Kansas Crimson

chiknbut wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:50 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:54 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:19 am

Man, how did we, and perhaps in the majority of Trump voters in particular, become so divided?

“Who cares about our own best interests, or whether our candidate is a slime ball. Let’s just stick it to the other guys!”

For me, it started with Obama's "You didn't build that," as well as his habit of continually apologizing to other countries and cultures on my behalf without my permission. It finally dawned on me that "This guy and his party think I'm an inconsequential piece of filth and would prefer that I cease to exist." Changed my outlook forever.

Deplorable.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:32 pm

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:12 pm Young online folks don't like Pete--and when did that become the largest Democratic voting block? Or one that actually goes to the polls?

Seems like just looking for a rationale for bashing Democrats. Fact is, from what I've seen on the ground, most Dems haven't made up their minds at all. At least Dem women, who are the ones that usually spend their time on all that mundane GOTV stuff.

Again an example of me being labeled as a far right conservative. I'm not bashing anyone, simply pointing out democrats bashing each other. I like Pete, unfortunately I dont think he will win the nomination.

Also, young online democrats are basically solely responsible for Andrew Yangs continued position in the race, not sure they are a huge bloc but most likely large enough to warrant consideration.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:49 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:41 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:32 pm I didn’t intend to presume I know what everyone else’s best interests are, nor am I quite sure how you took that away from my post.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:19 am
“Who cares about our own best interests, or whether our candidate is a slime ball. Let’s just stick it to the other guys!”

How do you know that sticking it to the other guy isn't in their best interests (or eveyone's best interests, for that matter)?

If, for example, you plan to be a billionaire someday and don't want the government to tax your wealth (as opposed to your income), then having Trump "stick it" to EWarren seems to coincide with your interests.

Nothing is in everyone's best interests. It doesn't work that way.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:52 pm

chiknbut wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:50 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:54 am

For me, it started with Obama's "You didn't build that," as well as his habit of continually apologizing to other countries and cultures on my behalf without my permission. It finally dawned on me that "This guy and his party think I'm an inconsequential piece of filth and would prefer that I cease to exist." Changed my outlook forever.

Deplorable.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:41 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:32 pm I didn’t intend to presume I know what everyone else’s best interests are, nor am I quite sure how you took that away from my post.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:19 am
“Who cares about our own best interests, or whether our candidate is a slime ball. Let’s just stick it to the other guys!”

How do you know that sticking it to the other guy isn't in their best interests (or eveyone's best interests, for that matter)?

If, for example, you plan to be a billionaire someday and don't want the government to tax your wealth (as opposed to your income), then having Trump "stick it" to EWarren seems to coincide with your interests.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:48 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:14 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:51 am
I dont believe this has "a pretty decent chance" of happening again. I personally had very little desire to vote for Hillary Clinton but ultimately did due to my opposition to the obvious fraud running on the GOP side. A lot of people sat out as a direct reflection of their opposition to Clinton specifically.

None of the Dem candidates have the kind of baggage that came with Clinton. Everyone has issues but nothing even remotely close to rivaling what came along with Clinton.

I dont believe this has "a pretty decent chance" of happening again

This is why it does have a decent chance. The democrats are so sure that they will win that they aren't addressing the issues that lost the last election. They aren't acknowledging the needs of the middle of the road voter. You arent a middle of the road voter, you lean fairly decently left like most here. I'm middle of the road in reality but get painted as far right conservative here. That's a statement on the make up of the people on this site, not representative of the make up of the voter pool.

What would a middle of the road Dem candidate look like to you? Where would they stand on gun rights/abortion/immigration etc....?

What you describe sounds lovely but I have never heard an actual description of this mythical middle of the road Dem that would "meet your needs".

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:17 pm There were no qualifiers in your op.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:57 pm
I have watched multiple interviews with Yang in the last few months. It is apparent that he has never worked in social services with low-income populations before. His insistence that a guaranteed $1,000 a month will not be a replacement for work but an incentive to keep working and move up the socioeconomic ladder is comical.

It will be another version of the current system where the money goes to buy cigarettes and cell phones and bills are paid through churches and community funds. Very few people are interested in working for a living anymore. They will milk the system until it dries up.

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:27 pm DC's right. The republican party has been ardently appealing to the racist/nativist/bigot/xenophobic demographic relentlessly for half a century, because it's a losing proposition, and doesn't work.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:29 pm

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:27 pm DC's right. The republican party has been ardently appealing to the racist/nativist/bigot/xenophobic demographic relentlessly for half a century, because it's a losing proposition, and doesn't work.

And either way, it’s the Democrat’s fault.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:32 pm

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:12 pm Young online folks don't like Pete--and when did that become the largest Democratic voting block? Or one that actually goes to the polls?

Seems like just looking for a rationale for bashing Democrats. Fact is, from what I've seen on the ground, most Dems haven't made up their minds at all. At least Dem women, who are the ones that usually spend their time on all that mundane GOTV stuff.

Again an example of me being labeled as a far right conservative. I'm not bashing anyone, simply pointing out democrats bashing each other. I like Pete, unfortunately I dont think he will win the nomination.

Also, young online democrats are basically solely responsible for Andrew Yangs continued position in the race, not sure they are a huge bloc but most likely large enough to warrant consideration.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:34 pm Somewhere I gotta tweet from dAviD fRUm that explains it all.

And he's cool now, right?

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:54 pmSteve Bannon.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:48 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:34 pm Somewhere I gotta tweet from dAviD fRUm that explains it all.

And he's cool now, right?

You got a tweet frum where?

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:14 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:57 pm
I have watched multiple interviews with Yang in the last few months. It is apparent that he has never worked in social services with low-income populations before. His insistence that a guaranteed $1,000 a month will not be a replacement for work but an incentive to keep working and move up the socioeconomic ladder is comical.

It will be another version of the current system where the money goes to buy cigarettes and cell phones and bills are paid through churches and community funds. Very few people are interested in working for a living anymore. They will milk the system until it dries up.

So, you've made a living screwing over poor people, especially poor women, children, and people of color with your personal bias because it so angers you that, with your inferior podunk Bible college education and not terribly high intelligence, you can't command the income that you believe that one born in your level of privilege deserves.

Glad to see that you admit it. Shall we expect the "female addicts are all whores, even the suburban wives" lecture next?