Shutting Down the Government

[Sommerswerd]

That's not true at all. At least not in my case. I've voted Democrat before and probably will again once their policies align with my interests again.

I see a couple big problems with what you are saying though. As a minor side point, the fact that you've voted Democrat before isn't really relevant. I know you mentioned it to push against the notion that you're a die-hard Republican, but I'm not calling you that, in fact I specifically characterized you as "moderate or moderate-conservative."

But the main problem is that when you say "once their policies align with my interests again", you're conceding that right now you won't consider voting Democrat, precisely because you don't feel that their policies align with your interests. So you're admitting that you actually are in-fact out of reach for Democrats, because you don't support what you perceive them to be about nowadays. Saying that you'll probably support the Democrats someday, once they change their liberal ways and become more conservative, is the same thing as saying you won't support the Democrats. It's exactly what I said. You are out of reach for Democrats, and them compromising on the DACA thing wasn't going to make a bit of difference to you, because ultimately... you don't feel that their policies align with your interests.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My criticism of the Democrats stems from the fact that they keep trying to beat the Republicans at their own game and it never works, yet they just keep trying. Not only is it embarrassing for them when they inevitably have to admit defeat, but it also means they are continuing to let the Republicans dictate the rules of the game by sinking to their level. Instead of trying to beat the Republicans at their own game, why don't the Democrats focus on flipping the script and find ways to get the Republicans to play by their rules instead?

The second problem is that you essentially accuse the Democrats of sinking to the Republicans level, but not being able to sink low enough. I think that's unfair. The reason the Democrats cave is precisely because the Democrats refuse to sink to the Republicans level. You're simultaneously condemning them for doing the right thing, while characterizing their tendancy to do the right thing as doing the wrong thing. Then you're condemning them again for not playing dirty enough. Its a lose-lose proposition for Democrats with you... which is exactly my point. You're out of reach and its folly that they keep trying to impress you.

 

[HEF]

Then you're condemning them again for not playing dirty enough. Its a lose-lose proposition for Democrats with you... which is exactly my point. You're out of reach and its folly that they keep trying to impress you.

I believe that person was joking.

The Democrats need to reach out to voters, not the other way around.

A good example of that writers' initial point, in my humble opinion, is NOT to follow-up with a rebuttal after the scheduled State of the Union Address to Congress.

Bad idea.

Although, the Democrats were doing rebuttals after previous State of Union Address in the early 80s, the potential (and younger) democratic voter may get the impression that the Democrats are mimicking the republicans as that party did rebuttals during the entire Obama Administration.
It may seem petty but...
Remember, perception is important in this case, not history.

The Democrats need to employ gamers to win games and the politicians can do the rest.

 

[rah]

Saying that you'll probably support the Democrats someday, once they change their liberal ways and become more conservative, is the same thing as saying you won't support the Democrats.

I disagree. I have supported more conservative Democrats (slick Willy for example) in the past and will support those that I like in the future. So bring on some more middle of the road dems and I might vote for them. Just please don't bring back the other Clinton.

 

[Oerdin]

Maybe you can help us out, how do you think they should do this?



Not all that much. We needed to add to the workforce then, and we need to add to the workforce now. Without immigration the population starts falling. Under current economic arrangements this would not be a good thing to let happen.



The 18th century called, they want their economics back



Is it dishonesty, or do you genuinely not grasp the difference between factual and moral claims?



Wait, you think 1491 supports the idea that we didn't steal this continent from its indigenous inhabitants?

Oh, the author was definitely a raging partisan. What he got right is that around 95% of the native population really did die without ever seeing or meeting a white person. You know, exactly what I said, so you may want to work on that whole reading comprehension thing.

Also, no, our biggest problem over the next twenty tears is going to be chronic under employment due to automation. Just self sriving cars and associated tech for trains, planes, big rigs, etc... Is going to put 20% to 25% of tge work force out of a job. So, no, really just no, we don't need masses of unskilled labor most of whom will just wind up unemployed or underemployed. What we will need is highly skilled people so we will need to really improve both access to and quality of education including adult continuing education and our immigration policy should focus on highly skilled people who help to releaved skills shortages. Not uneducated 3rd world peasants who mostly end up on government social assistance.

You are just advocated extremely foolish policies then screaming about supposed racism when anyone challenges you on your nonsense. That is both dishonest and very poor form as well as untrue. If you can't support your argument eoth logic and facts and have to resort to slander and defimation maybe you shpuld reconsider your untenable position?

 

[Lexicus]

Just please don't bring back the other Clinton.

What is she, if not a "more conservative Democrat"?

 

[onejayhawk]

No, the Democrats only hire ineffectual campaign managers.

To me it seems like they choose poor candidates. After all, Hillary Clinton had a fantastic campaign manager. The candidate was the problem. They raised record amounts of money, secured essentially all the endorsements, shielded the candidate from any and all forms of spontaneous contact, even won a majority, which Bill never did. It was not enough to overcome Hillary herself, even against DJT. When the Republicans run a really bad candidate, they also lose.

