Donald Trump 2018

[bad_teammate 13182]

Free tuition is not just free tuition to women's studies (Brisket, "YOU PATCHOULI FUCK!") , but free tuition to any post K-12 educational pursuit that the individual feels is best for their future. That might be women's studies, but it also might be computer science or drafting or electrical engineering or teaching or an associate's in a technical trade. The purpose of free tuition is pretty simple: Ensure that we have a nation of highly trained and highly educated people which will benefit both our democracy and our economy.

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Leftist purity tests gave us Trump and immigrant concentration camps. 

This is insanity.

8 years of Obama whipped the right into a Trumpian frenzy. Are you seriously arguing that the Obama years were a "leftist purity test"? By what standards?

[bad_teammate 13182]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

And when it's free for those that want it then millions will want it who don't need it. We will all pay for unnecessary tuition costs that the graduate (or dropout) never utilizes after leaving school.

Tell us what we "need", strong daddy.

[wildcat09 29309]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Free tuition is not just free tuition to women's studies (Brisket, "YOU PATCHOULI FUCK!") , but free tuition to any post K-12 educational pursuit that the individual feels is best for their future. That might be women's studies, but it also might be computer science or drafting or electrical engineering or teaching or an associate's in a technical trade. The purpose of free tuition is pretty simple: Ensure that we have a nation of highly trained and highly educated people which will benefit both our democracy and our economy.

This is insanity.

8 years of Obama whipped the right into a Trumpian frenzy. Are you seriously arguing that the Obama years were a "leftist purity test"? By what standards?

I wasn't talking about the Obama years. I was talking about the dipshit leftists and left-leaning voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania who looked at Hillary and Trump and decided to vote for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

[VRHorn 718]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Free tuition is not just free tuition to women's studies (Brisket, "YOU PATCHOULI FUCK!") , but free tuition to any post K-12 educational pursuit that the individual feels is best for their future. That might be women's studies, but it also might be computer science or drafting or electrical engineering or teaching or an associate's in a technical trade. The purpose of free tuition is pretty simple: Ensure that we have a nation of highly trained and highly educated people which will benefit both our democracy and our economy.

This is insanity.

8 years of Obama whipped the right into a Trumpian frenzy. Are you seriously arguing that the Obama years were a "leftist purity test"? By what standards?

Not to speak for Wildcat, but the purity test lead to Bernie voters staying home or voting for Stein or Trump. That is what caused Trump (among many other things).

The Obama years are not the issue, dude.

[Huckleberry 32782]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Tell us what we "need", strong daddy.

A young man who wants to be an auto mechanic does not need to attend a 4-year university, and certainly doesn't need to have it paid for by taxpayers. A young woman who wants to be a welder (I actually know a high school girl who welds and is considering that profession, it's awesome) also does not need to attend a 4-year university. It's a pretty simple concept, most people who aren't just playing a shtick on the internet are easily able to understand it.

[bad_teammate 13182]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I wasn't talking about the Obama years. I was talking about the dipshit leftists and left-leaning voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania who looked at Hillary and Trump and decided to vote for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

Hillary did not lose those states because of Jill Stein or Bernie Bros. The left voted for Hillary right in line with all historical precedents. The left was more loyal to Hillary in the 2016 general election than Hillary voters were to Obama in the 2008 election.

[DixonHur 11279]

1 minute ago, VRHorn said:

The Obama years are not the issue, dude.

The Obama policies may not have lead to Trump, but the Obama skin tone certainly did

[bad_teammate 13182]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

A young man who wants to be an auto mechanic does not need to attend a 4-year university, and certainly doesn't need to have it paid for by taxpayers. A young woman who wants to be a welder (I actually know a high school girl who welds and is considering that profession, it's awesome) also does not need to attend a 4-year university. It's a pretty simple concept, most people who aren't just playing a shtick on the internet are easily able to understand it.

Who said that it was only about 4-year universities? Please answer that question. (You won't)

[Eastwood 4394]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This. Leftist purity tests gave us Trump and immigrant concentration camps. Voting isn't about electing someone who represents your values, it's about electing someone to govern. Ideally that will be someone who represents my values, but when the choices are between a corporate shill and Hitler, I'll swallow my fucking pride and go with the corporate shill.

Yeah, Chuckie has been spot on. All or nothing politics gave us what we have today. It needs to die. Bring everybody on board who wants to help remove the filth existing in public office today, fix party politics afterward. This holier than thou sentiment that is persisting in spite of the ebb of the political scene now flowing towards Trump's removal is absolutely baffling. Set aside differences until then. Some of the less rational leftists are saying they don't need the moderates and that is hilarious. All hands on deck are needed for the task at hand. This is a tremendous opportunity. Don't ruin it with "I told you so" and "all or nothing" politics.

[bad_teammate 13182]

Just now, Eastwood said:

This holier than thou sentiment that is persisting in spite of the ebb of the political scene now flowing towards Trump's removal is absolutely baffling.

Voting in a Democratic blue wave in 2018 literally cannot lead to Trump's removal.

The only way Trump can be removed is if Republicans vote to impeach and remove.

I don't know why this needs to be re-explained so many times.

[Huckleberry 32782]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Who said that it was only about 4-year universities? Please answer that question. (You won't)

The poster to whom I initially responded, who stated

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

78% support free public university tuition

That is what the discussion was about when you decided to inject your particular brand of LOOK AT ME into the middle of the conversation. What were you saying about how I "won't" be able to answer the question?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23366]

There are just so many facts about Hillary everyone conveniently neglects with the whole, “Hillary was a terrible candidate” narrative.

1.  Nearly every single investigation into her was politically motivated and complete bullshit that produced no criminal charges.

2.  She had at least two foreign governments running covert military operations against her and helping her opponent (Russia and Israel).

3. Objectively, she was qualified for the office. She possessed the education, demeanor, and experience to be POTUS.

4. As far as her character goes, look at the points in her career when she stuck her neck out for something, consequences be damned. (Healthcare, standing up to Putin, and China are just three off the top of my head).

5. What policy was she going to implement that would have destroyed the country or even harmed it? Not a damn thing.

6. The reason people hate Hillary is mostly because they’ve been conditioned over time to hate her for idiotic reasons that have nothing to do with her ability to govern.

7. But it’s the democrats fault for putting forth Hillary Clinton because half of America is too fucking stupid to see through all the bullshit about her.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23411]

Just now, triplehorn said:

No, your derision and was not about anything so farcical.  It was you who was willing to bet a grand to back up your assertion there was no willful, knowledgable coordination between Trump and Putin's Russia in the attack on the 2016 election, right ?  That WAS you, right ?  And now it's the 25th Amendment?  Nothing to do with illegal Russian coordination, cash, and influence and Trump/GOP.  Got it.  But when TrumpCo is implicated under 18 USC 371 and not the 25th Amendment, it'll be all about dissolving our unsalvageable shithole country.  

Oh, I did mock all that shit. @MaybeACoordinator, you can google the Marshal of the Supreme Court one fairly easily.  You might have to include "Air Force One" in your search terms.

And triple, I would still offer some form of a slightly modified version, although some odds are probably appropriate at this point.  I indicated early on that Manafort was very likely to have some dirt come to light based on his past.  And Stone was reckless and suspect.  I dismissed Carter Page as a total imbecile, but indicated that there were a number of easy marks, useful idiots in the Trump campaign circus who had no fucking idea what they were doing or the potential ramifications. As I said upthread, I don't think that Trump himself is capable of coordinating with a paper bag, but do think that there are a number of angles that certain individuals within the Trump campaign could have been compromised by Russia, whether knowingly and willingly or not. I do think that, at this point, Trump's damaging and pervasive narcissistic personality disorder clearly renders him unfit, easily manipulated, and a major liability. Either his cabinet and those around him need to insist on the structure, controls, and behavioral modifications necessary to contain that pathology, or 25th amendment should be in play. 

[bad_teammate 13182]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

What were you saying about how I "won't" be able to answer the question?

78% of people supporting free public university tuition does not mean that they do not support free tuition for 2-year or trade schools

That is a completely disingenuous conclusion to draw.

[Chuckie Finster 22626]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How will electing a Dem Congress in 2018 "save our country"?

"who can help in 2018" accomplish what? Specifically, what?

It's almost as if Huckleberry is completely disingenuous.

This thread has devolved into pure absurdity.  "Save our country" might be a little strong, but are you genuinely asking what the benefits would be of a Democrat-led congress?  

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

Same.   Free university tuition is the worst idea to come out of the left in recent years.   I'm all for government-funded educational opportunities for the economically disadvantaged, but what we need to be doing is deemphasizing the need for a university education and encouraging more people to go to trade schools.   And our resources would be better used on early childhood education and child care for working poor parents, which will do a lot more good than free college.  In my opinion. 

This argument is getting a bit tired, because simply having a college education is still going to give you access to higher earnings than trade schools. I'm well aware of high skills technical jobs that pay well, but the fact is that having a college degree (if you can ever manage to climb your way out of debt) greatly increases your earning power more than a technical school does.

 

As far as free tuition to public educations being a pipe dream, it is possible if you can freaking fund a program. In Georgia the lottery paid for my college tuition since I kept a 3.0 grade average and went to a public university in state. The fucking tax bill could have paid for how many students education how many times over?

Edited July 18, 2018 by GSU&UT

[Eastwood 4394]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Voting in a Democratic blue wave in 2018 literally cannot lead to Trump's removal.

The only way Trump can be removed is if Republicans vote to impeach and remove.

I don't know why this needs to be re-explained so many times.

A blue wave in 2018 will mitigate a lot of the damage that can be done between now and 2020 and will lead to a Democratic victory in that presidential election and that is exactly what is needed. The outright removal of Trump might do incredible short term damage. However, a series of blue waves may increase pressure to the point of resignation, which would be a healthier outcome for the country. Killing flies with sledgehammers is the Trump method. Gradual, measured political pressure on the Republican party to either clean house or fracture is the best outcome from all of this.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

13 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

I don’t believe anyone has suggested “everyone goes to a university”. Unlike K-12, the proposal is to make it free for those that want it.

 

The thing is that teenagers wanting something doesn't make it a good use of societal resources.   We should absolutely create opportunities for future engineers or mathematicians or even English professors to go to college regardless of financial ability to pay.   But we shouldn't send everyone to college en masse to make that happen.   Part of the reason why good universities are so expensive is that too many people think they have to go to have a future, and the demand is inflated.   Another reason is that we have too much schooling required for various careers that do require higher education.   Seven years for a lawyer is insane.   Most of the lawyers you know partied their way through college and blew off the third year of law school.   That's fine for people who have the money to spend years "finding themselves" and having fun, but less so when society is footing the bill. 

More trade schools.  More combined, shorter degree programs for certain professions that don't need more than that.  More resources for early childhood education, which matters far more.  And funding for poor kids to go to universities where they meet high standards demonstrating an aptitude and commitment to a career where a university education matters.

[bad_teammate 13182]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

"Save our country" might be a little strong, but are you genuinely asking what the benefits would be of a Democrat-led congress?  

lol, walk back your hysteria and I'm the asshole?

There would undoubtedly be benefits to a Dem-controlled Congress, but that is extremely different from "SAVE OUR REPUBLIC", which is the furious rallying cry being used to shame leftists into holding hands with people who think poor kids shouldn't get free post-K-12 tuition and should have to go die in foreign wars for the privilege.

[bad_teammate 13182]

78% of people like hamburgers

"Well I guess they oppose tacos."

[Js1 85166]

4 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Yeah, Chuckie has been spot on. All or nothing politics gave us what we have today. It needs to die. Bring everybody on board who wants to help remove the filth existing in public office today, fix party politics afterward. This holier than thou sentiment that is persisting in spite of the ebb of the political scene now flowing towards Trump's removal is absolutely baffling. Set aside differences until then. Some of the less rational leftists are saying they don't need the moderates and that is hilarious. All hands on deck are needed for the task at hand. This is a tremendous opportunity. Don't ruin it with "I told you so" and "all or nothing" politics.

It's not a matter of "don't need moderates."  There's moderates in both parties.  No one would sit here and argue that the Democratic Party doesn't need Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Dan Lipinski, Collin Peterson, and the rest of the Blue Dog Democrats.  The issue at hand is that the former-GOP-turned-centrists and independents-who-usually-end-up-learning R should not be who the Democratic Party is trying to court every other November.  They swing too wildly to be reliable.  Turn out your base with actual progressive, Democratic policies and candidates instead of being corporatist shills running non-descript, milquetoast "Democrats" to appeal to the ooey-gooey "center" or else it really will be "both sides are the same"

[Anastasis 23411]

37 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The voter blame goes:

Trump primary voters > Trump general election voters > Hillary primary voters.   Everyone else did their best to avoid this. 

 

24 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

 (The party apparatus is also to blame, but my post is about the voters and the choices they did have). 

 

14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't blame the GOP party apparatus at all, although I do blame the individual GOP leaders who supported Trump at any point.   But they let their voters decide among 17 candidates, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.  I blame the Dem party apparatus more than the Hillary primary voters, but less than Trump voters. 

So: Trump primary > Trump general > DNC > Hillary primary 

I'd go:

RNC > Trump general > Trump primary > DNC > Hillary primary.

I just don't know how can absolves a GOP apparatus that trafficked in exactly the nonsense and political behaviors that allowed Trump to gain traction in the GOP primary. They hold more responsibility than anyone IMO. 

[Huckleberry 32782]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

78% of people supporting free public university tuition does not mean that they do not support free tuition for 2-year or trade schools

That is a completely disingenuous conclusion to draw.

You are reaching so bad now that I know even you realize what a joke this performance has become. At no point did I say that those in favor of free public university tuition would not also support 2-year or trade school tuition coverage. It's obvious that they would support covering those less expensive options if they're in favor of covering university costs. I never drew the conclusion that you're claiming, I never posted the conclusion that you're claiming, you are merely shouting things you made up in your head to convince yourself you're right. You're basically the Donald Trump of this forum at this point.

What the discussion is about is whether or not taxpayers should cover free university tuition and other costs for anyone that wants it. One of the other possibilities, which I in fact support, is instead to cover costs of post-high school education of some sort for those who meet certain academic requirements in high school and are then compelled to use that education for some number of years after the covered education is complete. Going back to the mechanic example, if we cover two years of education for that job after high school then the recipient would be required to work as an auto mechanic for 2 or 3 years after graduation. There could also be tuition assistance for 4-year universities for those who hit certain marks on entrance exams, etc. But that is different than covering full public university costs for everyone.

In the end you and I actually agree on most aspects of higher education costs but you're too foolish to realize it because you just want to argue with everyone who doesn't declare themselves a progressive. You know, just like everyone was explaining to you about your litmus test for voting Democrat.

[TornACL 7691]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol

LOL indeed. That has to become a thing.

[Eastwood 4394]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It's not a matter of "don't need moderates."  There's moderates in both parties.  No one would sit here and argue that the Democratic Party doesn't need Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Dan Lipinski, Collin Peterson, and the rest of the Blue Dog Democrats.  The issue at hand is that the former-GOP-turned-centrists and independents-who-usually-end-up-learning R should not be who the Democratic Party is trying to court every other November.  They swing too wildly to be reliable.  Turn out your base with actual progressive, Democratic policies and candidates instead of being corporatist shills running non-descript, milquetoast "Democrats" to appeal to the ooey-gooey "center" or else it really will be "both sides are the same"

Or, you could woo them from the midterm through 2020, being a whole two years, and permanently convert a few of them along the way. Boomers are dying and former Republican millenials, as well as younger generations wearing MAGA caps for attention, can become lifelong converts if properly courted AND the Democrats make good with their opportunities over the next 6 years. Win "today" and use "today" to win "tomorrow." 

[BurntOrange&White 39861]

I heard MS13 is making college more expensive.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

I'm well aware of high skills technical jobs that pay well, but the fact is that having a college degree (if you can ever manage to climb your way out of debt) greatly increases your earning power more than a technical school does.

Yes, but that is part of the problem.  We need to change the way we think of education as a society.  There are plenty of jobs that don't actually require a university education but will only hire (or will prioritize) college graduates because there's so many of them, and why would you choose a high school graduate over a college grad, all things being equal.   It has become a self-fulfilling thing where you need college to be successful because people have decided that you need college to be successful.   There needs to be a broad societal change on this.  

