3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

More Dem voters would say AOC is a quack.

I'd also contend that while AOC's policy positions are crazy, I don't think she herself is. MTG is 🦇💩.

  

Yeah, AOC is the picture of sanity!

6 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

More Dem voters would say AOC is a quack.

I'd also contend that while AOC's policy positions are crazy, I don't think she herself is. MTG is 🦇💩.

I believe you are quite wrong about who would vote for what. 
 

I absolutely agree with the 2nd part and I’m quite sure most other people on all sides would as well. 

21 hours ago, TEW said:

AOC is MORE representative of the Democrats overall than Trump to the GOP. You can see the difference in every institution in the country: primary school, college, corporations, even the military brass these days, etc etc etc.

Trump wants to do something milquetoast like deport illegal aliens and people like you screech fascism. But when schools across the country try to brainwash kids with tranny propaganda and racial bigotry, you run cover. You're a living disproof of your own argument, acting in real time, and you don't even realize it.  

1000000% this.

3 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

I believe you are quite wrong about who would vote for what. 
 

I absolutely agree with the 2nd part and I’m quite sure most other people on all sides would as well. 

Is that why the squad was frozen out of the infrastructure vote and the majority of the Dems chose to vote with moderate Republicans instead of them?

52 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Is that why the squad was frozen out of the infrastructure vote and the majority of the Dems chose to vote with moderate Republicans instead of them?

Nope

7 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Nope

do you see any scenario where the republican base wouldn't noisily rebel with Trump threatening primaries all around if the republican house voted for a bill with moderate dems against the wishes of Trump & Greene/Boebert/Gosar/etc.? 

10 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

do you see any scenario where the republican base wouldn't noisily rebel with Trump threatening primaries all around if the republican house voted for a bill with moderate dems against the wishes of Trump & Greene/Boebert/Gosar/etc.? 

We were talking about the entire electorate, right?

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

We were talking about the entire electorate, right?

we are. do you disagree that Trump still controls the base?

150 or whatever republicans voted to block certification of Biden's election the same day Trump and his supporters violently attacked the Capitol in an attempt to either frighten the reps into decertifying or worse, to steal and possibly destroy the certified ballots from the states thereby throwing the country into an ACTUAL Constitutional crisis.

While a small number did so, they did so with the popular support of the Republican voters. Because every Republican who spoke out against them either changed their tune real quick (see: Nancy Mace) or they've been shunned and are unlikely to survive 2022. 

Whatever threat AOC and her squad represent, it's pretty clear that their power to push the Democratic party's agenda is muted. There aren't millions of AOC supporters threatening Democratic congressmen across the country because they voted for the infrastructure bill against the wishes of the Progressive wing. Build-Back-Better is unlikely to happen now that Nancy Pelosi opted to side with moderate Republicans over "the Squad", which surrendered the only real leverage they had: holding the infrastructure bill hostage. 

The bottom line is that most Democrats in the House are not buying what "the Squad" is selling. But most Republicans in the House will not publicly disparage members like Gosar, Greene, & Boebert because doing so may put them on the wrong side of the one guy that truly matters: Trump. I have little doubt that much of this is performative for the Orange Don down in Mar a Lago, but it still shows how powerful his grip is - and if you think after his behavior in 2020 into 2021 that he doesn't represent a radical departure from the things that should truly matter in America (namely that we're a [small D] democratic nation whose politicians ultimately answer to the voters) and thus a bigger threat to the nation overall than AOC's stupid policy positions then I don't know what we can debate about. 

Meanwhile here at home in my district, Brian Fitzpatrick is going to face a number of radical candidates attempting to primary him because he dared to vote for the infrastructure package.

Rank and file Republicans off the street are far more likely to defend and support the crazy ish their party has done and continues to do than rank and file Democrats. Democrats barely tolerate their party FFS, mainly because Democrats are a relatively loose and often fractured coalition of sometimes overlapping interests that only truly unify in opposition to the right.

Trump might be batish crazy if we're talking about his tweeting habits, but acting like his policy positions are anywhere near the level of retarded that AOC's are, well, it's peak moderate CVON. So of course there's a sizeable portion of Republicans that still support him/his positions. It's because a lot of people agree with trying to restrict illegal immigration and would like to see manufacturing brought back to the country. AOC's supporter literally want capitalism to end and want criminals to be released from prisons.  

Policy discussions are reserved for presidents and politicians that don't attempt to overturn elections by force. 

37 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I have absolutely nothing.

Sounds about right.  

On 12/5/2021 at 12:15 AM, TEW said:

  

Yeah, AOC is the picture of sanity!

MTG is cool with you?

On 12/5/2021 at 12:14 AM, TEW said:

But funding colleges isn't a choice. The federal government backstops literally trillions of dollars in loans to them.

If we want to go the libertarian private route, that's fine. In fact, that's what I want No federal loans, grants, etc and they can teach whatever insanity and promote whatever racist admissions policies they want. No state or local funding either. People pay for what they want, and if the school can't survive financially on its own, then the school goes bankrupt and all of those professors and administrators can find a new job.

But until then, no. It's a public concern because public dollars are financing these schools and the classroom is being used as a brainwashing camp.

So every college that is funded by the government needs to run every class past the likes you?

Who decides which classes make you unfundable?

7 hours ago, Toastrel said:

MTG is cool with you?

So every college that is funded by the government needs to run every class past the likes you?

Who decides which classes make you unfundable?

Yes. Me.

7 hours ago, Toastrel said:

MTG is cool with you?

 

5 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yes.

A lot of things make more sense now.

23 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

 

A lot of things make more sense now.

I was answering this:

So every college that is funded by the government needs to run every class past the likes you?

1 hour ago, TEW said:

I was answering this:

So every college that is funded by the government needs to run every class past the likes you?

The way the posts are laid out it looks like you were talking about MTG.

1 hour ago, Boogyman said:

The way the posts are laid out it looks like you were talking about MTG.

Yeah, I meant to delete that first random question.

On 10/28/2021 at 9:00 AM, Toastrel said:

They are nutbags. It is clear that some are - however, college is a choice. If you pick to go to X school with X teachers, you shouldn't be surprised at it later.

How would someone know? I went to a state school, the tour didn't include mentioning the Government prof who was a hippie weed smoking protester from the 60s and hyping Clinton & bashing Republicans. Or the English writing prof who gave us assignments on controversial topics then argued if you didn't take the liberal side and mocked conservatives in class. Or the math teacher who prompted by absolutely no one went on atheist tirades about religion and calling any religious person an idiot. Sure you can leave if you don't like it but you're not necessarily going to know they're like that. 

5 hours ago, NOTW said:

How would someone know? I went to a state school, the tour didn't include mentioning the Government prof who was a hippie weed smoking protester from the 60s and hyping Clinton & bashing Republicans. Or the English writing prof who gave us assignments on controversial topics then argued if you didn't take the liberal side and mocked conservatives in class. Or the math teacher who prompted by absolutely no one went on atheist tirades about religion and calling any religious person an idiot. Sure you can leave if you don't like it but you're not necessarily going to know they're like that. 

That is true.

7 hours ago, NOTW said:

How would someone know? I went to a state school, the tour didn't include mentioning the Government prof who was a hippie weed smoking protester from the 60s and hyping Clinton & bashing Republicans. Or the English writing prof who gave us assignments on controversial topics then argued if you didn't take the liberal side and mocked conservatives in class. Or the math teacher who prompted by absolutely no one went on atheist tirades about religion and calling any religious person an idiot. Sure you can leave if you don't like it but you're not necessarily going to know they're like that. 

Yeah but Professor Einstein is a great teacher, who’s classes often end with a rousing round of applause. 

23 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

we are. do you disagree that Trump still controls the base?

150 or whatever republicans voted to block certification of Biden's election the same day Trump and his supporters violently attacked the Capitol in an attempt to either frighten the reps into decertifying or worse, to steal and possibly destroy the certified ballots from the states thereby throwing the country into an ACTUAL Constitutional crisis.

While a small number did so, they did so with the popular support of the Republican voters. Because every Republican who spoke out against them either changed their tune real quick (see: Nancy Mace) or they've been shunned and are unlikely to survive 2022. 

Whatever threat AOC and her squad represent, it's pretty clear that their power to push the Democratic party's agenda is muted. There aren't millions of AOC supporters threatening Democratic congressmen across the country because they voted for the infrastructure bill against the wishes of the Progressive wing. Build-Back-Better is unlikely to happen now that Nancy Pelosi opted to side with moderate Republicans over "the Squad", which surrendered the only real leverage they had: holding the infrastructure bill hostage. 

The bottom line is that most Democrats in the House are not buying what "the Squad" is selling. But most Republicans in the House will not publicly disparage members like Gosar, Greene, & Boebert because doing so may put them on the wrong side of the one guy that truly matters: Trump. I have little doubt that much of this is performative for the Orange Don down in Mar a Lago, but it still shows how powerful his grip is - and if you think after his behavior in 2020 into 2021 that he doesn't represent a radical departure from the things that should truly matter in America (namely that we're a [small D] democratic nation whose politicians ultimately answer to the voters) and thus a bigger threat to the nation overall than AOC's stupid policy positions then I don't know what we can debate about. 

Meanwhile here at home in my district, Brian Fitzpatrick is going to face a number of radical candidates attempting to primary him because he dared to vote for the infrastructure package.

Rank and file Republicans off the street are far more likely to defend and support the crazy ish their party has done and continues to do than rank and file Democrats. Democrats barely tolerate their party FFS, mainly because Democrats are a relatively loose and often fractured coalition of sometimes overlapping interests that only truly unify in opposition to the right.

The Squad’s power is muted because they’re only 4 or 5 people out of 435.  This is where Dr. Philly’s naivete about American politics really stands out.  It doesn’t matter if 20% or 25% of the electorate prefers progressive politics.  If you don’t have any political power, then you can’t get things done.

42 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The Squad’s power is muted because they’re only 4 or 5 people out of 435.  This is where Dr. Philly’s naivete about American politics really stands out.  It doesn’t matter if 20% or 25% of the electorate prefers progressive politics.  If you don’t have any political power, then you can’t get things done.

Dr said voters would vote for them...and they did as they are in office. I don't recall in his post referring to their actual legislative influence. 

4 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Dr said voters would vote for them...and they did as they are in office. I don't recall in his post referring to their actual legislative influence. 

So the point is to bemoan that they were actually elected, even though they can’t actually accomplish anything?

20 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Dr said voters would vote for them...and they did as they are in office. I don't recall in his post referring to their actual legislative influence. 

the conversation was fairly ambiguous on this, but my main point was about political power.

TEW talks about how colleges are liberal, which is well and good but hippie college professors are not particularly influential in actual politics. the argument has always been that they're "brainwashing" college students and have been for generations, yet Democrats still don't seem all that enthused or likely to pass BBB despite all that supposed influence. 

I think the impact of the MSM has been reversed frankly. Obviously there is still a lot in the way of liberal news sources out there, but right wing news is incredibly influential among the voting base of the right, which votes more frequently and more reliably for Republicans. It's part of what has allowed Republicans to punch above their weight politically for the past generation, along with the systemic advantages of the electoral college and more ruthless use of gerrymandering compared to Democrats.

On Gerrymandering, Democrats do appear set to exploit this more than they ever have in 2020 however, while Republicans really can't squeeze any more representation out than earlier gerrymanders already did.

The reality is that the most socialist/progressive voters don't vote reliably, and never have. This is true throughout history. Those who show up to the polls and vote reliably are generally older, have been at least partially disabused of whatever politics they embraced as a youth, and vote on meat-and-potatoes issues. You just don't have a group of reliable voters that politicians can court that espouse the radical left-wing views TEW and others complain about, outside of select districts. 

On the flip side you have Republicans that MUST actively demonstrate fealty to Trump (which is why he stays in the news, I would LOVE to stop talking about that crooked con-artist loser who tried to steal an election) or else they risk being primaried. You just don't have that effect on the left; Democrat house members aren't making trips up to Vermont to kiss Bernie's ring. Bernie LOST THE PRIMARY to Biden, who was considered the most moderate of the top-tier Democratic candidates. That alone speaks volumes about where the Democratic electorate is.

Do you think someone like Hogan or Sununu would be able to defeat Trump for the Republican primary? I don't. I think if Trump announces, he wins handily - because that's what the voters want. 

13 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

So the point is to bemoan that they were actually elected, even though they can’t actually accomplish anything?

Was just going on the context (from what I understood) of his post.  The replies to him were about influence in legislation.