Chris Hayes: Trumpism Must Be Peacefully But Completely Destroyed

  
Via:  dignitatem-societatis  •  one month ago  •  193 comments

Chris Hayes: Trumpism Must Be Peacefully But Completely Destroyed
It must be peacefully, non-violently, politically destroyed. With love, compassion, and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Partial transcript:

[...] It is a classic model of corrupt governance. The capo on the top, and the many, many bosses below, who are given control of their domain to do as they wish.

Because Trump doesn't care at all about EPA policy, or Labor, or Iran really, or anything other, really, than making money, which the Presidency allows him to do with public dollars, and being the center of attention, which, same.

But the base, what does the base get? The folks in that arena? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? They get to chant. They get to revel in their own Americanness and primacy at the expense of others. They may not get much more than that, but Trump, and now the entire Republican Party, and most of the Conservative movement realize that that is enough for them. They realize that no one actually cared about deficits or small government. That was never the fuel that fired the engine of Republican politics. It was always roiling rage against 'them', in the 'send her back' chants last night. Without that rage, and that passion, that enthusiasm and fire in that room, this entire project falls apart.

That sentiment, at the core of the coalition, cannot be pried loose, and it cannot be negotiated with, and it cannot be appeased. It must be peacefully, non-violently, politically destroyed. With love, compassion, and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed.

That is the only way to break the coalition apart. Not by prying off this or that interest, they are in too deep, they have shamed themselves too much. The heart of the thing must be ripped out. The darkness must be banished. The people who feel moral revulsion at that display we saw last night must collectively mobilize in greater numbers than the chanters. We got a taste of what that looks like when Congresswoman Ilhan Omar returned home to Minnesota today. [...]

Watch on YouTube (6:42)

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis    one month ago

We aren't even into the real campaign season yet. How will this tragedy end?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    one month ago

The people will be collateral damage when the carnage begins.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    one month ago

How will this tragedy end?

For the democrats , the bad times are just beginning

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.2.1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  WallyW @1.2    one month ago
For the democrats , the bad times are just beginning

The Democrats? WTF? It's much more serious than that. More like the soul of the nation itself.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    one month ago

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about progressive leftist liberalism...

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3    one month ago

You know, sometimes I wish you guys could get exactly what you want: a totally right wing, laissez-faire, super class-stratified hell hole. Especially for working class righties. Unfortunately, everyone else would have to suffer as well.

No environmental regulations, no pollution controls, no workplace safety regulations, no minimum wage law, no 40 hour work week, no overtime law, no unemployment insurance, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid, no consumer protections, no public education, no public services whatsoever. You get the gist. Private everything. No collective action or government intervention whatsoever.

It could be like the Gilded Age all over again, back when the working class was having such a splendid time, but with a lot more disease and pollution. Company towns, company scrip, people tearing their bodies up before the age of 30 in mines, mills or factories paying just barely enough to survive (if you're lucky), and then dying young, ignorant and illiterate after a hellish existence. You know, the good old days. 

It was precisely those conditions that created "progressive leftist liberalism" in the 20th century to begin with, along with a few other "isms". It blows my mind that so many people on today's right take all of that stuff for granted, especially people in the working class.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.3.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.1    one month ago
It could be like the Gilded Age all over again

Well said. History repeating itself, looking through the lens of pining for the good old days and forgetting everything that that entailed. A romantic notion, but myopic and fraught with unintended consequences.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.3  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  r.t..b... @1.3.2    one month ago
History repeating itself

Didn't Hegel say something like, "the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history?" Bright guy, Hegel.

Incidentally (and this is for anyone interested in the Gilded Age), HBO has taken on Julian Fellowes's new show called The Gilded Age, taking place in NYC in the 1880s. He's the guy who made Downton Abbey, so you know it's going to be lavish and have lots of period-specific societal stuff in it.

No premiere date yet that I know of, but it's supposed to be sometime this year so keep an eye out.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.3.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.3    one month ago

I'm looking forward to the new show, and the Downton Abbey movie.  I rarely bother going to the movie theater, but for this one, I probably will.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.3.5  r.t..b...  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.3    one month ago
HBO has taken on Julian Fellowes's new show called The Gilded Age,

Looking forward to it. And to quote the brilliant originator of the phrase:

“No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more.” ~ Mark Twain

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.6  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.4    one month ago
and the Downton Abbey movie

Whoa. I'd almost forgotten about that. Looks like Sep 20th. Awesome.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.7  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  r.t..b... @1.3.5    one month ago
the brilliant originator of the phrase

Yup. Gotta love Mark Twain. Gilded because it was only shiny on the outside. Rotten underneath.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.3.8  r.t..b...  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.7    one month ago
Gotta love Mark Twain

As relevant today as when first penned. His insights into the social and political fabric of what it is to live in America are timeless. We should all go back and reintroduce ourselves to his prophetic words.

 
 
 
Karri
1.3.9  Karri  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.3    one month ago
No premiere date yet that I know of,

Please let me know when there is a premiere date.  I'd love to watch it.

 
 
 
Karri
1.3.10  Karri  replied to  r.t..b... @1.3.8    one month ago
As relevant today as when first penned.

My favorite of Twain's writings is The War Prayer.  It is a short story that was published after his death.  It still is relevant and we should read it before every vote for Use of Force.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3.11  Heartland American  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.1    one month ago

That was a really extreme parody of what we actually want. You can’t beat us with over the top rhetoric like that.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.11    one month ago
You can’t beat us with over the top rhetoric like that.  

They sure as hell try all the time though.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.13  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Karri @1.3.9    one month ago
Please let me know when there is a premiere date.  I'd love to watch it.

As soon as I find out I'll post a heads up and maybe seed an article about it here on NT in the entertainment category.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.14  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.11    one month ago
That was a really extreme parody of what we actually want. You can’t beat us with over the top rhetoric like that.

Oh, I forgot. All of that Randian Objectivism and Austrian School stuff got temporarily moved to the back burner when Great Leader was elected, in order to test the waters for a proto phase of ethnic cleansing.

It'll be back to full bore soon enough, though. As soon as this current phase of darkness is defeated, the right will need another outlet for its psychotic rage and will almost certainly fall back on the old anti-gubmint stuff again. The playbook isn't very thick.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.1    one month ago

And just who are the "you guys" you are referring to above pray tell?

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.16  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.15    one month ago

You and people who share your sentiment, obviously.

 
 
 
Karri
1.3.17  Karri  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.11    one month ago

Unfortunately, that would be the unintended consequence.  The same goes for children's health care.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.16    one month ago

Pretty vague there considering you have absolutely no clue about me or what people share  sentiments of mine or even what my sentiments are. Go fish much?

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.19  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.18    one month ago
you have absolutely no clue about me or what people share  sentiments of mine or even what my sentiments are.

Of course I do. I've come across conversations you were involved in here on NT, and most obviously, a sentiment was clearly expressed above in 1.3.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.19    one month ago

Still vague and still reaching. I am assuming you are trying to label me as a Trump supporter. If that is the case, please feel free to post any example you have come across stating that I said I am because actually I am not.I am. I await your response. Have a good day now. 

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.3.21  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.20    one month ago

Good grief. I'm not going to go picking through your comment history for some kind of gotcha. Where do you think you're going with this? I made no mention of Trump to you. I didn't even allude to him. You expressed disdain for "progressive leftist liberalism", and I gave a response. Is this about the "you guys" part? Are you under the impression that the sentiment is unique to you? Opposition to active, interventionary progressivism is the entire point of non-interventionist Libertarianism, for one thing, and the general sentiment is nearly ubiquitous across the political right these days. You're not alone on an island with that.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.22  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1.3.21    4 weeks ago

Please note that as I said in #1.3.18 above, your comment came off to me as vague and somewhat ill defined. As such, I tried to word my statement with care. I guess I did not succeed. I said I "assumed" you were  trying to label me as something, I could not tell for sure. I also added the caveat "If that is the case...". It seems I handled this poorly and for that please accept my apologies if I offended. Have a good day.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    one month ago

I predict that left wingers will murder mulitple Trump supporters as part of a planned violent campaign protest. Most likely supported by sympathetic Democrat government officials. Trump will be blamed for holding a campaign rally in CA of course. Retaliatory events will ensue.

 
 
 
Karri
1.4.1  Karri  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.4    one month ago

Most "left wingers" that I know abhor violence.

 
 
 
JBB
1.4.2  JBB  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.4    one month ago

Rightwingers have been trying to ignite race wars for over a generation...

Thanks though for pointing legal authorities towards possible instigators.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    one month ago

"It must be peacefully, non-violently, politically destroyed. With love, compassion, and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed."

Poor Chris. He knows not what he just did. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Peaceful, non-violent, Loving, Compassionate and Determination will be "Left" out when things he said "Was Needed" starts, and we will only see the "Destroy" part. Chris thinks he's speaking to "Common Sense" types folks. Boy....is Chris Fucking WRONG ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

And he has the Gaul to say Trump is the "Bad" inciteful one ? jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @2    one month ago
Chris thinks he's speaking to "Common Sense" types folks. Boy....is Chris Fucking WRONG !

