patrick.net

An intelligent person will reject a leader who is going down the WRONG PATH regardless of Her otherwise exemplary qualities and degrees and certificates of merit. Wrong is wrong. That same person would also follow an unsavory person down the RIGHT PATH.
Aside from this point, you're failing to make a distinction between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is raw brain power, how many concepts one may be able to hold at once, the speed of ones thoughts, or the organization ability of cognitive process.
Wisdom is knowing how and when to make the right choice.
True wisdom can't be measured in degrees. It must be measured in choices and most importantly, the outcomes of those choices. It tends to go against the opinions of highly pedigreed intelligentsia, confounding these elites when they (for all their intelligence) are proven wrong again and again, while those with wisdom prevail.

The problem is that figuring out say the right or wrong economic path is not clear cut and may take a very long time. For instance it took the Soviet Union decades to economically collapse, although there was also ample evidence of communisms failure far sooner than the economic collapse.

To take it a step further, capitalists use the soviet economy as proof positive of non viability as an economic system while socialists explain it away for various reasons. Yet there are intelligent people on both sides of that argument.

The whole reason for this is people who post here, almost entirely individuals who STAUNCHLY support the Democrat party, seem insistent on labeling anyone who doesn't conform with their politics view as lacking intelligence. It's an incorrect view, and it's extremely counterproductive unless you believe in following Rules For Radicals.

I remember discussions about moral relativity when I was in college. Nobody could ever put a logical finger on what defines morality by defining the definition. Given that the definition was so variable, how could anyone determine if an action was moral or immoral?

But the answer was always there. Morality is not determined by intent, good wishes, feelings, SJWs, popular opinion, or even necessarily laws.

Morality is determined by outcomes of choices. Was the outcome of a particular choice good or bad? And for whom? And was it good for society? Morality is the sum total of these quantifications, a complex algorithm we do almost unconsciously every day. As such, it may be defined on a situational basis, codified, and made into laws. It's not a "thus saith the Holy Bible or the Koran or the Talmud." Although at least two of those books are quite instructional on understanding it. The first is full of object lessons from which interpretation may be made. The second is the ravings of a diseased pedophile. The third is a school boy's primer on what to do and not to do and when.

What I'm discussing isn't relativity though. There's a clear outcome to most political decisions, but it may take a very long time to be evident, and even then you have to sift through the propaganda and biased studies to reach the best conclusion. Calling people stupid in the meantime for their opinions based on incomplete information is simply demeaning the person who takes a different point of view.

We finally got a businessman into a White House and not some social justice warrior from the left. It's a good change in direction.

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

And you think that's a good thing?

Big fan of Citizens United, are you?

joeyjojojunior says

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

And you think that's a good thing?

Big fan of Citizens United, are you?

Its a good thing from the perspective that Trump campaigned on that and stuck with his promise to do so.

Your dislike of Trump's stated accomplishments is irrelevant to this thread.

joeyjojojunior says

And you think that's a good thing?

Hell yeah conservative judge is a good thing. This country doesn't need anymore Obama appointed special snowflakes.

Marvel fan? I don't get that.

Sure, Trump the person is not the greatest guy, but he represents something Obama completely failed at: hope and change. Obama instantly got on his knees and aggressively sucked banker dick for 8 years straight. Trump is outside the current elitist leftist cult that runs the mainstream press and DC and systematically divides all of us by identity every day so that we don't ever get united as mere citizens and start talking about who is running off with all the productivity gains of the last 30 years.

Trump is even outside of the Republican Party really. You knew when you saw pictures of GW with Elen DeGeneres that really GW was in on the whole "two party" scam, and there is really just one party, and both sides of that one party represent Capital alone, and both say fuck Labor because being working class always means that it's personally your fault that you're not the boss. Everyone can be the boss, all at the same time, if they all just try hard enough! Right?

So what it came down to for the country was a choice between stinky Hillary and more of the same old shit, or a kinda sleazy real estate billionaire who definitely cares more about his reputation than anything else. Uh, choice number two please! No brainer. The Democrats ran someone that no one on earth actually likes, so it was pretty much just suicide on their part.

joeyjojojunior says

And you think that's a good thing?

Big fan of Citizens United, are you?

He promised and accomplished it, that is all.

I'm not a big fan of racial discrimination either, something that Leftish Courts have pushed in the last few decades via anti-merit Affirmative Action, and just upheld again last year.

rando says

So what it came down to for the country was a choice between stinky Hillary and more of the same old shit, or a kinda sleazy real estate billionaire who definitely cares more about his reputation than anything else. Uh, choice number two please! No brainer. The Democrats ran someone that no one on earth actually likes, so it was pretty much just suicide on their part.

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after. Right Clinton and Blair?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after.

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

Trump doesn't need the money. He wants more than anything to be remembered as the president who helped America become great again. And he's got a whopping huge chance to do that from his bully pulpit. I'm not sure he will follow through, but signs look reasonably good.

Trump could do more to contain health care costs in 10 minutes on TV than anything Obama did (did Obama do anything at all to limit health care costs?) by simply demanding that all bills for non-emergency medical care be presented in advance of treatment. C'mon Trump! Do it!

Fucking White Male says

Its a good thing from the perspective that Trump campaigned on that and stuck with his promise to do so.

Your dislike of Trump's stated accomplishments is irrelevant to this thread.

Actually the thread is about whether he's doing a good job. And nominating Gorsuch isn't a good job, IMO.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'm not a big fan of racial discrimination either, something that Leftish Courts have pushed in the last few decades via anti-merit Affirmative Action, and just upheld again last year

Both sides push racial discrimination--just in different ways.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after. Right Clinton and Blair?

That is a not a very good argument as rich people often are the most greedy. Trump has already shown that he is extremely interested in increasing his and his family's wealth via the Presidency. Trump was born into money and fully intends on using this office to increase it exponentially.

rando says

He wants more than anything to be remembered as the president who helped America become great again

That may be what you want to believe, but objective evidence tells a different story. Amazingly, China granted him and Ivanka 3 trademarks immediately after his visit. You think that's a coincidence?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/18/news/ivanka-trump-trademarks/index.html

How much money has poured into his coffers from all the Mar-a-Lago visits? I honestly don't think he cares about America or the Presidency at all. He ran for his ego and now he's just going to let others do whatever they want as long as his brand stays strong.

rando says

Trump could do more to contain health care costs in 10 minutes on TV than anything Obama did (did Obama do anything at all to limit health care costs?) by simply demanding that all bills for non-emergency medical care be presented in advance of treatment. C'mon Trump! Do it!

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

joeyjojojunior says

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after. Right Clinton and Blair?

That is a not a very good argument as rich people often are the most greedy.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest and they are giving away almost everything they have.
Trump has a big ego. He wants fame and fortune. He has a fortune, but what better way to get fame than by being the world's most powerful man. Even better if he goes down in history as someone who achieved major change for the better.

rando says

but he represents something Obama completely failed at: hope and change. Obama instantly got on his knees and aggressively sucked banker dick for 8 years straight.

Trump sucks corporate and banker dick better than any President ever.

Who knows, considering the amount of debt he has defaulted on and borrowed agiain, I'm not convinced that he's not beholden to citibank at an entirely different level than we've ever seen before.

The extent to which the banks own our government has not changed the slightest bit under Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html?_r=0

President Trump on Friday moved to chisel away at the Obama administration’s legacy on financial regulation, announcing steps to revisit the rules enacted after the 2008 financial crisis and to back away from a measure intended to protect consumers from bad investment advice.

After a White House meeting with executives from Wall Street, Mr. Trump signed a directive aimed at the Dodd-Frank Act, crafted by the Obama administration and passed by Congress in response to the 2008 meltdown. He also signed a memorandum that paves the way for reversing a policy, known as the fiduciary rule, that requires brokers to act in a client’s best interest, rather than seek the highest profits for themselves, when providing retirement advice.

