theone86's forum posts

Avatar image for theone86
#1 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@ad1x2 said:
@theone86 said:
@ad1x2 said:
@theone86 said:

And where were all of these sensible centrists when it was time to vote against Trump? What did nominating one of the most non-confrontational centrists get us in 2016? It got all you pricks on the right calling us stupid snowflakes and laughing about how you voted for a grossly incompetent candidate in order to "own the libs."

"Owning the libs" may have been the goal of some people that voted for Donald Trump, but most others voted for him because they felt he would try to accomplish what they wanted. Why would someone that wants immigration laws enforced vote for a candidate that is talking about amnesty? Why would a pro-Second Amendment person vote for a candidate that wants tougher gun laws? Why would a person that watched their coal mining jobs that have been going away vote against the candidate that says he will try to bring them back? Despite Trump's lack of government experience, he was able to beat over a dozen establishment Republicans in the GOP primary and a former senator and Secretary of State in the general election.

@theone86 said:

You had a Republican nominee who not only had zero experience in government, not only had declared bankruptcy several times, but had myriad personality issues and a complete lack of decency that were apparent to everyone on the planet. And you voted for the incompetent clod over the qualified woman who just so happens to be on your side on several significant issues (such as foreign relations with Israel). If you think that proves that there are a bunch of well-reasoned centrists just waiting for a decent candidate then you are delusional. It proves that even when Democrats swallow their pride and nominate a centrist, even when they go out of their way to compromise, Republicans are still going to keep running ever further to the right and their voters won't call them on it. Your vision of how American politics works is laughably outdated.

I talked about AOC's hubris, it seems like you are suffering from the same issue. Compromise is a reality of politics, Democrats simply do not have the nationwide numbers to take a super-majority in Washington like they did in Sacramento. Taking the position "f the right, and only settle for absolute authority" will just make it worse and will hurt Democrats in purple and red areas in the polls. "Basket of Deplorables" was Hillary Clinton's 47% moment, no matter how much you may or may not have agreed with her. You can question Trump's moral background, but he had the advantage of not insulting the majority of people that he was trying to get to vote for him. If Barack Obama was elected twice with the highest and second highest popular vote total in history respectively, that should tell you Hillary wasn't the best candidate and a stronger candidate probably would have beaten Trump.

@theone86 said:

And LOL at a Fox News viewer talking about echo chambers. Your entire life is an echo chamber.

Get a little bit of self-awareness, your posts come off as completely unhinged in how mad you are at people you assume to be Republicans over the fact that they dare not agree with you. I've lived in red and blue areas, and I have friends that think Trump is the best president in the past 30 years and other friends that think Trump is tearing the country apart. Your post shows who lives in an echo chamber when you pretty much imply that the only people that voted for Trump are bigoted morons too stupid to realize that Hillary Clinton was going to be their savior and that they should just roll over and vote blue for the rest of their lives no matter how little the candidates try to cater to their needs. A man that works behind a desk in New York City does not have the exact same needs as a person that works on a farm in the middle of Oklahoma.

Wow, you are delusional beyond compare. You start out saying that people who voted for Trump are completely vindicated, even though he was historically unqualified, because he promised to support their partisan policy preferences. You then go on to lecture me about compromise and tell me that if me and people like me don't choose candidates with policy positions we disagree with we're going to be hurt electorally. Talk about cognitive dissonance. You just proved my point for me, if compromise was a reality of politics then we wouldn't be sitting here with an unqualified nut of a president who refuses to compromise on anything, to the point where he's constantly firing his own appointees for not following his diktats. If compromise was a political reality then the party of the president who was consistently compromising wouldn't have lost while the party of the Senate majority leader who was consistently standing in the way of compromise won. You're not really saying "compromise is a political reality," you're saying "gimme my way, or you're going to get hurt," like the entitled conservative baby you are.

And Hillary was wrong about the basket of deplorables. It wasn't just a basket, all Republicans are deplorables. Seriously, all I can remember you doing for as long as I've been alive is being angry about one thing or another. You have an entire cable network dedicated to peddling anger. When that wasn't enough, you started an online news network dedicated to peddling anger AND conspiracy theories. And when that wasn't enough you started another online network dedicated to peddling even more far out conspiracy theories. And that's all in addition to the robust blogosphere and conservative radio network dedicated to peddling, hmmmm...let's see, what was it? Oh yeah, more anger. And you're going to come in here and accuse me of being unhinged? You're the one who has a total lack of self-awareness.

I didn't say anything about them being vindicated, I told you that the idea that they would vote for someone that doesn't care about most of their concerns out of some moral obligation to go with the so-called "more qualified" candidate (Hillary Clinton) is completely overlooking their possible reasons for going with Trump instead. Your total disregard for the opinions of people with different political views as you is obvious, especially with you claiming that Hillary was only wrong with her deplorables comment because she only directed it at a fraction of Trump supporters rather than all Republicans. How in the hell do you expect any reasonable person to even entertain compromising with you when you already admitted that you don't care about their opinion because you view yourself as morally superior to them?

If Donald Trump loses in 2020, I will wish the new president-elect luck and support them just like I supported Barack Obama as my commander in chief for eight years. Will you do the same if Trump is reelected, or are you going to have a meltdown and go into a bunch of rants about how racist and wrong the people that reelected him are? If you want to talk about unhinged, look at how the media reacted to the Muller Report, with Rachel Maddow on the verge of tears over finding out that the most powerful elected man in the country wasn't compromised by Russia, or how they are demanding a completely unredacted report made public, grand jury and classified information be damned, while ridiculing the same thing being done with reports that targeted Democrats accused of wrongdoing.

I can look at Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as people I disagree with politically, but someone I genuinely believe is doing what they think is the morally right thing and the best thing for the country. How do you view Republicans that aren't in total agreement with the president but claim that they want the best for the country? I'm sure I already know the answer to that but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

"I didn't say they were vindicated, I'm only saying they're vindicated." What you just said is vindicating them, thank you for proving my point for me.

I didn't say I was morally superior to them. Stop building strawmen to knock down. I said that there was a perfectly competent centrist candidate in the 2016 election, and she lost to the fringe candidate who was openly divisive. YOU'RE the one who brought civility into this conversation in the first place. Don't lecture liberals about being civil and then act like we're being snobbish for pointing out that Trump is completely uncivil twenty four hours a day. Your hypocritical bullshit is seriously giving me a headache right now.

The Muller report didn't say Trump wasn't compromised, it said they didn't find enough evidence to prosecute him. In fact, we don't what the Muller report said because Trump's flunky won't release an unredacted version of it to the public. You would know this if you weren't living in a Fox News bubble, which is ironic considering you accused me of living in a bubble. Hypocritical bullshit.

You don't want what's best for the country, that's just the bullshit you feed yourself in order to justify your cynical power grabs and inhumane policies. Just because I don't kiss your ass and call it chocolate doesn't mean I'm intransigent or uncompromising. We liberals have been compromising for decades. I supported President Obama full on throughout his presidency. Every time he decided to adopt conservative policies in order to win over conservative support, every time he decided to have a beer with a cop who profiled a black man, every time he treated Republicans as trustworthy bargaining partners, and what did I get for it? I got absolutely no action on any of the policies I cared about because of intransigent Republicans, I got a massive shift in the court system towards conservative dogma because of Republicans gamesmanship, and I still got called a communist and socialist for advocating for even the most moderate of policies. I learned my lesson, you people are not to be trusted. Not one goddamn inch. You don't mean what you say, and you don't care about anything but getting your way. You can run your mouth all you want about respecting politicians you disagree with, but I don't buy it. Actions speak louder than words. When you actually start supporting moderate candidates ON BOTH SIDES I'll believe it. When you speak out against divisive figures like Donald Trump instead of offering up excuses for him I'll believe it. When you actually sacrifice your policy views in order to oppose an uncivil candidate I'll believe it. Until then, every word out of your mouth is. Just. Hypocritical. Bullshit.

And BS on you supporting President Obama. I was in this forum throughout most of his presidency. I remember what you said about him, I remember the way you treated him. You are a complete and utter hypocrite for spewing all the Fox News BS you could about him during that time, and then turning around and saying you supported him.

Avatar image for theone86
#2 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@Master_Live said:

@hrt_rulz01: Well, I think that on a divided field (which will inevitably be culled eventually) he has a chance to win the Democratic nomination with a plurality (lets not think about a divided convention for now, which could be the single greatest TV event of my lifetime).

Once you get to the actual race I think it would become the most ugly Presidential race in modern U.S. history (or I guess since the last one). All the Bernie stuff with the communist dictators during the 80's etc. would come out. That plus the fact that at point Sanders plans for how to pay for (or lack there of) all his free stuff (health care, college, etc.) would come under scrutiny and the undeniable fact the middle class would pay more in taxes (with the argument that they would be better off with all new services they get) would be inescapable. Trump strategy would be to drive Sanders' negatives up since his stupidity won't allow him to run on the economy.

At that point, I think it comes down to the economy. If the economy is doing well Trump will be reelected over a Sanders candidacy, if not Bernie will win.

LOL, free stuff. Trump drives up the deficit for tax cuts on the wealthy and a wall we don't need (that will conveniently make connected contractors quite rich) and you conservatives say we're the ones trying to give away free stuff. Between you and Jac, we're going to need a fleet of bulldozers to deal with all the conservative bullshit in this thread.

Avatar image for theone86
#3 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@hrt_rulz01 said:

I'm not American, but I hope it's Bernie Sanders.

Question for you Americans on here that know politics, what are the chances that Bernie actually becomes President? Is it a realistic possibility?

There are a lot of people who say that if Bernie had won the primary there would have been a lot more Democratic turnout, especially from people who don't usually vote (read: mostly poor). I can say it's a pretty safe bet to say they're overestimating how much turnout would increase, but by how much is the question. Would it be by enough to swing over Trump states? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

I think it will also be interesting to see, if Bernie does lose the primary to someone like Elizabeth Warren, will he throw the same sort of fit he did over Hillary? I think that Bernie has about as even a chance of winning the presidency as a lot of these others IF, after losing the primary, he throws his support behind them. If he doesn't then I think it could generate enough disaffection to derail whatever candidate beats him out in the primary. He's much more ideologically aligned with someone like Warren. I would be somewhat surprised to see him give her the same cold shoulder he did with Hillary, but not completely surprised.

Short answer, though, I think almost everyone has a good chance to beat Trump. He's got massively low approval ratings, around 40% of the country absolutely hates him, he's got barely any legislative accomplishments and the ones he does have are pretty unpopular, and he keeps pursuing policies that alienate even the people who supported him in the 2016 election (family separation). If you win the Democratic primary, I think you're the favorite to win the election (though I don't think Bernie will). There are some wild cards, though, like third party candidates. Even though the entire country seems to be against it, Howard Schulz still seems dead-set on pursuing a presidential run, and I think he probably will if someone like Bernie wins the nomination. It's really hard to predict if him running would be enough to cost a candidate Bernie the election.

Avatar image for theone86
#4 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

Right wingers: murder 6 million Jews for being Jewish, then blame it on left-wingers.

**** this asshole. Seriously, **** him. Don't talk about not forgetting history and then blatantly distort it.

Avatar image for theone86
#5 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@saltslasher said:

Not to sound like a bigot, but I don't want any Southern State giving anyone advice that pertains to science.

I personally believe our climate could die and end up like Venus, just like I believe seasons will shift and have chaotic weather.

The moral obligation is in everyone to do their own part, not rely on these jackass' to solve the problem for us.

At least then we wouldn't have to listen to Republican bullshit anymore.

Avatar image for theone86
#6 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

I think the most absurd part about all of this is how Trump seems to think that sanctuary cities are somehow cordoned off from the rest of America, like if immigrants really wanted to stroll into Texas they'd be all like, "oh, but the government put us in Chicago, damn!" I mean, already, the largest populations of immigrants are in inland states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are all very high up on the list, very far from the Mexican border). Part of the reason sanctuary cities are sanctuary cities is because they already have large immigrant populations and have decided to treat them humanely (crazy, I know). It's not like forcing more immigrants to live there is going to cause them to freak out. The issue is that you're forcing them to live there, not that they're actually living there. It's even worse when they have families in other areas of the country that are helping them adjust, or when it could cause them to miss an important court date. That's also not to even mention the tremendous financial cost it would incur to detain all of these people, transport them across the country, and then deal with the logistics of handling their legal cases when they've just been transported across the country. But apparently just letting them into the country and having them figure out how to support themselves while they wait for their court date is too much of a hassle. "catch and release, herp derp!"

Avatar image for theone86
#7 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Are we really advocating for physically abusing our children in light of a mountain of evidence showing how ineffective and damaging it can be to them?

Welcome to America circa 2019.

Avatar image for theone86
#8 Edited by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@ad1x2 said:
@theone86 said:

And where were all of these sensible centrists when it was time to vote against Trump? What did nominating one of the most non-confrontational centrists get us in 2016? It got all you pricks on the right calling us stupid snowflakes and laughing about how you voted for a grossly incompetent candidate in order to "own the libs."

"Owning the libs" may have been the goal of some people that voted for Donald Trump, but most others voted for him because they felt he would try to accomplish what they wanted. Why would someone that wants immigration laws enforced vote for a candidate that is talking about amnesty? Why would a pro-Second Amendment person vote for a candidate that wants tougher gun laws? Why would a person that watched their coal mining jobs that have been going away vote against the candidate that says he will try to bring them back? Despite Trump's lack of government experience, he was able to beat over a dozen establishment Republicans in the GOP primary and a former senator and Secretary of State in the general election.

@theone86 said:

You had a Republican nominee who not only had zero experience in government, not only had declared bankruptcy several times, but had myriad personality issues and a complete lack of decency that were apparent to everyone on the planet. And you voted for the incompetent clod over the qualified woman who just so happens to be on your side on several significant issues (such as foreign relations with Israel). If you think that proves that there are a bunch of well-reasoned centrists just waiting for a decent candidate then you are delusional. It proves that even when Democrats swallow their pride and nominate a centrist, even when they go out of their way to compromise, Republicans are still going to keep running ever further to the right and their voters won't call them on it. Your vision of how American politics works is laughably outdated.

I talked about AOC's hubris, it seems like you are suffering from the same issue. Compromise is a reality of politics, Democrats simply do not have the nationwide numbers to take a super-majority in Washington like they did in Sacramento. Taking the position "f the right, and only settle for absolute authority" will just make it worse and will hurt Democrats in purple and red areas in the polls. "Basket of Deplorables" was Hillary Clinton's 47% moment, no matter how much you may or may not have agreed with her. You can question Trump's moral background, but he had the advantage of not insulting the majority of people that he was trying to get to vote for him. If Barack Obama was elected twice with the highest and second highest popular vote total in history respectively, that should tell you Hillary wasn't the best candidate and a stronger candidate probably would have beaten Trump.

@theone86 said:

And LOL at a Fox News viewer talking about echo chambers. Your entire life is an echo chamber.

Get a little bit of self-awareness, your posts come off as completely unhinged in how mad you are at people you assume to be Republicans over the fact that they dare not agree with you. I've lived in red and blue areas, and I have friends that think Trump is the best president in the past 30 years and other friends that think Trump is tearing the country apart. Your post shows who lives in an echo chamber when you pretty much imply that the only people that voted for Trump are bigoted morons too stupid to realize that Hillary Clinton was going to be their savior and that they should just roll over and vote blue for the rest of their lives no matter how little the candidates try to cater to their needs. A man that works behind a desk in New York City does not have the exact same needs as a person that works on a farm in the middle of Oklahoma.

Wow, you are delusional beyond compare. You start out saying that people who voted for Trump are completely vindicated, even though he was historically unqualified, because he promised to support their partisan policy preferences. You then go on to lecture me about compromise and tell me that if me and people like me don't choose candidates with policy positions we disagree with we're going to be hurt electorally. Talk about cognitive dissonance. You just proved my point for me, if compromise was a reality of politics then we wouldn't be sitting here with an unqualified nut of a president who refuses to compromise on anything, to the point where he's constantly firing his own appointees for not following his diktats. If compromise was a political reality then the party of the president who was consistently compromising wouldn't have lost while the party of the Senate majority leader who was consistently standing in the way of compromise won. You're not really saying "compromise is a political reality," you're saying "gimme my way, or you're going to get hurt," like the entitled conservative baby you are.

And Hillary was wrong about the basket of deplorables. It wasn't just a basket, all Republicans are deplorables. Seriously, all I can remember you doing for as long as I've been alive is being angry about one thing or another. You have an entire cable network dedicated to peddling anger. When that wasn't enough, you started an online news network dedicated to peddling anger AND conspiracy theories. And when that wasn't enough you started another online network dedicated to peddling even more far out conspiracy theories. And that's all in addition to the robust blogosphere and conservative radio network dedicated to peddling, hmmmm...let's see, what was it? Oh yeah, more anger. And you're going to come in here and accuse me of being unhinged? You're the one who has a total lack of self-awareness.

Avatar image for theone86
#9 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@jdc6305 said:
@theone86 said:
@jdc6305 said:

My grandmother would grab a switch off a tree and whip my mom back in the 60's. When I was a kid back in the 80's they had paddles in school and if you got out of line they'd beat the snot out of you. I know I had it happen to me. I told my mom to F off once and she turned around and socked me in the nose. I was seeing stars. My parents didn't coddle me.

One time I got in trouble with the police. They called my mom and she said keep him and hung up.

Parents have been getting softer and softer over the years. People have kids and think the schools should raise them.

Call me crazy, but I think the fact that parents aren't ****ING FLOGGING their children is a good thing. And a good deal of the psychological community seems to agree with me:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201404/why-physical-punishment-does-not-work

I disagree I was a nasty little cus when I was younger and the paddle got my attention real fast. When I got older my mom came at me with the paddle and I took it away from her and broke it in half. When the teacher threatened us with the paddle it got our attention. It stung like hell the rest of the day I could barely sit. It was common back in the 80's and early 90's. My generation turned out just fine. I have friends with kids and they're like feral apes. My buddy has a 5 year old. We were in a restaurant and the kid was climbing all over the place. I must have heard my buddy say stop that or don't do that 100x. The kid stood up on the seat and belted him right in the face. My mom would have beat me to death if I did that.

Anecdotal evidence, NEVER heard that before.

A kid was climbing? Oh heavens, what a disaster! I hope you didn't clutch your pearls too tightly!

Avatar image for theone86
#10 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@jdc6305 said:

My grandmother would grab a switch off a tree and whip my mom back in the 60's. When I was a kid back in the 80's they had paddles in school and if you got out of line they'd beat the snot out of you. I know I had it happen to me. I told my mom to F off once and she turned around and socked me in the nose. I was seeing stars. My parents didn't coddle me.

One time I got in trouble with the police. They called my mom and she said keep him and hung up.

Parents have been getting softer and softer over the years. People have kids and think the schools should raise them.

Call me crazy, but I think the fact that parents aren't ****ING FLOGGING their children is a good thing. And a good deal of the psychological community seems to agree with me:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201404/why-physical-punishment-does-not-work