Will you vote for Donald Trump in 2020 ?

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, Qilly55 said:

Reading some of these post are amazing on both sides. Do you really think most of these politicians that have been around for decades care about anyone. They don't even know how much a half gallon of milk cost. They line there pockets  with cash. We know what the media drums into our heads. We are in a terrible state , our government is out of control. We let it happen. It's deeper than Trump or Biden, look at the leadership in both houses. Why are 80 year Olds controlling what happens in our country?  They think it's the 60s yet. We need to getb these people out. Primaries folks if you want change and want to stay with your party. Get rid of the old guard.

While I agree that we need to have been training new, younger leadership for some time now, I will disagree with most of what you post.

First, there's absolutely a big difference between the two parties. Ask anyone who was able to get insurance for the first time under the ACA, even if the cost is higher than we might like - a law passed without a single Republican supporter. Look at the difference between the justices appointed by Democrats - Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Ginsberg - and those appointed by Republicans - Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas especially, but Roberts too, and almost certainly Barrett will prove to be of the same ilk.

I suspect more of these people know the cost of a gallon of milk than you might think. I'll wager the Obamas did; I'll wager Biden does.

And back on the age issue: younger people often have bigger, sweeping ideas (though I'd point out the presidential candidate with the most sweeping vision for change is 79, just a year older than Biden is. Age is not necessarily determinative of political vision; certainly Elizabeth Warren, at 71, had a more progressive agenda than Pete Buttigieg at 38 or Amy Klobuchar at 60.

What matters is leadership, and that's a skill that sometimes comes with age, sometimes is innate, and sometimes never arrives. Democrats would not have retaken the House in 2018 without the skilled leadership of the Democrats at the head of the party, most especially including Nancy Pelosi, by pushing a clear message that Trump was an unacceptable danger with no checks on his power but otherwise giving the Dem field the power to shape their own messages for their own local races. Most of the seats Dems then lost this past November were swing-ish districts that had voted Trump in 2016 and flipped back to the Republicans in 2020 because the Democratic incumbent was tarred with the socialist brush - a brush that wouldn't be as effective if candidates from more liberal districts hadn't publicly pushed hard for clearly unattainable goals (even though I support reaching those goals).

Because in the House, the magic number is 218. If your party can't reach that number of seats, it's dead in the water, effectively. There is no more reaching across the aisle, and no Republican president is ever going to be close friends with a Democratic speaker the way Reagan was with Tip O'Neil. For every AOC we elect from a solidly progressive district to replace a more moderate Democrat, we are likely to lose one or two moderate Democrats in moderately conservative districts, and thanks to gerrymandering there are a lot more of those to lose than there are solidly progressive ones to "liberalize up".

But as they say: politics is a game of addition. You build your team, and you pick up seats wherever you can. And a smart leader doesn't let the election of one person who isn't even a flip of a seat into your party become the trigger for losing - or not flipping - three or four more. 

[Qilly55]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

While I agree that we need to have been training new, younger leadership for some time now, I will disagree with most of what you post.

First, there's absolutely a big difference between the two parties. Ask anyone who was able to get insurance for the first time under the ACA, even if the cost is higher than we might like - a law passed without a single Republican supporter. Look at the difference between the justices appointed by Democrats - Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Ginsberg - and those appointed by Republicans - Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas especially, but Roberts too, and almost certainly Barrett will prove to be of the same ilk.

I suspect more of these people know the cost of a gallon of milk than you might think. I'll wager the Obamas did; I'll wager Biden does.

And back on the age issue: younger people often have bigger, sweeping ideas (though I'd point out the presidential candidate with the most sweeping vision for change is 79, just a year older than Biden is. Age is not necessarily determinative of political vision; certainly Elizabeth Warren, at 71, had a more progressive agenda than Pete Buttigieg at 38 or Amy Klobuchar at 60.

What matters is leadership, and that's a skill that sometimes comes with age, sometimes is innate, and sometimes never arrives. Democrats would not have retaken the House in 2018 without the skilled leadership of the Democrats at the head of the party, most especially including Nancy Pelosi, by pushing a clear message that Trump was an unacceptable danger with no checks on his power but otherwise giving the Dem field the power to shape their own messages for their own local races. Most of the seats Dems then lost this past November were swing-ish districts that had voted Trump in 2016 and flipped back to the Republicans in 2020 because the Democratic incumbent was tarred with the socialist brush - a brush that wouldn't be as effective if candidates from more liberal districts hadn't publicly pushed hard for clearly unattainable goals (even though I support reaching those goals).

