Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Come back! Need discussion...2020 PresidentialFollow

#102 Jul 23 2019 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,640 posts
I think it was mostly older people that think they know best that voted for trump. They're scared of moving forward.

Things change - that's a fact.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#103 Jul 23 2019 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,517 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think it was mostly older people that think they know best that voted for trump. They're scared of moving forward.



I think about that every time someone in their 60s or older dies when their fat clogged arteries give out. With every day that passes there are fewer of them.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#104 Jul 24 2019 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,640 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:


I think about that every time someone in their 60s or older dies when their fat clogged arteries give out. With every day that passes there are fewer of them.
That's disgusting and I don't believe that this is the generation that suffers from fat clogged arteries. That would be your generation.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#105 Jul 25 2019 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,680 posts
Elinda wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
I think about that every time someone in their 60s or older dies when their fat clogged arteries evil, black hearts give out. With every day that passes there are fewer of them.
That's disgusting and I don't believe that this is the generation that suffers from fat clogged arteries. That would be your generation.
There, I fix'd it.
Smiley: schooled
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#106 Aug 09 2019 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,422 posts
Bit late, but whatever...

laviont wrote:

The new pictures of the camps are worse than the stock photos they used from Obama's time.

By all accounts, when Obama had kids in cages, they only kept them for a few days, not years, before letting them go. AKA Catch and release, because of the Ninth Circuit Court's reinterpretation of the Flores agreement which requires that children could not be detained for more than 20 days, with or without an adult. After that long they are required to put them in shelters, or release them inside the country to await their court date, because that's the humane Jesus way of doing it. He even shut down shelters when they weren't up to humane standards.


Trump is keeping the kids in detention for the same period of time. Nothing has changed from a legal or standard point of view in terms of how ICE manages these detention facilities. What has changed is the Left's very public and very media driven outcry about these things, specifically with the cries about "separating children from their parents", which was happening under Obama too (had to happen since the kids could only be held for 20 days, right?). The Left just decided to make hay out of the same thing when Trump was president that they didn't care about when Obama was president. Which is kind of the point I've been making here. It's manufactured outrage. If you weren't pissed off about it 5 years ago, but you are today, then it's not really you being upset about it, but you deciding to be upset based on who the president is right now. Which makes it not about the policy, but the person.

Quote:
Trump's zero tolerance policy is arresting more than they can hold, care for, and feed, keeping them for longer than they should. On top of that 2/3 of the agents are in a facebook group bragging about how badly they treat the people they interact with daily.


Literally, nothing in that statement is true.

Quote:
Quote:
45's administration also destroyed documents that are legally required to be kept.

Page 18 of the Mueller report, and the 5 boxes of evidence from Omarosa's office.


Page 18 of the Mueller report is entirely blanked out except for one line defining "troll". Care to try again?

A word search of the pdf does not find any match of the name Omarosa. "Newman" shows up only once as a reference in the appendix. It's not "in the report". This comes from claims she made on various Left leaning news programs after the fact, and even then in extremely vague and purely speculative terms. Funny thing. I don't take the word of disgruntled former employees very seriously. They always make claims like this. They were treated unfairly, there was unspecified dubious stuff going on, etc. Always. Take with huge grain of salt here.

Quote:
Quote:
That's not why he fired Comey though.


Quote:
Holt, May 11: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Trump: Right.

Holt: Did you ask for a recommendation?

Trump: What I did is, I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not —

Holt: You had made the decision before they came in the room.

Trump: I was going to fire Comey. There’s no good time to do it, by the way.

Holt: Because in your letter you said, “I accepted their recommendation.”

Trump: Well, they also —

Holt: So, you had already made the decision.

Trump: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.
...

Trump: [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.


I'm sorry. Where in there is there any evidence that Trump fired Comey in order to prevent an investigation of his campaign vis-a-vis "collaboration with the Russians to rig the election"? If anything, he's saying that he wanted to fire Comey anyway, and the calculation was that the claims about the collusion were BS, but nothing he could do would change that, so there was no good time to fire Comey anyway, so may as well just do it now.

Which is what I was arguing. Trump knew that Comey was a loose cannon, who was playing political games. The wildly veering actions he took in 2016 showed that he wasn't acting on evidence in cases, but on which direction he thought the political winds were blowing at any given moment and in the process had alienated both sides of the political spectrum. He had to go. And as Trump himself said. There was no good time to do it. Any time would have been seen as some kind of political play, payback, etc. It can even be argued that Comey's actions at the time were designed specifically to make it more difficult for Trump to fire him. Think about it. He knows he's screwed up. He knows he's pissed too many people off. So he jumps on the "Russian collusion" bandwagon, pushes publicly for an investigation, so that if Trump fires him, it'll look like exactly the form of retaliation or opposition you are claiming (ie: You're being played here). It was a gambit to make Trump think twice about firing him.

Trump doesn't play those games though, and fired him anyway. At least, that's how I read the entire scenario. You're free to fall head first into the political trickery if you want, however.

Quote:
It's not the number of connections, it's what kind.


Uh hun. And past presidential candidates haven't had folks on their campaign staff with similar "kinds" of past relationships with foreign governments? You still haven't bothered to establish this. Carter Page's background is not uncommon for the kind of people who are picked up and tasked to be foreign policy experts in campaigns and administrations. You don't get that experience without having those kinds of connections.

Once again, it's false outrage by pretending that something that is common and ordinary is rare and extraordinary but only when your political enemies do it. That's selective. It's also false.

Quote:
Another tu quoque fallacy with a bit of special pleading fallacy sprinkled on top.


That fallacy only applies if the action of the first party is actually "wrong". Given that Page was investigated as a result of "attempts to recruit him", but was found to have not been successfully recruited, he didn't do anything wrong or illegal. So saying "he didn't do anything wrong, just like lots of other people who did the same thing didn't do anything wrong", isn't a fallacy.

I'll point out, for the record, that the Mueller report also found that Page did not commit any crimes, and was therefore not indicted for anything. Shocking, right? So the guy you're hinging this entire line of argument on, didn't do anything wrong, thus his connections were not illegal or wrong, thus anyone else doing the same thing wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong (You know, like I've been saying all along), and thus arguing that Trumps campaign was somehow doing something wrong by merely having him there is also... wait for it. WRONG.

Crazy, huh? See how the house of cards falls apart when facts show up?

Quote:
You're literally avoiding seeing that trump actually has been begging for Kremlin's favor his whole life, and then Russians do something awful for him that they can gain from. He is weakening our country for personal gain. The voting machines are hacked, and you don't care because "your team" is winning. That's as unamerican as it gets.


No, I'm not. I'm saying that it's irrelevant. The charge here isn't: "Had past business dealings in Russia (as well as numerous other countries around the world), which involved blowing the usual smoke up people's butts to make them like you that people who do business around the world do". The charge is "colluding with the Russians to affect the outcome of the election in Trump's favor". Nothing you've said comes anywhere close to this. I'll also point out that the Intelligence report on this clearly stated that no election machines were hacked, by the Russians or anyone else. So I'm not sure where that's even coming from. You're just spewing garbage and hoping something sticks.

Quote:
quasi-timeline for you to try to wrap your head around why trump was investigated:
trump tries to get a hotel in moscow
carter page loves russia too much for any normal american
manafort does some bad stuff for russia
trump runs for president with roger stone, rick gates, paul manafort, george papadopoulos at his back
papadopoulos sets up meetings with kremlin, hears about some emails
roger stone gets into contact with guccifer 2.0 about them emails
wikileaks drops the emails
russian social media propaganda machine intensifies, anyone but hillary
trump asks russia for the rest of the emails on live tv
within hours russia responds by getting those emails
2 days after trump is "elected" obama warns him not to put flynn in there
trump does anyway
flynn gets investigated
trump asks comey to stop
comey indicts flynn
trump fires comey
meuller is appointed
jeff sessions recuses himself
trump rebukes him for not keeping a chilling effect on the department of justice
trump tells mcgahn to fire meuller
mcgahn resigns
trump bullies sessions until he quits
barr shuts down meuller investigation


Ok. Where's the collusion in there? Nothing in there is illegal. Want to try again, this time actually making something remotely close to an argument in support of your position?

Quote:
What does it take for you to see that this is a lot of crap to just let slide?


Um... The point that it is, as you say, crap. It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of random stuff you've listed, that doesn't paint any sort of picture at all.

Edited, Aug 9th 2019 4:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Aug 09 2019 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,680 posts
gbaji wrote:
Once again, it's false outrage by pretending that something that is common and ordinary is rare and extraordinary but only when your political enemies do it. That's selective. It's also false.
Hey, just admit your side does it too and it cancels out, right?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#108 Aug 10 2019 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
***
3,051 posts
While I have been gone I forgot how things work in Thailand and thought that he was a follower of George Will and not sell out like McConnell. Guess thank drank the kool_aid when 45 got the tax cuts passed, even though it won't ever help him.

Then thank and 45 seem to agree on what shall qualify as date rape.

What happened to the party of moral standards? I guess it only counts if the Democratic party does it.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#109 Aug 11 2019 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
***
1,109 posts
That's disgusting

Yeah, well, sometimes the truth is disgusting. Look at a piece of cheese under a microscope and you'll see what I mean.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#110 Aug 11 2019 at 8:34 PM Rating: Good
***
3,051 posts
Autocorrect changed gbaji to thank and gbajiland to Thailand. If I noticed it last night I was too tired to correct it.

I'm now living in the outskirts of Washington DC with an older man who is a member of the American Socialist Party. I call him my Red Diaper baby, as his father was even more of a Socialist than he is. He seems to be leaning towards Warren over Bernie right now, which maybe my Democratic party influence on him.

Of course we both will vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary come November. Only someone who's been drinking the right wing kool-aid would vote for Trump in the general election.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#111 Aug 13 2019 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,422 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Once again, it's false outrage by pretending that something that is common and ordinary is rare and extraordinary but only when your political enemies do it. That's selective. It's also false.
Hey, just admit your side does it too and it cancels out, right?


Hey Laviont? Here's that tu quoque fallacy you were looking for.


Bijou: on the rare occasion when "my side" does this, I call them out on it as well, and certainly don't fall in line with it. By all means, find an example of me supporting this kind of selective/false outrage when done by the Right. I'm reasonably certain you wont find one in the couple decades I've been posting here, but you're free to try.

And before you go there, something you *think* is "false" doesn't match this case. It has to be something where the action was clearly taking place by the GOP previously, but they're angry about it later when the same exact thing is done by the Dems. And no, false claims of "this is the same thing the GOP did!" don't count either. So a DoE program under Bush which was limited to funding research into alternative energy which was then expanded under Obama to directly subsidize production of end products, does not count. Neither does an DoJ program to sell guns to straw buyers that was shut down due to concerns over the risk of loosing track of them under the Bush administration which later gets re-started by the Obama administration with the "fix" to the risk of loosing track of the guns being to just not bother to try to track them at all (and compartmentalization of the program so that the agents involved aren't even aware of this fact). Those are legitimate cases to be outraged over, as the programs were significantly altered in ways that changed them from one thing to something completely different (and in one case, a half a billion dollars of tax payer money lost, and in the second one Border Patrol officer dying and uncounted numbers of Mexican citizens killed, but who's counting, right?).

In the case we're talking about, the regulations ICE is following have not changed at all. Which is why the initial photos of kids in cages taken during the Obama era looked exactly like the ones taken more recently. Same detention facilities. Same cages. Same everything. Being outraged now while not caring then is absolutely selective. Now, maybe you would have been outraged then if you'd known about it, but then that just shifts the selectivity from you to the media and political pundits who didn't tell you then, but are screaming at you to be outraged about it now. Either way, it's selective outrage. Your first question should be "why are you making a big deal about this right now?". Every answer to that question circles back to "Because the GOP is in power and we want to make it seem like they are big meanies".

Edited, Aug 13th 2019 2:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Aug 13 2019 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,422 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Autocorrect changed gbaji to thank and gbajiland to Thailand. If I noticed it last night I was too tired to correct it.


Ah. That makes more sense now. Whew! That was beyond even the normal ElneClaresse.

ElneClare wrote:
While I have been gone I forgot how things work in Thailand and thought that he was a follower of George Will and not sell out like McConnell. Guess thank drank the kool_aid when 45 got the tax cuts passed, even though it won't ever help him.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. My positions on various political issues have not changed. And certainly not due to who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the moment. What's funny is that it appears as though my unwillingness to change my position based on the person in power is what most people get upset at. I've always been for small government, lower taxes, pro gun rights, strong immigration enforcement (although I'd like to see more focus on alternative visa methodologies to go along with making it harder to illegally cross the border, which I've *also* been very consistent on). I've always been of the opinion that the federal government should focus on issues only it can do (national defense, national trade policy, international treaties, etc), and not much on the domestic except in a limited regulatory manner to deal with interstate issues.

I also, unlike most folks on the Left, don't think tax policy should be about what is best for me personally, but what is actually best in general. One of the things that always baffles me is when Liberals point out Conservatives and say something like "why would you support a tax change that doesn't benefit you". Um... All you're doing is pointing out how self centered you are if you think it should always be about what's best for "me". And while folks decry any tax cut as "tax cuts for the rich", the reality is that while a person who pays $1million in taxes who gets a 1% decrease saves $10,000 dollars, and a person who pays $10,000 in taxes who gets a 10% decrease only saves $1,000 (which is where the whole "OMG! Rich people get the lions share of tax cuts!" argument comes from), the money saved by the latter person actually benefits him far far more than the rich guy's tax cut does. The wealthier someone is, the lower the percentage of their income they actually use to provide for themselves directly. Most "rich" people essentially give themselves a living allowance, with everything made past that point going into some form of investment. So the "tax cuts for the rich" overwhelmingly result in more money in the investment side of the economy, which if we assume a consistent ratio of short term versus long term investment in portfolios across this segment, will result in a consistent increase in investments which result in economic growth, job creation, and new product development, all of which go a long way towards improving the lives of everyone who is *not* rich.

I get that many people out there just don't believe this, and thus reject it, but you could at least accept that I *do*, and thus isn't not inconsistent nor "evil" for me to support such policies, even if they don't appear to benefit me directly initially. Maybe even especially so.

Quote:
Then thank and 45 seem to agree on what shall qualify as date rape.


Not sure where this is coming from at all. If I was a Bill Clinton supporter, you might have a point. We'll except for us agreeing on such things. But you'd be right in terms of which guy has a long history of sexual assault.

Quote:
What happened to the party of moral standards? I guess it only counts if the Democratic party does it.


What specifically are you talking about? It's amusing to me how often these sorts of claims are tossed out there by folks on the Left, but they can never seem to be specific. Just declaring the GOP to be "immoral", doesn't make it true. Heck, you notice how the media suddenly stopped showing all these images of Trump with Epstein? Want to know why? Because all of the photos and videos with both of them in it, were back when Trump was a Democrat, and they are all at Dem party events where both of them were big donors to that party. Um... Which "side" has a morality problem again?

Hint: It's not the GOP. The Dems are so used to positive media coverage and even cover ups, that they've become comfortable assuming they will just get away with stuff they do, and over time have become so blatant about it that it's getting ridiculous. The GOP, on the other hand, will get nailed for anything the media can possibly spin into a scandal, and thus have become increasingly squeaky clean. The morality delta between the two parties is massive.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Aug 15 2019 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,640 posts
Hickenlooper is out. But another seemingly entitled white dude signed on (can't remember name).

How's everyone feeling about their favorite democratic candidate for pres?

