summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by summer23 on Mar 22, 2024 15:25:27 GMT -5
Vote for a racist because he sells you his wine. Perfect plan.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 22, 2024 15:31:39 GMT -5
To me the way you break that fever is by slaughtering the GOP, figuratively speaking, at the polls and send them to the wilderness for a few cycles. The wilderness thing following a slaughter (figuratively speaking of course) has been bandied about from both sides each and every cycle. In my opinion, and I'm no political junkie or desire to become one, all that accomplishes with political parties is a deep well of harbored resentment, leading to further combativeness and lashing out on the next cycle, and further erodes discourse and understanding. Again, and I'm sure my naivety is showing, but shouldn't we be electing those who we think will best represent us and hold many of the same values in solving problems, irrespective of party affiliation? Well, one way to think about it is to look at the period from 1968 through 1992. The GOP won the White House in five out of six elections (Carter being the exception) and in the 80, 84, and 88 elections the GOP candidate completely trounced his Democratic opponent. In 84 Reagan won every state but Minnesota. In 88 Bush beat Dukakis with 424 electoral votes. Now, I'm no fan of Reagan on domestic policy and I think he did a lot of damage (including running up a massive debt via deficit spending and the disaster known as 'trickle down' economics) but the point is, the Democrats were 'in the wilderness' at the national level. What happened? Clinton came forward with a new, more centrist approach for the Democrats and they went on to win the popular vote in seven of the next eight elections and the presidency in five of the next eight elections. We need one of two things to happen. Either the moderates need to seize the GOP back from the Trumpists as personified by Marjorie Taylor Greene or there needs to be a third party based on center/right policy views coupled with a rational approach to governing. Neither of those things will happen unless the Republicans get trounced in 2024. And don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we need a rational party devoted to actual conservative policies in order to check the worst impulses of the progressives but what we have now is a GOP that has been shanghaied by a proto-fascist mob of insurrectionists. Don't believe me? Look at their candidates for Senate in Ohio and Arizona or their candidate for governor in North Carolina. So, there is simply no way that I will do anything other than work my butt off to ensure that this particular GOP gets no where near the presidency or the majority in either house of congress
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by summer23 on Mar 22, 2024 15:32:40 GMT -5
The wilderness thing following a slaughter (figuratively speaking of course) has been bandied about from both sides each and every cycle. In my opinion, and I'm no political junkie or desire to become one, all that accomplishes with political parties is a deep well of harbored resentment, leading to further combativeness and lashing out on the next cycle, and further erodes discourse and understanding. Again, and I'm sure my naivety is showing, but shouldn't we be electing those who we think will best represent us and hold many of the same values in solving problems, irrespective of party affiliation? Well, one way to think about it is to look at the period from 1968 through 1992. The GOP won the White House in five out of six elections (Carter being the exception) and in the 80, 84, and 88 elections the GOP candidate completely trounced his Democratic opponent. In 84 Reagan won every state but Minnesota. In 88 Bush beat Dukakis with 424 electoral votes. Now, I'm no fan of Reagan on domestic policy and I think he did a lot of damage (including running up a massive debt via deficit spending and the disaster known as 'trickle down' economics) but the point is, the Democrats were 'in the wilderness' at the national level. What happened? Clinton came forward with a new, more centrist approach for the Democrats and they went on to win the popular vote in seven of the next eight elections and the presidency in five of the next eight elections. We need one of two things to happen. Either the moderates need to seize the GOP back from the Trumpists as personified by Marjorie Taylor Greene or there needs to be a third party based on center/right policy views coupled with a rational approach to governing. Neither of those things will happen unless the Republicans get trounced in 2024. And don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we need a rational party devoted to actual conservative policies in order to check the worst impulses of the progressives but what we have now is a GOP that has been shanghaied by a proto-fascist mob of insurrectionists. So, there is simply no way that I will do anything other than work my butt off to ensure that this particular GOP gets no where near the presidency or the majority in either house of congress You don't vote in Maryland. Or do you?
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 22, 2024 15:37:47 GMT -5
The wilderness thing following a slaughter (figuratively speaking of course) has been bandied about from both sides each and every cycle. In my opinion, and I'm no political junkie or desire to become one, all that accomplishes with political parties is a deep well of harbored resentment, leading to further combativeness and lashing out on the next cycle, and further erodes discourse and understanding. Again, and I'm sure my naivety is showing, but shouldn't we be electing those who we think will best represent us and hold many of the same values in solving problems, irrespective of party affiliation?Of course, but that assumes a rational POV. As we have seen here, rational thinking is not a requirement to vote. It is simply not rational to look at the behavior of today's GOP and then believe that putting them back in power will lead to different results.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 22, 2024 15:38:21 GMT -5
Well, one way to think about it is to look at the period from 1968 through 1992. The GOP won the White House in five out of six elections (Carter being the exception) and in the 80, 84, and 88 elections the GOP candidate completely trounced his Democratic opponent. In 84 Reagan won every state but Minnesota. In 88 Bush beat Dukakis with 424 electoral votes. Now, I'm no fan of Reagan on domestic policy and I think he did a lot of damage (including running up a massive debt via deficit spending and the disaster known as 'trickle down' economics) but the point is, the Democrats were 'in the wilderness' at the national level. What happened? Clinton came forward with a new, more centrist approach for the Democrats and they went on to win the popular vote in seven of the next eight elections and the presidency in five of the next eight elections. We need one of two things to happen. Either the moderates need to seize the GOP back from the Trumpists as personified by Marjorie Taylor Greene or there needs to be a third party based on center/right policy views coupled with a rational approach to governing. Neither of those things will happen unless the Republicans get trounced in 2024. And don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we need a rational party devoted to actual conservative policies in order to check the worst impulses of the progressives but what we have now is a GOP that has been shanghaied by a proto-fascist mob of insurrectionists. So, there is simply no way that I will do anything other than work my butt off to ensure that this particular GOP gets no where near the presidency or the majority in either house of congress You don't vote in Maryland. Or do you? Not any more although right now I wish I did.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 22, 2024 15:53:58 GMT -5
Of course, but that assumes a rational POV. As we have seen here, rational thinking is not a requirement to vote. It is simply not rational to look at the behavior of today's GOP and then believe that putting them back in power will lead to different results. It follows then that your post logically requires us to believe that all Democrats are either Menendez or AOC. Is that really your position?
|
|
|
Post by upstream on Mar 22, 2024 16:11:53 GMT -5
It is simply not rational to look at the behavior of today's GOP and then believe that putting them back in power will lead to different results. It follows then that your post logically requires us to believe that all Democrats are either Menendez or AOC. Is that really your position? What's wrong with AOC other than your disagreement with her politics? Why would you even put her and Menendez in the same sentence??
|
|
up2
Full Member
Posts: 1,867
|
Post by up2 on Mar 22, 2024 16:30:10 GMT -5
The wilderness thing following a slaughter (figuratively speaking of course) has been bandied about from both sides each and every cycle. In my opinion, and I'm no political junkie or desire to become one, all that accomplishes with political parties is a deep well of harbored resentment, leading to further combativeness and lashing out on the next cycle, and further erodes discourse and understanding. Again, and I'm sure my naivety is showing, but shouldn't we be electing those who we think will best represent us and hold many of the same values in solving problems, irrespective of party affiliation? Well, one way to think about it is to look at the period from 1968 through 1992. The GOP won the White House in five out of six elections (Carter being the exception) and in the 80, 84, and 88 elections the GOP candidate completely trounced his Democratic opponent. In 84 Reagan won every state but Minnesota. In 88 Bush beat Dukakis with 424 electoral votes. Now, I'm no fan of Reagan on domestic policy and I think he did a lot of damage (including running up a massive debt via deficit spending and the disaster known as 'trickle down' economics) but the point is, the Democrats were 'in the wilderness' at the national level. What happened? Clinton came forward with a new, more centrist approach for the Democrats and they went on to win the popular vote in seven of the next eight elections and the presidency in five of the next eight elections. We need one of two things to happen. Either the moderates need to seize the GOP back from the Trumpists as personified by Marjorie Taylor Greene or there needs to be a third party based on center/right policy views coupled with a rational approach to governing. Neither of those things will happen unless the Republicans get trounced in 2024. And don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we need a rational party devoted to actual conservative policies in order to check the worst impulses of the progressives but what we have now is a GOP that has been shanghaied by a proto-fascist mob of insurrectionists. Don't believe me? Look at their candidates for Senate in Ohio and Arizona or their candidate for governor in North Carolina. So, there is simply no way that I will do anything other than work my butt off to ensure that this particular GOP gets no where near the presidency or the majority in either house of congress The emergence of social media has changed the game, so my humble opinion is that past performance and its history is no longer such a good predictor of the future. I'd love to see a good Republican trouncing as much as anyone else, however such a thing will probably only embolden those worst impulses of the winners and foment the worst impulses of the losers, eventually leading to a lot more civil unrest, not the soul baring self-reflection of wandering the desert. Again, probably a naive notion in our ugly world of politics. We agree on the desired outcome mostly, but I don't necessarily agree on the methods needed to get there. I tend to think we need to bring down the temperature in the room and not to bring the blow-torch as a solution.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Mar 22, 2024 17:09:47 GMT -5
Vote for a racist because he sells you his wine. Perfect plan. Or cancel someone because they probably just had a brain fart.
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by summer23 on Mar 22, 2024 17:40:33 GMT -5
Vote for a racist because he sells you his wine. Perfect plan. Or cancel someone because they probably just had a brain fart. Yeah, that just slipped out. I haven't heard that word in years. But that's okay. He is a D. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 22, 2024 17:41:22 GMT -5
It is simply not rational to look at the behavior of today's GOP and then believe that putting them back in power will lead to different results. It follows then that your post logically requires us to believe that all Democrats are either Menendez or AOC. Is that really your position? Not logical at all. 1. AOC is not in a leadership position 2. While the Democratic caucus certainly has a cadre of members that are relatively far to the left (by US standards), these members do not prevent the majority from carrying out the basic functions of governing 3. The GOP, on the other hand, has shown itself to be incapable of governing and, beyond that, has demonstrated time and time again that it would rather blow up any chance for compromise or even the 'full faith and credit' of the United States in order to ram through the agenda of the extremists in their caucus. 4. Finally, just look at the statements of people like McConnell about Trump on January 6th or in the immediate aftermath. McConnell has now endorsed Trump. There is simply no end to their cynicism and for these reasons I cannot, in good conscience, do anything that would help that party retake the majority in the Senate or retain the majority in the House.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 22, 2024 17:42:22 GMT -5
Or cancel someone because they probably just had a brain fart. Yeah, that just slipped out. I haven't heard that word in years. But that's okay. He is a D. Got it. What are we actually talking about? I'm sorry, I'm just not aware of the comment, or the candidate, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 22, 2024 18:34:02 GMT -5
Sure you are. And I'm sure your concerns for Hogan's political trials are significant. No, really. No, actually I am not. You and vosa both like to set up strawmen. Him, I expect it from; he's a bad debater. You shouldn't need to resort to that but for some reason... Hogan seems like a man of decent character to me. The GOP as it is presently constituted caters to the wealthy as it always has, most of whom worship money if they worship anything, and to the worst of us (Trump's base): racists, sexists, and that sort. No one else need apply. Do you honestly think a man like Hogan has any place in that group?
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Mar 22, 2024 19:08:59 GMT -5
Vote for a racist because he sells you his wine. Perfect plan. Is he a racist? Honest question as I haven't really looked into him deeply. Whatchya got?
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 22, 2024 19:15:32 GMT -5
Sure you are. And I'm sure your concerns for Hogan's political trials are significant. No, really. No, actually I am not. You and vosa both like to set up strawmen. Him, I expect it from; he's a bad debater. You shouldn't need to resort to that but for some reason... Hogan seems like a man of decent character to me. The GOP as it is presently constituted caters to the wealthy as it always has, most of whom worship money if they worship anything, and to the worst of us (Trump's base): racists, sexists, and that sort. No one else need apply. Do you honestly think a man like Hogan has any place in that group? Anytime someone disagrees with your inane extremism, you trot out the "strawman" argument. Consider a new shtick EY, you've pretty much worn that one out.
|
|
|
Post by upstream on Mar 22, 2024 19:49:06 GMT -5
I sincerely believe he meant to say “bugaboo” but the fact that “jig…” came out so easily means he’s prolly said it before. lol. Idk 🤷🏽♂️ Either way you slice it it’s not a good look.
If it were up to me I’d still vote for him. I think he might’ve just blown it though. All that money he’s spent. Will it be for naught??
I mean all Alsobrooks has to do is make this a commercial and play it over and over. She’s finally got some commercials out at least…
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by summer23 on Mar 22, 2024 20:08:02 GMT -5
I sincerely believe he meant to say “bugaboo” but the fact that “jig…” came out so easily means he’s prolly said it before. lol. Idk 🤷🏽♂️ Either way you slice it it’s not a good look. If it were up to me I’d still vote for him. I think he might’ve just blown it though. All that money he’s spent. Will it be for naught?? I mean all Alsobrooks has to do is make this a commercial and play it over and over. She’s finally got some commercials out at least… To my sadness, I a close family member (now deceased) .guilty of using the word She would be in her late 70s now. If you think you and I go at - whew - this lady and I had some doozies over her racist comments - and opinions.
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by summer23 on Mar 22, 2024 20:12:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 22, 2024 21:14:28 GMT -5
I sincerely believe he meant to say “bugaboo” but the fact that “jig…” came out so easily means he’s prolly said it before. lol. Idk 🤷🏽♂️ Either way you slice it it’s not a good look. If it were up to me I’d still vote for him. I think he might’ve just blown it though. All that money he’s spent. Will it be for naught?? I mean all Alsobrooks has to do is make this a commercial and play it over and over. She’s finally got some commercials out at least… This was my thought as well. It is not a commonly used word...unless it is.
|
|
|
Post by upstream on Mar 22, 2024 21:18:11 GMT -5
I sincerely believe he meant to say “bugaboo” but the fact that “jig…” came out so easily means he’s prolly said it before. lol. Idk 🤷🏽♂️ Either way you slice it it’s not a good look. If it were up to me I’d still vote for him. I think he might’ve just blown it though. All that money he’s spent. Will it be for naught?? I mean all Alsobrooks has to do is make this a commercial and play it over and over. She’s finally got some commercials out at least… This was my thought as well. It is not a commonly used word...unless it is. I wish yall were as enthusiastic about republicans’ blatant racist statements as you are about dems’ slip ups. Lol
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by summer23 on Mar 22, 2024 21:48:25 GMT -5
This was my thought as well. It is not a commonly used word...unless it is. I wish yall were as enthusiastic about republicans’ blatant racist statements as you are about dems’ slip ups. Lol
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 23, 2024 6:49:17 GMT -5
This was my thought as well. It is not a commonly used word...unless it is. I wish yall were as enthusiastic about republicans’ blatant racist statements as you are about dems’ slip ups. Lol It was a slip up. I have no doubt. He had no intention of using that word - in public.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 23, 2024 10:01:59 GMT -5
Anytime someone disagrees with your inane extremism, you trot out the "strawman" argument. Consider a new shtick EY, you've pretty much worn that one out. But you're not disagreeing with "my inane extremism". You're disagreeing with what your internal monologue believes I am writing! And I am extreme only by comparison to you, who are quite far right. If you encountered an actual liberal you would understand this, but there are only one or two of them here. Well, except by comparison to far righties like you and a handful of others.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 23, 2024 10:07:54 GMT -5
Anytime someone disagrees with your inane extremism, you trot out the "strawman" argument. Consider a new shtick EY, you've pretty much worn that one out. But you're not disagreeing with "my inane extremism". You're disagreeing with what your internal monologue believes I am writing! And I am extreme only by comparison to you, who are quite far right. If you encountered an actual liberal you would understand this, but there are only one or two of them here. Well, except by comparison to far righties like you and a handful of others. If you want to believe that EY, you go right ahead and do so. I know living in liberal world as you do has the benefits of being protected from reality, and far be it from me to burst your self-protective bubble, however falsely it is constructed.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Mar 23, 2024 11:02:59 GMT -5
But you're not disagreeing with "my inane extremism". You're disagreeing with what your internal monologue believes I am writing! And I am extreme only by comparison to you, who are quite far right. If you encountered an actual liberal you would understand this, but there are only one or two of them here. Well, except by comparison to far righties like you and a handful of others. If you want to believe that EY, you go right ahead and do so. I know living in liberal world as you do has the benefits of being protected from reality, and far be it from me to burst your self-protective bubble, however falsely it is constructed. Wait for it....Here it comes....STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Mar 23, 2024 17:28:38 GMT -5
The wilderness thing following a slaughter (figuratively speaking of course) has been bandied about from both sides each and every cycle. In my opinion, and I'm no political junkie or desire to become one, all that accomplishes with political parties is a deep well of harbored resentment, leading to further combativeness and lashing out on the next cycle, and further erodes discourse and understanding. Again, and I'm sure my naivety is showing, but shouldn't we be electing those who we think will best represent us and hold many of the same values in solving problems, irrespective of party affiliation? Well, one way to think about it is to look at the period from 1968 through 1992. The GOP won the White House in five out of six elections (Carter being the exception) and in the 80, 84, and 88 elections the GOP candidate completely trounced his Democratic opponent. In 84 Reagan won every state but Minnesota. In 88 Bush beat Dukakis with 424 electoral votes. Now, I'm no fan of Reagan on domestic policy and I think he did a lot of damage (including running up a massive debt via deficit spending and the disaster known as 'trickle down' economics) but the point is, the Democrats were 'in the wilderness' at the national level. What happened? Clinton came forward with a new, more centrist approach for the Democrats and they went on to win the popular vote in seven of the next eight elections and the presidency in five of the next eight elections. We need one of two things to happen. Either the moderates need to seize the GOP back from the Trumpists as personified by Marjorie Taylor Greene or there needs to be a third party based on center/right policy views coupled with a rational approach to governing. Neither of those things will happen unless the Republicans get trounced in 2024. And don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we need a rational party devoted to actual conservative policies in order to check the worst impulses of the progressives but what we have now is a GOP that has been shanghaied by a proto-fascist mob of insurrectionists. Don't believe me? Look at their candidates for Senate in Ohio and Arizona or their candidate for governor in North Carolina. So, there is simply no way that I will do anything other than work my butt off to ensure that this particular GOP gets no where near the presidency or the majority in either house of congress Me too as well. 👏
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Mar 23, 2024 17:32:17 GMT -5
But you're not disagreeing with "my inane extremism". You're disagreeing with what your internal monologue believes I am writing! And I am extreme only by comparison to you, who are quite far right. If you encountered an actual liberal you would understand this, but there are only one or two of them here. Well, except by comparison to far righties like you and a handful of others. If you want to believe that EY, you go right ahead and do so. I know living in liberal world as you do has the benefits of being protected from reality, and far be it from me to burst your self-protective bubble, however falsely it is constructed. Ahhh EY.... liberal? Wait let me get my dictionary. 😆 Practical yes ..... as in seeing both sides .... yup sure. But................
|
|
summer23
Full Member
There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path.
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by summer23 on Mar 23, 2024 17:58:11 GMT -5
If you want to believe that EY, you go right ahead and do so. I know living in liberal world as you do has the benefits of being protected from reality, and far be it from me to burst your self-protective bubble, however falsely it is constructed. Ahhh EY.... liberal? Wait let me get my dictionary. 😆 Practical yes ..... as in seeing both sides .... yup sure.
But................ When exactly has the bolded part happened?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 24, 2024 11:25:50 GMT -5
... We need one of two things to happen. Either the moderates need to seize the GOP back from the Trumpists as personified by Marjorie Taylor Greene or there needs to be a third party based on center/right policy views coupled with a rational approach to governing. Neither of those things will happen unless the Republicans get trounced in 2024. And don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we need a rational party devoted to actual conservative policies in order to check the worst impulses of the progressives but what we have now is a GOP that has been shanghaied by a proto-fascist mob of insurrectionists. Don't believe me? Look at their candidates for Senate in Ohio and Arizona or their candidate for governor in North Carolina. I agree wholeheartedly. I want a GOP that's worthy of respect. Not the one we have now.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Mar 24, 2024 12:22:47 GMT -5
Well, one way to think about it is to look at the period from 1968 through 1992. The GOP won the White House in five out of six elections (Carter being the exception) and in the 80, 84, and 88 elections the GOP candidate completely trounced his Democratic opponent. In 84 Reagan won every state but Minnesota. In 88 Bush beat Dukakis with 424 electoral votes. Now, I'm no fan of Reagan on domestic policy and I think he did a lot of damage (including running up a massive debt via deficit spending and the disaster known as 'trickle down' economics) but the point is, the Democrats were 'in the wilderness' at the national level. What happened? Clinton came forward with a new, more centrist approach for the Democrats and they went on to win the popular vote in seven of the next eight elections and the presidency in five of the next eight elections. We need one of two things to happen. Either the moderates need to seize the GOP back from the Trumpists as personified by Marjorie Taylor Greene or there needs to be a third party based on center/right policy views coupled with a rational approach to governing. Neither of those things will happen unless the Republicans get trounced in 2024. And don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we need a rational party devoted to actual conservative policies in order to check the worst impulses of the progressives but what we have now is a GOP that has been shanghaied by a proto-fascist mob of insurrectionists. Don't believe me? Look at their candidates for Senate in Ohio and Arizona or their candidate for governor in North Carolina. So, there is simply no way that I will do anything other than work my butt off to ensure that this particular GOP gets no where near the presidency or the majority in either house of congress Me too as well. 👏 I'd like to know exactly what you and JIM are doing/going to do to ensure that this particular GOP gets no where near the presidency or the majority in either house of congress. I mean other than venting your spleens here on Baltimoresunreunited.
|
|