Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 11, 2019

In a series of analyses published recently in the American Journal of Political Science, the three researchers found that people's moral codes don't cause or predict their political ideology; instead, people's ideology appears to predict their answers on the moral-foundations questionnaire. As Peter Hatemi, one of the study's authors and a political-science professor at Pennsylvania State University, puts it: "We will switch our moral compass depending on how it fits with what we believe politically."

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"We will switch our moral compass depending on how it fits with what we believe politically."

or visa versa.

I switched political parties because of my moral beliefs.

So much for this "study".

#1 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-09-09 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 actually, you prove the point well. You are now republican and anti science. Facts have no place in your new political world.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-09 10:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

It does nothing to my morals. It just makes me want to fight harder for my political beliefs.

They align with good moral values, not Trumpublican values.

#3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-10 02:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bruce,

Are these political science college professors implying what they teach affects student's moral code more than religion?

#4 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-09-10 06:50 AM | Reply

#2 No, he actually runs contrary to the study. His politics changed to meet his morals, not vice versa. RIF. He isn't alone, of course. People switch political parties because of their position on one or more moral positions every day, especially as the parties drift with the political winds. Good example: my dad. Voted (D) reliably for 30 years but registered as an Independent halfway through the Clinton presidency. Ask him why and he'll tell you he didn't leave the party, the party left him. He held a firm set of moral beliefs, and the Dems just kept sliding left.

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-10 08:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A person's character - honest, kind, compassionate, nurturing, generous, etc has little, if anything, to do with their personal politics.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-10 09:25 AM | Reply

I want to expound on #6 - For those who want to challenge my assertion my preemptive response is you are simply flat-wrong.

The belief that one's politics defines their morality and that a certain set of political views is somehow superior to another is no different than a religious zealot who believes that anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs is a sinner who is damned to hell.

Think about that.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-10 09:27 AM | Reply

I switched to the party of none due to morals. That and I got tired of defending the ones who were so called "lesser evil"

#8 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-10 09:48 AM | Reply

I switched to the party of none due to morals. That and I got tired of defending the ones who were so called "lesser evil"

#8 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

That's a logical approach.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-10 09:51 AM | Reply

Some of the college professors have awfully big egos.

Now political science professors can tell themselves they are having more of an impact on students moral code than anyone else.

Aren't they super duper important now?

#10 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-09-10 10:03 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I think it's only fair to point out that the study does have a lot of truths in it. People DO swallow a lot of bitter pills when they choose a party or vote for a candidate they believe is the lesser of two evils. That doesn't mean their moral compass has reversed itself..they are just weighting their moral stances.

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-10 10:13 AM | Reply

Some of the college professors have awfully big egos.
Now political science professors can tell themselves they are having more of an impact on students moral code than anyone else.
Aren't they super duper important now?

Please learn how to read and to understand what you read. Your so-called analysis of the article has nothing to do with the actual information it contains, but instead is a reflection of your ideology and a confirmation that the tentative conclusions drawn by the study are likely to be true:

As with virtually all studies, Smith notes, more research is needed to see if the findings hold up. If they do, they could suggest something a little terrifying for society: that people often make their judgments of right and wrong fit with whatever party they already support. "This has implications that I'm not super happy about," Smith says. Politicians fight to convince voters that their vision for American is the correct"and often more moral"one, but what if voters don't actually care? Perhaps people just pick their team and force the rest into place.

#12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-10 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--Now political science professors

There's not much science in political "science." I've been saying that ever since I got my degree in political "science." It's an incredibly subjective field where you can prove just about anything you want by careful selection of topic, methodology, wording of surveys, etc.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-10 10:30 AM | Reply

Christianity and the Bible were used to both support and refute slavery during the Civil War. How was that possible? Morals, personal political and religious beliefs can bend and stretch to suit the needs of the people who hold them, on both sides of the aisle. Hence, I am not surprised by this statement: "We will switch our moral compass depending on how it fits with what we believe politically."

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-10 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

No. That's BS on it's face. I don't carry a ma gic assault rifle for no reason, mister. "Morals? we don't need no stinking morals!". Really.

#15 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-10 01:54 PM | Reply

Bruce,
Are these political science college professors implying what they teach affects student's moral code more than religion?

#4 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2019-09-10 06:50 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

No. They're saying what djt teaches sets the new moral standard.

Even anecdotally, one can see that playing out in real time.

#16 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-10 02:14 PM | Reply

There's not much science in political "science." I've been saying that ever since I got my degree in political "science." It's an incredibly subjective field where you can prove just about anything you want by careful selection of topic, methodology, wording of surveys, etc.

#13 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-10 10:30 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

A lot has changed since you graduated in 1862.

The presidency of djt proves that science works.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-10 02:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Correction. That statistics work.

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-10 02:16 PM | Reply

A person's character - honest, kind, compassionate, nurturing, generous, etc has little, if anything, to do with their personal politics.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

And that is a fact. What conservative would kill babies like the libs do?

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-10 02:19 PM | Reply

"What conservative would kill babies like the libs do?"

You want names?

Scott Lloyd
Tim Murphy
Scott DesJarlais

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-10 02:23 PM | Reply

What conservative would kill babies like the libs do?

#19 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2019-09-10 02:19 PM | FLAG:

What color? The cons started pp to kill black babies.

#21 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-10 02:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Look at how right wingers, who flaunt their 'moral values,' wholeheartedly support the most amoral man ever to be elected to the presidency.

#22 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-10 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I politics do anything to your morals, you never had any to begin with.

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-10 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Look at how right wingers, who flaunt their 'moral values,' wholeheartedly support the most amoral man ever to be elected to the presidency.
#22 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY "

And look at the left wingers who claim to be all inclusive, tolerant, and compassionate, but are anything but -- unless you agree with them, of course.

#24 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-10 09:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

I just love when I see libbies/progs talk about morals as I always can use a good laugh.

#25 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-11 11:49 AM | Reply

Look at how right wingers, who flaunt their 'moral values,' wholeheartedly support the most amoral man ever to be elected to the presidency.
#22 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2019-09-10 06:12 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Most amoral? If you're talking about Trump his body count and penchant for spreading American imperialism have nothing on Obama. Ultimately the lives lost that cannot be given back are the only real metric of a President's objective moral standing. I get that subjectively he hurts your feelers and says mean things, but I'll take that over a mass-murdering war monger any day.

#26 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-09-11 11:56 AM | Reply

"I just love when I see libbies/progs talk about morals as I always can use a good laugh."

When conservatives pretend they morals I giggle.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-11 12:26 PM | Reply

"I just love when I see libbies/progs talk about morals as I always can use a good laugh."

wow. more proof the article is correct.

#28 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-11 01:26 PM | Reply

Trump is the perfect example of supposedly moral people sublimating those supposed morals to political expediency. People who purport to support truth over lies having no problem with an obvious congenital liar and morality-free narcissist is just one example.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2019-09-11 01:28 PM | Reply

And look at the left wingers who claim to be all inclusive, tolerant, and compassionate, but are anything but -- unless you agree with them, of course.
#24 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Where as right wingers don't claim to be all inclusive, tolerant, and compassionate, and aren't -- even if you agree with them.

It's like two sides of the domestic violence coin.

Republicans keep getting punched in the face by their politicians, but they're fine with it cause they're getting what they expected.

Where as Democrats get neglected and ignored by their politicians, but we're fine with it because we're sure deep down they care about us.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 01:36 PM | Reply

Tolerating intolerance isn't acceptable.

#31 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-11 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A person's character - honest, kind, compassionate, nurturing, generous, etc has little, if anything, to do with their personal politics.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

Horsecrap. A person with those characteristics doesn't vote for a horrible person like trump.

Your politics reveals your character.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#1 | Posted by BillJohnson

I think the likely result will be it is some of both. It's about exposing yourself to ideas and who you listen too as well as your own moral compass. People that "hang together" often end up with similar view points on most things.

As a person who has changed Political Ideologies, it took a kind of "wait a minute" moment of realization that "Democrats/Liberals" were not truly what the perception of them was by the "right" and that "Republicans/Conservatives" really weren't what I thought they were. IN GENERAL Democrats actually seemed to hold the values better and this was expressed by actually ACT in the way my "moral" compass was pointed. The more I examined GOP Conservatives and their views I found them hyper hypocritical. Again - this is generalizations, there are certainly shades of grey and exceptions here but GOP/Conservative policies:

- Don't actually seem to care about people - unless it's for a photo op.
- They don't believe in freedom or actual justice. Harsh punishment of OTHERS, yes. And yes, their very limited and specific "freedoms" that actually impact others.
- They are the huge spenders who cut taxes for the rich whereas the Democrats seem FAR more fiscally responsible.
- They are warmongers in general.
- They are also very much about control of others - authoritarianism.
- All too many are hypocrites - do as I say not as I do types. Both sides have them but come on - look at the recent history on the right.
- The party of Family values has none
- The party of personal responsibility only applies to others

I seen how my ideology had affected my views on subjects and re-evaluated those views. I'm not going to lie and say my current views are not somewhat malleable but that malleability is based on facts and reality. I know that I listen to the actual facts and look at the situation far more than I used to. I like to look at the simplest root of an issue. I have what I consider to be very strong Christian values and I honestly try not to judge people. Some of it is age and maturity but a lot of it is also waking up and seeing things for what they were. I'm not claiming Liberals have it all right - that's funny honestly because nobody does. There are shades of grey all over and in right vs wrong that is usually all there is.

As the parties are positioned today, I find it very hard to vote for any Republicans. Even the ones I think initially seem good usually severely disappoint - take Rick Snyder as an example there. Plenty of GOP members of Congress are also in that category - Party before country votes say it all. I am still very much independent though - it's the lack of self awareness on the right that blows my mind. And most of the people identifying that way I believe are truly good people at heart lead astray. I also believe there is more than a bit of a too hard swing left by SOME on the left and in the Democratic party. It is unlike the GOP where it seems almost EVERYONE is now off the deep end in Trumplandia (at least in politics) but there are politics I do not agree with there. The right has been drifting farther and farther right for 40 years at least. There needs to be balance and today there is none - this all ties back to the GOP and the Southern Strategy as a reaction to the Liberalism of the 60s. And today's swing left by Democrats is a reaction to the swing right by the GOP. It's just the way people work - there are cycles.

#33 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-09-11 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"A person's character - honest, kind, compassionate, nurturing, generous, etc has little, if anything, to do with their personal politics.
#6 | Posted by JeffJ"

"personal politics."

Why the qualifier "personal?"

Is that like having a public position and a private position?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 02:22 PM | Reply

And today's swing left by Democrats is a reaction to the swing right by the GOP. It's just the way people work - there are cycles.

#33 | Posted by GalaxiePete

Today's left swing by democrats is a reaction to the decades of failures, bad policies, disappointments, and electoral losses due to sellout "moderate" democrats.

Yet here they are trying to nominate joe biden. The poster child for everything that has failed for decades.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 02:24 PM | Reply

- sellout "moderate" democrats.

Self-concerned far lefties who were too pure to vote for a left of center Dem are at least as guilty.

The more they continue to bash centrists like Biden, the more Trump loves them.

One might think that they would be satisfied to abide by the will of Dem primary vote rather than declare that they won't, again, even this early on.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2019-09-11 02:46 PM | Reply

One might think that they would be satisfied to abide by the will of Dem primary vote rather than declare that they won't, again, even this early on.

#36 | Posted by Corky

Who's declaring that? Your strawman?

Go ahead and try the same strategy you followed in 2016. Tell the left their policies aren't realistic and they need to nominate a corporate sellout to win. Worked out great didn't it? Tell america we can take the country back to 2015 - a year so wonderful that a third of the country was willing to vote for a reality tv star just to try and get some real change. That'll win over those obama->trump voters. "Let's go back to the situation that you were miserable with! Biden 2020!"

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 02:51 PM | Reply

A person's character - honest, kind, compassionate, nurturing, generous, etc has little, if anything, to do with their personal politics.
#6 | Posted by JeffJ
Horsecrap. A person with those characteristics doesn't vote for a horrible person like trump.
Your politics reveals your character.

#32 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

So, you are saying that 63 million people in this country are terrible people because they didn't vote how you wanted them to vote?

Get over yourself. I can't fathom how anybody could be so bigoted.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 02:56 PM | Reply

#37

Biden is not Hillary Clinton.

He's far more likeable and he has far less corruption baggage.

You are operating under the premise that because you strongly like Sanders that means everybody does.

Biden has more appeal to the middle than Sanders. If a candidate can't get swing voters and independents that candidate is going to lose.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 02:58 PM | Reply

"So, you are saying that 63 million people in this country are terrible people because they didn't vote how you wanted them to vote?"

How many people do you think are terrible people in this country?

Safe to pencil you in for 12 million illegals, for starters?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 03:04 PM | Reply

A person's character - honest, kind, compassionate, nurturing, generous, etc has little, if anything, to do with their personal politics.

I seem to notice a lot of the "i want to keep more of my money for myself," "why should my money be used to help those people," "i was born here and screw anyone who wasn't," "i've got mine so ---- everyone else" type attitude from one particular end of the political spectrum.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 03:15 PM | Reply

"Where as Democrats get neglected and ignored by their politicians, but we're fine with it because we're sure deep down they care about us.

POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT"

Weird. I called you a Democrat yesterday and you denied being one. But now you say you are. "Democrats...we're fine with it..."

You sure switched quickly.

#42 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 03:17 PM | Reply

Biden has more appeal to the middle than Sanders. If a candidate can't get swing voters and independents that candidate is going to lose.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ

Who do you consider "the middle?" Just the lazy uninformed people who vote based on name recognition? Or the people so sick of both parties that they dont want to be part of either one?

Bernie does much better with those people - the people who are sick of corruption and status quo and want real change. Biden isn't going to get them off the couch.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 03:18 PM | Reply

So, you are saying that 63 million people in this country are terrible people because they didn't vote how you wanted them to vote?

#38 | Posted by JeffJ

Trump voters weren't all terrible people. Some were just ignorant or dumb and got conned by a con man/fox news. Others KNEW he was a monster and voted for him anyway, and yes those people are terrible.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 03:21 PM | Reply

"Who do you consider "the middle?" Just the lazy uninformed people who vote based on name recognition? Or the people so sick of both parties that they dont want to be part of either one?"

people are moderate or undecided for several reasons...including what you posted. IOW, yes to both...

but remember...we're talking about those voters in the swing states....not California and New York.

We're not trying to win the popular vote by a larger margin...we're trying to win the electoral college.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 03:22 PM | Reply

-Trump voters weren't all terrible people. Some were just ignorant or dumb and got conned by a con man/fox news.

so, the people you want to convince to switch their vote....they are one of these choices....

1. terrible person
2. ignorant...got conned
3. dumb...got conned

Serious as hell here......if you really want Trump to lose next election....please please please STFU.

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 03:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Trump voters weren't all terrible people.

#44 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-09-11 03:21 PM "

As I've told you many times but you have denied. I'm glad to see you are coming to your senses.

#47 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 03:25 PM | Reply

Weird. I called you a Democrat yesterday
#42 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

No you didn't. You said it was my party.

There's a difference.

I'm not delusional, I'm left leaning and the democrats do represent me more often then their Republican counterparts.

But, out of the four general elections I've been of legal age to vote in, I've only voted once for the Democratic candidate, Obama 2008.

In local elections, if there's ever a third party options, I vote third party.

I've admitted because I'm a Californian I can be carefree with my votes and vote for whoever I want.

I'm not so certain I be so in an actual swing state.

I'm honest about who I am.

On the other hand, there's you, who use to pretend to be nonpartisan, and who now feverishly defends Trump's every word and act.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 03:28 PM | Reply

-Biden has more appeal to the middle than Sanders

the problem they all have is they are New England liberals.

But Biden has got to be a much more comfortable choice with swing state voters.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 03:30 PM | Reply

Trump voters weren't all terrible people. Some were just ignorant or dumb and got conned by a con man/fox news. Others KNEW he was a monster and voted for him anyway, and yes those people are terrible.
#44 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The problem is it's not just Trump voters with you.

This is how you come across:

There are only 5 scenarios in which a person would disagree with any of your political views or policy preferences:

A. Evil
B. Greedy
C. Stupid
D. Ignorant
E. Any combination of A-D

If that doesn't accurately reflect how you view those with whom you disagree politically (I'm not talking about Trump supporters, I'm talking about political disagreement) I'll gladly retract.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 03:33 PM | Reply

- Who's declaring that? Your strawman?

You. No, your posts bashing Biden. Trump approves.

Try not truly bashing the candidate, but rather disagreeing with their policies and telling us why most voters are likely to vote for some other policies and candidates.

That way when the primary voters don't agree with you, you don't have to take your football and go home.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2019-09-11 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

2. ignorant...got conned
3. dumb...got conned

Serious as hell here......if you really want Trump to lose next election....please please please STFU.

