Progressives are responsible for Trump

[Sandy Shanks]

Far left Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, Tom Steyer, Rahshida Tlaib, Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Maxine Waters are playing right into Trump's hands by urging impeachment.

Trump wants to be impeached. Why? So the Senate will vindicate him and he becomes a martyr, a victim of Democratic overreach, running for President.

The Democratic leadership frowns on talk of impeachment and stresses investigations to weaken the Trump Presidency. Trump is pretty close to being unable to govern as his administration is mired in litigation. The leadership wants to run against a crippled candidate, not a martyr.

The progressives can't seem to understand that concept.

Medicare for all may be a great idea, emphasis on "may," if it is structured properly, but the country will not be ready for it in 2020. The goal in 2020 is to defeat Trump. However, it would appear that the progressives are doing all they can re-elect Trump.

Even an eight-year old is critical of the green new deal as sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. “Like, I want to talk about, like, climate change. Because, like, there’s no doubt cow farts are making the climate change,” Ava Martinez said after donning Ocasio-Cortez-inspired glasses and red lipstick.

What do you think Trump will do with that far left proposal?

Bernie Sanders came up with a new idea that is too much even for progressives. Sanders called for all prisoners to be allowed the right to vote. Trump is hoping and praying that Sanders gets the Democratic nod. He thinks running against Sanders would be fun.

Speaking of Sanders, it can be argued that progressive is responsible for Trump. In 2016, Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Sanders promised a lot of free stuff, free medical care, free college tuition. guaranteed income for all, and so on. As a consequence, he attracted a lot of young, naive voters facing life's uncertainties.

As we all know the Democratic National Convention chose a Democrat, Clinton. Sanders cried foul, accusing the DNC of preferential treatment toward Clinton. His young, wide-eyed followers believed him, and many of them expressed their anger by either refusing to vote or, incredible as it may seem, voted for Sanders' direct political opposite, Donald J. Trump.

Clinton lost the election by less than 80,000 votes in three states, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. It is logical to assume Trump became our President because of a progressive named Sanders. Sanders won the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries in 2016, and received nearly 732,000 votes in Pennsylvania.

Are progressives going to do it again? Or will they play it smart and wait until there is a Democratic administration before trumpeting their far left ideas?

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right

 

[Pogo]

As we all know the Democratic National Convention chose a Democrat, Clinton. Sanders cried foul, accusing the DNC of preferential treatment toward Clinton. His young, wide-eyed followers believed him, and many of them expressed their anger by either refusing to vote or, incredible as it may seem, voted for Sanders' direct political opposite, Donald J. Trump.

Uhhhhh nnnnnno. We don't "all know" that at all. That's something you just dreamed up and put the phrase "as we all know" in front of it.

New at this?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

As we all know the Democratic National Convention chose a Democrat, Clinton. Sanders cried foul, accusing the DNC of preferential treatment toward Clinton. His young, wide-eyed followers believed him, and many of them expressed their anger by either refusing to vote or, incredible as it may seem, voted for Sanders' direct political opposite, Donald J. Trump.

Uhhhhh nnnnnno. We don't "all know" that at all. That's something you just dreamed up and put the phrase "as we all know" in front of it.

New at this?

Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate for President in 2016. You didn't know that? Wow!

Let me guess. You voted for Trump. You sound like one of his fans.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

There are some who consider themselves intelligent when they say they are anti-establishment. When it comes to politics, more specifically, the Presidency, I dearly would like to ask these people some questions.

Despite the fantasies some people have as to how terrible the establishment is, I would ask, what is wrong with the establishment? Let me put it a different way. What do you have against experience?

Would you take your children to someone for medical care who never attended medical school or practiced medicine? Would you hire a plumber who had absolutely no experience in plumbing? Would you ask someone with no experience in automotive care to fix the engine of your car?

Why in the world would you vote for a President who had no experience in government?

Someone experienced in medical care, an experienced plumber, and an experienced auto mechanic are, in the real world, the establishment. The establishment is what a person wants in their daily lives, but somehow the establishment is wrong if it pertains to the governing of our nation? That makes no sense!

The most compelling argument for an experienced executive in the Oval Office is Donald J. Trump. Those who voted for him voted for anti-establishment, voted against experience. Trump is so bad his own supporters can't defend him. They don't even want to talk about him. The Trump administration is so tied up in alleged crimes and litigation, it can't govern.

Trump is what happens when one votes with anti-establishment principles in mind. For 25 years we have voted for a President with little or no experience to run our country. We have paid the price for that mistake ...

Over and over again. One was impeached for sexual promiscuity. Another launched an aggressive war that killed 5,000 Americans. Another was an inexperienced black President and that caused irreconcilable racial differences, and he was followed by the idiot we have now.

That is the record of the anti-establishment or inexperience executive. Sad, isn't it?

 

[Pogo]

As we all know the Democratic National Convention chose a Democrat, Clinton. Sanders cried foul, accusing the DNC of preferential treatment toward Clinton. His young, wide-eyed followers believed him, and many of them expressed their anger by either refusing to vote or, incredible as it may seem, voted for Sanders' direct political opposite, Donald J. Trump.

Uhhhhh nnnnnno. We don't "all know" that at all. That's something you just dreamed up and put the phrase "as we all know" in front of it.

New at this?

Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate for President in 2016. You didn't know that? Wow!

Let me guess. You voted for Trump. You sound like one of his fans.

^^ Bigliest non-sequitur EVAH.

Just try to imagine that. ME, voting for Rump. SMFH You are new at this.

 

[Pogo]

There are some who consider themselves intelligent when they say they are anti-establishment. When it comes to politics, more specifically, the Presidency, I dearly would like to ask these people some questions.

Despite the fantasies some people have as to how terrible the establishment is, I would ask, what is wrong with the establishment? Let me put it a different way. What do you have against experience?

Would you take your children to someone for medical care who never attended medical school or practiced medicine? Would you hire a plumber who had absolutely no experience in plumbing? Would you ask someone with no experience in automotive care to fix the engine of your car?

Why in the world would you vote for a President who had no experience in government?

Someone experienced in medical care, an experienced plumber, and an experienced auto mechanic are, in the real world, the establishment. The establishment is what a person wants in their daily lives, but somehow the establishment is wrong if it pertains to the governing of our nation? That makes no sense!

The most compelling argument for an experienced executive in the Oval Office is Donald J. Trump. Those who voted for him voted for anti-establishment, voted against experience. Trump is so bad his own supporters can't defend him. They don't even want to talk about him. The Trump administration is so tied up in alleged crimes and litigation, it can't govern.

Trump is what happens when one votes with anti-establishment principles in mind. For 25 years we have voted for a President with little or no experience to run our country. We have paid the price for that mistake ...

Over and over again. One was impeached for sexual promiscuity. Another launched an aggressive war that killed 5,000 Americans. Another was an inexperienced black President and that caused irreconcilable racial differences, and he was followed by the idiot we have now.

That is the record of the anti-establishment or inexperience executive. Sad, isn't it?

Oh I'd go way further than that. What I've been asking on this board for the last four years is, why would you vote an orange freak who has literally never held a job in his life --- not just government experience but any kind of job or position of responsibility at all --- into the most responsible job in the world? Never did get an answer.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

There are some who consider themselves intelligent when they say they are anti-establishment. When it comes to politics, more specifically, the Presidency, I dearly would like to ask these people some questions.

Despite the fantasies some people have as to how terrible the establishment is, I would ask, what is wrong with the establishment? Let me put it a different way. What do you have against experience?

Would you take your children to someone for medical care who never attended medical school or practiced medicine? Would you hire a plumber who had absolutely no experience in plumbing? Would you ask someone with no experience in automotive care to fix the engine of your car?

Why in the world would you vote for a President who had no experience in government?

Someone experienced in medical care, an experienced plumber, and an experienced auto mechanic are, in the real world, the establishment. The establishment is what a person wants in their daily lives, but somehow the establishment is wrong if it pertains to the governing of our nation? That makes no sense!

The most compelling argument for an experienced executive in the Oval Office is Donald J. Trump. Those who voted for him voted for anti-establishment, voted against experience. Trump is so bad his own supporters can't defend him. They don't even want to talk about him. The Trump administration is so tied up in alleged crimes and litigation, it can't govern.

Trump is what happens when one votes with anti-establishment principles in mind. For 25 years we have voted for a President with little or no experience to run our country. We have paid the price for that mistake ...

Over and over again. One was impeached for sexual promiscuity. Another launched an aggressive war that killed 5,000 Americans. Another was an inexperienced black President and that caused irreconcilable racial differences, and he was followed by the idiot we have now.

That is the record of the anti-establishment or inexperience executive. Sad, isn't it?

I wrote in the OP, "Speaking of Sanders, it can be argued that progressive is responsible for Trump. In 2016, Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Sanders promised a lot of free stuff, free medical care, free college tuition. guaranteed income for all, and so on. As a consequence, he attracted a lot of young, naive voters facing life's uncertainties.

"As we all know the Democratic National Convention chose a Democrat, Clinton. Sanders cried foul, accusing the DNC of preferential treatment toward Clinton. His young, wide-eyed followers believed him, and many of them expressed their anger by either refusing to vote or, incredible as it may seem, voted for Sanders' direct political opposite, Donald J. Trump.

"Clinton lost the election by less than 80,000 votes in three states, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. It is logical to assume Trump became our President because of a progressive named Sanders. Sanders won the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries in 2016, and received nearly 732,000 votes in Pennsylvania."

Are progressives going to elect Trump again? Two leading progressives running for President are trying as they attack the leading Democratic contender, Joe Biden, providing ammunition for Trump's machine.

Bernie Sanders, the self-described Independent socialist wrote: “It’s a big day in the Democratic primary and we’re hoping to end it strong. Not with a fundraiser in the home of a corporate lobbyist, but with an overwhelming number of individual donations.” Envy? With $6.3 million Biden topped the one day total for all Democratic candidates on just his first day.

“Joe Biden was on the side of credit card companies,” Elizabeth Warren said Thursday at an event in Iowa.

Her disagreement with Biden over bankruptcy legislation “is a matter of public record,” she said.

Can't these two progressives win on their own merits? Do they have to attack a fellow Democrat? Do they have to provide arguments to Trump when he is attacking Biden?

Put a different way, if one is a Democrat, or an Independent running as a Democrat, how stupid can you get?