Don’t you remember how every single Democrat lined up last year to vote to nominate Hillary Clinton? If I recall correctly, Hillary got 110% of the Democratic primary and caucus votes, and Bernie Sanders got -10% of them.
We have been assimilated…
I wasn’t talking about “Democrat Party Groupthink,” whatever that is. Did you post in the wrong thread?
Did you look in the dictionary. Look up the word Democrat then look up the word collective. Add them together. It’s a group of Democrats. I’m amazed that this is proving to be so difficult for so many people.
Why would it matter to me if someone on the internet named Airbeck takes anyone else seriously? Are you important? By that I mean, are you important to anyone other than yourself?
I thought you were going to ask Donald Sutherland to explain things to you. On a park bench.
The question is whether you want anyone to take you seriously.
BTW, if you meant “a group of Democrats,” why not just say so?
You have to be the most predictable poster on this board. I almost could have written this response for you.
I’m not talking about the meanings of the two individual words, but I think you know that. If you think the dictionary is a cite to your claim that there is such a thing as the “Democrat Collective”, then you are woefully unqualified to contribute anything of value to the debate.
Cite that Democrats act in a coordinated group? Cite that Democrats all have the same opinions even? Cite any way that you can prove that Democrats act in a collective way. Any way at all. Have you really forgotten the intraparty war during the primary?
Look, just because I once wrote something about “the Borg-like hive mind of Tea Party ideologues,” doesn’t mean you should read anything into it. All it means is “some people have conservative views.”
I think it’s because he prefers to subtly belittle and insult Americans that he disagrees with.
[QUOTE=Will Rogers]
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
[/QUOTE]
…
Piffle. “Collective” is an entirely cromulent term, it tends to infer a mode of thought, politically and socially, as in “Worker collective owned”. Given that you tend to not stoop to clarity when an insinuation will work as well, the gentle reader can hardly doubt your inference.
As it happens, I think a worthy and intelligent argument can be made for collective decision making, empowering the group over the leader. I don’t trust leaders, I don’t trust people who want to be leaders. I have worked in collectives, there is much good to be said for them. There are, of course, certain drawbacks*. Mostly, people. Not surprisingly, it shares a lot of the strengths and weaknesses of democratic governance itself. Imagine!
*Anecdotal aside: The restaurant collective down the street from our grocery collective was in the process of hiring a financial specialist for bookkeeping, tax compliance, payroll, you know the drill. Job description ran on for nearly a page, outlining with precision all the nitpicky and mathy responsibilities.
A good friend was up for it, she was well-known and likely a shoo-in. She pulled me aside to show me, apparently vexed and confused. I read it, seeing nothing abnormal in the careful description of tedious, precise, and tiresome duties, till the last line.
“Embrace anarchy”.
It was a thorny problem, as well as hilarious. Fortunately, I knew exactly what to do. I took her across the street and bought her a beer.
Several others of our ilk joined in, some bought pitchers. After intense dialectical struggle, we arrived at the consensus that the term had no defined meaning. Hence, however she determined to “embrace anarchy” could not be wrong, therefore, she could not fail. We ended the informal meeting with the traditional shrug, head shake, and utterance: “Fuckin’ hippies!”.
She did an excellent job.
(post shortened)
I did say so.
BTW, this isn’t rocket surgery. :rolleyes:
(Underline added)
Whew, do you have any idea how much time you can save me? Just add “post made up by tap-an-Airbeck” to the end of any post you write in my name, or it’s no deal.
I don’t believe that I, or anyone else, could provide a cite that Democrats act in a coordinated manner. I’ve seen their convention. (j/k)
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. You must be a Democrat. You don’t mean to say what you actually said, you meant to say what the Democrat collective says you said. Little wonder ol’ Hillary lost her chance to become President. Keep up the good work. 
ThinkProgress points out that Trump met with Ambassador Kislyak in April 2016. This was at a VIP reception prior to a foreign policy speech. Kislyak was in the front row during the speech. This was reported at the time but apparently not much noticed. Seems like the meeting was fairly brief, but still a meeting with Trump, Kislyak, and “three other foreign ambassadors.” The speech was an invitation only event.
I’m surprised that this story isn’t getting more press. Paul Manafort’s family’s text messages were hacked (the hacking was confirmed by Manafort himself) with some pretty interesting quotes:
*“Dad and Trump are literally living in the same building and mom says they go up and down all day long hanging and plotting together,” Jessica Manafort wrote.
“Don’t fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”
In another hacked exchange a few months later with someone else, Andrea Manafort wrote that her father’s “work and payment in Ukraine is legally questionable.”
“You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly,” she continued, according to the reviewed texts. “As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine. Remember when there were all those deaths taking place. A while back. About a year ago. Revolts and what not. Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that, to send those people out and get them slaughtered.”
Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Trump as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It’s like an egomaniac’s chess game. There’s no money motivation.” *
Makes the fact that the Trump people are now making pointed attempts to minimize Manafort’s role in the campaign a pretty sensible move.
Is Manafort going to be the turncoat or the fall guy?
“Ah, Paul! Good timing, your bus will be here in a minute!”
“I’m taking a bus somewhere?”
“Well, not, exactly…”
Alternatively - I wouldn’t be surprised if he comes down with a nasty case of the poloniums.
If Manafort ends up with a terminal case of the deads, that’ll be on the other side of the singularity, a place where this country has never been and cannot predict.
We’re already there, dude.