SCOTUS

[DCHawk1]

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.

[HouseDivided]

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.

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.

The question Yang never seems to answer is where that $1,000 a month will magically come from. His stock answer is “the wealthy,” but can’t explain how he will be able to accomplish that feat, much less how “wealthy” will be operationalized. I suspect such a program will be funded like everything else: more Federal debt and higher taxes on the middle class. I say no than you to both.

[HouseDivided]

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.

“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.

Precisely. So, when faced with a choice between my best interests and your best interests, you’ll understand when I choose the former, right?

[chiknbut]

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.

Why I oughta...

[ousdahl]

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.

“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.

I don’t know that. Never said I did.

All I did was suggest some folks don’t care about their own best interests.

But if you feel so confident that I apparently know what’s best for everybody, hey, I’m flattered.

[DCHawk1]

There were no qualifiers in your op.

[TDub]

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".

What I describe sounds lovely? I didnt describe anything.

As for where a middle of the road person stands you can probably deduce that for yourself. Or, maybe you cant and that's why this fairly large bloc of voters seems mythical to you.

[ousdahl]

There were no qualifiers in your op.

Exactly.

[seahawk]

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?

[Shirley]

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]

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.

[DCHawk1]

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.

I'm so glad I could help.

I'm here to do just that.

[DCHawk1]

Somewhere I gotta tweet from dAviD fRUm that explains it all.

And he's cool now, right?

[seahawk]

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.

Actually, I didn't say anything about you being a far right conservative, but I did put that in-artfully. The online Left is about bashing Democrats almost as much or it seems at times more than Republicans.

But hey, I quite understand labeling, as I've had years and years of Psych calling me names, insisting that I'm "bitter and angry" and my worldview is some kind of insane feminist, when the rest of the world saw me mostly as Wife, bold, all caps, 72 pt.

[ousdahl]

Somewhere I gotta tweet from dAviD fRUm that explains it all.

And he's cool now, right?

You got a tweet frum where?

[Geezer]

Steve Bannon.

[DCHawk1]

Steve Bannon.

Rashida Tlaib

[DCHawk1]

Somewhere I gotta tweet from dAviD fRUm that explains it all.

And he's cool now, right?

You got a tweet frum where?

Zackly.

[HouseDivided]

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?

Do you ever actually read or think about what I say, or do you just launch into one of your pre-mixed lunatic screeds when you see that I've posted something. Please, get help. Seriously.

[Geezer]

Steven Miller