Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:23 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:15 am What about it? Trump blocked the most comprehensive border bill in many years because he thought it would benefit him politically.

Okay, then…if a Dem wasn’t effective enough in office to get a bill passed, instead loosing that battle to an opponent who isn’t even in office any more, then why does that Dem deserve another vote?

What you just said really makes no sense and shows a lack of understanding about how bills are passed, how politcla influence and pressure is applied, and what sitting members of congress have to balance when thinking about being reelected.

Most people brainstorm ideas on a piece of notebook paper. Not outloud for everyone else to hear/see/judge them for.

You gotta think some of this stuff through a little more thoroughly if you don't want to get dragged around here.

This advice, again, is coming from someone who used to brainstorm outloud on the messageboard and then would have to backtrack and clarify constantly because my ideas and feelings couldn't be presented clearly because I was all over the place.


Also, you don't have to vote for Harris. If that's your top voting issue and drives your personal decision then that's your right.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:23 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:15 am What about it? Trump blocked the most comprehensive border bill in many years because he thought it would benefit him politically.

Okay, then…if a Dem wasn’t effective enough in office to get a bill passed, instead loosing that battle to an opponent who isn’t even in office any more, then why does that Dem deserve another vote?

Lemme get this straight.

Because the intransigent House cultists blocked a bipartisan agreement out of loyalty to/fear of their cult leader, you would ... withhold your vote from the bulwark that remains against that cult taking control of all three branches?

(And you should note that I'm leaving a softball hanging over the plate, in your post.)

blaming Biden for trump’s stranglehold on the right is…something else

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:58 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:23 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:15 am What about it? Trump blocked the most comprehensive border bill in many years because he thought it would benefit him politically.

Okay, then…if a Dem wasn’t effective enough in office to get a bill passed, instead loosing that battle to an opponent who isn’t even in office any more, then why does that Dem deserve another vote?

Lemme get this straight.

Because the intransigent House cultists blocked a bipartisan agreement out of loyalty to/fear of their cult leader, you would ... withhold your vote from the bulwark that remains against that cult taking control of all three branches?

(And you should note that I'm leaving a softball hanging over the plate, in your post.)

well then, how's this for a walk-off grand slam right outta the park:

Because "the bulwark that remains against that cult" was, during their time in office, ineffective at preventing the "intransigent House cultists" and "their cult leader" who wasn't even in office at the time from imposing their cultish will upon an otherwise bipartisan agreement, then maybe that bulwark isn't the bulwark you think it is.

For real, we went from viewing "build the wall" as bigoted, to "now we're tougher than the cultists who wanna build the wall"

at this rate who knows how dems are gonna handle the "mass deportation now" rhetoric that the cult spews nowadays.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:42 am
What you just said really makes no sense and shows a lack of understanding about how bills are passed, how politcla influence and pressure is applied, and what sitting members of congress have to balance when thinking about being reelected.

what political influence and pressure has been applied?

By Trump, he applied his influence and pressure to nix a bipartisan agreement even tho he wasn't even in office at the time.

By dems, tho? What influence and pressure did they apply to try and pass that bipartisan agreement, thus countering Trump and the cult?

Also, you don't have to vote for Harris. If that's your top voting issue and drives your personal decision then that's your right.

well, thanks!

That's among the more democratic things anyone has said around here lately.

So much of the discussion otherwise has been one flavor or another of "vote blue no matter who"

they should just give it up. those of us of a certain age. know darn well the democrats will not lift one finger at the border. they never have. they never will.

they should take the 5th. rather than make themselves look dumber.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:15 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:58 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:23 am

Okay, then…if a Dem wasn’t effective enough in office to get a bill passed, instead loosing that battle to an opponent who isn’t even in office any more, then why does that Dem deserve another vote?

Lemme get this straight.

Because the intransigent House cultists blocked a bipartisan agreement out of loyalty to/fear of their cult leader, you would ... withhold your vote from the bulwark that remains against that cult taking control of all three branches?

(And you should note that I'm leaving a softball hanging over the plate, in your post.)

well then, how's this for a walk-off grand slam right outta the park:

Because "the bulwark that remains against that cult" was, during their time in office, ineffective at preventing the "intransigent House cultists" and "their cult leader" who wasn't even in office at the time from imposing their cultish will upon an otherwise bipartisan agreement, then maybe that bulwark isn't the bulwark you think it is.

For real, we went from viewing "build the wall" as bigoted, to "now we're tougher than the cultists who wanna build the wall"

at this rate who knows how dems are gonna handle the "mass deportation now" rhetoric that the cult spews nowadays.

This sort of muddled illogic - next stop, nihilism - is exactly what the misinformation and disinformation from the right is designed to elicit in well-meaning people.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:27 am they should just give it up. those of us of a certain age. know darn well the democrats will not lift one finger at the border. they never have. they never will.

they should take the 5th. rather than make themselves look dumber.

There was a bipartisan Senate bill. The House Ds were supportive of it. The Democratic President was ready to sign it.

The House Rs killed it.

And yet, the Dems are to blame?

neither party has done shit of substance on immigration in at least 30 years

spare us the finger pointing, mich

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:34 am neither party has done shit of substance on immigration in at least 30 years

spare us the finger pointing, mich

Wasn't Reagan giving amnesty to the eeeleeagles the last major accomplishment on immigration?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:22 am

By dems, tho? What influence and pressure did they apply to try and pass that bipartisan agreement, thus countering Trump and the cult?

These type of posts are why people have trouble taking you seriously.

I dunno bro, actually I think that's a pretty relevant question to the discussion.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:30 am

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:27 am they should just give it up. those of us of a certain age. know darn well the democrats will not lift one finger at the border. they never have. they never will.

they should take the 5th. rather than make themselves look dumber.

There was a bipartisan Senate bill. The House Ds were supportive of it. The Democratic President was ready to sign it.

The House Rs killed it.

And yet, the Dems are to blame?

at least in part, yea?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:28 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:15 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:58 am

Lemme get this straight.

Because the intransigent House cultists blocked a bipartisan agreement out of loyalty to/fear of their cult leader, you would ... withhold your vote from the bulwark that remains against that cult taking control of all three branches?

(And you should note that I'm leaving a softball hanging over the plate, in your post.)

well then, how's this for a walk-off grand slam right outta the park:

Because "the bulwark that remains against that cult" was, during their time in office, ineffective at preventing the "intransigent House cultists" and "their cult leader" who wasn't even in office at the time from imposing their cultish will upon an otherwise bipartisan agreement, then maybe that bulwark isn't the bulwark you think it is.

For real, we went from viewing "build the wall" as bigoted, to "now we're tougher than the cultists who wanna build the wall"

at this rate who knows how dems are gonna handle the "mass deportation now" rhetoric that the cult spews nowadays.

This sort of muddled illogic - next stop, nihilism - is exactly what the misinformation and disinformation from the right is designed to elicit in well-meaning people.

how is it illogical? Please be specific.

cuz from my point of view, the illogic displayed here is the idea that the Dems are a "bulwark" against a force (that dems failed to counter anyway)

the democrats need the borders open.

tho, man, shoulda took that nihilist comment and ran with some Lebowski joke.

In lieu of that, let's run with this Lebowski joke instead.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:38 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:34 am neither party has done shit of substance on immigration in at least 30 years

spare us the finger pointing, mich

Wasn't Reagan giving amnesty to the eeeleeagles the last major accomplishment on immigration?

I had a rough night, and I really hate the fuckin' eeeleeagles man.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:15 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:58 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:23 am

Okay, then…if a Dem wasn’t effective enough in office to get a bill passed, instead loosing that battle to an opponent who isn’t even in office any more, then why does that Dem deserve another vote?

Lemme get this straight.

Because the intransigent House cultists blocked a bipartisan agreement out of loyalty to/fear of their cult leader, you would ... withhold your vote from the bulwark that remains against that cult taking control of all three branches?

(And you should note that I'm leaving a softball hanging over the plate, in your post.)

well then, how's this for a walk-off grand slam right outta the park:

Because "the bulwark that remains against that cult" was, during their time in office, ineffective at preventing the "intransigent House cultists" and "their cult leader" who wasn't even in office at the time from imposing their cultish will upon an otherwise bipartisan agreement, then maybe that bulwark isn't the bulwark you think it is.

For real, we went from viewing "build the wall" as bigoted, to "now we're tougher than the cultists who wanna build the wall"

at this rate who knows how dems are gonna handle the "mass deportation now" rhetoric that the cult spews nowadays.

Over and over we've heard from people who have no vested interest in the Democratic Party or Biden, opine that his first term was the most effective at getting things done at least since LBJ's, if not FDR's. And Biden did so, despite the necessity of having VP Harris have to break more, 32, tie votes in two years in the senate, than the previous record of 31 set nearly 200 years ago by John C. Calhoun, who was vice president from 1825 to 1832. And let's not forget, the narrow Demo "majority" included two (pos) senators named Manchin and Sinema, who seemed more intent on attracting as much attention to themselves as they could, rather than getting things done for the American people.

And yet, despite that, when the House majority went over to the Republican Party in the midterm election of '22, in a "Red Wave" that nearly didn't materialize, you want to hold Democrats responsible for not pulling a rabbit out of their hat and making all your political dreams come true, and punish them if they don't?

____ you.

People like you incapable of critical thinking are why we are subjected to an endless stream of "Congress is broken!" "Washington is broken!", instead of nuanced news that lays the blame where it belongs, in this case, with the party that isn't interested in getting anything done, the Republican cult and their cult leader Trump. Why should networks and news channels take the risk of pissing off half their potential audience who might tune in, when they can offer up indiscriminate pablum that amounts to "both sides do it", 24/7, and people eat it up because that's all they see and hear and don't know any better?

That fact that you "don't know better" is beyond sad. smfh

this is what happens when people don’t pay attention to anything other their reddit/twitter-spheres

forests…trees…

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:47 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:28 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:15 am

well then, how's this for a walk-off grand slam right outta the park:

Because "the bulwark that remains against that cult" was, during their time in office, ineffective at preventing the "intransigent House cultists" and "their cult leader" who wasn't even in office at the time from imposing their cultish will upon an otherwise bipartisan agreement, then maybe that bulwark isn't the bulwark you think it is.

For real, we went from viewing "build the wall" as bigoted, to "now we're tougher than the cultists who wanna build the wall"

at this rate who knows how dems are gonna handle the "mass deportation now" rhetoric that the cult spews nowadays.

This sort of muddled illogic - next stop, nihilism - is exactly what the misinformation and disinformation from the right is designed to elicit in well-meaning people.

how is it illogical? Please be specific.

cuz from my point of view, the illogic displayed here is the idea that the Dems are a "bulwark" against a force (that dems failed to counter anyway)

It is illogical because you don't respond to an airbag not preventing a particular fatality by declaring that airbags don't work.

You really need to be aware that you are smack in the middle of the second part of the break things/blame things for being broken tango.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:46 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:30 am

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:27 am they should just give it up. those of us of a certain age. know darn well the democrats will not lift one finger at the border. they never have. they never will.

they should take the 5th. rather than make themselves look dumber.

There was a bipartisan Senate bill. The House Ds were supportive of it. The Democratic President was ready to sign it.

The House Rs killed it.

And yet, the Dems are to blame?

at least in part, yea?

NO.

Who knew Illyitis was contagious, through the interwebs!