I'm still with Warren. Harris my second choice replacing Klobuchar; I like her courageous bluntness. Biden as made some old age oopsies, but they haven't seemed to hurt him in polls - yet.

Gbajis (test)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#114 Aug 15 2019 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,640 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
That's disgusting

Yeah, well, sometimes the truth is disgusting. Look at a piece of cheese under a microscope and you'll see what I mean.
I was at my local farmers market early on in the season. I asked one of the vendors why there was no cheese/yogurt farmer there this year. His response was, "buy some goats and make your own".

So, I'm thinking of buying goats. But how many???
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#115 Aug 21 2019 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,422 posts
Elinda wrote:

How's everyone feeling about their favorite democratic candidate for pres?

I'm still with Warren. Harris my second choice replacing Klobuchar; I like her courageous bluntness. Biden as made some old age oopsies, but they haven't seemed to hurt him in polls - yet.


I've somehow managed to miss the various debate on live TV so far, so I'm mostly reacting to news coverage after the fact, but I agree that Warren is looking to be the most likely candidate (well, so far). It's possible that as the pack trims down someone will rise up a bit and become more promising, but so many of these candidates are so "out there" that I'm not sure they are electable once we get into the general. Not sure how primary voters are going to go with this though.

Biden may be numerically in the lead, but he is seriously showing his age, and not in a good way. He's always been a gaff machine, but now he just comes off as addled and confused half the time. He struggles to get through a sentence if it's not on a prompter, forgets things, mixes up dates, times, events, etc. Not qualities people are looking for in a president. I can overlook the occasional brain ****. We all do it. But he's like 100 steps beyond that and well into "maybe we should be putting him in a home" category.

Warren could thread the needle, and might just be the only candidate who can. She's got some baggage in her background, but that's at least manageable. The only negative for her is that (ironically) she might not be seen as "liberal enough" for the current crop of Dem primary voters. Again though, that comes down to how the primary voters actually vote versus what we're seeing in polling in terms of what folks claim they want in a candidate. I suspect there's a gap there, and when it comes down to actually voting, we'll see more moderate results (which should favor Warren, or some other more reasonable person if one floats up in the process).

The danger is that the perception of needing to fling oneself to the far far left in order to appease the liberal base might lead her (and other candidates) to take positions that make it far more difficult in the general. Again, whether primary voters consider that, or push hard on the far left positions is still up in the air.

It'll be interesting to watch. That's for sure.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Aug 24 2019 at 3:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,587 posts
There is no far left in the US. None of the candidates has a far left position. They're all centre-right.
#117 Aug 27 2019 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,422 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
There is no far left in the US. None of the candidates has a far left position. They're all centre-right.


Relative to the political positions of the voters in the US? Wrong on all three counts. And given that they are attempting to win the votes of voters in the US and not in other countries around the world, that kinda matters a heck of a lot. Right now, the Dem candidates are trying really hard to appease a small, very vocal, and very active "far left" portion of their voting base. But in the process of falling over themselves to do that, they are setting themselves up to have a very hard time winning even the more moderate portions of their own party voters, much less folks actually "in the middle", and certainly not anyone to the right of the middle (again, all relative to US political positions and ideology).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Aug 28 2019 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,587 posts
Sure but I think you're severely underestimating the number of people on the left end of your spectrum. The under 35s are much more liberal than previous generations and their engagement is increasing substantially.

Your right is in serious trouble I think.
#119 Aug 28 2019 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,422 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Sure but I think you're severely underestimating the number of people on the left end of your spectrum. The under 35s are much more liberal than previous generations and their engagement is increasing substantially.


But "much more" is also a relative term. While the percentage of people who identify as liberal has increased over time, it's still smaller than those who identify as conservative and those who identify as moderate. The ratios in the US are about 35% conservative, 35% moderate, and 20% liberal. I guess there's about 10% who don't know what they believe. Go figure. The point is that pushing an agenda that is very much aligned with the liberal positions is a losing proposition. Even in the Democratic Party, only just over half of voters identify as liberal (51%). And that's after a couple decades of that number increasing in that party.

Sure, the trend is upwards, but right at this moment? Pushing socialized medicine, the green new deal, open borders, etc, might get someone nominated in the Democratic Party (maybe), but those are things that push the "OMG no!" button for everyone else. Moderates in the Democratic Party will have a hard time voting for their own nominee, and everyone who identifies as moderate or conservative in every other party will almost certainly vote against whomever that nominee is.

This is the reason why the strategy (for the last 20 years or so, so it's not really about Trump) has been to demonize conservatives. The did this to Bush too. And you can certainly see it with Trump. It's entirely about painting him as a racist, bigot, sexist, etc, etc, etc, so as to get people to hate him emotionally. They know they can't actually win on ideology, so they have to go with demonizing the opponent to the point where (they hope) people will vote for their candidate anyway (or at least not vote for Trump).

Um. I'll point out that this is the exact same strategy they tried in 2016. And it didn't work. And that was when Trump was an unknown in terms of policies and outcomes. Given the overwhelmingly positive results he's achieved since taking office, it's going to be a lot harder to play this game.

Quote:
Your right is in serious trouble I think.


No, it's not. The percentage of voters who identify as conservative hasn't changed much over the last 30 years or so. The increase in liberal percentage has been one of label changing from moderates, mostly within the Democratic Party. That has little effect on general elections, but does represent a shift in policy priorities and language within the Dem party itself. Which, honestly, has had more of an effect of pushing the party away from positive policy arguments and towards the demonization methodology I mentioned above. The literally can't win on their ideas. They can only win by making people hate the "other side". Hence stuff like "basket of deplorables" and other similar statements. But it seems like the more they do this, the more they push everyone who isn't inside their own echo chamber away.

I think you are grossly overestimating the degree to which a liberal political agenda actually gains positive support in the US. It doesn't. It mostly generates a negative reaction.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Aug 29 2019 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,587 posts
Conservatives do much more demonizing than Liberals. Much much more. Both parties do it though.

When the right does it it's "Joe voted to steal your money and give it to liberals who can't even pay for their own doctors visits!"

When the left does it it's "He literally is a currently active member of the KKK, here he is in a robe and wizard hat"

That crowd of 35- people can't pay for their doctor visits and grew up on the internet where how people look is pretty much irrelevant. Conservatives need to change drastically or they'll be phased out as the population ages, they know this, they've been discussing it. The liberal's problem isn't support from the population it's active engagement of the population and these kids don't vote because they're too busy trying to pay for their doctors visits.

Even assuming your numbers are right they're not relevant really. Younger generations aren't going to identify as anything, they're going to vote to get Trump out whatever that vote needs to be. I think Trump can win a second term if turnout is low because conservatives WILL show up. 2016 was about Hillary. She was a horrible choice and another candidate would have won it. 2020 is going to be about whether the economy crashes before or after the election and if that's felt by the conservative base before they go to the polls because they're the one's that vote and the liberals will still be at their Starbucks job trying to make ends meet when the polls open.
#121 Aug 29 2019 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,422 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Conservatives do much more demonizing than Liberals. Much much more. Both parties do it though.


I disagree completely. Or perhaps you are using a very different definition of "demonizing" than I am. To me, when you demonize someone, you are attacking the person and not the position or action. So with that in mind...

Quote:
When the right does it it's "Joe voted to steal your money and give it to liberals who can't even pay for their own doctors visits!"


Yup. That's not demonizing Joe though. It's stating your opposition to a policy Joe enacted. IMO, that's completely appropriate commentary on a politicians actions and justification for voting for/against said politician (setting aside the bizarrely phrased second part of your imaginary conservative statement though).

Quote:
When the left does it it's "He literally is a currently active member of the KKK, here he is in a robe and wizard hat"


That *is* demonizing. Note, that this is entirely about making a claim about what kind of person "he" is, not anything about what he has done, what politics he supports, actions he has taken or plans to take, etc.

If you have a different definition of demonizing, I'd love to hear it and have you explain to the class how you arrived at that belief. To me, it's entirely about whether you talk about the person or the policy. The former is demonizing and should be dismissed as cheap rhetoric, the latter actually has relevance in political decisions and is legitimate.

Quote:
That crowd of 35- people can't pay for their doctor visits and grew up on the internet where how people look is pretty much irrelevant.


What makes you think that "how people look" is some special feature to conservatives? I'd argue that liberals spend a lot more time and effort talking about how people look than conservatives. They love to claim it's the conservatives who are race/***/identity obsessed, but they're the ones who constantly make a point about how their policies are "good for this group", or "help that group", etc. Um... look in the mirror sometime, maybe?

Quote:
Conservatives need to change drastically or they'll be phased out as the population ages, they know this, they've been discussing it. The liberal's problem isn't support from the population it's active engagement of the population and these kids don't vote because they're too busy trying to pay for their doctors visits.


You're talking about the strawman conservative that liberals have invented. That's not really how conservatives act or think. Unless you think conservatives need to change to be more like liberals, where we obsess over identity, and convince people they are victims so that they will support out positions? Cause that's what the left does. We just do crazy things like support economic policies that make people's lives better, make it easier for them to gain employment where they can afford health care, and a ton of other things that they might want. But when we do that, it's "OMG! They're just making the rich richer!", despite every economic indicator showing that it's the working and middle classes that benefit the most when conservative policies are actually employed.

Quote:
Even assuming your numbers are right they're not relevant really.


To be fair, I think I typoed (or brain farted) the number. I believe the percentage of voters identifying as liberals in the source I was looking at was about 25%, not 20%. The numbers for conservatives and moderates is correct (about 35% each). The point being that the fully liberal group represents only about a quarter of all voters. Going with an agenda that only appeals to them, and in fact likely pushes away everyone outside their group is a deal breaker. Sure, maybe a bunch of moderate Democrats will vote for whomever their nominee is regardless of how they personally feel about that nominees positions, but everything else being the same, you can expect turnout to be lower as a result than if they nominate someone closer to the mid range of the party.

Quote:
Younger generations aren't going to identify as anything, they're going to vote to get Trump out whatever that vote needs to be. I think Trump can win a second term if turnout is low because conservatives WILL show up. 2016 was about Hillary. She was a horrible choice and another candidate would have won it. 2020 is going to be about whether the economy crashes before or after the election and if that's felt by the conservative base before they go to the polls because they're the one's that vote and the liberals will still be at their Starbucks job trying to make ends meet when the polls open.


Younger voters are the most likely to be swayed by emotional appeals. It's why the whole demonization thing works so well on them. It's also precisely why the Democrats keep wanting to do things like lower the voting age.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that young people who vote liberal will continue to do so as they age. The trend is that as people get older, and wiser, and more aware of how the world really works outside the bubble of parents home, school, university, etc, they tend to shift to support conservative positions. Of course, the left is also aware of this, which is why they work hard to push back the time at which people are expected to take on adult responsibilities in society. Things like "you can stay on your parents health care until 26" and "free college education" aren't really about helping people with their health care and education, it's about making it easier for people to stay out of the "real" workplace for as long as possible, thus increasing the relative size of the kind of ignorant emotion driven voter base that the Dems need to win elections.


I'll point out again that the Democrats have more or less given up on positive policy arguments when calling on voters to vote for them. I can't speak to other countries, but here in the US they more or less lost that back in the 80s. Everything since then has been a steady loss for them through the 90s, until the 2000 election they realized they had no power in the federal government at all, and they panicked and have gone full attack mode ever since. And while that can score them some victories (and has), the more people they demonize along the way, the more people realize that they're just demonizing anyone who isn't in their group. The "us versus them" methodology tends to not work in the long term, and that's basically all they have now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Oct 10 2019 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,187 posts
Today was not a good day for the GOP apologists.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#123 Oct 10 2019 at 10:56 PM Rating: Good
***
3,812 posts
I attempted to rate up Alma
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (28)