THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 2017, 2018, 2019 ... 2053, 2054, 2055  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Heartburn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Oct 2001
Posts: 6032
Location: Allupinya

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:52 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?


Because she's actually ignoring the political reality that it will be significantly harder to implement policy after she likely loses power by Year 3.

And starting with a compromise position in a negotiation is not more pragmatic. It's weak and signals the issue isn't really important to her.


Starting with a position that is a non-starter and being intransigent is also not a winning strategy.

Purity of position is great in the abstract, but when things need to get done, who cares that you've been singing the same tune for 40 years? It signals that you're rather BE right than GET IT right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:57 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?


Because she's actually ignoring the political reality that it will be significantly harder to implement policy after she likely loses power by Year 3.

And starting with a compromise position in a negotiation is not more pragmatic. It's weak and signals the issue isn't really important to her.


But you just admitted that Bernie can't get it done either. So which is worse, continuing to pretend to your supporters that you can do something you clearly can't, or being honest with your supporters about what series of events will likely unfold?


As a Bernie supporter I don't think there's any confusion about it. He's trying to get the most he can by staking out a maximal position. AOC just admitted this. That's the proper way of entering a negotiation. If you start off by saying you want a public option it's less likely you'll even get that.

Most Dem lawmakers are lying about wanting a public option, btw.


Last edited by greenfrog on Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 85645
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:59 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?


Because she's actually ignoring the political reality that it will be significantly harder to implement policy after she likely loses power by Year 3.

And starting with a compromise position in a negotiation is not more pragmatic. It's weak and signals the issue isn't really important to her.


But you just admitted that Bernie can't get it done either. So which is worse, continuing to pretend to your supporters that you can do something you clearly can't, or being honest with your supporters about what series of events will likely unfold?


As a Bernie supporter I don't think there's any confusion about it. He's trying to get the most he can by staking out a maximal position. AOC just admitted this. That's the proper way of entering a negotiation. If you start off by saying you want a public option it's less likely you'll even get that.


But if AOC just said that, isn’t that already a signal of compromise?
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:00 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?


Because she's actually ignoring the political reality that it will be significantly harder to implement policy after she likely loses power by Year 3.

And starting with a compromise position in a negotiation is not more pragmatic. It's weak and signals the issue isn't really important to her.


But you just admitted that Bernie can't get it done either. So which is worse, continuing to pretend to your supporters that you can do something you clearly can't, or being honest with your supporters about what series of events will likely unfold?


As a Bernie supporter I don't think there's any confusion about it. He's trying to get the most he can by staking out a maximal position. AOC just admitted this. That's the proper way of entering a negotiation. If you start off by saying you want a public option it's less likely you'll even get that.


But if AOC just said that, isn’t that already a signal of compromise?


No, she doesn't work for the campaign.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 85645
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:00 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?


Because she's actually ignoring the political reality that it will be significantly harder to implement policy after she likely loses power by Year 3.

And starting with a compromise position in a negotiation is not more pragmatic. It's weak and signals the issue isn't really important to her.


But you just admitted that Bernie can't get it done either. So which is worse, continuing to pretend to your supporters that you can do something you clearly can't, or being honest with your supporters about what series of events will likely unfold?


As a Bernie supporter I don't think there's any confusion about it. He's trying to get the most he can by staking out a maximal position. AOC just admitted this. That's the proper way of entering a negotiation. If you start off by saying you want a public option it's less likely you'll even get that.


But if AOC just said that, isn’t that already a signal of compromise?


No, she doesn't work for the campaign.


She’s probably the campaign’s most effective surrogate
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 18098
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:07 pm    Post subject:

It's the hypocrisy. Bernie is pure and everyone else is second-class and not worthy. It's truly puke worthy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:10 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
It's the hypocrisy. Bernie is pure and everyone else is second-class and not worthy. It's truly puke worthy.


Where is the hypocrisy in my argument?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 18098
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:33 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
It's the hypocrisy. Bernie is pure and everyone else is second-class and not worthy. It's truly puke worthy.


Where is the hypocrisy in my argument?


When you imply only Bernie's way is the right way and anyone who has a different progressive plan than Bernie's is labeled "disingenuous." and not a "true" progressive. Two candidates with two different plans does not make one candidate genuine and the other disingenuous. That's the hypocrisy. You are holding candidates to different standards where Bernie always gets the benefit of the doubt and the others never do.

Okay, how about another topic? When Bernie promised to release his medical records, never did, then released a letter instead, was he being disingenuous? I say yes. He apparently never planned on releasing the records or he would have. He disingenuously said he would to fend off questions until the media interest died down then pulled the switcheroo. Just like he did with his taxes in 2016. Bernie lies. A lot. About a lot of things. I think that's worse than altering course on a policy.

/gotta go back to work now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 14985

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:39 pm    Post subject:

Bernie is playing politics, just like all the other candidates, don’t think it’s vile at all
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 18098
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:44 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Bernie is playing politics, just like all the other candidates, don’t think it’s vile at all


My issue is not so much candidates playing politics. My issue is candidates and their supporters *pretending* they aren't playing politics then sliming other candidates for the same behavior. Like I said. It's the hypocrisy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:49 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
It's the hypocrisy. Bernie is pure and everyone else is second-class and not worthy. It's truly puke worthy.


Where is the hypocrisy in my argument?


When you imply only Bernie's way is the right way and anyone who has a different progressive plan than Bernie's is labeled "disingenuous." and not a "true" progressive. Two candidates with two different plans does not make one candidate genuine and the other disingenuous. That's the hypocrisy. You are holding candidates to different standards where Bernie always gets the benefit of the doubt and the others never do.

Okay, how about another topic? When Bernie promised to release his medical records, never did, then released a letter instead, was he being disingenuous? I say yes. He apparently never planned on releasing the records or he would have. He disingenuously said he would to fend off questions until the media interest died down then pulled the switcheroo. Just like he did with his taxes in 2016. Bernie lies. A lot. About a lot of things. I think that's worse than altering course on a policy.

/gotta go back to work now


That's not hypocrisy. I explained why one approach is completely logical in terms of negotiations and politics and the other is a disingenuous (maybe poorly thought-out) political surrender.

As far as the medical records, he should release whatever everyone else releases plus the cardiologist's report or whatever. If he's not doing that (since I assume he's near death anyway I haven't followed this controversy very much TBH) then he's wrong.

He's released his taxes, right? At least he said so in his FOX Town Hall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3478
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:03 pm    Post subject:

A good article from GQ: "Why does the mainstream media keep attacking Bernie Sanders as he wins?" I've read a lot of denials in here about this being an issue, or that somehow Sanders isn't being treated any differently than anyone else in the media, or that it's his fault...interesting stuff.

https://tinyurl.com/uq8s6a2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:03 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Bernie is playing politics, just like all the other candidates, don’t think it’s vile at all


You would think understanding how politics works would be a bonus going into a head-to-head against Trump. Apparently not. We need tone-deaf fantasies in the guise of "pragmatism".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:13 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
governator wrote:
Bernie is playing politics, just like all the other candidates, don’t think it’s vile at all


My issue is not so much candidates playing politics. My issue is candidates and their supporters *pretending* they aren't playing politics then sliming other candidates for the same behavior. Like I said. It's the hypocrisy.


I didn't "slime" Warren. I explained why the politics of her position is bad and not even realistic. The policy itself I actually like.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 85645
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:35 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
A good article from GQ: "Why does the mainstream media keep attacking Bernie Sanders as he wins?" I've read a lot of denials in here about this being an issue, or that somehow Sanders isn't being treated any differently than anyone else in the media, or that it's his fault...interesting stuff.

https://tinyurl.com/uq8s6a2


I think there might be cry wolf syndrome going on. If everything, even pre-emptively is fixed and rigged against him, after a while it becomes hard to see the truth through the endless propaganda.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 85645
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:38 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
governator wrote:
Bernie is playing politics, just like all the other candidates, don’t think it’s vile at all


You would think understanding how politics works would be a bonus going into a head-to-head against Trump. Apparently not. We need tone-deaf fantasies in the guise of "pragmatism".


