Tomb of Trump Campaign

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"Koch/ALEC stranglehold on state assemblies evaporate and the rollback of the massive gerrymandering"

WTF? precisely how does that happen?

Because such dark money would be illegal, dimwit.

[baseline bum]

Following the Hoover Administration the dems controlled congress and the presidency for decades. GOP types still haven't departed from Hoover/Coolidge ideology and people are starting to recall history now that its repeating itself.

Once you lose CU, you will see the Koch/ALEC stranglehold on state assemblies evaporate and the rollback of the massive gerrymandering which is already seeing pushback. The success of Sanders amongst millennials is just writing on the wall while the Boomers who gave us Clinton are marching to the grave.

You can wishcast your preferred outcome but the above are the mechanics that I see.

How are you going to lose Citizens United though? I know Hillary is running on reversing it but that seems like an empty promise. What precedent would there be for it to be rolled back?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How are you going to lose Citizens United though? I know Hillary is running on reversing it but that seems like an empty promise. What precedent would there be for it to be rolled back?

The court just has to vote to reconsider it. RBG, Beyer and co are foaming at the mouth to do so. If she appoints a similarly minded justice it is what it is.

[boutons_deux]

How are you going to lose Citizens United though? I know Hillary is running on reversing it but that seems like an empty promise. What precedent would there be for it to be rolled back?

As with VRWC SCOTUS gutting the VRA, why would it take (an impossible) Cons utional Amendment to nullify C-U?

With 5-4 or 6-3 progressive SCOTUS and carefully worded suits, the VRA gutting and C-U, as stare decisis, could be reversed, just like the VRWC SCOTUS killed the 100 years of stare decisis of corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE.

[boutons_deux]

Because such dark money would be illegal, dimwit.

No dark money doesn't mean that slave/red state voters would stop voting Repug and Christian social issues against their own pocketbooks, .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No dark money doesn't mean that slave/red state voters would stop voting Repug and Christian social issues against their own pocketbooks, .

I never said it would, dimwit. I realize you have your head in the sand about the electorate. If you want to believe that all that money doesn't wag the dog I cannot help you.

[baseline bum]

The court just has to vote to reconsider it. RBG, Beyer and co are foaming at the mouth to do so. If she appoints a similarly minded justice it is what it is.

I hope so. I wish there was a 40 year old Ginsburg that Clinton could nominate for Scalia's spot. It's going to be a sad day when she's off the court.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I hope so. I wish there was a 40 year old Ginsburg that Clinton could nominate for Scalia's spot. It's going to be a sad day when she's off the court.

Well Bill appointed her in the first place. I imagine HRC had a hand in that. You are likely to be pleased as opposed to Sotomayor who likes to on civil liberties.

[CosmicCowboy]

Following the Hoover Administration the dems controlled congress and the presidency for decades. GOP types still haven't departed from Hoover/Coolidge ideology and people are starting to recall history now that its repeating itself.

Once you lose CU, you will see the Koch/ALEC stranglehold on state assemblies evaporate and the rollback of the massive gerrymandering which is already seeing pushback. The success of Sanders amongst millennials is just writing on the wall while the Boomers who gave us Clinton are marching to the grave.

You can wishcast your preferred outcome but the above are the mechanics that I see.

I seriously question your premise that millennials will never alter their political beliefs as they age. They will be the first generation ever if they don't.

[spurraider21]

[tlongII]

This is dumb as .

You left out the part where he bilked investors and contractors by claiming bankruptcy but not before he used the losses on his personal return as a carryover. You left out the part where he used his charities to pay off state AGs who were investigating his school. You left out the part where he described how and why he committed sexual assault. You left out the part where he is accused of child rape in federal court with 3 witnesses who have come forward.

I left out nothing that occurred while he was an active politician.

[ducks]

Hillary Clinton, citing 'Trump Effect,' says teachers are reporting more bullying in schools


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ays-teachers-/




Maybe irresponsible, hateful rhetoric is harmful? What do you think?

lack and parents at home training their children because both parents have to work to make ends means thanks democrats!
nothing to do with trump!

[pgardn]

And I would vastly prefer that Democrats would start embracing liberals I could support again. And not neocons like Shallary and Obomber

Bull .

Liberals you embrace who find Putin amazing?

wtf do you think a liberal is?

[pgardn]

lack and parents at home training their children because both parents have to work to make ends means thanks democrats!
nothing to do with trump!

Oh, so if the US was loaded with Trumps who use other people's money, everything would be fine?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I left out nothing that occurred while he was an active politician.

So what?

[ducks]

Oh, so if the US was loaded with Trumps who use other people's money, everything would be fine?

if parents had a mom AND dad and one of them stayed home instead of sending kids to babysit and train their kids the usa would be better off

[rmt]

Oh, so if the US was loaded with Trumps who use other people's money, everything would be fine?

Please tell me what you have against using other people's money.

I use other people's money. If I didn't, I wouldn't have my home or my rental. I think they've been good decisions - a few more years and I can burn this mortgage, and both have appreciated a lot in the meantime.

[ElNono]

I seriously question your premise that millennials will never alter their political beliefs as they age. They will be the first generation ever if they don't.

I keep hearing how people get more conservative as they age, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps that was true in the Reagan days, but most of this generation kicked off with Dubya, and now you show up with Trump. That's a lot of damage.

That's not to say the GOP can't win again, in bency always gives a lot of ammo, but certain things like social conservatism are probably pretty much dead.

[RandomGuy]

lack and parents at home training their children because both parents have to work to make ends means thanks democrats!
nothing to do with trump!

You didn't really read the article, did you? (facepalm)

[boutons_deux]

I keep hearing how people get more conservative as they age, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps that was true in the Reagan days, but most of this generation kicked off with Dubya, and now you show up with Trump. That's a lot of damage.

That's not to say the GOP can't win again, in bency always gives a lot of ammo, but certain things like social conservatism are probably pretty much dead.

In red/slave states, the macho He Man culture says "Real Men vote only Repug", and voting Dem is for women, voting Dem helps knitters and Mexicans.

[vy65]

You didn't really read the article, did you? (facepalm)

That's rich, considering you didn't appear to either. But I dig the Darth Vader meme tho.

[boutons_deux]

if parents had a mom AND dad and one of them stayed home instead of sending kids to babysit and train their kids the usa would be better off

When the VRWC War on Employees' Compensation got going seriously in the late '70s, early '80s, women HAD to go to work in the '80s so household could just stand still, which is what household income has basically done since 1980.

[RandomGuy]

This is horse . For someone who constantly rants about logical fallacies, you can't sincerely believe that there is any meaningful evidence drawing this link. Even the article you posted admits that the claim is not scientific.



Your sensationalism is the same tactic Trump uses. How's that for irony?

There hasn't been time for a formal scientific study.

The survey does provide, even with a biased or defective sample, some reasonable basis for the claim.

Do you find it beyond the pale the demogogury against minorities might embolden some who are predisposed towards bullying or violence?


Yes or no will do.

[RandomGuy]

That's rich, considering you didn't appear to either. But I dig the Darth Vader meme tho.

I did read it. I also find your attempts to tear my arguments down amusingly desperate. Almost as if you are butthurt over being called out as being immoral.

[vy65]

This means it would be inaccurate to extrapolate from the survey that bullying and harassment are generally on the rise across the country. Rather, it is more a collection of teachers’ anecdotal experiences.

We looked for a scientific study that speaks to this same question but couldn’t find one, mostly because there tends to be a lag in this kind of data, meaning data on bullying trends in 2016 won’t get published until 2017 or later. The process of setting up and getting approval to conduct a scientific study is lengthy and bersome, and would not be approved before the election, said Sheri Bauman, a professor at the University of Arizona who researches bullying.

lol desperate. You're as tone deaf as trump and your attempt to change the subject ain't gonna work.