Why Trump will be reelected part 2

[CowboyJD]

It is not irrelevant. The flip counties are part of the counties that Trump won. Yes, Meds made a general statement ("counties he won"), which thus includes the flip counties. If he wanted to be more specific (i.e. "in certain counties he won"), he could have been.

Not to mention that the flip counties are especially relevant when considering the electoral college.



Pretty strong? Really? I won 44% of the vote, my opponent received 54%, but hey, I had pretty strong support??

The 50% support is what is "fairly" or "pretty" strong. Quite strong would be higher than that. 44% doesn't reach that standard though.

With all that said, again, the overall point remains. Trump's national approval ratings are horrible. Added to that, he is losing support in the states and counties he won although his support among his most committed supporters remains strong. If this trend continues and Trump doesn't reverse course, it is going to be hard for him to win re-election.

You disagree.

Duly noted. I'm not really interested in quibbling over what particular % in a poll defines wholly ambiguous and subjective terms.

Actually the "overall point" I have been discussing is the limited one of whether the poll in question supports @Medic007's general contention he made. You're attempt to refashion the subject or point of our discussion re:the poll is also duly noted.

 

[Medic007]

The fact that you are pro-choice is somewhat surprising given some of your comments.

What, the one comment I made about an ACLU baby wearing a T shirt? That was my direct commentary about the ridiculous reaction that the lefties had to a freaking picture with a caption. One comment that wasn't even about abortion as a political position. My other comments in the past related to abortion in threads discussing abortion are exactly as I listed my view to be. Use the forum search function if you'd like.

Some of these others issues I haven't seen discussed in great detail on this board.

When was the last stem cell research discussion you've read on here? Not a hot topic these days. But check out the thread on transgenders in the military.

I agree that the Democrats should present a strong progressive economic message to white working class Americans and also explain why the economic message coming from Trump is not in their best interest.

Well, we're waiting. Have been since the beginning of the last election cycle. Any news on when they'll get busy on something other than resist Trump?

While I will agree that "some" white working class people are not interested in these issues, many are. I know some personally.

I posted a few things in reference to this. Read them if you want a pretty accurate, non-partisan view. There is a direct correlation between the sentiments expressed in those and Hillary losing blue states. I'm not inventing the problem, just discussing it.

The Democratic Party doesn't have to jettison their commitment to civil rights in order to win elections. Nor should they. They should continue to be committed to civil rights, while also presenting a strong progressive economic message to white working class Americans.

Nobody is asking them to "jettison" their commitment to civil rights. But brow beating white people has nothing to do with civil rights. The nearly continuous spew of white privilege, calling anybody who voted for Trump a racist (or deplorable), and embracing of groups that promote those views isn't going to bring fleeing Democrats back regardless of what the "progressive economic message" is. Again, I'm just the messenger.

If this trend continues and Trump doesn't reverse course, it is going to be hard for him to win re-election.

And finally, that's your opinion. See how that works? Trump wasn't going to win the primary or the election either. He's now sitting in the White House tweeting stupidity for breakfast.

At some point you echo chamber dwellers are going to need to venture out and see what people are actually saying. Polling doomed Hillary's campaign in swing states. If Democrats think like you do for 2018, they're doomed too.

 

[GL97]

Actually the "overall point" I have been discussing is the limited one of whether the poll in question supports @Medic007's general contention he made.

And, as I posted earlier, it didn't help his argument that much.

You're attempt to refashion the subject or point of our discussion re:the poll is also duly noted.

Wasn't trying to refashion the subject. "With that said" was a transition back to the "overall" subject and point I have been discussing regarding Trump's approval ratings.

 

[GL97]

What, the one comment I made about an ACLU baby wearing a T shirt?

That and some other comments you have made regarding the Democratic Party and abortion.

When was the last stem cell research discussion you've read on here?

Exactly, I don't know all your positions (nor do you know mine). That is why I asked since you claimed to be left of center.

Well, we're waiting.

Why are you waiting? There is one already being discussed and advocated for (as I have shown you before). It will continue to be expanded upon and discussed as we get closer to 2018.

Again, I'm just the messenger.

No you aren't. You are expressing your viewpoint that Democrats are browbeating white Americans. That is your opinion, as you like to say.