We can disagree on subjective things, but when you get to where the people you attack as too political now don’t know politics (among many other things are one way until it’s useful for them to be the opposite arguments) you have to realize no one is going to be taking your arguments seriously. It’s just into my dad could beat up your dad territory.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 8434
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:41 pm    Post subject:

The WAR HAS BEGUN. If you are Latino and still support Trump you must hate your own race.

Trumps (bleep) you to Blue States and Sanctuary Cities.. this is gonna get FUGLY FAST

Bet there will be blood this weekend in California.. I read stories of how these people are so stupid and evil they show up in clothing that has no id.. so uh.. wtf the people don't trust and try to run and fight to get away... very bad news here


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/14/these-are-bad-times-trump-deploy-heavily-armed-border-patrol-tactical-units-help

Quote:
The New York Times reported on the plan Friday afternoon, citing an official who received an email describing the weekend deployment who read the text to reporters over the phone. CBP spokesman Lawrence Payne confirmed the details.

"These are the bad times," data researcher Michael Caley tweeted of the report.

these are the bad times https://t.co/ERLEuvN6qE
— Michael Caley (@MC_of_A) February 14, 2020

According to the Times, agents from the units from the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) will spread across the country to cities like New York, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, New Orleans, and Newark, N.J. to work alongside Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to arrest people allegedly in the country illegally.

Quote:
As the Times reported:

With additional gear such as stun grenades and enhanced Special Forces-type training, including sniper certification, the officers typically conduct high-risk operations targeting individuals who are known to be violent, many of them with extensive criminal records.


The unit's work often takes place in the most rugged and swelteringly hot areas of the border. It can involve breaking into stash houses maintained by smuggling operations that are known to be filled with drugs and weapons.

_________________
КОБЭ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:44 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
governator wrote:
Bernie is playing politics, just like all the other candidates, don’t think it’s vile at all


You would think understanding how politics works would be a bonus going into a head-to-head against Trump. Apparently not. We need tone-deaf fantasies in the guise of "pragmatism".


We can disagree on subjective things, but when you get to where the people you attack as too political now don’t know politics (among many other things are one way until it’s useful for them to be the opposite arguments) you have to realize no one is going to be taking your arguments seriously. It’s just into my dad could beat up your dad territory.


I was attacking Warren's political instincts there and praising Bernie's, if there's any confusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 25575

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:18 pm    Post subject:

With Bernie surrogates laying the groundwork for Bernie to go soft on his signature healthcare promise, I don't know why I'd vote for a septuagenarian with few legislative accomplishments in 30 years. Can we get Booker back?
_________________
neoliberal hipster film aficionado
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 85645
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:46 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
governator wrote:
Bernie is playing politics, just like all the other candidates, don’t think it’s vile at all


You would think understanding how politics works would be a bonus going into a head-to-head against Trump. Apparently not. We need tone-deaf fantasies in the guise of "pragmatism".


We can disagree on subjective things, but when you get to where the people you attack as too political now don’t know politics (among many other things are one way until it’s useful for them to be the opposite arguments) you have to realize no one is going to be taking your arguments seriously. It’s just into my dad could beat up your dad territory.


I was attacking Warren's political instincts there and praising Bernie's, if there's any confusion.


Fair enough, it just seems that when Bernie is political that's good, even though when others are that's bad, because Bernie is above venal politics.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 85645
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:49 pm    Post subject:

FWIW, Bernie moderating his position is not something to be attacked, but a sign of a guy who has a grip on reality.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Theseus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 7346

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 pm    Post subject:

These days I've found myself arguing with Republicans, but not about anything current or interesting. Mind you these are Trump supporting Republicans, if there is a difference idk, but I feel its important to point out that caveat.

The folks I've been arguing with are telling me that the parties never realigned. That the democrat party that resisted the abolition of slavery is the exact same as the one today. Also, the southern strategy never happened.

It is insane how much supporting evidence gets hand waved away, but someone like Dinesh D'Souza gets elevated over something like the Encyclopedia Britannica, or the statements of 2005 RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.

It is amazing the mental gymnastics they're willing to undergo just to not change their mind. Am I foolish to think I can change any of their minds with civil discussions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 10839

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:38 pm    Post subject:

Theseus wrote:
These days I've found myself arguing with Republicans, but not about anything current or interesting. Mind you these are Trump supporting Republicans, if there is a difference idk, but I feel its important to point out that caveat.

The folks I've been arguing with are telling me that the parties never realigned. That the democrat party that resisted the abolition of slavery is the exact same as the one today. Also, the southern strategy never happened.

It is insane how much supporting evidence gets hand waved away, but someone like Dinesh D'Souza gets elevated over something like the Encyclopedia Britannica, or the statements of 2005 RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.

It is amazing the mental gymnastics they're willing to undergo just to not change their mind. Am I foolish to think I can change any of their minds with civil discussions?


I've had those discussions as well. When you point out their own words, such as from Kevin Phillips -
Code:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats


- they'll ask who is he, or say he is just a nobody, or change the subject--the latter being their go-to tactic. When informed he was Nixon's strategist, his Bannon, they say, but he wasn't Nixon. When you point how how Southern voting changed, beginning in 1964, but was totally transformed by 1968 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election - they'll have another lame answer or none at all.

These people are Republicans. This is who they are today and who they have always been. There is really little change in the party except Trump has given them permission to act like the arse-holes they really are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 18098
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:56 pm    Post subject:

Washington Post: Trump’s words, bullied kids, scarred schools. The president’s rhetoric has changed the way hundreds of children are harassed in American classrooms, The Post found

Quote:
Two kindergartners in Utah told a Latino boy that President Trump would send him back to Mexico, and teenagers in Maine sneered "Ban Muslims" at a classmate wearing a hijab. In Tennessee, a group of middle-schoolers linked arms, imitating the president's proposed border wall as they refused to let nonwhite students pass. In Ohio, another group of middle-schoolers surrounded a mixed-race sixth-grader and, as she confided to her mother, told the girl: "This is Trump country."

Since Trump's rise to the nation’s highest office, his inflammatory language — often condemned as racist and xenophobic — has seeped into schools across America. Many bullies now target other children differently than they used to, with kids as young as 6 mimicking the president’s insults and the cruel way he delivers them.


Congrats, Trump voters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
eddiejonze
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 5030

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:21 pm    Post subject:

In response to an article posted earlier here suggesting MSM ignores Bernie:

When Biden does any of these things that Bernie does like "being political", Or is acting slow due to older age (Vs. Bernie's heart attack) , or the press pointing out Joe has lost a step it's fair game, and Bernie supporters don't notice it, or are intentionally ignoring it, or even pushing the narrative as long as it's anti Joe, and Pro Bernie- who cares if we denigrate an old patriot who deserves our respect.

It's laughable that Bernie supporters are suddenly Trumpian snowflakes when it comes to a supposed media bias against him, yet ignore the "Joe is a step slow" narrative which has been THE STORY about Biden for the last 3 months ( with a slight pause for sympathy due the guy being investigated by THE PRESIDENTS HENCHMEN)

Yeah, poor Bernie.
_________________
Whomever smelt it, dealt it.
-Nikola Tesla

Ass cash or grass, Nobody rides for free.
-Mahatma Ghandi

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down
-Rick Astley


Last edited by eddiejonze on Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 2017, 2018, 2019 ... 2053, 2054, 2055  Next
Page 2018 of 2055
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB