US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[Cannot think of a name]

What solutions would that be?

Job training that pays them and doesn't let go unless they quit or it gets a job for them, maybe?

When job training was proposed, did the opposition push for pay during it or fight against job training full stop? Because the former, they probably could have gotten. Without looking, I'd be willing to bet that pay during job training or in fact the social safety net that would cover living expenses while someone retrains for employment was also fought against full stop by the opposition. I mean, it's great that you all are on board with that now, because I bet you that shit could get done tomorrow and you'd look like fucking heroes.

So...is that part of the Republican platform? Or are you just bringing up suggestions that you know that the Republicans in office would oppose and wondering why Democrats don't do them?

[Uiiop]

Job training that pays them and doesn't let go unless they quit or it gets a job for them, maybe?

When job training was proposed, did the opposition push for pay during it or fight against job training full stop? Because the former, they probably could have gotten. Without looking, I'd be willing to bet that pay during job training or in fact the social safety net that would cover living expenses while someone retrains for employment was also fought against full stop by the opposition. I mean, it's great that you all are on board with that now, because I bet you that shit could get done tomorrow and you'd look like fucking heroes.

So...is that part of the Republican platform? Or are you just bringing up suggestions that you know that the Republicans in office would oppose and wondering why Democrats don't do them?

Latter. We are talking about ideas that would causes swing blocks so ideally the republicans wold have less power to oppose it.

[Cannot think of a name]

When job training was proposed, did the opposition push for pay during it or fight against job training full stop? Because the former, they probably could have gotten. Without looking, I'd be willing to bet that pay during job training or in fact the social safety net that would cover living expenses while someone retrains for employment was also fought against full stop by the opposition. I mean, it's great that you all are on board with that now, because I bet you that shit could get done tomorrow and you'd look like fucking heroes.

So...is that part of the Republican platform? Or are you just bringing up suggestions that you know that the Republicans in office would oppose and wondering why Democrats don't do them?

Latter. We are talking about ideas that would causes swing blocks so ideally the republicans wold have less power to oppose it.

Well, they do. Because in addition to the retraining programs, democrats are traditionally in favor of the social safety net that would provide living expenses and job assistance to the un and under employed.

But the republicans scream that's socialism. And then out of the other side of their mouths talk about how the democrats don't care about the poor.

Trying to have it both ways it seems.

[Tobleste]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats%e2%80%99-newest-midterm-pitch-a-crackdown-on-corruption/ar-AAxzAan?ocid=spartanntp



This coming from the Democrat leadership, who sold their souls to the Clinton machine in 2016 is hilariously sad.

They do need a better message, but trying to pretend "hey, we're totally not corrupt guys, unlike Trump over there" is not it.

I sincerely doubt any message would alleviate claims of Democrats lacking a message.

Exactly. Apparently republicans are mentioning trump in their campaigns more than democrats. These constant complaints about democrats not having a 'message' or indulging in 'identity politics' comes from people who either just don't like democrats or don't like what they're saying.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I sincerely doubt any message would alleviate claims of Democrats lacking a message.

Exactly. Apparently republicans are mentioning trump in their campaigns more than democrats. These constant complaints about democrats not having a 'message' or indulging in 'identity politics' comes from people who either just don't like democrats or don't like what they're saying.

Contrary to these assumptions, I am neither of these.

I just don't like it when people piss on my leg and then try to tell me it's raining.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I sincerely doubt any message would alleviate claims of Democrats lacking a message.

It's like a church call and response.

"Here is our message."

"You have no message!"

The congregation is dismissed.

Dismissing it without substance is just ceremony at this point.

Considering I just said their message was garbage, my objection is not a lack of message. It's that they truly believe that telling people they're not corrupt after they were fucking outed as corrupt after the Wasserman-Schultz scandal is fucking pathetic.

Not even their leadership has changed. Under which circumstances am I to believe they have fixed their ways and that the Dems are truly the anti-corruption party? So far, if they were so bent on it, they'd have ousted everyone in the leadership. They have not. So I have no reason to believe they are trying to be the party that truly gets corruption out of Washington DC. It's a joke of a message, and if you like to vote based on a joke, I won't stop you.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ha.

"Out-of-work miners cite many reasons beyond faith in Trump policy for their reluctance to train for new industries, according to Reuters interviews with more than a dozen former and prospective coal workers, career counselors and local economic development officials. They say mining pays well; other industries are unfamiliar; and there’s no income during training and no guarantee of a job afterward."

Unless we can get a breakdown about how many miner are reluctant for which reasons we can't one way or the other which is more dominat.
That said there is some complaints that can be addressed at least in messaging.

The problem is this, plenty of those people are scared to horizontally switch jobs, and who wouldn't when coal mining is manual labor and all they know how to do is manual labor?

In the end, you have to provide incentives for people to switch jobs, but when the best job they could find with retraining is at fucking Walmart or other retail chain, restaurant chain, or working with a shovel for much less than they used to, I'm not exactly sure I would blame them for not wanting to switch careers. Switching careers is intimidating for a lot of people. Some of us can adapt to circumstances and just jump in and learn the trade and do our job well, but they are the exception, not the rule.

[Luminesa]

Not pandering, laying out actual solutions for them. If the Rust Belt keeps trending Republican it'll become much more difficult for the Dems to win POTUS until other parts of the country shift more towards them demographically.

What solutions would that be?

Giving lasting and stable support to farmers who are important to the economy, reduction of crime in big cities like Chicago via SWAT interference, housing developments, adding new workplaces in the cities to create jobs, improving the education systems by sending more funding to schools in these areas, building hospitals and private clinics so people in rural areas can access them, etc.

[Freezic Vast]

What solutions would that be?

Giving lasting and stable support to farmers who are important to the economy, reduction of crime in big cities like Chicago via SWAT interference, housing developments, adding new workplaces in the cities to create jobs, improving the education systems by sending more funding to schools in these areas, building hospitals and private clinics so people in rural areas can access them, etc.

I'd vote for that, sadly no party will actually do all that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What solutions would that be?

Giving lasting and stable support to farmers who are important to the economy, reduction of crime in big cities like Chicago via SWAT interference, housing developments, adding new workplaces in the cities to create jobs, improving the education systems by sending more funding to schools in these areas, building hospitals and private clinics so people in rural areas can access them, etc.

I mean, to be fair, manual labor is still needed, or at least machine-assisted labor.

If the workers in those industries had more worker's rights, and they wouldn't be fucked over by our increasingly demand for technological answers (*cough*Amazon*cough*) then it'd be less of an issue.

As it stands tho they have very little protections as is. In terms of either job security or a decent wage.

[Luminesa]

Giving lasting and stable support to farmers who are important to the economy, reduction of crime in big cities like Chicago via SWAT interference, housing developments, adding new workplaces in the cities to create jobs, improving the education systems by sending more funding to schools in these areas, building hospitals and private clinics so people in rural areas can access them, etc.

I mean, to be fair, manual labor is still needed, or at least machine-assisted labor.

If the workers in those industries had more worker's rights, and they wouldn't be fucked over by our increasingly demand for technological answers (*cough*Amazon*cough*) then it'd be less of an issue.

As it stands tho they have very little protections as is. In terms of either job security or a decent wage.

Amazon is sad you do not want to be an Amazon Prime Citizen. Elon Musk is coming to burn down your house with a cyber dragon.

[Cannot think of a name]

It's like a church call and response.

"Here is our message."

"You have no message!"

The congregation is dismissed.

Dismissing it without substance is just ceremony at this point.

Considering I just said their message was garbage, my objection is not a lack of message. It's that they truly believe that telling people they're not corrupt after they were fucking outed as corrupt after the Wasserman-Schultz scandal is fucking pathetic.

Not even their leadership has changed. Under which circumstances am I to believe they have fixed their ways and that the Dems are truly the anti-corruption party? So far, if they were so bent on it, they'd have ousted everyone in the leadership. They have not. So I have no reason to believe they are trying to be the party that truly gets corruption out of Washington DC. It's a joke of a message, and if you like to vote based on a joke, I won't stop you.

This would be more convincing if it were substantive instead of handwavy. If it actually engaged with the plan instead of half assed talking points. I'm supposed to put a DNC chair having a preference on par with a pay to play administration? Sorry, I'm not a child. Wasserman-Shultz resigned, she's not the leader of the party anymore and the party forced her out.

Further, you know they're not just saying 'corruption' like it's a magic word, right? That they have specific things that effect specific issues?