I am a white American and I don't feel brow beaten. I know many white Americans who don't feel brow beaten. Now, if one is a white American who opposes homosexual marriage, who thinks transexuals are sick and should be discriminated against, who thinks cops are perfect and the black life matter movement is just causing trouble, who thinks a wall should be built and immigration should be curtailed, who thinks all Muslims are the enemy, who defends confederate statues, and who is angry that those "lefties" are out to destroy America...yes, that person probably feels browbeaten. But I got news for you, the Democratic Party is never going to win that voter over.

However, that isn't all white voters. That isn't all white working class Americans either. Again, I agree that the Democrats need to present a strong progressive economic message. But I disagree Democrats have to become little Rs when it comes to civil rights.

And finally, that's your opinion.

Really?

This is a message board, we are all expressing our opinions, including you. Thanks for the reminder though.

At some point we echo chamber dwellers are going to need to venture out and see what people are actually saying.

FTFY

 

[Medic007]

And, as I posted earlier, it didn't help his argument that much.

My argument was simply that Trump's supporters that allowed him to win the election are still supporting him. You asked for links to support my posting that. I provided a sample of links. You're the one trying to split hairs on what the definition of is is.

I've simply done two things in this thread. I posted that the particular approval poll you referenced has a sampling bias, but that I did not disagree with it's general sentiment. I then posted that Trump's approval from his supporters in counties that won him the election is still "quite strong" and provided a few links as supporting material (as you requested in an infantile manner). I didn't post very, incredibly, super duper, or any other superlative adjective in that statement.

All of the rest is you doing you. I'm not sure what to name your dance yet, but it's a weird one. Maybe Tail Wagging the Dog Who's Chasing It?

 

[Medic007]

That and some other comments you have made regarding the Democratic Party and abortion.

Well, you should be able to find them. Let's see them. I'm not going to take your word over mine when it comes to my views.

Why are you waiting? There is one already being discussed and advocated for (as I have shown you before). It will continue to be expanded upon and discussed as we get closer to 2018.

What is it? A better deal? A few prominent Democrats have commented about the lack of message. The comments from Obama loyalists were probably the most entertaining. But they're probably just playing around.

No you aren't. You are expressing your viewpoint that Democrats are brow beating white Americans. That is your opinion, as you like to say.

Sigh. I provided some links. But forget those. You're right, I'm the only one with that opinion. The only white working stiff in the country that has been offended by the Democratic Party rhetoric. Yep, just me. Because you know some white folks who don't feel the same way. Hillary actually won those crucial swing states where these white folks who said screw the Democratic Party don't exist.

Really? lol

This is a message board, we are all expressing our opinions, including you.

Yep, that's correct. Just so we're both clear.

Your refusal to acknowledge this while continuing to harken back to an election where Trump couldn't even win the most votes from American voters is very telling.

I don't live in a fantasy land. Trump won the electoral college and the White House. You can bathe in the glory of the popular vote all you like. It didn't put Hillary in the White House in 2016 and it won't ever put anyone else in the White House in the future. As I said, I hope the Democratic Party gets their shit together and doesn't view reality through the filter of a meaningless fairytale like you do.

 

[Medic007]

And I can say the same thing to you.

It is very clear to see and hear what a majority of Americans think right now about Trump. Your refusal to acknowledge this while continuing to harken back to an election where Trump couldn't even win the most votes from American voters is very telling.

Maybe Tail Wagging the Dog Who's Chasing It?

Yep, definitely a fitting name for your dance.

 

[GL97]

My argument was simply that Trump's supporters that allowed him to win the election are still supporting him. You asked for links to support my posting that.

No, your claim was that Trump's approval rating in counties he won is still quite strong. This is not completely accurate. In a number of counties he won, his support is below 50%, nearing 40%. He is also losing support in counties that he won a strong majority in.

Yes, Trump diehard supporters are still with him. But those voters alone were not the ones who allowed him to win the electoral college in 2016. And they alone will not help him win re-election.

I posted that the particular approval poll you referenced has a sampling bias, but that I did not disagree with it's general sentiment.

The poll did not have a sampling bias and the poll is in line with every other poll right now. It was a valid poll.

