2018 Midterm Election Thread

#3,726
#3,726
luthervol said:
Dribble?
Why are you trying to get me to tell you what that destination means? Why does it have to mean anything? I'm just telling you that is why you see that difference. It may be more of a factor of being fundamentally religious than being charitable. You misinterpreted (shocker) what I said as though I was claiming religious giving was worth less than other giving. That's on you. It's not worth less but is based on different motivators.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to get you to explain your distinction. You've successfully made the point you were responding to as well as a further specific. Conservatives are more generous than liberals and fundamental religious people should be considered some of the most generous of all.

Thanks, but except for further specifying to make the argument that one should equate fundamentalist religious people as generous, you basically just wasted a post if all you were doing was agreeing to the point you answered.
 
#3,727
#3,727
LouderVol said:
you just talking about their math? or the base numbers used? 35 is only 40% more than 21, so that is definitely wrong, just curious if you were referring to something else.
I also wonder if there is a direct correlation between early voting turnout and election day votes?
Click to expand...
I think he is referring to the report itself.
 
#3,728
#3,728
Hey everybody, we've reached the point of causation behind the idea that conservatives are more charitable than liberals. It seems to be because conservatives are more religious and religious people are more charitable/giving/generous than irreligious people.
 
#3,729
#3,729
Orange_Crush said:
Hey everybody, we've reached the point of causation behind the idea that conservatives are more charitable than liberals. It seems to be because conservatives are more religious and religious people are more charitable/giving/generous than irreligious people.
Click to expand...
Not bad. That's actually improvement. You got about 50% of the meaning. Baby steps.
 
#3,730
#3,730
luthervol said:
Sorry to disappoint. When I give my thoughts, you want facts and links. Catch 22.
I think the parts I provided from each article provide an appropriate middle ground between the subjective and the objective.

Trump's vision for the EPA and the environment in general suck. (and will cause great long term harm)
Trump's (Devos') opinion of public education and the appropriate role of the federal government suck. ( and will cause great long term harm.)
Click to expand...

I disagree on both. I think what he's doing with the EPA is great but not going far enough. Many of the 76 regulations or directives he has reversed or repealed are nothing more that reporting/tracking requirements that cost money, time are a PITA and do absolutely no good. Many are directives to review the previous regulations, and I fully agree that we should open up more coastal waters and public land for exploration and production. 80,000 more people per decade are not going to die because of these changes.

As for public education, the federal government shouldn't be backing student loans and they damn sure shouldn't be loaning money to students in pursuit of degrees that will never pay enough to cure the debt. What she is proposing will actually help students in the long run from being saddled with student loan debt into their 30's and 40's.
 
#3,732
#3,732
luthervol said:
Not bad. That's actually improvement. You got about 50% of the meaning. Baby steps.
Click to expand...
You're free to make whatever distinctions you're not afraid to run from. Otherwise, that's literally the argument you've made so far. If there is a further distinction you'd like to make about religious charity, have at it. Otherwise, you've just agreed that conservatives are more charitable, most likely because religious people are more charitable than irreligious people.

Now, the next time you want to make a crass comment about conservative being selfish because they want lower taxes, we'll revisit the argument YOU have made so far. Conservatives are more charitable and religiosity should be equated to charitable.
 
#3,733
#3,733
BowlBrother85 said:
I just voted for Phil Bredesen (Senate), Karl Dean (Governor) and Renee Hoyos (House 2nd District). I feel pretty good about those votes ... but if it makes the Pubs on here feel good, it's been a long time since I voted for anyone that actually won (and by that I mean, Obama always lost Tennessee).
Click to expand...
It always bothered me that Jimmy Duncan and his father never did anything for Tennessee and always won re-election. They "served" East Tennessee for over 50 years and Dumb Arse the 3rd would have stepped in to "inherit" the kingdom and ruled for another 35 years had he not been stupid and got caught with his hand in the Knox County cookie jar.

Bottom line is I always voted against those turds! Politics is local sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#3,734
#3,734
Question for you guys in regards to polling, and Tennessee specific polling:

If you grant me that the 18-29 year old vote should be up this year in response to Trump (how much it’ll be up is TBD) do you think that group of voters is less likely to be represented in polling leading up to today?

How does CNN/FOX/NBC, etc. get their polling information? Do they call people who fall on certain registries?
 