From knowing my family and other religious conservatives who watch Fox vs most of those I know who watch MSNBC, I'd have to say there's no contest as to who has more "common sense" and it's definitely not the Fox watchers.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1    one month ago
I'd have to say there's no contest as to who has more "common sense"

There ISN'T (just a couple out of MANY, MANY, MANY Loving protests these last couple years):

256

256256256256

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1    one month ago

Then you need to expand your ring of friends.   That or adjust your understanding of common sense.  

Too many people like Chris try to make "common sense" political.   Common sense isn't partisan.   It just  .... is.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.2    one month ago
Common sense isn't partisan.   It just  .... is.

True, and it's rarely found on Fox or any right wing media outlets. Reality has a liberal bias as does common sense. If you're having to defend a President who is telling Americans to "go back to where they came from", you're not using any common sense.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.1    one month ago

No pictures of the Charlottesville marchers? No pictures of the car that was rammed into the crowd of peaceful protestors? No pictures of the nine black Americans murdered in their Church by the confederate loving white nationalist Dylan Roof? No photos or comments about the more than 50 Americans killed by right wing extremists last year?

"Right-wing extremists were linked to at least 50 extremist-related murders in the United States in 2018, making them responsible for more deaths than in any year since 1995, according to new data from the ADL."

https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism-linked-to-every-2018-extremist-murder-in-the-us-adl-finds

None of that justifies anything any of those idiots in your photos did, they do not represent the left, they are anarchists and opportunists. I just find it sad that some here continue to push this bullshit narrative about how it's the "leftists" we should worry about, what a total joke. The facts are in black and white, right wing extremism kills and kills often and those who refuse to admit it are essentially providing cover and comfort for worthless racist terrorists hiding among them.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.4    one month ago

ADL = A leading choosey anti-hate organization.

You can put up your own pics if you want. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.3    one month ago
True, and it's rarely found on Fox or any right wing media outlets. Reality has a liberal bias as does common sense. If you're having to defend a President who is telling Americans to "go back to where they came from", you're not using any common sense.

Folks who make such clearly false comments and sweeping generalizations have consumed ALL of the Hives koolaide are hopelessly mired in partisan bias and hatred.

Any semblance of common sense has left their building.   Replaced only by bias and partisan hatred.   Luckily that is still not the majority of America.   But only the "rude and obnoxious" fanatically partisan minority like "the squad" we are experiencing today.

You'll find that out once again in 2020.   It keeps going the way it is and 2020 is going to make 2016 look like a picnic to left wing fanatics.

Enjoy!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.6    one month ago
Luckily that is still not the majority of America

Considering the majority of Americans disapprove of this President and the job he's done, I'd say you're right, the majority still have a grasp on common sense. As for the minority of bitter bigots Trump has embraced, they haven't a smidgen of common sense among them.

You'll find that out once again in 2020

Perhaps, but lightning doesn't usually strike the same spot twice. Trump was an anomaly in 2016 and won by the thinnest of margins, just 110,000 votes in three States while he lost with the majority of Americans by over 3 million. Those with common sense won't be staying home this year, they will not be fooled by the Russian bots and Putin media blitz in support of the Delinquent Doofus Donald. Anyone can fantasize all they want about two ridiculous anomalies happening in a row, but its the long shot and his supporters know it which is why they are so desperately trying to claim otherwise.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.9  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.7    one month ago
Considering the majority of Americans disapprove of this President and the job he's done,

Considering how Gallup has Trump at a higher approval rating than Obama did this time in his first tenure, meaning even more Americans disapproved of him, how did he get reelected?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.10  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.9    one month ago

Gallup poll? 

Obama July 14, 2011 44% approval 

Trump July 12, 2019 44% approval 

Opps. 

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.10    one month ago

OK, so the numbers were/are the same. So what?

You insinuate that because of Trump's low approval, he will not be reelected. However, Obama had the same numbers, and got reelected. How is that possible? Is Obama's 44 mysteriously a higher number than Trump's 44? Is it because Obama is the liberal messiah and Trump is not?

Did the majority of Obama's disapproval have a grasp on common sense then? To liberals, they were probably just a bunch of racists who just hated "the black man in the White House". How dare anyone disapprove of the messiah?

I guess liberal "logic" is in play with this one.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.12  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.11    one month ago
So what?

So as much as you may dislike it, facts matter. 

You insinuate

I didn't 'insinuate' anything, I merely corrected your error. 

I guess liberal "logic" is in play with this one.

Since everything you cited came out of your own head, it looks more like bugsy logic. 

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.13  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.12    one month ago
I merely corrected your error. 

There was no error. We have come in contact with debates several times and I have never lost.

This is no different.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.13    one month ago
There was no error.

Didn't you state:

Gallup has Trump at a higher approval rating than Obama did this time in his first tenure

That was you right? Then you said:

OK, so the numbers were/are the same.

I presume that you were acknowledging that their approval ratings were/are the SAME. 

So LOGICALLY, your statement that Trump's are higher was an ERROR. 

We have come in contact with debates several times and I have never lost.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

This is no different.

This isn't a debate bugsy. I cited factual data. You didn't. No 'debate' necessary. 

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.15  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.14    one month ago

OK, so I will be a man and admit my error. The numbers are the same, but the hatred of this President is far more than anything Obama "experienced". My guess is most polls are skewed to fit their narrative.

The context of your original post INSINUATED that Trump would lose reelection, but did not acknowledge that we are sill a year and almost a half from the 2020 election.

Can you see the future where Trump's numbers TODAY will keep him from getting reelected in a year in a half?

Liberals have lost pretty much every attack they have made against the President, and most Americans see that now.

Dumbass Nadler is still hoping beyond hope that Mueller's testimony Wednesday will make it clear Trump did something wrong. He has been hoping that for 3 years now.

On top of that, dumbass Schiff is now saying the DOJ will indict AFTER Trump leaves office.

So much for liberal"we got him now" crap.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.16  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.15    one month ago
My guess is most polls are skewed to fit their narrative.

Hey, you're the one that cited the Gallup poll...

The context of your original post INSINUATED that Trump would lose reelection, but did not acknowledge that we are sill a year and almost a half from the 2020 election

What 'original post' are you talking about? Please cite the #. 

Can you see the future where Trump's numbers TODAY will keep him from getting reelected in a year in a half?

I could not care less about Trump's numbers. I DO however care about the accuracy of the information posted here. 

Liberals have lost pretty much every attack they have made against the President, and most Americans see that now.

Try telling the ACLU that...

Dumbass Nadler is still hoping beyond hope that Mueller's testimony Wednesday will make it clear Trump did something wrong. He has been hoping that for 3 years now.

If more people just read Mueller's report, they wouldn't have to rely on Mueller's testimony. 

On top of that, dumbass Schiff is now saying the DOJ will indict AFTER Trump leaves office.

Schiff knows that the statute of limitations are...

So much for liberal"we got him now" crap.

We've dealt with 'we got her now' for decades.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.7    one month ago

Reality and common sense have a liberal bias?

A more ridiculous comment i have not seen in a LONG, LONG time.

The arrogance and ignorance of of that premise is exponentially high.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3  Sparty On    one month ago

Meh, pretty much what the mass media and many of the left has been trying to do since 2016.   Although the "loving" and "compassionate" components of the gambit are sorely missing in most cases.

This is just SOSDD.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  Heartland American  replied to  Sparty On @3    one month ago

I’m sure that they will prepare loving and compassionate re-education camps for us courtesy of FEMA and homeland security if only they could whenever they can.  

 
 
 
Karri
3.1.1  Karri  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    one month ago
re-education camps for us courtesy of FEMA

Didn't a lot of right wingers say the same thing during Obama's administration.  How did that turn out?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    one month ago
They get to chant. They get to revel in their own Americanness and primacy at the expense of others. They may not get much more than that, but Trump, and now the entire Republican Party, and most of the Conservative movement realize that that is enough for them. They realize that no one actually cared about deficits or small government. That was never the fuel that fired the engine of Republican politics. It was always roiling rage against 'them', in the 'send her back' chants last night. 

Bingo. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5  TᵢG    one month ago

The USA electorate, for the most part, strikes me as being akin to sports fans or rock band groupies.   They support their 'team' or 'band' based on emotion and habit more than reason.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @5    one month ago
The USA electorate, for the most part, strikes me as being akin to sports fans or rock band groupies.

Yet unlike sports fans or rock band groupies, political sycophants insist that their support is objective. 

They support their 'team' or 'band' based on emotion and habit more than reason.

Yep, I'm a Bears fan. I have very little empirical evidence to point to for that support, I just AM.

I don't deny that the Bears suck, or that they lost, or that their QB throws more interceptions than touchdowns.