And in terms of the dance I am doing, I'm just trying to keep up with your changing arguments and claims.

 

[GL97]

Well, you should be able to find them. Let's see them. I'm not going to take your word over mine when it comes to my views.

lol, oh how it always comes full circle with a couple of posters on this board...

I'm not interested in bottle feeding a grown man.

Geezus. Fine, suckle up to my tit, grown man. You use your teeth and I'll slap the shit out of you and send you to bed hungry.

 

[GL97]

What is it?

We have had this discussion before Meds. I laid out the economic message that was being formulated once before to you. And yet, you still continue on about no message.

Round and round we go. I feel like I needs meds when having a discussion with you Meds.

A better deal? A few prominent Democrats have commented about the lack of message. The comments from Obama loyalists were probably the most entertaining. But they're probably just playing around.

Would these be the wall-street corporate Democrats you despise and the Obama loyalists who messed up that you were posting about before? If they had a problem with the economic message, I would think that would make you happy.

But now it doesn't?

 

[Medic007]

lol, oh how it always comes full circle with a couple of posters on this board...

Hey dipshit, I'm actually embarrassed for you that I have to explain this one to you. I posted something about approval polls and then bitched about you being a lazy ass. You put words in my mouth.

Which one is more deserving of a link for proof? Don't you claim to be in law school? What happens during a trial if you put words in a witness's mouth? Do you have to prove they said it or do they have to prove they didn't?

 

[GL97]

The only white working stiff in the country that has been offended by the Democratic Party rhetoric. Yep, just me. Because you know some white folks who don't feel the same way.

And how about those who are offended by the Republican Party? Or Trump? You know, the majority of Americans right now.

Once again though, I agree that the Democratic Party needs to present a strong progressive economic message. I just don't think that means they need to go soft on civil rights or stop talking about other important issues.

I don't live in a fantasy land. Trump won the electoral college and the White House.

Yes, but he didn't win in a landslide and his election wasn't some realignment election. He barely won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote. More Americans opposed him than supported him. Yet, you act like 2016 was 1964 or 1972 all over again. It wasn't.

Do Democrats have some work to do? Sure. But not to the extent you seem to think they do. Their situation isn't dire.

 

[GL97]

Hey dipshit, I'm actually embarrassed for you that I have to explain this one to you. I posted something about approval polls and then bitched about you being a lazy ass. You put words in my mouth.

Which one is more deserving of a link for proof? Don't you claim to be in law school? What happens during a trial if you put words in a witness's mouth? Do you have to prove they said it or do they have to prove they didn't?

 

[Medic007]

We have had this discussion before Meds. I laid out the economic message that was being formulated once before to you. And yet, you still continue on about no message.

Beware, these are just my opinions that I managed to get published on news outlets.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...have-no-agenda-except-opposing-trump-n2355958

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...crats-have-no-leader-plans-or-a-mess-n2344645

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/27/wak...ve-no-democratic-majority-and-no-impeachment/

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-20/democrats-need-a-message-not-a-program

http://www.businessinsider.com/demo...l-plan-but-boost-to-jobs-wages-unclear-2017-7

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-democrats-trump-economy-20170824-story.html

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/2...-new-slogan-how-about-a-winning-plan-for-u-s/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-2018-elections-dccc-criticism-a7828071.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/opinion/43...ogan-ideas-show-exactly-why-they-keep-losing/

Would these be the wall-street corporate Democrats you despise and the Obama loyalists who messed up that you were posting about before? If they had a problem with the economic message, I would think that would make you happy.

But now it doesn't?

Wow, you've hit a dumb grand slam with this.

 

[Medic007]

Do Democrats have some work to do? Sure. But not to the extent you seem to think they do. Their situation isn't dire.

Yep, losing the House, the Senate, and the Presidency despite a "popular" president is all good. "But it's all cyclical!!!"

 

[Medic007]

FYI, I'm pro choice up to the point the fetus is medically considered viable outside the womb. The issue I have with abortion is the lack of anesthetic provided to the fetus. I get the whole pro-choice condemnation of that thought as being yet another way to restrict abortion. Science is mixed on the subject and usually falls within the two belief camps, or at least the ideological interpretations do.

Purely from a scientific standpoint, there is evidence that a fetus as early as 8 weeks responds both physically and hormonally to noxious stimuli. We make old dying people comfortable with pain medication just to make sure, even when they show no response to noxious stimuli. We don't euthanize animals with vacuum suction and scissors to the skull. Why don't we? Because it would be considered barbaric and painful. I do think providing pain medication or anesthetic to the fetus is responsible and safe for the mother. Give the fetus a large dose of whatever. If you're going to follow it up with powerful vacuum suction to tear the tissue apart, why does it matter how much the fetus gets? That fetus deserves to be made comfortable, just in case.

With that I can agree davidallen. I'm not a pro-life nut nor a pro-abortion one. I don't agree with abortion as a means of birth control, but I realize that cases exist that are outside the boundaries of consent, thus political parties shouldn't be the ones that decide for every individual.

This is a win for women's health IMO. There is no reason Planned Parenthood shouldn't be able to receive Medicaid funding for eligible care. I agree it shouldn't be used to pay for elective abortions and that law is already on the books. Should the government stop providing Medicaid payment to any facility that performs abortion as well, even just one per year? If not, where can the line be drawn? Republicans really should stop barking up the tree that has no cats.

In your defense, I have made plenty of wise cracks about Democrats and abortion.

 

[Medic007]

And how about those who are offended by the Republican Party? Or Trump? You know, the majority of Democrats right now.

FIFY

 

[GL97]

Beware, these are just my opinions that I managed to get published on news outlets.

And now for other links I guess you either missed or just ignored...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ge-populist-monopolies-congress-trump/534603/

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-congress-economics-2018-240864

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...old-economic-plan-in-bid-to-end-losing-streak

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...rats-roll-out-better-deal-new-economic-agenda

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/...better-deal-for-american-workers.html?mcubz=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/24/with-better-deal-democrats-temporarily-calm-a-restive-left/?utm_term=.ccbe1b8c4b38

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-struggle-to-sell-a-better-deal/535410/

http://qctimes.com/opinion/columnis...cle_2d90a5c1-44b7-50fc-ae1e-27faee950bfd.html

And recall what I posted:

Why are you waiting? There is one already being discussed and advocated for (as I have shown you before). It will continue to be expanded upon and discussed as we get closer to 2018.

 

[GL97]

Yep, losing the House, the Senate, and the Presidency despite a "popular" president is all good.

Did losing the House, the Senate, and the Presidency (along with the popular vote) in 2008 mean the Republicans were in serious trouble as a party? Did losing the House, the Senate, and Presidency in 2000 mean the Democrats were in serious trouble as a party?

The ebb and flow of U.S. politics. Ever changing, ever adjusting.

 

[GL97]

FIFY

It was right the first time, as you even grudgingly acknowledged before. These are more than just Democrats...

http://www.newsweek.com/polls-show-trump-least-popular-president-ever-approval-rating-low-655210

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ct-trump-low-job-approval-20170825-story.html

 

[Medic007]

It was right the first time, as you even grudgingly acknowledged before. These are more than just Democrats...

http://www.newsweek.com/polls-show-trump-least-popular-president-ever-approval-rating-low-655210

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ct-trump-low-job-approval-20170825-story.html

So now approval ratings equate to a majority of Americans being offended? Interesting take. I don't recall being offended by Obama when his numbers were in the basement. I simply recall thinking he wasn't doing a good job. I guess maybe I should have been offended since approval polls represent being offended? But hey, I guess you're the pole expert here.

Grudgingly acknowledged? lol... You've been red-assed about the poll since I brought it up. I'm not the one scooting across the living room carpet about it.

PS, the bias in the sampling of that poll is the number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents represented. You can hopefully do the simple math on how that may skew the results.

 

[GL97]

I don't recall being offended by Obama when his numbers were in the basement.

Obama's numbers have never been in the basement like Trump's. And for the record, at this point in Obama's first term, he had 50% approval according to Gallup.

But yes, it isn't just Democrats who are offended by Trump. If you think that, you really need to look around.

PS, the bias in the sampling of that poll is the number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents represented. You can hopefully do the simple math on how that may skew the results.

