Page 3 of 50

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:49 pm
by DCHawk1
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:34 pm

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.
Yes.

But he is what he is.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:20 pm
by seahawk
jeepinjayhawk wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:52 pm Murder charges.


Lulz
As you say, JFC.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:30 pm
by Shirley
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:39 pm
HouseDivided wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:37 pm
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:34 pm
At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.
Hasn’t been one of those in a long, long time. The process weeds out all of the nice guys pretty quick.
Bro you realize even Cankles released her tax returns, right?
I believe you can look at 24 years of Bill and Hillary's tax returns.

But that doesn't mean that republicans who've been pursuing the Clintons for decades are hypocrites that they don't say anything while the most corrupt president in our history is taking his fight all the way to the SCOTUS to avoid showing us, the people who hired him, his tax returns.

Republicans really don't have any shame, or, apparently, self-respect.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:34 pm
by Shirley
DCHawk1 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:49 pm
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:34 pm

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.
Yes.

But he is what he is.
He is what he is and republicans don't do anything about it.

And next year's budget deficit is predicted to be > $1 Trillion?

#winning

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:35 pm
by Geezer
I forgot how many times Hillary has been indicted, care to clarify?

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:43 pm
by DCHawk1
Feral wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:34 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:49 pm
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:34 pm

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have a president who at least pretends to be forthright.
Yes.

But he is what he is.
He is what he is and republicans don't do anything about it.

And next year's budget deficit is predicted to be > $1 Trillion?

#winning
Normal people would look at the situation and say: "Wow. This guy is such a fucking douche, and yet 60+million people voted for him over us. Why is that? What is it about what we're doing that would make HIM a more palatable alternative."

You people, on the other hand, look at the situation and say: "FuCkiNG dUMb RAciST iGNorANT hiLLbiLLy rEDnecKS. wHaT CAn wE POSSiBLY dO tO deMOnsTRaTe fUrtHER hOW mUCh wE hatE tHEm?"

And you'll still be surprised if/when that doesn't work.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:20 pm
by ousdahl
so the bigger problem in Merica isn’t the racists, it’s the folks who call them racists?

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:38 pm
by DCHawk1
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:20 pm so the bigger problem in Merica isn’t the racists, it’s the folks who call them racists?
Hey. If you wanna believe that nearly half the electorate is irredeemably racist, that's your business. It's also trite, lazy, self-serving, and thoroughly irrational, but you do you.

My favorites, though, are the people, towns, counties, states, that voted for the Kenyan Mooslim but then became racists afterward.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:27 am
by TDub
You're asking too much DC.

Plus, you're interrupting a good poop slinging contest. Hope none of that ends up on their shirts. Eek.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:48 am
by seahawk
DCHawk1 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:43 pm
Feral wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:34 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:49 pm

Yes.

But he is what he is.
He is what he is and republicans don't do anything about it.

And next year's budget deficit is predicted to be > $1 Trillion?

#winning
Normal people would look at the situation and say: "Wow. This guy is such a fucking douche, and yet 60+million people voted for him over us. Why is that? What is it about what we're doing that would make HIM a more palatable alternative."

You people, on the other hand, look at the situation and say: "FuCkiNG dUMb RAciST iGNorANT hiLLbiLLy rEDnecKS. wHaT CAn wE POSSiBLY dO tO deMOnsTRaTe fUrtHER hOW mUCh wE hatE tHEm?"

And you'll still be surprised if/when that doesn't work.
Wow, Feral must have never told us that she practiced concierge medicine. How did you find that out, DC?

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:58 am
by ousdahl
DCHawk1 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:38 pm
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:20 pm so the bigger problem in Merica isn’t the racists, it’s the folks who call them racists?
Hey. If you wanna believe that nearly half the electorate is irredeemably racist, that's your business. It's also trite, lazy, self-serving, and thoroughly irrational, but you do you.

My favorites, though, are the people, towns, counties, states, that voted for the Kenyan Mooslim but then became racists afterward.
I don’t wanna believe that.

I DO believe that a critical portion of voters are either irredeemably racist, or irredeemably OK with racism, if that distinction can be made. I dunno which is scarier.

The Obama-Trump voters are quite a curiosity, especially when considering race and racism as a factor. I suppose those folks care more than anything about upending some status quo, but I’m not sure what to make of them otherwise. They don’t seem to be a particularly yuge portion of the electorate either way. If you have any further insight about this demographic, please share.

But Obama-Trump voters are a portion either way. And either way I’m not sure pointing to Obama-Trump voters can allow one to shrug off race and racism as some significant factor in the past 3 elections in particular.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:16 am
by twocoach
DCHawk1 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:38 pm
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:20 pm so the bigger problem in Merica isn’t the racists, it’s the folks who call them racists?
Hey. If you wanna believe that nearly half the electorate is irredeemably racist, that's your business. It's also trite, lazy, self-serving, and thoroughly irrational, but you do you.

