- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
James Carville Says Liberals Should Admit They ‘Betrayed’ Trump Voters.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 6/20/25 at 8:53 pm
LINK
James Carville Says Liberals Should Admit They ‘Betrayed’ Trump Voters: ‘Democrats Acted Like These People Don’t Exist’
Whether you like him or not James typically tells it like it is
James Carville Says Liberals Should Admit They ‘Betrayed’ Trump Voters: ‘Democrats Acted Like These People Don’t Exist’
Whether you like him or not James typically tells it like it is
20
Posted on 6/20/25 at 8:55 pm to TutHillTiger
Screw that crazy old looking chimpanzee, wish he would stop wearing LSU shite..
Posted on 6/20/25 at 8:55 pm to TutHillTiger
No no he is full of shite and he is a disgrace to the great LSU institution. And a disgrace to America.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 8:55 pm to TutHillTiger
He's right in the sense that a lot of Trump voters were in fact moderates (or former dems) and the democrats failed to cater to this block of voters
The DNC has gone completely off the rails and has alienated a lot of voices that used to be sympathetic to some democratic talking points
The DNC has gone completely off the rails and has alienated a lot of voices that used to be sympathetic to some democratic talking points
Posted on 6/20/25 at 8:57 pm to TutHillTiger
He’s a loon and has talked shite about Trump supporters himself. By the way, the Dems have no plan or ideas and them ignoring us or attacking us does not matter.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:05 pm to TutHillTiger
He’s either a drunk or he has what Biden has.
Fool
Fool
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:06 pm to The Torch
He was on Fox News today and made a complete arse of himself.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:07 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Whether you like him or not James typically tells it like it is
I think you mean occasionally
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:08 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:Lol are you insane?
Whether you like him or not James typically tells it like it is
quote:Nevermind
TutHillTiger
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:09 pm to TutHillTiger
Carville is a creep, stop giving him and Crockett clicks....
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:18 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Carville Says
He's a rat jumping ship, trying to stay relevant.
Drag a dollar past a political analyst.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:22 pm to TutHillTiger
I remember him saying the Trump administration would collapse in 6’weeks. I think he said that in March. He’s a clown
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:23 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:
I remember him saying the Trump administration would collapse in 6’weeks. I think he said that in March. He’s a clown
He is no different than the instawhiners here who shriek at the first burp and then roll on to the next thing when the disaster they predicted doesn't hold.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:31 pm to TutHillTiger
He
tells
It
Like
It
Is
?
?
?
?
How many cups you in?
tells
It
Like
It
Is
?
?
?
?
How many cups you in?
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:37 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
James typically tells it like it is
No he doesn’t; he lies all the time. All through the election campaign he was saying he thought Kamala would win. He knew otherwise.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:37 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Whether you like him or not James typically tells it like it is
I disagree with a lot he says, but the same holds true for John Stewart and Bill Maher. All three of them are not afraid to discuss the emperor's new clothes that is the modern Democrat party.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 10:02 pm to TutHillTiger
"In 1992, Carville helped lead Bill Clinton to a win against George H. W. Bush in the presidential election."
--
Carville hasn't been relevant in 33 years!
--
Carville hasn't been relevant in 33 years!
Posted on 6/20/25 at 10:07 pm to tadman
I am talking about when speaking about their party. This board is basically political light. Almost no one on here has ever held any political office, statewide elected position, served any party as representative in any election, or been a campaign fundraiser, manager, lobbyist or anything, and I bet none of these people know James. I have always liked him as he is fun to have a drink with just like Haley Barbour is.
He hates the libtards as much as any one. Bill Clinton was the most conservative president we have had in my lifetime based upon action not talk and that was all because of James Carville and his push to put Democrats to the middle.
Welfare reform, a balanced budget,
As the WSJ said: No GOP administration, including Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, & Trump, has attempted to achieve balanced budgets & conservative spending & fiscal responsibility. Even WSJ noted that Clinton administration spending & policies were more conservative than that of the Republican Like most conservatives, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president when he was in office. Especially after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, we all dreamed of the paradise that would be ours if we could just get a Republican in the White House. We could fix the budget and the tax system, rein in the bureaucracy, neuter the trade unions and trial lawyers, and do all those other things that could never be done because Democrats were always blocking the way.
On this basis, conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.
Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.