Yet my delusional support for the Bears doesn't cause anyone any harm.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @5.1    one month ago

You are quite familiar with an individual who stubbornly ignores all attempts at reason, ignores all facts contrary to his beliefs and blindly doubles down on his position in response to challenges.

How does one dissuade this Trump groupie?

How does one reach Trump supporters in general?

My answer to both is that it is not possible.   The people to reach are those who are capable of reason and thus capable of considering facts and logic.   These are people who are not part of the Trump base but who might vote for him depending upon the circumstances (particularly, the D candidate).

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.2  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    one month ago
My answer to both is that it is not possible.

For groupies, I agree.

For 'supporters' there is, IMHO, hope that they do have a line that they won't allowed to be crossed. 

Where that line is and whether they'll allow themselves to recognize that it's been obliterated is the question. After all this time, after accepting and defending so much, I worry that their ego won't let them admit that enough is enough. 

Many of his supporters have hidden behind the 'goals' they share. Oh they pretend to abhor Trump as a person but they like him as a vehicle for their agenda. 

At some point, they have to weight those goals against what Trump is doing to the soul of the country. Most of the supporters don't care that the scales have tipped and believe that achieving their political goals was worth it. 

Ultimately, I don't think pursuing the vote of Trump supporters is worthwhile. My recommendation is that the Democrats concentrate on registration and getting out the vote. As the GOP is so quick to point out, the Presidential election isn't effected by gerrymandering. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @5.1.2    one month ago
My recommendation is that the Democrats concentrate on registration and getting out the vote. 

Yes, that is very sensible   And I further recommend that people encourage all those who might not vote for Trump to operate as one faction.   The infighting (e.g. attacking fellow non-Trump-supporters because they are not sufficiently incensed and vocal -as some seem to do- is counterproductive.)

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    one month ago

512

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    one month ago

So shut up and vote for whatever, or whoever, rolls out of the exploding insane clown car of Democratic candidates that is running ever further left. It is your only choice, so says the big brother left.

I thought maybe Biden could get my vote; but he has jumped the into the leftist race with his normal two left feet and tongue tying brain jumbles.

Forget it. This is coming from a fiscal conservative independent that hasn't voted for anyone from either of the two major parties since Bill Clinton second term. (He has made me regret that vote forever).

Please keep pushing, I am almost to the point of voting for Trump to try and keep whatever train wreck the Democrats put forth out of the White House. 

And I thought hard line conservatives were bad about bullying voters with their whole "Vote for us or you are not patriotic Americans" garbage. WTF.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
5.1.6  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.5    one month ago
Forget it. This is coming from a fiscal conservative independent that hasn't voted for anyone from either of the two major parties since Bill Clinton second term. (He has made me regret that vote forever).

Don't feel left out , last person I voted for that occupied the WH was GHWB, I haven't voted for anyone of them that has sat there since .

 
 
 
Karri
5.1.7  Karri  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.5    one month ago
So shut up and vote for whatever, or whoever

I would vote for a rabid dog before I'd vote for Trump.  That dog is less dangerous to this country (and has more knowledge.)

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.8  MUVA  replied to  Karri @5.1.7    one month ago

Wrong 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Karri @5.1.7    one month ago
I would vote for a rabid dog before I'd vote for Trump. That dog is less dangerous to this country (and has more knowledge.)

Just wait a while.

With over 20 candidates, I am confident that one of them will pander to the rabid-dog voting contingency.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    one month ago
With over 20 candidates, I am confident that one of them will pander to the rabid-dog voting contingency.

They're pandering to every other constituency, often times at odds with the other one they just pandered to.  They're making so many promises to some many different voting blocks, they're forgetting what they promised to whom.

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Karri @5.1.7    one month ago

Please explain to us why Trump is so dangerous to this country. I really am curious of what runs the liberal mind.

Keep in mind, though, I am asking for true facts, and not what the liberal mind "feels".

From what I gather from most liberals is that they hate a low unemployment number, they hate a booming economy, they hate that the President wants a safe and secure country, and they hate getting more of their earned money in their paychecks, thanks to the tax cuts. This is only a few things they hate.

Seems to me, the liberal simply hates this country because of its successes.

 
 
 
Karri
5.1.12  Karri  replied to  bugsy @5.1.11    one month ago
why Trump is so dangerous to this country.

Well, let's start with caging children at the border and leaving them there with proper hygiene and nutritionally questionable food.

Than there is our intelligence community.  How often has he refused to believe what they say?

He cozies up with dictators and shuns our democratic alliances (or rather what used to be our allies.)

The people at the UN General Assembly laughed at him.  When was the last an American official was laughed at when giving a major speech at the UN?

What about the attacks on the free press? 

And, just recently, he threatened to deport natural-born and naturalized Americans.

A couple of years ago, his juvenile tweets that almost got Americans nuked.

Who knows, I may have more after the Mueller testimony.  I have read the actual Mueller report rather than Barr's misrepresentation.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @5    one month ago
They support their 'team' or 'band' based on emotion and habit more than reason.

That is the best description i've seen on here, of Trump supporters. Blind loyalty, without logical thinking.

I've thought of it often, when discussing at my local watering holes, and you've nailed right here.

Since i don'tbtalk too much sports on here, i failed to use your most accurate description of Trump supporters.

Thank You, for the best comparison, i've failed to come up with, but full heartedly, agree with.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    one month ago

Trumpism is only a threat because Trump supporters have discovered its okay to ignore the Democrats' racial, religious, and social intolerance.  Democrats pointing fingers and screaming 'racist' means nothing.  Everything and anything is racist to Democrats; Democrats have turned racism into a joke.

Any display of patriotism is challenged by a Democratic litany of past wrongs.  That's why 'Americanness' has become something to be removed from society by Democrats.  Yet, everyone overlooks how the Democratic Party has played a central role in creating many of those past wrongs.  Democrats are fighting to overturn the legacy of their own political party without giving up political power.  Democrats are hiding their history and blaming everyone else for their own party's legacy.

Democratism is really a bigger problem for our future than Trumpism.  Trump may use divisive language.  But Democrats use the courts and Congress to force divisions onto the country.  Democrats have been promoting a stark choice: be a racist, misogynous, homophobe or support Democrats who promise to use their political power to divide the country.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @6    one month ago
Trump may use divisive language.  But Democrats use the courts and Congress to force divisions onto the country

The republican controlled senate has had only one objective these past two years. To stack the courts with partisan conservative judges.

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Ender @6.1    one month ago
The republican controlled senate has had only one objective these past two years. To stack the courts with partisan conservative judges.

No different than a Democratic president or democrat controlled Congress.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.2  Ender  replied to  bugsy @6.1.1    one month ago

Is that anything like Obama can't nominate a SC justice in an election year but trump can?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.1.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Ender @6.1.2    one month ago

And the Dems tried to block Trumps picks also. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.4  Ender  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6.1.3    one month ago

Denying a pick and being against a pick are two different things.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @6.1.2    one month ago
Is that anything like Obama can't nominate a SC justice in an election year but trump can?

What "Year" was Trump running for president, that he nominated a "Justice" again ?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.6  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.5    one month ago

What does that have to do with what I said?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6.1.2    one month ago
Is that anything like Obama can't nominate a SC justice in an election year but trump can?

But Obama DID nominate someone.

And when has Trump nominated anyone in an election year?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6.1.4    one month ago
Denying a pick and being against a pick are two different things.

Nominating someone and confirmation are two different things, too!

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @6.1.6    one month ago
What does that have to do with what I said?

You don't know what you ACTUALLY said ?

Your comment: "Is that anything like Obama can't nominate a SC justice in an election year but trump can?"

Now what election was Obama working on again. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @6.1    one month ago
The republican controlled senate has had only one objective these past two years. To stack the courts with partisan conservative judges.

And Democrats have promised that giving them control of government would allow them to stack the courts with liberal judges.  Why is that any better?

The courts system has either been liberal or conservative before Republicans began doing anything.  If the court system was already conservative, the Republicans aren't changing anything.  But if the courts had already been stacked with liberal judges, then Republicans are turning the courts toward more conservative views.

Are Democrats afraid they will lose the ability to use the courts to veto legislation and divide the country?  Are Democrats afraid they are losing the liberal stacked court system as a political weapon to use against Republicans?

If the court system does become more conservative then Democrats will have to compete for political power by selling a political agenda rather than imposing their agenda onto the country with a team of lawyers.  Not too surprising that Democrats are worried since they haven't been politically proposing a workable agenda.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.11  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.9    one month ago

Ask McConnell.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.12  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.7    one month ago

It was blocked from even getting on the floor.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6.1.12    one month ago

So what?

The Senate doesn't have to rubberstamp a President's nomination.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.1.11    one month ago
Ask McConnell.

No need to ask McConnell.  It was the 2016 ELECTION YEAR.

See how easy that was?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.15  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.10    one month ago

Odd that when the courts rule against a party they are a bad thing. The Liberals are using the courts for their agenda? And what would that be?

If anyone is dividing the country, it is not Liberals....

