WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-working-end-human-trafficking/ Great, a statement. That and $50 will get you a full tank of gas. Where is the data that says that the cheerleading does jack squat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 13 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Great, a statement. That and $50 will get you a full tank of gas. Where is the data that says that the cheerleading does jack squat? There's mountains of it. Go talk to your local ICE or DHS officers, ask them for yourself. Or, continue to sit on the sidelines parroting talking points you hear elsewhere and fact check through third parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbb Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 #walkaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 ... Yes, it was Goodlatte who came off poorly in that hearing. When you can't argue facts, reason, or logic, LIE. That's all Gary can do at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, donbb said: #walkaway What a little dweeb. No one should care what this kid says. He's not accomplished anything. Typical millennial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Great, a statement. That and $50 will get you a full tank of gas. Where is the data that says that the cheerleading does jack squat? Aside from some of the data which was highlighted in the statement? What data are you looking for specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, donbb said: #walkaway 23 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Great, a statement. That and $50 will get you a full tank of gas. Where is the data that says that the cheerleading does jack squat? Right there in the release: Quote In FY 2017, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI) initiated 833 human trafficking cases, resulting in 1,602 arrests and 578 convictions, and identified 518 victims of human trafficking. The HHS-funded National Human Trafficking Hotline (NHTH) received reports of 8,686 unique cases of potential trafficking in FY 2017, identifying 21,644 potential victims. The numbers indicate that only on the order of 10% of cases are investigated, and on the order of 2% of victims are freed. So yeah...apparently the cheerleading does jack squat, which is probably why the Trump Administration is trying to...y'know, actually address the problem. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 15 minutes ago, donbb said: #walkaway The fact that he was having an affair was reason enough for the FBI to fire him. They don't like employees who may be bribed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 The funniest part of the Strzok thing is that, in predictable leftist fashion, the moment his government money dries up because of his stupidity, he's got his hand out for others to give him money. He'll hit his goal in no time. Lefitsts who can't do, beg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The fact that he was having an affair was reason enough for the FBI to fire him. They don't like employees who may be bribed. Yup. Especially when said agent works in counterintelligence, as Strzok does. I mean did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Aside from some of the data which was highlighted in the statement? What data are you looking for specifically? DC Tom pulled it up. You know I have to hand it to you. A ten percent bump is definitely something, and Trump does deserve credit for that. I just don't get why, if it is such an issue, why they aren't doing more? Republicans have the House, and can you imagine the blowback if Democrats voted down a clean anti-trafficking bill.It's handled by the DOJ, not ICE. It's not immigration law, and ? it happens all over the country so it's not just a Southern border issue. They would have zero leverage or talking points, especially with the midterms coming up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 28 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: DC Tom pulled it up. You know I have to hand it to you. A ten percent bump is definitely something, and Trump does deserve credit for that. I just don't get why, if it is such an issue, why they aren't doing more? Republicans have the House, and can you imagine the blowback if Democrats voted down a clean anti-trafficking bill.It's handled by the DOJ, not ICE. It's not immigration law, and ? it happens all over the country so it's not just a Southern border issue. They would have zero leverage or talking points, especially with the midterms coming up. So the same institution that refuses to appoint Trump officials, ignores subpoenas, undermines everything Trump does is supposed to be able to successfully pass a bill? Schumer was about to shut it down because he was too damn lazy to do his job on immigration until Trump caved with the EO. What makes you think the Democrats would do anything to support Trump? They would stand against the GOP banning guns if they thought it was a move against Trump. Optics is 99% politics. And politics is 99% optics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 hour ago, LABillzFan said: The funniest part of the Strzok thing is that, in predictable leftist fashion, the moment his government money dries up because of his stupidity, he's got his hand out for others to give him money. He'll hit his goal in no time. Lefitsts who can't do, beg. He'll need it. He's asking for $150K. That won't go very far, but you're right