Because in the House, the magic number is 218. If your party can't reach that number of seats, it's dead in the water, effectively. There is no more reaching across the aisle, and no Republican president is ever going to be close friends with a Democratic speaker the way Reagan was with Tip O'Neil. For every AOC we elect from a solidly progressive district to replace a more moderate Democrat, we are likely to lose one or two moderate Democrats in moderately conservative districts, and thanks to gerrymandering there are a lot more of those to lose than there are solidly progressive ones to "liberalize up".

But as they say: politics is a game of addition. You build your team, and you pick up seats wherever you can. And a smart leader doesn't let the election of one person who isn't even a flip of a seat into your party become the trigger for losing - or not flipping - three or four more. 

Oh boy....you liberals are all the same. Keep preaching. The democratic party is going to ruin our freedoms. Your to blind to see it. Less government is what is needed . But I listened to your opinion and hete is mine. 

When you mention people like that idiot Cortez (AOC, in case you didn't know her last name ) from NY to be a leader ,that's crazy.

 

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, Qilly55 said:

Oh boy....you liberals are all the same. Keep preaching. The democratic party is going to ruin our freedoms. Your to blind to see it. Less government is what is needed . But I listened to your opinion and hete is mine. 

When you mention people like that idiot Cortez (AOC, in case you didn't know her last name ) from NY to be a leader ,that's crazy.

Here's my opinion. I don't take political advice from people who can't distinguish between "your" and "you're", between "to" and "too", or "hete" (?) and "here".

You also clearly missed my point about AOC, which was that (a) she's too much of a novice to serve as a party leader at this point and (b) she doesn't grasp - or at least, makes no effort to show that she cares about - the fact that different districts have different makeups, and what may sweep her to victory in her district may easily spill over and cost her party two or more seats elsewhere - that she might, at times, be a net loss for the Democratic Party's control of the House.

But then, you seem to be one of those "but muh freedomz" people, so bless your heart.

[Twochipigs]

14 hours ago, Qilly55 said:

Oh boy....you liberals are all the same. Keep preaching. The democratic party is going to ruin our freedoms. Your to blind to see it. Less government is what is needed . But I listened to your opinion and hete is mine. 

When you mention people like that idiot Cortez (AOC, in case you didn't know her last name ) from NY to be a leader ,that's crazy.

 

Enlighten us.  What specific freedoms have liberals taken away from you?

[Qilly55]

7 hours ago, Twochipigs said:

Enlighten us.  What specific freedoms have liberals taken away from you?

Well let's start with censorship. That should be easy for you. The media, social media now in a big way. Colleges, don't like conservative speakers either. 

[BootmanLA]

11 hours ago, Qilly55 said:

Well let's start with censorship. That should be easy for you. The media, social media now in a big way. Colleges, don't like conservative speakers either. 

Social media and the media in general are private companies. You have no "freedoms" to exercise there. The freedom of speech (to which I suspect you're referring) refers to barring *government* control of your speech. No private company is, or ever has been, obligated to give you a platform on which to speak.

As for colleges: private universities, like any other privately owned entity, has no obligation to provide anyone with speaking opportunities, either. Public universities do - but you will find that in ANY case where a "conservative" (usually meaning right-wing bombthrower activist) is booked to speak, the university honors that commitment.

So... care to try again?  You're batting 0% so far.

[Twochipigs]

15 hours ago, Qilly55 said:

Well let's start with censorship. That should be easy for you. The media, social media now in a big way. Colleges, don't like conservative speakers either. 

I asked specifically what freedoms had been taken away from YOU, not other people.

You seem so aggrieved that it should be easy for you.

[rawTOP]

11 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Social media and the media in general are private companies. You have no "freedoms" to exercise there. The freedom of speech (to which I suspect you're referring) refers to barring *government* control of your speech. No private company is, or ever has been, obligated to give you a platform on which to speak.

As for colleges: private universities, like any other privately owned entity, has no obligation to provide anyone with speaking opportunities, either. Public universities do - but you will find that in ANY case where a "conservative" (usually meaning right-wing bombthrower activist) is booked to speak, the university honors that commitment.

So... care to try again?  You're batting 0% so far.

^^^^ What he said ^^^^

To which I'd add that certain types of speech are abhorrent in modern society. Imagine if someone wanted to speak on why white people are genetically superior to brown and black people. Some of these topics are personal to our community since those conservative speakers often mention things like how marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Or that people should not have control over their own bodies (that assertion on abortion affects our trans brothers and sisters, and even bug chasers). So yes, many college campuses will not allow hate speech. If that bothers you, then it says a lot about you.