The only thing republicans can come up with is cutting taxes for corporations and gutting environmental regulations.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.16  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @6.1.11    one month ago
Ask McConnell.

You don't know if Obama was running for President or not when he put up a nomination for "Justice" ?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.17  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @6.1.15    one month ago
The only thing republicans can come up with is cutting taxes for corporations and gutting environmental regulations.

And the right of communities to govern themselves.  Republicans have not tried to use the Federal government to cut state taxes in New York or California, have they? 

Democrats, on the other hand, have argued to increase Federal taxes and spending to lower the burden of state taxes.  Wasn't Obamacare really about lowering state expenditures for healthcare in the Democratic stronghold of the northeastern states?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.18  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @6.1.1    one month ago
No different than a Democratic president or democrat controlled Congress.

Since McConnell used the 'nuclear option' it's totally different. 

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.19  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.18    one month ago
Since McConnell used the 'nuclear option' it's totally different. 

You mean the "nuclear option" that Harry Reid and associates put into play with the mindset that they could use it to get everything they wanted over Republicans?

Boy, the shit sure did backfire, huh?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.20  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @6.1.19    one month ago
Boy, the shit sure did backfire, huh?

So it IS different. Glad we can agree. 

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.21  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.20    one month ago

Yep..it's different. Reid did not expect it to backfire on his ass and a well hated President by the extreme left to get 2 SC justices and a large amount of lower court justices onto courts.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.22  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @6.1.21    one month ago

Neither Reid nor Obama are in office. HOW did it backfire on them? 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.23  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.17    one month ago

???

I agree with federal taxes to pay for things. Letting corporations pay zero taxes and making the middle class pay for everything is only setting things up the way some want...to make it fail.

Don't sell me bullshit.

More fed taxes to lower state?  Haha   What red state rep told you this...

Now the O'care rant....when the damn reps have not lifted a finger.

But go ahead, believe the bullshit that having a functioning government is bad.

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.24  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.22    one month ago

Good God, don't be so naive. I never mentioned Obama...why did you? Deflection?

Reid was the majority leader of the Senate when he slammed through the nuclear option. He did it only because he wanted to allow for a stacking of activist liberal judges on various benches. He retired without that dream being put through because Republicans took control of Congress, then used the nuclear option to get through Republican agenda items, and rightfully dismiss liberal ones.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @6.1.23    one month ago
I agree with federal taxes to pay for things. Letting corporations pay zero taxes and making the middle class pay for everything is only setting things up the way some want...to make it fail.

Taxes are necessary to pay for the operation of government.  That only states the obvious.  But the only area where the Federal government pays the bulk of program costs is defense.

Pension taxes provide a large revenue stream but those taxes are returned directly to taxpayers.  State & local governments pay for about 55 pct of government provided healthcare.  State & local government pays about 85 pct of government provided education.  The Federal government pays 99.9 pct of costs for defense.  State & local government pays 45 pct of the cost of income security programs (welfare).

The Federal government is not the main source of money for most government programs.  State and local governments use taxes to pay for a large share of the government provided programs.  Shifting more of the burden of paying for these programs would naturally lower the burden on state & local governments.  That would be a way of shifting the higher programmatic costs of some states onto the rest of the country.  That's a way to socialize cost while maintaining an unequal distribution of benefit.

State & local governments already utilize wealth taxes, flat taxes, and both progressive and regressive taxes.  And state & local governments have used SALT deductions to allow the wealthy to hide income from the Federal government.  

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.26  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @6.1.24    one month ago
He retired without that dream being put through because Republicans took control of Congress, then used the nuclear option to get through Republican agenda items, and rightfully dismiss liberal ones.

Reid enacted the nuclear option in 2013 and they confirmed quite a few judges. 

McConnell extended the nuclear option to the SCOTUS. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1.27  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @6.1.26    one month ago
Reid enacted the nuclear option in 2013 and they confirmed quite a few judges. 

McConnell extended the nuclear option to the SCOTUS. 

FAIL. 

Sorry, who the hell cares? Reid opened the door part way and the Republicans kicked it in the rest. Wouldn't have happened w/o Reid getting it started.  But of course Reid gets a pass in your book because of the all powerful D behind his name.

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.28  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.26    one month ago
FAIL.

Not really. More like your fail.

McConnell can still use the nuclear option today if he wants, including for a SC. Your President, President Trump, has five and a half more years, a total of eight years, to install more conservative judges.

Reid lost control of the Senate in 2016. At most, Obama had 3 years to stack the courts.

Your President, President Trump, and this country, win.

Those that hate this country...lose...again.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.29  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  bugsy @6.1.28    one month ago
President Trump, has five and a half more years,

There are a couple of big IFs that need to be checked off bugsy , one of them is will trump get the nomination at the convention? anything can happen between now and then.

the other big IF is will he win re election if he gets the nomination , same thing applies to this as does to the other , anything can happen between now and then.

reid took and used a power ( nuke option) opening the door  for its use by anyone in power as they saw fit where ever they saw fit . Once the government , in this case  the Senate, takes or grants itself a power , it is nigh on impossible to remove it by the people.

, and they are highly unlikely to let that power go on their own accord.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.30  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @6.1.28    one month ago
Not really. More like your fail.

Really? How so? 

McConnell can still use the nuclear option today if he wants, including for a SC.

He does, every time they vote on a Judge or nominee...

At most, Obama had 3 years to stack the courts.

Actually, McConnell blocked Obama's SC nominee. 

Those that hate this country...lose...again.

Those that think that sycophancy to Trump is the only way to 'love this country' are idiots. 

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.31  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @6.1.30    one month ago

It is the senate's job to advise and give consent Obama tried to appoint a partisan and got no consent. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.32  Ender  replied to  Dulay @6.1.30    one month ago
Those that think that sycophancy to Trump is the only way to 'love this country' are idiots.

No kidding. It is like only their version of the US is the one that can be. The anyone against them hates the US and all it stands for rhetoric is one reason this country is so divided. I am so sick of the Liberals hate the US propaganda. I sometimes have to wonder if they relish in the damage they are doing.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.33  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @6.1.31    one month ago
It is the senate's job to advise and give consent Obama tried to appoint a partisan and got no consent.

Garland was confirmed for the DC Circuit 76–23 in a GOP controlled Senate.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.1.34  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dulay @6.1.33    one month ago

It was a brilliant move by McConnell and many liberals thought it would cost the Republicans at the ballot box when the fact is it helped them to win big. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell-231150

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.35  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.33    one month ago
Garland was confirmed for the DC Circuit 76–23 in a GOP controlled Senate.

well what that tells me is 76 senators thought he qualified for the DC circuit  so they confirmed him , that does not translate that he would have even come close to a confirmation for the next step up the ladder to the USSC.

 it could very well be he was thought qualified for the circuit court as long as there was another court over his that had oversight ,  but not qualified for the highest court  by those that would have to vote to confirm him.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.35    one month ago
well what that tells me is 76 senators thought he qualified for the DC circuit  so they confirmed him , that does not translate that he would have even come close to a confirmation for the next step up the ladder to the USSC.

Well what that tells me is that plenty of GOP Senators didn't think he was a partisan, which is what I was addressing with my comment. 

BTW. Garland is the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country. 

it could very well be he was thought qualified for the circuit court as long as there was another court over his that had oversight , but not qualified for the highest court by those that would have to vote to confirm him.

It could very well be that McConnell blocked his confirmation for political reasons. That's what happened. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.37  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.36    one month ago

Your entitled to your opinion .

 And just because he is now the chief judge  on the SECOND most powerful court , still does not translate to being qualified to be on the MOST powerful  court, you will have to take that up with the individual senators though.

Of course McConnel did it for politics, only an idiot wouldn't see that come into play, and no one can show me in the constitution OR the rules of the senate itself where it says that a comfirmation hearing is mandated for any nominee, simply refusing to have one , is the justifiable grounds that the nominee will not be getting consent from that sitting senate to be confirmed . but it was an idea he got from democrats themselves from years gone by and decades of trying to pack the court by them.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.37    one month ago
but it was an idea he got from democrats themselves from years gone by and decades of trying to pack the court by them.

bullshit. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.39  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.38    one month ago

again see above , your entitled to your opinion .

google "Biden rule"

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.39    one month ago
your entitled to your opinion .

I know. 

google "Biden rule"

No such 'rule' exists. It's a figment of McConnell's partisan imagination. 

 
 
 
Karri
6.1.41  Karri  replied to  bugsy @6.1.28    one month ago
Those that hate this country

You  can love your country and disagree with its leaders.  Did you leave the country while Obama was president or did you support him?

When my father, my uncles and my husband were commissioned, they took an oath to defend and protect the CONSTITUTION, not a person.  When I took office, my oath was also to the CONSTITUION, not a person.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.42  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.40    one month ago

What is Biden Supreme Court rule?

