(11-13-2018 01:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 10:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Chiefly because the left absolutely does NOT want to get "there". The left's stock in trade is perpetuating difference for the sake of difference -- or really, for the sake of leftism. It's a disgusting ploy, but they have staked their all on it.

I really hope you are just trolling here. What a ridiculous statement.

Your professed indignation is ridiculous. There is very little to suggest that the left genuinely wishes to reduce division based on "identity", and plenty (including your own comments here) to indicate that they hope to preserve it at all costs. And yes, that's disgusting.

I think JAAO cannot see the forest for the trees. On the other thread he is explaining to me why we need to elect more women and minorities.

(11-13-2018 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 10:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Chiefly because the left absolutely does NOT want to get "there". The left's stock in trade is perpetuating difference for the sake of difference -- or really, for the sake of leftism. It's a disgusting ploy, but they have staked their all on it.

I really hope you are just trolling here. What a ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

(11-13-2018 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 10:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Chiefly because the left absolutely does NOT want to get "there". The left's stock in trade is perpetuating difference for the sake of difference -- or really, for the sake of leftism. It's a disgusting ploy, but they have staked their all on it.

I really hope you are just trolling here. What a ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

All we heard from the Democrats about Stacey Abrams was that she would be the first black female governor. Still no idea of her stance on the issues or even what the issues were. Why should somebody vote for her? because we have never had a black female governor, natch.

Reminds me of all the kids back in 2008 who said they were voting for Obama because they wanted to be a part of making history.

Oh good grief. I'm remembering why I retired from the Quad.

(11-13-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 10:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Chiefly because the left absolutely does NOT want to get "there". The left's stock in trade is perpetuating difference for the sake of difference -- or really, for the sake of leftism. It's a disgusting ploy, but they have staked their all on it.

I really hope you are just trolling here. What a ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

All we heard from the Democrats about Stacey Abrams was that she would be the first black female governor. Still no idea of her stance on the issues or even what the issues were. Why should somebody vote for her? because we have never had a black female governor, natch.

Reminds me of all the kids back in 2008 who said they were voting for Obama because they wanted to be a part of making history.

And all we heard from Reps about her opponent was that he opposed her. What were his stances on issues?

(11-13-2018 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 10:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Chiefly because the left absolutely does NOT want to get "there". The left's stock in trade is perpetuating difference for the sake of difference -- or really, for the sake of leftism. It's a disgusting ploy, but they have staked their all on it.

I really hope you are just trolling here. What a ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

All we heard from the Democrats about Stacey Abrams was that she would be the first black female governor. Still no idea of her stance on the issues or even what the issues were. Why should somebody vote for her? because we have never had a black female governor, natch.

Reminds me of all the kids back in 2008 who said they were voting for Obama because they wanted to be a part of making history.

And all we heard from Reps about her opponent was that he opposed her. What were his stances on issues?

And all we hear now is how it is/was racist to not support her, in conjunction with all the knee jerk 'voter suppression' stuff. I guess that fails to make an impact with some.

(11-13-2018 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I really hope you are just trolling here. What a ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

All we heard from the Democrats about Stacey Abrams was that she would be the first black female governor. Still no idea of her stance on the issues or even what the issues were. Why should somebody vote for her? because we have never had a black female governor, natch.

Reminds me of all the kids back in 2008 who said they were voting for Obama because they wanted to be a part of making history.

And all we heard from Reps about her opponent was that he opposed her. What were his stances on issues?

what we didn't hear was "Vote for him because he is a white male and we don't want to break precedent."

The Dems emphasized the race and gender of their candidate, as though it was important.

(11-13-2018 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I really hope you are just trolling here. What a ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

All we heard from the Democrats about Stacey Abrams was that she would be the first black female governor. Still no idea of her stance on the issues or even what the issues were. Why should somebody vote for her? because we have never had a black female governor, natch.

Reminds me of all the kids back in 2008 who said they were voting for Obama because they wanted to be a part of making history.

And all we heard from Reps about her opponent was that he opposed her. What were his stances on issues?

what we didn't hear was "Vote for him because he is a white male and we don't want to break precedent."

The Dems emphasized the race and gender of their candidate, as though it was important.

But did Reps emphasize their candidates positions?

Just saying, don’t go crying about how one party didn’t focus on policies when the other didn’t either.

(11-13-2018 06:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

All we heard from the Democrats about Stacey Abrams was that she would be the first black female governor. Still no idea of her stance on the issues or even what the issues were. Why should somebody vote for her? because we have never had a black female governor, natch.
Reminds me of all the kids back in 2008 who said they were voting for Obama because they wanted to be a part of making history.

And all we heard from Reps about her opponent was that he opposed her. What were his stances on issues?

what we didn't hear was "Vote for him because he is a white male and we don't want to break precedent."
The Dems emphasized the race and gender of their candidate, as though it was important.

But did Reps emphasize their candidates positions?
Just saying, don’t go crying about how one party didn’t focus on policies when the other didn’t either.

That's been my point all along. Republicans should respond to democrat identity politics by focusing on issues, but they don't.

(11-13-2018 06:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Ridiculous? The Democrats energize their voting base with identity politics, and when they gerrymander they do it in a way that concentrates votes in their favor, and that's usually along racial lines.

All we heard from the Democrats about Stacey Abrams was that she would be the first black female governor. Still no idea of her stance on the issues or even what the issues were. Why should somebody vote for her? because we have never had a black female governor, natch.

Reminds me of all the kids back in 2008 who said they were voting for Obama because they wanted to be a part of making history.

And all we heard from Reps about her opponent was that he opposed her. What were his stances on issues?

what we didn't hear was "Vote for him because he is a white male and we don't want to break precedent."

The Dems emphasized the race and gender of their candidate, as though it was important.

But did Reps emphasize their candidates positions?

Just saying, don’t go crying about how one party didn’t focus on policies when the other didn’t either.

How about how one party focused on race and gender and the other one didn't?

https://www.click2houston.com/news/polit...n-politics

Nice story on Cruz and O'Rourke bumping into each other at Bush Airport, and talking about how they can work together in the future.

He's like Obama, but white

I can't tell for sure, but it seems like the speaker thinks being white is a good thing.

(11-19-2018 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He's like Obama, but white

I can't tell for sure, but it seems like the speaker thinks being white is a good thing.

The commonalities seem to be:
- Little national experience;
- No executive experience whatsoever;
- Long on lofty rhetoric;
- Short on policy positions; and
- When we do get a glimpse of policy, what we see is hard-left.

No wonder he is the latest "progressive" idol!

(11-19-2018 10:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He's like Obama, but white

I can't tell for sure, but it seems like the speaker thinks being white is a good thing.

The commonalities seem to be:
- Little national experience;
- No executive experience whatsoever;
- Long on lofty rhetoric;
- Short on policy positions; and
- When we do get a glimpse of policy, what we see is hard-left.

No wonder he is the latest "progressive" idol!

Good fund raiser
Minority (sort of)

Minority (in name only -- literally)

Edited to add: Now I am really pissed at my family for not naming me Geraldo.....

(11-19-2018 10:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He's like Obama, but white

I can't tell for sure, but it seems like the speaker thinks being white is a good thing.

The commonalities seem to be:
- Little national experience;
- No executive experience whatsoever;
- Long on lofty rhetoric;
- Short on policy positions; and
- When we do get a glimpse of policy, what we see is hard-left.

No wonder he is the latest "progressive" idol!

Substitute “lofty” with “apocoplytpic,” change “executive experience” to “going bankrupt,” and swap “hard-left” with “hard-right” and you have a good description of the current Republican president.

(11-19-2018 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Minority (in name only -- literally)

Edited to add: Now I am really pissed at my family for not naming me Geraldo.....

My legal first name came from my father - I am a "Jr."

His was given to him by his Anglo father in large part because it has no spanish counterpart - he had seem to many Rays become Ramons, etc.

But all of us here on the Parliament knew Beto was not Hispanic in the least. But just like in texas, in a national election he will get millions of votes because of his "Hispanic heritage" and the desire of so many to "be a part of making history".

(11-19-2018 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Minority (in name only -- literally)

Edited to add: Now I am really pissed at my family for not naming me Geraldo.....

My legal first name came from my father - I am a "Jr."

His was given to him by his Anglo father in large part because it has no spanish counterpart - he had seem to many Rays become Ramons, etc.

But all of us here on the Parliament knew Beto was not Hispanic in the least. But just like in texas, in a national election he will get millions of votes because of his "Hispanic heritage" and the desire of so many to "be a part of making history".

If it makes you feel better, my guess is he would also get a lot of people to vote for his opponent for the exact same reason.

(11-19-2018 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 10:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He's like Obama, but white

I can't tell for sure, but it seems like the speaker thinks being white is a good thing.

The commonalities seem to be:
- Little national experience;
- No executive experience whatsoever;
- Long on lofty rhetoric;
- Short on policy positions; and
- When we do get a glimpse of policy, what we see is hard-left.

No wonder he is the latest "progressive" idol!

Substitute “lofty” with “apocoplytpic,” change “executive experience” to “going bankrupt,” and swap “hard-left” with “hard-right” and you have a good description of the current Republican president.

Lofty/apocalyptic - is not the current climate change/global warming vision apocalyptic? What apocalypse is Trump predicting?

hard left/hard right - I don't think of Trump being hard right. After all, he was a Democrat until recently and hasn't changed any of his views since then. I would characterize as more hard-Trump. I think maybe you have been watching too much CNN. What is it that he says/does that makes you think he is "hard-right"?

Going bankrupt. It is always amusing to see those who do not understand business focusing on his four bankrupcies out of hundreds of deals. Learned their business chops playing Monopoly, I guess. Is he not a multi- billionaire? Hasn't his fortune increased over the years? he is hardly bankrupt.

For a Mom and Pop store, bankruptcy is usually the end of the the line. But in the world of big business, it is usually a tool to buy time or concessions. How many of those four ended up in liquidation at pennies on the dollar?

Goodness knows, Trump is not perfect. (Psst. Neither is O'Rourke) But let's keep it on the rails here.

What 'hard right' policies do you refer to?