#46 | Posted by eberly

Ignorant people dont have to remain ignorant. They can be won back. Proving to them that trump tricked them is the way to do that.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 03:34 PM | Reply

- Who's declaring that? Your strawman?

You. No, your posts bashing Biden. Trump approves.

Try not truly bashing the candidate, but rather disagreeing with their policies and telling us why most voters are likely to vote for some other policies and candidates.

That way when the primary voters don't agree with you, you don't have to take your football and go home.

#51 | Posted by Corky

So where did I say I wouldnt/people shouldn't vote for biden in the general election?
That was your accusation.

I've told you a hundred times why people wont vote for biden. If explaining it again will get it through your head I'll be happy to do so. Do I need to do that?

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 03:37 PM | Reply

the people you want to convince to switch their vote....they are one of these choices....

1. terrible person
2. ignorant...got conned
3. dumb...got conned

#46 | POSTED BY EBERLY

4. Desperate...got conned
5. Gullible...got conned
6. Oblivious...got conned
7. Rich...got what you wanted

All the people who voted for Trump weren't numbers 1-6, a lot were #7.

But, if you weren't #7 and you were intelligent, you didn't vote for Trump.

I'm not saying only intelligent people voted for Hillary, a lot of idiots did too.

But, if you were intelligent, you were able to see through Trump.

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1. terrible person
2. ignorant...got conned
3. dumb...got conned

^
This sounds like right-wingers describihg liberals.

Yet it doesn't bring a tear to Eberly's crocodile eye.

Go figure.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 03:38 PM | Reply

He's far more likeable and he has far less corruption baggage.

Please. If nothing else, Trump is a master at manipulating the media and driving the conversation. He was so fixated on an issue as minute as Hillary's government records preservation that the NYT was running daily stories about it. Can you even imagine anyone giving a ---- about Donald Trump's government records preservation considering the daily blunders of this ignoramus? Yet he will find something equally inconsequential about Biden (his plagiarism, his misstatements) and blow it into a national scandal. If you din't believe this then you have missed his entire election strategy.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Biden has got to be a much more comfortable choice with swing state voters.

#49 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why do you assume this?

#57 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are only 5 scenarios in which a person would disagree with any of your political views or policy preferences:

A. Evil
B. Greedy
C. Stupid
D. Ignorant
E. Any combination of A-D

If that doesn't accurately reflect how you view those with whom you disagree politically (I'm not talking about Trump supporters, I'm talking about political disagreement) I'll gladly retract.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ

No that's accurate and very succinctly described. And it's also true.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 03:45 PM | Reply

"They can be won back."

by calling them dumb, ignorant, or terrible?

no...they can't.

This is sales......take it from a professional....not that way.

#54

see above.

#57

He has positive name recognition being Obama's VP. And Fox News and the GOP will have a much harder time scaring moderate voters with his policies compared to Sanders or Warren.

You're trying to get moderate voters.....run a moderate candidate.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 03:48 PM | Reply

Fellas, sooner or later....sometime before this election is over.....you'll start to understand what I'm saying here.

You obviously don't get it yet........but you will.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 03:50 PM | Reply

-I've told you a hundred times why people wont vote for biden.

go ahead and be wrong 101 times.

just don't talk to anybody

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 03:51 PM | Reply

-Proving to them that trump tricked them is the way to do that.

NO!!! I'm telling you it's NOT the way to do that.

anything you say is just going to insult them.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 03:53 PM | Reply

Trump voters weren't all terrible people. Some were just ignorant or dumb and got conned by a con man/fox news. Others KNEW he was a monster and voted for him anyway, and yes those people are terrible.
#44 | POSTED BYSPEAKSOFTLYAT2019-09-11 03:21 PM|REPLY| FLAG:

Speak, I like you, but this is the very arrogance that got Trump elected without Dems seeing it coming. The left still has a serious problem with self reflection. I sided with Trump despite voting Obama '08 and Stein '12 as a left wing protest vote because no matter how much Trump was obviously a boorish narcissist, Hillary was the actual monster. Trump said dumb things. Hillary had actual blood on her hands with votes for the Iraq war, support for Libyan and Syrian uprisings that killed hundreds of thousands to millions, support for keeping troops in Afghanistan, etc. No left wing anti-war person could vote for her without severely compromising principles. And so far, I still think it was the right choice and she would be actively spreading American imperialism and starting new conflicts with a toll on humanity greater than anything Trump has done so far. People weren't duped by Trump or voting for the greater evil - they voted for Trump because they also weren't duped by Hillary and he was, so far anyway, the lesser evil. At least if like me, you're ultimately a single-issue anti war voter. Hell, Democrats are so compromised they opposed him when Trump wanted out of Afghanistan.

This election cycle, to top it off, Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot again. The candidates got the message that many on the left weren't going to vote for a milquetoast corporate centrist, but rather than just embrace what most of us really wanted - economic populist, better investment in social safety nets, education, and healthcare, getting out of foreign conflicts, and unifying the public, we have a bunch of idiots creating more division and more worried about social justice bs than just bringing troops and jobs home. They're appealing for open borders, entertaining reparations, attacking and deplatforming the right when they need to be listening and appealing to common ground and tolerance. They are actively radicalizing the center against them. And they're going to end up with a bunch of perfectly decent independents and centrists voting against them for it - again.

#63 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-09-11 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"And they're going to end up with a bunch of perfectly decent independents and centrists voting against them for it - again."

thank you.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 04:02 PM | Reply

"-Proving to them that trump tricked them is the way to do that."

Good luck with that!!!

"It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled."

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 04:02 PM | Reply

"Weird. I called you a Democrat yesterday
#42 | POSTED BY GOATMAN
No you didn't. You said it was my party."

And you denied it was. But in this thread you say "'we" including yourself with them.

Not playing your games. (snoofy giving you pointers? This is very snoofygames (tm) like) We both know what you said each time.

#66 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 04:03 PM | Reply

#66 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I explained myself in #48, you're welcome to whatever opinion you desire. No skin off my teeth.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 04:08 PM | Reply

"I'm a Californian"

which one?

media1.giphy.com

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 04:11 PM | Reply

No that's accurate and very succinctly described. And it's also true.

#58 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Thank you for the confirmation.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 04:12 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG

That was a very thoughtful and well-written post.

NW.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 04:13 PM | Reply

In general, I agree with Eberly that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

But, there are in fact deplorable people in this world. Some people try to hit animals crossing the road.

Trump appealed to such people with his mocking of the disabled, mocking of Gold Star families, mocking of veterans, heck even his mocking of lifelong dyed in the wool conservative Republicans.

The GOP has been coaxing the deplorable genie out of the bottle with Lee Atwater's Southern Strategy and Reagan's appeal to the TaliBaptists.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

rather than just embrace what most of us really wanted - economic populist, better investment in social safety nets, education, and healthcare, getting out of foreign conflicts, and unifying the public, we have a bunch of idiots creating more division and more worried about social justice bs than just bringing troops and jobs home. They're appealing for open borders, entertaining reparations, attacking and deplatforming the right

What? There are more than a few candidates embracing that vision and i havent seen any of them talking about open borders or reparations.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 04:18 PM | Reply

-Thank you for the confirmation.

Speakstupid is so incredibly angry at DJT being president that he can't hide it even a little bit.

This is how far he's taken it.

"either agree with me 100% or I HATE YOU!"

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Ignorant people dont have to remain ignorant. They can be won back. Proving to them that trump tricked them is the way to do that.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-09-11 03:34 PM "

Again, I have to remind you that things work both ways. why do you refues to accept this?

Ignorant lefties also do not have to remain ignorant and can come to their senses and abandon the democratic party.

#74 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 04:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Ignorant people dont have to remain ignorant."

and yet......we have you here wanting to guarantee a dem loss in 2020.

do you have to remain this ignorant, speaks?

#75 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 04:26 PM | Reply

#72 | POSTED BYJOEAT2019-09-11 04:18 PM|REPLY| FLAG:

Practically all the candidates in the very first debate supported decriminalizing border crossings. There's no functional difference between that and open borders. As to reparations:

So far, severalcandidates have expressed some level of support for reparations:Sens. Kamala Harris(D-CA) andElizabeth Warren(D-MA), and former Housing and Urban Development SecretaryJulin Castrohave called the issue important or acknowledged how history supports calls for restitution. Other candidates have said they support studying the issue further.

Bookerhas been running on a policy that would help close the racial wealth gap,introducing a companion Senate billto HR 40 calling for the federal governmentto study reparations. Meanwhile,Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-VT) has argued that instead of reparations, his focus on policies helping distressed communities in general would particularly aid black communities. However, in April, Sanders said that he wouldsign a reparations billif it came across his desk during his presidency and has since signed on to Booker's reparations legislation.