J

 

[Lexicus]

After all, Hillary Clinton had a fantastic campaign manager.

Who, Robbie Mook? This isn't the first time I've gotten the impression you live in an alternate dimension.

Not uneducated 3rd world peasants who mostly end up on government social assistance.

This line really says more about you and where you're coming from here than I could by typing entire paragraphs. I will just say again that I would rather have a hundred "uneducated 3rd world peasants" than one racist.

If you can't support your argument eoth logic and facts and have to resort to slander and defimation maybe you shpuld reconsider your untenable position?

I mean, I can point out that most economists argue that immigrants are good for the economy. But since I don't really think your arguments are about the health of the economy, I think it would be a waste of my time.

 

[stinkubus]

They've also asserted, but provided no proof, that somehow illegal immigrants are getting on government assistance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

you may want to work on that whole reading comprehension thing

Does it ever strike you how often you say this to people? Ever make you pause and wonder how such a brilliant educated first world mind like yourself has such trouble making yourself understood?

Maybe it's due to having presented yourself so thoroughly as a flaming racist that whatever else you say is too heavily filtered to matter to anyone.

Just speculation.

I disagree. I have supported more conservative Democrats (slick Willy for example) in the past and will support those that I like in the future. So bring on some more middle of the road dems and I might vote for them. Just please don't bring back the other Clinton.

Clinton was basically the archetype of "middle of the road." Skip past the decades long effort to paint her as the evil empress.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They've also asserted, but provided no proof, that somehow illegal immigrants are getting on government assistance.

Oh, nooooooooo...you just asked for a big list o' links to the right wing echo chamber. Still won't provide any proof, but can be followed by "See! Everyone knows THAT! Get educated about the issue, stupid lib'rul!"

 

[rah]

What is she, if not a "more conservative Democrat"?

I did include the additional 'that I like'. She never came across as sincere or particularly honest. Slick Willy, despite reality, did.

Even If i agreed with Trump's policies, I couldn't vote for him for the same reasons. Not sincere or particularly honest.

 

[HEF]

There was nothing wrong with the 2016 Democratic candidate.

The 2016 republican challenger cheated by coordinating with foreign nationals to win a U.S. Presidential election.

He knows he cheated. We know he cheated.

That's why he's under investigation.

The Democrats need to assure voters to their political party in the Mid-Term Elections that they will move to impeachment once they gain a majority in the House of Representatives & the Senate.

This can only be possible if each and every voter with a vested interest in the puppet's removal from office, cast 1 single vote.

1 single vote will remove him.

That's what voters wanna hear.

 

[Lexicus]

I did include the additional 'that I like'. She never came across as sincere or particularly honest. Slick Willy, despite reality, did.

Even If i agreed with Trump's policies, I couldn't vote for him for the same reasons. Not sincere or particularly honest.

Would you or @Commodore vote for Bernie?

 

[Farm Boy]

... I will just say again that I would rather have a hundred "uneducated 3rd world peasants" than one racist.

I'm going to issue a very limited quibble, not to be taken for more or less in the context of this thread. That isn't a "rather" statement, and that's important, I think.

 

[rah]

Would you or @Commodore vote for Bernie?

Likable but a tad too far left for me. BUT, if he was running against the Dumpster, I would have begrudgingly voted for him. Everything is relative.

 

[Oerdin]

I will just sayagain that I would rather have a hundred "uneducated 3rd world peasants" than one racist.

This is why you keep failing. You keep trying to pretend anyone who disagrees with your foolish notions some how must be a racist. The reality is the defining feature in merit based immigration systems, which most other 1st world countries already have, is skills and education not race. They don't care where a doctor or an engineer comes from but they will always take the highly skilled before they let in a single unskilled person. That is simply good policy and has nothing to do with race.

That you keep avoiding that reality and instead just keep screaching "racism, racism, racism" over and over shows you just aren't very honest nor really capable of understanding views outside of your own ideologically driven bubble. You should work on that because a smart person takes time to understand the various different positions even if he disagrees with them. You obviously have difficulty understanding even clearly articulated positions which are different from your own thus the constant false projection on your part.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm going to issue a very limited quibble, not to be taken for more or less in the context of this thread. That isn't a "rather" statement, and that's important, I think.

As so often seems to happen, I've no idea what you mean by this.

 

[Berzerker]

There was nothing wrong with the 2016 Democratic candidate.

The 2016 republican challenger cheated by coordinating with foreign nationals to win a U.S. Presidential election.

He knows he cheated. We know he cheated.

What did the Russians do that the parties cant do themselves?

 

[Oerdin]

Would you or @Commodore vote for Bernie?

I did vote for him in the primary because I thought he was the best candidate out of the two but the DNC made sure to rig the primaries and changed the rules to protect Hillary because the DNC was stacked with Hillary cronies from her 2008 campaign.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary after that little song and dance thus why I did a protest vote for Jill Stein. :shrug: