You aren't the best at reading people or situations. Dude has no guilt. Not saying he should or shouldn't but nothing he's said has indicated him harboring feelings of guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
Printable View
You aren't the best at reading people or situations. Dude has no guilt. Not saying he should or shouldn't but nothing he's said has indicated him harboring feelings of guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
The reason the tag lines matter is because politicians utilize them to simplify their position and get people to vote based on it, especially if they can spread fear in the process. Look at abortion. It’s obviously not infant murder and it’s not anti women’s rights. The objective in a civil society should be to lessen the number of abortions yearly. All options should be on the table and improved upon so that women don’t feel the need to choose an abortion. It should be both an abstinence and a sex education solution. There should be both improvements in the adoption process as well as the pregnancy process. But instead we have people voting on pro life or pro choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
I agree on your assessment of the trump and Biden campaigns. It’s about winning for them instead of leading. The same was true of Obama as well.
The media plays a huge role in those associations though. The same way some media lump in protestors with rioters/looters, we have media pushing cops murdering civilians as being an epidemic, which it is not. The reason they push those stories is the same reason for tag lines, it’s what sells. People watch Fox News when they don’t like Obama. People watch CNN when they don’t like trump. Round and round on the circle we go... except nothing really changes.
You were the one who was triggered by posting that pathetic tantrum of a post that the "white race" will die out and such nonsense. You are advocating for the genocide of a people. You also completely fail to realize that blacks, hispanics, asians, indians and all other sorts of peoples have conservatives within their demographics, but I'm guessing they don't count because their not "real" minorities who vote democrat. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerSL
Your response says otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper
But I'm open ears, what is it then?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Let's let it play out before you make that insinuation...Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Such a burn coming from a sophisticated pedophile like yourself...Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
I honestly can't even follow your line of thought here. Maybe someone else can explain it to me better?Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice
So if the Senate had a constitutional responsibility to fill the seat then like they do now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper
We all know if the situation was reversed the democrats would be voting on a nominee before the election. This is nothing newQuote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You may eventually be right, but you aren’t yet. What might happen (you keep claiming it would happen) still doesn’t amount to a bag of spit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper
You don’t know squat. See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan255
Elections have consequences. If the Dems had the senate in ‘16 they could have gotten their nominee through. If Clinton could have beaten Trump we wouldn’t have three likely republican judges on the SC. Win elections and you can do stuff like this which has been done before. There’s been 19 confirmations on election years and many that have passed within 45 days of being selected.Quote:
Originally Posted by statquo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who did it first though? Republicans set the precedent, then made a rule justifying it, and now aren't living up to the rule. You can't have one rule apply to one side and then not to the other, that's black and white undemocratic. And if the argument is well the Republicans had the Senate so it was within their power to block it, then we all can agree that Republicans are responsible for Congress being useless in getting things done.
And for the record, I don't give a **** about what happens and blame Democrats just as much for not showing up to vote in 2016 and setting this up to happen.
And Democrats wouldn't have done it to Trump if Republicans hadn't had done it first to Obama let's be real. It would've been completely unjustified. You're torching your system irreparably because all that's going to happen is a Democrat president, Senate and House will expand the bench to 15, pack it, and then a Republican president, Senate, House will expand it further, pack it, and so on and by then the SC has no power or prestige left. Does nobody see this??
Why not just wait anyways? We keep being told the polls are wrong and Trump is going to win the election.
The tag line itself isn't necessarily the issue although often they are extremes themselves, it is the fear and simplifying everything around it that is. To some it might actually be those things, the issue is allowing that to control the narrative from the actual politicians to the whole. That they resort to associating others beliefs who don't think that way in with the extremes is the issue and I agree each team does this plenty. I don't care that a few people have those extreme beliefs nor do I even care if you wanna call it pro life or choice even if a bit over the top. The issue is making it a battle between none or allowing it until after birth or whatever with no regulations when the large majority probably see a middle ground. That's when politicians go too far but it is how they create the animosity towards "the other side".Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
Obama was not nearly the same as the level we have hit but in some ways I agree. The opposition to him was far more over the top than anything we have seen though, he was attacked for the most minor issues regularly in the team game fashion (like birthirism from current POTUS). I don't think he attacked others in nearly the same ways.
Sure, CNN/Fox and many other bad media stations also do this. They are corporations feeding off this divide for profit but the issue is still that politicians play into it to avoid policy for the people as opposed to winning for the team. My point is that people selling something isn't necessarily an issue, it's the extremes they go to. Trump is far and away the biggest/worst example I have seen of this in my life from a politician. He is playing this game for his team harder than even those stations at times.
What needs to change is voting for the hardest team players as opposed to the more policy based politicians. Every politician has tag lines and goes over the top some but not all of them have it as a main component of their appeal. Trump, Biden and even Hillary all were relying on the message of beating the other team. Bernie for 2 elections has had one of the biggest arguments aimed at him that he can't win. Beating Trump and the deplorables has been a major message from both Biden/Hillary. You could take almost any dem and they had much better arguments or focus on policy differences in debates (I named 3 people already but even like Mayor Pete or Steyer this applies to in comparison to Biden, Amy really dug into the "others are extreme" position so exclude her for that). We are going to keep going round and round as long as people remain incapable of deciphering context/difference and devolve everything into a sides matchup.
So long as the sophistication is noted...Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk