All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[catbellysqueezer]

And another user ignored.

Don't have time for lecturing on what an idiot I was because I didn't vote correctly and therefore I'm disqualified from engaging in discussions.

Again; go after people who didn't vote at all.

The responses in this thread have made me even less likely to vote for a Democrat. It's like they have all their posts pre-screened by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The responses in this thread have made me even less likely to vote for a Democrat. It's like they have all their posts pre-screened by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Then don't bitch if you get more of Trump and the associated GOP madness and larceny.

[catbellysqueezer]

Then don't bitch if you get more of Trump and the associated GOP madness and larceny.

If there weren't so many people like you voting for terrible candidates (aka future industry lobbyists) we wouldn't have to worry about people like Trump.

[Iron Maiden]

The responses in this thread have made me even less likely to vote for a Democrat. It's like they have all their posts pre-screened by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

She's not the DNC chairperson and hasn't been for the past two years. Why is it relevant to bring her up now?

[catbellysqueezer]

She's not the DNC chairperson and hasn't been for the past two years. Why is it relevant to bring her up now?

Because the comments being posted here are like slightly reworded leaked DNC emails.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The responses in this thread have made me even less likely to vote for a Democrat. It's like they have all their posts pre-screened by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I wouldn’t say they pushed me that far. But this thread has always had a stain of entitlement when it comes to votes. Very dogmatic about the Democratic Party and a focus less on policy substance and more on the score card. Which is funny because there was a lot of chest thumping over being a big tent party, except when people realized that a big tent party might mean son irreconcilable differences.

Either way it’s kind of futile. It dissolved into whining strawnans about purity tests. It’s like no, you support certain candidates that are antithesis of left wing progressive values. It’s not about being 90% of the way there and wanting 100% it’s about this 30% that lbs absolutely against the core of what they believe. When the main things are your primary focus, the periphery and not having an R next to your name isn’t that compelling. Especially if you vote on substance and not for a fucking team. Like I’ll be real blunt, if the next Republican Presidential candidate has a real plan for universal healthcare and a plan to crackdown on Wall Street regulations and was going to push for raising the minimum wage, I wouldn’t care if I disagreed with the rest of their platform. It’s not a purity test. It’s about a core set of values.

[GindyPosts]

I'm only going to say this one more time, and if you don't want to look at it factually, tough ****. Go pester other people because I did not vote correctly in your opinion.

Trump got 56.9% of Indiana's popular vote in 2016.

Hillary got 37.9%. All other candidates (Stein, Johnson, any write-in candidate) got 5.2%.

Assuming all the "protest voters" had, in your ideal state of mind, voted for Hillary, she would have still been crushed by a margin of 56.9% to 43.1%, and since the popular vote doesn't win elections in this country (unfortunately), my vote was still thrown away because I'm not an Evangelical Protestant who only cares about guns and banning abortions in the Mississippi of the Midwest. Only four counties voted Hillary.

Numbers don't lie in this situation.

[catbellysqueezer]

They're even telling me I should vote for Democrats who voted against the ACA.

Sorry, but I'm trying to get universal health care sometime before the end of the next century.

[GindyPosts]

The responses in this thread have made me even less likely to vote for a Democrat. It's like they have all their posts pre-screened by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Unlike some people, I'm happy calling myself a liberal. Just because wing nuts spent decades turning it into something vile sounding doesn't mean the philosophy refracts their narrow world view where capitalism solves everything and the needs of the rich are utmost importance.

And because I didn't vote for one particular candidate once, i should just buy a MAGA hat, apparently. I've voted Democratic in every election since I registered except for one instance and I'm unclean.

[catbellysqueezer]

Unlike some people, I'm happy calling myself a liberal. Just because wing nuts spent decades turning it into something vile sounding doesn't mean the philosophy refracts their narrow world view where capitalism solves everything and the needs of the rich are utmost importance.

And because I didn't vote for one particular candidate once, i should just buy a MAGA hat, apparently. I've voted Democratic in every election since I registered except for one instance and I'm unclean.

They think this is a step in the right direction:

"In 2003, he was one of just 16 Democrats to vote for President Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[24]

From 2003 through 2005, $14.7 billion in crop subsidies went to the congressional districts of members on the House Committee on Agriculture, an analysis by the non-partisan Environmental Working Group found. That was 42.4% of the total subsidies. Peterson is reported to have brought $874 million to his District.[40] In Peterson's district, which includes sugar beets, wheat and poultry, 58% of the $2.8 billion paid out in crop subsidies from 1995 to 2005 went to 10% of recipients, according to the Environmental Working Group, which tracks farm spending. The chairman says he has no problem with that. "Ten percent of the farmers produce 90% of the food," he says.

In 2004, he joined with Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch in suing the state of North Dakota over what they argued were discriminatory laws that forbade non-North Dakota residents from hunting during the first week of the waterfowl hunting season.[41] Their case was rejected by the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, a decision which was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[42]

In January 2005, he was selected by the House Democratic Caucus to succeed former Texas Congressman Charlie Stenholm as the Ranking Member on the Committee on Agriculture. He became the committee's chairman after the Democrats won control of the House two years later.

