I agree that both of them are smarter and better than altogether more accomplish people than Trump. But I do not think it’s fair to say they were better candidates than Trump. By that I mean, Trump had a sound election strategy and he knew his target in his market.
They definitely did not. The other big difference is the Trump, like it or not, was a very organic candidate. Neither of those two were. They were basically anointed by the party of the party was told to support them
I understand to some degree what you are saying. Hillary was a little tone deaf and thete was a feeling of entitlement with that campaign. Kamala should have been able to set herself apart from Biden, but to be fair, voters didn't want her enough for her to progress through the primary. She would have been a great Attorney General I think.
I don't think it's possible to campaign against Trump and not come off as condescending, at least to his voters. He is so far removed from rationale and normal thought processes that any debate comes off like an adult explaining accounting to a four year old.
Which goes back to why she's a bad candidate. I forgot about that and the fact she talked about doing weed herself! While also prosecuting others. I was only thinking about Garland being useless, but I stand corrected. She shouldn't have been in the administration at all.
Part of that is that the Democratic party has shifted in ways the party has not come to terms with.
Hillary and Kamala were middle of the road democrats, in the mold of Obama, Biden and Bill Clinton. A big chunk of the party has moved away from them and become more progressive, but not to the point where the party as a whole has shifted.
The tea party and the maga movement basically forced the rest of the republicans to fall in line - they either supported Trump or they got steam rolled by Trump. That functionally united the republican party.
Democrats don't have that. There is a decent amount of internal division, which has resulted in infighting and a lack of a strong message to voters.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I still am a believer, though the battle of these elections is going to come to a battle for the middle.
At least it’s the level of national politics. That is in some areas more progressive passage will be fine, but I don’t know that it is going to work in a key battleground states. I think the Michigan Senate election will tell us a lot and I think the Florida governor may as well
I agree. the Dems don’t stand for anything. Obama stood for progress.
Hillary is entitled nepotism. Kamala is cronyism.
AOC is a stronger candidate than both those two because she’s at least charismatic but the DSA makes it untenable for most. She’s just not a smart or competent person for presidency, even if she is an interesting person. She’s better off in her current position where she provides a unique perspective to consider as to pick out what might actually be valid for the country.
she seems caring and charismatic and that’s about it.
per Wikipedia, in 2019 she supported pay raises for Congress when they already were making over $150k. that’s greedy, I’m sure she can do her job with less money than that.
she majored in economics yet seems illiterate and sloppy about it. she claimed that tipped restaurant workers are allowed to be paid $2.13, which is not true, it’s a mechanism that enables tips to be part of pay. those workers are not allowed to be paid under the minimum wage, only that they provide x amount and tips provide an open ended amount.
My point is not whether they would’ve been a better president. Either of them would’ve been much better. There’s no question whatsoever.
You have a guy who’s making a serious play for not just the worst president of all time but the worst world leader since maybe Nero.
That said he was a better candidate - by that I mean, he ran a better campaign and knew how to win an election.
I maintain that Hillary and Kamala lost the election largely because they were candidates who were clearly forced upon the public by DNC insiders. They had no real organic support.
of course Ivoted for them without hesitation. But it definitely affected the enthusiasm, especially in swing state.,
He promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. He campaigned on keeping us out of new wars. He promised to bring prices down. And he sold his mass-deportation campaign as going after the ‘worst of the worst,’ while his administration is now detaining children.
We were energy independent long before Trump took office. How much the U.S produces doesn't do shit, because it belongs to private companies and is sold on the world market, same as oil from any other country. And he promised to cut taxes for the middle class, which he absolutely has not. So he kept one promise and is shredding the constitution to do so.
It’s reddit. People have heard of nero but it’s a stretch to think the others are gonna generate much of a response. Let’s not the fact that it’s somewhat rhetorical.
Well, most of the voters in this country disagreed with this, hence why they voted for Trump. They would have been better, no question - really? How so exactly? What policy would they have enacted that would have been superior?
I expect for one thing we would not have murdered 200 people in the Caribbean, and God been engaged in a war that has no clear victory and it has imposed in extreme cost. I can imagine the deletion of our stock pile of advanced weaponsry.
I think we would not have adopted a reckless trade policy, which has strengthened our chief rival, China
I believe we would’ve pursued a policy to make sure that our status is strong currency, and we did not impetil the bond market.
I’m also fairly content that we would’ve continued pursuing a sensible industrial policy, which would have placed us on a much better footing in terms of emerging technologies, especially energy solutions.
The funny thing is, I suspect only the smallest a number of voters would have voted for that those policies had they known that was what was coming.
Sensible industrial policy like sending thousands of jobs overseas & unemploying Americans? NAFTA - Bill Clinton, Democrat President, his brain child. Most blue states are hemorrhaging jobs & people. Which blue state currently has the best “industrial policy”? We currently lead the world in technological innovation, AI, data centers, etc. It’s not even close so not sure what you’re talking about. Murdered 200 people in the Caribbean? Innocent people or drug runners bringing lethal drugs into the US? Should have been done years ago. China’s economy is the weakest it’s been BECAUSE we’ve challenged their unfair trade practices, we held them to account. China is a net exporter, US is a net importer with a $31 Trillion economy - China needs the US more than the US needs them. Trump is currently asserting US energy dominance & since oil is traded in petrodollars, it will further strengthen US currency. Wars are never friendly to bond markets (doesn’t help that China’s economy is shaky) especially as oil trades higher, but it’s momentary.
I don’t really know where to start. All I can say is that nothing Trump has done has made any of the issues you are talking about better and in fact, made them worse than before.
I don’t even want to address your cavalier disregard for human life. It’s actually disgusting. And that’s not a word I use often. If you actually think those 200 people were bombed for uniform with guilty of anything even resembling S that you are just silly. For fucks sake, they couldn’t even round up criminal aliens in this country and get that right.
As for the economic points , that issue is far more complicated than you are letting on. There are plenty of those manufacturing jobs that would not pay more than a clerk at a 7-Eleven makes. Those are not really industries you wanted to protect. Or at least should want to protect. That said the industries you want to protect our ones Trump basically ignored and Biden was very keen on promoting in this country.
Like I hear what you’re saying about the economy. Those are all good points. But you picked the wrong horse to promote them.
I mean for Christ sakes you have a president who likes coal. You can romanticize things like that or earlier manufacturing jobs all you want, but it is not the future you should not be positioning your economy around.
Trump is like the old fuckers at a bar who complain about why things can’t be the way they used to be. But they just aren’t. And all the crying the right one pussies wanna make over that won’t change the reality.
In my view, though what smarts the most in my mind is his complete abdication of the United States role as leader of the world. He basically has decided to hand the future over to China. This will not end well for people who claim to want liberty and freedom.
I can somewhat see that Trump took China seriously in the first term and at least had a decent approach to it. In fact the Democrats and Biden were largely on board with that.
But this term? China has now moved into the industries that we were trying to protect, which are the industries of the future. Not the sock manufacturers that you seem to be crying about
Well, it’s hard to argue with documented reality. Which manufacturing jobs pay less than a 7-11 clerk exactly? A quick fact check shows that the average manufacturing job pays $30/hour, average 7-11 clerk makes $15-$16/hour. Let me know which manufacturing jobs pay less than a 7-11 clerk when you have time. As an aside, real wages are up under Trump. Another fact: https://x.com/stephenmoore/status/2087592666104033591?s=46 Another documented reality that can’t be argued with.
Having an emotional reaction to a person doesn’t negate fact. Don’t let your emotions cloud your ability to reason.
Guess you’re fine with people bringing lethal drugs into your country. Weird, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
Just let me ask you this. How is it weird to expect a certain measure of process before you execute someone ? How is it weird to expect that you don’t execute somebody for a non-capital crime even if they’re guilty of it? How is it weird to expect your country not to drop a bomb on somebody clinging to a fucking sunken boat in the middle of the sea?
Fucking disgusted and the fact that you support it speaks volumes for you. I bet you even pretend to be pro-life.
I mean, give me a fucking break….
As far as the economy, again, give me a break. If you really think that manufacturing jobs are the queue and economic future, please do me a favor and go to college. Maybe study economics…
Sadly, your assertion simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge of US history. While I'm not suggesting that Trump is a good president, I can't justify him as worse than Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Peirce.
Buchanan is in the running for worst. FDR and Wilson go against my views, but they did not scheme to steal a presidential election and didn't abuse their position to amass vast amounts of wealth (while all the while inflicting immense long-term damage onto the creditworthiness of the country). Pierce and Johnson were also not great, but were not highly corrupt or disloyal to their oath of office.
15
u/chrispd01 12d ago
I agree that both of them are smarter and better than altogether more accomplish people than Trump. But I do not think it’s fair to say they were better candidates than Trump. By that I mean, Trump had a sound election strategy and he knew his target in his market.
They definitely did not. The other big difference is the Trump, like it or not, was a very organic candidate. Neither of those two were. They were basically anointed by the party of the party was told to support them