Summations Only

If the US holds sway overseas then we can change things in our own national interests. In the post WW II era, the US has been a largely stabilizing force (with a few missteps) on the world stage after decades of atrocious and costly wars that spanned the globe.What would the world look like if the US abandoned this role? Perhaps there would be other major players that would step up and fill that role (e.g. France, UK) in a way that aligned with US values. There could have also been other less desirable nations that stepped forward, such as Russia or China.Perhaps 100 years ago we could have argued for US isolationism, but I don't think that can be argued anymore. What we have is an international "Game of Thrones", and the one way to guarantee a loss is to not play.

It is less racism and more tribalism. They are against people who aren't rednecks. Say, for instance, that white supremacists take DNA tests to see what their ancestry is. Imagine if some of that DNA turns out to be African? That acutally happened:When White Nationalists Get DNA Tests Revealing African Ancestry - The AtlanticThey find excuses as to why that DNA might be there, and fellow white supremacists are fine with it. What matters is that they adhere to the same beliefs, and that they can pass for being white.

The only real response we have is to continue with the policy of mutually assured destruction, the same policy that got us through the Cold War. The silver lining on this rain cloud is that we probably won't have to fight in any proxy wars with NK.The only way that NK will move towards disarmament is if China pressures them to. Economic sanctions are only partially effective because China continues economic trade with NK in violation of those sanctions. If we could convince China that they could increase their regional prestige and leadership by disarming NK, perhaps we could see some movement in the right direction.IOW, there really isn't anything that the US can do, at least directly.

Pretty low, IMHO. The NK regime knows that war would mean an end to their rule, so they will avoid it at all costs. Their development of nuclear weapons is an attempt to prevent war and prevent other countries from invading. At the same time, they have to maintain the appearance that they are under constant threat of invasion in order to keep an iron grip on power. On top of that, China really doesn't want a war because it will mean 10's of millions of NK refugees flooding into China.The mistake Trump is making is helping the NK regime look like they are under threat from the US. All they are doing is playing into the propaganda.

Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump did. In every single election prior to this one, that would have been enough.When you boil it down, the election was won/lost on just a handful of votes per precinct in a few states (PA, MI). I would bet a lunch tab that if half the people who voted for third party candidates in those precincts had instead voted for Hillary that she would have won.

This is probably one of the poorest analogies I have come up with, but here it goes . . ."Liberals" who stuck their nose in the air and voted for a third party candidate are like a snotty 10 year old first baseman who starts arguing with the umpire about a call while kids are still rounding the bases and scoring. When the first baseman sees what has happened, he can only blame the umpire again. That's how I view the "Feel the Bern, but not the Blame" crowd.

I will stress again that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. The point of voting is whatever the voter decides it is. If they want to use their vote as punitive punishment for a perceived slight, then that is their right. If they want to use their vote to help get Trump elected, then that is their right.However, they can't come back and act as if they had nothing to do with Trump winning, or that they truly thought Jill Stein or Gary "What's Aleppo?" Johnson were a better option than Clinton. Did they think that Stein or Johnson were a better option than Trump? If so, their vote was worse than a waste. Their vote resulted in someone even worse than Clinton, Stein, or Johnson being elected.

Protecting and improving the ACA in the short term is a winner for the DNC. Medicare for all won't get passed until someone else is holding the VETO stamp in the White House, so it makes Medicare For All a possible argument in 2020. Even then, government run healthcare may not do well with moderate Democrats and independents since it is an easy target for Republicans to campaign against (see Tea Party movement and their big wins in 2010).Overall, if Dems want to win they are going to have to move towards the center on social issues, IMHO. Society is moving really, really fast and it makes rural America, and Rust Belt America specifically, nervous about where the country is going. They want to know that they haven't been forgotten as once persecuted groups find themselves on equal footing. If there is one thing Hillary showed us is that you can't win the election by relying on a 3 million vote lead from urban America.

What I am saying is that it isn't a zero sum game. There are people in the US who think that giving someone else rights takes rights away from them, as if there is a Right's Pie that only has a limited number of slices to dole out. We need to show them that this isn't the case. To use an analogy, it's a bit like an older sibling being jealous of the new baby because of all the attention it is getting. We need to sit them down and explain that there is enough love in the family to go around. On the other side they perceive favoritism for minorities and urban ideas that they don't necessarily agree with. Democrats need to work towards more inclusiveness which doesn't require giving up on ideals of equality and protection of minorities. That isn't my advice. If they are being conned by the Republicans, then Democrats are doing a poor job of getting their message out to those communities. Or point out that most of those jobs are low paying and labor intensive jobs that they don't want anyway. I don't see a great outcry among white Americans about how hard it is to get a job picking avocadoes.

I think that what we are seeing is someone who has never had to worry about money a day in his life, and lacks the empathy required to understand how it would be if he had to worry about money or the basic necessities of life. IOW, he doesn't give a shit and has never had to.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

If I am allowed to further strain your analogy, it would be a bit like saying the Falcons were not good enough to win the Superbowl even though they scored more points than the Patriots.I know that the President is elected by the Electoral College and all that stuff, but it is hard to ignore the feeling that there is something inherently unfair about the process. In the last two decades there have been two cases where Democrats have garnered more votes and still lost. To use your analogy, it's as if the Falcons have to be ahead by two touchdowns in order to be crowned champs while the Patriots simply have to be within 14 points in order to win.But this is really just bitching and moaning about a process that was already in place. However, it has resulted in a situation where the sitting President didn't even get a plurality of votes, much less a majority.

The electoral college nearly guarantees that less populated states (i.e. rural) have more influence in the electoral college than more populated states (i.e. urban). There is an interesting chart in this article if you are interested. Therefore, the party that appeals to rural America will have an inherent edge when it comes to the electoral college.Could party affiliation flip between the Dems and Reps with respect to rural and urban America? I guess it could, but that doesn't change the facts in the reality we find ourselves in now. What we are arguing is:1. Is the cost of making the point worth it.
2. Is it a good point to begin with.As Percy said earlier, it is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

There was always a non-zero probability that voting for a 3rd party candidate would get Trump elected. Spending 5 seconds thinking about the situation would tell you that voting for Jill Stein was increasing Trump's chances of winning. It isn't. Boy, that was easy.

IOW, they knew the risk and they did it anyway. Instead of voting for a flawed Democrat they contributed to electing an incompetent Republican by voting for a candidate they really didn't want anyway. Good job!!Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

George HW Bush would disagree. I highly doubt that a significant portion of Bernie supporters would truly prefer Trump over Hillary, but I could be wrong.