Donald Trump 2018

[Lurch 5949]

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.

I think if they spin it as elevating Pence it will be a lot more palatable to their base. And, just like Nixon, it would never get to a vote where they had to go on record. After he’s gone you’d have 47 GOP senators saying they weren’t going to vote to impeach, but he resigned so what are you going to do?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

54 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Jesus. I don’t even know where to begin because you are past the point of no return on hate for Hillary.

I don't hate her.   I just think she was a terrible candidate with major flaws and should not have been the nominee.  I voted for her in the general, in a purple state, so I did my duty.

38 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.

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.

1, 2, 3, and 5 are true enough, but don't counter anything I said.  4 is a wholly subjective opinion, not a fact, and I disagree completely.  6 is partly true, but also ignores the many legitimate reasons to dislike her as a candidate, some of which I mentioned in my previous post.   7 is a sarcastic point that is actually true in earnest.   You must take into account the practical question of ability to win.   Not exclusively, but it's a consideration. 

[retread 2951]

[BurntOrange&White 41653]

A terrible candidate is still better than the worst candidate of all time.

[Jiggy-Z 3506]

3 minutes 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.  

Agree, Higher education is a long game and also requires the right mix of those not pursuing a university education.

At one point not  too long ago a public university education was basically "free" and could be again.  But was it really.  The student would forgo 4 years of full time wage earnings to pursue a degree compared to their counterpart who would have begun their career and not only had the wages to show for it (and taxation thereon) but also advancement and on the job education in their chosen field.  Upon graduating from the university a grad would advance up the career ladder  at a more advanced pace than their trade counterpart  spinning off cumulative higher wages upon which higher taxes were drawn ultimately resulting in more than paying for the costs of the university education along with providing society with a more educated workforce.

This scenario requires two really important things: Relative scarcity of those pursuing a university education and quality jobs for those who chose not to pursue a university education.

Also, when discussing "costs" of higher education (or anything for that  matter), especially when large governmental bodies are concerned, one needs to take a really broad and long term view in order to fully evaluate all costs. So in my example I will lists some (not all) +/- with respect to costs of freely educating a university student:

Direct costs to actually provide University ed: minus

Lost taxation of full time wages during education period: minus

Lost worker productivity during education period (ie the underutilized cost of their HS education): minus

The above costs would be paid for with the taxation of higher wages, the overall betterment of having educated populace, and increased worker productivity at all pay grades through continuing research and advancement.

 

What this has to do with Donald Trump 2018, I have no idea.

[Lurch 5949]

1, 2, 3, and 5 are true enough, but don't counter anything I said.  4 is a wholly subjective opinion, not a fact, and I disagree completely.  6 is partly true, but also ignores the many legitimate reasons to dislike her as a candidate, some of which I mentioned in my previous post.   7 is a sarcastic point that is actually true in earnest.   You must take into account the practical question of ability to win.   Not exclusively, but it's a consideration. 

She scored 3M more votes. I’m not sure anyone can determine that a candidate capable of doing that might fail to win the electoral college and is therefor a bad candidate.

[Huckleberry 34407]

9 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

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.

 

More lanes doesn't make traffic move more quickly, it actually increases traffic. This example cuts right to the heart of how government just paying for more stuff because we think it should help frequently backfires. So yes, actually, an inefficient solution may very well be an inherently bad idea.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

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.

And yet, had Hillary campaigned in those states rather than taking them for granted while fucking around in places like Texas, she would have won, Bernie/Stein voters or not.

Edited July 18, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[RomaVicta 30501]

3 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

 

How the hell can you read it in any way other than he's calling more than half of America stupid?

He relies on that half of America. He could call them stupid and shoot them in the face on Fifth Avenue and still get their votes.

[woohorn 1131]

Sometimes we build a 6 lane highway...

Even having "over" educated stay at home moms (and their nannies) raising future generations has to pay off. Can you imagine what a kid would end up being like if his mom quit school at 13?

[Ghost of LL 15664]

5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

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.

Baby jails and Muslim bans are brought about because Donald Trump is president.

Donald Trump is president because 130,000 people voted for Jill Stein across three states, and many more besides stayed home out of some misplaced loyalty to Bernie Sanders.

