ODT: Donkey Shitshow 4.0 [Now even bigger with 1000% More Tulsi!]

[sctrojan]

You’re a buffoon. He did no such thing. He just doesn’t live in a dichotomous universe like you do.

And how many times will I have to tell you in the US govt - we have the ruling and the opposition - there is not magical 3rd independents that somehow have equal power - most of the independents in the senate (Bernie and Angus) side with the dems.


So give me a fucking break about not wanting to live in the dichotomous world - you have no other option you nincompoop. Either you're with Trump or you're against him and in which case vote for the Dems.

[sctrojan]

Do you ever bother to read anything anyone here says? Like... seriously. Either you have a reading disability or just can’t comprehend what we’re saying. Personally, I think you just like creating poorly-crafted strawmen to have something to attack.

He said that he didn't want to vote for Beto because of his anti gun and anti religious stances - which means that TTU is pro gun and pro religion. Or is there a 3rd interpretation like a magical 3rd party candidate that can beat the dems and the repubs?

[Deschet]

And how many times will I have to tell you in the US govt - we have the ruling and the opposition - there is not magical 3rd independents that somehow have equal power - most of the independents in the senate (Bernie and Angus) side with the dems.


So give me a fucking break about not wanting to live in the dichotomous world - you have no other option you nincompoop. Either you're with Trump or you're against him and in which case vote for the Dems.

But that’s just it. Neither TTU or I have said we won’t vote for a Democratic candidate. To the contrary, we’ve both said we would do just that. Where you fail — at least one way in which you fail, as there are many — is that you think that, if you aren’t obsequious in your support for each and every Democratic candidate, you equate that to voicing your support for Trump. The Democratic candidates, in order to be better-equipped to face Trump, must receive feedback. We have to be critical. This is why I say you live in a dichotomous universe. It’s not that we’re looking to vote for an independent. Neither he, nor I, have said that we’re going that route in 2020; only that we have in the past. Do you get it? Or, should I use smaller words, much like Trump uses?

[Deschet]

He said that he didn't want to vote for Beto because of his anti gun and anti religious stances - which means that TTU is pro gun and pro religion. Or is there a 3rd interpretation like a magical 3rd party candidate that can beat the dems and the repubs?

You lack any form of nuance. And, once again, you’re seeing things as black and white. You can be for increased gun regulations and not be for banning guns or for the unlimited proliferation of guns. You can be for religious freedoms and not believe that religion and politics should be inexorably tied to one another.

It’s not a third interpretation. It’s finding a middle ground between the extremes. You are what is wrong with both parties. You demand an all-or-nothing stance on each position, as interpreted by the extreme positions. You’re no better than the religious zealot who wants to amass guns and live in a theocracy. Most people are not so extreme in their beliefs.

[sctrojan]

But that’s just it. Neither TTU or I have said we won’t vote for a Democratic candidate. To the contrary, we’ve both said we would do just that. Where you fail — at least one way in which you fail, as there are many — is that you think that, if you aren’t obsequious in your support for each and every Democratic candidate, you equate that to voicing your support for Trump. The Democratic candidates, in order to be better-equipped to face Trump, must receive feedback. We have to be critical. This is why I say you live in a dichotomous universe. It’s not that we’re looking to vote for an independent. Neither he, nor I, have said that we’re going that route in 2020; only that we have in the past. Do you get it? Or, should I use smaller words, much like Trump uses?

I contend that every democrat has better ideas than Trump - there is no 3rd party candidate nor a republican challenger to Trump that we can look at their policies and say yes they are better than Beto or Warren or Bernie.

I hope you vote for the democrat - because I can't take 4 more years of Trump. This guy's gotta go. I actually don't mind some of his decisions - to his credit the illegals flowing into the US has stopped/slowed

[tOSUfanboi2]

From the top.

He is young and charismatic. There’s one problem. If you thought evangelicals came out in droves to lend support to anyone running against Obama, imagine the lengths they would go to support the guy running against a openly gay candidate. Granted, they aren’t voting for any Democratic candidate, but if we as a country weren’t ready for a black candidate decades after interracial marriage was legalized, I doubt many in the nation are ready for this.

Barring something exceptional on Biden’s part, I think he’s done. For many Americans, Trump’s disinformation campaign has done its job: it cast the seeds of doubt for many moderates on the fence.

If he somehow got the nod, he, and not Warren, is Hillary 2.0. He has all of her negatives without any of her positives. If you want the candidate that’s safe but inspires no one... Biden is your guy.

Warren had the fiery rhetoric going on, but while she seems to have a game plan, I doubt it plays out well in the Heartland. What scares me about Warren is that Trump and his people very much want her to get the nod, as she’s a stark contrast on which they feel Trump could capitalize. Could she fluster Trump? Maybe, but in all likelihood, probably not.

Agreed on Yang and Castro. The allure to either of them is that they can bring youth to the crop of septuagenarians running who are considered the current front runners.

Beto has sank his own ship. He’s also pretty fake.

Gabbard? Interesting. She’s one of the candidates that frightens the Left base of the party. On the one side, she’ll attract more from the middle but runs the risk of not energizing the base.

I don’t see this election as being like the one between Romney and Obama. In that election, I don’t think we had an honestly horrible choice. I didn’t like Romney but I never saw him as being evil. A plutocrat? Yes. Elitist? Sure. A sellout to the then current vox populi of the Republican Party? As with McCain, that’s the reality in which we now live. To this end, I’d basically vote for any of these people over Trump, who is actually an existential threat and thus must lose. If Romney challenges him for the Republican nomination — if the GOP would even allow him to — that would make this a far more difficult choice.

Uh what? Barack Obama served for 8 years and left office with a pretty good approval rating. How is that “not ready” exactly? Do we need to have universal support to count as ready?

I’m not sure how this narrative has been crafted about Obama, but it’s never made any sense to me. Yes, there was an extremely vocal minority that said some horrible things about him. Do you know who else that applies to? Pretty much every other modern president. You had the Reagan is the antichrist people (he was shot, by the way), Bush was a senile and sick old man, Clinton was a man whore that sold us out to China, Bush 2 was a war monger (ok maybe that one was fair), Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim, and now Trump is seemingly Satan himself.

The sad truth is (and again, part of why I’m not participating anymore), politics is a gruesome and ugly contact sport. A minority of people on both sides say horrible things about their opponents, regardless of whether or not they’re true, and those ludicrous theories and insults are plastered on to everyone who disagrees with them.

[DSMoneypit]

From the top.

He is young and charismatic. There’s one problem. If you thought evangelicals came out in droves to lend support to anyone running against Obama, imagine the lengths they would go to support the guy running against a openly gay candidate. Granted, they aren’t voting for any Democratic candidate, but if we as a country weren’t ready for a black candidate decades after interracial marriage was legalized, I doubt many in the nation are ready for this.

Barring something exceptional on Biden’s part, I think he’s done. For many Americans, Trump’s disinformation campaign has done its job: it cast the seeds of doubt for many moderates on the fence.

If he somehow got the nod, he, and not Warren, is Hillary 2.0. He has all of her negatives without any of her positives. If you want the candidate that’s safe but inspires no one... Biden is your guy.

Warren had the fiery rhetoric going on, but while she seems to have a game plan, I doubt it plays out well in the Heartland. What scares me about Warren is that Trump and his people very much want her to get the nod, as she’s a stark contrast on which they feel Trump could capitalize. Could she fluster Trump? Maybe, but in all likelihood, probably not.

Agreed on Yang and Castro. The allure to either of them is that they can bring youth to the crop of septuagenarians running who are considered the current front runners.

Beto has sank his own ship. He’s also pretty fake.

Gabbard? Interesting. She’s one of the candidates that frightens the Left base of the party. On the one side, she’ll attract more from the middle but runs the risk of not energizing the base.

I don’t see this election as being like the one between Romney and Obama. In that election, I don’t think we had an honestly horrible choice. I didn’t like Romney but I never saw him as being evil. A plutocrat? Yes. Elitist? Sure. A sellout to the then current vox populi of the Republican Party? As with McCain, that’s the reality in which we now live. To this end, I’d basically vote for any of these people over Trump, who is actually an existential threat and thus must lose. If Romney challenges him for the Republican nomination — if the GOP would even allow him to — that would make this a far more difficult choice.

I'm really tired of that argument. During 2007 and 8, I spent significant time in several cities (Indianapolis, the twin cities, Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix working as a catastrophe adjuster. Inprobably talked to 4 or 5 thousand random people during that time from Insureds, other adjusters, and servers at restaurants. The majority of the people who mentioned race as a motivating purpose for their votes, were voting for Obama. Now I'm not saying that there probably weren't a lot of people votong against him because he was black, because there more than likely were. I just think that while argument was a crutch because the left don't want to admit they really fucked up a lot of things during his presidency.

[Deschet]

I think I can just say Birther Movement and stop there. There were lots and lots of people on that train. I’m not talking about the PBR types who openly espoused racial epithets. I’m talking about the more subtle brand of racism and yes, guys, the whole Birther bullshit was racially charged.

I get that all Presidents have their critics. But this was unprecedented. Using a racially-motivated conspiracy theory to disqualify an election.

[daCat]

I think I can just say Birther Movement and stop there. There were lots and lots of people on that train. I’m not talking about the PBR types who openly espoused racial epithets. I’m talking about the more subtle brand of racism and yes, guys, the whole Birther bullshit was racially charged.

I get that all Presidents have their critics. But this was unprecedented. Using a racially-motivated conspiracy theory to disqualify an election.

But this has precedence. Making an assumption and then calling it fact and creating charges based on that. The story gets bigger each time it's told. And so the monster grows.

[Deschet]

But this has precedence. Making an assumption and then calling it fact and creating charges based on that. The story gets bigger each time it's told. And so the monster grows.

Yeah. I’m not sure if this was quite the same thing as “the same ole’ thing”. I mean, I remember when you were briefly on the Birther band wagon. My mother still believes that shit. Lots of people still do.

[tOSUfanboi2]

I think I can just say Birther Movement and stop there. There were lots and lots of people on that train. I’m not talking about the PBR types who openly espoused racial epithets. I’m talking about the more subtle brand of racism and yes, guys, the whole Birther bullshit was racially charged.

I get that all Presidents have their critics. But this was unprecedented. Using a racially-motivated conspiracy theory to disqualify an election.

Yeah, no it wasn’t, but okay.

[tOSUfanboi2]

Yeah. I’m not sure if this was quite the same thing as “the same ole’ thing”. I mean, I remember when you were briefly on the Birther band wagon. My mother still believes that shit. Lots of people still do.

Lots of people think Tupac is still alive, that doesn’t mean they represent us as a nation.

[daCat]

Yeah. I’m not sure if this was quite the same thing as “the same ole’ thing”. I mean, I remember when you were briefly on the Birther band wagon. My mother still believes that shit. Lots of people still do.

I may have used birtherism to stir up shit here, but no. He was born to an American mother so it really doesn't matter where.

[Deschet]

I may have used birtherism to stir up shit here, but no. He was born to an American mother so it really doesn't matter where.

Okay. Fair. But seriously, there are a lot of people who still believe it... including our President, who has recently backtracked on his backtracking of Obama’s birthplace and legal status.

[sctrojan]

Now I know why repubs are so in love with Tulsi

Hillary Clinton appears to suggest Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

It all makes sense. Tulsi has not been critical of Bashar Al Assad and the Russian presence