Universities also don't tolerate fiction being presented as fact. You get to have your own opinions, not your own facts. When science generally agrees to certain facts they typically have gone through multiple rounds of people trying to disprove them (that is literally the "scientific method"). In those cases you're free to publish a paper that tries to argue otherwise and convince the experts in the field that they're wrong. But a university probably won't want you standing in front of a crowd and attempting to discredit years of work by a community of experts. At most they'll want balance and you'll be one of several voices in a debate on the issue.

[Guest hungandmean]

On 1/10/2021 at 6:28 AM, Qilly55 said:

Well let's start with censorship. That should be easy for you. The media, social media now in a big way. Colleges, don't like conservative speakers either. 

Businesses silencing you because you're being a cunt is not censorship.

Not every voice deserves a soap box. No private business is required to give you a megaphone to spew a bunch of insane garbage. 

Freedom of speech means freedom from incarceration. The government can't jail you because you talk shit about a Senator on a message board. It doesn't mean the rest of the people in your area can't decide you're an unstable asshole and silence/ridicule you. 

What a snowflake.

 

[cumslutfuckpig]

On 1/10/2021 at 6:28 AM, Qilly55 said:

Well let's start with censorship. That should be easy for you. The media, social media now in a big way. Colleges, don't like conservative speakers either. 

You just named private business and private institutions, you ass.  Where’s the “government” in this?  

The First Amendment protects you from government censorship.  

it doesn’t shield you from criticism for stupid shit and It doesnt prevent a web moderator, dinner party host, or bartender from kicking you out for saying dumb shit.

what you’re really demanding is that private people agree with you   That’s not how that works   

 

[cumslutfuckpig]

Let’s not forget that Trump and the GOP want to use government to dictate to private businesses the content of speech - the EXACT thing that “Qilly” is pretending to be the victim of.  Or he’s too stupid and ill-informed to understand the rights he believes are his.  It’s not the left that demands the nanny state, it’s the right.  
 

I’ve never really seem people demand that government make them popular and completely free from the consequences of their actions. 

[ConversionPiglet]

Please for the life (insert what ever higher power or lack of one you believe in) give these posts a rest.  Seriously the guy is past news; move on and look forward to the future.  Thanks

[BBButtSlut]

On 1/11/2021 at 5:37 AM, rawTOP said:

^^^^ What he said ^^^^

To which I'd add that certain types of speech are abhorrent in modern society. Imagine if someone wanted to speak on why white people are genetically superior to brown and black people. Some of these topics are personal to our community since those conservative speakers often mention things like how marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Or that people should not have control over their own bodies (that assertion on abortion affects our trans brothers and sisters, and even bug chasers). So yes, many college campuses will not allow hate speech. If that bothers you, then it says a lot about you.

Universities also don't tolerate fiction being presented as fact. You get to have your own opinions, not your own facts. When science generally agrees to certain facts they typically have gone through multiple rounds of people trying to disprove them (that is literally the "scientific method"). In those cases you're free to publish a paper that tries to argue otherwise and convince the experts in the field that they're wrong. But a university probably won't want you standing in front of a crowd and attempting to discredit years of work by a community of experts. At most they'll want balance and you'll be one of several voices in a debate on the issue.

Fuck you’re hot. 👍❤️🤤

[BBSMKR]

As a non American (UK) who loves your country and what it stands for, the general view over here is that the US has become a laughing stock on the world stage. I’m not saying the UK is any better with Boris! but I find it incredible that despite the obvious lies through the whole term that so many Americans still voted for him. The world needs stability and while America is not the whole world it has a responsibility to behave in a way fitting of the biggest democracy in the world.

[Guest rookie6969]

On 1/9/2021 at 8:23 AM, Qilly55 said:

Oh boy....you liberals are all the same. Keep preaching. The democratic party is going to ruin our freedoms. Your to blind to see it. Less government is what is needed . But I listened to your opinion and hete is mine. 

When you mention people like that idiot Cortez (AOC, in case you didn't know her last name ) from NY to be a leader ,that's crazy.

 

Aren't you the same guy that voted for the candidate that led an insurrection to overthrow our government because he refused accept our free and fair elections?  I must admit  it takes guts to go around preaching about democrats ruining our freedoms when you support a candidate and party that literally tried to violently overthrow our democratic government.