil incarnate due to the 1990s "Clinton gun ban." That is a wedge issue that will never go away. Obama had similar notions hung around his neck, mainly due to the terrible selection of Holder as the initial AG and the pathetic "Fast and Furious" program, meanwhile, "Project Exile" type programs received short shrift. The DNC did it to themselves. Had the DNC looked at the "guns, God and apple pie" characteristics of certain white Dems, not to mention, white Indies, they would have run like hell from the Clinton mentality about "gunnn vaaaahlunce" (I can't get the sound of Slick Willie saying that out of my mind). They would have embraced the attitudes of the rare Dem politicians who get at least a C grade from the NRA. That would have been a tough and bitter pill to swallow, but had they done it, they would have won this election.

-- & that would be Bernie. He caught hell over his stance on guns. The only thing they could really cap him on. But the dumasses stacked the primaries against him instead. They reaped what they sowed