[Tuco 5093]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

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.

You guys vastly overestimate the loyalty the Republicans have to Trump.  The support him for one reason: it is politically advantageous to do so.  The millisecond after it is politically advantageous to oppose him, they will.  For Dems to win 53 seats, that'd mean dominated an extremely challenging map 30 to 5.  With a 2020 election two years away, they aren't going to just stay the course when they have at least 20 seats up for election.  A similar wave in 2020 would push the Senate to nearly a supermajority for the Democrats, with likely a Dem President and Dem House. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

This. Leftist purity tests gave us Trump and immigrant concentration camps.

Wrong.

As I've pointed out before, a far smaller percentage of Bernie voters crossed over to vote for Trump in the general than 2008 Hillary voters who crossed over to vote for McCain.

You can point it out if I missed it, but it probably wouldn't have hurt for the DNC to issue some sort of mea culpa after they were busted tilting the scales to Hillary instead of going Feinstein and falsely accusing Bernie supporters of being thugs.

Trump voters gave us Trump and immigrant concentration camps. And if nothing's done to alter the trajectory this country has taken since the Reagan Revolution, the dire situation (collapse of the middle, crushing debt, little hope for retirement, declining life expectancies...) will continue to lead to dire, often self-destructive votes even after Trump is gone.

[Brisketexan 106628]

5 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

She scored 3M more votes. I’m not sure anyone can determine that a candidate capable of doing that might fail to win the electoral college and is therefor a bad candidate.

 

Well, that's certainly the way that people who are really bad at counting votes on a state-by-state basis -- which is the actual way that the president is elected -- would look at it.

The Venn diagram has that circle completely overlapping with the circle of "people who lose presidential elections."

Presidential races are a game of strategy.  And at that game, the Hillary-led Dems got fucking SCHOOLED.  To go with the chess metaphor, they were and remained focused on how many of their opponent's pieces they captured.  Great.  Who gives a shit.  They fucking blew it when it came to the only goal that matters -- capture your opponent's king.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Brisketexan

[atomheartbevo 90548]

8 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

I think if they spin it as elevating Pence it will be a lot more palatable to their base. And, just like Nixon, it would never get to a vote where they had to go on record. After he’s gone you’d have 47 GOP senators saying they weren’t going to vote to impeach, but he resigned so what are you going to do?

 

Trump will not go down without a fight.  He will force Congress to vote, and he will threaten that his supporters will sink any PP1 member who won’t support him.

[NoRagrets 1136]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't hate her.   I just think she was a terrible candidate with major flaws and should not have been the nominee.  I voted for her in the general, in a purple state, so I did my duty.

1, 2, 3, and 5 are true enough, but don't counter anything I said.  4 is a wholly subjective opinion, not a fact, and I disagree completely.  6 is partly true, but also ignores the many legitimate reasons to dislike her as a candidate, some of which I mentioned in my previous post.   7 is a sarcastic point that is actually true in earnest.   You must take into account the practical question of ability to win.   Not exclusively, but it's a consideration. 

Let's just gloss over her not listening to Bill and avoiding the Midwest like the plague.

she was already celebrating her victory with celebs on the coasts. That arrogance was her downfall and completely avoidable. She handed those blue collar, Obama landslide states over to trump when she put them on ignore status.

i say this angrily bc as much as she annoyed me, I think she would have been a good potus governing from a centrist -left perspective.

however she would have a hard time getting anything done bc the republicans would have appointed newt gengrich special counsel on Benghazi, white water, uranium one, some new Obama conspiracy, etc.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

She scored 3M more votes. I’m not sure anyone can determine that a candidate capable of doing that might fail to win the electoral college and is therefor a bad candidate.

 

3M more than the worst person to ever become president, and not enough to win in the competitive states.   She was the guaranteed candidate well before Trump was her opponent. She would have gotten destroyed by most of the likely alternatives.   That she lucked out with Trump and still lost shows how bad of a candidate she was. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Baby jails and Muslim bans are brought about because Donald Trump is president.