More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to Like most conservatives, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president when he was in office. Especially after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, we all dreamed of the paradise that would be ours if we could just get a Republican in the White House. We could fix the budget and the tax system, rein in the bureaucracy, neuter the trade unions and trial lawyers, and do all those other things that could never be done because Democrats were always blocking the way.
It was foolish to think like this, of course, just as it is foolish for Democrats to think that every mistake President George W. Bush has made would have been avoided if Al Gore had won in 2000. Circumstances beyond any president's control determine much of what he does in office. If Mr. Gore had won, there would have still been a recession in 2001 that would have caused much of the surplus to disappear, even if there had been no tax cuts. And in all likelihood, the attacks on the World Trade Center would have happened, too.
Yet presidents are not impotent. Sometimes their impact comes from what they don't do, rather than what they do. Sometimes the most important thing a president can do is resist the demand or temptation to act when the right course is to do nothing. And sometimes a president is forced to do things against his will. In the end, however, a president can be judged only by what actually happens on his watch; not by what he thought or intended or by what he might have done but wasn't able to.
On this basis, conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.
Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.
More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.
Like most conservatives, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president when he was in office. Especially after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, we all dreamed of the paradise that would be ours if we could just get a Republican in the White House. We could fix the budget and the tax system, rein in the bureaucracy, neuter the trade unions and trial lawyers, and do all those other things that could never be done because Democrats were always blocking the way.
It was foolish to think like this, of course, just as it is foolish for Democrats to think that every mistake President George W. Bush has made would have been avoided if Al Gore had won in 2000. Circumstances beyond any president's control determine much of what he does in office. If Mr. Gore had won, there would have still been a recession in 2001 that would have caused much of the surplus to disappear, even if there had been no tax cuts. And in all likelihood, the attacks on the World Trade Center would have happened, too.
Yet presidents are not impotent. Sometimes their impact comes from what they don't do, rather than what they do. Sometimes the most important thing a president can do is resist the demand or temptation to act when the right course is to do nothing. And sometimes a president is forced to do things against his will. In the end, however, a president can be judged only by what actually happens on his watch; not by what he thought or intended or by what he might have done but wasn't able to.
On this basis, conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.
Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.
More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.
But it’s easy to just do what they are told and a lot easier than actually thinking, Lord Forbid. We are a country of sheeple and blow hards, where apparently getting anything actually done is against the constitution.
He hates the libtards as much as any one. Bill Clinton was the most conservative president we have had in my lifetime based upon action not talk and that was all because of James Carville and his push to put Democrats to the middle.
Welfare reform, a balanced budget,
As the WSJ said: No GOP administration, including Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, & Trump, has attempted to achieve balanced budgets & conservative spending & fiscal responsibility. Even WSJ noted that Clinton administration spending & policies were more conservative than that of the Republican Like most conservatives, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president when he was in office. Especially after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, we all dreamed of the paradise that would be ours if we could just get a Republican in the White House. We could fix the budget and the tax system, rein in the bureaucracy, neuter the trade unions and trial lawyers, and do all those other things that could never be done because Democrats were always blocking the way.
On this basis, conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.
Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.
More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to Like most conservatives, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president when he was in office. Especially after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, we all dreamed of the paradise that would be ours if we could just get a Republican in the White House. We could fix the budget and the tax system, rein in the bureaucracy, neuter the trade unions and trial lawyers, and do all those other things that could never be done because Democrats were always blocking the way.
It was foolish to think like this, of course, just as it is foolish for Democrats to think that every mistake President George W. Bush has made would have been avoided if Al Gore had won in 2000. Circumstances beyond any president's control determine much of what he does in office. If Mr. Gore had won, there would have still been a recession in 2001 that would have caused much of the surplus to disappear, even if there had been no tax cuts. And in all likelihood, the attacks on the World Trade Center would have happened, too.
Yet presidents are not impotent. Sometimes their impact comes from what they don't do, rather than what they do. Sometimes the most important thing a president can do is resist the demand or temptation to act when the right course is to do nothing. And sometimes a president is forced to do things against his will. In the end, however, a president can be judged only by what actually happens on his watch; not by what he thought or intended or by what he might have done but wasn't able to.
On this basis, conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.
Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.
More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.
Like most conservatives, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president when he was in office. Especially after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, we all dreamed of the paradise that would be ours if we could just get a Republican in the White House. We could fix the budget and the tax system, rein in the bureaucracy, neuter the trade unions and trial lawyers, and do all those other things that could never be done because Democrats were always blocking the way.
It was foolish to think like this, of course, just as it is foolish for Democrats to think that every mistake President George W. Bush has made would have been avoided if Al Gore had won in 2000. Circumstances beyond any president's control determine much of what he does in office. If Mr. Gore had won, there would have still been a recession in 2001 that would have caused much of the surplus to disappear, even if there had been no tax cuts. And in all likelihood, the attacks on the World Trade Center would have happened, too.
Yet presidents are not impotent. Sometimes their impact comes from what they don't do, rather than what they do. Sometimes the most important thing a president can do is resist the demand or temptation to act when the right course is to do nothing. And sometimes a president is forced to do things against his will. In the end, however, a president can be judged only by what actually happens on his watch; not by what he thought or intended or by what he might have done but wasn't able to.
On this basis, conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.
Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.
More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.
But it’s easy to just do what they are told and a lot easier than actually thinking, Lord Forbid. We are a country of sheeple and blow hards, where apparently getting anything actually done is against the constitution.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 10:08 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
James typically tells it like it is
Typically……no.
If Carville, as a matter of habit, told the truth…..he wouldn’t be a Democrat.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 10:08 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Whether you like him or not James typically tells it like it is
I don't drink much anymore, maybe 3-4 times a year. Today I worked my arse off on a project at home and did something our contractor said probably couldn't be done so I'm a few beers into the night.
That said, even with a slight beer-goggling I can see that's not right.
quote:
Carville argued for a less aggressive approach when trying to communicate with Trump voters turned off by the Democratic Party.
“Don’t come back and say we acted like working-class, particularly working-class non-college whites, were not part of our too-cool-for-school group. There were some real, and some real high end people, that kind of bought into that shite,” he said. “And, you know, I can see it, but the best thing to do is not punch him in the mouth, but to say, ‘You know, man, I could hear where you’re coming from, and you just got betrayed. And we betrayed you somewhat and we now have learned our lesson.’ I think that’s the best way.”
Swing and a miss, Jimmy!
Your party has moved so far to the Left that it didn't just "betray" "working-class non-college whites," it's betrayed most of the country. Allow me to elucidate:
-Your party turned away from blacks by adopting illegals as your cause du jour
---Blacks hold a disproportionate amount of lower-end jobs. Your boy Biden and his toady Mayorkas all but ignored the problem of illegals coming in. They flew them all over the country and housed them in hotels, then allowed them to take the low-end jobs from blacks. You can't climb the income ladder if you're kicked off of it by someone who's not even supposed to be here.
---Moving illegals around the country, the Biden administration pushed them predominantly into black neighborhoods. Ask the blacks in Chicago how they liked that (hint: Harris lost 3 points of the black vote... IN CHICAGO).
-Your party turned away from science and common-fricking-sense by supporting Transgenderism as a wholesome mindset and lifestyle
---You ignored that groomers began using this an entry to discussing sex with young children, seeking to confuse them about sex and sexuality in order to take advantage of that confusion
---You played along with the nonsensical idea that "what you feel is what you are", going so far as to give these mentally unstable people a platform with which to spread their dysphoria as somehow being sane
---You championed adult men being in women's bathrooms, locker rooms and sports where they can take advantage of young women and girls
-Your party very publicly and brazenly sought to create any charges they could in order to keep Trump from running for President.
---Raiding Mar-a-lago
---Trump/Russia hoax
---Zelensky phone call hoax
-Your party flat-out lied about the mental decline of Joe Biden while he was a sitting President, despite the obvious signs everyone around the world saw
-Your party's anti-Trump rhetoric became so heated that he had not one but TWO assassination attempts, and none of you changed your tone for long
-Part of your party's platform was that Trump was "a threat to democracy" while your party denied its members the ability to vote for a candidate of their choosing when Joe stepped down, forcing the Harris on them
-Your party gleefully supported the election of many DAs who flat-out refused to prosecute violent crimes
-Many in your party happily supported the Defund the Police movement, those who didn't just remained silent
I could go on, but there's a character limit.
The only people who haven't been "betrayed" by this are the party elites making these choices and the party loyalists who will gladly drink whatever Kool-Aid they are given.
That's your party, Jimbo, and a simple "I'm sorry" just won't work because they can see how insincere it would be.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News