I think "base" in regard to any candidate or party, is those who support and/or likely to vote for the given candidate/party.

Hard for me to figure out who is in Buttigieg's base - I think it is people saying A democrat, but preferably none of the leaders.

But I just take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments of who is in Trump's base and why.

(12-15-2019 06:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think "base" in regard to any candidate or party, is those who support and/or likely to vote for the given candidate/party.

Hard for me to figure out who is in Buttigieg's base - I think it is people saying A democrat, but preferably none of the leaders.

But I just take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments of who is in Trump's base and why.

I take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments made by Trump of various women, people with disabilities, immigrants, Congresswomen, etc.

Yet his base still fervently supports him, as opposed to an alternative Republican candidate.

But thank you, nonetheless, for your adamant, forceful, and continued demonstration of what *you* think about those whom 'loyally support' Trump. I guess the more 'loyal' that support is (now your new definition de jour) of Trump, the more you hold that view of them.

Funny, I thought you were complaining about blind ignorance. Your standard is apparently now 'the more loyal one is to Trump the more they fit into the ignorant pile'.

What level in the lad world ignorance scale does that standard engender, lad? A free pass to the 'paradigm of openness' level, perhaps?

(12-15-2019 06:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- I am pointing out that *you* simply redefined 'base' to whatever small group *you*, in your oh so cute way, wish and want it to be.

And when called out on that redefinition proceed down some garbage semantic patented lad dance.

Cry some more, lad.

And the funny thing, lad, is that *your* redefinition and (continued die hard last man) defense of it is a defense of a concept that is, on its surface and easily understood to be, fairly abjectly as ignorant (if taken at your face value) as that of the people that you complain about.

Yes, you saying that 'his most loyal' would be less fing ignorant; debatable -- but absolutely less ignorant than what you are maddy poo abut being called out on.

Absolutely fing rich!

And in light of OOs example of the issue to you, in which you could have backed down and said 'let me rephrase', simply told him 'cute' -- and then *again* doubled down on with yet *another* crapola redefinition.

Doubly rich!

I think you need some more castanets in todays version of your cha cha cha.....

Wait, you’re saying that when asked what I consider someone’s base I, shocking, defined who I thought the definition was? STOP THE *** **** PRESSES.

Yes, it is me who is crying in this situation, not the person who can’t handle a difference of opinion.

Bye Felicia.

(12-15-2019 06:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 06:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think "base" in regard to any candidate or party, is those who support and/or likely to vote for the given candidate/party.

Hard for me to figure out who is in Buttigieg's base - I think it is people saying A democrat, but preferably none of the leaders.

But I just take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments of who is in Trump's base and why.

I take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments made by Trump of various women, people with disabilities, immigrants, Congresswomen, etc.

Yet his base still fervently supports him, as opposed to an alternative Republican candidate.

I take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments made by progressives of various people who deign to make a profit, anyone who has more than x dollars of net assets, anyone who questions climate change, anyone who questions the level of illegal immigration, Republicans in general, etc.

Yet their base still fervently supports them, as opposed to any alternative candidates.

(12-15-2019 06:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 06:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think "base" in regard to any candidate or party, is those who support and/or likely to vote for the given candidate/party.

Hard for me to figure out who is in Buttigieg's base - I think it is people saying A democrat, but preferably none of the leaders.

But I just take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments of who is in Trump's base and why.

I take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments made by Trump of various women, people with disabilities, immigrants, Congresswomen, etc.

Yet his base still fervently supports him, as opposed to an alternative Republican candidate.

Well, we don't need a perfect person, like the your side does. We just want somebody who will get good things done for the country. I didn't vote for him in 2016 for many of the reasons you cite. But now there is a track record, one I like and hope continues.

In any case, supporting him does not mean we applaud and cheer everything he does. Personally, I wince whenever he does some of those things. But nothing he does makes me yearn for a Democrat.

I just hate the implication, like in your statement (and in Fountains), that we support him because we like those things you mention.

We had our chance to oppose him in 2016, and I did. But now he is the incumbent, doing a good job even against the mighty headwind of Democratic obstruction and conspiracy theories, and there is no real alternative in the Republican party and no alternative at all in the Democrats. It is either Trump or somebody worse. I opt for the ill-mannered guy doing well for us, rather than a Ms. Manners who will bring us down. If you want to choose the other way, that is your right as an American.

(12-15-2019 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 06:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- I am pointing out that *you* simply redefined 'base' to whatever small group *you*, in your oh so cute way, wish and want it to be.

And when called out on that redefinition proceed down some garbage semantic patented lad dance.

Cry some more, lad.

And the funny thing, lad, is that *your* redefinition and (continued die hard last man) defense of it is a defense of a concept that is, on its surface and easily understood to be, fairly abjectly as ignorant (if taken at your face value) as that of the people that you complain about.

Yes, you saying that 'his most loyal' would be less fing ignorant; debatable -- but absolutely less ignorant than what you are maddy poo abut being called out on.

Absolutely fing rich!

And in light of OOs example of the issue to you, in which you could have backed down and said 'let me rephrase', simply told him 'cute' -- and then *again* doubled down on with yet *another* crapola redefinition.

Doubly rich!

I think you need some more castanets in todays version of your cha cha cha.....

Wait, you’re saying that when asked what I consider someone’s base I, shocking, defined who I thought the definition was?

Funny you forget you simply responded with a simple general slur about that group. How *did* you overlook that fact?

Quote:Yes, it is me who is crying in this situation, not the person who can’t handle a difference of opinion.

Bye Felicia.

I find it absolutely mind boggling that, when asked, you simply respond with a 'deplorables' level comment.

Kind of like:

Q: what do you consider trump's base.
A: pretty much deplorables.

I mean, the above is pretty much an accurate paraphrase of your position, mind you.

Funny you dont fing clue in to your own answer.

Doubly funny that you dont clue in the inherent ignorance in that answer, all the while about seemingly complaining about such ignorants.

Triply funny that you dont clue in to that after OO spoon feeds you the issue.

Quadruply funny is your snide answer back to OO after your failure to clue in to the issue.

But please keep it up.

(12-15-2019 06:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 06:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2019 06:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think "base" in regard to any candidate or party, is those who support and/or likely to vote for the given candidate/party.
Hard for me to figure out who is in Buttigieg's base - I think it is people saying A democrat, but preferably none of the leaders.
But I just take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments of who is in Trump's base and why.

I take issue with some of the more mean-spirited assessments made by Trump of various women, people with disabilities, immigrants, Congresswomen, etc.
Yet his base still fervently supports him, as opposed to an alternative Republican candidate.

Well, we don't need a perfect person, like the your side does. We just want somebody who will get good things done for the country. I didn't vote for him in 2016 for many of the reasons you cite. But now there is a track record, one I like and hope continues.
In any case, supporting him does not mean we applaud and cheer everything he does. Personally, I wince whenever he does some of those things. But nothing he does makes me yearn for a Democrat.
I just hate the implication, like in your statement (and in Fountains), that we support him because we like those things you mention.
We had our chance to oppose him in 2016, and I did. But now he is the incumbent, doing a good job even against the mighty headwind of Democratic obstruction and conspiracy theories, and there is no real alternative in the Republican party and no alternative at all in the Democrats. It is either Trump or somebody worse. I opt for the ill-mannered guy doing well for us, rather than a Ms. Manners who will bring us down. If you want to choose the other way, that is your right as an American.

Wish I'd said that. Spot on. +3

Medicare for all in Iowa

“There are some voices in the Democratic primary right now who are calling for a policy that would eliminate the job of every single American working at every single insurance company in the country"

"Economists say the jobs impact of any shift away from private health care would be felt nationwide by hundreds of thousands of Americans. It’s not just jobs at private insurance companies that could be affected; those working on processing insurance claims at hospitals and other administrative health care jobs could be reduced as well."

" Economists at the University of Michigan found in an analysis of Sanders’ Medicare for All bill that the jobs of nearly 747,000 health insurance industry workers, and an additional 1.06 million health insurance administrative staffers, would no longer be needed if Medicare for All became law."

Full disclosure: My son works for Principal Mutual in Des Moines.

(12-15-2019 10:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Medicare for all in Iowa

If government controls your health care and takes away your guns, you are--for all intents and purposes--slaves.

Indeed. Felons on Medicare in Nebraska are slaves.

(12-14-2019 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You had a mental picture of "his base" when you wrote the words. At least Lad is hiding out in semi-honorable silence, not this mealy-mouthed crap. Be a man and tell us what you think when the words "Trump base" are uttered. Own it.

And everybody, right and left, is invited to give his thoughts on what constitutes Trump's "base". FBO, AE, JAAO, Big, any lurkers. Come one come all.

I didn't check this cesspool yesterday and didn't really feel like weighing in because discussing politics with you all doesn't make my life or attitude any better (like I have written before, discussing policy is more interesting). But how about defining "Trump's base" as the 53% of Republicans in a recent poll who said he was a better president than Lincoln?

(12-16-2019 11:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Indeed. Felons on Medicare in Nebraska are slaves.

Way to pick an extreme, outlandish example.

But maybe not so extreme or outlandish. If government controls our healthcare and takes away our guns, felons in Nebraska would pretty much describe our lives.

(12-16-2019 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Indeed. Felons on Medicare in Nebraska are slaves.

Way to pick an extreme, outlandish example.

But maybe not so extreme or outlandish. If government controls our healthcare and takes away our guns, felons in Nebraska would pretty much describe our lives.

Yeah, but you said that the government taking away guns and controlling your healthcare means "you are--for all intents and purposes--slaves."

So how is it outlandish to identify a group who meets those requirements (felons can't own weapons and being on Medicare means the government controls your healthcare) as slaves?

(12-16-2019 11:06 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You had a mental picture of "his base" when you wrote the words. At least Lad is hiding out in semi-honorable silence, not this mealy-mouthed crap. Be a man and tell us what you think when the words "Trump base" are uttered. Own it.

And everybody, right and left, is invited to give his thoughts on what constitutes Trump's "base". FBO, AE, JAAO, Big, any lurkers. Come one come all.

I didn't check this cesspool yesterday and didn't really feel like weighing in because discussing politics with you all doesn't make my life or attitude any better (like I have written before, discussing policy is more interesting). But how about defining "Trump's base" as the 53% of Republicans in a recent poll who said he was a better president than Lincoln?

I guess there are different perspectives on Lincoln, as there are on all public figures. At least Trump has not led us into war...yet. I am sure you are coming from the perspective of "Lincoln freed the slaves, so that's all that matters". Can you name any other thing Lincoln did? Trade agreements, economic measures? I can think of the draft and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Of course, Lincoln did not run for office on the platform of freeing slaves, nor was it an objective of his. When he did free slaves, it was only in the 11 CSA states - the ones in the Union states were not freed, and only because the CSA states din not meet his ultimatum. If any had, they could have retained their slaves. Maybe you need to read up on Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln's letter to Greeley
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." - Lincoln


In any case, I think if we were to run the election of 1860 again, most of the Democrat base would vote for Stephen Douglas, and against Lincoln, just as they did in 1860.

I will repeat, I think the core of Trump's base are working men and small business people, augmented by people enjoying some economic success for the first time ever. The same people who the Democrats SAY they work for, but who have seen little to prove it over the years. I don't think you can define his base by how they react to his boorish behavior or how great they think Lincoln was.

(12-16-2019 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Indeed. Felons on Medicare in Nebraska are slaves.

Way to pick an extreme, outlandish example.

But maybe not so extreme or outlandish. If government controls our healthcare and takes away our guns, felons in Nebraska would pretty much describe our lives.

Yeah, but you said that the government taking away guns and controlling your healthcare means "you are--for all intents and purposes--slaves."

So how is it outlandish to identify a group who meets those requirements (felons can't own weapons and being on Medicare means the government controls your healthcare) as slaves?

Another group that meets those criteria are the citizens of North Korea. Is it your position that they are free?

(12-15-2019 10:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If government controls your health care and takes away your guns, you are--for all intents and purposes--slaves.

(12-16-2019 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Indeed. Felons on Medicare in Nebraska are slaves.

Way to pick an extreme, outlandish example.

But maybe not so extreme or outlandish. If government controls our healthcare and takes away our guns, felons in Nebraska would pretty much describe our lives.

The statement is, of course, a little silly since no serious democratic presidential candidate is advocating that the government take all guns and I'm not sure any active candidates are advocating a take-back for "assault weapons". And I'm not sure what you mean by "control your health care" since even Medicare for All still has private hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. even though the funding mechanism becomes largely public.

That said, if the government controlled my healthcare and took away my guns, my life would ... not be very different. And i'm pretty sure I'm not a slave for any intents or any purposes.

Right now my healthcare is partially controlled by GEHA, a private corporation. Not sure how switching that control to the government would make things any better or worse. Based on my experience working for the government, there are some great employees and some terrible ones, which I imagine is the same as at GEHA. Most polls I have seen show higher approval ratings for people who actually have public plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and the military than the approval rating for private plans for people who actually have those private plans. But I have been OK with my private plans over the years. I have also been fortunate enough that both myself and my immediate family have stayed pretty healthy so I've never had to challenge a denial of coverage.

(12-16-2019 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So how is it outlandish to identify a group who meets those requirements (felons can't own weapons and being on Medicare means the government controls your healthcare) as slaves?

Well, don't change what he said. He said "for all intents and purposes".

I have known a lot of felons, been related to a couple. To a man (or woman) what they want is a job - a way to support themselves that enables them to walk the straight and narrow. They will trade their right to vote in a heartbeat for a job. Trump's economy offers many of them that chance for a job.

Edit: I think some felons can own weapons. I called the Sheriff to ask about my ex's second husband - he said it depends.

(12-16-2019 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Indeed. Felons on Medicare in Nebraska are slaves.

Way to pick an extreme, outlandish example.

But maybe not so extreme or outlandish. If government controls our healthcare and takes away our guns, felons in Nebraska would pretty much describe our lives.

Yeah, but you said that the government taking away guns and controlling your healthcare means "you are--for all intents and purposes--slaves."

So how is it outlandish to identify a group who meets those requirements (felons can't own weapons and being on Medicare means the government controls your healthcare) as slaves?

Another group that meets those criteria are the citizens of North Korea. Is it your position that they are free?

To be abundantly clear - I do not in any way, shape, or form agree with Owl#s “all intents and purposes” regarding slavery. That’s a major leap.

(12-16-2019 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 11:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Indeed. Felons on Medicare in Nebraska are slaves.

Way to pick an extreme, outlandish example.
But maybe not so extreme or outlandish. If government controls our healthcare and takes away our guns, felons in Nebraska would pretty much describe our lives.

Yeah, but you said that the government taking away guns and controlling your healthcare means "you are--for all intents and purposes--slaves."
So how is it outlandish to identify a group who meets those requirements (felons can't own weapons and being on Medicare means the government controls your healthcare) as slaves?

A felon in Nebraska on Medicare pretty much is a slave. He/She certainly has lost control of a significant potion of his/her life. It's not an existence that I would want. You can argue over where the dividing line between slave and not slave lies, but that is way too close to slavery to suit me.