"Informal rule": POV tag. The Biden Rule, as defined by Senator Grassley, states that nominations of new justices to the United States Supreme Court will not be accepted during election years. Senator Grassley named this principle the "Biden Rule" based on his reading of remarks made by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.43  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.42    one month ago

So it was Grassely  not McConnel, And in the famous words of former majority leader Harry Reid when caught in a lie about legislation after it passed , "It worked didn't it?" (smiles croquetishly)

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.42    one month ago
What is Biden Supreme Court rule?

What part of none exists don't you understand? 

"Informal rule": POV tag. The Biden Rule, as defined by Senator Grassley

So Grassley made some shit up and dumped it in Biden's lap. Misrepresenting the facts and then blaming someone else. How very conservative. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.43    one month ago
So it was Grassely  not McConnel, 

It was McConnell that stated on the floor to the Senate 'we will continue to use the Biden rule'. 

And in the famous words of former majority leader Harry Reid when caught in a lie about legislation after it passed , "It worked didn't it?" (smiles croquetishly)

Not only did it work, but McConnell and other Trump sycophants are still blaming Biden for their own actions. One has to wonder what happened to the conservative value of taking personal responsibility. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.46  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @6.1.44    one month ago
What part of none exists don't you understand? 

i'd have to go with

the 

non existing   one

.

What is a rule,

to Trump and his faithful, that he is unfaithful to...

As

the asz doesn't respect laws, forget about rules

for one who thinks he's the actual ruler,

while he doesn't measure up, falls short, over achieves at under 

 achievement N definitely shouldn't be in anyone's government

.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.47  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.44    one month ago

So are you saying biden didn't say what Grassley quoted while biden was a senator?

 and that once biden became president of the senate by virtue of becoming the USVP his words didn't come back and he got exactly what he had suggested  during his career? or is it it bit biden right in the backside  during a critical political moment?

Most people would agree that an informal rule is one that is basically a suggestion or an idea , that isn't written down , and whether it is applied depends on the individuals and the situation  based on individual choice.

My personal observation is , that democrats would have been fine with using this if it had been used against a rep nominee since it one of their owns idea, but since it was used by the Reps against a Dem nominee it was NOT ok.

But I will admit this , if someone took some idea or something I said to get an advantage politically for what I thought , and used it against me , I might be slightly pissed off , and generally chagrined thinking , that that didn't work like I thought it would  or intended .

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.48  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.47    one month ago
So are you saying biden didn't say what Grassley quoted while biden was a senator?

I'm saying that Biden didn't say what YOU quoted. Care to support you claim with a link? 

and that once biden became president of the senate by virtue of becoming the USVP his words didn't come back and he got exactly what he had suggested during his career?

What McConnell did had NOTHING to do with what Biden 'suggested'. So the answer is yes. 

BTW, please learn to use the shift button on your keyboard. 

Most people would agree that an informal rule is one that is basically a suggestion or an idea , that isn't written down , and whether it is applied depends on the individuals and the situation based on individual choice.

So you and they should be calling it the Biden 'suggestion' right? 

My personal observation is , that democrats would have been fine with using this if it had been used against a rep nominee since it one of their owns idea, but since it was used by the Reps against a Dem nominee it was NOT ok.

So you're saying that you think that McConnell using the Biden suggestion as an excuse  was NOT ok. We agree. 

But I will admit this , if someone took some idea or something I said to get an advantage politically for what I thought , and used it against me , I might be slightly pissed off , and generally chagrined thinking , that that didn't work like I thought it would or intended .

In this instance, Biden should be pissed because McConnell, Grassley and other Trump sycophants are misrepresenting what he said and making political hay from it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.49  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.48    one month ago

Why don't you prove him wrong? 

Oh wait, you don't ever support your declarations with facts. Silly question.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.50  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.49    one month ago
Why don't you prove him wrong? 

That isn't how this works Sean. He made an assertion and he has the burden of proof. That has been explained to you ad nauseam. 

Oh wait, you don't ever support your declarations with facts. Silly question.

I've never had an issue supporting my comments Sean. 

Do you have a question, a comment about the topic or do you just want to continue to post personal comments? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.47    one month ago

Lots of Democrats seem to love laws, and rules, and suggestions-----as long as they agree with them and they seem to change their minds quite readily when it actually affects them in a negative way.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.52  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.51    one month ago

Lots of Republicans and conservatives love laws, rules and suggestions as long as they agree with them and they seem to change their minds quite readily when it actually affects them in a negative way. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.53  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.48    one month ago

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.55  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.53    one month ago

The old mans own words are all the proof I need , gotta love cspan and youtube .

 Now its up to you to prove that he was misunderstood .since that's your assertion.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.56  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.48    one month ago
My personal observation is , that democrats would have been fine with using this if it had been used against a rep nominee since it one of their owns idea, but since it was used by the Reps against a Dem nominee it was NOT ok.
So you're saying that you think that McConnell using the Biden suggestion as an excuse  was NOT ok. We agree. 

No we do NOT agree.

 What was said states that dems would have been fine using this , as long as they were in power and Biden was head of the senate judiciary , but as soon as reps gained control it was no longer ok to be used or thought by the very democrats who came up with it in the first place .

 Good for the goose but not good for the gander doesn't fly , if one side sanctions it , the other side is free to use it when it is beneficial to them .  if y'all don't want something done , maybe you should'nt sanction it being done while on your watch and when your in power and then call foul when its used against you.

IMOO I think McConnel and Grassely stuck a barb wire wrapped baseball bat up Biden and the democrats ass , and now removal is difficult for those feeling the effects.

 And no it is not the Biden suggestion , as head of the senate judiciary committee, he could and did make any rule he would follow as ANY head of a committee can do ,  It took Grassely and McConnel to actually give that rule a name even if it was unwritten and informal . 

Biden now owns that beyotch for posterity. Way to screw yourself dude if I had the chance to say it to Biden himself..

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.57  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.56    4 weeks ago

So Biden made the suggestion that a nomination and confirmation should wait until after the election and McConnell 'misunderstood' him to mean that a nomination/confirmation should wait until after the next Inauguration. 

And you blame Biden. Got ya...

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.52    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.59  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.57    4 weeks ago

3 years later and still whining about Obama's pick not being confirmed.

Aw.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.60  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.57    4 weeks ago
Good for the goose but not good for the gander doesn't fly , if one side sanctions it , the other side is free to use it when it is beneficial to them .  if y'all don't want something done , maybe you should'nt sanction it being done while on your watch and when your in power and then call foul when its used against you.

This I think addresses how you feel , and very relevant to the issue , its better if you remove that barb wire wrapped ball bat up your butt fast , like pulling off a band-aide, democrats only have themselves to blame for that self inflicted shot in the nutz.

 The opposition didn't misunderstand him , they simply did as he would have done if given the chance . so that attempt to prove he was misunderstood is an epic fail.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.61  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.59    4 weeks ago

Ya Tex, citing facts is whining.

Thanks for the deeply intellectual argument. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.60    4 weeks ago

Wow, you like to see your own words so much that you even block quote yourself. 

This I think addresses how you feel

You think wrong. 

so that attempt to prove he was misunderstood is an epic fail.

If it was an epic fail it was yours. I didn't even try since any thinking person who actually LISTENED to what Biden said would recognize that my representation of what he actually said is accurate. Biden made the suggestion that a nomination and confirmation should wait until after the election NOT that it should wait until after the inauguration. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.63  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Dulay @6.1.62    4 weeks ago

And you still ended up being wrong, remember whether its a foot in the mouth or a bat up the ass , its like a band-aide , a quick determined pull for removal.

 Enjoy ruminating for the rest of your evening.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.64  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.61    4 weeks ago

You are entirely welcome.

It was what was warranted.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6    one month ago
Democrats are fighting to overturn the legacy of their own political party without giving up political power.  Democrats are hiding their history and blaming everyone else for their own party's legacy.

Your obsession with equating the Democrats of the 19th century with the Democrats of today is just plain weird. Any reasonable points you manage to make are swamped under by your strange need to try and pin the Democratic Party to the world of 150 years ago. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    one month ago
Your obsession with equating the Democrats of the 19th century with the Democrats of today is just plain weird. Any reasonable points you manage to make are swamped under by your strange need to try and pin the Democratic Party to the world of 150 years ago. 

Then enlighten us and explain the difference.  Isn't today's Democratic Party still entrenched in racial politics?  Isn't today's Democratic Party still dividing the country over issues of race?

How is today's Democratic benevolent patronage to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care at no cost to the recipient any different than Democrat John C. Calhoun's claims that slavery is a positive good?

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
6.2.2  Goodtime Charlie  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    one month ago

The only thing different about the Democratic party today from 150 years ago is they now have share croppers instead of slaves

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    one month ago
Isn't today's Democratic Party still entrenched in racial politics?

No. 

Isn't today's Democratic Party still dividing the country over issues of race?

No. 

How is today's Democratic benevolent patronage to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care at no cost to the recipient any different than Democrat John C. Calhoun's claims that slavery is a positive good?