Donald Trump is president because 130,000 people voted for Jill Stein across three states, and many more besides stayed home out of some misplaced loyalty to Bernie Sanders appropriate and understandable lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton.

FIFY

Edited July 18, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Ghost of LL 15664]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

And yet, had Hillary campaigned in those states rather than taking them for granted while fucking around in places like Texas, she would have won, Bernie/Stein voters or not.

Yeah.  Sure.  I agree with that.  You're not going to get me to say that Hillary ran a good campaign or that she was a good candidate.  She didn't, and she wasn't.

I would observe, however, that you're saying the equivalent of "the Seahawks should have run Marshawn Lynch."  Of course the Seahawks could have run Marshawn Lynch.  But they tried another play that could have worked.  And . . . upon further investigation, it turns out that it could have worked except that the Russians had been stealing the Seahawks' play calls throughout the game and feeding them to Bill Belichick.*

So, while we can concede the Marshawn Lynch point, let's not overlook that the campaign faced some other challenges.

 

 

 

 

 

* Which, by the way, is not implausible and would explain why Putin felt entitled to steal Robert Kraft's Super Bowl ring.  

[GSU&UT 1799]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Baby jails and Muslim bans are brought about because Donald Trump is president.

Donald Trump is president because 130,000 people voted for Jill Stein across three states, and many more besides stayed home out of some misplaced loyalty to Bernie Sanders.

This doesn't make any sense with what you just previously posted. Your assertion was that not enough people felt "welcomed" in the Democratic party because too many B_Ts were mean to them since they weren't far enough to the left. Stein got more votes from people who wanted a stronger leftists candidate like Bernie rather than Hillary, B_Ts didn't scare off these voters as they were already to the far left and sick of the centrist Democratic party.

Edited July 18, 2018 by GSU&UT

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

More lanes doesn't make traffic move more quickly, it actually increases traffic. This example cuts right to the heart of how government just paying for more stuff because we think it should help frequently backfires. So yes, actually, an inefficient solution may very well be an inherently bad idea.

Even having one full time firehouse is inefficient.  The vast majority of firefighter's paid time is standby.  We still need to have emergency responders on standby, inefficient or not.

As for 6 lanes versus 4 on highways, there is also more to it than current efficiency.  Once you've built the 4 lane highway, you increase the value of the land next to its right of way, so if you want/need to add 2 more lanes later, it becomes much more expensive.  Its also economically more efficient to just go ahead and build 6 now than to set up an entirely new project a few years later to add 2 lanes.

 

[GSU&UT 1799]

It's insane to me that you can blame leftists for giving rise to white nationalists and not the fucking party that has been enabling that behavior for the past 20 years.

[Jiggy-Z 3506]

24 minutes ago, Tuco said:

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. 

At the end of the day (ducks) it was our fault. Even those of us who voted, for not being involved in understanding public policy and carefully selecting those who work for us.

Had Hillary won, we would still have the same vulnerable system run by the same people selling us out to the highest bidder just waiting for someone just as evil as Trump but more competent. The damage Trump's admin is doing will take possibly decades to undo, but it has exposed itself and hopefully will result in a renewal of civic duty and participation.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

More people should have voted for Hillary, and she should have done more to make them want to vote for her.  Both things are true. 

[wildcat09 29558]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

 

Wrong.

As I've pointed out before, a far smaller percentage of Bernie voters crossed over to vote for Trump in the general than 2008 Hillary voters who crossed over to vote for McCain.

You can point it out if I missed it, but it probably wouldn't have hurt for the DNC to issue some sort of mea culpa after they were busted tilting the scales to Hillary instead of going Feinstein and falsely accusing Bernie supporters of being thugs.

Trump voters gave us Trump and immigrant concentration camps. And if nothing's done to alter the trajectory this country has taken since the Reagan Revolution, the dire situation (collapse of the middle, crushing debt, little hope for retirement, declining life expectancies...) will continue to lead to dire, often self-destructive votes even after Trump is gone.

 

We're both simplifying things a great deal. Your point regarding crossover voters is correct, but it didn't really matter in 2008, while it did matter in 2016. A lot of things led to Hillary's defeat, including plenty of unforced errors, but it's simply mathematically incorrect to say that the leftist/leftish voters who decided they just couldn't vote for Hillary and went 3rd party instead had no impact. Yes, there are other factors as well, and they are important factors that we shouldn't ignore, but at the end of the day, Hillary wins if 80k people in three states, who knew how awful Trump was, hold their noses and vote for her. But enough people decided that she was too icky and that they wouldn't feel good about voting for her, because that was more important to them than the actual harm Trump would do to millions of people.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

This doesn't make any sense with what you just previously posted. Your assertion was that not enough people felt "welcomed" in the Democratic party because too many B_Ts were mean to them since they weren't far enough to the left. 

I don't think I've ever said anything of the sort, and I really don't even understand where you would infer that being my point.

[BrickHorn 18426]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

More lanes doesn't make traffic move more quickly, it actually increases traffic. This example cuts right to the heart of how government just paying for more stuff because we think it should help frequently backfires. So yes, actually, an inefficient solution may very well be an inherently bad idea.

Maybe true, but “college should only be for those who can afford it” is a highly inefficient solution.  College education benefits society the most when it enhances the skills of students who demonstrate an aptitude for useful careers.  Family wealth is not a good indicator of aptitude.  

Inexpensive public education allowed a more efficient market for higher education, compared to the old days of pricy private education available only to the children of wealth.  Training was made available to excellent students regardless of wealth, thus removing an obstacle that prevented matching talent with market needs. In some ways, we’ve overdone it by subsidizing training in relatively useless areas of study.  And due to overgrowth and bloated administration, public education is no longer cheap.  But that doesn’t mean that free or low cost public education isn’t optimal, if limited to useful fields of study and filtered for aptitude.  

[Eastwood 4394]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

This doesn't make any sense with what you just previously posted. Your assertion was that not enough people felt "welcomed" in the Democratic party because too many B_Ts were mean to them since they weren't far enough to the left. Stein got more votes from people who wanted a stronger leftists like Bernie rather than Hillary, B_Ts didn't scare off these voters as they were already to the far left and sick of the centrist Democratic party.

I don't think he is saying that at all and I'm curious as to whether you fully endorse b_t's attitude towards those who were either R and willing to levy a protest vote or those who were politically on the fence and now willing to vote D and see what happens. Do you agree with b_t that the Democratic Party doesn't want or need those people in the 2018 midterms?

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Maybe true, but “college should only be for those who can afford it” is a highly inefficient solution.  College education benefits society the most when it enhances the skills of students who demonstrate an aptitude for useful careers.  Family wealth is not a good indicator of aptitude.  

Inexpensive public education allowed a more efficient market for higher education, compared to the old days of pricy private education available only to the children of wealth.  Training was made available to excellent students regardless of wealth, thus removing an obstacle that prevented matching talent with market needs. In some ways, we’ve overdone it by subsidizing training in relatively useless areas of study.  And due to overgrowth and bloated administration, public education is no longer cheap.  But that doesn’t mean that free or low cost public education isn’t optimal, if limited to useful fields of study and filtered for aptitude.  

I completely agree with everything you've said here. I support public assistance for higher education, the part where I disagree with some here is the idea that the policy should cover free university education for anyone who gets in to a university.

[GSU&UT 1799]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think I've ever said anything of the sort, and I really don't even understand where you would infer that being my point.

What?

22 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

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.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, seems to me you're saying that B_T is sick of centrist Dems so he didn't vote for Hillary even though he admitted he did. His mindset is not one that was shared by people who were far enough left that they couldn't vote for Hillary.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

It's insane to me that you can blame leftists for giving rise to white nationalists and not the fucking party that has been enabling that behavior for the past 20 years.

I'm not blaming leftists for giving rise to white nationalists.

I'm blaming leftists for not voting for a candidate who had the only plausible chance to beat the white-nationalist candidate.

I'm sorry it's this way, but in our first-past-the-post system we generally have a binary choice.  In 2016, that binary choice was between unexciting mediocrity and evil.

And they were neutral.

It's like Ireland during World War II.  Look--I get that you don't like the British Empire.  I get that the British did some really unfortunate shit to Ireland throughout the 19th Century.  And the British Empire had a checkered history throughout its colonies (such as India) and would continue to have a checkered history (such as in Kenya).