The executive order affecting Dodd-Frank is vague in its wording and expansive in its reach. It never mentions the law by name, instead laying out “core principles” for regulations that include empowering American investors and enhancing the competitiveness of American companies. Even so, it gives the Treasury the authority to restructure major provisions of Dodd-Frank, and it directs the Treasury secretary to make sure existing laws align with administration goals.

joeyjojojunior says

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

People would go to the lower cost providers. Most people do pay a percentage of the cost.

Booger says

joeyjojojunior says

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

People would go to the lower cost providers. Most people do pay a percentage of the cost.

The lower cost providers are all out of the country. You can go to Singapore, Thailand or India to have elective surgeries done at 10% of the cost.
I had a torn meniscus removed and the total cost was a ridiculous $20,000 or something. My share was a ridiculous $3,000. We would all save money if healthcare was allowed to be outsourced.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

Yeah, but that's not a good promise.

Strategist says

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest and they are giving away almost everything they have.

Unfortunately, we didn't elect either of them.

marcus says

Trump sucks corporate and banker dick better than any President ever.

Really? Obama had Citigroup Executives vet it's cabinet picks. That same executive - Michael Froman - went on to become Chief Trade negotiator. Including of TPP.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190

Word document of potential nominees for Froman's feedback under the attachment tab. Keep in mind the date, a month before the election -- and on the heels of the financial crisis which was Fresh at the time.

So beautiful that Citigroup's American Family Fucking TPP is up in smoke.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Really? Obama had Citigroup Executives vet it's cabinet picks. That same executive - Michael Froman - went on to become Chief Trade negotiator. Including of TPP.

Do you know what the word "vet" means? He absolutely did not have Citigroup vet anything. Froman made a list of people that had been suggested by others. Whoop di doo. That fact that you attribute something nefarious here shows how far off the reservation you are.

joeyjojojunior says

Do you know what the word "vet" means?

I'm sorry, I put it backwards, my bad. Here's the correction:
Froman was giving lists of Citigroup approved potential cabinet members, after considering Diversity requirements, to John Podesta.

Who was Obama's Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff?

Was it Ralph Nader?

Nefarious? Why is Honest Obama Staffers even talking with Citigroup about cabinet members a month before the election?

Did he ask Occupy Wall Street's opinion? Ask the public generally? LOL.

joeyjojojunior says

Do you know what the word "vet" means? He absolutely did not have Citigroup vet anything. Froman made a list of people that had been suggested by others. Whoop di doo. That fact that you attribute something nefarious here shows how far off the reservation you are.

Speaking of off the reservation, how many special elections to Congress have the Democrats won?

Let's see, lost a 4 way race in Georgia, lost by 7 points big league in Ohio, lost in Kansas....

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'm sorry, I put it backwards, my bad. Here's the correction:

Froman was giving lists of Citigroup approved potential cabinet members, after considering Diversity requirements, to John Podesta.

Nope. He was summarizing a list of people that had been suggested by others and putting it on paper so the Obama team could look it over.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Speaking of off the reservation, how many special elections to Congress have the Democrats won?

Let's see, lost a 4 way race in Georgia, lost by 7 points big league in Ohio, lost in Kansas....

Actually, the Dems won the 4 way race in Georgia by like 30 pts. Dems have outperformed by about 20 pts over 2014. If all Dems perform as well in 2018 as the last special elections, they will take over the house in the midterms. There are 46 districts with Republican incumbents that are more Dem friendly than the GA district where Dems just won by 30 pts.

joeyjojojunior says

Nope. He was summarizing a list of people that had been suggested by others and putting it on paper so the Obama team could look it over.

... on his official Citigroup email.

What's Citigroup's email policy on using corporate email for political purposes? Unless, of course, it's part of his job description.

Who are these "Others"? Most likely bankster colleagues. He's not hanging out with janitors and cops.

joeyjojojunior says

Actually, the Dems won the 4 way race in Georgia by like 30 pts. Dems have outperformed by about 20 pts over 2014. If all Dems perform as well in 2018 as the last special elections, they will take over the house in the midterms. There are 46 districts with Republican incumbents that are more Dem friendly than the GA district where Dems just won by 30 pts.

