Hillary certainly isn't an idiot. I think she knew exactly what she was doing as Secretary of State. That's what scared me.

"Not a racist game show host who loves sexual assault" is pretty good to me.

We're all devolving into comparison arguments. In a positivist sense, what did people see in her that they liked?

Also, if Rubio or Kasich had won, I'm not sure if Republicans would've carried the Midwest states

She cared about the environment. She wanted to make healthcare and college more affordable and remove debt on student loans.

She didn't give half a shit about the environment. She would have pulled a Nixon and cared about it for the sake of votes. She would not have changed a thing about healthcare, given that Obama had already done the dirty work, and would not have touched college loans unless Bernie and the progressives got all up her ass about it during the term, which I'm sure they would have. She was a terrible, terrible candidate.

She was still better than Trump, though, so she should have been elected.

The Democrats don't have a very deep bench. They've lost thousands of congressional, senate, and state legislative seats over the past 8 disastrous years of Obama. I guess she was the best they had which is really sad if you really think about it.

I thought ending Nafta day 1 and ending sanctuary cities was his big thing. Why... are there still both

Hillary should have won because despite her shortcomings, of which there are many:

Donald Trump is a terrible human being with little moral character who likely has sexually assaulted multiple women, has little self control verbally and likely mentally, has business connections with such a large number of people it's impossible to vet them all, he is a serial liar, has little to no regard for the constitution, has zero understanding of economics... do i need to go on?

but apparently Hillary was too shitty to overcome this. Dear Democrats, put forward a better candidate. and no, that does not mean a crazy socialist... who is an outsider!!! even though he is the perfect stereotype of a Washington insider...

however, the popular vote doesn't actually matter. remember the electoral college? if you want it gone, then campaign for that, but the 2016 election is perfectly legitimate under the rules BOTH parties agreed upon.

There are plenty of solid Democrats who could have been viable in 2016--if not for Hillary Clinton. She sucked all the air (and money) out of the room. No one really dared challenge her except those who were very different from her.

Anyone would have beaten Hillary in the general election. Even Jeb Bush could have done it.

^ Please clap ND made a funny

JEB!

https://i.redd.it/z386c1a1piwx.png
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/246/718/933.jpg

I think I would have voted for Darrell Castle if Jeb was the GOP nominee.

If the main options were a Bush and a Clinton, there'd be a smaller turnout and a lot more third party votes.

"I thought ending Nafta day 1 and ending sanctuary cities was his big thing. Why... are there still both"

Nafta is currently being undermined by Trump starting a trade war with Canada.
He recently announced plans to place tarrifs on lumber that Canada ships into the U.S. citing unfair subsidization by the canadian government, http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/trumps-timber-tariff-will-have-a-big-impact-on-lumber-futures-market-housing-stocks.html.

In response, Canada has threatened to possibly prevent U.S. coal manufacturers from shipping their coal to Asia through west coast Canadian ports, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/27/15444540/british-columbia-coal-exports.

He has also been attempting to defund sanctuary cities of federal funds, thought he court system has been blocking these attempts, http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/07/us/texas-bans-sanctuary-cities/.

An executive order can end Nafta in one afternoon.

Thats a big difference between ending it and threatening to undermine one member of it.

Also texas ending sanctuary cities is probably the most ridiculous example. Take the reddest state you can think of and use them as proof. Lol. If you told me California or Illinios ended sanctuary cities id literally grasp my chest and keel over dead from shock.

Does Texas even have sanctuary cities? My god im a legal citizen and you couldnt PAY me to wanna live in texas

Mexico is also at the negotiating table to set up a different plan for NAFTA. The only winners under NAFTA are business elites and Canadians.

And Kmart, Sears, IBM, Chrysler, GE, and a handful of other manufacturers but ey who cares. Fuck em

And Mexicans, Canadians and Americans, but eh forget them too

That's not universal. Products are cheaper, but Mexican farmers are out of business, American businesses prefer their workers in Mexico, and most jobs in Mexico are for American businesses who don't give a shit about them. The idea of NAFTA, I like, but I can't deny the reasons why people hate how it stands.

https://twitter.com/WhitePeepsDo/status/793643526768603136

They need to do more about sanctuary cities honestly. We shouldn't be rewarding illegal behavior.

Sanctuary cities vs Tenth Amendment.

Discuss.

Hey Brainbomb how about you die (sorry if that is "too offensive" mods) Texas is great you dirtbag (sorry if that is "too offensive" mods). We can split into 5 states at any time. The rest of the nation should be groveling at the feet of Texas. We reign supreme. WE REIGN SUPREME.

Hey Daniel, I just wanted to offer advice. Move out of Texas.they have first rate freedom, second rate legal system, and a third rate football team (cowboys) honestly it's the most inhospitable and worthless chunk of the US right after New Jersey

Lol but taxes are great here especially if you are in the property biz