Jump to content

2016 Presidential Election


Recommended Posts

Looks like Trump is gonna win lmao. I openly admit that I didn't vote, I think both sucked and were both awful choices. This is gonna be interesting, how the hell did it come down these 2 idiots. This is really the best we got? Lol amazing that I saw the possible  future president of the United States shave Vince McMahons head live at wrestlemania lmao

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was for Bernie and then for Hillary, so tough day for me. I'll support our new president and just hope he does well by our country. Personally my biggest fear with him (and now a repub controlled house/senate) is climate change, and tbh I don't know what Donald thinks on the issue- he seems to change his mind depending who he talks to.

IMO the larger issue with why we ended up with these 2 candidates comes down to a whole complex web that has to deal with how we consume media, the influence that media can have, and how it's become too taboo to talk politics with others- we have some major issues that NEED to be discussed at dinner tables and water coolers, but when we actually are face to face with people, we are so afraid of debate, instead we retreat to our echo chambers and only hear what we want to hear.

And I hope the dems in the Senate doesn't do to Trump what's been done to Obama, stonewall everything. We need a working government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DevsMan84 said:

For some great comedy on here, please read the Paris terrorist attack thread in this sub-forum.  A couple posters who were sure Hillary would win lol.

No one outside of Trump's supporters thought he was going to win, including a large majority of respected conservative pundits and the RNC's own internals. It's literally the biggest upset in US political history, maybe world political history.  Sure, some of you called it and Brexit is clearly a major harbinger, but go back 4-8 years ago and the opposite could be said about those of you on the other side, i.e. the Romney/McCain victory predictions. But that's neither here nor there. All methodology went out the window this cycle, whereas the two elections prior it was reliable. 

At the very least, its easy to see why Trump won in hindsight.  Hillary was an historically bad candidate with an extreme amount of baggage and the Democrats were arrogant and power drunk after their wins in 08 and 12 and lost sight of what always won them elections historically, or at least holding the reliable parts. The mainstream media did nothing for anyone other than opening everyone's eyes on every side (although its taken the left longer to catch up) as to how they've lost the plot completely. This is probably the best post-mortem from the left I've read so far.

It's a total reset now, and I'm not one to freak out as the country will survive Trump. And I want him to do a good job. He's going to enter the office with the lowest approval rating in history before he's even inaugurated + he's lost the popular vote (as of now) and thats a bad thing. I don't want the country to suffer so a particular team gets power again. I'm sick of the constant winning to run again cycles and maybe this type of "earthquake" will change things for the better. 

Edited by ghdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghdi said:

At the very least, its easy to see why Trump won in hindsight.  Hillary was an historically bad candidate with an extreme amount of baggage and the Democrats were arrogant and power drunk after their wins in 08 and 12 and lost sight of what always won them elections historically, or at least holding the reliable parts. The mainstream media did nothing for anyone other than opening everyone's eyes on every side (although its taken the left longer to catch up) as to how they've lost the plot completely. This is probably the best post-mortem from the left I've read so far.

I won't go so far as to say Hillary is a historically bad candidate- I just think we live in a new era of political scrutiny- every controversy will be blown up to historic proportions. If Lincoln ran today he would struggle to get 50% approval rating.

On one hand I'm chalking this up to an extremely unique situation, where Democrats had such a charismatic leader they could get behind these past 2 elections, there was almost a guaranteed drop off in enthusiasm no matter who the candidate was, coupled with a unique candidate in Trump who was able to galvanize frustrated whites. On the other hand I do worry that this is the new norm and more Trump-like candidates will be running for everything from president to PTA member moving forward.

I agree this is a reset for Dems, though. All the talk of the minority voters keeping the Obama coalition alive was way off- to think 2 weeks ago commentators were speculating about Texas turning blue in 2020. You still need white votes to win elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're ashamed of fellow white, college educated, straight male voters?   Guiliani a whacko?  (Christie, yes)  Shudder with "fear"?  

All silly. I empathize with those supporting Hillary, but we just don't know yet how he'll be. We know she was the same old Regressive, BS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy Leeds said:

You're ashamed of fellow white, college educated, straight male voters?   Guiliani a whacko?  (Christie, yes)  Shudder with "fear"?  

