TX-SEN: True to Form

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Well, putting aside the likelihood of it actually happening, the idea of Baker and Hogan being "mainstream Republicans" is laughable. A "mainstream Republican" is Steve King.

Wrong


The reason Trump won is because he had the most name recognition and most media attention. If Steve King ran instead of Trump , King would get destroyed.

King is a lot more in tune with the base than Baker.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The Dui story could have legs in that he attempted to flee the scene and drove into an oncoming lane of traffic. He also got off scot-free because daddy was a powerful judge

[Citation Needed]

It sounds like because he had no prior criminal history, he was eligible for and successfully completed a pretty standard pretrial diversion program in order to avoid getting a conviction on his record. I obviously don’t know what the specifics would have been, but here in my jurisdiction that would mean court-ordered AA meetings and regular alcohol and drug testing for at least a year.

Bush was tarred and feathered for his DUI when he was 18 the last weekend of the 2000 campaign.  So you will understand if I do not express any sympathy for little fake Beto.  Please note there was never an allegation of property damage or fleeing in the Bush case.  But Beto is a Democrat. This will probably win him the Presidency.

Has Roy Moore conceded yet?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I am 20 (as you would know if you looked at my profile), and I'm very well aware of the kind of language and behavior engaged in by peers my age. That doesn't mean that I have to condone it. You would also know, from my prior comments on this board, that I have long held this position on such issues. I don't condone Hogg's profanity any more than I condone that of Trump himself.

I'm sorry; but this post is the best example of... Lib-Dem-ery (don't quite know if that term translates very well) that I have ever read.  The worst sort of snowflakery that only the finest Liberal Democrats manage to portray; a lot of virtue signalling to show that they are *respectable* while tone policing the survivors of a school shooting.

There's also the fundamental fact that there is a clear difference between an elected politician like Trump being a vulgar person and an activist using vulgar words to stress a point; and to compare the two indicates a lack of understanding of the way that the world works.  Hogg is someone who survived a school shooting; saw many of his friends shot and murdered and who was incredibly lucky to survive.  He's also seen the government do exactly nothing to prevent situations like that from happening again.    I'd say that he has a lot to be angry about and sometimes you have to let that anger out: internalising feelings like that is a good way of causing yourself harm.  Meanwhile Trump is a vulgar person: his utterances indicate his character flaws and weren't about demonstrates righteous anger.  However to someone like you who seems to have no firm principles bar being 'centrist' (which is a term that means very little; since the centre has a habit of drifting around in the breeze like a bin bag at a little used railway station) you seem to perceive the two as being the same; apparently unable to see the difference between someone who uses vulgar words to demonstrate the intensity of their views and someone who's just a vulgar person.

There's also the fact that there's a clear difference between an elected politician and a political activist.  Trump is meant to represent America on the international stage and to act as the leader of the country and clearly his vulgarity makes him very inappropriate for that job.  Its the same for all political figures; I get irrationally annoyed when you see politicians (mainly from the left although probably from all over) who use rude words as a way of looking cool and down with it - not to demonstrate intensity of feeling or many of the other reasons why a person swears but merely as another form of political messaging.  Hogg is a political activist; he's the face of a movement sure but hardly the key leadership figure that Trump his: and he's quite clearly an authentic person and his language demonstrates that really.  There's also the fact that there is something incredibly, incredibly dumb about comparing an old man who's elected to the highest office in the land and a young person who's been forced into the political world because of a very sad, sad thing that happened to him.

On a more on-topic subject: the incompetence of the way that Cruz is campaigning is rather astounding to me: and while I think that he's the favourite (and it'd take like every poll showing Beto ten points in front for me not to think that) it is possible that the Democrats pick this one up which I never thought would happen.  Does require a significant amount of work still though - and part of me wonders whether that might be what kills the Republicans in places like this: complacency can be what loses unexpectedly close elections.

This is a phenomenal post, and articulates really well why a lot of people absolutely hate centrism. Far too often, the image of centrism is a boring small c-conservative who rejects any radical change, insists on the answer all being in the middle, and who is more concerned with language policing and "civility" than actually doing sh**t to help.

I think that there is an idealology that could be described as centrist while having actual energy and enthusiasm instead of suburbanite rent-seeking, but the word seems tainted for many by people like Calthrina950.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

My post was a thinly-veiled attempt to distract from Cruz's impending 40-point landslide. Thanks for the assist, Calthrina.

I still have no idea what you sought to accomplish with it. But then again, I don't understand the behavior of half the people on this website.

It's called humor. You should try it sometime.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Jalaketu West has said a number of objectionable things to me previously. At any rate, this thread should not be derailed any further then it already has been.

Whether or not Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West has said objectionable things to you previously is irrelevant to the intellectual argument advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West. That argument was namely that the purpose Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor." Now, let's be clear. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West's argument that the purpose Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor" is either a valid argument or an invalid argument, but its validity or invalidity does not depend upon the fact that Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu was the person who put forth the argument into a public forum for our mutual due consideration and debate. Determining the validity of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalekatu West's argument, rather, requires making an extensive and detailed list of the points that are pro and the points that are con. You must consider both sides of the argument in weighing the quality of the claim, and then think "on the one hand x, but on the other hand y."

In addition to this argument, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West also deigned to make a suggestion that you yourself might consider trying to engage in the behavior known as "humor" some time. Of course, it goes without saying that in order to do such a thing you would also need to formulate a list of the arguments in favor and opposed to engaging in such a behavior. Now, let's be clear once again. The suggestion advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West could be either a good suggestion or a bad suggestion, but the quality of the suggestion doesn't depend upon whether it was made by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jaleketu West, or alternatively by Donald Trump or Barack Obama (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, are Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered Users). Whoever made the suggestion, it is either a good one or a bad one on its own actual merits, wouldn't you say?

I hope that this post has been edifying and makes it easier to understand how to proceed in analyzing arguments on an online bulletin board such as the Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Congressional Elections sub-forum.