[sachick 1189]

58 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Same.   Free university tuition is the worst idea to come out of the left in recent years.   I'm all for government-funded educational opportunities for the economically disadvantaged, but what we need to be doing is deemphasizing the need for a university education and encouraging more people to go to trade schools.   And our resources would be better used on early childhood education and child care for working poor parents, which will do a lot more good than free college.  In my opinion. 

I don't think college should necessarily be free but it is way too costly. Yes there are grants for those in need but very little are considered in need. If you work a decent job and make enough to pay your mortgage and bills, you don't qualify for anything except loans.  Middle America needs an option where they or their kids are not borrowing more than they'll make in a year to get through school. It used to be where you could work in the summer to pay for your fall expenses or work part-time to help pay for college.

But I'm all for someone paying the rest of my loans off.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Yes, but that is part of the problem.  We need to change the way we think of education as a society.  There are plenty of jobs that don't actually require a university education but will only hire (or will prioritize) college graduates because there's so many of them, and why would you choose a high school graduate over a college grad, all things being equal.   It has become a self-fulfilling thing where you need college to be successful because people have decided that you need college to be successful.   There needs to be a broad societal change on this.  

I'm all for that, but we're now talking about changing our hyper-capitalistic system to something that doesn't discriminate against those who don't have a four-year college degree. I think the likelihood of that happening is much less than creating a government program that can pay for tuition. So much of this can be handled too by colleges cutting out all the damn fat they've put into their universities over the years in administrative jobs and costs.

[Js1 85166]

Just now, sachick said:

I don't think college should necessarily be free but it is way too costly. Yes there are grants for those in need but very little are considered in need. If you work a decent job and make enough to pay your mortgage and bills, you don't qualify for anything except loans.  Middle America needs an option where they or their kids are not borrowing more than they'll make in a year to get through school. It used to be where you could work in the summer to pay for your fall expenses or work part-time to help pay for college.

But I'm all for someone paying the rest of my loans off.

Ditto.

It would also help if we have actual people in charge who understand and don't just sit around and spout about how they worked for minimum wage during school and paid all their $12/credit hour tuition, so these damn kids should too, if they weren't too busy eating avocado toast!

[SubliminalHorn 6734]

What the fuck is going on in this thread

[Mojo Hand 4580]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

So: Trump primary > Trump general > DNC > Hillary primary 

I'd go:

RNC > Trump general > Trump primary > DNC > Hillary primary.

I just don't know how can absolves a GOP apparatus that trafficked in exactly the nonsense and political behaviors that allowed Trump to gain traction in the GOP primary. They hold more responsibility than anyone IMO. 

I don't disagree at all with the substance of your post.  My point was limited to the candidate selection process — that is, the GOP allowing everyone to run, and the DNC clearing the field and putting a thumb on the scale for Hillary.

[4th&Five 41483]

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

What the fuck is going on in this thread

A scrutiny of the Democratic platform and party in 2018. It's been interesting to see various opinions about this.

[Mdhorn 5938]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yes, but that is part of the problem.  We need to change the way we think of education as a society.  There are plenty of jobs that don't actually require a university education but will only hire (or will prioritize) college graduates because there's so many of them, and why would you choose a high school graduate over a college grad, all things being equal.   It has become a self-fulfilling thing where you need college to be successful because people have decided that you need college to be successful.   There needs to be a broad societal change on this.  

Aside from college, there are a lot of kids that don't want to be in school either.  Really, they are being forced to attend school and being passed regardless of whether they complete the work or not.  I'd be all for vocational training at an earlier age as well.

[Tuco 5076]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There are just so many facts about Hillary everyone conveniently neglects with the whole, “Hillary was a terrible candidate” narrative....

You can argue that it's not her fault she was a terrible candidate.  But, at the end of the day, she lost to Donald Trump.  I think some of that was not her fault.  I think some of it was. 

[Red Five 40721]

A scrutiny of the Democratic platform and party in 2018. It's been interesting to see various opinions about this.

Sounds like a good topic for another thread.

[Brisketexan 104800]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

No matter how big the blue wave is in 2018, the Democrats cannot achieve the goal of impeaching and removing Donald Trump.

The only way Donald Trump can be removed before 2020 is if Republicans impeach and remove him. The only way that could happen is if conservatives got moving within the Republican party to make that happen. Why aren't you guys doing that?

