The problem is Republicans

[i'vegotwinners]

white working class have been boxed into the hard choice of backing bad representation, or having no representation at all.

they chose backing bad representation over no representation at all, enthusiastically and overwhelmingly.

perhaps instead of vilifying them for backing the only choice they have who even pays lip service to backing the working class, Dems could give the working class a better choice who would still represent the working class over the investor class.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Make fun,but that doesn’t change the fact that it happened under Obama’s watch!

In fact Crimea and Ukraine did also! Master Agent

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's important to remember in these polls......The % that self-identify as Republicans is an important as anything. 80% of a shrinking base comes out to only about 20% of the country. (Only about 25% of the country now calls themselves Republicans)


http://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/397695-pollster-gop-base-is-shrinking

That's a good point, but it only really means anything if the former-Republican-now-Independent voters make an effort to send a message by sucking up their pride and voting Democrat this year. Only a full-on beating can knock some sense into the GOP. I fear too many of these people who no longer identify as Republican will still walk into the voting booth this fall and say, "Well, I don't like Trump, but I still like my Congressman and what he stands for," and vote Republican, anyway.

If the goal is to remove Trumpism from the GOP, that can't happen. The party needs smacked around on Election Day. Anything else will only embolden the Trumpers.

 

[Thyrsis]

To represent the people of her district in a value-added capacity.

I dunno. I've not followed her comments at all closely, so I probably shouldn't comment. So I'll firmly plant that qualifier before what follows.

What I've seen in my very brief catching of snippets was somebody who's very young and not fully informed on at least some issues. But I've also seen indications that she may be bright and have some ability.

I couldn't have a worse opinion of our Congress. What I've seen from her wouldn't place her near the bottom of the ranks of all Congresspeople. I've not studied all of them, but I'm pretty sure I'd put Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Joe Wilson and Devin Nunes in that bottom of the barrel category. There are likely others, regardless of party.

If spouting talking points and not revealing a full understanding of the issues is the metric, then I suspect that places her roughly near the midpoint of all Congresspeople.

I appreciate some backlash because she's front and center on the news and social media. I appreciate she's taking some big interviews that further puts her in that spotlight. I appreciate responding to her ill-informed comments and calling her out for it. I'm not looking to defend her or shoot at anyone who calls her out.

I'm just guesstimating, though, that she might be in the top 1/3 of all Congresspeople on any scale I would find meaningful. That's not bragging on her. I have an incredibly low opinion of Congress.

I also have thoughts around qualifications and representing her district. I bet she'd vote in favor of holding Trump accountable for things that matter. On at least that metric, that ranks her above at least half of our Congress.

 

[UncleMark]

I fear too many of these people who no longer identify as Republican will still walk into the voting booth this fall and say, "Well, I don't like Trump, but I still like my Congressman and what he stands for," and vote Republican, anyway.

It was a different time, but I take solace in this little anecdote: my dad ran for State Senate as a Republican in 1974. He was a quality candidate, got in before the Nixon resignation and pardon, easily won the primary, and thought he'd win going away as it was a very very strong Pub district. He got his ass kicked, as did Pubs all up and down the ballot nationwide.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I dunno. I've not followed her comments at all closely, so I probably shouldn't comment. So I'll firmly plant that qualifier before what follows.

What I've seen in my very brief catching of snippets was somebody who's very young and not fully informed on at least some issues. But I've also seen indications that she may be bright and have some ability.

I couldn't have a worse opinion of our Congress. What I've seen from her wouldn't place her near the bottom of the ranks of all Congresspeople. I've not studied all of them, but I'm pretty sure I'd put Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Joe Wilson and Devin Nunes in that bottom of the barrel category. There are likely others, regardless of party.

If spouting talking points and not revealing a full understanding of the issues is the metric, then I suspect that places her roughly near the midpoint of all Congresspeople.

I appreciate some backlash because she's front and center on the news and social media. I appreciate she's taking some big interviews that further puts her in that spotlight. I appreciate responding to her ill-informed comments and calling her out for it. I'm not looking to defend her or shoot at anyone who calls her out.

I'm just guesstimating, though, that she might be in the top 1/3 of all Congresspeople on any scale I would find meaningful. That's not bragging on her. I have an incredibly low opinion of Congress.

I also have thoughts around qualifications and representing her district. I bet she'd vote in favor of holding Trump accountable for things that matter. On at least that metric, that ranks her above at least half of our Congress.

I get everything you’re saying. However, I’m tired of uninformed amateurs running our government. We need to take a major step back towards reps that look more like the founding fathers in terms of classical and legal education/experience.

 

[toastedbread]

I get everything you’re saying. However, I’m tired of uninformed amateurs running our government. We need to take a major step back towards reps that look more like the founding fathers in terms of classical and legal education/experience.

I basically agree with you. I found it concerning when I read this evening that she didn't understand how the unemployment rate is calculated. She thought that the unemployment rate is low because people are working multiple jobs!? Huh?

https://qz.com/1330941/alexandria-o...mployment-proves-politicians-need-economists/

On Israel/Palestine she also appeared completely out of her depth. I agree with you that she appears to be completely lacking in knowledge beyond a few talking points.

However, I also agree with @Thyrsis that she probably isn't in the lowest quartile of elected officials.

I actually got a bit excited, when I read that her primary victory required only 15,000 votes in a district of 330k registered Dems. I think people are vastly overestimating the difficulty of winning such a race. I was looking at the demos of various NY districts and I have some idea who I would target if I was looking to win a primary. You do not need to cast a wide net, but instead get certain groups to turnout for you.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That's a good point, but it only really means anything if the former-Republican-now-Independent voters make an effort to send a message by sucking up their pride and voting Democrat this year. Only a full-on beating can knock some sense into the GOP. I fear too many of these people who no longer identify as Republican will still walk into the voting booth this fall and say, "Well, I don't like Trump, but I still like my Congressman and what he stands for," and vote Republican, anyway.

If the goal is to remove Trumpism from the GOP, that can't happen. The party needs smacked around on Election Day. Anything else will only embolden the Trumpers.

I actually agree with that mostly. I think Republicans need to take a beating in 2018 to start the purge of Trumpism. However, I hope its just the House and that the Senate doesn't flip. I'm still not a Democrat.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I basically agree with you. I found it concerning when I read this evening that she didn't understand how the unemployment rate is calculated. She thought that the unemployment rate is low because people are working multiple jobs!? Huh?

https://qz.com/1330941/alexandria-o...mployment-proves-politicians-need-economists/

On Israel/Palestine she also appeared completely out of her depth. I agree with you that she appears to be completely lacking in knowledge beyond a few talking points.

However, I also agree with @Thyrsis that she probably isn't in the lowest quartile of elected officials.

I actually got a bit excited, when I read that her primary victory required only 15,000 votes in a district of 330k registered Dems. I think people are vastly overestimating the difficulty of winning such a race. I was looking at the demos of various NY districts and I have some idea who I would target if I was looking to win a primary. You do not need to cast a wide net, but instead get certain groups to turnout for you.

I’m sure she’s not in the lowest quartile in German of readiness but that shouldn’t be the ruler. The goal should be to get the best and brightest in there...and that’s not her...at least from what we’ve seen.

 

[Cortez88]

Let’s be clear here. The “good” Republicans who are not Trump fans will still vote for Trump and all his Republican supports in the Senate and House. They will do this because they vote for candidates with an R next their name.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Let’s be clear here. The “good” Republicans who are not Trump fans will still vote for Trump and all his Republican supports in the Senate and House. They will do this because they vote for candidates with an R next their name.

This would be a good subject.... what are the Dems willing to do to attract those votes? I see more of a willingness to move even farther left. So again, what are the Dems doing to attract those votes?

People voted for Trump because they didn’t want more of the same. So..... I have voted in my past for a President who was not republican. I will say the past 4 elections it has been straight R because I didn’t like where the Dems were wanting to go. What do you say to those people?

 

[tunk]

This would be a good subject.... what are the Dems willing to do to attract those votes? I see more of a willingness to move even farther left. So again, what are the Dems doing to attract those votes?

People voted for Trump because they didn’t want more of the same. So..... I have voted in my past for a President who was not republican. I will say the past 4 elections it has been straight R because I didn’t like where the Dems were wanting to go. What do you say to those people?

I'm jumping in here, because I'd love to add to the Democratic coalition in 2018. However, it's hard for me to say, I don't even know where to begin attracting the type of voter who is flipping off the Eiffel Tower for some reason.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I'm jumping in here, because I'd love to add to the Democratic coalition in 2018. However, it's hard for me to say, I don't even know where to begin attracting the type of voter who is flipping off the Eiffel Tower for some reason.

Are you saying there aren’t any democrats that have unfavorable feelings towards France? Would F Trump make it easier? See anything silly there?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I actually agree with that mostly. I think Republicans need to take a beating in 2018 to start the purge of Trumpism. However, I hope its just the House and that the Senate doesn't flip. I'm still not a Democrat.

I disagree and I don’t buy for one second Trumpism should be purged or the country is on the wrong track.

The current flap about how Trump views intelligence agencies is a great example. The previous administration appointed a notable left wing political hack as CIA Director. He behaved as one would expect in that job and is now a TV partisan hack. Trump appointed a consummate professional and most all of us don’t know her politics.

Clapper was a lying sumbitch in his job and is now also a partisan TV hack. Most people can’t name the person currently in that position because he is also a professional who doesn’t look for TV time.

This is what Trump does about intelligence. What he says about it is, in my view, ugly, but meaningless.

In every economic measure, the country is doing better, better than most OECD countries. Good.

The regulatory state is being pruned. Good.

The courts are becoming balanced. Good.

I can’t say enough good about Pompeo compared to his predecessors. He actually is doing the job of diplomacy instead of outsourcing it to incompetent staff. His travel itinerary in the last several weeks includes North Korea again, the new president in Mexico, Russia, NATO, G-7, and Helsinki.

Yeah, Trump shoots his mouth off way too much. I would be much more comfortable with one who accomplishes the same agenda with class. But I am very concerned that many think we need a purge to fix Trump’s classless yacking that I don’t think has staying power anyway.

 

[tunk]

Are you saying there aren’t any democrats that have unfavorable feelings towards France? Would F Trump make it easier? See anything silly there?

No, I'm not saying that. I just don't buy into the nationalism thing, myself. It's obvious that we incorporate two different worlds within our heads. It would be very challenging to bridge that gap.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

No, I'm not saying that. I just don't buy into the nationalism thing, myself. It's obvious that we incorporate two different worlds within our heads. It would be very challenging to bridge that gap.

Policy wise? That is interesting and why the Dems are having a problem over coming Trump. People who may cringe at his comments have no choice because the alternative is ..... no nationalism as you put it. I find it strange you would rather alter your views to accomodate foreign countries but not give other Americans the same courtesy....

I am not sure what nationalism means to you so I hate using those terms in discussion. But it sounds like open borders to me...am I wrong?

 

[hoot1]

I wish the Democrats would focus more on their own problems, starting with a message which attracts voters.and finding appealing candidates.

We complained all the Republicans offered was anti-Obama rhetoric, and now we are doing the same thing in respect to Trump.

 

[hoosboot]

I wish the Democrats would focus more on their own problems, starting with a message which attracts voters.and finding appealing candidates.

We complained all the Republicans offered was anti-Obama rhetoric, and now we are doing the same thing in respect to Trump.

Democrats need to do a better job of highlighting the policy solutions they offer that are currently blocked from consideration by Paul and Mitch. Democrats need to do a better job of promoting a better way forward with dignified strength that is full of compassion for all Americans and devoid of pettiness. The contrast with what is currently being offered across the aisle will accomplish much more than merely being anti-Trump.

 

[twenty02]

I disagree and I don’t buy for one second Trumpism should be purged or the country is on the wrong track.

The current flap about how Trump views intelligence agencies is a great example. The previous administration appointed a notable left wing political hack as CIA Director. He behaved as one would expect in that job and is now a TV partisan hack. Trump appointed a consummate professional and most all of us don’t know her politics.

Clapper was a lying sumbitch in his job and is now also a partisan TV hack. Most people can’t name the person currently in that position because he is also a professional who doesn’t look for TV time.

This is what Trump does about intelligence. What he says about it is, in my view, ugly, but meaningless.

In every economic measure, the country is doing better, better than most OECD countries. Good.

The regulatory state is being pruned. Good.

The courts are becoming balanced. Good.

I can’t say enough good about Pompeo compared to his predecessors. He actually is doing the job of diplomacy instead of outsourcing it to incompetent staff. His travel itinerary in the last several weeks includes North Korea again, the new president in Mexico, Russia, NATO, G-7, and Helsinki.

Yeah, Trump shoots his mouth off way too much. I would be much more comfortable with one who accomplishes the same agenda with class. But I am very concerned that many think we need a purge to fix Trump’s classless yacking that I don’t think has staying power anyway.

