DescentBB

Like joining a commie union?

woodchip wrote:Like joining a commie union?

Newsflash: The Cold War ended. A while back, too.

Well Trumps bankruptcies happened a while back also...yet you keep bringing them up.

woodchip wrote:Well Trumps bankruptcies happened a while back also...yet you keep bringing them up.

hilarious. On so many levels.

woodchip wrote:Well Trumps bankruptcies happened a while back also...yet you keep bringing them up.

Would you hire an accountant that sent a company into the red more than once?

Even though trump came back from bankruptcy, the mere fact that he had to claim it suggests that he made a lot of bad decisions leading up to them.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well Trumps bankruptcies happened a while back also...yet you keep bringing them up.

Would you hire an accountant that sent a company into the red more than once?

Even though trump came back from bankruptcy, the mere fact that he had to claim it suggests that he made a lot of bad decisions leading up to them.

Would you keep in power the people that put the country 10 trillion dollars in debt?

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well Trumps bankruptcies happened a while back also...yet you keep bringing them up.

Would you hire an accountant that sent a company into the red more than once?

Even though trump came back from bankruptcy, the mere fact that he had to claim it suggests that he made a lot of bad decisions leading up to them.

Would you keep in power the people that put the country 10 trillion dollars in debt?

no, and that's why we voted them out in 2008.

Little confused about what the debt was in 2008 and how that debt was the cummulation of all our debt since the country was founded? And how Obama exceeded that debt in 7 short years?

woodchip wrote:Little confused about what the debt was in 2008 and how that debt was the cummulation of all our debt since the country was founded? And how Obama exceeded that debt in 7 short years?

not at all confused. I'm just not stupid in understanding who created the NEED for all that recovery spending, and who spent deficit monies that didn't hit until after he was in office to fund two idiotic wars.

by the end of the year, the GOP will have succeeded in alienating every last possible group save older white men:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... antichrist

now, we can clearly add(with help from the Donald) Catholics.....of recent years, a decent bloc for the Republican side
to the already-insulted:
Mexicans, Asians, Women, Blacks, Muslims, Gay/Transgender, Jews,the college-educated, etc, etc.

wave goodbye to the GOP, Trump has opened the gateway to oblivion and they are marching into the breech.

callmeslick wrote:wave goodbye to the GOP

weren't you saying in another thread that you don't want the GOP to die because you want a competitive political landscape?

This should bring sadness, not joy.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:wave goodbye to the GOP

weren't you saying in another thread that you don't want the GOP to die because you want a competitive political landscape?

This should bring sadness, not joy.

mixed emotions. No, I do not wish to see a one-party system, but the nation seriously needs something akin to a political enema to flush out the hate, xenophobia and acceptance of ignorance. So, while I don't wish to see very much of a one-party system, the GOP, or at least the nouveau bastardization of conservatism has to go, for the national good.

further, my words above are not celebratory so much as a stunned acceptance of political reality. What they think they're doing eludes me, because it is a recipe for disaster.

woodchip wrote:Little confused about what the debt was in 2008 and how that debt was the cummulation of all our debt since the country was founded? And how Obama exceeded that debt in 7 short years?

you forgot to include inflation, current vs past value of the US dollar compared to other currencies, GDP, etc.

Without considering those, your example is nothing but hot air.

-----------

So, while I don't wish to see very much of a one-party system, the GOP, or at least the nouveau bastardization of conservatism has to go, for the national good.

you might see something akin to what happened up here about fifteen to twenty years ago. Reform party came out of the woodwork, merged with the "progressive conservative" (huge oxymoron) and became Conservative.

callmeslick wrote:the nation seriously needs something akin to a political enema to flush out the hate, xenophobia and acceptance of ignorance

To be charitable, I assume you've forgotten the similar forms of hate and xenophobia (against "rednecks") and acceptance of ignorance that were prevalent among Democrats around the time of the Bush-Kerry election, rather than that you didn't realize how hateful/xenophobic/ignorant the wacky wing of that party was being.

The party figured themselves out pretty quick after going backwards in a couple of elections. I think we'll see the same thing here -- the GOP might recover somewhat by the time of the election, if they find the sense to nominate a Rubio/Kasich ticket and get the nutjobs out of the public eye. Or they might take a beating on account of Trump, and not get it straight until the midterms. I think it's highly unlikely we'll see an actual deep collapse. (Of particular note, Republicans have made very significant gains at local and state levels; there are lots of competent people in state senates who will step up 2 years from now if the current national-level party doesn't hold its ground.)

not a case of forgetting, but I don't equate ANYTHING from those years to the present situation with the GOP. At NO TIME did the Dems do what you say, and I was sort of there during those years to observe. If you feel the two situations equate, I'd love to see some examples.


edit--I think, in fact, what you are doing is committing one of the common mistakes of our time, Lothar: attempting to make equivalent completely distinct issues. The Dems may have had some within the ranks decrying 'rednecks'(although I never really heard that in a rural/suburban district), but that is wholly different than a major candidate whipping up rallies with hatred against Muslims,Mexicans etc, or public denigration of women due to appearance, etc. I also differ as to the 'state house' level matters, as I've seen the dreck that is piling up in state houses due to the influx of anti-government types and promoted by dubious electoral maps(which the courts are taking apart, one by one). Now, I might hold out hope that the GOP figures out national and regional changes in demographics and issues, but not in the current climate.

Sorry slick, but your assertion that people like Trump are whipping up hatred of Muslims and Mexicans is patently false. All I've heard was to hold off on allowing Syrian immigrants in until they could be vetted better. And Trump says nothing about hating Mexicans, in fact quite the reverse. What he does say is we have to stop their illegal entry into this country. So what you are doing is in fact doing what you decry the GOP of doing. Falsely vilifying people for political gain.

woodchip wrote:Sorry slick, but your assertion that people like Trump are whipping up hatred of Muslims and Mexicans is patently false

so telling stories(which weren't true) about shooting Muslims with pigs blood for the sicko faithful is what, again?
Likewise, saying that Mexico is mainly sending rapists and drug dealers? Or comments degrading Asian people? I can easily go on, but we see your dance for what it is. Trump is clearly playing to a waiting throng, and that is exactly the public perception which will hurt the GOP badly. It isn't a 'few bad apple' outliers, it's 35% of the party base.

.

Sorry slick, you are still doing what you claim others are doing. Should I show how big a rascist Obama is?

knock yourself out. I'll stand by my observations, and my predictions for the fate of the GOP 10 years out.

callmeslick wrote:attempting to make equivalent completely distinct issues. The Dems may have had some within the ranks decrying 'rednecks' .... but that is wholly different than a major candidate whipping up rallies with hatred against Muslims,Mexicans etc

No, not exactly the same thing. But remember Michael Moore being a guest of honor at major Dem events? Basically everything that's ever come out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz' mouth? Howard Dean's comments about how any gay or minority Republicans must be "out of their minds" (he made those comments as DNC chair, but had been a major candidate in the previous election)? The Democratic party was definitely off its collective rocker in around 2006. And there were definitely a lot of voters who would have supported a left-wing version of Trump in that era, if only Trump had run on the left instead of waiting until now and pretending to be on the right.

I'm not trying to make these things exactly equivalent, only to point out the precedent. We've seen whole parties acting like this before -- and then recover within a couple years.

You're looking at one trend but not paying attention to the others. Yeah, there's the Fox News / Donald Trump / angry old white people wing of the Republican party that makes it look like a party in decline. There's also a surprising amount of gain, not due to dubious electoral maps, but as a lot of thirty-somethings are becoming more likely to trust Republicans in day-to-day local-level decision-making. There are a lot of people who realize that Cruz and Rubio are more pro-immigrant than Hillary Clinton (unless she's flip-flopped again). The party is in turmoil, but it's not collapsing just yet. It will recover -- the only question is whether it'll Dump Trump and put forth a more positive ticket (I'm still thinking Rubio/Kasich) soon enough to be competitive, or whether Trump will keep being relevant all the way until a brokered convention kicks him to the curb (or worse, he actually carries the nomination) and the election turns into a laugher.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:attempting to make equivalent completely distinct issues. The Dems may have had some within the ranks decrying 'rednecks' .... but that is wholly different than a major candidate whipping up rallies with hatred against Muslims,Mexicans etc

No, not exactly the same thing. But remember Michael Moore being a guest of honor at major Dem events?

frankly, NO, I do not, and I worked for the party in that timeframe. No one with ANY authority would have allowed Moore to be put forth in much of any official capacity. Therein lies the core, and critical difference. Yes, there are extreme outliers in the Dem camp. Always have been, but when they go off the rails, someone WITHIN THE RANKS loudly tells them to sit down and shut up.

Basically everything that's ever come out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz' mouth? Howard Dean's comments about how any gay or minority Republicans must be "out of their minds" (he made those comments as DNC chair, but had been a major candidate in the previous election)? The Democratic party was definitely off its collective rocker in around 2006. And there were definitely a lot of voters who would have supported a left-wing version of Trump in that era, if only Trump had run on the left instead of waiting until now and pretending to be on the right.

absolutely NOTHING herein equates to the level of disgusting filth out of the GOP(largely Trump) camp over the past couple of years. NOTHING. And, if you find equivalency, you are part of the collective problem.

as for those of you in the West, I'll accept your local experience as explaining your ideas about local officials. Here, when we do get a GOP representative or town official, they are complete nihilists, bent on blowing up everything(not literally). I see evidence of the misanthropic, hate-mongering and fear-mongering out of nearly every SURVIVING Republican in the northeast and mid-atlantic down to the Georgia line, so I hope you'll view my opinions as largely based on the losers that have survived the 'cleansing' of the GOP. Here in Delaware it is especially sad, as we had a flourishing Republican party with nationally recognized members and elected officials. All have been kicked to the curb by the radical right wing of the party.

callmeslick wrote:when they go off the rails, someone WITHIN THE RANKS loudly tells them to sit down and shut up.

The Republican establishment seems pretty keen on criticizing Trump.

absolutely NOTHING herein equates to the level of disgusting filth out of the GOP(largely Trump)

I do happen to find equivalency between some of Trump's statements and some of DWS's, in particular, but I don't really care to play the "your side is EXACTLY as bad as mine" game; you're free to disagree about how vile DWS or Michael Moore are relative to Trump (who isn't even a real Republican, but whatever.)

What I'm arguing here isn't equivalency, but precedent -- that we have had times when major parties have lost their way, but there are enough sane people in the power structure to bring them back over the course of a cycle or two. This is no different. The Republican party as a whole will weather Trump, and four years from now at the most, we'll see a primary full of viable moderates.

I'll accept your local experience

I'm not talking about just here. I'm talking about nationwide data. There are a lot of trends suggesting a low-level Republican resurgency. What you're seeing in the northeast is the aberration, rather than the other way around.

Trump isn't a harbinger of things to come. Trump is the last gasp of the death of the crazy-angry wing of the party. He'll fail, and we'll all say "thank God that's over with, can we get back to being a serious party now?", and the local and state victories will mean that two to four years from now there will be a lot of viable Republican challengers to weak Democrats who'll win by default this cycle. It might take a bit longer in places with older and angrier Republicans, but it will happen. The Republican party will move toward the center, and the Dems will overplay their hand thinking they have a "mandate" to move left because of one strong election, and by the midterms or the next general, people will be asking how the Democrats managed to lose so much mindshare so quickly.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:when they go off the rails, someone WITHIN THE RANKS loudly tells them to sit down and shut up.

The Republican establishment seems pretty keen on criticizing Trump.

behind closed doors, perhaps, but certainly nothing public,and as I say, it's the supporters that ought to scare them.

as for your guesstimate about the extreme right, time will tell. I hope you're correct. Frankly, I see all the hallmarks of the few prior examples of parties going bust(happens from the inside out).

Lothar wrote:Trump is the last gasp of the death of the crazy-angry wing of the party. He'll fail, and we'll all say "thank God that's over with, can we get back to being a serious party now?", and the local and state victories will mean that two to four years from now there will be a lot of viable Republican challengers to weak Democrats who'll win by default this cycle.

I hope you are right, but I was saying the same thing after 2008, and again in 2012. This year is way worse than those previous eight. How bad does it have to get? The GOP are on track to handing the election to Clinton. Here only resistance is within her own party.

Quiz for today:

Name 5 prominent Democrats that told Michael Moore to sit down and shut up.

Name any prominent Dem that told the race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton to shut up.

Spidey wrote:Quiz for today:

Name 5 prominent Democrats that told Michael Moore to sit down and shut up.

find me where he was 'prominent' in any campaign as was suggested.

woodchip wrote:Name any prominent Dem that told the race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton to shut up.

oh, please, the bogus equivalence thing again. Once again, though, show me where they 'race baited' in national elections and we can go from there.

Lets see, Trent Lott got hounded out of his job because he said a dead man would of made a good president. Now Strom Thurmond wasn't running for anything or contributing to a national election yet guilt by association got Lott the boot. Here we have a couple of race baiters being prominent spokesmen for the Dems and you think nothing of it.

woodchip wrote:Lets see, Trent Lott got hounded out of his job because he said a dead man would of made a good president. Now Strom Thurmond wasn't running for anything or contributing to a national election yet guilt by association got Lott the boot. Here we have a couple of race baiters being prominent spokesmen for the Dems and you think nothing of it.

that was a long time ago, woody. These are not the GOP with a conscience any more. What happened to Lott was correct. What office did your two examples hold, again? In fact, what offices were they running for? How did those campaigns fare in the Democratic Party?

Didn't know you had to hold office to be prominent. How many times was Sharpton invited to the White House? All those trips makes him very prominent. Stop trying to dilute what is being discussed

woodchip wrote:Didn't know you had to hold office to be prominent. How many times was Sharpton invited to the White House? All those trips makes him very prominent. Stop trying to dilute what is being discussed

you keep saying this, but I know of NO Sharpton visits as an individual to the White House.

“remember Michael Moore being a guest of honor at major Dem events”

“frankly, NO, I do not”

Moore was a guest of honor at the 2004 DNC

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Didn't know you had to hold office to be prominent. How many times was Sharpton invited to the White House? All those trips makes him very prominent. Stop trying to dilute what is being discussed

you keep saying this, but I know of NO Sharpton visits as an individual to the White House.

For someone who portrays themselves as politically astute, you certainly come up short at times:

Obama has been criticized by supporters who believe he has not taken a hard enough stance on race relations. Sharpton, by contrast, has built his career doing the opposite as an outspoken civil-rights activist. Yet Obama and Sharpton have shared a stage publicly, and Sharpton has met with members of Obama’s administration privately over the years. Politico described Sharpton as Obama’s “go-to man on race.”

The outlets reporting Sharpton’s visits used the White House visitors’ logs, so we looked at those figures. At first glance, there are 82 visits logged for Al Sharpton, Alfred Sharpton or Alfred C. Sharpton – all variations of Sharpton’s name.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... -85-times/

So once again you make a totally ignorant reply on a subject without first making the simplest of google searches. Once again you show why your comments are not to be trusted.

Spidey wrote:“remember Michael Moore being a guest of honor at major Dem events”

“frankly, NO, I do not”

Moore was a guest of honor at the 2004 DNC

I'll take your word for it, but couldn't find a link.

woodchip wrote:So once again you make a totally ignorant reply on a subject without first making the simplest of google searches. Once again you show why your comments are not to be trusted.

actually, as your own citation notes, he has met at events(shared a stage), and been part of group events(hence the guest log) plenty of times. And, I'm not about to accept a comment by an unnamed source in politico, as the proof is in the output, he shares little of Sharpton's overall thinking, when one looks at the body of work.

from this one in your own list:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... -85-times/



"Of those 72 visits, five were one-on-one meetings. One of those meetings was marked as scheduled with the president. There were about 50 meetings that list “POTUS” as the visitee, but some of those “meetings” were largely events ranging from 102 guests to 3,262. The events included a tax bill signing event, Supreme Court reception, Superbowl party, Music of the Civil Rights concert, holiday reception and the official arrival ceremony for Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

To recap, of Sharpton’s 72 meetings:
•One-on-one meetings: 5 (7 percent)
•Meetings with staff members or senior advisers, with more than one guest: 20 (27 percent)
•Events with more than 90 people: 16 (22 percent)
•Miscellaneous meetings or events, ranging from 3 to 700 guests: 31 (43 percent)




seems, woody that you cut your quote above conveniently short.

callmeslick wrote:•One-on-one meetings: 5

You're trying really, really hard to try to minimize one set of trends and maximize another. You're going out of your way to diminish the relevance of a guy who has had five one-on-one visits with POTUS, in order to support your assertion that Trump represents an entirely different kind of wackiness that shows a party in decline.

I don't buy it. Democrats were completely off the rails in 2006, and yet came back stronger than ever -- despite ongoing factions of extremism within their own ranks. Right now, Republicans have a loud off-the-rails contingent of Trump/Palin types, but they'll lose to Not-Trump soon enough, and they'll fade into the background, and the party will get its act together.

That it was off the rails even back in 2002, was evidenced by the shameful behavior of the Dems at the Sen. Wellstone funeral.

I repeat, Lothar: Christine O'Donnell. Says it all, and NO, it is nothing like the Dems in 2002, 2006 or any other date you'd care to cite.