You've just connected the safety net with race.

Is it your posit that the working poor and military families that need SNAP are slaves? That all of the millions of families in this country that go to public school or receive vouchers are slaves?

Are the Vets that get housing vouchers slaves?

Are all of the families who have children on Medicaid slaves? 

You insist that the Democrats take responsibility for ensuring a safety net for citizens in need.

I encourage the Democrats to take up that mantel proudly. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @6.2.3    one month ago
Is it your posit that the working poor and military families that need SNAP are slaves? That all of the millions of families in this country that go to public school or receive vouchers are slaves?

Are the Vets that get housing vouchers slaves?

Are all of the families who have children on Medicaid slaves? 

Yes, they are slaves as long as they are dependent upon the safety net.  Let's improve the country so the safety net isn't necessary.  Let's work to make the safety net obsolete.

You insist that the Democrats take responsibility for ensuring a safety net for citizens in need.

I am accusing Democrats of forcing people into the position of needing the safety net. I am accusing Democrats of complicity in making a living wage unlivable, of forcing vets to rely on vouchers, of forcing families to need medicaid.  I'm accusing Democrats of creating a slave state.

Democrats could have taken action to avoid the need for a growing safety net.  But that's not what Democrats did.  Democrats created these programs to become the benevolent patrons of the poor and needy.  And that worked so well politically that Democrats have been deliberately doing more to swell the number of the poor and needy.

Democrats warn voters that if Republicans gain control of government, then Republicans will dismantle the safety net.  Democrats are arguing that they will protect the safety net and allow more people to be eligible for the safety net; keeping Democrats in power will protect and expand the safety net. 

The rich have become fabulously richer when Democrats controlled government, too. And the poor and needy became more dependent upon Democrats when they controlled government, too.  Democrats claim ownership of the safety net but Republicans weren't the only politicians responsible for creating the need for the safety net.  If the safety net worked so well then why has the dependence upon the safety net grown?  Why are the poor becoming poorer?  Why has there been an increasing need to expand the safety net?

Democrats have spent a lot of tax revenue and borrowed a lot of public money to create and expand the safety net.  And Democrats tell us every election that the need for the safety net is growing.  So, what have Democrats really accomplished?  What problem has Democrats really solved?  

If the need keeps increasing as more public money is thrown at that need then a publicly funded safety net doesn't seem to be a practical solution.  

Democrats talk about the public safety net as a positive good in the same way that Democrat John C. Calhoun talked about slavery as a positive good.  The Democratic justifications for the safety net are the same justifications Democrats used to preserve slavery.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.4    one month ago
Yes, they are slaves as long as they are dependent upon the safety net. Let's improve the country so the safety net isn't necessary. Let's work to make the safety net obsolete.

Yet conservative's repeal and never replace. 

I am accusing Democrats of forcing people into the position of needing the safety net. I am accusing Democrats of complicity in making a living wage unlivable, of forcing vets to rely on vouchers, of forcing families to need medicaid.  I'm accusing Democrats of creating a slave state.

I won't ask you to support that drivel as reading the reply may require me to kill too many brain cells. 

Democrats Republicans could have taken action to avoid the need for a growing safety net. But that's not what Democrats Republicans did. 

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

Democrats talk about the public safety net as a positive good in the same way that Democrat John C. Calhoun talked about slavery as a positive good. The Democratic justifications for the safety net are the same justifications Democrats used to preserve slavery.

AGAIN, you connect the public safety net with race. WTF!. [Deleted] you think that only black people use the social safety net? 

BTW, you Calhoun reference is utter bullshit. I presume it's because, like so many here, you didn't actually READ what was said and are just relying on what you believe from anothers truncated misrepresentation. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @6.2.5    one month ago
Yet conservative's repeal and never replace. 

Why is that worse than the Democrat's proclivity to legislate and fail to support?  It's rare for the Federal government to provide more than half the funds needed to operate mandated programs.

AGAIN, you connect the public safety net with race. WTF!. [Deleted] you think that only black people use the social safety net?  BTW, you Calhoun reference is utter bullshit. I presume it's because, like so many here, you didn't actually READ what was said and are just relying on what you believe from anothers truncated misrepresentation. 

Why do you think only black people can be slaves?  Why do you think chattel slavery is the only type of slavery that is important?  Does that have something to do with racial biases?

Calhoun argued that slavery was a positive good not only because it provided benevolent care for an inferior people.  Calhoun claimed that slavery also provided the positive good of civilizing an uncivilized people; a means of educating an immoral people to become moral.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.6    one month ago
Why is that worse than the Democrat's proclivity to legislate and fail to support?  It's rare for the Federal government to provide more than half the funds needed to operate mandated programs.

Your whataboutism is noted. BTFW, Democrats don't have a market on passing unfunded mandates. Why pretend they do? 

Why do you think only black people can be slaves? Why do you think chattel slavery is the only type of slavery that is important? Does that have something to do with racial biases?

You said Democrats talk about the safety net the same way Calhoun talked about slavery. Calhoun was talking about enslaved Africans and chattel slavery. And YES, it had EVERYTHING to do with racial bias. 

Calhoun argued that slavery was a positive good not only because it provided benevolent care for an inferior people. Calhoun claimed that slavery also provided the positive good of civilizing an uncivilized people; a means of educating an immoral people to become moral.

I KNOW, I read Calhoun's supercilious speech.

What's telling is that even though you accurately summarized part of it, you STILL want to pretend that Democrats talk about the safety net the same way. Your own summary proves it to be a lie. 

 
 
 
Karri
6.2.8  Karri  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.4    one month ago
forcing families to need medicaid. 

What about elderly who need 24-hour care?  Medicare does not cover custodial care.  Would you rather see these people put out on the street and just die there?

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.2.9  Heartland American  replied to  Goodtime Charlie @6.2.2    one month ago

You are right on! 

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
6.3  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Nerm_L @6    one month ago
Trumpism is only a threat because Trump supporters have discovered its okay to ignore the Democrats' racial, religious, and social intolerance.

For fuck's sake. Trumpism is grounded in ethno-fascism. It is bald faced evil. It is a monster crawling out from under the bed, reveling in state-sanctioned cruelty, oozing malevolence from every pore, and feeding on ignorance and bigotry wherever it can find them. Division is the ONLY thing that can come from it, and as the age-old saying goes: a house divided cannot stand. That's why it's a threat. Trump's demagoguery has this country on the edge of disaster. 

The President of the United States actually takes it upon himself, almost on a daily basis, to intentionally divide the population for the sake of satiating his maniacal ego, this neurotic delusion he has about being a 'great man', when in truth he's nothing but a con, a fraud, and an utterly pathetic, evil, garbage human being.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.3.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @6.3    one month ago
For fuck's sake. Trumpism is grounded in ethno-fascism. It is bald faced evil. It is a monster crawling out from under the bed, reveling in state-sanctioned cruelty, oozing malevolence from every pore, and feeding on ignorance and bigotry wherever it can find them. Division is the ONLY thing that can come from it, and as the age-old saying goes: a house divided cannot stand. That's why it's a threat. Trump's demagoguery has this country on the edge of disaster.  The President of the United States actually takes it upon himself, almost on a daily basis, to intentionally divide the population for the sake of satiating his maniacal ego, this neurotic delusion he has about being a 'great man', when in truth he's nothing but a con, a fraud, and an utterly pathetic, evil, garbage human being.

Maybe.  Let's explore that and see if we can bring some enlightenment to the accusation.

Fascists used government to condemn opposing ideologies, to silence opponents to fascism, and to make those who did not support fascism enemy's of the state.  Has Trump done that?  No.  That sort of misuse of government is coming from Democrats.

Fascists used government to institute a program of indoctrination by requiring schools to teach specific topics in an approved manner that would support the ideology of fascism.  Has Trump done something similar?  No.  Democrats have been imposing indoctrinal teaching requirements onto schools.

Fascists used government to establish a public dependence upon fascist control of government to provide benefits and promised prosperity.  Is that a political agenda pursued by Trump?  No. Democrats have been promising the public they would provide everything and anything; state provided guaranteed income, state provided healthcare, state provided education.

Fascists used government to force public support of fascism by the press and in public discussion; using their control of government to censor unfavorable press and public discussion.  Has Trump done anything like that?  No.  Democrats have been demanding restrictions and censorship of opposing viewpoints in the press and public discussion.

Much more can be added to the list but isn't really necessary.  It seems Democrats are following the fascist playbook more closely than is Trump.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
6.3.2  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.1    one month ago
Fascists used government to condemn opposing ideologies, to silence opponents to fascism, and to make those who did not support fascism enemy's of the state. Has Trump done that? No. That sort of misuse of government is coming from Democrats.

You should read the Mueller report and count how many times Trump tried to get Sessions to go after Clinton. Then there's always the House GOP that demanded that Sessions go after her. 

Now we've got Trump's minions chanting 'send her back' and Trump saying that 'they' can't get away with opposing his agenda. How long before Trump has HIS DOJ looking into ways to punish the 'Squad', that is if he hasn't done so already. 

Fascists used government to institute a program of indoctrination by requiring schools to teach specific topics in an approved manner that would support the ideology of fascism.

You should go read about Mel and Norma Gabler. American textbooks were controlled by those bible thumpers for decades. 

Democrats have been imposing indoctrinal teaching requirements onto schools.

Links? 

Or are you talking about the bill just passed by the Democratically controlled legislature in Oregon that requires schools to teach about genocide and the Holocaust? 

Fascists used government to establish a public dependence upon fascist control of government to provide benefits and promised prosperity. Is that a political agenda pursued by Trump? No.

No? So YUGE tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations AND repeal of regulations don't benefit them and make them more prosperous? I thought that was the whole point. 

Fascists used government to force public support of fascism by the press and in public discussion; using their control of government to censor unfavorable press and public discussion. Has Trump done anything like that? No.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

Trump supports Fox and claims that every other source of media is FAKE NEWS. Trump has tried to have Journalists removed from the Press conferences. Trump tweets attacks on the NYT, WaPo, CNN ect. ect. ect. Trump banned journalists and the public from his twitter account until the court stopped him. BTFW, though they argued that his twitter account was PRIVATE, Trump used the DOJ to defend him in that suit.

Trump is using the government to support his form of fascism. 

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
6.3.4  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.1    one month ago

It's astonishing that you missed the entire point of my post. I even went out of my way to bold face it for you. The subject I quoted was why Trumpism is a threat. The reply was because all it can do is divide. That was the point. If I'd known you'd get so hung up on only one word of a two word term in another sentence, I would have just used the term ethno-nationalism instead. Pretty much the same intended meaning.

Sorry you wasted your time on such a nonsense reply. Dulay seems to have sorted quite a bit of that nonsense out for you, though. So, not a total loss, I guess.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.3.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @6.3.4    one month ago
It's astonishing that you missed the entire point of my post. I even went out of my way to bold face it for you. The subject I quoted was why Trumpism is a threat. The reply was because all it can do is divide. That was the point. If I'd known you'd get so hung up on only one word of a two word term in another sentence, I would have just used the term ethno-nationalism instead. Pretty much the same intended meaning. Sorry you wasted your time on such a nonsense reply. Dulay seems to have sorted quite a bit of that nonsense out for you, though. So, not a total loss, I guess.

And the other point is that Trumpism is a dog whistle created by partisans to call Pavlov's hounds to their side of the divide.

The label Trumpism is deliberately intended to foster and sustain tribal divisions along a partisan divide.  But the partisans who have created the dog whistle are not standing on a sound moral foundation, either.  

The astonishing thing is that the people complaining about Trumpism don't recognize they are no different than Trump.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

I don't know about anyone else here and if this is a deflection, I do apologize, but I for one have had it up to here with today's political atmosphere.  I long for a day when the needs of the people outweigh the egos, false promises, and infighting that seems to consume our elected officials.  No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    one month ago
but I for one have had it up to here with today's political atmosphere.

I'll submit all of us have.

But I'll also posit that the right is fighting tooth and nail against the far left radicals of the Democrat party that want to 'fundamentally transform' America into a socialist hell hole.

And just as an aside, ANYONE that runs for office of any type has a severe case of narcissism.  Granted some do accomplish some good, but the majority, of all political stripes, do it for personal gratification and power.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    one month ago
the far left radicals of the Democrat party that want to 'fundamentally transform' America into a socialist hell hole.

total nonsense. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    one month ago
total nonsense. 

Do you have evidence contrary?

They've all espoused their views during the first debate, and continue to do so, each one, every day trying to out do the other.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.2    one month ago
Do you have evidence contrary?

All the evidence is to the contrary. The whole bullshit socialist country rhetoric is nonsense, even 'Medicare for all' wouldn't turn us into the supposed Marxist socialist country straw man the right has invented and lit on fire in effigy. It's nothing but hot air being blown on old bigoted coals that still exist deep in the roots of the red States. This flailing inept conservative movement is riding on the anger of religious conservatives who feel their grip on power slipping away and a truly secular America finally emerging from the bigoted religious conservative cocoon it's been in since our founding.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.2    one month ago

You all called Obama a socialist. His tenure as president ended with record stock market performance. 

Right wingers call any level of social safety net "socialism".  It is an old and tired "argument". 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.3    one month ago
'Medicare for all'

Do the "Broke" still pay into the "FOR ALL" System, or is there a caveat to that "ALL for one" thingy the "Left keeps pushing ?

I hear that back in the olden days, when "they" forcefully made the "Farms" all one in a certain place, folks starved and died. But I suppose it was a Great Idea back then. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    one month ago
You all called Obama a socialist.

I don't remember doing any such thing.  IF you have evidence to the contrary, I'll apologize.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    one month ago
Right wingers call any level of social safety net "socialism". 

Many seem to think that socialism is a synonym for statism.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.3    one month ago
All the evidence is to the contrary.

Really?  Free everything for everyone is bullshit?

And who exactly will pay for that 'medicare' for all (including illegal alien invaders)?  Free education?  And all the other shit the Democrats push.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    one month ago
His tenure as president ended with record stock market performance. 

Once all the help from the FED and the stimulus programs ceased, the 'Obama economy' essentially flatlined.  At least until Trump won the election.  Then it took off once again.

 
 
 
Sunshine
7.1.10  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.4    one month ago
Right wingers call any level of social safety net "socialism".

We already have safety net programs.  What additional programs are you proposing and why?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.8    one month ago
Free everything for everyone is bullshit?

Yes, that's total BS and you know it. It not even really worth replying to such a ridiculous comment.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
7.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    one month ago

 And some have this ridiculous idea that you can separate socialism from statism in some distinct manner.

  I suspect it’s probably some closet socialist that would come up with that.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
7.1.13  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.3    one month ago

Except we all know that the green new deal was conceived as a blueprint for a socialist Marxist state and worse, that’s including several presidential candidates who couldn’t wait to jump on the bandwagon.

 Nobody’s buying that bullshit  sleight of hand tickphuckery, not a chance anymore 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.11    one month ago
Yes, that's total BS and you know it. It not even really worth replying to such a ridiculous comment.

Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for health coverage for illegal alien invaders?

Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for free college?

Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for tuition debt forgiveness?

Are you claiming that some Democrats have advocated for essentially monthly stipends for all from cradle to grave?

Are you claiming that some Democrats have not advocated for hundreds of billions of dollars assistance for 'some' to buy a home?

Come on DP...   tell me I'm wrong.  Oh and PROVE it.  I can prove they did, can you prove otherwise?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @7.1.12    one month ago

Supporting my point, FW raises his hand as someone who thinks socialism = statism. 

head-buried-in-sand.jpg  

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @7.1.13    one month ago
... socialist Marxist state ...

If done abruptly (as in a voting cycle) that would mean the workers would somehow assume control over all industry, the stock market would be dissolved, the financial system would be fundamentally changed, and that is just for starters.

Who is advocating for this?   Who has put forth proposals for this?

The leftmost Ds are pushing for more social democracy in the USA.   They are modeling their positions on European social democracies ... in particular the Nordics (capitalist economies).   

Nobody is advocating removing capitalism as the economic system for the USA.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
7.1.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.16    one month ago

 You don’t get it you never have and apparently you never will 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @7.1.17    one month ago

Brilliant non-rebuttal.   Exactly the kind of vague bullshit I expected to read.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
7.1.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.18    one month ago

 There’s nothing to rebut you have offered nothing but some rigid non conforming interpretation of socialism in your usual self righteous format  as if some is gonna buy your version of socialism without the state‘s involvement.

 Don’t tell me you’re going to go for a religious hierarchy overlay on top of this socialist system instead 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @7.1.19    one month ago
... as if some is gonna buy your version of socialism without the state‘s involvement.

Statism does not simply mean state involvement.   Did you not know that?

Here is an easy way for you to realize your confusion.   Capitalism involves the state.   Without state involvement it would be impossible to hold property, engage in contracts, etc.   Civil society needs the involvement of the state to function.

Thus, the presence of state involvement is not a distinguishing factor for statism.   It is also not a distinguishing factor for socialism or capitalism since both require the state to function.

Look up the definition of statism for the punchline.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.21  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.14    one month ago
Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for health coverage for illegal alien invaders?
I can prove they did, can you prove otherwise?

Oh please DO post a link to a Democrat advocating for health coverage for 'illegal alien invaders'. Please make sure that it's phrased verbatim. 

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.22  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @7.1.21    one month ago
Oh please DO post a link to a Democrat advocating for health coverage for 'illegal alien invaders'.

Liberals would never refer to illegal alien invaders as such. They much more prefer to call them "future democratic voters".

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.23  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @7.1.22    one month ago
Liberals would never refer to illegal alien invaders as such.

So he can't prove what he claimed. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.24  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @7.1.21    one month ago
Oh please DO post a link to a Democrat advocating for health coverage for 'illegal alien invaders'. Please make sure that it's phrased verbatim. 

I've already told you, I don't play your word games.  Is that too difficult to understand?  A simple yes or no will suffice as an answer.  

But try this on for size about Democrats favoring illegals getting health coverage.

All Democrats At Main Debate Agree Illegal Immigrants Should Get Health Care Coverage

Source:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/27/all_dem_candidates_raise_hand_when_asked_if_illegal_immigrants_should_get_health_care_coverage_at_debate.html

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.25  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @7.1.23    one month ago
So he can't prove what he claimed. 

Your illegal immigrant, or even more politically correct undocumented immigrant is my illegal alien invader.  See how simple that is?

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.26  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @7.1.23    one month ago
So he can't prove what he claimed. 

Stupid word games you play. Nobody cares.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.27  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.24    one month ago
I've already told you, I don't play your word games. Is that too difficult to understand? A simple yes or no will suffice as an answer.

[deleted]

But try this on for size about Democrats favoring illegals getting health coverage.

Looky there XD, you CAN play word games...

BTFW, they're going to get health care either way. Perhaps it would behoove you to check into the facts about how much cheaper it would be to cover poor people, including illegals, than to pay for their health care at emergency rooms. It's good fiscal policy. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.28  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @7.1.27    one month ago
Looky there XD, you CAN play word games...

I already told you I'm not playing your word games.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.29  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.25    one month ago

Yes, I see how simple your statement is. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.14    one month ago
Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for health coverage for illegal alien invaders?

You make it sound like we're spending all our money healing Klingons. "Illegal alien invaders!" are also poor minority immigrant asylum seekers simply trying to survive, humans who at worst committed a misdemeanor by crossing our border illegally. But go ahead, paint them as the scary alien invaders, with cantaloupe calves from running drugs across the border or raping American women, whatever gets the white nationalists and bigots all pumped up and ready for Trump rally's.

Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for free college?

There are some Democrats who have advocated for free local 2 year Junior Public College which is definitely not the same thing as "free college!" as anyone who went to a local Junior college will tell you. You're not going to see a bunch of kids who normally go to four year colleges opting to go to a Junior college instead just because its free. Right now a year with a full schedule of classes in my area is $432 per quarter ($1,728 a year) versus the average four year college tuition of $34,740 a year. The only ones availing themselves of the "free college" will be the working poor trying to get themselves and their family out of the gutters and fast food service jobs which will benefit everyone, and for the small investment, its absolutely worth it and not "socialist" if you actually understand the definition of the word.

Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for tuition debt forgiveness?

Yes, some have argued for tuition forgiveness but few have advocated for simply firgiving the debt, most have some sort of work qualifications like Pete Buttigiegs plan to expand the PeaceCorp and the AmeriCorp national service organization where those with school debt can apply and work off some or all of it by spending a year or more in the PeaceCorp. Again, not socialism.

Are you claiming that some Democrats have advocated for essentially monthly stipends for all from cradle to grave?

We already do that in Alaska, why is that such a crazy idea? And its still not socialism.

Are you claiming that some Democrats have not advocated for hundreds of billions of dollars assistance for 'some' to buy a home?

There have been many who called for low interest or even no interest loans to help low income families afford a home. Still not socialism. None of those proposals is socialism or even a slippery slope towards it. If you believe that, then you simply don't understand what socialism is and might want to go take a refresher course, especially if you're constantly mixing it up with communism.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.31  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @7.1.27    one month ago
BTFW, they're going to get health care either way. Perhaps it would behoove you to check into the facts about how much cheaper it would be to cover poor people, including illegals, than to pay for their health care at emergency rooms. It's good fiscal policy. 

Typical play Dulay.  You don't like the truth in the answer so you change the game.

As I told you.  I'm not playing pathetic word games with you.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.32  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.30    one month ago
Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for health coverage for illegal alien invaders? You make it sound like we're spending all our money healing Klingons. "Illegal alien invaders!" are also poor minority immigrant asylum seekers simply trying to survive, humans who at worst committed a misdemeanor by crossing our border illegally. But go ahead, paint them as the scary alien invaders, with cantaloupe calves from running drugs across the border or raping American women, whatever gets the white nationalists and bigots all pumped up and ready for Trump rally's.

Oh please stop the garbage.  I'm seriously tired of people who think we're the worlds piggy bank and savior.  If it were up to you and your's we would have no borders and everyone from everywhere would be leeches sucking at the teat of American largess.

Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for free college? There are some Democrats who have advocated for free local 2 year Junior Public College which is definitely not the same thing as "free college!" as anyone who went to a local Junior college will tell you. You're not going to see a bunch of kids who normally go to four year colleges opting to go to a Junior college instead just because its free. Right now a year with a full schedule of classes in my area is $432 per quarter ($1,728 a year) versus the average four year college tuition of $34,740 a year. The only ones availing themselves of the "free college" will be the working poor trying to get themselves and their family out of the gutters and fast food service jobs which will benefit everyone, and for the small investment, its absolutely worth it and not "socialist" if you actually understand the definition of the word.

So, you try to spin it to suit you.  "There are some Democrats who have advocated".  If you want more education, pay for it yourself.  

Are you claiming that the Democrats have not advocated for tuition debt forgiveness? Yes, some have argued for tuition forgiveness but few have advocated for simply firgiving the debt, most have some sort of work qualifications like Pete Buttigiegs plan to expand the PeaceCorp and the AmeriCorp national service organization where those with school debt can apply and work off some or all of it by spending a year or more in the PeaceCorp. Again, not socialism.

WORD games again.  As you note "Yes, some have argued for tuition forgiveness but few have advocated for simply firgiving the debt,"   it is a yes or no, and as you yourself indicate it is a YES...  DEBT forgiveness.

Are you claiming that some Democrats have advocated for essentially monthly stipends for all from cradle to grave? We already do that in Alaska, why is that such a crazy idea? And its still not socialism.

TOTALLY different.  Alaskans are sharing in the OIL revenue.  They're NOT taking it from me and giving it to others as some have proposed.  

Are you claiming that some Democrats have not advocated for hundreds of billions of dollars assistance for 'some' to buy a home? There have been many who called for low interest or even no interest loans to help low income families afford a home. Still not socialism. None of those proposals is socialism or even a slippery slope towards it. If you believe that, then you simply don't understand what socialism is and might want to go take a refresher course, especially if you're constantly mixing it up with communism.

First, maybe you should check what Kamala has proposed.  Second, do you remember what happened the last time people who couldn't afford the homes they bought?  If not, look back about 12 years to tickle the memory cells.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.33  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.31    one month ago
Typical play Dulay. You don't like the truth in the answer so you change the game.

Your 'typical play' has become pretense. 

My comment was on point and factual. You don't seem to like that truth. 

As I told you. I'm not playing pathetic word games with you.

Yet here you are again, pretending that my comment isn't relevant while being incapable of addressing the facts. That's YOUR game. Enjoy. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.34  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @7.1.33    one month ago
Yet here you are again, pretending that my comment isn't relevant

[Deleted]

Play your word games with others.  I'm done with you.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.35  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.34    one month ago
I'm done with you.

Promise? 

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.36  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @7.1.33    one month ago
My comment was on point and factual.

No it wasn't. XD pretty much explained in detail how you are wrong, very wrong.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    one month ago

Paula, is it what it is. If we throw our hands up at this point Trumpism wins, and the people whose world view is based on "both sides are equally at fault" win. "Both sides" are not equally at fault for the rise of Trumpism. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2    one month ago

Yes John it was Obama the Democrat that gave Trumpism the shot of adrenaline needed to go for the gold and win the nation over. Watch as Obama motivates him into action. 

 
 
 
WallyW
7.3  WallyW  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    one month ago
You might tell your democrat representatives to quit harassing Trump, and get busy working for their constituents.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    one month ago

Not deflection at all. Just a very true and realistic comment. Thanks for bringing that up. It is something that seems to getting lost sight of more an more these days.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    one month ago
I long for a day when the needs of the people outweigh the egos, false promises, and infighting that seems to consume our elected officials.  No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

Completely agree. 100% spot on! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
8  Kathleen    one month ago

So far, they have not done nothing of the sort. It is more like shear hatred and out to get. 

Between Trump and the people that want him gone, I have seen nothing but attacks and name calling. 

Do I think Trump says stupid things, yes, but I also don’t like the way the left has handled it. 

If they don’t like you?   Watch out!!!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Kathleen @8    one month ago

However, remember that it was the same from the GOP radicals when Obama was in the Oval office.

In fact, that is the way it is with every President no matter which side they are from. At least in my long memory during my lifetime. It's just gotten more vicious, destructive and divisive now. And unfortunately I don't see it changing anytime soon.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

dave-2693993
JBB
igknorantzrulz
GregTx
Vic Eldred
bugsy
Drakkonis
KDMichigan
JohnRussell
MrFrost


Dulay
Freefaller


53 visitors