They lost all the races. They will lost the final Georgia contest by several points, despite big money contributors pouring in millions from NY and California banks and insurance companies and Hollywood. I think in Kansas they lost by a wider margin than normal.

The number of Governors and legislatures controlled by Democrats is at a major low and keeps dropping.
They have no talent pool, no farm team stars.

I also heard this was the first time since WW2 that no County that voted Republican for President voted for a Democrat Representative in the South.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

They lost all the races

Last I checked, 48 is more than 19 unless they've changed the numbering system. That is called a huge win. Yes, there will be a run-off, but you are delusional if you think it's a more than a 50/50 shot for Rs. Dems got 48% of the vote with 4 opponents. You think it's impossible that they peel off 2% of one of the losing Reps voters? And, like I said, that's a solid R district. There are 46 districts that are much less solid for Reps.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

What's Citigroup's email policy on using corporate email for political purposes?

Yes, I'm sure that's the first time a personal email was ever sent from a work account. Give it up.

joeyjojojunior says

Last I checked, 48 is more than 19 unless they've changed the numbering system. That is called a huge win. Yes, there will be a run-off, but you are delusional if you think it's a more than a 50/50 shot for Rs. Dems got 48% of the vote with 4 opponents. You think it's impossible that they peel off 2% of one of the losing Reps voters? And, like I said, that's a solid R district. There are 46 districts that are much less solid for Reps.

This was a special election. Now there will be a runoff. Everybody expects Ossoff to lose by at least 3 pts, if not more. Had there been a primary first between party nominees, Ossoff would have been beaten, I think, by about 5-7 points.

Democrats failed to win in seats that were far more purple in Ohio and Kansas than almost 40 years of unbroken republicans in GA-6 from Newt Gingrich in 1979 to Tom Price who just resigned to be in the Trump Administration.

Middle America is turning it's back on Democrats. Throwing money from richy-rich Coastal city donors to suburban, rural, and rustbelt towns is not going to solve the problem.

What are the Democrats doing to change their platform?

joeyjojojunior says

Yes, I'm sure that's the first time a personal email was ever sent from a work account. Give it up.

Yeah, okay. If you're so gullible as to believe he wasn't the Citigroup point of contact with the Obama Campaign. There's more than one email from Froman, including working with an Obama legal team to assess FEC, SEC, CFTC, and other regulators and assessing Department Leadership candidates. And it's clear this isn't personal : The focus of most of his emails is on Financial Regulators.

"Oh, I'm going to send personal political emails to my friends in the Obama campaign and provide suggestions and feedback on Financial Regulators just for fun. It has NOTHING to do with Citigroup."

Real individuals would be like "Podesta, thank you for your email thanking Citigroup and myself for our big donations. Just wanted to say I love Obama's abortion stance."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3560

Who was Obama's Treasury Sec. and Chief of Staff again?

Jack Lew, former Citigroup Executive.

And that man replaced whom? Oh, another Obama Chief of Staff, another executive, but that one connected to JP Morgan.

Hate to bust your bubble but the Democrats are deep in the stink with Wall Street. It's no surprise Obama failed to regulate the big Wall Street donors who put him in.

Also, what a surprise Froman becomes US chief negotiator on Trade Deals, all of which have serious benefits for Citigroup. Pure Coincidence!

Here are the 352 emails mentioning Froman in Podesta's Emails from 2008 to 2016. Pretty much an email a week regarding Froman. The oldest one is detailing thank you acknowledgements to be sent by the Campaign for assisting in a NY Breakfast Meeting with many Wall Street Players. Froman gets a handwritten one from Podesta and the suggestion to send a signed book from Campaign-affiliated Authors.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=Froman&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=2#searchresult

Here's the second oldest email, with Froman being given a detailed timetable for transition and other personnel picks for the Obama administration:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57036

Click on the attachment tabs. A sample:

If Froman is just a donor, why is he getting all this "sensitive" insider info?