#3,736
#3,736
VolStrom said:
It always bothered me that Jimmy Duncan and his father never did anything for Tennessee and always won re-election. They "served" East Tennessee for over 50 years and Dumb Arse the 3rd would have stepped in to "inherit" the kingdom and ruled for another 35 years had he not been stupid and got caught with his hand in the Knox County cookie jar.

Bottom line is I always voted against those turds! Politics is local sometimes.
Click to expand...
Same way with me voting against Republican Representative Jimmy Quillen for many years. Seems like all the poor old guy wanted to do was farm, and every time he bought farmland, the state or feds ran a damn highway right through the middle of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#3,737
#3,737
VolStrom said:
It always bothered me that Jimmy Duncan and his father never did anything for Tennessee and always won re-election. They "served" East Tennessee for over 50 years and Dumb Arse the 3rd would have stepped in to "inherit" the kingdom and ruled for another 35 years had he not been stupid and got caught with his hand in the Knox County cookie jar.

Bottom line is I always voted against those turds! Politics is local sometimes.
Click to expand...
Well said... I agree.
 
#3,738
#3,738
BowlBrother85 said:
I just voted for Phil Bredesen (Senate), Karl Dean (Governor) and Renee Hoyos (House 2nd District). I feel pretty good about those votes ... but if it makes the Pubs on here feel good, it's been a long time since I voted for anyone that actually won (and by that I mean, Obama always lost Tennessee).
Click to expand...
Did you feel a profound kinship voting for Phil Bredesen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy and tumscalcium
#3,739
#3,739
Kingston Vol said:
Question for you guys in regards to polling, and Tennessee specific polling:

If you grant me that the 18-29 year old vote should be up this year in response to Trump (how much it’ll be up is TBD) do you think that group of voters is less likely to be represented in polling leading up to today?

How does CNN/FOX/NBC, etc. get their polling information? Do they call people who fall on certain registries?
Click to expand...
18-29 year olds don't vote. They stare at their phones and type OMG while complaining about not getting enough money for operating a cash register.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc and tumscalcium
#3,741
#3,741
VolStrom said:
It always bothered me that Jimmy Duncan and his father never did anything for Tennessee and always won re-election. They "served" East Tennessee for over 50 years and Dumb Arse the 3rd would have stepped in to "inherit" the kingdom and ruled for another 35 years had he not been stupid and got caught with his hand in the Knox County cookie jar.

Bottom line is I always voted against those turds! Politics is local sometimes.
Click to expand...
He actually bucked his party and the general feeling in the country on two critical issues though - he was against the Iraq War and against TARP.
 
#3,743
#3,743
LouderVol said:
you just talking about their math? or the base numbers used? 35 is only 40% more than 21, so that is definitely wrong, just curious if you were referring to something else.
I also wonder if there is a direct correlation between early voting turnout and election day votes?
Click to expand...
Base numbers as well. Way more than 21 million voted in 2014.
 
#3,745
#3,745
hog88 said:
I disagree on both. I think what he's doing with the EPA is great but not going far enough. Many of the 76 regulations or directives he has reversed or repealed are nothing more that reporting/tracking requirements that cost money, time are a PITA and do absolutely no good. Many are directives to review the previous regulations, and I fully agree that we should open up more coastal waters and public land for exploration and production. 80,000 more people per decade are not going to die because of these changes.

As for public education, the federal government shouldn't be backing student loans and they damn sure shouldn't be loaning money to students in pursuit of degrees that will never pay enough to cure the debt. What she is proposing will actually help students in the long run from being saddled with student loan debt into their 30's and 40's.
Click to expand...
And we're left with the conclusion that we disagree.
I'll go with the science on the ramifications of Trump's policies and I'm not sure how allowing the continued existence of bogus colleges while simultaneously taking away the student's recourse on dept repayment to fraudulent colleges is a positive.
 
#3,746
#3,746
luthervol said:
And we're left with the conclusion that we disagree.
I'll go with the science on the ramifications of Trump's policies and I'm not sure how allowing the continued existence of bogus colleges while simultaneously taking away the student's recourse on dept repayment to fraudulent colleges is a positive.
Click to expand...
Then you shouldn’t go to a bogus college let alone take out a loan to pay for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#3,747
#3,747
luthervol said:
And we're left with the conclusion that we disagree.
I'll go with the science on the ramifications of Trump's policies and I'm not sure how allowing the continued existence of bogus colleges while simultaneously taking away the student's recourse on dept repayment to fraudulent colleges is a positive.
Click to expand...

These are adults, they are responsible for their own decisions. If they are defrauded and can prove it they have civil and criminal avenues available to them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top