But still.  On the other side was Hitler.  And in the battle against Nazism and Hitler, Ireland stood neutral.  And so no--that's a bad choice that should be called out as a bad choice.  

In the fight against evil, we don't all have to be good.  We just all have to be on the same side fighting against evil.  And if you're going to play the neutral, well, then--I have no use for you.

[GSU&UT 1799]

2 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

I don't think he is saying that at all and I'm curious as to whether you fully endorse b_t's attitude towards those who were either R and willing to levy a protest vote or those who were politically on the fence and now willing to vote D and see what happens. Do you agree with b_t that the Democratic Party doesn't want or need those people in the 2018 midterms?

I already posted that I don't have a problem with protests votes or those who want to vote straight Democrat in November because they're sick of Trump.I specifically just don't want to hear all these crossover voters whine and bitch about how the Democratic party is moving too far left for them afterwards because of my generation, I agree with B_T that these former Republican voters need to get their own party to abandon this racist and xenophobic platform if they can't stomach "leftists."

[BrickHorn 18426]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I completely agree with everything you've said here. I support public assistance for higher education, the part where I disagree with some here is the idea that the policy should cover free university education for anyone who gets in to a university.

I think the question is how you decide who gets into a university.  And what education that university provides.

[Tuco 5093]

8 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

At the end of the day (ducks) it was our fault. Even those of us who voted, for not being involved in understanding public policy and carefully selecting those who work for us.

Absolutely, on two levels. 

The "us" being the American public who really objects to being bothered with politics. But that doesn't really describe anyone posting in the cloak room.

The "us" who follow politics from a philosophical standpoint, but didn't really want to get our hands dirty by engaging with parties or candidates.  That describes me in October 2016.

[Js1 86943]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I already posted that I don't have a problem with protests votes or those who want to vote straight Democrat in November because they're sick of Trump.I specifically just don't want to hear all these crossover voters whine and bitch about how the Democratic party is moving too far left for them afterwards because of my generation, I agree with B_T that these former Republican voters need to get their own party to abandon this racist and xenophobic platform if they can't stomach "leftists."

Yep.

If they want to vote for the Democrats because of Trump, great. I'll register you, I'll help get you to the polls.  But the Democrats shouldn't pander to them because a) their views don't line up with what actual Democrat base wants and b) they're more likely to flip back if/when the Republican party dumps Trumpism. 

"Oh, the party I'm not a part of is too far left for me!" is trolling.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Js1

[Eastwood 4394]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

I already posted that I don't have a problem with protests votes or those who want to vote straight Democrat in November because they're sick of Trump.I specifically just don't want to hear all these crossover voters whine and bitch about how the Democratic party is moving too far left for them afterwards because of my generation, I agree with B_T that these former Republican voters need to get their own party to abandon this racist and xenophobic platform if they can't stomach "leftists."

Sorry if I missed it. This thread is moving extremely fast. My only retort is that the hand-wringing over the bolded portion can wait for another day. The current national situation requires that you take the votes where you can get them. Do whatever you have to in order to steer the ship away from the iceberg and bitch about the sticky rudder later.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

What?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, seems to me you're saying that B_T is sick of centrist Dems so he didn't vote for Hillary even though he admitted he did. His mindset is not one that was shared by people who were far enough left that they couldn't vote for Hillary.

Bad_teammate has said repeatedly that he would prefer I not support Democrats.  He recognizes that the result may be that Democrats lose elections. 

Even though he himself may have voted for Hillary, it's the same foolish mindset that led people to vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders.  It's a mindset that handed the presidency to Donald Trump.

[Huckleberry 34407]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I think the question is how you decide who gets into a university.  And what education that university provides.

I briefly touched on it but part of my preferred system would be a requirement to obtain and retain employment associated with the degree for a minimum number of years after graduation. I would also have entrance exams, socioeconomic factors, high school performance in terms of class rank and standardized tests, etc. that required a minimum level of performance in order to be eligible. The biggest issue with paying for everyone's university education is that very soon anyone with a high school diploma would be accepted into a university somewhere.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Brew 3049]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I completely agree with everything you've said here. I support public assistance for higher education, the part where I disagree with some here is the idea that the policy should cover free university education for anyone who gets in to a university.

This. I may give on two year community college or trade schools, but then that may create a whole different set of issues.

The 6 lane highway is a good depiction of politics though. We need both sides of the road, but sometimes it feels like a 2 lane country road where we are barely apart and some times it’s a 10 lane superhighway where the guys in the outside lanes are nowhere close to each other.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

3M more than the worst person to ever become president, and not enough to win in the competitive states.   She was the guaranteed candidate well before Trump was her opponent. She would have gotten destroyed by most of the likely alternatives.   That she lucked out with Trump and still lost shows how bad of a candidate she was. 

She wouldn't have gotten destroyed by the likely alternatives. At worst, the electoral college would have worked out the same, and she would have won the popular vote by a smaller margin.  None of the Republican candidates had a chance at winning the popular vote, and the GOP will likely never win the popular vote again without a platform shift.  Also, most of the other candidates would not have reached union factory workers in the way that Trump did, so Hillary would have had an easier go in the Midwest, and probably won.  Less than 10 states actually matter.  Hardly anyone on this board lives in one of them.

[Js1 86943]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Bad_teammate has said repeatedly that he would prefer I not support Democrats.  He recognizes that the result may be that Democrats lose elections. 

Even though he himself may have voted for Hillary, it's the same foolish mindset that led people to vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders.  It's a mindset that handed the presidency to Donald Trump.

You should vote for whomever you want.  R or D.

But the Democrats shouldn't be recruiting candidates and building platforms that appeal to you, the former Republican.  That's what is pissing off the base and loyal Democrats - the centrist Democrats that can "appeal to the center crossover voters" and run a milquetoast campaign, get to Congress, and don't do much to advance progressive causes.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

4 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I already posted that I don't have a problem with protests votes or those who want to vote straight Democrat in November because they're sick of Trump.I specifically just don't want to hear all these crossover voters whine and bitch about how the Democratic party is moving too far left for them afterwards because of my generation, I agree with B_T that these former Republican voters need to get their own party to abandon this racist and xenophobic platform if they can't stomach "leftists."

Ok--see, here's the problem.  You're not branded with an "R" or a "D" at birth.  You can change parties.

There's absolutely no reason why I should get the Republican Party to do shit because (1) I can't and (2) its not my "own party" anymore.

And who the fuck are you quoting when you put quotation marks around "leftists"?  I've never said anything about "leftists."  I haven't used that term.  It's not really in my lexicon.

Dude--are you hearing voices?  Because it's like you're having a conversation with some imaginary person--certainly not anybody who's posting on this thread.

[GSU&UT 1799]

1 minute ago, Eastwood said:

Sorry if I missed it. This thread is moving extremely fast. My only retort is that the hand-wringing over the bolded portion can wait for another day. The current national situation requires that you take the votes where you can get them. Do whatever you have to in order to steer the ship away from the iceberg and bitch about the sticky rudder later.

I'm not B_T and trying to fight everyone who wants to vote for the party I currently support (even though I, like B_T, have a ton of disdain for the Democratic establishment) and telling them to kick rocks and let the grownups talk, I'll gladly take all the help we can get for now. My hand wringing is something I'm only getting into to possibly help explain to those who I know are ignoring B_T and having a knee-jerk reaction to his annoying doggedness. There are many of us who want this nightmare to end and want to move forward with a truly progressive party, we don't want to see these long-time establishment type of candidates continue to be elected.

[GSU&UT 1799]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

Ok--see, here's the problem.  You're not branded with an "R" or a "D" at birth.  You can change parties.

There's absolutely no reason why I should get the Republican Party to do shit because (1) I can't and (2) its not my "own party" anymore.

And who the fuck are you quoting when you put quotation marks around "leftists"?  I've never said anything about "leftists."  I haven't used that term.  It's not really in my lexicon.

Dude--are you hearing voices?  Because it's like you're having a conversation with some imaginary person--certainly not anybody who's posting on this thread.

Jesus christ, my response to Eastwood isn't specifically about you. I'm using quotations because this is literally what I've heard in people say in person, people who don't like Trump but can't take all them "god damn libruls!" They say leftists all the damn time.

[Woodrow Call 494]

Trump says Montenegro’s ‘Aggressive People’ Could Start World War III.

Yes, I lie awake at night worrying about Montenegro. I realize 99% of Americans can't pinpoint Montenegro on a map (including Trump), but we shouldn't underestimate a nation that's roughly the size of Minnesota and that has a total GDP that ranks 78th in the world.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

You should vote for whomever you want.  R or D.

But the Democrats shouldn't be recruiting candidates and building platforms that appeal to you, the former Republican.  That's what is pissing off the base and loyal Democrats - the centrist Democrats that can "appeal to the center crossover voters" and run a milquetoast campaign, get to Congress, and don't do much to advance progressive causes.

You're very wrong.  In some districts, such as TX07 and TX32 and TX23, that's exactly what they have done, and exactly what they should do.

You want to have a "Progressive Party" that is a permanent minority.  You're happy with maybe 120 seats in the House and 30 in the Senate.  Hey, they never get shit passed, but they "advance progressive causes," whatever the fuck that means.  

Meanwhile, Dreamers are deported, children are separated from their parents and tossed into jails, voting rights of minorities are further curtailed, right-wing judges are appointed, and abortion is banned.  But hey--we don't have any goddamned centrists in our party!

Sorry, but I think that's a really bad idea.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

She wouldn't have gotten destroyed by the likely alternatives. At worst, the electoral college would have worked out the same, and she would have won the popular vote by a smaller margin.  None of the Republican candidates had a chance at winning the popular vote, and the GOP will likely never win the popular vote again without a platform shift.  Also, most of the other candidates would not have reached union factory workers in the way that Trump did, so Hillary would have had an easier go in the Midwest, and probably won.  Less than 10 states actually matter.  Hardly anyone on this board lives in one of them.

I live in Virginia, and I think Hillary loses here against at least half the Republican field, as well as Florida and Ohio.   That loses her the election even if I give you the union factory workers, who vote for plenty of Republicans in state elections and are hardly in the bag for Hillary Clinton. 

[Eastwood 4394]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

You should vote for whomever you want.  R or D.

But the Democrats shouldn't be recruiting candidates and building platforms that appeal to you, the former Republican.  That's what is pissing off the base and loyal Democrats - the centrist Democrats that can "appeal to the center crossover voters" and run a milquetoast campaign, get to Congress, and don't do much to advance progressive causes.

The absolutely fantastic thing about moderates and these 2018 midterms is that you don't have to modify your platform at all. Myself, a moderate who has not voted once since 2012, is voting D purely as a means to the end of what is happening today. I'm not alone, either. A lot of my peers are doing the same. My mind won't be easily changed, but creating some sort of litmus test for those such as myself who have thinner skin will run them off. A lot of these protest votes will probably evaporate after 2020 if status quo is restored, which is another problem for another day.

[Fozzz 152]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I completely agree with everything you've said here. I support public assistance for higher education, the part where I disagree with some here is the idea that the policy should cover free university education for anyone who gets in to a university.

You can either provide free higher education, restrict higher education to the wealthy and upper-middle class, or allow access through the inflation of an enormous student debt bubble (our chosen solution) that will eventually wreck the economy if left unaddressed.

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 minute ago, Eastwood said:

The absolutely fantastic thing about moderates and these 2018 midterms is that you don't have to modify your platform at all. Myself, a moderate who has not voted once since 2012, is voting D purely as a means to the end of what is happening today. I'm not alone, either. A lot of my peers are doing the same. My mind won't be easily changed, but creating some sort of litmus test for those such as myself who have thinner skin will run them off. A lot of these protest votes will probably evaporate after 2020 if status quo is restored, which is another problem for another day.

Exactly. It's not like the Democratic Party has to actually change their platform toward the middle to get this chunk of voters in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Hammer home that you're not monsters who are separating families, you're not in Putin's pocket, and that you will fight (or oust in 2020) Trump every step of the way.

It doesn't require moving toward a centrist platform to be the Not Trump party.