Like voter access:

This includes bolstering the capacity of the Election Assistance Commission and providing states with the resources needed to protect our election infrastructure. At the same time, we must make it easier for Americans to vote by pursuing automatic voter registration. This will improve the registration files and the security of elections, all the while helping to build a more representative electorate. Congress must also restore voting protections for those voters in states with a recent history of discrimination. Finally, Congress can put an end to partisan gerrymandering by requiring all states to establish independent, multi-party citizen redistricting commissions to draw open and transparent statewide district maps after each decennial census.

Is Wasserman-Shultz somehow making that not viable or a bad plan? Is this 'just the same' as Republican policy of voter disenfranchisement and closing polling in poorer areas or shortening hours? Do we just not do this because the mean ol' Clintons?

Also, in the article that both you and I quoted, the mentioned closing the loophole that Cohen went through to sell access to the president by changing the rules regarding lobbying so that Cohen would have to have registered as a lobbyist.

Do we not do that because the self dealing of the current Republican administration is preferable to voting for people who might have known Debbie and therefore didn't jump off a cliff?

Creating a legal requirement for presidential candidates to release their tax release, is that not a thing because the DNC preferred Clinton over Bernie?

Statutes against lobbyists holding cabinet positions over the industries they lobbied for...we're not going to do that because the primaries didn't go the way we wanted?

Independent districting commissions...we're not going to do that because somethingsomething Clinton? Increasing the Election Assistance Committee resources...we're not going to talk about that because everyone didn't resign?

Please.

Have the conversation. Discuss the actual policy. Don't come to me with this whiny baggage pretending it's analysis. Maybe some of this shit won't work, maybe some of it won't get passed, certainly the amendment to undo Citizens United is a pipe dream, but have that conversation. If you want to whine about the DNC and how they did Bernie wrong an therefore the Democrats have 'nothing', I have no time for you. There are real issues in real time to deal with.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Considering I just said their message was garbage, my objection is not a lack of message. It's that they truly believe that telling people they're not corrupt after they were fucking outed as corrupt after the Wasserman-Schultz scandal is fucking pathetic.

Not even their leadership has changed. Under which circumstances am I to believe they have fixed their ways and that the Dems are truly the anti-corruption party? So far, if they were so bent on it, they'd have ousted everyone in the leadership. They have not. So I have no reason to believe they are trying to be the party that truly gets corruption out of Washington DC. It's a joke of a message, and if you like to vote based on a joke, I won't stop you.

This would be more convincing if it were substantive instead of handwavy. If it actually engaged with the plan instead of half assed talking points. I'm supposed to put a DNC chair having a preference on par with a pay to play administration? Sorry, I'm not a child. Wasserman-Shultz resigned, she's not the leader of the party anymore and the party forced her out.

Further, you know they're not just saying 'corruption' like it's a magic word, right? That they have specific things that effect specific issues?

Like voter access:

This includes bolstering the capacity of the Election Assistance Commission and providing states with the resources needed to protect our election infrastructure. At the same time, we must make it easier for Americans to vote by pursuing automatic voter registration. This will improve the registration files and the security of elections, all the while helping to build a more representative electorate. Congress must also restore voting protections for those voters in states with a recent history of discrimination. Finally, Congress can put an end to partisan gerrymandering by requiring all states to establish independent, multi-party citizen redistricting commissions to draw open and transparent statewide district maps after each decennial census.

Is Wasserman-Shultz somehow making that not viable or a bad plan? Is this 'just the same' as Republican policy of voter disenfranchisement and closing polling in poorer areas or shortening hours? Do we just not do this because the mean ol' Clintons?

Also, in the article that both you and I quoted, the mentioned closing the loophole that Cohen went through to sell access to the president by changing the rules regarding lobbying so that Cohen would have to have registered as a lobbyist.

Do we not do that because the self dealing of the current Republican administration is preferable to voting for people who might have known Debbie and therefore didn't jump off a cliff?

Creating a legal requirement for presidential candidates to release their tax release, is that not a thing because the DNC preferred Clinton over Bernie?

Statutes against lobbyists holding cabinet positions over the industries they lobbied for...we're not going to do that because the primaries didn't go the way we wanted?

Independent districting commissions...we're not going to do that because somethingsomething Clinton? Increasing the Election Assistance Committee resources...we're not going to talk about that because everyone didn't resign?

Please.