Were you a big Pat Buchanan fan, too?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Were you a big Pat Buchanan fan, too?

No. Actually I wasn’t much of a Trump fan during the campaign. Of the 20+ who ran in 2016, I had Trump 3rd from the bottom.

 

[Rockfish1]

I wish the Democrats would focus more on their own problems, starting with a message which attracts voters.and finding appealing candidates.

We complained all the Republicans offered was anti-Obama rhetoric, and now we are doing the same thing in respect to Trump.

Democrats need to do a better job of highlighting the policy solutions they offer that are currently blocked from consideration by Paul and Mitch. Democrats need to do a better job of promoting a better way forward with dignified strength that is full of compassion for all Americans and devoid of pettiness. The contrast with what is currently being offered across the aisle will accomplish much more than merely being anti-Trump.

As I understand it, this is exactly what Democratic candidates are doing. I don't know what's airing on cable news, but on internet discussion boards I think people should talk about whatever interests them.

 

[hoosboot]

As I understand it, this is exactly what Democratic candidates are doing. I don't know what's airing on cable news, but on internet discussion boards I think people should talk about whatever interests them.

I suppose. I guess I just wished the Dem narrative felt a little more pro-agenda and a little less anti-Trump at times. And I wish that people on internet discussion boards were more interested in policy. But, you gotta live with the internet you have - not the one you wished you had! :>)

 

[Rockfish1]

I suppose. I guess I just wished the Dem narrative felt a little more pro-agenda and a little less anti-Trump at times. And I wish that people on internet discussion boards were more interested in policy. But, you gotta live with the internet you have - not the one you wished you had! :>)

I’m very interested in policy. There just isn’t any of that going on right now.

 

[tunk]

Policy wise? That is interesting and why the Dems are having a problem over coming Trump. People who may cringe at his comments have no choice because the alternative is ..... no nationalism as you put it. I find it strange you would rather alter your views to accomodate foreign countries but not give other Americans the same courtesy....

I am not sure what nationalism means to you so I hate using those terms in discussion. But it sounds like open borders to me...am I wrong?

It's not that black and white to me. There are good and bad people everywhere, in every country. Including France.

But, you mention open borders: I do think we should be protecting our borders. Almost all Dems agree on this one. I'm not naive. I know there are threats.

 

[Stuffshot]

I suppose. I guess I just wished the Dem narrative felt a little more pro-agenda and a little less anti-Trump at times. And I wish that people on internet discussion boards were more interested in policy. But, you gotta live with the internet you have - not the one you wished you had! :>)

Trump intentionally says several major outrageous things every day to (1) draw attention to himself and stoke his ego, (2) distract his opponents and force them to respond, thus leaving less time for his opponents to advance their own positions, and (3) encourage his supporters to believe that Trump is so omnipotent that he is the only person in history who can solve the nation's problems. This is an intentional strategy by Trump.

It would be silly not to pay attention and respond to the threatened actions Trump says he will take or at least consider. If someone directly threatened to harm us or our families, I doubt any of us would ignore it until an assailant actually pulled out a weapon or sent a bullet in midflight. Words matter; they give fair warning. There's no advantage in not responding to Trump, because he has proven he not only says foolish words but also takes foolish actions too.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Democrats need to do a better job of promoting a better way forward with dignified strength that is full of compassion for all Americans and devoid of pettiness.

That’s an interesting comment. I never saw the day to day government role as one of providing compassion for all Americans. I don’t think I will ever see that. I recognize and agree with the role of government to provide compassionate policies for the few of us who are in need of special benefits and public assistance but that should be limited.

I would say that by in large the role of government should be dispassionate.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Trump intentionally says several major outrageous things every day to (1) draw attention to himself and stoke his ego, (2) distract his opponents and force them to respond, thus leaving less time for his opponents to advance their own positions, and (3) encourage his supporters to believe that Trump is so omnipotent that he is the only person in history who can solve the nation's problems. This is an intentional strategy by Trump.

I’d add a 4th. He is very impulsive and reactive. Trump doesn’t react well to being played or being the target of trumpism. His remarks in Helsinki about our intelligence agencies is a perfect example. He went there in response to a manipulative and dumb-assed question. I don’t think he would take that position in an unprovoked setting. I don’t think he believes what he said and the way he said it. He has a highly defensive hair trigger and he and us pay a price for that.

 

[DrHoops]

Whey do you think he wouldn't have "taken that position in an unprovoked setting"? He's consistently taken that same position throughout the first half of his presidency.

I’d add a 4th. He is very impulsive and reactive. Trump doesn’t react well to being played or being the target of trumpism. His remarks in Helsinki about our intelligence agencies is a perfect example. He went there in response to a manipulative and dumb-assed question. I don’t think he would take that position in an unprovoked setting. I don’t think he believes what he said and the way he said it. He has a highly defensive hair trigger and he and us pay a price for that.

 

[hoosboot]

That’s an interesting comment. I never saw the day to day government role as one of providing compassion for all Americans. I don’t think I will ever see that. I recognize and agree with the role of government to provide compassionate policies for the few of us who are in need of special benefits and public assistance but that should be limited.

I would say that by in large the role of government should be dispassionate.

It seems like you conflate the function of government with the attitude of those serving in it. I was speaking of the posture that Democrats should take in promoting their policies ("a better way forward") and not the day to day government role.

I'd encourage you to consider the rest of the post.

 

[wiede]

Whey do you think he wouldn't have "taken that position in an unprovoked setting"? He's consistently taken that same position throughout the first half of his presidency.

And I’d add that after he trashed our long term allies immediately before going to Helsinki, he appeared to be VERY friendly with Putin. Both in terms of words and body language.

That question was FAR from a dumb-assed question. Given the circumstances, it was highly appropriate, and even necessary, IMO.

Sure, he tried to walk it back after he was FORCED to do it a few days later. But even then, he threw in “and other countries may have been involved also”- which completely made the walkback completely disingenuous. It was VERY similar to the Charlottesville comments walkback, and both ad-libbed comments in both situations actually revealed his true feelings- he believes what he said the first time.

Trump literally can’t discern the fact that if Russia helped him, his presidency can still be legitimate. He equates Russian Help for him with collusion, and isn’t smart enough to figure out that the two aren’t necessarily related.

Unless he knows something we don’t, and knows that Russia helped, with assurance with his team. That would square a lot of this crap.

So, he’s either truly, truly incompetent and stupid (blinded by his extreme malignant narcissism?), or he knows that denying that Russia helped (with Help and coordination from his team) MUST be fought tough and nail, much like he did with the whole “I didn’t pay Stormy Daniels” deal. There really is no middle ground here.

But Mueller will illuminate all of the in time. And again, I’m good with whatever his report says- either way.

But to try to justify his behavior will NEVER make sense to me. It ain’t about policies with me- it’s about what he’s said and done. And continues to say and do. It’s intolerable on so many basic levels- nevermind the whole national security angle. The racism alone is disqualifying, and that’s just one of many “never cross” lines that he’s crossed, and continues to cross.

But I guess as long as you get some tax cuts that inflate the national debt, regulations cut & also get some judges confirmed, it’s all good...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Whey do you think he wouldn't have "taken that position in an unprovoked setting"? He's consistently taken that same position throughout the first half of his presidency.

Because Trump appointed a consummate professional intelligence official to be CIA director; a person who has no discernible political agenda. This is in stark contrast to his predecessor who appointed a dishonest known political hack, and on whose watch the Russians did their meddling. Now said political hack has graduated to being a professional hack who is well paid by CNN for his hackery. He delivers as expected.

 

[twenty02]

Because Trump appointed a consummate professional intelligence official to be CIA director; a person who has no discernible political agenda. This is in stark contrast to his predecessor who appointed a dishonest known political hack, and on whose watch the Russians did their meddling. Now said political hack has graduated to being a professional hack who is well paid by CNN for his hackery. He delivers as expected.

John Brennan was a political hack? Last I checked he spent his entire career in the Intel business, working for both the prior two admins.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

John Brennan was a political hack? Last I checked he spent his entire career in the Intel business, working for both the prior two admins.

He didn’t become a hack until 2009

 

[Stuffshot]

Because Trump appointed a consummate professional intelligence official to be CIA director; a person who has no discernible political agenda. This is in stark contrast to his predecessor who appointed a dishonest known political hack, and on whose watch the Russians did their meddling. Now said political hack has graduated to being a professional hack who is well paid by CNN for his hackery. He delivers as expected.

Translation: What about Obama (who's been out of office two years and will never be President again) but but but but? Yeah, what about all these countless other things throughout history but but but but but but?

What about Hoover, Grant and Harding (three of the worst Presidents ever)? Attilla the Hun? And what about Caligula? ( link: https://www.thoughtco.com/worst-roman-emperors-118228 ).

See? (COHoosier says): Trump isn't all that bad.

What I've been saying all along: conservatives absolutely cannot advance their platform without attacking someone else. Trump supporters absolutely cannot defend Trump on his own merits without attacking someone else. FoxNews absolutely cannot discuss any issue whatsoever without attacking someone else (or, if all else fails) the alleged Democrat/ liberal "agenda".

They simply don't know how to stop equating a political discourse with an attack on someone.

But. it's extra disappointing when COHoosier does this without even trying to do anything else. There should be a difference between a thoughtful poster like COHoosier and being a bot.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Translation: What about Obama (who's been out of office two years and will never be President again) but but but but? Yeah, what about all these countless other things throughout history but but but but but but?

What about Hoover, Grant and Harding (three of the worst Presidents ever)? Attilla the Hun? And what about Caligula? ( link: https://www.thoughtco.com/worst-roman-emperors-118228 ).

See? (COHoosier says): Trump isn't all that bad.

What I've been saying all along: conservatives absolutely cannot advance their platform without attacking someone else. Trump supporters absolutely cannot defend Trump on his own merits without attacking someone else. FoxNews absolutely cannot discuss any issue whatsoever without attacking someone else (or, if all else fails) the alleged Democrat/ liberal "agenda".

They simply don't know how to stop equating a political discourse with an attack on someone.

But. it's extra disappointing when COHoosier does this without even trying to do anything else. There should be a difference between a thoughtful poster like COHoosier and being a bot.

Geeze Louise. Drawing comparisons with the credentials and experience of people is not an attack. Not every reference to the past is whataboutism.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

John Brennan was a political hack? Last I checked he spent his entire career in the Intel business, working for both the prior two admins.

Brennan worked in the Obama White House and his job was necessarily to at least put a political gloss on intelligence. Thus we get that ISIL is a JV team, Obama’s war on radical extremism was a smashing success, and a movie caused people to go nuts and kill an ambassador plus 3 others. Then Brennan got kicked up stairs.

Trump put a non political pro in that position.

 

[twenty02]

Brennan worked in the Obama White House and his job was necessarily to at least put a political gloss on intelligence. Thus we get that ISIL is a JV team, Obama’s war on radical extremism was a smashing success, and a movie caused people to go nuts and kill an ambassador plus 3 others. Then Brennan got kicked up stairs.

Trump put a non political pro in that position.

Brennan worked for the CIA for 25+ years.....then worked in the Bush admin for several years. At what point exactly did he become a "political hack"? When he dared to work for a Democrat? Or when he started calling out Trump?

Trump put a partisan Congressman in that job initially, anyway. You glossed over that?

 

[zeke4ahs]

I'm jumping in here, because I'd love to add to the Democratic coalition in 2018. However, it's hard for me to say, I don't even know where to begin attracting the type of voter who is flipping off the Eiffel Tower for some reason.

Are you saying there aren’t any democrats that have unfavorable feelings towards France? Would F Trump make it easier? See anything silly there?

Why would anyone have unfavorable feeling toward one of our allies? Not exactly the same as Trump, is it?

 

[zeke4ahs]

As I understand it, this is exactly what Democratic candidates are doing. I don't know what's airing on cable news, but on internet discussion boards I think people should talk about whatever interests them.

I suppose. I guess I just wished the Dem narrative felt a little more pro-agenda and a little less anti-Trump at times. And I wish that people on internet discussion boards were more interested in policy. But, you gotta live with the internet you have - not the one you wished you had! :>)

Every candidate I’ve heard speak, and I’ve been involved in a couple local campaigns, barely mentions Trump. Where are you hearing candidates talks about him and not policy?

 

[zeke4ahs]

John Brennan was a political hack? Last I checked he spent his entire career in the Intel business, working for both the prior two admins.

Brennan worked in the Obama White House and his job was necessarily to at least put a political gloss on intelligence. Thus we get that ISIL is a JV team, Obama’s war on radical extremism was a smashing success, and a movie caused people to go nuts and kill an ambassador plus 3 others. Then Brennan got kicked up stairs.

Trump put a non political pro in that position.

All the talking points and none of the substance.