All silly. I empathize with those supporting Hillary, but we just don't know yet how he'll be. We know she was the same old Regressive, BS

 

This is the scariest part, the fact that even a Trump supporter can say this is remarkable. Trump himself said Hillary would be 4 more years of Obama, and I would gladly have taken that. I would rather have a known than an unknown.

Guiliani is a whacko, for him or Christie to get a cabinet seat would immediately go against any sort of unity Trump called for in his victory speech last night. I want unity. I want Trump to be a great president, please don't start it off with a Guiliani appointment. We need moderates, because, and I think you can agree, we need level headed thinkers advising Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dmann422 said:

I won't go so far as to say Hillary is a historically bad candidate

Yes, she was. There's no other way to put it. She was a known quantity and had historically bad negative numbers. I do agree she would've been 4 more of Obama and I agree that we likely knew what we were getting with her, but she could not overcome the years of baggage. On top of this you have the DNC (and the media) doing nothing but trying to protect their own interests by elevating Clinton the way they did, which was shameful. There's a reason that Hillary had huge corporate backing farrrrrr more than Trump. I'm disgusted that Wasserman-Schultz wasn't defeated. They did not take Bernie seriously while many voters in states that HRC has lost in did. The corruption in the DNC wanted HRC at any cost and they got her. I readily voted for her but I was all about Bernie first. But you put up almost any Democrat where there's a positive rating for, without the baggage she does, and states like PA, WI, and MI likely stay blue, as does the presidency. A lot of these people were lifelong Democrats that felt left behind. She won the popular vote and lost the traditionally Democratic rust belt. The divide is real. The apathy towards Clinton was also very real. Those signs in Trump's rallies "The Silent Majority Stands With Trump" were dead on. 

At any rate, we can close the book on the Clintons and the Bushes. Neither will likely never be of national importance again. Trump's talk of "lock her up" is political nonsense (just as the Wall is) and they'll be thankful that the Clintons can retire and will be irrelevant bar Bill's occasional showing up for the "living presidents" get togethers. I don't see Jeb Bush running again either. She just delivered a classy concession speech too.

The area I worry about is the rise of particular aspects of Trump's support that are harmful to this country. It cannot be understated that the racist element in this country was motivated by Trump in a way not seen since Jim Crow. I appreciate the fact he disavowed them in ways. It's his party now. Trump's history shows he's got a willingness to work with people to get things done in business and I also believe that a lot of the sh!t he spewed was political nonsense, even the pick of Pence was politically motivated. Lets see if his business acumen translates to governing. Hopefully he has a diverse cabinet and some of this disgusting division can be bridged. I am not counting on it, but the world is not ending even if some of us think its more likely to now. 

Even had she won, at least this fvcking election is over.

 

Edited by ghdi
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dmann422 said:

This is the scariest part, the fact that even a Trump supporter can say this is remarkable. Trump himself said Hillary would be 4 more years of Obama, and I would gladly have taken that. I would rather have a known than an unknown.

Guiliani is a whacko, for him or Christie to get a cabinet seat would immediately go against any sort of unity Trump called for in his victory speech last night. I want unity. I want Trump to be a great president, please don't start it off with a Guiliani appointment. We need moderates, because, and I think you can agree, we need level headed thinkers advising Trump.

I'll take 4 years of an unknown over failed foreign policies that endangers Americans while fostering and aiding the rise of our enemies, the disastrous Obamacare bill, the inflammation of anti-white and anti-cop violence based on zero to near zero evidence, and an economy that has seen debt skyrocket while maintaining high levels of unemployment that was masked by the fact that the unemployment #'s don't take into account people who have stopped actively looking for work.