Have the conversation. Discuss the actual policy. Don't come to me with this whiny baggage pretending it's analysis. Maybe some of this shit won't work, maybe some of it won't get passed, certainly the amendment to undo Citizens United is a pipe dream, but have that conversation. If you want to whine about the DNC and how they did Bernie wrong an therefore the Democrats have 'nothing', I have no time for you. There are real issues in real time to deal with.

Yes, let's pretend the conversation is not about corruption at all, instead, let's focus on the issues, because that's the image people will get from this.

You understand that if you come to me and tell me "oh well, I am less corrupt than Trump" and you are a DNC leader, I am going to laugh you off, right?

Sorry, I am not a fucking child either, and I am not about to believe the DNC has any plans to change if their leadership is the same people who used corruption to get what they wanted. I'm not talking about an issue of policy here, I am talking about image. If you want to talk about policy, that's on you, but for most people, "corruption" is a laughable word coming from the DNC, considering.

If you want to send a different message, say something other than "we're totally anti-corruption", because it really doesn't work. Again, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. If you were willing to fuck over a candidate, I can fully expect you to be corrupt as shit on other things. If you steal 1 dollar that makes you a thief, and I cannot trust you with a thousand, or a million. And if you are willing to be corrupt in a fucking election, I sure as shit don't trust you to stop corruption in DC either. Because you have proved you are willing to use corruption when it suits you, and you're not really committed towards stopping it, just it not being against you.

To be honest it's not even the fact it was Bernie, it could have been anyone else. The fact it happened is the point. The fact they are perfectly willing to be corrupt UNTIL X happens is not lost on me either. Because they could have said "Hey Debbie, this is fucking stupid idea" but they didn't, instead they all went on board with it. And, mind, I already knew Bernie would lose. So I don't even know where do you get this idea that I supported Bernie or that I am pissy about Bernie losing. I was okay with Clinton winning, and while I was surprised that Trump won, I didn't freak out about it unlike some who I won't name, and I am living my life perfectly content. Life has not changed for me from what it was. The sky is not falling like the rest of you said it would if Trump won. Instead, he has been proving me right every day by being an idiot. I won't deny I smiled when Debbie was talked about and I knew then that the DNC didn't have a chance in hell to repair that image unless they did something radical, which they haven't, and won't do it. That has nothing to do with me being sore because Bernie lost, just me being accepting of the fact that Dems are corrupt. And now the fact they just want to say "oh well, that didn't happened, ahahah, Debbie was just a fluke people" is fucking hilarious to me. It's not even making me mad, it's just funny.

The fact that you think I even care about the Clintons is funny, because I merely mentioned them as the proof that the DNC is fucking corrupt as hell, and that it is laughable that they think that, somehow, they can rebrand themselves as "anti-corruption mavericks" when they can't even shake off the fact they're corrupt shits themselves. Clinton is not the point, the DNC is. And the DNC has shown it is perfectly capable, and remorseless in being corrupt, so I hardly can trust anything they say about anti-corruption, considering that if the shoe was one other foot they likely wouldn't do shit.

If you want the real issue, it's right there. If you want to deal with the actual issue, that Democrats cannot cry foul while also having the same damn leadership that utilized shitty corrupt tactics to get what they want and now they seem to think we have all forgotten about it instead of shitposting while high, I'll discuss it with you, otherwise, you are wasting my fucking time, because you seem to be more concerned about what your thoughts are, rather than what people see. And if that's your goto to deny that the reality is that this is a very laughable message, you can go right ahead. It is still a very laughable message. If you can't see that the perception of this message is laughable, then I don't know what to tell you. Because people are not that great at analyzing policy either. I analyze policy and can agree with many of the things people say, but I really am not going to say anything about their chances of passing anything until they actually show they are doing what they can to accomplish it, because before then it's all pretty words and sweet nothings to get your vote. Much like I try to talk sweet nothings to a girl so she can go to bed with me, so is a politician. They and I are no different in that sense, in that we're both wanting to fuck someone, the only difference is that I don't have to show that I've changed to someone before I fuck them the next time.

But hey, you wanna be fucked by people who have syphilis and contracted it from a whore with syphilis? It's your choice. I know I wouldn't stick my dick in that, or let them fuck me, but that's me.

[Cannot think of a name]

This would be more convincing if it were substantive instead of handwavy. If it actually engaged with the plan instead of half assed talking points. I'm supposed to put a DNC chair having a preference on par with a pay to play administration? Sorry, I'm not a child. Wasserman-Shultz resigned, she's not the leader of the party anymore and the party forced her out.

Further, you know they're not just saying 'corruption' like it's a magic word, right? That they have specific things that effect specific issues?

Like voter access:


Is Wasserman-Shultz somehow making that not viable or a bad plan? Is this 'just the same' as Republican policy of voter disenfranchisement and closing polling in poorer areas or shortening hours? Do we just not do this because the mean ol' Clintons?

Also, in the article that both you and I quoted, the mentioned closing the loophole that Cohen went through to sell access to the president by changing the rules regarding lobbying so that Cohen would have to have registered as a lobbyist.

Do we not do that because the self dealing of the current Republican administration is preferable to voting for people who might have known Debbie and therefore didn't jump off a cliff?

Creating a legal requirement for presidential candidates to release their tax release, is that not a thing because the DNC preferred Clinton over Bernie?

Statutes against lobbyists holding cabinet positions over the industries they lobbied for...we're not going to do that because the primaries didn't go the way we wanted?

Independent districting commissions...we're not going to do that because somethingsomething Clinton? Increasing the Election Assistance Committee resources...we're not going to talk about that because everyone didn't resign?

Please.

Have the conversation. Discuss the actual policy. Don't come to me with this whiny baggage pretending it's analysis. Maybe some of this shit won't work, maybe some of it won't get passed, certainly the amendment to undo Citizens United is a pipe dream, but have that conversation. If you want to whine about the DNC and how they did Bernie wrong an therefore the Democrats have 'nothing', I have no time for you. There are real issues in real time to deal with.

Yes, let's pretend the conversation is not about corruption at all, instead, let's focus on the issues, because that's the image people will get from this.

Democrats should run on the issues!

Okay, here are the issues and some solutions to the problem.

Democrats should run on identity!

Pick a lane. This is stupid. I'm supposed to feel bad because I'm focusing on the issues proposed instead of how I feel about the last primary?

Fuck that shit. The country is still here, issues are still happening. I'm not going to fold my arms and have a snit because I didn't get my way in the last election. Wasserman-Shultz is gone. Clinton is not on the ticket. These reforms sound good to me for the most part.

You understand that if you come to me and tell me "oh well, I am less corrupt than Trump" and you are a DNC leader, I am going to laugh you off, right?

Am I supposed to be impressed by this false equivilence half assed commentary? If this is your argument, that is laughable.

Sorry, I am not a fucking child either, and I am not about to believe the DNC has any plans to change if their leadership is the same people who used corruption to get what they wanted. I'm not talking about an issue of policy here, I am talking about image. If you want to talk about policy, that's on you, but for most people, "corruption" is a laughable word coming from the DNC, considering.

You know, people really need to stop projecting their perception onto 'the people'...

A report from the progressive group End Citizens United shows that voters polled in January 2018, found Democrats to lead Republicans on reducing special interest money in government and elections, but fell behind in bringing change to Washington (or as Trump puts it, draining the swamp). It appears as though Democrats are trying to drive this point home — and bring new faces to do it.

“We will be talking about how the institutions are not as responsive as they need to be,” Sarbanes said. “We will talk about how the Trump administration and the GOP and Republicans in Congress are … aggravating the problem.”
...
So far, the major shows of Democratic strength — from an upset win in the Pennsylvania special election with Conor Lamb to impressive gains in deep-red districts in Arizona to an almost-sweep statewide election in Virginia — have shown Democrats focusing on politics and the Republican agenda instead of Trump specifically.

There’s been a notable focus on health care, especially after Republicans spent the greater part of their first year in control of Congress trying to repeal an increasingly popular Obamacare, only to then successfully repeal the individual mandate in their tax bill. And now Democrats are establishing that their campaign against Trump will be focused on corruption and cronyism in his administration and in the Republican Party as a whole.

Look, it's great that you still have hang ups about 2016. It's great that you think that it should all be show, but focusing on policy is working for them.

If you want to send a different message, say something other than "we're totally anti-corruption",

Good news! They're not. They're pointing specific issues of transparency, campaign finance, voter access, and gerrymandering. You want them to run on dog and pony shows. No.

because it really doesn't work.

Show your work.

Again, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Alright, calm down Judge Judy. This doesn't actually say anything.

If you were willing to fuck over a candidate, I can fully expect you to be corrupt as shit on other things. If you steal 1 dollar that makes you a thief, and I cannot trust you with a thousand, or a million. And if you are willing to be corrupt in a fucking election, I sure as shit don't trust you to stop corruption in DC either. Because you have proved you are willing to use corruption when it suits you, and you're not really committed towards stopping it, just it not being against you.

This only works if 2016 was your first election. The systems they put in place where out in the open since 1984 after Carter and Mondale and populist candidates that appealed to the base but not in the general eventually lead to the democrats losing 49 of 50 states in the 1984 elections. They created super delegates and a method for the party to temper insurgence since then. In 2008 that system was beat by a very popular candidate who did well in the general. In 2016 the underdog was not able to overcome those safeguards. Trying to put that on par with the corruption of the current administration or dismiss out of hand the real world actual reforms presented is childish. Again, if this is your argument, I have no time for you. There are real world problems that need real world solutions and I'm not going to put them off until I get a super apology because Bernie didn't get the nomination. I wanted Bernie too, but I'm a fucking adult about it.

If you want the real issue, it's right there.

I mean, if you're talking about the actual policy positions. But you're not. You're whining about 2016. Still.

If you want to deal with the actual issue, that Democrats cannot cry foul while also having the same damn leadership that utilized shitty corrupt tactics to get what they want and now they seem to think we have all forgotten about it

They're not and they haven't. But they're also not going to abdicate the 2018 midterms because the BernieBros want a pound of flesh.

instead of shitposting while high, I'll discuss it with you, otherwise, you are wasting my fucking time, because you seem to be more concerned about what your thoughts are, rather than what people see. And if that's your goto to deny that the reality is that this is a very laughable message, you can go right ahead. It is still a very laughable message.

You know you're the one arguing about how you 'feel' and not the actual issues on the ballot, right?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This only works if 2016 was your first election. The systems they put in place where out in the open since 1984 after Carter and Mondale and populist candidates that appealed to the base but not in the general eventually lead to the democrats losing 49 of 50 states in the 1984 elections. They created super delegates and a method for the party to temper insurgence since then. In 2008 that system was beat by a very popular candidate who did well in the general. In 2016 the underdog was not able to overcome those safeguards. Trying to put that on par with the corruption of the current administration or dismiss out of hand the real world actual reforms presented is childish. Again, if this is your argument, I have no time for you. There are real world problems that need real world solutions and I'm not going to put them off until I get a super apology because Bernie didn't get the nomination. I wanted Bernie too, but I'm a fucking adult about it.

Sure you are, this is why it's 2018 and you're still pissed off Trump won, right? Right.

Adult. Pft. If anyone has the right to say they're the adult here, is me. I didn't freak out in 2016 about a Trump victory, I certainly was calm when Clinton won the DNC primary. Hell, I had even told a lot of people Bernie wouldn't win. For you to sit here and think I wanted Sanders is fucking hilarious, because you sure as shit don't remember jack shit about what I said in 2016, and yet you wanna sit here and try to paint me as a Bernie supporter when I clearly was a Clinton supporter in spite of the Debbie thing. Fucking love that selective memory of yours.

And for the record, I am fucking calm right now about everything. Trump hasn't affected my life at all, so guess what? I don't have a reason to be pissed off at him either. In fact, I have to thank him for making me look smart about people because he's an idiot and I had predicted he was an idiot.

So who really has the upper hand here, CTOAN and who can patronize the other? I'll give you a hint: between the two of us, it really is not you. You decided to vent out your anger on every fucking post for an entire year after Trump won. I just decided to deal with it and just go "oh boy, what kind of bullshit will Trump do today? Cause I know he'll do some dumb shit that'll backfire on him".

[Luminesa]

> Soldati specifically said he has no hangups about the election.

> “It’s not my fault you have hangups about the election!”

Nope, it doesn’t look like you’re actually talking to Soldati. Maybe to the guy behind him?

[Cannot think of a name]

This only works if 2016 was your first election. The systems they put in place where out in the open since 1984 after Carter and Mondale and populist candidates that appealed to the base but not in the general eventually lead to the democrats losing 49 of 50 states in the 1984 elections. They created super delegates and a method for the party to temper insurgence since then. In 2008 that system was beat by a very popular candidate who did well in the general. In 2016 the underdog was not able to overcome those safeguards. Trying to put that on par with the corruption of the current administration or dismiss out of hand the real world actual reforms presented is childish. Again, if this is your argument, I have no time for you. There are real world problems that need real world solutions and I'm not going to put them off until I get a super apology because Bernie didn't get the nomination. I wanted Bernie too, but I'm a fucking adult about it.

Sure you are, this is why it's 2018 and you're still pissed off Trump won, right? Right.

Adult. Pft. If anyone has the right to say they're the adult here, is me. I didn't freak out in 2016 about a Trump victory, I certainly was calm when Clinton won. Hell, I had even told a lot of people Bernie wouldn't win. For you to sit here and think I wanted Sanders is fucking hilarious, because you sure as shit don't remember jack shit about what I said in 2016, and yet you wanna sit here and try to paint me as a Bernie supporter when I clearly was a Clinton supporter in spite of the Debbie thing. Fucking love that selective memory of yours.

And for the record, I am fucking calm right now about everything. Trump hasn't affected my life at all, so guess what? I don't have a reason to be pissed off at him either. In fact, I have to thank him for making me look smart about people because he's an idiot and I had predicted he was an idiot.

So who really has the upper hand here, CTOAN and who can patronize the other?

How much fucking energy do you all put into remembering posters from one to the next? Or is this the new thing, when cornered just talk about some implied posting history we're supposed to have? That's weird, man. I don't get it. I don't post in TET, that's not my jam.

No I don't fucking remember what you said in 2016. I'm not trying to be aloof, just...who the fuck are you? Why on earth would you even try and remember?

If that's the best you got, we're done here. I wasn't inviting you over for dinner. I was trying to have a substantive conversation about the midterms. If you want this to be personal...I just don't care enough. Sorry man.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sure you are, this is why it's 2018 and you're still pissed off Trump won, right? Right.

Adult. Pft. If anyone has the right to say they're the adult here, is me. I didn't freak out in 2016 about a Trump victory, I certainly was calm when Clinton won. Hell, I had even told a lot of people Bernie wouldn't win. For you to sit here and think I wanted Sanders is fucking hilarious, because you sure as shit don't remember jack shit about what I said in 2016, and yet you wanna sit here and try to paint me as a Bernie supporter when I clearly was a Clinton supporter in spite of the Debbie thing. Fucking love that selective memory of yours.

And for the record, I am fucking calm right now about everything. Trump hasn't affected my life at all, so guess what? I don't have a reason to be pissed off at him either. In fact, I have to thank him for making me look smart about people because he's an idiot and I had predicted he was an idiot.

So who really has the upper hand here, CTOAN and who can patronize the other?

How much fucking energy do you all put into remembering posters from one to the next? Or is this the new thing, when cornered just talk about some implied posting history we're supposed to have? That's weird, man. I don't get it. I don't post in TET, that's not my jam.

No I don't fucking remember what you said in 2016. I'm not trying to be aloof, just...who the fuck are you? Why on earth would you even try and remember?

If that's the best you got, we're done here. I wasn't inviting you over for dinner. I was trying to have a substantive conversation about the midterms. If you want this to be personal...I just don't care enough. Sorry man.

If you cannot remember who I am or what I said in a general sense, then yea, we're done here. I'm definitely not willing to put myself through the torture of explaining to you, of all people, what I said and where I stand if you are too lazy to even do a cursory search on my posts for keywords for you to argue my actual positions instead of the imaginary positions you think I have. I've posted 83,000+ posts, I am sure you can find my positions and argue that next time instead of utilizing me as your target of choice to vent your frustration that Trump won.

[Galloism]

If you cannot remember who I am or what I said in a general sense, then yea, we're done here. I'm definitely not willing to put myself through the torture of explaining to you, of all people, what I said and where I stand if you are too lazy to even do a cursory search on my posts for keywords for you to argue my actual positions instead of the imaginary positions you think I have. I've posted 83,000+ posts, I am sure you can find my positions and argue that next time instead of utilizing me as your target of choice to vent your frustration that Trump won.

Hey, welcome to NSG. I don't think I've seen you around here before. Don't forget the Formerly Known as One Stop Rules Shop, and make sure you have fun!

[Cannot think of a name]

How much fucking energy do you all put into remembering posters from one to the next? Or is this the new thing, when cornered just talk about some implied posting history we're supposed to have? That's weird, man. I don't get it. I don't post in TET, that's not my jam.

No I don't fucking remember what you said in 2016. I'm not trying to be aloof, just...who the fuck are you? Why on earth would you even try and remember?

If that's the best you got, we're done here. I wasn't inviting you over for dinner. I was trying to have a substantive conversation about the midterms. If you want this to be personal...I just don't care enough. Sorry man.

If you cannot remember who I am or what I said in a general sense, then yea, we're done here. I'm definitely not willing to put myself through the torture of explaining to you, of all people, what I said and where I stand if you are too lazy to even do a cursory search on my posts for keywords for you to argue my actual positions instead of the imaginary positions you think I have. I've posted 83,000+ posts, I am sure you can find my positions and argue that next time instead of utilizing me as your target of choice to vent your frustration that Trump won.

I mean, I guess you could present your current position and defend it without me having to read through your 83,000 posts, but sure. Cool. Whatever.

[Luminesa]

Sure you are, this is why it's 2018 and you're still pissed off Trump won, right? Right.

Adult. Pft. If anyone has the right to say they're the adult here, is me. I didn't freak out in 2016 about a Trump victory, I certainly was calm when Clinton won. Hell, I had even told a lot of people Bernie wouldn't win. For you to sit here and think I wanted Sanders is fucking hilarious, because you sure as shit don't remember jack shit about what I said in 2016, and yet you wanna sit here and try to paint me as a Bernie supporter when I clearly was a Clinton supporter in spite of the Debbie thing. Fucking love that selective memory of yours.

And for the record, I am fucking calm right now about everything. Trump hasn't affected my life at all, so guess what? I don't have a reason to be pissed off at him either. In fact, I have to thank him for making me look smart about people because he's an idiot and I had predicted he was an idiot.

So who really has the upper hand here, CTOAN and who can patronize the other?

How much fucking energy do you all put into remembering posters from one to the next? Or is this the new thing, when cornered just talk about some implied posting history we're supposed to have? That's weird, man. I don't get it. I don't post in TET, that's not my jam.

No I don't fucking remember what you said in 2016. I'm not trying to be aloof, just...who the fuck are you? Why on earth would you even try and remember?

If that's the best you got, we're done here. I wasn't inviting you over for dinner. I was trying to have a substantive conversation about the midterms. If you want this to be personal...I just don't care enough. Sorry man.

You said “we’re done here” three posts ago, if you don’t know him why did you keep responding? Or were you trying to learn more about this “new” poster to NSG?

[Shrillland]

Can we get a change on the thread poll about the GA GOP Primary, I'm getting quite sick of seeing the same poll a week after the PA primaries, and with the GA ones tomorrow, I'd like something else to vote for.

Sadly, I have no control over it, it's MWV's thread, and he's supposed to do it, but he's AWOL more often than not on NSG.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you cannot remember who I am or what I said in a general sense, then yea, we're done here. I'm definitely not willing to put myself through the torture of explaining to you, of all people, what I said and where I stand if you are too lazy to even do a cursory search on my posts for keywords for you to argue my actual positions instead of the imaginary positions you think I have. I've posted 83,000+ posts, I am sure you can find my positions and argue that next time instead of utilizing me as your target of choice to vent your frustration that Trump won.

I mean, I guess you could present your current position and defend it without me having to read through your 83,000 posts, but sure. Cool. Whatever.

You can't even read a full post without having to answer and interject thoughts as you read, and you can't even use the search function or click on a username and do a keyword search on their words. I think that tells me enough about the amount of effort you want to put into this. And no thanks. I'd rather not spend an entire hour typing an essay just for you to have no answer to it.

[Freezic Vast]

Can we get a change on the thread poll about the GA GOP Primary, I'm getting quite sick of seeing the same poll a week after the PA primaries, and with the GA ones tomorrow, I'd like something else to vote for.

Sadly, I have no control over it, it's MWV's thread, and he's supposed to do it, but he's AWOL more often than not on NSG.

So, not even a mod can change it?

[Bombadil]

Sadly, I have no control over it, it's MWV's thread, and he's supposed to do it, but he's AWOL more often than not on NSG.

So, not even a mod can change it?

Alas it's Tequila Monday in the Modcave so don't expect too much in the next 12 hours..