Why aren't you trying to save the fiscally conservative party?

A handful of conservatives voting for Democrats for one term in which they cannot accomplish anything important and then those conservatives going back home to the GOP as soon as Ben Sasse or some other white guy with concerned-face comes calling in 2020 or 2024 is not a GREAT VICTORY.

Fiscal conservatism is the cancer and Trump is merely the tumor sticking out in an offending manner.

I know you guys have worked yourselves into a huge lather over how Trump is going to destroy the Republic, but the reality is that the Republic is going to exist in 2020 and 2024 and beyond.

When conservatives who are outraged at Trump talk about the coming elections this "we'll talk about other stuff later" stuff is nothing Lucy holding the football and I'm just telling Charlie Brown, "Don't go kick that fucking thing, she's going to pull it back again."

You cannot even begin to understand how unimpressed I am with your "social liberal" talk. Your big paean to cooperation is "we agree on gay shit (we actually don't agree on LGBT issues, I bet), and some other social shit (can't even bring yourself to think of a second thing?)". I'm swooning!

Have fun voting for Democrats as an exercise in temporarily sowing your wild oats. Get together with fellow fiscal conservatives and high five each other about how you're saving the Republic by voting in some people who literally cannot accomplish the goal you say you want (Trump's impeachment). And then have fun working against every progressive policy put forward from now on. I'm going to be the one person here left of center who is not going to end up on his ass in the dirt thinking, "Oh she was really going to hold it for me this time."

If you're interested in talking about actual issues (*cue Brisket rage that anyone would want to talk about stupid shit like issues*) then that's great.

All of these howling posts from "former"-GOP loyalists and center-rightists read like Trump Tweeting, "DO SOMETHING"

Go tell Will Hurd you agree with 98% of his policies, but you demand that he vote to impeach Trump. Why aren't you guys doing that?

I've talked about the issues plenty over the years.  Forgive me for not wanting to retype pages of my previous posts.  I actually get ribbed for doing just that - can't win for losing 'round here.  You made fun of my one-liner about immigration, ignoring the fact that I have typed out my detailed thinking on the subject more times than I can remember.  And my proposal has always been about letting folks in who aren't a threat, getting them on the grid/system, and being generous with asylum (again, speaking in broad strokes).  I believe that we should have a border, but it's a mechanism for control and monitoring more than it is a mechanism for exclusion (except of those who clearly should be excluded -- known criminals and security threats, etc.).  And again, you now that.  It's just so important for you to mount your high-horse that you disregard all of it.  You think you're making yourself look clever and high-minded.  You're not.  

And as to your closing question -- you assume a whole lot.  I am friends with/have the ear of quite a few people in and connected with the GOP.  Hell, I regularly visit with a top GOP strategist (this guy talks to Roger Stone on a regular basis).  And I have laid it on the line with him rather cleanly -- he needs to work on protecting his country instead of his party.  He's torn (he knows the party is a fucking wreck, but it's also his livelihood....I'm still working on him.  He's just one example.  In the end, the GOP has sold their soul to their deranged base, and will follow them in order to hold onto power.  So, there's only one way to address that behavior (I'll get to that below).

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I wasn't talking about the Obama years. I was talking about the dipshit leftists and left-leaning voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania who looked at Hillary and Trump and decided to vote for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

 

32 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

Not to speak for Wildcat, but the purity test lead to Bernie voters staying home or voting for Stein or Trump. That is what caused Trump (among many other things).

The Obama years are not the issue, dude.

These.  The purity test this last election caused a schism on the left. Many of the hard-left wing (Bernie bros etc.), pissed about Hillary, did one of the following things: 1) stayed home, 2) voted for Stein or Johnson, or 3) even voted for Trump.  The election was decided by a few thousand votes in a few states.  That's a difference-maker.  You can pretend it wasn't, but that just makes you look even more foolish.

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Voting in a Democratic blue wave in 2018 literally cannot lead to Trump's removal.

The only way Trump can be removed is if Republicans vote to impeach and remove.

I don't know why this needs to be re-explained so many times.