The candidate most fervently backing reparations, though, isMarianne Williamson, a self-help guru and spiritual adviser who wants to set aside$200 billion to $500 billionfor a reparations program. - www.vox.com

#76 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-09-11 04:27 PM | Reply

#76 Okay when explicitly asked about those issues by someone seeking to make that the subject, they have their answers. But it's inaccurate to say that any of them are making those issues their focus in lieu of the real issues you cited.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 04:29 PM | Reply

-But it's inaccurate to say that any of them are making those issues their focus in lieu of the real issues you cited.

well, then I guess they're just fine...nobody can hit them with it.

how do you think reparations polls with undecideds and moderates in swing states?

LOL

#78 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 04:36 PM | Reply

Exactly. And this is a particular issue in swing states. Do you think some poor midwestern white guy who can't or won't find work cares about the historic case for reparations? In the rust belt you're practically asking for a race war over that. And emphatically asking for a Trump vote. It doesn't matter if it's central to the platform - they sided with that. Do you think Trump won't make it central to them in debates?

#79 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-09-11 04:44 PM | Reply

how do you think reparations polls with undecideds and moderates in swing states?
LOL

#78 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-09-11 04:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Why do you joke about that? You think those folks are not intelligent? They're racists?

Spit it out coward.

#80 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-11 05:05 PM | Reply

what? why so many hysterical questions?

why don't YOU spit it out, bruthe? what do you want to know?

#81 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 05:07 PM | Reply

"how do you think reparations polls with undecideds and moderates in swing states?
LOL
#78 | POSTED BY EBERLY"

Sell it right and I think it would poll well:
"Once this reparations thing is done, nobody gets to call you racist any more, and you can fly your Confederate flag with pride."

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 05:07 PM | Reply

"But, if you were intelligent, you were able to see through Trump.
POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK"

(He's talking about YOU, Eberly!)

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 05:15 PM | Reply

Why do you joke about that? You think those folks are not intelligent? They're racists?

Spit it out coward.

#80 | POSTED BYBRUCEBANNERAT2019-09-11 05:05 PM|REPLY| FLAG:

This thread isn't really dedicated to arguing about reparations - I merely brought them up as an example of Democrat wedge issues.

But to field it quickly, no one has to be unintelligent or racist for reparations to poll badly with them. Just the opposite in some sense - reparations are the kind of thing that works in a sociology class, but not in the real world. Dealing with impersonal statistics and thinking of it as rebalancing finances in an academic setting makes sense - but sociology isn't psychology. Individuals are the ones that have to give up money. Individuals are the ones who capitalism and society also failed, but won't be included because they're born the wrong race (white.) It's a horrible way to breed resentment and inflame racial tensions. There are better progressive solutions to helping everyone left behind by the failings of capitalism and society, and plenty people can work that out for themselves without being racist or stupid.

Making supporting them a divisive, badly thought out position that will turn off moderates. It's an ivory tower solution to real world problems, doomed to failure and only made to pander to the sanctimonious social left.

#84 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-09-11 05:28 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter if it's central to the platform - they sided with that.

Except you accused them of "rather than embracing what most of us really wanted...they're appealing for open borders."

Your post suggested they are discarding the larger platform initiatives you referenced in exchange for things like reparations.

That's not true and that's all i'm saying.

#85 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 05:34 PM | Reply

"They can be won back."

by calling them dumb, ignorant, or terrible?

no...they can't.

#59 | Posted by eberly

No, by proving to them that trump conned them, as i wrote in my post. Do i need to call YOU stupid now too?

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 05:38 PM | Reply

You're trying to get moderate voters.....run a moderate candidate.

#59 | Posted by eberly a

Republicans want dems to run a moderate candidate. Shocker.

Because they love the way it worked out last time dems ran a moderate candidate.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 05:39 PM | Reply

#86 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Telling people, or even proving to people, that a con man conned them would embarrass and anger a lot of the rednecks you are talking about. Remember this is the 'hold my beer and watch...' crowd. They live off proving others wrong and even knowing they are wrong will look you dead in the eye and dig their heels in for dear life. Much better to convince them of something other than 'you were wrong and taken advantage of'.

#88 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 05:41 PM | Reply

87

stupid, you have to get over Hillary.

Her moderate position wasn't why she lost.

You think I'm screwing around with you?

That I want Trump to win re-election and this some ploy to convince you the moderate candidate is the best choice when in reality I think that candidate will lose?

man...you are really ------ up.

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 05:44 PM | Reply

I love the argument that Dems need to nominate a "moderate" when Republicans are running an alt-right racist who thinks nazis are good people. Why diesn't that logic apply to their --------- of a political party? Why aren't Republicans who like Biden throwing their weight behind Bill Weld?

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 05:45 PM | Reply

"that a con man conned them would embarrass and anger a lot of the rednecks you are talking about"

why narrow that to rednecks? It would embarrass and anger anybody being told they were too dumb to see Trump for who he is.

I want a democrat to win.

Stupid wants Trump be BEATEN.

There is a difference....

#91 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 05:46 PM | Reply

#87 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Lets get something else straight. Hilary was not a moderate candidate. She may have ran on a moderate platform, but she was an awful candidate. She couldnt reach people, and always seemed like she thought she was better than everyone else. She didnt work enough to make me feel like she wanted it, just that it was her turn and she was going to be the first woman POTUS - because Hilary!

#92 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 05:47 PM | Reply

People weren't duped by Trump or voting for the greater evil - they voted for Trump because they also weren't duped by Hillary and he was, so far anyway, the lesser evil. At least if like me, you're ultimately a single-issue anti war voter. Hell, Democrats are so compromised they opposed him when Trump wanted out of Afghanistan.

#63 | Posted by zeropointnrg

All youre doing is proving my point that trump voters are stupid or ignorant.

Your defense of your vote is "hillary would have been worse". A FANTASY presented as fact.

Sure hillary sucked. But she believed in science. She wouldnt be stealing health care from the sick to pay for tax cuts for the rich. She didn't need to destroy the climate to prove her masculinity.

She wouldnt have attacked the idea of knowable facts and forced half the country to join a paranoid fantasy world.

She was bad. Trump is a hundred times worse. The fact that you can't see this proves the point that trump supporters are stupid. Too stupid to see all the problems with trump. Too stupid to realize what will happen when the bill for his tax cuts come due. Too stupid to see the problem with making everyone think they can't trust anything they hear in the news. Too stupid to see the problem with letting a criminal con man run the country and setting that example for every child in america. Trump's success means we'll have a country full of mini trumps in a few years. You're too stupid to see why that will be a problem.

#93 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 05:47 PM | Reply

The notion that there is this nebulous pool of "moderates" who *might* vote for Trump if Dems don't nominate a Republican Light is not only laughable, it also depends entirely on an unproven premise: that this pool of moderates is larger than the pool of tens of millions of Americans who don't vote at all because they aren't inspired by the typical candidates run by our two major parties, but who might be activated by an authentic progressive candidate.

#94 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-Why diesn't that logic apply to their --------- of a political party?

because the GOP is different.

party loyalty is taken to a different level with republicans.

#95 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 05:48 PM | Reply

stupid, you have to get over Hillary.

Her moderate position wasn't why she lost.

#89 | Posted by eberly

Yes it is. Moderates dont see the problem with being controlled by wall street when america is furious with the elites' status quo. Biden is taking money from all the same people hillary did before america rejected her.

Good luck winning any obama->trump voters over telling them you're going to restore america to the status quo they were sick of in 2015.

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 05:49 PM | Reply

#92 nothing you said supports her not being moderate.

Just that you didn't like her.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 05:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-All youre doing is proving my point that trump voters are stupid or ignorant.

you can't help yourself. It's as if you really don't even WANT those folks to consider changing their vote.

some will consider it...but not if you're who's talking to them.

#98 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 05:52 PM | Reply

You are right Eberly, there is no need to limit it to rednecks. Telling anyone they are too stupid to see or understand something is not a persuasive argument and will always backfire.

#99 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 05:53 PM | Reply

Jesus....speaks just can't help it.

I wish I could stay and watch this -------- keep on this with losing strategy.

DAMN!! football practice calls.

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 05:53 PM | Reply

Hilary was not a moderate candidate. She may have ran on a moderate platform
#92 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

Uh that's the same thing.

Same LOSING platform sellout joe is running on now.

