Underdog politicking in special election (Columbus, Delaware: live, lawsuit, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Columbus Dispatch changed hands a while ago. The formerly moderate to slightly conservative paper is now decidely liberal.
Not according to my liberal friends in Columbus.
However, I don't subscribe to the Dispatch and I rarely read it. The Dispatch's DeWine vs. Cordray endorsement likely will tell the tale as to the Dispatch's political lean.
Given Renacci's history, and current thumping in the polls by incumbent Sherrod Brown, I doubt if Renacci is endorsed by any of Ohio's leading papers.
Balderson supported Ohio law banning Down Syndrom abortions
Ohio Republicans passed and Gov. Kasich signed and enacted an Ohio law banning abortions if the fetus is suspected of having Down Syndrome. I doubt if this bill will be popular among Millennials of child-bearing age. I don't know if abortion is a significant issue in this campaign (those who care about the issue certainly know the position of each candidate), but Balderson clearly is anti-abortion and O"Connor is pro-choice.
I suspect that support for this bill will doom the future political careers of many of its supporters, including Kasich, outside the confines of the now decidedly social conservative Republican Party. When I discuss this bill with Millennial women, and men, they can't believe that the bill actually was enacted (they think I'm testing their gullibility, an occasional activity on my part).
Even a close Balderson win in this decidedly Republican district would suggest difficult waters ahead for allegedly conservative Republicans (as largely a Libertarian on social issues, I don't consider such bills as a ban on abortions of fetuses with Down Syndrome as "conservative").
I don't know for certain Balderson's position on climate change. However, as a fervent Trump supporter, Balderson likely is a climate change denier, a position also not popular among a large majority of Millennials.
So with every passing year as older Republicans leave the voting rolls, politicians of Balderson's beliefs likely will become less popular among the surviving, younger electorate.
I am enjoying the framing(s) being presented here. The Republican is described as "anti" something, but the Democrat as "pro" something. The Republicans are "deniers" and their political careers are doomed for standing up for their values--values that have been litigated and supported by the electorate that put them in office--and they are a dying party as a more progressive future is imminent.
Or not. If these framings were actually the case, then it's indescribable as to why Ohio's legislatures, state offices, and congressional delegation is dominated by Republicans. It's not just outdated, social conservatives lodging these politicians into office. The same folks who made sure Obama and Strickland carried Ohio propelled Trump and Kasich. Why? Did all these outdated social conservatives all of a sudden wake up and sprint to the polls?
That's not even to mention that the most prominent Republican caucus in the country is the Main-Street Partnership: moderate Republicans that identify as being center-right. These are not social conservatives, and they rarely even vote conservatively in regards to other matters. Tiberi was among them, and I have no doubts from what I've seen that Balderson will join the caucus if he wins. Also, just as Democrats can count patrons of the Green Party being among their bloc, so do Republicans count on Libertarians--natural allies over their economic policies and distrust of big government and bureaucracy. From my experience working in political settings, more Libertarians err on the side of being pro-life rather than pro-choice, citing the famous non-aggression principle of libertarian political philosophy.
While this isn't a policy debate insomuch as an electoral analysis--it goes without saying that the characterization of conservative perspectives of abortion and environmental policy can just as easily be misconstrued and framed in a way that vilifies Democrats. It is unworthy--there are substantive differences that could instead be explored in contributing to our discourse. Instead, the worst is assumed in people and politicians are actually disparaged for standing up for the very values that secured their elections.
It's culture and political climate that drives turnout and electoral decisions. There is a decisive split between policy issues within the country, and Ohio is as indicative of that split as any state. Aside from Florida and maybe Iowa, Ohio is probably the most "purple" state in the country.
Now as my name implies, I am a millennial and I do not share the sentiments stated or the analysis offered. I associate with other millennials in my personal and professional life that are also not the caricature we are often described as. There are entire institutions dedicated towards dispelling these false narratives that all millennials are liberal. Not only do I feel that's not true, but it seems the successors to millennials--generation Z--are expressing greater conservative sentiments than my own generation. So no, I do not believe conservative beliefs will be waning.
In my experience of doing electoral analysis, it's intrigued me how many people claim that a specific political climate is indicative of a "complete and utter rejection of certain values, destined for the trash heap to be gone and replaced forevermore." American political history disputes all of that. There have been several eras and generations of political dominance between the two major parties, and it is constantly fluctuating. I am old enough to remember that following 2008, people were saying that the Republican party is over. Just a single electoral cycle later, they were in for a huge surprise. As I claimed in my original analysis on this thread, there are two extraordinary factors that are making this otherwise solid Republican seat be competitive. It's not the rejection of values. I feel that those who make such claims are making the same mistakes that were made in 2016 and were unable to predict the electoral outcome there.
The media and Democrats are working overtime to inflate this race into being something that it's not. Special elections have the potential for unpredictability (Scott Walker wins in Progressive Wisconsin, Scott Brown in super liberal Massachusetts). There is no incumbent in Ohio 12. I can guarantee that this seat won't nearly be getting as much attention in November. But when there's a single seat to focus on greatly, and it happens to be competitive due to it lacking an incumbent and being in a moderate district, then comes the national attention and thousands of dollars being poured into a localized election. This strategy bodes well for Democrats, they are constantly claiming that the closeness of the election is indicative of November. Repeat it long enough, it starts to catch on. I won't bother explaining how "special elections" are different from regular midterm elections.
Last edited by MillennialMaverick; 08-06-2018 at 05:58 PM..
I am enjoying the framing(s) being presented here. The Republican is described as "anti" something, but the Democrat as "pro" something. The Republicans are "deniers" and their political careers are doomed for standing up for their values--values that have been litigated and supported by the electorate that put them in office--and they are a dying party as a more progressive future is imminent.
So how would you describe the Republican/Trump mantra on climate change? Pro-climate change? Pro science (please provide the names of climate scientists who deny the impact of fossil burning on the earth's environment)?
The reality is that Ohio Republicans have shamefully gerrymandered the state, provided massive tax breaks and even secretive subsidies (JobsOhio) to their supporters, and, apart from gun rights, invaded the privacy and civil rights of Ohioans (e.g., massive abortion restrictions).
Corporate-owned Ohio media generally covers the political process, rather than issues. The TV stations that I watch run negative ads that often are false, but never investigate or report on the accuracy of these ads. E.g., in the last Portman/Stickland Senate campaign, Portman was portrayed as someone who opposed trade agreements such as NAFTA, when in reality Portman was one of the nation's most reliable supporters of free trade agreements.
Most major and local Ohio newspapers do a pathetic job of covering environmental issues and even political issues.
Few Ohioans know that a massive expansion of corporate livestock farms in the Maumee River basin in Ohio and Indiana and the absence of a requirement to process manure, rather than just dump it on fields, has resulted in the toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie.
Few Ohioans know that radioactive fracking waste water is being imported into Ohio from other states such as Pennsylvania that restrict fracking waste water injection wells and pumped into Ohio injection wells at 2,000 psi, thereby potentially threatening Ohio potable water aquifers. Ohio's Republicans have banned local hearings over proposed injection wells. Why? Do you support this???
I wonder how many Ohioans know that the Republicans have banned the abortion of Down Syndrome fetuses in Ohio. Why hasn't this issue received any media coverage that I've seen in the Balderson/O'Connor contest? Do you think it's unimportant??? If the electorate doesn't even know about an issue, how can you represent that the electorate supports the issue?
Unlike your rant, I documented my comments with polls and other links.
If this wasn't a very different political environment than two years ago, O'Connor wouldn't be threatening to defeat Balderson in a heavily Republican district that Trump won by double digits.
It should be noted that I avoided any direct statements so as to not make any responses here personal. But that's a courtesy I most certainly didn't expect to be extended, what with being familiar with the way in which you conduct your discourse on here.
Selective outrage towards gerrymandering is interesting. Should Democrats be ashamed over Maryland?
I find it fascinating how people are characterizing abortion as a civil right. Not very civil to the fetus, if you ask me. Just as every generation looks at history retrospectively and wonders "wow, how did they possibly have such horrible attitudes towards ____?" the future generations will look to our pervasive attitudes and glorification of abortion as civil rights.
It is unbelievably arrogant to claim the electorate is any less informed than you are. It's easy to blame the system, the process, and the constituents when you don't get the political outcome you desire. I am not even a resident of Ohio and I am aware of the legislation targeted towards aborting those with down syndrome. The legislation was signed last December, the Ohio constituents are aware. They have elected pro-life candidates for a reason, and they're doing the job they were elected to do. You may disagree vehemently and froth at the mouth coming up with various explanations as to why it's so, but the sheer electoral outcomes of Ohio's politics in recent memory disputes what you claim.
I am continuing to enjoy the framing(s) and the patterns in your posts. What I or others posts is a "rant" but what you post is seemingly constructive. Republicans are nefarious: an attitude I noticed in your posts way back when, while being either passive or supportive of progressive policies/figures. Don't get me wrong, we're all entitled to our biases, but let's not pretend we're currently engaging in a discussion of substance or respect when we're not giving each other the time of day. It takes two to tango, I tried to avoid addressing you personally or getting into the policy--considering this thread was not made to discuss that. Notice that before you inserted it here, the discussions were limited to discussing how and why the election is so close, as opposed to playing partisan politics and litigating policies that haven't been brought up--until you did in some unworthy caricatures.
Lastly, I would contest your interpretation of a "heavily Republican district." Ohio 12 has had a partisan cook rating of R+7 for almost a decade, which indicates a lean. Both Tiberi and Kasich won by fewer than 10 points (Kasich as little as 3 points) when they were first vying for the seat, but went on to win by large margins in subsequent elections when they were re-elected. Incumbency matters.
By all means, respond with face-palming emojis and mockingly claim I worship the "great big orange one." I invite you and everyone else to note how this thread began and how quickly things degraded upon your participation--a pattern that can be found in most threads you participate in, including our last exchanges.
The great irony is just how irrelevant this all is, considering we generally agree on the only conclusion that matters: this race is a toss up and can go either way.
It should be noted that I avoided any direct statements so as to not make any responses here personal. But that's a courtesy I most certainly didn't expect to be extended, what with being familiar with the way in which you conduct your discourse on here.
You're right. I have no use for holier-than-thou, opinion rants devoid of facts. It's just horrible that I document my arguments, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
Selective outrage towards gerrymandering is interesting. Should Democrats be ashamed over Maryland?
I hate partisan politics and gerrymandering. Republicans are much more notorious for these actions, and this is especially true in Ohio.
E.g., heavily Democratic California has an independent board that establishes Congressional districts. Compare that with the redistricting rot in Republican-controlled Texas and Ohio.
On a national level, the Republicans generally refuse to introduce legislation that doesn't have a sufficient support within the Republican caucus to pass the legislation, regardless if the legislation has overwhelming bipartisan support. Americans used to demand bipartisanship solutions from their legislators, and the currently extreme Republic partisanship is a prescription for disaster, with legislation often passed with minimal committee hearings and documentation. This disgusts me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
I find it fascinating how people are characterizing abortion as a civil right. Not very civil to the fetus, if you ask me. Just as every generation looks at history retrospectively and wonders "wow, how did they possibly have such horrible attitudes towards ____?" the future generations will look to our pervasive attitudes and glorification of abortion as civil rights.
So you believe the state should limit a woman's right to abort a genetically-impaired fetus, and, then, assume little of the responsibility for raising the resulting child? It's a simple question that you apparently are unwilling to answer. Why? You don't consider this intrusion into a mother's and a father's personal lives as a civil rights violation, while I consider it among the most egregious of violations. You fail to understand philosophically that if the state has the right to ban such abortions, it also has the right to mandate them.
One reason that abortion is becoming less significant as a political issue is because of the easy availability of the "morning-after" pill. Do you agree that this pill should be readily available to women? And, if you believe that future generations will find the availability of such a pill abhorrent, in my opinion, you're severely deluded.
You apparently believe that men and women of child-bearing age support the intervention of the state into this aspect of their personal lives. I've seen no evidence of that. Men and women of child-bearing age support abortion rights by a significant majority.
It is unbelievably arrogant to claim the electorate is any less informed than you are. It's easy to blame the system, the process, and the constituents when you don't get the political outcome you desire. I am not even a resident of Ohio and I am aware of the legislation targeted towards aborting those with down syndrome. The legislation was signed last December, the Ohio constituents are aware. They have elected pro-life candidates for a reason, and they're doing the job they were elected to do. You may disagree vehemently and froth at the mouth coming up with various explanations as to why it's so, but the sheer electoral outcomes of Ohio's politics in recent memory disputes what you claim.
So you don't live in Ohio and yet you know how informed the Ohio electorate is on each issue.
Most Ohioans with whom I've discussed the issue have no knowledge of the Down Syndrome abortion ban passed by the Republicans.
And Ohio political coverage in TV news programs generally involves the process (polls, candidate bios) and is largely devoid of a detailed examination of the issues. This increasingly is true of the printed news media.
As I pointed out, I've found no media reports of the special election campaign that mentioned Balderson's support for the Down Syndrome abortion ban. Please produce such an article.
How foolish you are to believe that everybody has the same level of knowledge in any area of human activity, and especially on many political issues. What I find arrogant is your presumptuous, holier-than-thou attitude that pervades your posts in this thread.
I respect any person's views about abortion in their personal lives. I have a problem when others attempt to manage another individual's behavior in such a personal matter with life-changing implications.
If you had experienced recent Ohio political campaigns, greatly influenced by super-PAC advertising heavily weighted towards Repubican candidates, and admittedly pathetic campaigns conducted by Democratic candidates (Trump definitely has raised many important issues; his deceit, unprecedented bullying and poor policies unfortunately IMO will likely impair needed progress on the issues raised).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
What I or others posts is a "rant" but what you post is seemingly constructive. Republicans are nefarious: an attitude I noticed in your posts way back when, while being either passive or supportive of progressive policies/figures. Don't get me wrong, we're all entitled to our biases, but let's not pretend we're currently engaging in a discussion of substance or respect when we're not giving each other the time of day. It takes two to tango, I tried to avoid addressing you personally or getting into the policy--considering this thread was not made to discuss that. Notice that before you inserted it here, the discussions were limited to discussing how and why the election is so close, as opposed to playing partisan politics and litigating policies that haven't been brought up--until you did in some unworthy caricatures.
Obviously, I do consider Trump and most current Republican politicians nefarious on many, but not all, issues which I've studied extensively. This is especially true of climate change, which I believe will be much more disastrous than even the Democrats and most scientists have publicly admitted (even scientific studies have NOT quantified the impact of rising methane levels in the atmosphere due to the thawing of the permafrost and methane clathrates in the deep ocean); methane is much more impactful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
By way of reference, a couple decades ago I was skeptical of man-made global warming and overwhelmingly voted for Republican candidates. Even though my objections to Democrats on many issues remain, the wholesale destruction of our environment is not anything that a true conservative should tolerate IMO, regardless of their positions on other issues. As you're (NOT IMO) such a political expert, you surely know that at one time the Republican Party was the home of leading environmentalists and that the Nixon administration established the EPA.
Now we have a Republican President, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence of man-made climate change, who campaigned on abolishing the EPA until the last two weeks of his campaign, and, sadly, Hillary Clinton never made the proposed abolishment a campaign issue. Any observer knows that on issue after issue, that the Trump administration has gutted the EPA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
Lastly, I would contest your interpretation of a "heavily Republican district." Ohio 12 has had a partisan cook rating of R+7 for almost a decade, which indicates a lean. Both Tiberi and Kasich won by fewer than 10 points (Kasich as little as 3 points) when they were first vying for the seat, but went on to win by large margins in subsequent elections when they were re-elected. Incumbency matters.
The 12th district has almost always been represented in Congress by a Republican. And Republican control was greatly enhanced by the last Republican gerrymander, which removed a large African-American population from the district, eliminating a voting block that had made the district somewhat competitive when represented by John Kasich. Surely, with all your claimed expertise, you must know this. So why are you claiming otherwise???
<<From 2003 to 2013 the district included eastern Columbus, including most of its heavily African-American neighborhoods. The district also took in most of its northern suburbs, including Westerville. It was one of two districts that split the capital, the other being the 15th District. For most of the time from the 1980s to the 2000s, it was considered to be less Republican than the 15th, in part due to its large black population. However, redistricting after the 2010 census drew nearly all of the 15th's black constituents into the 3rd District, while the 15th was pushed into more exurban and Republican areas north and east of the capital.
It has been in Republican hands since 1920, except for an eight-year stretch in the 1930s and a two-year term in 1980 where the Democratic Party held the seat; in both instances the Democratic incumbent was later defeated by a GOP politician.>>
By all means, respond with face-palming emojis and mockingly claim I worship the "great big orange one." I invite you and everyone else to note how this thread began and how quickly things degraded upon your participation--a pattern that can be found in most threads you participate in, including our last exchanges.
The great irony is just how irrelevant this all is, considering we generally agree on the only conclusion that matters: this race is a toss up and can go either way.
When did I say you worshiped the "great big orange one?" If I ever used such a phrase, and I'm certain that I likely have on occasion in other threads, I apologize for it, because I detest the use of physical objectification by both Trump and late night talk show hosts.
As for this thread, it began with the presumption by you and other posters that Balderson would win easily. When this no longer apparently was the case, I pointed it out. When I attempted to explain in detail what had changed (I was curious and shared my findings), you objected to my documented explanations with your series of holier-than-thou posts which I indeed found worthy of contempt and mockery.
IMO, you've added little or anything to the discussion of the issues in the campaigns that have made this race apparently a toss-up election.
A last minute surge in Republican super PAC spending may very well buy the election.
<<As in past special elections, Republican super PACs have also come to their candidate’s aid; the top spender is the Congressional Leadership Fund at $3.2 million, and many of its ads have been negative. The good news for Republicans is that they have a sizable overall spending advantage — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is the only progressive outside group that has spent more than $90,000 (investing $630,000).>>
<<In a last-minute effort to widen the gap between the two candidates, Republicans are throwing money at the election. Republican outside groups have now spent nearly $6.2 million to support Balderson and oppose O'Connor. Outside Democratic groups have spent only about $1.2 million on the same election.>>
Greater Democratic enthusiasm, turnout may offset the Republican money advantage.
<<According to the Columbus Dispatch, through last week Democrats had returned absentee ballots in the district's most populous counties at a pace that nearly doubled that of Republicans. Comparatively, in the 2016 general election, GOP ballots outnumbered Democratic ballots by 9 percent.>>
Outstanding, in your response you were able to highlight every criticism I levied on you. It's incredible how easy it is to goad you into displaying your true colors.
You couldn't go a single line before using your face palm emojis. I knew you couldn't refrain.
You say you hate partisan politics but then go on to exclusively criticize Republicans while praising Democratic strategies/policies...very peculiar! Your disgust and outrage sure is selective. Almost as if it's not genuine...
Indeed, this thread was never started as a policy debate. None of us interpreted it as such and so it never stooped there. Just because you didn't like the responses doesn't mean you can devolve it into anything you wish it to be. Even now, you keep pushing for a policy debate when no one here insinuated one. You can have a debate with a mirror then, cause no one's engaging. If you're so itching to control the narrative into whatever you want it to be, then make your own thread and engage others. Otherwise, why stray from the original discussion and force your negative connotations on others?
Just because you didn't like what we were saying, doesn't mean they weren't merited or substantive to this discussion. The general tactic of those who don't like the results of a discussion is to switch the topic into something they are more comfortable in propagating. Sounds like someone I know.
It's remarkable how much little respect you have for your fellow Ohioans and arrogantly claim they are uninformed about policies and you're more equipped to be an authority on these subjects. The reason they're disagreeing with you on a state and national level isn't because they're not informed to your enlightened way of thinking, it's that they reject your ideology. If you can't handle that, then political discussions are beyond you. I find it fascinating that I as a non-resident have more respect and faith in the Ohio electorate that they are informed and active in their civic duty. The tale of two perspectives: one of us thinks he's smarter than his fellow constituents and the reason for the "poor political climate" is their own ignorance, which can be rectified under his enlightened thinking, while the other believes the people have made their choice accordingly and the former is mad that it doesn't parrot his world view.
Finally, it's ironic how you claim you find such objectifications and characterizations are repugnant and contemptible, yet you don't refrain from using them yourself. You say you have disdain for mockery, then find it acceptable in using for yourself. Very telling. Whether it's characterizing me as "holier than thou" because I call for civility in not portraying the opposing perspective as nefarious, or by mocking others by through phrases like they worship "the great big orange one."
The fact that you aren't above using such phrasings is telling. Your apology is disingenuous, you claim that you don't approve of such phrasings, then proceed to use it to vilify others.
When you first chimed into this discussion, there wasn't an issue. You were offering an analysis instead of being partisan and bringing policy into the debate. You'll notice that's when things devolved, and even then I avoided addressing you personally or resorting to characterizing you, which is no longer the case due to your doubling down on poor behavior.
This confrontation isn't out of the blue. I've watched you on several threads where other users would lash out at your unworthy posts. It's not a coincidence that those who engage in a debate with you seem to end up polarized and appropriately call you out. I've experienced it myself way back when, it is unacceptable to tolerate such behavior. Again, you'll read this and think I'm being sanctimonious--when all I have been saying from the start is to watch out from negatively characterizing those you disagree with. You can't help it, you've shown your true colors, and you can expect people to stand up to that nonsense.
You can have whatever opinion you want on the merit of my original analysis before this thread devolved into personal attacks, but other users have agreed with me. So I think it's a matter of confirmation bias on your end, rather than an objective denial of my analysis.
Let's see the face palm emojis, negative characterizations, and partisanship take another go--how easily you are goaded is very telling.
Last edited by MillennialMaverick; 08-07-2018 at 11:45 AM..
Outstanding, in your response you were able to highlight every criticism I levied on you. It's incredible how easy it is to goad you into displaying your true colors.
Goad me???
Most persons in this forum have read my posts for years. Like them or hate them, they know that I have well reasoned positions that I explain in detail, and don't tolerate holier-than-thou posters who want to belittle other posters and not discuss the issues. Too many posters in C-D would rather post snide attacks than discuss issues in detail.
Do you even recognize the passive aggressive nature of your posts? Combined with your unwillingness or inability to defend objectively or even express your positions, you're engaging in nothing but disguised personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
You couldn't go a single line before using your face palm emojis. I knew you couldn't refrain.
C-D puts those emojis there for a reason. They clearly are meant to allow posters to express their emotions rather than engage in more direct verbal exchanges. If you don't like emojis, you shouldn't be participating in a social media forum that encourages their use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
You say you hate partisan politics but then go on to exclusively criticize Republicans while praising Democratic strategies/policies...very peculiar! Your disgust and outrage sure is selective. Almost as if it's not genuine...
What bunk. You say that you've followed my posts and yet you've missed my posts on the value-added tax and immigration policies, both issues on which I've heavily criticized Democrats? How often have I said that both parties have destroyed American manufacturing by not developing an American industrial and tax policy that would level the playing field with the rest of the world???
One of the few aspects of the Trump/Republican tax plan that I applaud is the shift of U.S. corporate taxation to a territorial system, an action vehemently opposed by Democrats.
Did you miss my criticism of Hillary Clinton in this thread when I criticized her for not attacking aggressively attacking Trump's anti-environment crusade?
I'm policy and issue oriented, and, unlike you, who posts from a partisan, pro-Republican perspective, I care most about the issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
Indeed, this thread was never started as a policy debate. None of us interpreted it as such and so it never stooped there. Just because you didn't like the responses doesn't mean you can devolve it into anything you wish it to be. Even now, you keep pushing for a policy debate when no one here insinuated one. You can have a debate with a mirror then, cause no one's engaging. If you're so itching to control the narrative into whatever you want it to be, then make your own thread and engage others. Otherwise, why stray from the original discussion and force your negative connotations on others?
Elections should be about policies. On the one hand, such as with the Down Syndrome issue, you argue that the electorate is perfectly informed. Yet when I recap what the news media is saying has made the race competitive, you see it a partisan ploy. Pathetic.
My comments were happily limited to issues directly impacting this campaign until you launched your partisan, passive-aggressive attack on my posts with your post 13.
Anybody who wants to insinuate that Trump and his Republican supporters on climate change aren't man-made climate change deniers and climate change science deniers, will always get a stiff and pointed argument from me, whether such posters like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
It's remarkable how much little respect you have for your fellow Ohioans and arrogantly claim they are uninformed about policies and you're more equipped to be an authority on these subjects. The reason they're disagreeing with you on a state and national level isn't because they're not informed to your enlightened way of thinking, it's that they reject your ideology. If you can't handle that, then political discussions are beyond you. I find it fascinating that I as a non-resident have more respect and faith in the Ohio electorate that they are informed and active in their civic duty. The tale of two perspectives: one of us thinks he's smarter than his fellow constituents and the reason for the "poor political climate" is their own ignorance, which can be rectified under his enlightened thinking, while the other believes the people have made their choice accordingly and the former is mad that it doesn't parrot his world view.
Yeah, and the Germans, many very good people, allowed the Nazis to take power.
Contrary to your rant, I believe in the old Scripps-Howard motto which once graced the front page of the old Cleveland Press. Under a lighthouse with a beam of light spreading towards the news page, the motto was "Give light and the people will find their own way."
You, on the other hand, by any means possible, seem intent on discouraging debate.
And contrary to your deluded insinuations, as I documented with polling results, the people agree with my positions on many issues and not yours.
On the destruction of American manufacturing, immigration, drug prices, etc., I well understood and agreed with the issues raised by Trump, as much as I abhorred his character and his policies on important issues such as the environment and climate change. I well understood Trump's victory, by a close margin in key states and despite losing the popular vote. I still believe that Clinton lost the election more than Trump won it; I still can't believe that she never set foot in Wisconsin during her general campaign.
What bothers me is that Trump's inept policy solutions and bullying of our international allies and his domestic political opponents, may prevent our nation from ever dealing intelligently with the issues of great concern that he has elevated in importance.
Have you ever studied the bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate in 2013? It contains most of the policy solutions now sought by Trump, but he's totally incapable of crafting a similar legislative compromise because of his emphasis on confrontation and deceit. It's too very, very bad.
BTW, I've always advocated for an end to birth right citizenship, an action which Democrats vehemently oppose. Trump has raised the issue, but again, has done nothing to end it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
Finally, it's ironic how you claim you find such objectifications and characterizations are repugnant and contemptible, yet you don't refrain from using them yourself. You say you have disdain for mockery, then find it acceptable in using for yourself. Very telling. Whether it's characterizing me as "holier than thou" because I call for civility in not portraying the opposing perspective as nefarious, or by mocking others by through phrases like they worship "the great big orange one."
You have pathetically poor reading comprehension. I never said that I abhor general mockery or political satire. I enjoy it greatly. What I dislike is mockery of physical appearance which Trump, late night hosts such Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers, and too many Americans apparently find humorous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
The fact that you aren't above using such phrasings is telling. Your apology is disingenuous, you claim that you don't approve of such phrasings, then proceed to use it to vilify others.
I didn't apologize to you. I denied your assertion that in this thread that in this thread that I had "mockingly" claimed that you "worship the 'great big orange one.'" (See the end of post 17.) It's possible that I once did apply such a charge against you, but, if so, post the link, then I will apologize for using that description of Trump, but not likely for the claim that you are Trumpie, as I've never seen any reason to separate your political believes and rants from those of Trump.
My apology was a general one, to anyone, if I had ever referred to Trump as the "great orange one."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
When you first chimed into this discussion, there wasn't an issue. You were offering an analysis instead of being partisan and bringing policy into the debate. You'll notice that's when things devolved, and even then I avoided addressing you personally or resorting to characterizing you, which is no longer the case due to your doubling down on poor behavior.
Again, things only "devolved" with your bizarre, partisan, passive aggressive attack in post 13 -- not the kind of thing that I'll ever ignore given the challenge that such a mindset represents to free debate.
If you have a different position, explain it and document your arguments. Don't launch into your victim mode, attacking other posters in lengthy rants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialMaverick
This confrontation isn't out of the blue. I've watched you on several threads where other users would lash out at your unworthy posts. It's not a coincidence that those who engage in a debate with you seem to end up polarized and appropriately call you out. I've experienced it myself way back when, it is unacceptable to tolerate such behavior. Again, you'll read this and think I'm being sanctimonious--when all I have been saying from the start is to watch out from negatively characterizing those you disagree with. You can't help it, you've shown your true colors, and you can expect people to stand up to that nonsense.
You can have whatever opinion you want on the merit of my original analysis before this thread devolved into personal attacks, but other users have agreed with me. So I think it's a matter of confirmation bias on your end, rather than an objective denial of my analysis.
Let's see the face palm emojis, negative characterizations, and partisanship take another go--how easily you are goaded is very telling.
In this thread, I didn't criticize your posts until you went off the deep end with your bizarre, paranoid post 13. Deal with it.
I welcome anybody not familiar with my posts to check them out. Hopefully, they'll find them more useful, informative, and perhaps even entertaining, than the creepy, deluded psycho-babble that have characterized your later posts in this thread.
Again, I enjoy debates on issues, not policy-devoid, passive-aggressive rants by "sanctimonious" posters, of which there are many in C-D threads. Deal with it.
Last edited by WRnative; 08-07-2018 at 02:55 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Balderson supported Ohio law banning Down Syndrom abortions