And if he was just a donor, why was he soon appointed Chief Trade Negotiator?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

This was a special election

Yep, it was a special election in which Dems creamed the Reps.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Everybody expects Ossoff to lose by at least 3 pts, if not more

No, they actually don't. Smart people peg it at about 50/50.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/5-takeaways-from-the-georgia-6-special-election-results/

Which is, of course, logical. With 4 candidates, Rep were able to appeal to folks all over the spectrum. With only one candidate it would not be unusual for the Dems to pull in another 2%. It's not like the Dem candidate only got 30% the first time--he got 48%. He only needs 2% more to win.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Democrats failed to win in seats that were far more purple in Ohio and Kansas than almost 40 years of unbroken republicans in GA-6 from Newt Gingrich in 1979 to Tom Price who just resigned to be in the Trump Administration.

What are you talking about? That Kansas seat was one of reddist in Congress. Dems gained 20+ pts in the special election. If they perform nationally like they did in the KS special election, it will be a HUGE Dem rout. They will pick up 100+ seats

a href="/?p=1305242&c=1402056#comment-1402056">Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Hate to bust your bubble but the Democrats are deep in the stink with Wall Street. It's no surprise Obama failed to regulate the big Wall Street donors who put him in.

You are too funny. Have you looked at Trump's Goldman Sachs cabinet?

joeyjojojunior says

Yep, it was a special election in which Dems creamed the Reps.

Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.

The Democrats are largely still Clintonista sheep, refusing to address the causes of their historic loss in a rigged election; the Republicans are having internal struggles.

Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed.
joeyjojojunior says

What are you talking about? That Kansas seat was one of reddist in Congress. Dems gained 20+ pts in the special election. If they perform nationally like they did in the KS special election, it will be a HUGE Dem rout. They will pick up 100+ seats

They lost. Losing is Losing. They lost the Ohio seat by a bigger margin than usual, so I could make the same argument in the other direction.

Also, in most of these races, the Democrats had the most Third-Way Triangulating DINO they could find running. And they still failed!

Being 0-3 is no indication that you're going on to the Superbowl. How 'bout them Patriots?

joeyjojojunior says

You are too funny. Have you looked at Trump's Goldman Sachs cabinet?

Are you admitting Obama's close relationship with Wall Street yet, or are you still in the River in Egypt?

Mnuchin hasn't worked for Goldman in 15 years. Froman and Lew went straight into the Administration from Citigroup.

Did you know Froman went with Robert Rubin to Citigroup from the Clinton Administration?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.

Wrong. The one Dem got 48% of the vote. You can't logically explain why running 1 Republican candidate vs. 4 would cause more people to vote Republican. Because it's illogical.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed.

Care to wager on that one? "destroyed" = lose by 10+ pts, right? Why don't you put some money on that one?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

They lost. Losing is Losing

Except it isn't. It's an indication of the current feeling of US voters. And based on the special elections to date, the country has a highly positive Dem bent.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Being 0-3 is no indication that you're going on to the Superbowl

Once again, I'll remind you that they won GA. by 30 pts. You somehow keep forgetting that one.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Are you admitting Obama's close relationship with Wall Street yet

Are you admitting Trump's close relationship with Wall St.? Or are you still in the River in Egypt?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/poll-67-of-americans-say-the-democrats-are-out-of-touch-with-their-concerns/

Poll: 67% Of Americans Say The Democrats Are Out Of Touch With Their Concerns

joeyjojojunior says

Wrong. The one Dem got 48% of the vote. You can't logically explain why running 1 Republican candidate vs. 4 would cause more people to vote Republican. Because it's illogical.

Wow, this is basic math. Think about it. Let me try again:

The democrats coalesced against a DNC pick and all other non-nutjob candidates backed off. Then they deluged Ossoff with tons of Hollywood and Wall Street Money, $8.1M just for one election.

The Dems didn't go for a runoff in Georgia, they were in it to win more than 50% of the vote and get the seat in round one, knowing in advance they couldn't flip the district without the divided Republican field, and an extremely well-funded candidate who practically ran as a Republican, yet they still failed to win.

The new narrative is how their one candidate against two Republicans with double digit support and two more with just under 10%, but still not getting the required majority of them, is a victory.

joeyjojojunior says

Care to wager on that one? "destroyed" = lose by 10+ pts, right? Why don't you put some money on that one?

I'll put 10 "I told you sos" down on Ossoff losing the election (period).

joeyjojojunior says

Except it isn't. It's an indication of the current feeling of US voters. And based on the special elections to date, the country has a highly positive Dem bent.

But still can't get enough votes needed to win! (Political Science Academics and Researchers sometimes call this phenomenon "Losing").
joeyjojojunior says

Except it isn't. It's an indication of the current feeling of US voters. And based on the special elections to date, the country has a highly positive Dem bent.

Yep. Like losing Ohio by 8-points, and having Wisconsin (Dem since 1988) and Pennsylvania (since 1992) flip away from the Democrats?

Florida, that went for Obama twice?

Oh, in which post-November election did they win seats? In Kansas the Democrat was 7 points behind the replacement (not incumbent) Republican candidate. I call a 7-point spread a pretty strong margin of victory. Also, the only area that went for the Democrat was Witchita, with all the surrounding areas going Republican. Meaning, the already blue became "Bluer" - but that may not win new seats (or the 2020 Presidency).

joeyjojojunior says

Once again, I'll remind you that they won GA. by 30 pts. You somehow keep forgetting that one.

Nope. That was not a typical "most votes wins" election, he needed 50%+ to win. He'll have a normal majority wins election soon, and lose.

Booger says

Poll: 67% Of Americans Say The Democrats Are Out Of Touch With Their Concerns

Yep. Where Trannies urinate is less important than Jobs in Small Town USA. Who woulda thunk it? Don't these people understand that monoculturalism is a horrible disease that takes precedence over the Economic Conditions faced by the native Working Class? That not enough Women is STEM is a looming crisis?

joeyjojojunior says

Are you admitting Trump's close relationship with Wall St.? Or are you still in the River in Egypt?

I doubt a Billionaire who spent $66M of his own money to run needs to kowtow to Wall Street.

You'll also notice he was greatly outraised by Hillary, whose well oiled machine sucked cash from Wall Street donors.

I provided you with evidence that Bankster Buddy Obama, who outraised McCain and had Citigroup and JP Morgan folks working on his transition team to pick key personnel.

Why couldn't Obama regulate Wall St.?

"Obama’s 2009 White House summit with finance titans, in which the president warned that only he was standing "between you and the pitchforks"
http://www.newsweek.com/why-cant-obama-bring-wall-street-justice-65009

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Wow, this is basic math. Think about it. Let me try again:

It is basic math--not sure how you can't understand. 4 Republicans that represented the whole spectrum of Republican ideals got less than 52% of the vote, but somehow you think 1 candidate that represents a much smaller set of Republican views will get MORE votes? Really?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'll put 10 "I told you sos" down on Ossoff losing the election (period).

And the backtracking has already started. I'm guessing it will continue as the election gets closer... Soon it will be--I never said he'd win, just that it will be close. Then--of course Ossoff won, I just can't believe how close it was...

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Yep. Like losing Ohio by 8-points, and having Wisconsin (Dem since 1988) and Pennsylvania (since 1992) flip away from the Democrats?

Florida, that went for Obama twice?

bwahahaha. Now you're talking about the Presidential election?? Try to keep up. We're talking about current sentiment--not 2016. Newsflash--things have changed a lot since Trump was inaugurated.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

But still can't get enough votes needed to win!

Once again--last I checked, 48 beats 19.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I call a 7-point spread a pretty strong margin of victory

Except the generic Republican typically wins by almost 30 pts. Dems outperformed the typical election by 20+ pts there.

Booger says

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/poll-67-of-americans-say-the-democrats-are-out-of-touch-with-their-concerns/

Poll: 67% Of Americans Say The Democrats Are Out Of Touch With Their Concerns

And 62% say Republicans are out of touch with their concerns.

Ironman says

Last I checked, this was called LOSING

You ought to check again then. The candidate who gets the most votes in an election is called the winner. And wins the election. That's pretty much the definition of winning an election.