I know...let's blame Hillary and the DNC for 2016.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

Wow, you are really a hate filled little race-baiter. The Dems conceded the white working class vote a while ago. Here it is, in the words of a lefty luminary, all the way back in 2011:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

...and this:

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

So it wasn't "racism" and a reaction to a "black president". Its the result of a Democrat party political strategy informed by political realities that pre-date Obama. Take off your hate-filled green colored glasses and see reality. The party of the "working guy" decided to leave the "working guy" behind a while ago.

Essentially correct! And the strategy "worked" to degree that it gave Clinton 3 million more votes than DT.

It was defeated by superb gerrymandering by the Repubs.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Essentially correct! And the strategy "worked" to degree that it gave Clinton 3 million more votes than DT.

It was defeated by superb gerrymandering by the Repubs.

These guys seem to think the 2016 election means something positive for them. What it means is a continuation of the pattern that no matter who the DNC decides to run, no matter how vulnerable, that candidate has an 86% chance of winning the popular Presidential vote. It's one popular vote win in the last 7 contests for the GOP. This is a monumental pattern that oughta be telling Republicans that they are the party that is doing something radically wrong. That the nationwide demographics have shifted for good.

[Oerets]

The best result for the GOP and Trump would of been a HRC win. The GOP would of been the party with all the power forcing HRC to tact to the right if wanting to move anything thru.
Trump and friends would be free of any investigations and making fists full of rubles right now with his new cable channel.



Barney

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Oerets

The best result for the GOP and Trump would of been a HRC win. The GOP would of been the party with all the power forcing HRC to tact to the right if wanting to move anything thru.
Trump and friends would be free of any investigations and making fists full of rubles right now with his new cable channel.



Barney

You mean the Repubs should have just acquiesced to Open Borders and Sanctuary Cities.

And you make big assumptions about "free of any investigations". Remember the ball started to roll near the end of Obama term.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

You mean the Repubs should have just acquiesced to Open Borders and Sanctuary Cities.

And you make big assumptions about "free of any investigations". Remember the ball started to roll near the end of Obama term.

IIRC Obama was deporting more then a few and SC really. That is all you have to complain about? No missing email uranium to Russia Benghazzi?

I would believe once elected the Russia investigation would of look like a best left alone and just try and stop from happening again. The Dems are not as vindictive and dear I say liberal.



Barney

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I would believe once elected the Russia investigation would of look like a best left alone and just try and stop from happening again. The Dems are not as vindictive and dear I say liberal.



Barney

I do not think it would have been left alone.

The friends of Mikhail Khordokovsky have powerful connections in financial and media world(especially CNN and Newsweek). They are relentlessly Anti Putin. They tried to push Obama to adopt an aggressive mode re Russia. Obama did not take the bait. One general who was given a media platform even attempted to enlist Colin Powell.

The E mails embarrassed the Clintons and the DNC. The friends of Khordokovsky would not allow Russian interference to slide. They view it
as an opportunity to expand the anti Russian saga.

For them (mainly in UK and US) the dismantling of Khodorkovsky was a critical moment--it prevented elements in the west from getting control of significant Russian assets.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

I do not think it would have been left alone.

The friends of Mikhail Khordokovsky have powerful connections in financial and media world(especially CNN and Newsweek). They are relentlessly Anti Putin. They tried to push Obama to adopt an aggressive mode re Russia. Obama did not take the bait. One general who was given a media platform even attempted to enlist Colin Powell.

The E mails embarrassed the Clintons and the DNC. The friends of Khordokovsky would not allow Russian interference to slide. They view it
as an opportunity to expand the anti Russian saga.

For them (mainly in UK and US) the dismantling of Khodorkovsky was a critical moment--it prevented elements in the west from getting control of significant Russian assets.

Here's a fascinating read connected with your observations above: the text of Bill Browder's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...mittee/534864/

[Chicks]

Interesting whell that you would point out an article which reveals your Dear Leader's pal Putin as probably the world's most corrupt leader, forcing the Russian oligarchs to pay him 50% if they want to stay alive. Did you actually read and comprehend the article?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Interesting whell that you would point out an article which reveals your Dear Leader's pal Putin as probably the world's most corrupt leader, forcing the Russian oligarchs to pay him 50% if they want to stay alive. Did you actually read and comprehend the article?

Sure I did. The problem ain't me. The problem is that you continue to proceed from a premise that is so screwed up that's it became laughable a long time ago.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

Sure I did. The problem ain't me. The problem is that you continue to proceed from a premise that is so screwed up that's it became laughable a long time ago.

Assuming you mean the premise that Donny was laundering money for the Russian oligarchs? Pretty easy to connect the dots, just a matter of time before the truth is fully revealed, if Donny is unable to cover up. He's really frightened about something, don't you think? Wake up!