Trump is and will be a lot more level-headed than the 8 years of far left Obama doctrine has produced.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ghdi said:

Yes, she was. There's no other way to put it. She was a known quantity and had historically bad negative numbers. I do agree she would've been 4 more of Obama and I agree that we likely knew what we were getting with her, but she could not overcome the years of baggage. On top of this you have the DNC (and the media) doing nothing but trying to protect their own interests by elevating Clinton the way they did, which was shameful. There's a reason that Hillary had huge corporate backing farrrrrr more than Trump. I'm disgusted that Wasserman-Schultz wasn't defeated. They did not take Bernie seriously while many voters in states that HRC has lost in did. The corruption in the DNC wanted HRC at any cost and they got her. I readily voted for her but I was all about Bernie first. But you put up almost any Democrat where there's a positive rating for, without the baggage she does, and states like PA, WI, and MI likely stay blue, as does the presidency. A lot of these people were lifelong Democrats that felt left behind. She won the popular vote and lost the traditionally Democratic rust belt. The divide is real. The apathy towards Clinton was also very real. Those signs in Trump's rallies "The Silent Majority Stands With Trump" were dead on. 

At any rate, we can close the book on the Clintons and the Bushes. Neither will likely never be of national importance again. Trump's talk of "lock her up" is political nonsense (just as the Wall is) and they'll be thankful that the Clintons can retire and will be irrelevant bar Bill's occasional showing up for the "living presidents" get togethers. I don't see Jeb Bush running again either. She just delivered a classy concession speech too.

The area I worry about is the rise of particular aspects of Trump's support that are harmful to this country. It cannot be understated that the racist element in this country was motivated by Trump in a way not seen since Jim Crow. I appreciate the fact he disavowed them in ways. It's his party now. Trump's history shows he's got a willingness to work with people to get things done in business and I also believe that a lot of the sh!t he spewed was political nonsense, even the pick of Pence was politically motivated. Lets see if his business acumen translates to governing. Hopefully he has a diverse cabinet and some of this disgusting division can be bridged. I am not counting on it, but the world is not ending even if some of us think its more likely to now. 

Even had she won, at least this fvcking election is over.

 

Oh get the fvck off the college campus for a few minutes and explore the country outside the liberal group think safety of urban areas and universities. 

I will say that I cannot read into the minds of every Trump supporter, but to say that racism was a large factor in Trump being elected is beyond silly.  The people in Michigan didn't vote Trump to punish black people.  They voted for Trump because they felt like their voices has been largely silent over the past 8 years with Obama in office and saw Hillary as a continuation of that.  With a lot of middle class people these elections come down to economy, and rust belt states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (last 2 are normally blue states I might add) which have felt the pinch the most from the Recession voted with their wallet and not because of race, gender, and other social issues.

Plus according to statistics I saw this morning, Trump got roughly the same % of Latino votes as Romney in 2012 and actually got slightly higher % of Black votes than Romney in 2012.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

Oh get the fvck off the college campus for a few minutes and explore the country outside the liberal group think safety of urban areas and universities. 

I will say that I cannot read into the minds of every Trump supporter, but to say that racism was a large factor in Trump being elected is beyond silly.  The people in Michigan didn't vote Trump to punish black people.  They voted for Trump because they felt like their voices has been largely silent over the past 8 years with Obama in office and saw Hillary as a continuation of that.  With a lot of middle class people these elections come down to economy, and rust belt states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (last 2 are normally blue states I might add) which have felt the pinch the most from the Recession voted with their wallet and not because of race, gender, and other social issues.

Plus according to statistics I saw this morning, Trump got roughly the same % of Latino votes as Romney in 2012 and actually got slightly higher % of Black votes than Romney in 2012.

Nowhere did I state that racism was a large factor and the fact you'd even infer that I did is unfair. Its not a secret that racist organizations were in the bag for Trump and were vocal about it and other pockets that cheered his proposed blanket Muslim ban and the Wall, neither of which will ever happen. I also pointed out that he has disavowed them. It's not a secret that there are KKK organizations celebrating in full regalia today in southern states (i.e. Mebane, NC).  There's a racist element that voted for Trump, they're by no means a majority but to take what I said and twist it as such is ridiculous. 

I already stated and agreed with what you said re: why Trump won in a previous post to the one you're quoting. But there is a racist element that was motivated by this candidate and to deny that is inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are not racist and I would never say that they are. But there is a segment who are and they were woke and motivated for this election like they haven't been in many years and have not kept it secret.

 

Edited by ghdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ghdi said:

Nowhere did I state that racism was a large factor and the fact you'd even infer that I did is unfair. Its not a secret that racist organizations were in the bag for Trump and were vocal about it and other pockets that cheered his proposed blanket Muslim ban and the Wall, neither of which will ever happen. I also pointed out that he has disavowed them. It's not a secret that there are KKK organizations celebrating in full regalia today in southern states (i.e. Mebane, NC).  There's a racist element that voted for Trump, they're by no means a majority but to take what I said and twist it as such is ridiculous. 

I already stated and agreed with what you said re: why Trump won in a previous post to the one you're quoting. But there is a racist element that was motivated by this candidate and to deny that is inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are not racist and I would never say that they are. But there is a segment who are and they were woke and motivated for this election like they haven't been in many years and have not kept it secret.

 

Now you are backtracking and splitting hairs.  You think the race was decided by race?  You certainly are inferring it while denying it in the same breath.

If you were not inferring it and say that they are by no means a majority, why even bring it up then?  Your statement suggests that it nudged him enough to win.

Trump tapped into a working class that felt like the last 8 years have done nothing, have not improved their lives and have made America less safe and prestigious.  He even got traditionally blue states to buy into his campaign and even won a few wards in Philly in PA.  That's almost unheard of for a Republican nominee

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

Now you are backtracking and splitting hairs.  You think the race was decided by race?  You certainly are inferring it while denying it in the same breath.

If you were not inferring it and say that they are by no means a majority, why even bring it up then?  Your statement suggests that it nudged him enough to win.

Trump tapped into a working class that felt like the last 8 years have done nothing, have not improved their lives and have made America less safe and prestigious.  He even got traditionally blue states to buy into his campaign and even won a few wards in Philly in PA.  That's almost unheard of for a Republican nominee

WTF. 

I do not think this election was decided by race or racial elements nor have I said as such.

However, I do think that the small pockets of this country that are racist have been emboldened by Trump's candidacy and its worrying since this hasn't been seen since Wallace's candidacy in the early 60s. That is the only fvcking point I was making with that line. Nowhere did I speak on their specific geography or being a reason that Trump ultimately won. However, they are clearly feeling emboldened by his victory. I don't know how you get from this to reading that I think Trump won because of racism. Obviously the statistics prove that he got support from all races.

There is no backtracking. Trump won because of the reasons you gave, others have given, and ones that I stated in my first post in this thread.  

 

Edited by ghdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SMantzas said:

Him winning completely legitimizes anti-science, anti-equality, etc. If Roe v. Wade or same sex rights get overturned, I'll lose it. Mike Pence is such a fvcking piece of work and it sucks he'll likely have more power than any VP in recent history. Let's see if Trump rewards whackos like Giuliani and Christie. I'm ashamed of my fellow white, straight, college-educated, male voters. Theoretically, I have nothing to worry about, but I'm terrified for GROUPS of people Trump has insulted in the past. Hillary wasn't a good candidate, but you have to look on the other side and shudder with fear. The guy isn't even mature enough to handle his own twitter account and got it "taken away" from his campaign staff the last week. Yet, he's gonna negotiate with other world leaders and have nuclear codes. Good job, America!

I didn't vote for Trump, don't like Trump (and never did when a lot of hip media types wrote articles about him in the 80s and 90s about he was supposedly this genius business man), but the issues that were decided in Roe v. Wade and same sex marriage are rightfully the domain of state governments.  If you plan on living in New Jersey, you will still have same sex marriage and legalized abortions.  My guess is that Trump himself probably could care less about those issues, and if anything he's probably sympathetic to gay marriage and abortion rights.

I also never really quite understood the fear of Trump "having the nuclear codes."  If you fear WWIII, you ought to think it's better that the President be on good terms with Putin. 

The Democrats wanted to win this thing by playing identity politics and stoking political correctness.  Enough white voters said two can play at that game.  

And as Devman mentioned, enough working class people asked what was in it for them, when it came to globalization and accelerated immigration, which supply and demand will tell you lowers wages.  Hillary never really had an answer to that.

Quote

I'll take 4 years of an unknown over failed foreign policies that endangers Americans while fostering and aiding the rise of our enemies, the disastrous Obamacare bill, the inflammation of anti-white and anti-cop violence based on zero to near zero evidence, and an economy that has seen debt skyrocket while maintaining high levels of unemployment that was masked by the fact that the unemployment #'s don't take into account people who have stopped actively looking for work.