2 old white democrat ex senators both with a long record taking bribes from billionaires, both voted for the iraq war, both with a long record of bad policies and bad judgement.

Same approach -> same result.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 05:55 PM | Reply

The notion that there is this nebulous pool of "moderates" who *might* vote for Trump if Dems don't nominate a Republican Light is not only laughable, it also depends entirely on an unproven premise: that this pool of moderates is larger than the pool of tens of millions of Americans who don't vote at all because they aren't inspired by the typical candidates run by our two major parties, but who might be activated by an authentic progressive candidate.

#94 | Posted by JOE

REPOSTING. AMEN.

#102 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 05:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

speak is still upset about sanders losing.

#103 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 05:57 PM | Reply

"Telling anyone they are too stupid to see or understand something is not a persuasive argument and will always backfire."

Exactly. Same as telling old people the opposing party wll let them die without medicine, etc.

Fear politics.

S.U.C.K.S.

#104 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 05:59 PM | Reply

speak is still upset about sanders losing.

#103 | Posted by eberly

Why wouldnt I be? As I'm still upset about trump winning.

Decent people get upset about bad things happening.

You NOT being upset isn't proof of your superiority. Rather the opposite.

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My point is that the platform she ran on was not what was supported by her previous political history. That on top of the way she seemed to act as though she was the smartest person in the room and we would all vote for her because she was the next in line turned a lot of swing voters off.

Telling people they are stupid will not win you any friends.

#106 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 06:01 PM | Reply

"speak is still upset about sanders losing."

Trumpers are still upset about the Confederacy losing.

Doesn't seem to bother Eberly nearly so much...

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 06:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Exactly. Same as telling old people the opposing party wll let them die without medicine, etc.

Fear politics.

S.U.C.K.S.

#104 | Posted by goatman

Republicans scare voters by lying to them.
Democrats scare voters by telling them the truth:
www.politico.com
"Number of uninsured Americans rises for the first time since Obamacare. the numbers show that insurance gains under the health care law have stalled and are appearing to reverse as the Trump administration focuses on paring back the law's insurance markets and shrinking enrollment in safety net programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program."

Trump threw poor people off of health coverage and gave tax cuts to the rich. Exactly what democrats were telling people he would do. Is that a "scare tactic" if it's true?

#108 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:03 PM | Reply

#94 | Posted by JOE

If it takes promising a bunch of free crap to get people to the polls it is my opinion we are better off with those people staying home....

#109 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 06:03 PM | Reply

My point is that the platform she ran on was not what was supported by her previous political history.

#106 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

Yes it was. Her political history was taking corporate bribe money and enacting corporate policies that hurt the country. That's moderate. Just like joe biden.

#110 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:04 PM | Reply

"That on top of the way she seemed to act as though she was the smartest person in the room and we would all vote for her because she was the next in line turned a lot of swing voters off."

Yet breaking with longtime party values and declaring himself a genius worked great for Trump!

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 06:04 PM | Reply

-Why wouldnt I be?

because you're an adult?

or not.

"that this pool of moderates is larger than the pool of tens of millions of Americans who don't vote at all because they aren't inspired by the typical candidates run by our two major parties, but who might be activated by an authentic progressive candidate."

you don't need tens of millions...you need swing state moderates.

You're trying to win the popular vote..not the electoral college.

a progressive (AKA socialist) candidate will motivate and mobilize all kinds of progressive voters in progressive states...that the dems already have locked up.

but the 5-7 swing states? no.....you need a moderate candidate that won't scare the moderate voters.......

#112 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 06:04 PM | Reply

you need a moderate candidate that won't scare the moderate voters.......

#112 | Posted by eberly

Yeah worked out great in 2016.

#113 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:07 PM | Reply

"#104 | Posted by goatman
Republicans scare voters by lying to them."

I was wondering who would be the first to post this. I asked myself,
"Who whines the most about 'whataboutism' and told myself, "That will be the first person."

About the time I figure out the one who cries most about ""whataboutism" is speaksoftly, up pops post 104.

LOL

Again (and again, and again) speaksoftly screams "Do as I say, not as I do."

#114 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-11 06:08 PM | Reply

Yeah worked out great in 2016.

#113 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Trump had no history. He was able to persuade people that he was the perfect outsider for the job and he would really "drain the swamp". You dont have to get in anyone's face and tell them how stupid and wrong they were. A lot of people realize that already. I believe that Trump is doing a damn fine job of turning the moderates off all on his own. If you dont give those people (like me) a home we will vote third party (like I did in 2016), or stay home. Keep telling people they are stupid and they will go out of their way to NOT help you accomplish whatever you are working towards. 'Let it all burn'

#115 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 06:12 PM | Reply

speak is still upset about sanders losing.

#103 | Posted by eberly

It's really barbaric to live in the richest country ever that has millions of its citizen unable to have access to healthcare ...

AND

wrecks the lives of 10,000's more just in the state of Virginia alone, pummeling patients into bankruptcy solely on the basis of getting sick ...

Debunking Medicare-for-All Smear & UVA Healthcare Debacle
drudge.com

My morals reflect my support for Bernie Sanders, who wants to fix this morally reprehensible situation.

#116 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-11 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If you dont give those people (like me) a home we will vote third party (like I did in 2016), or stay home."

What could Trump do to win your vote?

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 06:27 PM | Reply

He was able to persuade people that he was the perfect outsider for the job and he would really "drain the swamp". You dont have to get in anyone's face and tell them how stupid and wrong they were. A lot of people realize that already. I believe that Trump is doing a damn fine job of turning the moderates off all on his own. If you dont give those people (like me) a home we will vote third party (like I did in 2016), or stay home. Keep telling people they are stupid and they will go out of their way to NOT help you accomplish whatever you are working towards. 'Let it all burn'

#115 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

If the choice is between losing the votes of people who were dumb enough to trust trump, but now are willing to admit their mistake if the dems offer a republican-lite candidate, or losing the votes of the left who wont vote for a corporate puppet, I'm betting the latter group is larger and therefore more important to win over.

Very few people these days admit a mistake about anything. Voting for trump and then biden would be admitting a mistake, and admitting they got conned by a con man. Most will stick with the con man in order to avoid admitting they got conned.

Besides much of trump's support came from the nonpartisan CHANGE crowd - people so desperate for real change they were willing to give trump a try. You wont win them over by promising the return things to the world they hated in 2015. You win them over by saying - trump was fake change, here is REAL change.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:29 PM | Reply

Re: Reparations, the principle is that black people in this country have historically been damaged by intentional policies of the US government to prevent them from benefiting from government programs. After the civil war white slaveholders were compensated for the loss of their free labor, the black former slaves were stripped of any land and were then imprisoned for "vagrancy" and forced to work for free in prisons. Blacks were prevented from befefiting from the FHA, GI bill, and many other government programs. Understand: this was done consciously and deliberately by the government.

The Japanese were compensated (although inadequately) for the WWII Internment Camps (for three years), while blacks in this country endured 300 years of slavery (blessed by and enforced by government policy -- see 2nd Amendment). Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, persecution by the FBI under Hoover, all government actions.

Why are blacks not entitled to compensation by the government that harmed them? And as the the argument that "that was a long time ago", consider the disparity of wealth between whites who have been building wealth for generations while blacks were, in many ways, prevented from doing the same by government initiated (or, at least, government tolerated) discrimination.

#119 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-11 06:30 PM | Reply

#93 | POSTED BYSPEAKSOFTLYAT2019-09-11 05:47 PM|REPLY| FLAG:

Way to both prove Eberly's point and stupidly (since you like that word) make assumptions on my post and motives.

I'm no Trump supporter. But he serves my purposes. He hasn't started new conflicts. You can call a guess about Hillary a fantasy, but I can call it an extrapolation you agree with in other posts. She kept voting for and supporting wars. And the left would have rubber stamped her.

In fact, the left rubber stamping their own is exactly why Trump serves my purposes. Where Clinton starting wars would have gotten the same deafening silence as Obama, Trump would face worse opposition than Bush. Trump mildly damages Obamacare, and the backlash from the left may well lead to Medicare for all. Hillary "single payer will never, ever, happen" would have maintained the status quo. And who on the left would oppose her? It goes on and on like this. Trump is creating backlash that will take things where I want them while Hillary would have kept the slow stagnation of our oligarchy going indefinitely.

That is, unless Democrats screw it up. Which they can do by embracing divisive social issues rather than economics and policies, foreign and domestic, that bring troops and jobs back while loosening our ever more concrete social stratification.