My favorites, though, are the people, towns, counties, states, that voted for the Kenyan Mooslim but then became racists afterward.
What we found out in the years since 2008 is that there are way more racists and people with fundamentally racist beliefs in this nation than I thought there was. It's nowhere near "nearly half the electorate" but Trump has now given them enough voice that their numbers are growing.

Obviously not all Republicans are racist. But Republicans who continue to support Trump are Republicans who are allowing racism to be utilized to get their preferred agenda and policies in place. There are long standing, principled Republican voters who have chosen to never support Trump and I respect them immensely. My hope is that there are enough of them as well as enough Sanders-supporting voters who chose not to vote at all in '16 that realize the error of their decision and show up to vote next year.

This whole "we hate Dems 'cause Dems think we're dumb so we're going to vote for an incompetent grifter idiot who goes against every moral we claim to have" thing is not helping anyone's case that they are intelligent, well informed voters. Frankly, all it does is prove that Dems were probably right about those that voted with this as the driver behind their vote.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:54 am
by TDub
ousdahl wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:58 am
DCHawk1 wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:38 pm
ousdahl wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:20 pm so the bigger problem in Merica isn’t the racists, it’s the folks who call them racists?
Hey. If you wanna believe that nearly half the electorate is irredeemably racist, that's your business. It's also trite, lazy, self-serving, and thoroughly irrational, but you do you.

My favorites, though, are the people, towns, counties, states, that voted for the Kenyan Mooslim but then became racists afterward.
I don’t wanna believe that.

I DO believe that a critical portion of voters are either irredeemably racist, or irredeemably OK with racism, if that distinction can be made. I dunno which is scarier.

The Obama-Trump voters are quite a curiosity, especially when considering race and racism as a factor. I suppose those folks care more than anything about upending some status quo, but I’m not sure what to make of them otherwise. They don’t seem to be a particularly yuge portion of the electorate either way. If you have any further insight about this demographic, please share.

But Obama-Trump voters are a portion either way. And either way I’m not sure pointing to Obama-Trump voters can allow one to shrug off race and racism as some significant factor in the past 3 elections in particular.

I think a bigger portion of the Obama voters just decided that there was no one worth voting for so they voted 3rd party or didnt vote. A huge portion if the country voted for "nobody". This has a pretty decent chance of happening again in 2020 and is a big reason why Trump has a good chance again. The democrats need to put forth someone who people WANT to in office. "Yea, but the other option is Trump" isnt going to win elections.

http://philip-kearney.com/blog/wp-conte ... on-2-1.png

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:06 am
by ousdahl
I wonder how many Trump voters will vote to re-elect.

After 4 years, is he still “The Guy?” Or does he loose support to...nobody?

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:17 am
by DCHawk1
ousdahl wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:06 am I wonder how many Trump voters will vote to re-elect.

After 4 years, is he still “The Guy?” Or does he loose support to...nobody?
That's NOT what the majority of Trump voters think.

The majority of them think: The Dems are completely fucking insane. And they hate us. What choice do we have?

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:33 am
by TDub
I think that map represents a whole lot of people in the middle. The vote that I have been told over and over again on this forum doesnt matter and that the dems dont need to chase.

I think this map tells a different story.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:37 am
by HouseDivided
DCHawk1 wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:17 am
ousdahl wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:06 am I wonder how many Trump voters will vote to re-elect.

After 4 years, is he still “The Guy?” Or does he loose support to...nobody?
That's NOT what the majority of Trump voters think.

The majority of them think: The Dems are completely fucking insane. And they hate us. What choice do we have?
That’s a bingo!

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:06 am
by seahawk
Ousdahl, there are a slew of studies that indicate that racism was the factor in voting in 2016. Interesting that some, including our esteemed academic, are so willing and insistent on ignoring them. Wonder why?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qphz9lxy6pxni ... c.pdf?dl=0

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... 18-midterm

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/ ... iety-study

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 0216677304

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... c-anxiety/

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:19 am
by ousdahl
HouseDivided wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:37 am
DCHawk1 wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:17 am
ousdahl wrote: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:06 am I wonder how many Trump voters will vote to re-elect.

After 4 years, is he still “The Guy?” Or does he loose support to...nobody?
That's NOT what the majority of Trump voters think.

The majority of them think: The Dems are completely fucking insane. And they hate us. What choice do we have?
That’s a bingo!
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!”

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:47 am
by TDub
Ita not about sticking it to the other guy (for some, yes probably). Its more about, the other side (be it left or right) has become so specific to an agenda that they arent going to do anything to help me, to improve MY life. So, people abstain or they pick the side that is less "insane" to them and their lives.