I know where you think the bias exists. I've known since you brought it up. And as I posted then, I looked at the actual data and nothing stands out as a major problem that would disqualify the poll.

All the polls are showing the same trend. This isn't rocket science. Just come to terms with it and move on.

 

[Medic007]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ge-populist-monopolies-congress-trump/534603/
Breaking up and preventing monopolies. OK. Don't we already have federal agencies that do that? Do we need a federal agency to make sure they are doing their jobs? Who will pay for that? The monopolies?

I do find this quote solid though. Exactly what I've been saying.

"Democrats plan to unveil more proposals under the banner of “A Better Deal” in the weeks to come. The focus on an economic agenda suggests, however, that the party believes that prioritizing jobs, income, and wages will prove more unifying for the party, and more attractive to the kind of coalition they want to attract, than so-called “identity politics” messages that seek to appeal to voters on the basis of race and gender."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-congress-economics-2018-240864
Monopolies and prescription drug prices. This quote is a good one though.

"Schumer acknowledged that Democrats’ message echoes Trump’s populist rhetoric, but vowed that Democrats would do what the president has so far failed to do, despite working with a Republican-controlled Congress: deliver on campaign promises." Really?

All this talk about monopolies from a party who has become a corporate money whore. How will they balance that? Not take corporate money? When their balance sheet looks like this compared to Republicans?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/21/the-dncs-abysmal-fundraising/?utm_term=.edfa1445a9d5



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...old-economic-plan-in-bid-to-end-losing-streak
An announcement that they have a message from June. Predates the previous two links.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...rats-roll-out-better-deal-new-economic-agenda
Prescription drug prices and monopolies. Devoid of any details. Says there are divisions within the party. This quote though...

"None of 10 Democratic senators up for reelection in states won by Trump appeared at Monday's unveiling with Schumer and Pelosi."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/...better-deal-for-american-workers.html?mcubz=0
$15 per hour. Drug prices. Monopolies. Quoted from the end of the article.

"But experts including the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare’s actuary see little upside in the change. The government requires Medicare to cover nearly every approved treatment for cancer and a range of other conditions. Since Medicare cannot say no to drug companies, it lacks the leverage to negotiate effectively.

Democrats also proposed the creation of a federal agency that would police drug prices, “dedicated to stopping this outrageous behavior in its tracks.”

But the broader reality is that the federal government has sought to encourage innovation by codifying the industry’s profitability, for example by maintaining stronger intellectual property protections than drug companies enjoy in the rest of the world.

On that, the Democrats did not propose any fundamental changes."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/24/with-better-deal-democrats-temporarily-calm-a-restive-left/?utm_term=.ccbe1b8c4b38
Mostly a rehash of the NY Times article you linked with a sprinkle of leftist commentary. The final paragraph of the article.

“A Better Deal is a step toward progressive populism, but not enough,” wrote AllOfUs spokesman Waleed Shahid. “Democrats should embrace the #PeoplesPlatform and take advantage of their historic opportunity to create a nation where all Americans have the things we need to thrive: a decent job, an education, health care, safety and a livable planet.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-struggle-to-sell-a-better-deal/535410/
A pretty good criticism of the message. Not far off from what I've been saying. Quite similar, in fact. Two great quotes though (out of many awesome ones):

"By contrast, says Judis, Schumer’s Times op-ed “used every cliché of the last 20 years. I don't disagree with anything they propose, but they are proposing incremental stuff that in some cases (worker retraining) has proven to be pretty useless.”

"This third prong in particular sounds eminently sensible, targeted, and forward-looking. It also seems about as likely to excite the masses as a plate of week-old avocado toast."

http://qctimes.com/opinion/columnis...cle_2d90a5c1-44b7-50fc-ae1e-27faee950bfd.html
You clearly didn't read this one. Or even glance at it. Read it and you'll see exactly why I say that.


And recall what I posted:

Why are you waiting? There is one already being discussed and advocated for (as I have shown you before). It will continue to be expanded upon and discussed as we get closer to 2018.

Yep, still waiting. What is the hidden message, oh exalted Democratic Guru?

 

[Medic007]

I know where you think the bias exists. I've known since you brought it up. And as I posted then, I looked at the actual data and nothing stands out as a major problem that would disqualify the poll.

All the polls are showing the same trend. This isn't rocket science. Just come to terms with it and move on.

I believe you. Really, I do.

And you can't disqualify an opinion poll. It's a poll of, wait for it, opinions. But you can skew their results. Look it up Rookie.

 

[GL97]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ge-populist-monopolies-congress-trump/534603/
Breaking up and preventing monopolies. OK. Don't we already have federal agencies that do that? Do we need a federal agency to make sure they are doing their jobs? Who will pay for that? The monopolies?

I do find this quote solid though. Exactly what I've been saying.

"Democrats plan to unveil more proposals under the banner of “A Better Deal” in the weeks to come. The focus on an economic agenda suggests, however, that the party believes that prioritizing jobs, income, and wages will prove more unifying for the party, and more attractive to the kind of coalition they want to attract, than so-called “identity politics” messages that seek to appeal to voters on the basis of race and gender."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-congress-economics-2018-240864
Monopolies and prescription drug prices. This quote is a good one though.

"Schumer acknowledged that Democrats’ message echoes Trump’s populist rhetoric, but vowed that Democrats would do what the president has so far failed to do, despite working with a Republican-controlled Congress: deliver on campaign promises." Really?

All this talk about monopolies from a party who has become a corporate money whore. How will they balance that? Not take corporate money? When their balance sheet looks like this compared to Republicans?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/21/the-dncs-abysmal-fundraising/?utm_term=.edfa1445a9d5



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...old-economic-plan-in-bid-to-end-losing-streak
An announcement that they have a message from June. Predates the previous two links.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...rats-roll-out-better-deal-new-economic-agenda
Prescription drug prices and monopolies. Devoid of any details. Says there are divisions within the party. This quote though...

"None of 10 Democratic senators up for reelection in states won by Trump appeared at Monday's unveiling with Schumer and Pelosi."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/...better-deal-for-american-workers.html?mcubz=0
$15 per hour. Drug prices. Monopolies. Quoted from the end of the article.

"But experts including the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare’s actuary see little upside in the change. The government requires Medicare to cover nearly every approved treatment for cancer and a range of other conditions. Since Medicare cannot say no to drug companies, it lacks the leverage to negotiate effectively.

Democrats also proposed the creation of a federal agency that would police drug prices, “dedicated to stopping this outrageous behavior in its tracks.”

But the broader reality is that the federal government has sought to encourage innovation by codifying the industry’s profitability, for example by maintaining stronger intellectual property protections than drug companies enjoy in the rest of the world.

On that, the Democrats did not propose any fundamental changes."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/24/with-better-deal-democrats-temporarily-calm-a-restive-left/?utm_term=.ccbe1b8c4b38
Mostly a rehash of the NY Times article you linked with a sprinkle of leftist commentary. The final paragraph of the article.

“A Better Deal is a step toward progressive populism, but not enough,” wrote AllOfUs spokesman Waleed Shahid. “Democrats should embrace the #PeoplesPlatform and take advantage of their historic opportunity to create a nation where all Americans have the things we need to thrive: a decent job, an education, health care, safety and a livable planet.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-struggle-to-sell-a-better-deal/535410/
A pretty good criticism of the message. Not far off from what I've been saying. Quite similar, in fact. Two great quotes though (out of many awesome ones):

"By contrast, says Judis, Schumer’s Times op-ed “used every cliché of the last 20 years. I don't disagree with anything they propose, but they are proposing incremental stuff that in some cases (worker retraining) has proven to be pretty useless.”

"This third prong in particular sounds eminently sensible, targeted, and forward-looking. It also seems about as likely to excite the masses as a plate of week-old avocado toast."

http://qctimes.com/opinion/columnis...cle_2d90a5c1-44b7-50fc-ae1e-27faee950bfd.html
You clearly didn't read this one. Or even glance at it. Read it and you'll see exactly why I say that.


And recall what I posted:

Why are you waiting? There is one already being discussed and advocated for (as I have shown you before). It will continue to be expanded upon and discussed as we get closer to 2018.

Yep, still waiting. What is the hidden message, oh exalted Democratic Guru?

And you just keep proving what I have posted to be true...

The Democrats do have an economic message that can resonate (whether you agree with it or not is another question), they just need the right national candidate to deliver it.

This is where we are now. You are finding ways to disagree with the message (a message you also claim doesn't exist) that is being formulated.

I also find it absolutely hilarious how on one hand you claim to want the Democrats to reform themselves but when they propose an idea that doesn't fit with your impression of Democrats, you engage in this silliness: "All this talk about monopolies from a party who has become a corporate money whore." This type of nonsense indicates the Democratic Party is essentially damn if they do and damn if they don't with you.

So to recap: You have been shown that the Democratic Party has and is continuing to formulate an economic message for 2018 and 2020. You refuse though to acknowledge this while also trying to poke holes in that message you claim doesn't exist. And lastly, any article or claim in an article that challenges your viewpoint, you dismiss as "leftist commentary."

Your comments reveal your true colors Meds.

 

[Medic007]

And you just keep proving what I have posted to be true...



This is where we are now. You are finding ways to disagree with the message (a message you also claim doesn't exist) that is being formulated.

I also find it absolutely hilarious how on one hand you claim to want the Democrats to reform themselves but when they propose an idea that doesn't fit with your impression of Democrats, you engage in this silliness: "All this talk about monopolies from a party who has become a corporate money whore." This type of nonsense indicates the Democratic Party is essentially damn if they do and damn if they don't with you.

So to recap. You have been shown that the Democratic Party has and is continuing to formulate an economic message for 2018 and 2020. You refuse though to acknowledge this while also trying to poke holes in that message you claim doesn't exist. And lastly, any article or claim in an article that challenges your viewpoint, you dismiss as "leftist commentary."

I broke it down link by link. Maybe you should read them. The rest of your post is

 

[GL97]

And you can't disqualify an opinion poll. It's a poll of, wait for it, opinions. But you can skew their results.

Again, nothing stands out as a major problem in that poll which would disqualify it as a trustworthy poll.

 

[Medic007]

Again, nothing stands out as a major problem in that poll which would disqualify it as a trustworthy poll.

 

[GL97]

I broke it down link by link.

I did and you have my response to your rant against the message you claim doesn't exist.

 

[CBradSmith]

This seems lopsided.

 

[Medic007]

I did and you have my response to your rant against the message you claim doesn't exist.

Monopolies, prescription drug prices, and $15 an hour. And week old avocado toast.

Still waiting.

 

[GL97]

This seems lopsided.

I agree.

But hey, maybe Meds will grace us with another yawning picture. We can only hope!

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Again, nothing stands out as a major problem in that poll which would disqualify it as a trustworthy poll.

So Toon, where you posting from these days? I mean, you got permabanned right? So you must be posting from another location. Maybe a friend or family's house you visit every so often, it would certainly matchup with how sporadic you are. You must be terrible company with the amount of time you spend on here while there.

Anyway, I want to give you a genuine and heartfelt "congratulations" on your ability to keep your composure under this pseudonym.

 

[Medic007]

I agree.

But hey, maybe Meds will grace us with another yawning picture. We can only hope!

Poor thing. 3rd year law student. Have you ever had a real job? More than say, registering voters or flipping burgers? Not that fake Twitter job bullshit...

 

[GL97]

So Toon, where you posting from these days?

lol and out comes the Toon refrain

Try some new material Thor.

 

[GL97]

Poor thing. 3rd year law student. Have you ever had a real job? More than say, registering voters or flipping burgers? Not that fake Twitter job bullshit...

 

[Medic007]

Just as I suspected. You've never had an actual job. No wonder I'm wiping my shoes on you. Poor thing.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

lol and out comes the Toon refrain

Try some new material Thor.

How about you learn how to keep your composure on your handle so you don't have to resort to posting from an entirely different location under a new handle?

I mean think about it. Had you done that you never would have been banned. I'm being genuine. I'm happy to see you have some of that neuroticism under control.

 

[GL97]

Just as I suspected. You've never had an actual job. No wonder I'm wiping my shoes on you. Poor thing.

Tell us all again about what is wrong with the message that doesn't exist. That was classic.

 

[GL97]

I'm being genuine.

If you are being genuine then you should direct those comments at Toon. I am not that poster and this is the only handle I have posted under on this board.