Trump is and will be a lot more level-headed than the 8 years of far left Obama doctrine has produced.

I greatly fear the uncertainty that comes with Trump.  He's largely ignorant of economics or how the government really works, and he doesn't seem to be all that interested in surrounding himself with people that do.  Yeah, it may feel good to stick it to Wall Street and overpaid investment bankers.  But a banking system that has some modicum of confidence in who the President is, is more important to Main Street than Main Street might want to admit.   

Edited by Daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

I'll take 4 years of an unknown over failed foreign policies that endangers Americans while fostering and aiding the rise of our enemies, the disastrous Obamacare bill, the inflammation of anti-white and anti-cop violence based on zero to near zero evidence, and an economy that has seen debt skyrocket while maintaining high levels of unemployment that was masked by the fact that the unemployment #'s don't take into account people who have stopped actively looking for work.

I started typing out a point by point response to this, but I realized nothing I say here will change your mind, so I will respecfully just say I disagree and that there is a reason Obama will leave office with high approval ratings.

1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

Trump is and will be a lot more level-headed than the 8 years of far left Obama doctrine has produced.

I am not a religious person, but I am turning to prayer to let this be the case. And Obama was no where near "far-left."

Edited by dmann422
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Daniel said:

And as Devman mentioned, enough working class people asked what was in it for them, when it came to globalization and accelerated immigration, which supply and demand will tell you lowers wages.  Hillary never really had an answer to that. 

Which is unfortunate because deep down even Trump knows globalization is inevitable, if he follows through with his vision it would set the country back globally moving forward.

27 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I greatly fear the uncertainty that comes with Trump.  He's largely ignorant of economics or how the government really works, and he doesn't seem to be all that interested in surrounding himself with people that do.  Yeah, it may feel good to stick it to Wall Street and overpaid investment bankers.  But a banking system that has some modicum of confidence in who the President is, is more important to Main Street than Main Street might want to admit.   

Agreed, the only saving grace at this point is you have to hope that establishment republicans in the Senate and House take this unprecedented opportunity to position the party for the future electorate. They need to look at this as 4 years of potential outreach, to build a record that can be more palatable to those they will need to woo to the party in 2020 onward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dmann422 said:

We need moderates, because, and I think you can agree, we need level headed thinkers advising Trump.

Why does the right have to go "moderate", but the left can be as radical as they want?   Everyone said Trump wasn't a Conservative, so there's your moderation.

And to somebody else's point about racism being a factor..........was is "racist" that 90+% of blacks voted for Obama?  

My point is we don't know how he will be.......I'm apprehensive of course, but to stay the course of the past 8 years with the disaster Obama was, and yes he is far left, with a absolute horrible candidate that was Clinton, would have disastrous for America.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy Leeds said:

Why does the right have to go "moderate", but the left can be as radical as they want?   Everyone said Trump wasn't a Conservative, so there's your moderation.

And to somebody else's point about racism being a factor..........was is "racist" that 90+% of blacks voted for Obama?  

My point is we don't know how he will be.......I'm apprehensive of course, but to stay the course of the past 8 years with the disaster Obama was, and yes he is far left, with a absolute horrible candidate that was Clinton, would have disastrous for America.

Well, I never said the left can be as radical as they want, or that the right must be moderate. I said if he wants the unity he asked for in his speech, he will try to be moderate and appeal to both sides

And besides, it's relative. On the broad political spectrum, if you yourself are on the right side, I suppose you can consider someone like Obama or Clinton "radical," but what radical left policies have been implemented under the last 8 democratic presidential terms? Bill Clinton and Obama were absolutely moderates. Very little of what Obama has done while in office is "radical" compared to, say, Roosevelt, or what Sanders would have wanted. Obama has basically carried on most of Bush 2's policies. In fact, most Democrats feel he hasn't done enough for liberal causes...

Among other things, Trump has proposed: building a wall and implementing deportation squads, backing out of NATO, denying climate change exists, these are all radical positions in the year 2016 and will absolutely NOT unify the country. So yes I hope he is moderate compared to his campaign rhetoric.

With regards to his cabinet, Trump's own advisers say he has a habit of choosing policy based on the last person he talks to, meaning, whoever has his ear on any particular day has a good chance of influencing his position. That is why we need sane people around him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ghdi said:

Yes, she was. There's no other way to put it. She was a known quantity and had historically bad negative numbers.

I know, I guess I should have phrased better, yes her approval numbers are historical lows (along with Trump's) I just think that this is the new norm now, because of the ease of which information- be it true, false, or misleading- can be distributed.

IMO we're going to see more and more presidential candidates elected with ugly approval ratings because once the media gets done with them there will be no such thing as a "viable" candidate. It will always be the lesser evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmann422 said:

Well, I never said the left can be as radical as they want, or that the right must be moderate. I said if he wants the unity he asked for in his speech, he will try to be moderate and appeal to both sides

And besides, it's relative. On the broad political spectrum, if you yourself are on the right side, I suppose you can consider someone like Obama or Clinton "radical," but what radical left policies have been implemented under the last 8 democratic presidential terms? Bill Clinton and Obama were absolutely moderates. Very little of what Obama has done while in office is "radical" compared to, say, Roosevelt, or what Sanders would have wanted. Obama has basically carried on most of Bush 2's policies. In fact, most Democrats feel he hasn't done enough for liberal causes...

Among other things, Trump has proposed: building a wall and implementing deportation squads, backing out of NATO, denying climate change exists, these are all radical positions in the year 2016 and will absolutely NOT unify the country. So yes I hope he is moderate compared to his campaign rhetoric.

With regards to his cabinet, Trump's own advisers say he has a habit of choosing policy based on the last person he talks to, meaning, whoever has his ear on any particular day has a good chance of influencing his position. That is why we need sane people around him.

Obama was the single most liberal Senator when he ran. Obamacare wasn't radical?  A complete over haul on MANDATED health care..........or you're fined. Pushing it through with zero Republican input and outright lying about keeping your doctor and the costs, when they KNEW it wasn't true?

He very well build a wall, and we need one. There will not be any "deportation squads", but there will be actual vetting and better border security and with any luck, birthright citizenship will be ended. He wants other NATO countries to actually pay and not have us foot everyone's bill. Global warming is a myth.

Edited by Jimmy Leeds
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dmann422 said:

Well, I never said the left can be as radical as they want, or that the right must be moderate. I said if he wants the unity he asked for in his speech, he will try to be moderate and appeal to both sides

And besides, it's relative. On the broad political spectrum, if you yourself are on the right side, I suppose you can consider someone like Obama or Clinton "radical," but what radical left policies have been implemented under the last 8 democratic presidential terms? Bill Clinton and Obama were absolutely moderates. Very little of what Obama has done while in office is "radical" compared to, say, Roosevelt, or what Sanders would have wanted. Obama has basically carried on most of Bush 2's policies. In fact, most Democrats feel he hasn't done enough for liberal causes...

Among other things, Trump has proposed: building a wall and implementing deportation squads, backing out of NATO, denying climate change exists, these are all radical positions in the year 2016 and will absolutely NOT unify the country. So yes I hope he is moderate compared to his campaign rhetoric.

With regards to his cabinet, Trump's own advisers say he has a habit of choosing policy based on the last person he talks to, meaning, whoever has his ear on any particular day has a good chance of influencing his position. That is why we need sane people around him.

Those are relative as well.  He wants to deport illegal immigrants (notice the stress on the illegal part and not sure how following the letter of the law is considered radical).  NATO is a Cold War era military strategic alliance and not sure if how that falls through is considered radical.  Climate change is controversial as there are still scientists arguing whether it is man-made or not.

Basically, the interpretation is that if the ideas do not follow a progressive, liberal, and globalized narrative then it is "radical."

If you want a radical left policy that has been implemented, look no further than Obamacare.  That is a massive government-backed healthcare plan/bill that is the biggest socialist program since the New Deal and Great Society programs by Roosevelt and Johnson.  However, if you do want to argue that it is not radical, then you cannot consider Trump's proposals as any more radical than those.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.