Oh, do you think you're revealing some great wisdom there?  Which poster on this board has been called Eeyore a jillion times because he says "and none of it matters, because GOP Senate, and they will never, ever, ever vote to convict?"  Oh yeah....that guy is me.

A blue wave cannot lead to Trump's removal.  I agree.

And the Senate will still be enough GOP that they will NEVER vote to convict.  That's a fact, too.

So, knowing those two CERTAINTIES, what is the play?  Simple.  1) House issues articles of impeachment based on clearly impeachable conduct (do your job, Mueller).  It sends the trial of a clearly guilty man to the Senate.  2) Against the great weight of obvious evidence, the Senate says "we're concerned, but we're not going to do a damned thing" and refuses to convict. 3) The electorate punishes the everloving hell out of the GOP the next election (2020).

See, I want to convince the GOP to act in the best interest of the country.  I've just realized that there's only one way to do that: inflict pain on them.  They are not responding to reason.  They are not responding to calls to "do the right thing."  They will only respond to one thing: pain.  Any path that doesn't involve inflicting maximum pain on the GOP is a pointless one.

You think you're righteous.  You think you're principled.  You're just bad at math, and bad at strategy.  It's okay.  The party's recent electoral performance confirms that there will ALWAYS be a home for thinkers like you in the Democrat party.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Brisketexan

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

3 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

I thought he was talking about higher ups in the intelligence community, which is a lie of course but different than /r/iamverysmart.

i read this then clicked over to reddit.  it is the top post on r/iamverysmart right now.  lulz

[Goredho 17375]

12 hours ago, Newdoc said:

Apparently, according to the Surly Cabal, there is an imminent threat of the T.A.R.M. (Trumpkin Alt Right Militia) 'Murican Division amassing outside some city, likely Austin (specifically Austin's Pizza on the drag), ready to unleash fury with their AR-15's against all homosexuals, minorities, non-Christians and any sort of libruals once Trump has either been impeached and/or turned over said 'Murica to Putin.

Do you even Jade Helm, bro?

[Tuco 5076]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Voting in a Democratic blue wave in 2018 literally cannot lead to Trump's removal.

The only way Trump can be removed is if Republicans vote to impeach and remove.

I don't know why this needs to be re-explained so many times.

Because it's just wrong to state as an absolute. 

We don't know what, for certain, what Trump has done and we don't know, for certain, what Mueller can prove.  How wide or narrow of a path to removal depends on those two unknown elements.  And, without any question, a blue wave election will make whatever path there is wider.  If the Dems take the House, they have much more flexibility in forming the public narrative.  Nobody is distracted by Strzok or similar bullshit in that scenario.  If there is a blue wave, it sends a message to the GOP, particularly the GOP Senators, that supporting and defending Trump is unsustainable - that the damage endured by supporting him is more than the damage caused by opposing him.  Once that political calculation is made, his support will evaporate quickly.  The best path for Senators who aren't looking at election for 4-6 years is to get rid of Trump as quickly as possible and try to rebuild support. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

i'm skeptical on the last part.  i don't think even a blue wave would be able to convince the senate.  fox will buoy trump's ratings all the way until 2020, which will be the election cycle for the next batch of senators.  they still won't want to cross fox/trump in an impeachment trial before the 2020 election.

[Ghost of LL 15504]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hillary did not lose those states because of Jill Stein or Bernie Bros. The left voted for Hillary right in line with all historical precedents. The left was more loyal to Hillary in the 2016 general election than Hillary voters were to Obama in the 2008 election.

By the way, this is demonstrably wrong.

In Michigan, Jill Stein got 50,700 votes.  Clinton lost to Trump by only 11,612.

In Pennsylvania, Jill Stein got 49,941 votes.  Clinton lost to Trump by only 44,322.

In Wisconsin, Jill Stein got 31,072 votes.  Clinton lost to Trump by only 22,748.

That doesn't even calculate the number of Bernie supporters who didn't vote at all (many of whom were encouraged to do so by the Russian hacks of the DNC's emails).  So yes--contrary to your conclusion--Hillary absolutely did lose those states because of Jill Stein and/or the Bernie Bros.

That is what your ideological "I'd rather have a Republican than an impure Democrat" mindset has wrought--baby jails, Muslim bans, and the demolition of the EPA.  Look around, and enjoy.