Peterson was a cosponsor of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2005[43][44] which would provide job protection for three million illegal immigrant agricultural workers and their families, and extend the visas of legal immigrant agricultural workers.

In December 2005, Peterson joined four Republicans to form the Second Amendments, a rock and country band.[45]

Along with John Conyers, in April 2006 Peterson brought an action against George W. Bush and others alleging violations of the Constitution in the passing of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.[46] The case (Conyers v. Bush) was ultimately dismissed.[47]

Peterson was one of the few Democrats to vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[48]

In May 2007, Peterson was the lone Democrat to vote against the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.[49]

On January 28, 2009, Peterson was amongst the seven Democrats who voted in the House together with the unanimous Republican opposition against President Obama's stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).[50][51]

In April 2009, Peterson voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.[52]

On May 6, 2009, Peterson voiced his opposition to climate change legislation proposed by the Obama Administration saying, "I will not support any kind of climate change bill – even if you fix this – because I don't trust anybody anymore. I've had it." Peterson predicted that an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to assess indirect effects of ethanol production on greenhouse gas emissions, combined with the climate change legislation, could "kill off corn ethanol."[53]

On July 27, 2009, a controversy erupted after Peterson was quoted in a Politico.com article saying, "25 percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down. That's why I don't do town meetings." The state Republican Party denounced the remark as "outrageous and offensive". Peterson apologized for the comment, which he described as "off-hand".[54]

On March 21, 2010, Peterson voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[55]

In 2010, he was endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee[56] and the National Rifle Association.[57]

In 2011, he co-sponsored HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.[58] The bill contained an exception for "forcible rape," which opponents criticized as potentially excluding drug-facilitated rape, date rape, and other forms of rape.[59] The bill also allowed an exception for minors who are victims of incest"

[aja_christopher]

They think this is a step in the right direction

I think not dodging the fact that Hillary was an early proponent of universal health care -- and was punished for it in later elections -- would be a step in the right direction.... along with supporting similar candidates in the future instead of repeatedly losing to Republicans like Bush and Trump due to division.

But you do you.

And note: I'm not telling you how to vote -- I'm just pointing out the fact that universal health care was one of Hillary's earliest priorities.

[BeastieRunner]

Someone at the White House, probably John Kelly or Mad Dog Mattis convinced him it wouldn't be any cheaper, and it would be political suicide to push forward on this only a week before election day.

Yeah, that would be my guess. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in the Oval Office when Major Dad and/or Mad Dog had to break the news to the Tyrant Toddler than his precious parade was an albatross the GOP couldn't afford and would have to be scrapped. And you can bet the mortgage and the kid's college fund Trump whined like a five year denied cookies before dinner because he wouldn't get to have his ego stroked by the Armed Forces which was what that had been all about from jump street.

I had a luncheon with Mattis a week & a half ago.

He lectured on if the top won't lead, you have to.

He called Trump an idiot.

He told somebody that asked why work with Trump? "To prevent World War Three."

[Iron Maiden]

I'm only going to say this one more time, and if you don't want to look at it factually, tough ****. Go pester other people because I did not vote correctly in your opinion.

Trump got 56.9% of Indiana's popular vote in 2016.

Hillary got 37.9%. All other candidates (Stein, Johnson, any write-in candidate) got 5.2%.

Assuming all the "protest voters" had, in your ideal state of mind, voted for Hillary, she would have still been crushed by a margin of 56.9% to 43.1%, and since the popular vote doesn't win elections in this country (unfortunately), my vote was still thrown away because I'm not an Evangelical Protestant who only cares about guns and banning abortions in the Mississippi of the Midwest. Only four counties voted Hillary.

Numbers don't lie in this situation.

I can sympathize with that. I am old enough to remember when Indiana was a blue state because of the population centers up where I live in NW Indiana and Indianapolis, etc. voted Democratic. Seems like the rural voters and the evangelicals are the power base now. Theoretically, our state reps up here don't even have to show up anymore because of the super majority in the house.

We had 2 Democratic governors in a row with Bayh and O'Bannon, who died in office and the lieutenant governor served out his term. That was in 1989 to 2005 since Bayh served two terms. We'll see what happens in 2020. Will people have had enough of Trump by then? Obama did win Indiana in the first term but lost to Romney in the second so there has been a shift. It remains to be seen if it will shift back again.

[PaulBullion]

The responses in this thread have made me even less likely to vote for a Democrat. It's like they have all their posts pre-screened by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The white fratboyness of that post is blinding. Lemme get my shades!

[Dalak]

They're even telling me I should vote for Democrats who voted against the ACA.

Sorry, but I'm trying to get universal health care sometime before the end of the next century.

While I can post several people trying to find out who you had the option to vote for and/or who you wrote in, I don't think anyone has told you to vote for anyone specific. Yet another lie from the the new Troll on campus, who was defended by another with the ironic line:

Because that’s not the argument people are making.

Well, so far I've seen lots of bitching about arguments no one has actually made and deflections from what's actually been said as opposed to any attempt at actual discussion. By all means though: Keep complaining about everyone else while praising yourself for your ideology as it makes it easier to spot those who don't actually care about what they claim.