The worst thing you can say about me honestly is I'm an accelerationist who doesn't care if Trump's policies hurt a little if it serves to swing the pendulum back harder, and an anti-war voter who will sacrifice all other values if it just stops our country from wasting American lives and dollars abroad we need at home. And I may well be stupid. But not stupid enough to think I can win an election by telling the opposition how evil and dumb they are.

#120 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-09-11 06:31 PM | Reply

Trump will not get my vote. As you quoted me above if there is not a Democrat that I can vote for I will vote third party again. This is the only reply you will get from me Snoofy. I dont feed trolls.

#121 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 06:32 PM | Reply

"Trump will not get my vote"

Honestly based on the arguments you've advanced it doesn't sound like any Democrat will either.

Are you a perpetual third party voter, or is this something you adopted after 2008?

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 06:33 PM | Reply

I normally vote Dem but they have gone to extremes and left me on the outside. I have so far never voted for a Republican although I was leaning toward McCain until he chose Palin.

#123 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 06:39 PM | Reply

Let me put it this way: Is there currently a Democrat candidate you would vote for, if the election were being held right now?
If not, I don't think that is going to change over the next year.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 06:41 PM | Reply

The worst thing you can say about me honestly is I'm an accelerationist who doesn't care if Trump's policies hurt a little if it serves to swing the pendulum back harder, and an anti-war voter who will sacrifice all other values if it just stops our country from wasting American lives and dollars abroad we need at home. And I may well be stupid. But not stupid enough to think I can win an election by telling the opposition how evil and dumb they are.

#120 | Posted by zeropointnrg

No the worst thing I can say about you is youre smart enough to be worried about starting wars because of the death it will cause, but still too stupid to see there are a lot of other ways presidents can cause death - with environmental destruction being the worst one, and trump is the worst president for the planet we've ever had.

And you're also dumb enough to buy the fox news propaganda that hillary would have for sure started some other war as if that's a fact.

Trump's war is against the only planet we'll ever have. And if you think climate change isn't going to cause wars, that's only more proof of your ignorance.

#125 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:42 PM | Reply

I normally vote Dem but they have gone to extremes and left me on the outside.
#123 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

Fox news talking points. The left is not extreme. Protecting the planet, regulating the banks, and providing health care are only extreme for brainwashed right wing morons.

#126 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaking of "do as I say" and inverted morals

What ever happened to the "conservative" opt-out movement?

You couldn't turn around here are the DR during the Obama years without being assaulted with right wing whines about opting out of this and opting out of that

Why no whines now demanding Americans be "free" to opt out of trumps stupid, failing, -------- of a "deal"

#127 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-11 06:44 PM | Reply

Free everything and practially open borders is extreme. I do not get my news from Fox, I am listening to the politics. I have no problem with expanding medicaid/single payer/etc, saving the planet, and bank regulations. I cant believe you dont see the insanity in the Dem party right now. I have a meeting soon so I am out for today. See you all tomorrow.

#128 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 06:48 PM | Reply

Free everything and practially open borders is extreme.

#128 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

Free everything and practially open borders... are right wing lies that they tell you about the left so they can stay in power. Dont be such a sucker.

#129 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#129 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

--------. I have to go so I dont have time to get into this right now, but sanctuary cities are one of the biggest 'open borders' problems. California caters to illegal immigrants. There are loopholes in the welfare system that they exploit and receive way more benefits than citizens. The current crop of crazies running for POTUS is ridiculous. I am hoping for Biden and some sanity. If the Republicans will put away their crazy train and work on some bipartisan measures it would benefit the entire country.

#130 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-09-11 06:55 PM | Reply

There are loopholes in the welfare system that they exploit and receive way more benefits than citizens.
#130 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

I'd be interested in reading more on this when you have a chance.

Links would be fantastic.

#131 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 07:11 PM | Reply

If the Republicans will put away their crazy train and work on some bipartisan measures it would benefit the entire country.

#130 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

More proof of how clueless you are. Might as well just wish upon a leprechaun.

And sanctuary cities are just cities where illegal immigrants can cooperate with the cops without getting deported. It lowers crime.

#132 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 07:13 PM | Reply

--And sanctuary cities are just cities where illegal immigrants can cooperate with the cops without getting deported. It lowers crime.

Tell it to Kate Steinle.

#133 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-11 07:16 PM | Reply

Moderates dont see the problem with being controlled by wall street when america is furious with the elites' status quo. Biden is taking money from all the same people hillary did before america rejected her.

SPEAKSOFTLY

In this post-Citizens United era, no presidential candidate can win without the billion dollars it takes to mount a credible campaign. Until the need for massive amounts of money ends, candidates will need to raise money from Wall Street.

First order is defeating Trump and winning back the Senate so no more right wing SC justices take the bench.

Demographics are moving solidly against Republicans. It may take 2 or 3 presidential terms, but once the GOP are banished to the basement, where they belong, and the SC's conservative majority is no more, we can actually achieve campaign finance reform and the goals Democrats have sought for the betterment of the vast majority of Americans, not just rich fat cats and corporations.

I will NOT be voting 3rd party this election or any election. Today's version of the GOP are utterly devoid of interest in the lives of average Americans. When the fingers of their power no longer have a grip on America, as they've had since Newt Gingrich, are broken and gnarled and incapable of doing any more damage to America actual, meaningful progress can be made.

#134 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 07:29 PM | Reply

Free everything
#128 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

No such thing.

You've been taught your taxes aren't yours, they're the government's and the government can use those taxes to subsidize corporations, increase the budget for the MIC, give the money to other countries.

But. Don't you dare expect it to going to healthcare, you have to pay monthly for a private healthcare provider. Don't expect it to go to education, to infrastructure, anything. That's on you. If you're unable to keep up the grind, you're better off dead.

They're constantly trying to eliminate social security and Medicare.

Face it. You're a sack with a dollar sign on it. This country, our country, the United States of America, is only here to take from you, and you better not expect anything in return.

#135 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-11 07:34 PM | Reply

In this post-Citizens United era, no presidential candidate can win without the billion dollars it takes to mount a credible campaign. Until the need for massive amounts of money ends, candidates will need to raise money from Wall Street.

#134 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

That was the pre bernie narrative that bernie destroyed. Try to keep up. If the people really believe you'll support them, they will support your campaign.

"you have to sell out to compete" is the argument of people who sell out.

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 07:42 PM | Reply

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Bernie raised money for his primary campaign. He raised $228 million in his effort for the nomination. Not enough for a presidential campaign.

Individual donations are not going to be nearly sufficient to mount a full blown presidential campaign as nominee. That's just a fact in this day and age.

The first step in turning this around is defeating Trump. If you sit out or vote third party and Trump wins reelection, count on another SC seat going to a right wing Federalist and campaign finance reform being stuck where it is for decades, meaning a billion dollars spent in a credible effort to win the WH.

#137 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 07:54 PM | Reply

Hillary and outside groups spent $1.4 billion in 2016.

If you think individual donations will raise that kind of money, there's a bridge for sale ...

#138 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 07:55 PM | Reply

"sanctuary cities are one of the biggest 'open borders' problems"

I didn't know that was where you were going but I responded to "free everything."

Free everything is a little too overbroad.

Free health care, taken literally, is probably extreme, but decoupling your health care from your bank account helps most people, and it's not extreme. A system like Canada, fifteen bucks plus parking, is functionally close enough to free to be able to see it's not extreme.

Free college exists in a lot of other parts of the world, and they're all pretty nice places to live, so that can't really be extreme. There are a lot of differences in those systems that people haven't thought too much about, like how free college is just one part of a large state-run education system. Free college would however mean the whole student debt thing goes away, and that would be a win in its own right.

Canceling student debt is a harder sell, but student debts to for-profit colleges that went under ought to be cancelled. Student loan interest rates are set by Congress, and during the past ten years of rock-bottom interest rates they've been as high at 6.8%; Obama managed to get that down to 5.3% or something. (Thanks Obama.) So, student loans certainly rip off students in a way that would never have happened if they originated with market rates, and it's not extreme to address that.

But I get the argument that cancelling student loan debt is extreme. I'm not convinced it's more extreme than the situation that so much debt exists in the first place. I think a much stronger argument for cancelling it can be made simply from an economic stimulus point of view. That would basically turn into a handout in hopes of building a new generation firmly planted in the middle class, since once the debt disappeared they could afford to buy homes, lease cars, have babies, and get home telephone, cable TV, and Internet locked in at a low price of $99.99 plus taxes for two years if they act now. Plus, they have an education, so these are the kind of people we need if we are going to raise the borders a little bit and stop siphoning so many of the top brains away from China, India, etc. I'm not for closing down our borders but I am for more investment in our own people.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hillary and outside groups spent $1.4 billion in 2016.

If you think individual donations will raise that kind of money, there's a bridge for sale ...

#138 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

And what good did it do her? In the 21st century, your credibility is more valuable than money.

Russia got trump elected by spending a few hundred thousand. The old "we need billions to buy ads on local newscasts" approach is dead.

#140 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 08:15 PM | Reply

--And sanctuary cities are just cities where illegal immigrants can cooperate with the cops without getting deported. It lowers crime.

Tell it to Kate Steinle.

#133 | Posted by nullifidian

WHo's that? Some poor person fox news uses to prove sanctuary cities are bad? Just like they used one shot of 2 black guys to convince morons that a massive black panther movement was terrorizing polling places?

#141 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 08:17 PM | Reply

And what good did it do her?

She won the popular vote and if not for 77,000 votes scattered between MI, WI, and PA would have been president. Too many people sat out or voted 3rd party, so we have Trump. Thanks for nothing to those who sat out or had a tantrum and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Now, we have a right wing SC. Yay! Right?

The first order next year is getting Trump out of office. That's Priority #1.

Look, I have nothing against Bernie. My wife and I both voted for him in the primary. He lost, so we voted for Clinton, who nearly won the WH if not for brats who skulked and took their ball home when Bernie didn't win the nomination.

#142 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 08:23 PM | Reply

141 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Fox News!

#143 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-11 08:24 PM | Reply

Fox News!

#143 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah you know - the propaganda network who spews the same false arguments as you every day?

#144 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 08:27 PM | Reply

The first order next year is getting Trump out of office. That's Priority #1.

Look, I have nothing against Bernie. My wife and I both voted for him in the primary. He lost, so we voted for Clinton, who nearly won the WH if not for brats who skulked and took their ball home when Bernie didn't win the nomination.

#142 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Cool so how are you going to do that? Same strategy that lost last time?

Maybe you can just scold anti elitists into voting for a puppet of the elites. Sounds like a winning strategy for sure.

#145 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 08:28 PM | Reply

You think most of America is 'pro-elitist?'

Pfft.

Just stay home or vote third party and don't let us catch you whining if Trump is reelected, OK?

#146 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 08:31 PM | Reply

But, I'm a mature adult. I don't throw tantrums when my chosen Dem candidate doesn't win a nomination.

#147 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 08:32 PM | Reply

BTW, I'd love to see a true populist like Warren or Bernie win the WH.

But you're so hell bent on being against anyone who takes corporate campaign contributions in this era of Citizen's United that just isn't going to happen. They just won't win. Not when the opposition will spend a billion to crush them.

PS - Bernie never had to experience the onslaught of negative ads the Republicans would have thrown at him. Guessing he might have won if he'd been the nominee and was underfunded is going to get you a wrong answer every time.

#148 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 08:37 PM | Reply

Just stay home or vote third party and don't let us catch you whining if Trump is reelected, OK?

#146 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Why so you can blame me instead of voters who nominated another sellout loser like Kerry or Hillary?

Follow the same path, end up in the same place.

Want a different result? Try a different approach.

#149 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 09:23 PM | Reply

PS - Bernie never had to experience the onslaught of negative ads the Republicans would have thrown at him. Guessing he might have won if he'd been the nominee and was underfunded is going to get you a wrong answer every time.

#148 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

They'll use the same attack ads no matter who we run. The dem nominee is going to get called a socialist, communist, demon, whatever, no matter who it is, so you might as well nominate someone who's more appealing than republican-lite.

#150 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-11 09:25 PM | Reply

Bernie Sanders, the one true presidential candidate with morals, beats Trump in Texas ...

Univision News Poll: Bernie beats Trump in Texas
drudge.com

This is what standing up for what's right looks like.

#151 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-11 10:04 PM | Reply

They'll use the same attack ads no matter who we run. The dem nominee is going to get called a socialist, communist, demon, whatever, no matter who it is, so you might as well nominate someone who's more appealing than republican-lite.

#150 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The problem for Bernie is that is how he's labeled himself, so those attack ads are going to stick.

If you want Sanders' platform Warren is a more viable choice.

Here's the thing also to consider - We are not a dictatorship (thankfully). The big-ticket items that Sanders/Warren are promising can't be achieved via phone and pen. It will require legislating and then the Overton Window kicks in. If they try to pull an Obama and over-reach with a similar trifecta of Stimulus/ACA/Dodd Frank the '22 wave will make the '10 wave look like a ripple.

#152 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 10:10 PM | Reply

The problem for Bernie is that is how he's labeled himself, so those attack ads are going to stick

#152 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Those nasty socialist attack ads would be so nasty that the latest poll now shows Bernie beating Trump in Texas ...

Univision News Poll: Bernie beats Trump in Texas
drudge.com

This isn't 1953 anymore, it's 2019, The Red Scare, McCarthyism, and Sputnik are all done deals -- and it's time to think anew.

Bernie beats Trump in Texas -- put that in your pipe and smoke it.

#153 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-11 10:16 PM | Reply

Loaf,

Polling for the General this far out is mostly meaningless. You act like he's already won when he's double digits behind the front-runner in the primary.

365 days from now I'll be taking the polling seriously.

Besides, right now it's Democrats who you need to convince. Until the primary approaches Michigan I could care less about the Democrat candidates.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 10:20 PM | Reply

-They'll use the same attack ads no matter who we run. The dem nominee is going to get called a socialist, communist, demon, whatever, no matter who it is, so you might as well nominate someone who's more appealing than republican-lite.

I'm glad nobody listens to you or that idea.

#155 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 10:20 PM | Reply

-Those nasty socialist attack ads would be so nasty that the latest poll now shows Bernie beating Trump in Texas

Do you think......really think.....that Texas is in play if sanders is the nominee?

#156 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 10:22 PM | Reply

Do you think......really think.....that Texas is in play if sanders is the nominee?

#156 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yes

Texans like healthcare, like a living wage, like having affording housing and education, like clean water, etc. -- just like people who live in all the other 49 states.

#157 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-11 10:34 PM | Reply

-Texans like healthcare, like a living wage, like having affording housing and education

And yet they keep voting for republicans

#158 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 11:06 PM | Reply

They'll use the same attack ads no matter who we run. The dem nominee is going to get called a socialist, communist, demon, whatever, no matter who it is, so you might as well nominate someone who's more appealing than republican-lite.

#150 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Guess you're referring to Joe Biden as 'republican-lite?'

The guy who's been leading all the primary polls and beats Trump by a wider margin than any of them?

Looks like you're wrong. That is, if current facts matter to you.

#159 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 11:28 PM | Reply

Sorry, SPEAKS, I'm not going to support someone who couldn't win the nomination last time and will refuse to be well funded enough. He couldn't even win a majority of primaries in 2016, where people weren't hamstrung by the long hours and taking off work. Where it counted, in elections where more people could participate, Bernie lost. Doesn't matter if you think he should have won. He didn't.

Warren, yes. Biden, yes. Bernie, no. Not again.

#160 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-11 11:33 PM | Reply

BTW, SPEAKSOFTLY

If Bernie wins the nomination I will work for his campaign and vote for him.

You should do the same regardless of who the Dem nominee is if you actually care about saving America from Trump.

#161 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-12 12:08 AM | Reply

BTW, SPEAKSOFTLY

If Bernie wins the nomination I will work for his campaign and vote for him.

You should do the same regardless of who the Dem nominee is if you actually care about saving America from Trump.

#161 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

IMHO that is a rational stance.

I need to share a short anecdote with you. Last week I grabbed the company van to run downtown to grab a few things for a company picnic this past weekend. Our Detroit office is across the street from Lafayette/American but I couldn't find a parking spot anywhere. That should be criminal.

#162 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-12 12:21 AM | Reply

Good night, all!

Yeah, that even includes you, Speaks.

#163 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-12 12:23 AM | Reply

I need to share a short anecdote with you. Last week I grabbed the company van to run downtown to grab a few things for a company picnic this past weekend. Our Detroit office is across the street from Lafayette/American but I couldn't find a parking spot anywhere. That should be criminal.

Posted by JeffJ

GD right!!!!! :)

#164 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-12 12:24 AM | Reply

I need to share a short anecdote with you. Last week I grabbed the company van to run downtown to grab a few things for a company picnic this past weekend. Our Detroit office is across the street from Lafayette/American but I couldn't find a parking spot anywhere. That should be criminal.

Posted by JeffJ

GD right!!!!! :)

#165 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-12 12:25 AM | Reply

why don't YOU spit it out, bruthe? what do you want to know?

#81 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-09-11 05:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Why you are breaking with the rest of America.

#166 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-12 12:26 AM | Reply

It's an ivory tower solution to real world problems, doomed to failure and only made to pander to the sanctimonious social left.

#84 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG AT 2019-09-11 05:28 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! Do you go to work? Do you get paid for it?

That's not an ivory tower issue

#167 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-12 12:27 AM | Reply

Reparations to nth-generation relatives is a hard sell. I don't really see how it can be done in a way that doesn't yield even more sour grapes from whites.

#168 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-12 12:33 AM | Reply

Referring to one country in which most of the extermination camps had been located, I pointed out that between 1939 and 1945 only a million people had died as the result of direct military action, but five and a half million had been exterminated by the invaders. Over three million victims were Jews, and one third of them were under sixteen. These losses worked out to two hundred and twenty deaths per thousand people, and no one would ever be able to compute how many others were mutilated, traumatized, broken in health or spirit. My listeners nodded politely, admitting that they had always believed that reports about the camps and gas chambers had been much embellished by overwrought reporters. I assured them that, having spent my childhood and adolescence during the war and postwar years in Eastern Europe, I knew that real events had been far more brutal than the most bizarre fantasies.

-the painted bird

#169 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-12 12:34 AM | Reply

That was meant for another thread.

#170 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-12 12:36 AM | Reply

Reparations to nth-generation relatives is a hard sell. I don't really see how it can be done in a way that doesn't yield even more sour grapes from whites.

#168 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-12 12:33 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

What happened to this place? Even you?

#171 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-12 12:36 AM | Reply

you don't need tens of millions...you need swing state moderates.

There are progressives in swing states who don't vote. Way to miss the point, as usual.

#172 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 05:39 AM | Reply

We are not a dictatorship (thankfully). The big-ticket items that Sanders/Warren are promising can't be achieved via phone and pen.

Why not just steal money appropriated for other projects when they don't get their way and dare Congress to sue them after stacking the Supreme Court with party operatives? It's working for Trump and most people don't seem to care.

#173 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 05:45 AM | Reply

When the 13 original colonies decided to discuss creating their own nation, did they throw out their morals along the way?

Treason.

Killing their fellow countrymen.

Then, as they discussed creation of a nation, they had to compromise on the first laws of the nation.

Was it wrong to be immoral for the sake of creating a new nation?

Slavery illegal. Would the US exist if that position was not flexible?

As a person, we make our moral choices.

When a group gets together, with no consensus for any rules, is just anarchy.

I for one admit going against my better judgment. On a personal level, its an easy choice. On a group level, its not easy.

Politicians represent the people. A truly immoral issue might force a pol to choose to go against, but for a nation, the ugly choice sometimes is the choice of two evils.

Speaking of morality, most candidates for office are immoral and the voters hold their nose, close their eyes, and squeeze their ---------- and vote against conscience.

#174 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-12 07:20 AM | Reply

Why not just steal money appropriated for other projects when they don't get their way and dare Congress to sue them after stacking the Supreme Court with party operatives? It's working for Trump and most people don't seem to care.

#173 | POSTED BY JOE

Trump stole roughly $5 Billion for his stupid wall and even that was difficult.

The $trillions that Dem candidates are bandying about like it's nothing? Can't do it without legislation.

#175 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-12 07:31 AM | Reply

Snoofy,

"I don't really see how it can be done in a way that doesn't yield even more sour grapes from whites."

I agree.

Exactly what percentage of DNA is required to qualify?

Sounds like a long legal battle that could stretch out for years.

#176 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-09-12 08:55 AM | Reply

-Texans like healthcare, like a living wage, like having affording housing and education
And yet they keep voting for republicans
#158 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-09-11 11:06 PM | REPLY

Because Republicans accept the republican claims that we don't have all those nice things that republicans oppose because poor people aren't poor enough

#177 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-12 12:14 PM | Reply

Here's the thing also to consider - We are not a dictatorship (thankfully). The big-ticket items that Sanders/Warren are promising can't be achieved via phone and pen. It will require legislating and then the Overton Window kicks in. If they try to pull an Obama and over-reach with a similar trifecta of Stimulus/ACA/Dodd Frank the '22 wave will make the '10 wave look like a ripple.

#152 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah so what? That's what campaigns are about - stating what your values and goals are. Not promising you can deliver them all?

Do republicans only campaign on what they can definitely deliver? Or is that something only democrats are required to do?

#178 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-12 01:09 PM | Reply

He couldn't even win a majority of primaries in 2016, where people weren't hamstrung by the long hours and taking off work. Where it counted, in elections where more people could participate, Bernie lost.

#160 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Actually that's wrong. Clinton got the nomination because she won states that are USELESS in the general election, like south carolina, because dems will never win them.

Bernie won the states that clinton lost to trump. That along should be a loud lesson to anyone with eyes and ears.

Sure biden will win south carolina. And it will be as useless in the general as it was for hillary.

#179 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-12 01:12 PM | Reply

seems to me that it is most definitely a chicken or egg paradox

#180 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-12 04:24 PM | Reply

If you are a conservative still, then clearly politics eroded your morals completely.

#181 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-09-12 05:04 PM | Reply

I see a lot of speculation why who voted for who.

I didn't vote for Trump because of Trump.

I voted for a republican because I knew there were seats coming up for the supreme Court and I did not want a liberal nominating anyone.

It wouldn't have mattered who was the candidate.

Just that simple.

#182 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-09-12 08:55 PM | Reply

"Reparations to nth-generation relatives is a hard sell. I don't really see how it can be done in a way that doesn't yield even more sour grapes from whites.
#168 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

What happened to this place? Even you?
#171 | POSTED BYBRUCEBANNER"

^
I've always felt that way about reparations.

Especially nowadays the deplorable whites will use it as a new reason to accelerate their victim narrative.

They will say, why don't poor whites get reparations for the jobs they've lost to illegals and Affirmative Action, for example.

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 02:31 PM | Reply

Reparations to nth-generation relatives is a hard sell.

And when would it end, or does it never end?

Does every decedent from now on until the end of time, also receive reparations?

If not why not? Why only now?

#184 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-13 02:38 PM | Reply

I feel like Affirmative Action is a more practical approach to achieving what reparations hope to accomplish, which is repairing the harms done in the past.

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 04:13 PM | Reply

"I feel like Affirmative Action is a more practical approach to achieving what reparations hope to accomplish, which is repairing the harms done in the past.

#185 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Different rules for people with different colors of skin doesn't work. It was a valuable and painful lesson America learned. I can't figure out why people want to go back there.

#186 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 04:15 PM | Reply

"Different rules for people with different colors of skin doesn't work."

Doesn't work at what?

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 04:17 PM | Reply

"Doesn't work at what?

#187 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-13 04:17 PM |"

Doesn't work for a smooth society.

Are you serious? You didn't know what I meant?

Or is it yet another thread riddled snoofygames (tm)?

#188 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 04:26 PM | Reply

""Doesn't work at what?
#187 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-13 04:17 PM |"
Doesn't work for a smooth society."

What's your basis for that claim?

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 05:14 PM | Reply

"What's your basis for that claim?

#189 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Sorry, if you honestly don't know why different rules for different skin colors doesn't work, you obviously lack even the most basic knowledge of history and the civil rights era for us to have a meaningful discussion.

If you do know, (as almost everyone in this country knows) then are are trolling.

Regardless of which, I've no desire to engage either.

Bye now!

#190 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 05:17 PM | Reply

"What's your basis for that claim?
#189 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Sorry
#190 | POSTED BY GOATMAN"

I am sorry that you can't provide one, but rather, can only insult my intelligence.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 05:23 PM | Reply

"Sorry, if you honestly don't know why different rules for different skin colors doesn't work"

The military still uses affirmative action, and I think the military works pretty well.

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 05:26 PM | Reply

"Sorry
#190 | POSTED BY GOATMAN"

#191 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

LOL

And you respond with yet another snoofygame (tm) by quoting me out of conotext, which of course is a lie. LOL

Unbelievable

#193 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 05:29 PM | Reply

I didn't quote you out of context.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 05:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Sorry, if you honestly don't know why different rules for different skin colors doesn't work, you obviously lack even the most basic knowledge of history and the civil rights era for us to have a meaningful discussion."

^
It's an especially dubious claim in light of the fact that affirmative action in America is a result of the civil rights era.

Like I said, if you have substantiation for your claim, I'd love to hear it.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 05:41 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort