Klobuchar Townhall

Harshaw said:

I'm sorry; where does he want a government run by priests in the name of God?

I think you may not know what a theocracy is, even though I provided the definition for you.

If you want an actual theocracy, look at Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

0% support for separation of church and state. I provided the record. Youre denying his past. You fail.

Harshaw said:

That may be the stupidest thing posted this week, and you're on DP, so that's saying something extraordinary.

Apparently you not only don't know what theocracy is, you have no idea what libertarianism is, either.

Click to expand...

Oh, don't worry, it's true. You would require authoritarian government to keep your ideological kindergarten fantasy alive. You'd need to restrict the future vote from reinventing the welfare/social safety nets. You would need authoritarian government to keep all the leaches in line, after their benefits are cut off.

The most stupid post on this forum is acting ignorant and self righteous about the true outcome of your fantasy land ideology.

I used to be a libertarian. When I was a selfish, self centered toddler who was upset about not getting my way.

Obscurity said:

If that's how you want to characterize and demonize your fellow citizens, then have at it.

Click to expand...

LOL, I love that attempt to use emotion after you demonized those on the right as theocrats etc. Pot meet kettle

Obscurity said:

Oh, don't worry, it's true. You would require authoritarian government to keep your ideological kindergarten fantasy alive. You'd need to restrict the future vote from reinventing the welfare/social safety nets. You would need authoritarian government to keep all the leaches in line, after their benefits are cut off.

The most stupid post on this forum is acting ignorant and self righteous about the true outcome of your fantasy land ideology.

I used to be a libertarian. When I was a selfish, self centered toddler who was upset about not getting my way.

Click to expand...

So demanding others support your existence is not selfish? The worst you can claim about libertarians is that they would subject those unable to fend for themselves to benign neglect by the government. Welfare socialists-on the other hand-actively oppress people

TurtleDude said:

LOL, I love that attempt to use emotion after you demonized those on the right as theocrats etc. Pot meet kettle

Click to expand...

Theocrats vs people who need assistance? Sorry, the two do not equate.

TurtleDude said:

So demanding others support your existence is not selfish? The worst you can claim about libertarians is that they would subject those unable to fend for themselves to benign neglect by the government. Welfare socialists-on the other hand-actively oppress people

Click to expand...

No, what it would do is literally leave people in complete and abject poverty, so a few toddlers could feel better about not being taxed.

Your ideology is fantasy land nonsense.

Obscurity said:

Oh, don't worry, it's true. You would require authoritarian government to keep your ideological kindergarten fantasy alive. You'd need to restrict the future vote from reinventing the welfare/social safety nets. You would need authoritarian government to keep all the leaches in line, after their benefits are cut off.

The most stupid post on this forum is acting ignorant and self righteous about the true outcome of your fantasy land ideology.

I used to be a libertarian. When I was a selfish, self centered toddler who was upset about not getting my way.

Click to expand...

This is pants-on-your-head starkers, as is the nonsense about "theocracy."

I'm not surprised you radically changed ideologies; you have all the anger, zeal, and unjustified righteousness that usually comes along with it. There's a reason my dad always told me to never bother with anyone who's changed politics, changed religion (I get the idea you did that, too), or quit smoking. I suppose he'd add "turned vegan" to that list these days.

Obscurity said:

Theocrats vs people who need assistance? Sorry, the two do not equate.

Click to expand...

did you ever review studies on which side of the political aisle is more generous? Now we would expect that the religious right would give far more to religious based charities than the anti-deity left, but when it came to secular donations, conservatives are more generous. Plus, when big bucks liberals "donate", it is often to entities that "study" or advocate more socialist or government redistributive policies, rather than actually helping the poor.

Harshaw said:

This is pants-on-your-head starkers, as is the nonsense about "theocracy."

I'm not surprised you radically changed ideologies; you have all the anger, zeal, and unjustified righteousness that usually comes along with it. There's a reason my dad always told me to never bother with anyone who's changed politics, changed religion (I get the idea you did that, too), or quit smoking. I suppose he'd add "turned vegan" to that list these days.

Click to expand...

They try to do penance and self-flagellation for their "sins" of once being

a smoker
a drinker
a Christian
a hunter or meat eater
or a conservative

because group think and being accepted into the herd is so much more important to the collectivist left

Obscurity said:

No, what it would do is literally leave people in complete and abject poverty, so a few toddlers could feel better about not being taxed.

Your ideology is fantasy land nonsense.

Click to expand...

If you do not

drop out of high school
engage in criminal activities/drug abuse or drug trafficking
wait until you have a steady job before having children

you have less than a one in 20 chance of ending up in poverty

why do lefties subsidize destructive behavior? to create a dependent class that has to vote for said lefties

Harshaw said:

This is pants-on-your-head starkers, as is the nonsense about "theocracy."

I'm not surprised you radically changed ideologies; you have all the anger, zeal, and unjustified righteousness that usually comes along with it. There's a reason my dad always told me to never bother with anyone who's changed politics, changed religion (I get the idea you did that, too), or quit smoking. I suppose he'd add "turned vegan" to that list these days.

Click to expand...

So you have no reply.

Your daddy lied, kid.

TurtleDude said:

did you ever review studies on which side of the political aisle is more generous? Now we would expect that the religious right would give far more to religious based charities than the anti-deity left, but when it came to secular donations, conservatives are more generous. Plus, when big bucks liberals "donate", it is often to entities that "study" or advocate more socialist or government redistributive policies, rather than actually helping the poor.

Click to expand...

I don't care who is more "generous."

Your ideology is a stupefying practice of self enrichment and greed. Claiming charity as some beacon is a ridiculous statement. The hells angels give to charity.

Obscurity said:

Theocrats vs people who need assistance? Sorry, the two do not equate.

Click to expand...

Obscurity said:

I don't care who is more "generous."

Your ideology is a stupefying practice of self enrichment and greed. Claiming charity as some beacon is a ridiculous statement. The hells angels give to charity.

Click to expand...

Yeah, see; you said Pence is a "goddamn theocrat" in part because he wants to legislate and force his "morality" on others, but when you chastise someone for being "selfish" for libertarian political views (which you confuse with moral views), you indicate that you, too, want to force people into your own idea of morality.

That makes you no different.

Harshaw said:

Yeah, see; you said Pence is a "goddamn theocrat" in part because he wants to legislate and force his "morality" on others, but when you chastise someone for being "selfish" for libertarian political views (which you confuse with moral views), you indicate that you, too, want to force people into your own idea of morality.

That makes you no different.

Click to expand...

Pence is a theocrat. He desires no separation of church and state.

The entire premise of your ideological slant is selfishness, masquerading as "wanting the best for all people." It's a devil's drink of stupidity and toddlerish fantasizing.

Obscurity said:

So you have no reply.

Your daddy lied, kid.

Click to expand...

No, a thoughtful person might surmise that you're proving him right. Not that I really needed you to.

Obscurity said:

Pence is a theocrat. He desires no separation of church and state.

The entire premise of your ideological slant is selfishness, masquerading as "wanting the best for all people." It's a devil's drink of stupidity and toddlerish fantasizing.

Click to expand...

Again, this only shows how little you even know about libertarian thought, and that's bonkers; you're also showing exactly how you'd like to force everyone into your own morality.

And it's not something you seem able to appreciate, or even discuss without getting very angry.

Obscurity said:

I don't care who is more "generous."

Your ideology is a stupefying practice of self enrichment and greed. Claiming charity as some beacon is a ridiculous statement. The hells angels give to charity.

Click to expand...

modern day liberalism is usually nothing more than reactionary, parasitic, statism where its advocates engage in all sorts of silly machinations, trying to justify their own greed and envy by pretense of furthering the "Greater good".

Obscurity said:

lol says the guy who lives in "god's country."

Click to expand...

and I do. Sorry, hell isn't full yet, plenty of room for you and your pentagram

Perotista said:

Where a more moderate Democrat would almost guarantee them the White House, I have a feeling the Democrats won't go that route.

Click to expand...

Really? That's weird because contrary to the beliefs of a lot of stupid people out there Hillary Clinton was actually a Moderate. But because she was a moderate who was willing to consider all sides of an issue and work for mutual agreement she got accused of being a two-faced liar even when she told the truth. Meanwhile, Donald Trump was anything but moderate, and despite being the single most dishonest presidential candidate in known American History he was still perceived by many moderate independents as a straight-shooting candidate who told it like it is.

I think you might be surprised to find out that a lot of so-called "Independents" aren't particularly independent. Keep in mind Bernie Sanders technically registers as an "Independent." The sad reality is that there are a lot of voters in this country who really don't vote based on policy positions whatsoever. They vote for the candidate they'd like to have a beer with. Projecting confidence, bravado, and charisma are likely far more important than her moderate views.

MrWonka said:

Really? That's weird because contrary to the beliefs of a lot of stupid people out there Hillary Clinton was actually a Moderate. But because she was a moderate who was willing to consider all sides of an issue and work for mutual agreement she got accused of being a two-faced liar even when she told the truth. Meanwhile, Donald Trump was anything but moderate, and despite being the single most dishonest presidential candidate in known American History he was still perceived by many moderate independents as a straight-shooting candidate who told it like it is.

I think you might be surprised to find out that a lot of so-called "Independents" aren't particularly independent. Keep in mind Bernie Sanders technically registers as an "Independent." The sad reality is that there are a lot of voters in this country who really don't vote based on policy positions whatsoever. They vote for the candidate they'd like to have a beer with. Projecting confidence, bravado, and charisma are likely far more important than her moderate views.

Click to expand...

The only president I would love to have a beer with is Bill Clinton. Yes, our presidential elections are basically beauty contests. With the exception of 2016, the candidate who had the higher favorable rating has won. 2016 set records low or the lowest favorable ratings of any candidates since Gallup began keeping records of it. Trump at 36%, Hillary at 38% now hold the lowest or bottom two slots. Goldwater back in 1964 at 43% had been the lowest until 2016. Charisma also has a lot to do with who wins. Hillary's ho hum campaign and coming across as aloof and elitist along with a personality of a wet mop didn't help her.

Look at past election, charisma, Obama had it, McCain and Romney didn't. Obama won twice. G.W. Bush didn't have much charisma, but he was more down homey than the statues Gore and Kerry, he won twice. Bill Clinton had charisma up the ying yang, he won two fairly easily. 1988 was an election between two drab candidate in G.H.W. Bush and Dukakis. Reagan also had charisma by the bucket full. Carter and Mondale didn't stand a chance.

Now let's look at the favorable ratings.
1976 Carter 63%, Ford 58% Carter won
1980 Carter 54%, Reagan 59% Reagan won
1984 Mondale 54%, Reagan 61% Reagan won
1988 Dukakis 50%, Bush 53% Bush won
1992 Clinton 51%, Bush 46% Clinton won
1996 Clinton 56%, Dole 51% Clinton won
2000 Gore 55%, Bush 58% Bush won
2004 Kerry51%, Bush 52% Bush won
2008 Obama 58%, McCain 55% Obama won
2012 Obama 57%, Romney 51% Obama won
2016 H. Clinton 38%, Trump 36% Trump won, this is the only exception since 1956 where the presidential candidate that won didn't have the higher favorable number.

You should not that only 4 major party presidential candidates ever had a favorable rating of below 50%. G.H.W Bush in 1992, 46%, Goldwater 43% 1964, H. Clinton 38% 2016, Trump 36% 2016.

NeverTrump said:

Klobuchar appealed to moderates last night in saying that she cannot support either free college or medicare for all. People have described her as sane, tough, strong, and smart. A real dark horse in the 2020 race who seems to have the midwestern vote locked up already potentially due to her campaign announcement which was done in a freaking blizzard.



Klobuchar opts for pragmatic approach in town hall

Click to expand...

So, is she instead in favor of no changes whatsoever to either issue, and continuing with the status quo because it's good for America?
Just "easing restrictions on refinancing student loans, as well as expanding Pell Grants program" doesn't help people who can't even fork over in the first place, it doesn't help control tuition costs, it doesn't lay down a path toward strengthening desperately STEM curricula for a generation who are bound to need it if they ever want a decent job outside of the trades, and "looking forward to M4A - some time maybe in the future" doesn't do anything for people who are desperately in need of affordable health care now.

So in essence, she is a do nothing nobody, at least so far. I am not interested in kicking the can down the road for four years and I guarantee you anybody with two brain cells can destroy the warmed over rehashed insurance company funded studies that say that M4A is socialism, communism, nationalized government takeover of health care and an attack on FREEDUMB.

Amy Klobuchar appeals to suburban moms with large amygdalas and too many Trumpist friends...so far at least.
Maybe if she sits down with Sherrod Brown or talks about his approach and whether it might be workable, I might change my view.

NeverTrump said:

Klobuchar appealed to moderates last night in saying that she cannot support either free college or medicare for all. People have described her as sane, tough, strong, and smart. A real dark horse in the 2020 race who seems to have the midwestern vote locked up already potentially due to her campaign announcement which was done in a freaking blizzard.



Klobuchar opts for pragmatic approach in town hall

Click to expand...

If Democrats want to be taken seriously at all and actually win, they will have to abandon the socialist policies. And, Howard Schulz is watching over them. If they go bananas with a socialist nominee, Schultz will run and Trump will probably win. Will Democrats be smart? Too early to tell. I will seriously consider anyone on the Democratic side who is not a far left liberal or socialist. But, they'd better be sincere about it. If they don't appeal to ANYONE on the right then they are not a moderate. I will be anxiously waiting to hear which conservative policies they can live with.

NeverTrump said:

It'll be fun watching Trump freak out about the impending release of the peetape and his children being arrested.

Click to expand...

There you go. You actually start out making a decent thread (for once) and then immediately turn it into a "Me Hate Trump" thread. Sorry, no pee tapes and it is very doubtful that any of his children will be arrested. But, I see you have given up on Trump being arrested himself because you didn't even mention that.

MrWonka said:

Really? That's weird because contrary to the beliefs of a lot of stupid people out there Hillary Clinton was actually a Moderate. But because she was a moderate who was willing to consider all sides of an issue and work for mutual agreement she got accused of being a two-faced liar even when she told the truth. Meanwhile, Donald Trump was anything but moderate, and despite being the single most dishonest presidential candidate in known American History he was still perceived by many moderate independents as a straight-shooting candidate who told it like it is.

I think you might be surprised to find out that a lot of so-called "Independents" aren't particularly independent. Keep in mind Bernie Sanders technically registers as an "Independent." The sad reality is that there are a lot of voters in this country who really don't vote based on policy positions whatsoever. They vote for the candidate they'd like to have a beer with. Projecting confidence, bravado, and charisma are likely far more important than her moderate views.

Click to expand...

Hillary's problem was twofold: 1. she was part of an unwanted dynasties. No dynasties are wanted. That's why Bush lost. 2. Hillary was a crook. Lefties wrongly believe that she lost because she was a moderate, therefore the way to win is move further left.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

So, is she instead in favor of no changes whatsoever to either issue, and continuing with the status quo because it's good for America?
Just "easing restrictions on refinancing student loans, as well as expanding Pell Grants program" doesn't help people who can't even fork over in the first place, it doesn't help control tuition costs, it doesn't lay down a path toward strengthening desperately STEM curricula for a generation who are bound to need it if they ever want a decent job outside of the trades, and "looking forward to M4A - some time maybe in the future" doesn't do anything for people who are desperately in need of affordable health care now.

So in essence, she is a do nothing nobody, at least so far. I am not interested in kicking the can down the road for four years and I guarantee you anybody with two brain cells can destroy the warmed over rehashed insurance company funded studies that say that M4A is socialism, communism, nationalized government takeover of health care and an attack on FREEDUMB.

Amy Klobuchar appeals to suburban moms with large amygdalas and too many Trumpist friends...so far at least.
Maybe if she sits down with Sherrod Brown or talks about his approach and whether it might be workable, I might change my view.

Click to expand...

Jumping off the end of the Earth is not a good policy. All the stuff socialists want sound absolutely wonderful. Another Great Depression does not.