11 Nov 16
Originally posted by sh76Yeah, but it's best watching them go apoplectic from a distance. I lived close to downtown Portland (Oregon) up until 6 years ago, but now there's no reason for me to travel into or around there on a daily basis.
Heh.
Keep tilting at windmills, folks.
Seeing left wingers going apoplectic after this election has been great theater.
I have been wondering a bit about some of the vandalism and propery damage I've heard about. Been wondering how many Hillary supporters might have suffered property damage at the hands of unhappy Hillary supporters... I doubt if any of the offending 'protesters' bothered to ask or find out before unleashing their wrath.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI argued some months ago that a Donald Trump Presidency might be better in the long run than a Hillary Clinton one. IF the Donald goes along with the agenda of Congressional Republicans the result is likely to be ruinous and could make 2020 a replay of 1932 (a good election for a Democratic "wave" since it could also bring in Democratic State legislatures which would reverse the extreme Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts since 2010). An HRC Presidency would have just brought 4 years of continued inconclusive deadlock. Of course, long term demographic changes favor the Democrats, so a Dem "wave" election in 2020 might lead to a persistent long term advantage for them.
There was no possible winner in this election from the get-go.
So perhaps progressives "won".
13 Nov 16
Originally posted by no1marauderI envision it differently, likely the utopian in me dying to be released.
I argued some months ago that a Donald Trump Presidency might be better in the long run than a Hillary Clinton one. IF the Donald goes along with the agenda of Congressional Republicans the result is likely to be ruinous and could make 2020 a replay of 1932 (a good election for a Democratic "wave" since it could also bring in Democratic State legislature ...[text shortened]... 2020 might lead to a persistent long term advantage for them.
So perhaps progressives "won".
Trump rights the boat, gets another term and proves what we thought all along: the problem was the lack of accountability and entrenched criminals at the helm.
The realization that the everyday man is better equipped to make decisions than the so-called Elite convinces the public to elect leaders thusly--- in the spirit of Bernie Sanders before compromise, public servants.
Party divisions disappear, we return to an isolationist position and stop being the world police.
Happily never after...
13 Nov 16
Originally posted by no1marauderAnother possibility is that DT reverts to his moderate stances of decades-past and publicly excoriates and humiliates hard-line conservatives who try to buck him and whom no other Republican would have the guts to stand up to.
I argued some months ago that a Donald Trump Presidency might be better in the long run than a Hillary Clinton one. IF the Donald goes along with the agenda of Congressional Republicans the result is likely to be ruinous and could make 2020 a replay of 1932 (a good election for a Democratic "wave" since it could also bring in Democratic State legislature ...[text shortened]... 2020 might lead to a persistent long term advantage for them.
So perhaps progressives "won".
He also might very well espouse a less neoliberal economic agenda than HRC would.
13 Nov 16
Originally posted by sh76That's possible and then get four more years of gridlock when the People voted (presumably) for "change".
Another possibility is that DT reverts to his moderate stances of decades-past and publicly excoriates and humiliates hard-line conservatives who try to buck him and whom no other Republican would have the guts to stand up to.
He also might very well espouse a less neoliberal economic agenda than HRC would.
However, the composition of Trump's transition team (Ed Meese?) and the rumored cabinet (Goldman Sachs partner at Treasury, billionaire hedge fund manager at Commerce, etc. etc.) makes me think your scenario is unlikely.
13 Nov 16
Originally posted by no1marauderThat some-bitsch better perform and keep his promises.
That's possible and then get four more years of gridlock when the People voted (presumably) for "change".
However, the composition of Trump's transition team (Ed Meese?) and the rumored cabinet (Goldman Sachs partner at Treasury, billionaire hedge fund manager at Commerce, etc. etc.) makes me think your scenario is unlikely.