[Lurch 5922]

And when it's free for those that want it then millions will want it who don't need it. We will all pay for unnecessary tuition costs that the graduate (or dropout) never utilizes after leaving school.

Sometimes we build a 6 lane highway when we only needed 4. We have 3 firehouses when we only needed 2. We give some people an education that they won’t fully leverage.

Meanwhile, at rush hour traffic moves a bit more quickly, during a disaster we have more emergency responders on scene and when a welder suddenly decides to own and run his own business he understands quickbooks.

Just because a solution isn’t ideally efficient doesn’t mean it’s an inherently bad idea.

[Js1 85166]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

i'm skeptical on the last part.  i don't think even a blue wave would be able to convince the senate.  fox will buoy trump's ratings all the way until 2020, which will be the election cycle for the next batch of senators.  they still won't want to cross fox/trump in an impeachment trial before the 2020 election.

The Senate won't be convinced.  You need 67 to convict.  Even the best case scenario (total blue wave), Democrats will have 53 votes and need to convince 14 Republicans to join them. LOL - Collins, Sasse, Murkowski........... Find me 11 more willing to convict Trump before they have an unfavorable 2020 map.

[Eastwood 4394]

Yeah, to hell with winning battles. I don't want to fight unless I can win the whole war right away.

[Dertyberd 394]

Brisket is correct.  The only thing that MAY work is serious pressure on the Senate for 2020.  That is also the year when Trump is on the ballot.  Probable primary from the middle and a pure referendum on the obviously comprised/guilty man.  Senators do not like to lose their power and have the "potential" to do the right thing in the face of losing cushy jobs.  They would roll on him as a group faster than the House ever could get organized to do so.  It's a long shot, but it's plausible.  The size of the wave and the amount of folks in jail or on trial will have to be substantial.  I think folks don't appreciate what happened on Monday.  All of the Russia attacks on Trump will now stick and the GOP lost all Indies and folks that took a chance on Trump for the next two cycles.  It was that bad of a moment.  The base will never leave, but the base can't win Senate seats alone.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

19 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Aside from college, there are a lot of kids that don't want to be in school either.  Really, they are being forced to attend school and being passed regardless of whether they complete the work or not.  I'd be all for vocational training at an earlier age as well.

What makes you think someone like that will succeed in early vocational school?  There are plenty of people who don't "want" to do anything until they are thrown in the water of having to work and make ends meet.  They then either sink or swim.  Vocational schools are mostly filled with people like this who realized the hard way that they need to buckle down and better themselves.  Its also better to have these type of people in vocational schools rather than lazy 14 year olds who don't want to do anything as long as mama keeps a roof over their head.

My cousin was a complete waste in high school.  You couldn't have made him open a book or rebuild an engine.  Dropped out, got kicked out, worked and got fired from some shit jobs for a while.  Then finally cleaned up, got his GED, went to vocational school to be an auto mechanic, and now is doing okay.  If you had put him in auto mechanic school at 14, he would have failed right out of it too, however.

Edited July 18, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Tuco 5076]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

i'm skeptical on the last part.  i don't think even a blue wave would be able to convince the senate.  fox will buoy trump's ratings all the way until 2020, which will be the election cycle for the next batch of senators.  they still won't want to cross fox/trump in an impeachment trial before the 2020 election.

If you are a long time Republican politician, and you see Trump as a wedge issue which will damage your political career as long as he's around, I think you have a reason to remove him if possible.  I'm not saying remove him today - based on nothing but speculation of what has been found so far.  But, for example, if Ahkmetshin were to roll and state that the DNC hack was discussed at the Trump Tower meeting, and that Jr. discussed trading the Prevezon case for the release of the information, yeah, Republican Senators aren't going to be inclined to continue their defense of Trump and have it as a continuing issue for 2020. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That is what your ideological "I'd rather have a Republican than an impure Democrat" mindset has wrought--baby jails, Muslim bans, and the demolition of the EPA.  Look around, and enjoy.

Uhh, regardless of whatever numbers are wrong, this is fucking absurd. Baby jails and muslim bans have been brought about by white nationalists and racists, not people who may be possible centrist democrats. Let's not make some weird disingenuous argument because B_T doesn't like you.