he'll probably raise much much more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: So the same institution that refuses to appoint Trump officials, ignores subpoenas, undermines everything Trump does is supposed to be able to successfully pass a bill? Schumer was about to shut it down because he was too damn lazy to do his job on immigration until Trump caved with the EO. What makes you think the Democrats would do anything to support Trump? They would stand against the GOP banning guns if they thought it was a move against Trump. Optics is 99% politics. And politics is 99% optics. Well, that's funny. I could have sworn that a Supreme Court justice and multiple cabinet positions were appointed. I seem to recall a compromise bill that was ready to be passed that would have fixed DACA and funded the wall...but there was something about "shithole countries" and Trump killed it. When Lindsey Graham has moral high ground, hoo boy... I have no idea what this subpoena is about, but if you are talking about investigation files, they had enough for the Nunez memo...and much much more, which of course Nunez redacted to the point of uselessness. But ok, let's assume for a hot second that yes, the Democrats will simply oppose everything that Trump proposes on principle. So let them do it. Pass a clean bill with zero immigration ties in the House, focusing solely on dismantling human trafficking. Give resources to go after the white collar criminals and money launderers and "legitimate" business fronts, and breaking up organized crime. Make it about the plight of the enslaved persons, many of whom are children. Drop it into the Senate. If Democrats oppose it on principle, you have a rallying cry for the midterms. "Look at these Obstructionists! We tried to help the people they swore to help, and they slapped us in the face on spite". The Blue Wave never happens. Republicans set the legislative agenda for at least two more years. Tell me why that's a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 20 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: DC Tom pulled it up. You know I have to hand it to you. A ten percent bump is definitely something, and Trump does deserve credit for that. I just don't get why, if it is such an issue, why they aren't doing more? Republicans have the House, and can you imagine the blowback if Democrats voted down a clean anti-trafficking bill.It's handled by the DOJ, not ICE. It's not immigration law, and ? it happens all over the country so it's not just a Southern border issue. They would have zero leverage or talking points, especially with the midterms coming up. Your points aren't bad...but they're not good, either. They're incomplete. For example: why ICE and not DOJ? Well, fact of the matter is, it's both - trafficking across state lines would fall under the FBI's jurisdiction, but border security is ICE (and CPB). And HHS is involved - the data I pulled specifically referenced them. As are USDA and DOL (because agricultural slave labor is still a thing). And it's not empty rhetoric, like you implied. The administration has been pursuing this rather strongly, and has generally been dismissed for being a buffoon and being against free speech. And by the way...the reason for the Trump Administrations "tearing kids from their families" [sic] policy? Because the Obama Administration's policy of releasing kids to "sponsors" (which Trump complained about under the stupid monkier "catch and release") without sufficient background checks (which Trump also complained about during the campaign), directly resulted in undocumented immigrant children being enslaved in the above case. Quote As detention centers became incapable of housing the massive influx of migrants, the Department of Health and Human Services started placing children into the care of sponsors who would oversee the minors until their bids for refugee status could be reviewed. But in many cases, officials failed to confirm whether the adults volunteering for this task were actually relatives or good Samaritans — and not unscrupulous egg farmers or child molesters. The department performed check-in visits at caretakers’ homes in only 5 percent of cases between 2013 and 2015, according to the report. So yes...it's a big deal, and the driving force behind the current Administration's immigration policies. And I have little doubt that this is the first time you're hearing about this...so ask yourself: why is that? Why is this being reported as Trump being a racist white nationalist out to hurt children and families, when there is actual documentary evidence that human trafficking in this country is a real problem that the administration is trying to address? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, that's funny. I could have sworn that a Supreme Court justice and multiple cabinet positions were appointed. I seem to recall a compromise bill that was ready to be passed that would have fixed DACA and funded the wall...but there was something about "shithole countries" and Trump killed it. When Lindsey Graham has moral high ground, hoo boy... I have no idea what this subpoena is about, but if you are talking about investigation files, they had enough for the Nunez memo...and much much more, which of course Nunez redacted to the point of uselessness. But ok, let's assume for a hot second that yes, the Democrats will simply oppose everything that Trump proposes on principle. So let them do it. Pass a clean bill with zero immigration ties in the House, focusing solely on dismantling human trafficking. Give resources to go after the white collar criminals and money launderers and "legitimate" business fronts, and breaking up organized crime. Make it about the plight of the enslaved persons, many of whom are children. Drop it into the Senate. If Democrats oppose it on principle, you have a rallying cry for the midterms. "Look at these Obstructionists! We tried to help the people they swore to help, and they slapped us in the face on spite". The Blue Wave never happens. Republicans set the legislative agenda for at least two more years. Tell me why that's a bad idea. So, this entire argument is that of an authoritarian type of rule that Obama and Co ran. Ya know ,for 8 years ya boy shoved things down people's throats without so much as compromise? He did some backroom hand shakes and casting couch auditions but it's funny you want Trump and Co to just do what the last I years was which !@#$ed us up to begin with ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 13 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, that's funny. I could have sworn that a Supreme Court justice and multiple cabinet positions were appointed. I seem to recall a compromise bill that was ready to be passed that would have fixed DACA and funded the wall...but there was something about "shithole countries" and Trump killed it. When Lindsey Graham has moral high ground, hoo boy... I have no idea what this subpoena is about, but if you are talking about investigation files, they had enough for the Nunez memo...and much much more, which of course Nunez redacted to the point of uselessness. But ok, let's assume for a hot second that yes, the Democrats will simply oppose everything that Trump proposes on principle. So let them do it. Pass a clean bill with zero immigration ties in the House, focusing solely on dismantling human trafficking. Give resources to go after the white collar criminals and money launderers and "legitimate" business fronts, and breaking up organized crime. Make it about the plight of the enslaved persons, many of whom are children. Drop it into the Senate. If Democrats oppose it on principle, you have a rallying cry for the midterms. "Look at these Obstructionists! We tried to help the people they swore to help, and they slapped us in the face on spite". The Blue Wave never happens. Republicans set the legislative agenda for at least two more years. Tell me why that's a bad idea. You recall democrat talking points. There was never a deal that got rid of chain migration and the lottery regardless how many times that canard is repeated. What did Nunes redact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Well, that's funny. I could have sworn that a Supreme Court justice and multiple cabinet positions were appointed. Because the filibuster was eliminated for nominations, not legislation. Though Senate Republicans no doubt could eliminate it if they wanted to. 7 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: I seem to recall a compromise bill that was ready to be passed that would have fixed DACA and funded the wall...but there was something about "shithole countries" and Trump killed it. When Lindsey Graham has moral high ground, hoo boy... The compromise bill was killed by Democrats en masse and a handful of reactionary anti-immigration Republicans in the House. Which is significantly different from nominations approval in the Senate. 12 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: If Democrats oppose it on principle, you have a rallying cry for the midterms. "Look at these Obstructionists! We tried to help the people they swore to help, and they slapped us in the face on spite". The Blue Wave never happens. Republicans set the legislative agenda for at least two more years. Because 1) you will never, for the foreseeable future, get any immigration reform the House can agree on. The Democrats, for all their "independent thought" and "diversity of opinion," are completely in lock-step on a platform of virtually open borders, and the Republicans can't get in lock-step on anything. And 2) you will never hear that rallying cry, as it will either not be reported or will be reported dismissively by media outlets who are also in lock-step with the Democrats on a platform of virtually open borders. Oh, and it's also not a solution. Just now, 3rdnlng said: You recall democrat talking points. There was never a deal that got rid of chain migration and the lottery regardless how many times that canard is repeated. What did Nunes redact? The bill that got rid of those existed. But there was never a "deal" - I don't think it got even as many as 90 supporters. It was roundly decried as a "bad faith negotiations" by the Democrats and media...which speaks to my second point above. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Because the filibuster was eliminated for nominations, not legislation. Though Senate Republicans no doubt could eliminate it if they wanted to. The compromise bill was killed by Democrats en masse and a handful of reactionary anti-immigration Republicans in the House. Which is significantly different from nominations approval in the Senate. Because 1) you will never, for the foreseeable future, get any immigration reform the House can agree on. The Democrats, for all their "independent thought" and "diversity of opinion," are completely in lock-step on a platform of virtually open borders, and the Republicans can't get in lock-step on anything. And 2) you will never hear that rallying cry, as it will either not be reported or will be reported dismissively by media outlets who are also in lock-step with the Democrats on a platform of virtually open borders. Oh, and it's also not a solution. The bill that got rid of those existed. But there was never a "deal" - I don't think it got even as many as 90 supporters. It was roundly decried as a "bad faith negotiations" by the Democrats and media...which speaks to my second point above. OK, there's a lot to unpack. I will deal with boyst's rambling in a second. First, to the bolded point: ok, that's fair, but that's why I specified anti-trafficking as a pure crime bill. There are trafficked people who wind up all over the country, and who enter from all points. And that's not even talking about the financial aspects of the crime. If you keep it away from immigration, the Dems in either house lose their talking point. If the White House can't wrangle the Republicans with a law and order bill...well, then they really are impotent.they have egg on their face. Also, that was more of a retort about how somehow, business manages to occur in the Senate. The crux of my argument is that if you can get something through the House and the Dems stonewall a "help the oppressed undocumented immigrants" bill, Here is what I saw about the Senate propose compromise bill. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html Quote If passed, the bill would appropriate $2.705 billion in border security improvements, eliminate the visa lottery, make permanent the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- offering a pathway to citizenship to those who qualify -- and limit "chain migration," or family-based migration, of the individuals eligible for the program. So, not perfect, but Wall money (I still contend that it's a stupid AF idea), a permanent DACA fix, no visa lottery and cuts on chain migration. As to whether it would pass the House...well, that's another problem, but at least it would have been something. 22 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: So, this entire argument is that of an authoritarian type of rule that Obama and Co ran. Ya know ,for 8 years ya boy shoved things down people's throats without so much as compromise? He did some backroom hand shakes and casting couch auditions but it's funny you want Trump and Co to just do what the last I years was which !@#$ed us up to begin with ... So, I'm not actually hearing a critique of my proposal, as much as "I hate Obama RAH RAH RAH. I don't understand the word "authoritarian, because brokering people into unpopular political choices is just about the opposite of that" Don't get run over on your way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: OK, there's a lot to unpack. I will deal with boyst's rambling in a second. First, to the bolded point: ok, that's fair, but that's why I specified anti-trafficking as a pure crime bill. There are trafficked people who wind up all over the country, and who enter from all points. And that's not even talking about the financial aspects of the crime. If you keep it away from immigration, the Dems in either house lose their talking point. If the White House can't wrangle the Republicans with a law and order bill...well, then they really are impotent.they have egg on their face. Also, that was more of a retort about how somehow, business manages to occur in the Senate. The crux of my argument is that if you can get something through the House and the Dems stonewall a "help the oppressed undocumented immigrants" bill, Here is what I saw about the Senate propose compromise bill. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html So, not perfect, but Wall money (I still contend that it's a stupid AF idea), a permanent DACA fix, no visa lottery and cuts on chain migration. As to whether it would pass the House...well, that's another problem, but at least it would have been something. So, I'm not actually hearing a critique of my proposal, as much as "I hate Obama RAH RAH RAH. I don't understand the word "authoritarian, because brokering people into unpopular political choices is just about the opposite of that" Don't get run over on your way out. Nah, I'm just shifting the argument to expose more of your hypocrisy and TDS. It's shifting the goal posts. I'm good still it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: So, not perfect, but Wall money (I still contend that it's a stupid AF idea), a permanent DACA fix, no visa lottery and cuts on chain migration. As to whether it would pass the House...well, that's another problem, but at least it would have been something. The wall is a stupid as !@#$ idea - I support strong border security, but you can't just build a wall and say "There, we have a secure border!" You have to maintain and patrol it. Every estimate I've seen for the wall is low by a factor of at least 10, for those two reasons alone, and the money can be put to much better use for border security. But the bill in question - that's basically the House bill, the one that followed the Goodlatte bill. The one that everyone hated. The one called a "bad faith negotiation" by the press. It was only a bad faith negotiation because the Democrats will never let the Republicans get any credit for an immigration fix. Republicans could craft a bill that is a straight-up duplicate of DACA, and Democrats would still block it on the principle of "not invented here." Hell, Democrats would probably block a trafficking bill on the basis of "it's a bad faith bill, because Trump is trafficking in children himself!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The wall is a stupid as !@#$ idea - I support strong border security, but you can't just build a wall and say "There, we have a secure border!" You have to maintain and patrol it. Every estimate I've seen for the wall is low by a factor of at least 10, for those two reasons alone, and the money can be put to much better use for border security. But the bill in question - that's basically the House bill, the one that followed the Goodlatte bill. The one that everyone hated. The one called a "bad faith negotiation" by the press. It was only a bad faith negotiation because the Democrats will never let the Republicans get any credit for an immigration fix. Republicans could craft a bill that is a straight-up duplicate of DACA, and Democrats would still block it on the principle of "not invented here." Hell, Democrats would probably block a trafficking bill on the basis of "it's a bad faith bill, because Trump is trafficking in children himself!" I can fully agree with you on the bolded part. I don't exactly agree with the animus behind a lot of it, but there are legitimate national security concerns with open borders. At the very least, you need monitoring and review. I personally think that a more fluid response force makes sense, with a lot of coordination with military intelligence and other intelligence services. It' would also help with smuggling and trafficking through sea ports as well. The saying I heard was "the easiest way to smuggle a WMD into the country is in a bag of weed". I honestly think we can have better, more effective national security using those methods rather than a static enplacement. As to the other part...I concede you may have a point. I think that you can shame each side into doing the right thing, but the Democratic leadership is so laughably inept that I could not bear to stay with them. They might turn down a deal that gives them half of what they want if they thought they couldn't have repercussions. I am all for draining the swamp and I hoped that the term limits promise would actually yield something. But all I've seen is things get swampier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: I can fully agree with you on the bolded part. I don't exactly agree with the animus behind a lot of it, but there are legitimate national security concerns with open borders. At the very least, you need monitoring and review. I personally think that a more fluid response force makes sense, with a lot of coordination with military intelligence and other intelligence services. It' would also help with smuggling and trafficking through sea ports as well. The saying I heard was "the easiest way to smuggle a WMD into the country is in a bag of weed". I honestly think we can have better, more effective national security using those methods rather than a static enplacement. As to the other part...I concede you may have a point. I think that you can shame each side into doing the right thing, but the Democratic leadership is so laughably inept that I could not bear to stay with them. They might turn down a deal that gives them half of what they want if they thought they couldn't have repercussions. I am all for draining the swamp and I hoped that the term limits promise would actually yield something. But all I've seen is things get swampier. There's part of the equation which hasn't been discussed, and it's the darkest and most difficult part. As I mentioned prior, like every other multi-billion dollar industry, the human trafficking industry has lobbyists who have purchased politicians in order to protect their interests. These politicians are on both sides of the aisle, and they will vehemently oppose any sort of legislation which would implicate them in a modern day slave trade. Once dollar number one is taken, there's no way out; and the amounts of money are unfathomable which makes for comfortable handcuffs. The dollars are off-shored in South American banks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 On 8/12/2018 at 3:02 AM, ALF said: I walked away in 92 to vote for Perot, still disillusioned with both parties. My brother. Me too. On 8/12/2018 at 6:57 PM, row_33 said: Clinton hacks claim Perot was 50/50 from the parties but I won’t for one second believe Perot was less than 90 percent disaffected GOP voters I voted Ray Gun in 80 and 84 and HW in 88 and Perot in 92 and 96. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) On 8/13/2018 at 1:05 PM, Boyst62 said: What a little dweeb. No one should care what this kid says. He's not accomplished anything. Typical millennial. i bet he has more followers than you. ??? Edited August 16, 2018 by reddogblitz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Any hashtag started on twitter is dubious as most #walkaway people are Trump supporters pretending to walk away and it's wishful thinking. It's just the way social media works and twitter seems to be the perfect medium for that. For the few democrats that are, they're obviously not very ideological to begin with or are so self absorbed that they think they're above the current state of the party (see Never Trumpers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) Which party do you think is shrinking faster? While both are losing bodies and this thread celebrates the Dems departures, Republicans are facing even sharper declines. Reps face a darker future due to shifting demographics--Something Paul Ryan keeps saying. My concern is that Trump continues the trend of non-unifying vision and dialog (Obama was the first president I remember who was comfortable vilifying his non-voters, and Hillary followed suit). Trump's joy at “trolling,” and the country’s excitement for it—as evidenced by this board’s frequent glee when he and others do it—I hope, is a fad. It’s not leadership and it won’t take us anywhere productive. Where all these people who are leaving both parties go, and what voices will unite them, what vision will unify us, is a question unanswered, and to which few politicians currently provide much guidance. Edited August 16, 2018 by BeginnersMind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 I still think the state of the economy determines who voters choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 49 minutes ago, ALF said: I still think the state of the economy determines who voters choose. 1000000000000000000% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 More Democrats than Republicans voted in Tuesday's primaries. A lot more. Maybe #WalkAway is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 23 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said: More Democrats than Republicans voted in Tuesday's primaries. A lot more. Maybe #WalkAway is a hoax. Maybe people are walking away from Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: Which party do you think is shrinking faster? While both are losing bodies and this thread celebrates the Dems departures, Republicans are facing even sharper declines. Reps face a darker future due to shifting demographics--Something Paul Ryan keeps saying. My concern is that Trump continues the trend of non-unifying vision and dialog (Obama was the first president I remember who was comfortable vilifying his non-voters, and Hillary followed suit). Trump's joy at “trolling,” and the country’s excitement for it—as evidenced by this board’s frequent glee when he and others do it—I hope, is a fad. It’s not leadership and it won’t take us anywhere productive. How has that worked out for their legacy? Here again, we need to explain the major distinction of what Trump does and what Obama/Hillary did. Trump has not directly attacked an entire voting block. He brutally and childishly attacks individuals, but has not demeaned the acumen or dismissed outright the opposing voters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Paul Ryan is a snake, be he's a GOP snake he watched his dreams come true and can't accept it because he was sitting on the side of the road as a spectator the whole time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, GG said: How has that worked out for their legacy? Here again, we need to explain the major distinction of what Trump does and what Obama/Hillary did. Trump has not directly attacked an entire voting block. He brutally and childishly attacks individuals, but has not demeaned the acumen or dismissed outright the opposing voters. Obama will go down as a middling president who inherited a turd of an economy and muddled through 8 years of gridlock. Hillary will go down as a Spiro Agnew-like sinister player. Trump inherited a growing economy, helped throw gas on it, and the rest is TBD. Edited August 16, 2018 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: Its working out poorly for the country. I don’t care as much about their individual legacies. Obama will go down as a middling president who inherited a turd of an economy and muddled through 8 years of gridlock. Trump inherited a good economy, helped threw gas on it, and the rest is TBD. That has nothing to do with the patronizing disdain that Obama & Hillary showed to 1/2 of the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, GG said: That has nothing to do with the patronizing disdain that Obama & Hillary showed to 1/2 of the electorate. Are you asking for a response from me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Are you asking for a response from me? Please, no. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 hour ago, GG said: How has that worked out for their legacy? Here again, we need to explain the major distinction of what Trump does and what Obama/Hillary did. Trump has not directly attacked an entire voting block. He brutally and childishly attacks individuals, but has not demeaned the acumen or dismissed outright the opposing voters. Except when you live and breathe identity politics, an attack on an individual is an attack on a group. For example: calling Omarosa a "dog" oppresses all women and blacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Except when you live and breathe identity politics, an attack on an individual is an attack on a group. For example: calling Omarosa a "dog" oppresses all women and blacks. Black Labs and Portuguese Water Dogs for sure, but Golden Retrievers are exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Except when you live and breathe identity politics, an attack on an individual is an attack on a group. For example: calling Omarosa a "dog" oppresses all women and blacks. Trump wants to gain all the votes he can from non-GOP demographics. he wants to take 43 states in 2020 and increase a hold on Congress for the GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts