It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
rogers park bryan wrote:
From an article about last night...


5. McAuliffe 2020 starts now
The happiest person in Virginia might be Gov. Terry McAuliffe.
The long-time friend of the Clintons, fundraiser extraordinaire and former Democratic National Committee chairman wasn't taken particularly seriously as a candidate himself -- a principal, rather than a supporting player -- when he ran for governor in 2013.
Now, McAuliffe seems impossible to ignore.
Swaggering onto stage at Northam's victory party to Mark Morrison's "Return of the Mack," McAuliffe cast the election results as Virginia's rejection of discrimination. He touted his own administration's efforts to protect LGBT workers, in a message that sounded 2020-ready.
A few weeks from leaving office, McAuliffe has made clear that he hasn't run out of political ambition. He leaves Virginia as a popular Democrat with a strong economic record and a revitalized Democratic bench set to take office.


Image

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56745
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Abandon the chase for "moderate Republicans" who hardly exist and mobilize people who have been too discouraged to vote.
You seem to live in this fantasy world where the Democrats can be more relevant by becoming the Socialist party. There are far more "moderate Republicans" than there are fringe Bernie Sanders loving Socialists who want the government to solve every issue by taking it over. I mean, Bernie Sanders literally left the Democratic party as soon as he could. But, even if that is the strategy they employ, they are going to push many Democrats over to the Republicans even as they hate Trump. If it ever does come down to a "Burn it all down" Democrat and a Republican who isn't Trump then I think the answer will be pretty clear for a large portion of the voters that matter.

If you want a Socialist party then just have a Socialist party and see how many you can convince to join up. The fantasy of wanting the Democrats to become Socialists because a terrible candidate lost to another terrible candidate ignores the reality that most people are happy enough to not want to burn it all down and don't believe candidates like Sanders who try and convince you that everything is horrible and needs to be redone.


They don't have to become socialists, but they do have to return to being more populist. And they don't have to "burn anything down"; I think we're all incrementalists here, it's just a question of whether the increments are measured in inches or millimeters.

I think that as we go forward, powerfully addressing people's economic concerns will be a more potent message than this Jon Ossoff stuff of "if the smart people just edit a few spreadsheet cells, everything will be fine, also, I'm a good boy on Twitter," which wasn't even good enough to begin with. I'm glad you're doing so well but lots of people aren't and I don't think they're going to settle for maintenance of the status quo buttressed with cheap, feel-good cultural liberalism.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what neoliberalism is. Establishment Republicans are the biggest proponents of neoliberalism there (along with Clintonian Democrats). That word gets thrown around a lot incorrectly.


Neoliberalism as I was taught means favoring the market only until it is proven that it cannot meet a need. Then and only then is limited government intervention allowed. Am I close?


It's really just a belief in free markets with minimal or no regulation or government intervention. When I was in school, it was usually referenced regarding globalization. It was used to describe people who were against tariffs, protectionism, or penalties for doing business overseas. Just economic Libertarianism, really. The first person I ever heard referred to as a "Neoliberal" was George W Bush.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93623
Location: To the left of my post
Curious Hair wrote:
They don't have to become socialists, but they do have to return to being more populist. And they don't have to "burn anything down"; I think we're all incrementalists here, it's just a question of whether the increments are measured in inches or millimeters.
Ever since Bernie came around, you have been touting something far more than incrementalist. I mean, you won't even consider that a public option and/or hybrid system for healthcare is better than a single payer system. A single payer system is complete and total control of the healthcare system by the government. You seemed to also agree with many of the complete government takeovers that were campaigned on by the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Curious Hair wrote:
I think that as we go forward, powerfully addressing people's economic concerns will be a more potent message than this Jon Ossoff stuff of "if the smart people just edit a few spreadsheet cells, everything will be fine, also, I'm a good boy on Twitter," which wasn't even good enough to begin with. I'm glad you're doing so well but lots of people aren't and I don't think they're going to settle for maintenance of the status quo buttressed with cheap, feel-good cultural liberalism.
It has nothing to do with how well I'm doing. Regardless of what Bernie tried to sell, the country is doing alright. It has problems, like it always has and always will have, but we don't need to "Burn it all down" because millennials aren't handed a job and a house on graduation day. It still gets me that one of Bernie's populist talking points was that he would add 1 million new government jobs. This wasn't even saying that we needed them for a specific goal. It was just a generic promise to add 40-60 billion dollars worth of government payroll every year. That's going to be a hard sell to even the moderate Democrats who can at least understand that the Republicans have some correct ideas that our government is already too big and certainly inefficient.

Now, I understand the response to this is "Bernie didn't actually mean any of that, but he was just using it to make a point" or whatever type of backtracking is done to say "Ignore what Bernie says, but pay attention to what it feels like".

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:19 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Curious Hair wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Abandon the chase for "moderate Republicans" who hardly exist and mobilize people who have been too discouraged to vote.
You seem to live in this fantasy world where the Democrats can be more relevant by becoming the Socialist party. There are far more "moderate Republicans" than there are fringe Bernie Sanders loving Socialists who want the government to solve every issue by taking it over. I mean, Bernie Sanders literally left the Democratic party as soon as he could. But, even if that is the strategy they employ, they are going to push many Democrats over to the Republicans even as they hate Trump. If it ever does come down to a "Burn it all down" Democrat and a Republican who isn't Trump then I think the answer will be pretty clear for a large portion of the voters that matter.

If you want a Socialist party then just have a Socialist party and see how many you can convince to join up. The fantasy of wanting the Democrats to become Socialists because a terrible candidate lost to another terrible candidate ignores the reality that most people are happy enough to not want to burn it all down and don't believe candidates like Sanders who try and convince you that everything is horrible and needs to be redone.


They don't have to become socialists, but they do have to return to being more populist. And they don't have to "burn anything down"; I think we're all incrementalists here, it's just a question of whether the increments are measured in inches or millimeters.

I think that as we go forward, powerfully addressing people's economic concerns will be a more potent message than this Jon Ossoff stuff of "if the smart people just edit a few spreadsheet cells, everything will be fine, also, I'm a good boy on Twitter," which wasn't even good enough to begin with. I'm glad you're doing so well but lots of people aren't and I don't think they're going to settle for maintenance of the status quo buttressed with cheap, feel-good cultural liberalism.


A bunch of writers beginning with Thomas Frank (in What's the Matter with Kansas?) have demonstrated that the Democratic party's prolonged decline began in the 1980s when it abandoned New Deal/Great Society economic policies in favor of neoliberalism. With this move, they effectively ceded one of their core constituencies-- working-class whites--to Republicans, who courted the blue collar vote via a series of cynical social issue hot button campaigns.

Neoliberalism--austerity, deregulation, privatization, corporate free trade, de-unionization, etc--has been a losing agenda for Democrats. A return to updated versions of classic New Deal and Great Society policies would help the party recapture constituencies essential to winning majorities in the House and Senate.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
It has nothing to do with how well I'm doing. Regardless of what Bernie tried to sell, the country is doing alright.


CNBC wrote:
Most people in the U.S. are living in financially precarious circumstances. Half of all Americans have nothing put away for retirement and the vast majority of them have under $1,000 saved, total.

According to a 2016 GOBankingRates survey, 35 percent of all adults in the U.S. have only several hundred dollars in their savings accounts and 34 percent have zero. Only 15 percent have over $10,000 stashed away.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56745
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I mean, you won't even consider that a public option and/or hybrid system for healthcare is better than a single payer system. A single payer system is complete and total control of the healthcare system by the government.

Wouldn't single-payer-single-provider, i.e. the NHS, be total control? We still wouldn't have that. Our "hybrid system" now is collapsing, so how much goodness is there left to consider? Why does Blue Cross Blue Shield need me as their champion?

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93623
Location: To the left of my post
Curious Hair wrote:
Wouldn't single-payer-single-provider, i.e. the NHS, be total control? We still wouldn't have that.
I don't understand the question. Single payer means the government pays for everything.

Curious Hair wrote:
Our "hybrid system" now is collapsing, so how much goodness is there left to consider? Why does Blue Cross Blue Shield need me as their champion?
We don't have a hybrid system now. What are you talking about?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
. It still gets me that one of Bernie's populist talking points was that he would add 1 million new government jobs. This wasn't even saying that we needed them for a specific goal. It was just a generic promise to add 40-60 billion dollars worth of government payroll every year. That's going to be a hard sell to even the moderate Democrats who can at least understand that the Republicans have some correct ideas that our government is already too big and certainly inefficient.

Isnt that what Roosevelt's New Deal did by creating Public Works?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56745
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Yeah, I mean, our infrastructure is in pretty lousy condition, from roads all the way up to internet. Rebuilding it sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33242
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Damn posting problems....keeps losing login every time I try to post.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93623
Location: To the left of my post
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
. It still gets me that one of Bernie's populist talking points was that he would add 1 million new government jobs. This wasn't even saying that we needed them for a specific goal. It was just a generic promise to add 40-60 billion dollars worth of government payroll every year. That's going to be a hard sell to even the moderate Democrats who can at least understand that the Republicans have some correct ideas that our government is already too big and certainly inefficient.

Isnt that what Roosevelt's New Deal did by creating Public Works?
That wasn't how it was sold. It was 1 million new jobs for youths. I doubt it was like "Hey English major who can't get a job, grab a shovel and get on the highway!".

I'd be fully on board with better infrastructure and jobs to improve it but I doubt that most Millenials were excited about Bernie selling them a future as a person laying roadways out.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
. It still gets me that one of Bernie's populist talking points was that he would add 1 million new government jobs. This wasn't even saying that we needed them for a specific goal. It was just a generic promise to add 40-60 billion dollars worth of government payroll every year. That's going to be a hard sell to even the moderate Democrats who can at least understand that the Republicans have some correct ideas that our government is already too big and certainly inefficient.

Isnt that what Roosevelt's New Deal did by creating Public Works?
That wasn't how it was sold. It was 1 million new jobs for youths. I doubt it was like "Hey English major who can't get a job, grab a shovel and get on the highway!".

I'd be fully on board with better infrastructure and jobs to improve it but I doubt that most Millenials were excited about Bernie selling them a future as a person laying roadways out.

I think you're making some assumptions there. It was laid out as government jobs. Infrastructure stuff was the first thing that I thought of.

What did you think he meant? What kind of jobs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
. It still gets me that one of Bernie's populist talking points was that he would add 1 million new government jobs. This wasn't even saying that we needed them for a specific goal. It was just a generic promise to add 40-60 billion dollars worth of government payroll every year. That's going to be a hard sell to even the moderate Democrats who can at least understand that the Republicans have some correct ideas that our government is already too big and certainly inefficient.

Isnt that what Roosevelt's New Deal did by creating Public Works?
That wasn't how it was sold. It was 1 million new jobs for youths. I doubt it was like "Hey English major who can't get a job, grab a shovel and get on the highway!".

I'd be fully on board with better infrastructure and jobs to improve it but I doubt that most Millenials were excited about Bernie selling them a future as a person laying roadways out.


The WPA didn't focus exclusively on infrastructure. It employed thousands of visual artists, architects, writers, and actors through the Federal Art Project, the Federal Writers Project, the Federal Theater Project, etc.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93623
Location: To the left of my post
rogers park bryan wrote:
I think you're making some assumptions there. It was laid out as government jobs. Infrastructure stuff was the first thing that I thought of.

What did you think he meant? What kind of jobs?
I'm guessing most of them would be of the office or social type jobs to help the youth who have low job prospects based on their choice of major.

Do you really think they were trying to sell the English major who can't find work on pouring asphalt on the highway and repairing the metal under bridges?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
Tall Midget wrote:
[
The WPA didn't focus exclusively on infrastructure. It employed thousands of visual artists, architects, writers, and actors through the Federal Art Project, the Federal Writers Project, the Federal Theater Project, etc.


That's stupid. They should have hired a bunch of math majors to do integrals by hand.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
I think you're making some assumptions there. It was laid out as government jobs. Infrastructure stuff was the first thing that I thought of.

What did you think he meant? What kind of jobs?
I'm guessing most of them would be of the office or social type jobs to help the youth who have low job prospects based on their choice of major.

Do you really think they were trying to sell the English major who can't find work on pouring asphalt on the highway and repairing the metal under bridges?

I mean, when I hear govt job, that's the kind of thing I think of. I can't speak for English Majors (obviously)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72569
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
I think you're making some assumptions there. It was laid out as government jobs. Infrastructure stuff was the first thing that I thought of.

What did you think he meant? What kind of jobs?
I'm guessing most of them would be of the office or social type jobs to help the youth who have low job prospects based on their choice of major.

Do you really think they were trying to sell the English major who can't find work on pouring asphalt on the highway and repairing the metal under bridges?

If the English major can't find work why would he thumb his nose at a job like that?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40940
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
I think you're making some assumptions there. It was laid out as government jobs. Infrastructure stuff was the first thing that I thought of.

What did you think he meant? What kind of jobs?
I'm guessing most of them would be of the office or social type jobs to help the youth who have low job prospects based on their choice of major.

Do you really think they were trying to sell the English major who can't find work on pouring asphalt on the highway and repairing the metal under bridges?

If the English major can't find work why would he thumb his nose at a job like that?


Well he said millennials and they don't roll like that.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Breitbart on 10/25
Image


Breitbart this morning

Image




Ok, back to lazy English majors...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93623
Location: To the left of my post
rogers park bryan wrote:
I mean, when I hear govt job, that's the kind of thing I think of. I can't speak for English Majors (obviously)
I think if that were the case that Bernie would have made it more clear.
FavreFan wrote:
If the English major can't find work why would he thumb his nose at a job like that?
I agree that they should but it is my impression that most college graduates aren't looking for a career outside of their major involving significant manual labor.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80514
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23303/10- ... en-shapiro

With the Virginia losses, those most loyal to Trump have two options: they can acknowledge that Trump is governing in unpopular fashion and that something must change, or they can blame everyone for failing to be sufficiently deferential to Trump. You can guess which way they lean.

:lol: :lol:

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72569
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
pittmike wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
I think you're making some assumptions there. It was laid out as government jobs. Infrastructure stuff was the first thing that I thought of.

What did you think he meant? What kind of jobs?
I'm guessing most of them would be of the office or social type jobs to help the youth who have low job prospects based on their choice of major.

Do you really think they were trying to sell the English major who can't find work on pouring asphalt on the highway and repairing the metal under bridges?

If the English major can't find work why would he thumb his nose at a job like that?


Well he said millennials and they don't roll like that.

Nonsense, mike. Disregard that thing you read somewhere. I know plenty of millenials doing construction right now.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93623
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23303/10-things-you-need-know-about-democrats-ben-shapiro

With the Virginia losses, those most loyal to Trump have two options: they can acknowledge that Trump is governing in unpopular fashion and that something must change, or they can blame everyone for failing to be sufficiently deferential to Trump. You can guess which way they lean.

:lol: :lol:
This is the one time it is valid to bring up that Trump lost the popular vote.

You don't win by being deferential to a President that couldn't get a majority of the votes in his own and election and has historically poor approval ratings.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72569
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
I mean, when I hear govt job, that's the kind of thing I think of. I can't speak for English Majors (obviously)
I think if that were the case that Bernie would have made it more clear.
FavreFan wrote:
If the English major can't find work why would he thumb his nose at a job like that?
I agree that they should but it is my impression that most college graduates aren't looking for a career outside of their major involving significant manual labor.

I'm sure it's not their ideal job but I would hope the desire to not be homeless would outweigh the desire to have an easy job. I wouldn't think it would take much of a sell job to convince them eating is better than starving.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93623
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
I'm sure it's not their ideal job but I would hope the desire to not be homeless would outweigh the desire to have an easy job. I wouldn't think it would take much of a sell job to convince them eating is better than starving.
Of course, but it's become a big story that many college graduates are taking a long time to find work and some aren't finding it at all. I can't imagine that is because there are NO jobs for them to take especially now with relatively low unemployment numbers.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80514
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23303/10-things-you-need-know-about-democrats-ben-shapiro

With the Virginia losses, those most loyal to Trump have two options: they can acknowledge that Trump is governing in unpopular fashion and that something must change, or they can blame everyone for failing to be sufficiently deferential to Trump. You can guess which way they lean.

:lol: :lol:
This is the one time it is valid to bring up that Trump lost the popular vote.

You don't win by being deferential to a President that couldn't get a majority of the votes in his own and election and has historically poor approval ratings.



"Many Republicans are under the dramatic misimpression that Trump boosts Republican ballot chances rather than hurting them, but the evidence simply isn’t there for that. Trump radically underperformed nearly every Republican Senate candidate in 2016. He won fewer votes than Mitt Romney did in Wisconsin; Romney lost the state, Trump won. He won fewer votes in Michigan than Bush did in 2004; Bush lost the state. Trump won because nobody showed up to vote for Hillary. But Hillary’s not on the ballot anymore, which means many Republicans will stay home; furthermore, Hillary’s absence means that more Democrats will show up."

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40940
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
FavreFan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
I think you're making some assumptions there. It was laid out as government jobs. Infrastructure stuff was the first thing that I thought of.

What did you think he meant? What kind of jobs?
I'm guessing most of them would be of the office or social type jobs to help the youth who have low job prospects based on their choice of major.

Do you really think they were trying to sell the English major who can't find work on pouring asphalt on the highway and repairing the metal under bridges?

If the English major can't find work why would he thumb his nose at a job like that?


Well he said millennials and they don't roll like that.

Nonsense, mike. Disregard that thing you read somewhere. I know plenty of millenials doing construction right now.


Were they English majors?

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56745
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
"Many Republicans are under the dramatic misimpression that Trump boosts Republican ballot chances rather than hurting them, but the evidence simply isn’t there for that. Trump radically underperformed nearly every Republican Senate candidate in 2016. He won fewer votes than Mitt Romney did in Wisconsin; Romney lost the state, Trump won. He won fewer votes in Michigan than Bush did in 2004; Bush lost the state. Trump won because nobody showed up to vote for Hillary. But Hillary’s not on the ballot anymore, which means many Republicans will stay home; furthermore, Hillary’s absence means that more Democrats will show up."


Maybe it was a good thing that Hillary ran up the score in a meaningless California race. Imagine if she underperformed George W. Bush in key states and lost the popular vote.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:16 pm 
Curious Hair wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
"Many Republicans are under the dramatic misimpression that Trump boosts Republican ballot chances rather than hurting them, but the evidence simply isn’t there for that. Trump radically underperformed nearly every Republican Senate candidate in 2016. He won fewer votes than Mitt Romney did in Wisconsin; Romney lost the state, Trump won. He won fewer votes in Michigan than Bush did in 2004; Bush lost the state. Trump won because nobody showed up to vote for Hillary. But Hillary’s not on the ballot anymore, which means many Republicans will stay home; furthermore, Hillary’s absence means that more Democrats will show up."


Maybe it was a good thing that Hillary ran up the score in a meaningless California race. Imagine if she underperformed George W. Bush in key states and lost the popular vote.

I don't really get the whole "ran up the score" thing. More people live in CA. More people vote in CA. This isn't another discussion about the fucked up Electoral College, but if more people vote for somebody, it's not "running up the score" because they all live in the same area. It's like Trump still showing the electoral map to try and claim how big his victory was. Yes Donald, there is a lot of red. Sadly for you cattle and tumbleweed don't vote.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group