The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Peter Parker on December 02, 2017, 03:51:45 PM
-
It's an honest question. I'm really curious as to whether anyone voted republican and now regrets it because:
1. Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
2. The republican tax plan
3. Trump/Russia
4. Less consumer protection (deregulation)
5. Korea
6. General lack of decorum
7. Environmental issues/climate change issues
8. Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions
9. Women's rights/issues
I'm actually curious. And I'm wondering if you will vote differently next time?
-
aka Trumpgret
-
I held my nose (literally) and voted for the lesser evil, but I know plenty of people who thought they'd be cute and write in the names of fictional characters, who are now freaking out about losing Net Neutrality.
-
I'm a moderate independent in California, a state that leans so far to the left that I usually end up voting Republican. I voted 3rd party because of items 6-9 on your list.
That said, I'm already FIRE and not a fan of the ACA. I make full use of the premium subsidies, but find it silly that I'm getting over $10k/year from the government essentially for prepaid healthcare that I don't want (nor do I use it). I would much rather have a high deductible catastrophic plan and pay out of pocket for most things...you know...actual insurance. In short, I'm not worried about it.
The tax plan as passed in the Senate looks pretty good. Our corporate tax rates are too high as compared to other OECD countries. Despite appealing to populism, corporate taxes don't generally stick it to the man. Depending on the elasticity of supply/demand the burden falls to a different degree on different groups. And the move from a global to a territorial tax regime for corporations also puts us in line with other industrialized nations and will put a stop to "corporate inversions." My kids go to public school, but I think the tax deduction for private school tuition is fair - a lot of middle class families send their kids to private school, this will be of some help. The whining about capping deductions for state taxes I find quite humorous. The cap is $10k which in California means that the property tax valuation is near $1 million or greater. It's a tax on rich people, I thought the Dems were in favor of such taxes? Or only when it affects someone else? Same for the taxes on rich university endowments.
Trump/Russia - we'll see where the investigation goes and what comes of it. If they find a smoking gun I'm fine with him getting booted. Part of me can't help but hearken back to Clinton/China (Chinagate) of the 1990s.
-
Just a note on property taxes… My property taxes yearly are around $10,000. That includes two older vehicles and a house worth a little over 200,000, and I expect this tax will only increase. So I am glad they didn't get rid of the property tax deduction all together, but I can see how you could have a reasonable house and exceed the cap Depending upon where you live. I see this more as a tax on people in blue states with high property taxes than as a tax on rich people.
-
What state?
-
Connecticut
-
It was a pretty complicated decision, but I voted for Trump and don't regret it. These answers are just off the top of my head, but perhaps I could elaborate later.
1. With the rate premiums have been rising, I don't think the ACA is sustainable long-term so I have never seriously considered it a FIRE option (10 years off). I'm not well versed on the issue tbh, but I generally don't support the idea of forcing the purchase of health care. I believe people should be free to choose what is best for their lives.
2. The majority of taxpayers will pay less next year. I support the tax plan, even though I don't like the manner in which it was passed and the deficit increase. Get your spending under control, Government!
3. I'm skeptical of the notion that Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the election. The most recent 'bombshell' ABC report about Flynn had to be corrected or erroneous reporting and the author was suspended for this behavior. I'll remain open to this when more facts come in. This is possibly something that could flip me for the next election.
4. To this day, I still say that one of the best executive orders was Trump's rollback of unnecessary regulation. I am not in the camp that more regulation = good. If someone could point out a specific one that causes harm, we can surely discuss.
5. I predict this will be the biggest test of his Presidency. I think it's really too early to tell.
6. Don't like it. D-
7. I'm not aware of any harm or potential harm to the environment that Trump has done.
8. Race relations have been degrading many years before Trump. I remember Obama talking if he had a son, he'd look like Travvon Martin. I remember the media lying about 'hands up don't shoot' concerning Michael Brown. The behavior of politics and media surrounding these two events flipped the direction of race relations. What has Trump done that's damaging?
9. What has Trump done that's damaging? What specific rights don't women have that they did during Obama's term?
-
I'm an independent voter. Until last year I'd always voted third party in the presidential elections. Usually Libertarian, but I threw two in for Perot back in the 90's.
This last election cycle my two favorite candidates were Trump and Bernie Sanders. I liked them because they were such outsiders and it was hilarious to see all of the contortions their party's went into to try and deny them the nomination. The republicans tried to stop Trump above the board, and we now know that the democrats stopped Bernie with some underhanded backroom dealings.
So yes, I am an unrepentant thought criminal. But make no mistake about it...if Bernie had been running against an establishment republican like Jeb Bush, I would have voted for Sanders in a heartbeat!
-
Cliffhanger-with regards to #7, right off the bat I would say Keystone XL has turned into a major clusterfuck. What is it now, 200k gallons of oil leaked?
-
I regret that Republicans claim to be the party of smaller government, but the government never gets smaller, even when they have control. I certainly don't like everything about Trump, but it is entertaining.
I wish we had a viable 3rd party, but for now, I'll continue to vote Republican.
-
Cliffhanger-with regards to #7, right off the bat I would say Keystone XL has turned into a major clusterfuck. What is it now, 200k gallons of oil leaked?
I had to look it up, as I was unaware. Is this what you're talking about?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html)
Just a minor correction: this appears to be the Keystone pipeline, not the Keystone XL that has been so controversial. It also appears that the leak was contained quickly, with no lasting damage done to waterways, etc. I don't see how the Trump administration can be blamed.
I'm not saying that it's ok that oil spills happen, but it's the reality of the imperfect world we live in until we can find alternative viable energy sources.
-
I appreciate everyone's responses thus far. It has been a tumulterous time this past year, and I'm doing my best to try to "listen" to those who may a have a difference of opinion than mine. Perhaps most importantly, I'm trying to see if circumstances are not what you expected, does this change one's mind--or has politics become so "tribal" that there is never any room for such a change...
-
I appreciate everyone's responses thus far. It has been a tumulterous time this past year, and I'm doing my best to try to "listen" to those who may a have a difference of opinion than mine. Perhaps most importantly, I'm trying to see if circumstances are not what you expected, does this change one's mind--or has politics become so "tribal" that there is never any room for such a change...
My father voted for Trump and is now agitating to have him impeached. I don't quite understand why he voted for him in the first place, except he is susceptible to fear-mongering and likes dick swinging authority figures. Still, it was incredibly apparent that Trump was a con artist BEFORE the election. However, for whatever reason my father (who subscribes to the weird idea that businessmen are better than all other people and should thus also be the best politicians) bought what Trump was selling, but then came to his senses just a few months after the election and was all, OMG, this guy is a lying, incompetent, nutjob! And he's pissed off at himself for falling for the sales pitch. So that's progress, I guess. Most people can't bring themselves to admit when they've been duped.
-
Have no regret whatsoever.
Could Trump do better....absolutely.
But all previous presidents could have done better also.
-
1. With the rate premiums have been rising, I don't think the ACA is sustainable long-term so I have never seriously considered it a FIRE option (10 years off). I'm not well versed on the issue tbh, but I generally don't support the idea of forcing the purchase of health care. I believe people should be free to choose what is best for their lives.
First of all, one can always just pay the penalty. Second, that "forcing the purchase" is one of the contributors to saving many lives each year (something that I know many sociopathic Republicans don't care about and yes, I've had conversations with a few on this so I know), helps to make insurance more affordable, etc.
4. To this day, I still say that one of the best executive orders was Trump's rollback of unnecessary regulation. I am not in the camp that more regulation = good. If someone could point out a specific one that causes harm, we can surely discuss.
He hasn't gotten rid of the CFPB just yet, but they he/they want to get rid of it or at least significantly weaken it. Guess what? Bank of America fucked me over and the CFPB solved the problem which saved me hundreds of dollars and got rid of erroneous late payment on my credit report. I called Bank of America and visited branches several times and each time got the brush off. They didn't give a shit. Thanks to CFPB, the little guy got his rightful justice.
7. I'm not aware of any harm or potential harm to the environment that Trump has done.
Then you haven't done any research and I suspect you don't care.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration
OP, something like 80%+ of Republicans wouldn't care even if there was proof he colluded with the Russians. Hell, Nixon still had much more than majority approval at the time of his resignation. People, especially Republicans, are very tribal and it takes a lot for them to admit their mistakes.
Trump was right: He could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still be popular among his supporters.
-
7. I'm not aware of any harm or potential harm to the environment that Trump has done.
Then you haven't done any research and I suspect you don't care.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration
We can address the facts surrounding a great number of topics, we can debate the consequences of all actions we can take, we can disagree on the politics of those issue. What we cannot do is attribute the worst motive to someone without evidence. I'll be happy to look through the links you provided. But if you'd actually like to have a discussion about it, then stop this bullcrap about me not caring.
-
I mean Cmon! If I were at a party and someone was talking about "pussy grabby" and "moving on her", ect. and we all decided to go back to your place for an after party? Would you invite the dickhead? I'd like to hope not! Much less vote for him for president. Game over! Your vote should have ended there
Thats just a small example......add backing out of the Paris accord and the lack of support for the people who were standing up to a white supremacist march, ect.
Its mind boggling why any thinking individual would vote for this shitbag....this coming from someone who has voted GOP.
Doesnt matter. He will not last 4 years and we will see the first American president removed from office. I call it right now.
-
Its mind boggling why any thinking individual would vote for this shitbag....this coming from someone who has voted GOP.
I don't find it that boggling, and I agree that he's a shitbag.
But people will actively hold their nose over a shitbag if it's THEIR shitbag. They really hated that the last President wasn't white, and that white privilege has been in steady decline for decades, and that Trump has promised to reverse this trend. They don't really care about anything else, including rampant sexual assault. Collusion with the Russians wouldn't bother them. Shuttering entire departments would be fine. Nothing matters, up to and including gross incompetence played out on a national stage and encompassing the moral and political decline of America. Because women belong in the home and Trump knows it! Confederate flags celebrate our heritage as slave-owners, not slavery! Global warming is a hoax! Blue lives matter!
Lots of people subsist on a daily diet of this sort of misinformation. It informs their worldview and it overrules any other evidence they might encounter, because the Fox News version of reality comes at them like a firehose 24/7 and nothing else can fit in their eye holes.
-
Its mind boggling why any thinking individual would vote for this shitbag....this coming from someone who has voted GOP.
I don't find it that boggling, and I agree that he's a shitbag.
But people will actively hold their nose over a shitbag if it's THEIR shitbag. They really hated that the last President wasn't white, and that white privilege has been in steady decline for decades, and that Trump has promised to reverse this trend. They don't really care about anything else, including rampant sexual assault. Collusion with the Russians wouldn't bother them. Shuttering entire departments would be fine. Nothing matters, up to and including gross incompetence played out on a national stage and encompassing the moral and political decline of America. Because women belong in the home and Trump knows it! Confederate flags celebrate our heritage as slave-owners! Global warming is a hoax! Blue lives matter!
Lots of people subsist on a daily diet of this sort of misinformation. It informs their worldview and it overrules any other evidence they might encounter, because the Fox News version of reality comes at them like a firehose 24/7 and nothing else can fit in their eye holes.
I agree..... In addition, lots of Americans live in a completely homogeneous bubble within their communities.
-
But people will actively hold their nose over a shitbag if it's THEIR shitbag. They really hated that the last President wasn't white, and that white privilege has been in steady decline for decades, and that Trump has promised to reverse this trend. They don't really care about anything else, including rampant sexual assault. Collusion with the Russians wouldn't bother them. Shuttering entire departments would be fine. Nothing matters, up to and including gross incompetence played out on a national stage and encompassing the moral and political decline of America. Because women belong in the home and Trump knows it! Confederate flags celebrate our heritage as slave-owners! Global warming is a hoax! Blue lives matter!
Lots of people subsist on a daily diet of this sort of misinformation. It informs their worldview and it overrules any other evidence they might encounter, because the Fox News version of reality comes at them like a firehose 24/7 and nothing else can fit in their eye holes.
This is the most insightful and succinct post I have read all week. Depressing.
-
I appreciate everyone's responses thus far. It has been a tumulterous time this past year, and I'm doing my best to try to "listen" to those who may a have a difference of opinion than mine. Perhaps most importantly, I'm trying to see if circumstances are not what you expected, does this change one's mind--or has politics become so "tribal" that there is never any room for such a change...
My father voted for Trump and is now agitating to have him impeached. I don't quite understand why he voted for him in the first place, except he is susceptible to fear-mongering and likes dick swinging authority figures. Still, it was incredibly apparent that Trump was a con artist BEFORE the election. However, for whatever reason my father (who subscribes to the weird idea that businessmen are better than all other people and should thus also be the best politicians) bought what Trump was selling, but then came to his senses just a few months after the election and was all, OMG, this guy is a lying, incompetent, nutjob! And he's pissed off at himself for falling for the sales pitch. So that's progress, I guess. Most people can't bring themselves to admit when they've been duped.
People who can recognize and admit they were wrong are 10x more interesting than other people. I know two people who were frothing-at-the-mouth supporters of Trump who are now openly against him. I think the important lesson for those who were always against Trump are discovered when asking the following questions:
1) what have you learned from Trump's election?
2) what issues have you changed your mind about over the last year?
-
I wasma registered Republican for almost 30 years. The only Republican president I've voted for was George Herbert Walker Bush. I finally became a Democrat to support Bernie in the Primary. I loathed voting for Clinton, I wanted to vote 3rd party. I voted for Clinton only to try and stop Trump. I'm still not a fan of the Democrats, but can't support these robber barron Republicans.
-
My first vote was for W. Yes I regret it. Him, Cheney and and Rove did a lot of harm to our system of government.
-
Sol, we have a respectful poster asking a genuine question. You could presumably ask the at least 4 people who come out to say they supported Trump, yet you go straight to a strawman.
So... do you have an actual argument to make?
-
Sol, we have a respectful poster asking a genuine question. You could presumably ask the at least 4 people who come out to say they supported Trump, yet you go straight to a strawman.
So... do you have an actual argument to make?
I dunno, this seems pretty accurate to me, based on the Trump supporters I talk to. Except they wouldn't actually say that they had a problem with Obama because he was black -- just that he wasn't born in the US, is a secret Muslim, and supports ISIS.
-
These concerns mostly look like the concerns of a left-leaning individual who would not vote for Trump in the first place. The people who are deeply concerned about the social status of women and Muslims, think we need to worry a lot about climate change, are against corporate tax cuts, etc....these are people who wouldn't vote for Trump in the first place.
Trump has exceeded my expectations. The Congressional GOP leadership has fallen short. We're still stuck with the ACA framework and we have a tax package that's not politically expedient at all. Those are Congressional failings, not Presidential failings. It's possible that a President Rubio or Bush would have been able to convince McCain to vote along with the ACA repeal, which is the only major change you are going to make. You'd still be stuck with the crappy tax cut bill.
I'm not concerned about what's been revealed in the Russian investigation. The special investigation looks like a waste of time and money.
I'm not concerned with rights of either women or Muslims, because those are protected by the Courts, not the Presidency. If anything, the behavior of the Courts WRT the travel ban convinces me we need more GOP appointees, not more Dem appointees.
I hope someone else runs in the primaries against Trump, but am not optimistic. Trump still has net favorable ratings among GOP voters, so any primary challenger would have an uphill slog.
-
These concerns mostly look like the concerns of a left-leaning individual who would not vote for Trump in the first place. The people who are deeply concerned about the social status of women and Muslims, think we need to worry a lot about climate change, are against corporate tax cuts, etc....these are people who wouldn't vote for Trump in the first place.
Trump has exceeded my expectations. The Congressional GOP leadership has fallen short. We're still stuck with the ACA framework and we have a tax package that's not politically expedient at all. Those are Congressional failings, not Presidential failings. It's possible that a President Rubio or Bush would have been able to convince McCain to vote along with the ACA repeal, which is the only major change you are going to make. You'd still be stuck with the crappy tax cut bill.
I'm not concerned about what's been revealed in the Russian investigation. The special investigation looks like a waste of time and money.
I'm not concerned with rights of either women or Muslims, because those are protected by the Courts, not the Presidency. If anything, the behavior of the Courts WRT the travel ban convinces me we need more GOP appointees, not more Dem appointees.
I hope someone else runs in the primaries against Trump, but am not optimistic. Trump still has net favorable ratings among GOP voters, so any primary challenger would have an uphill slog.
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!
Oh, man, stop it. You are KILLING me!
-
I'm not concerned about what's been revealed in the Russian investigation. The special investigation looks like a waste of time and money.
Figuring out whether a presidential campaign actively coordinated with a foreign power (friendly or hostile) to alter the outcome of the presidential election is a waste of time and money?
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
As far as Trump goes: I detest his behavior and ridiculous Twitter posts. However, in the long run those things don't matter as much as policy. His ideas on immigration, taxes, trade policy etc I found to be refreshing and unique to him. When you clear your mind of the Big Brother double-speak stuff and think seriously about these issues, you realize that he was absolutely spot on about several things. For instance, immigration has become a tool to suppress wages for the lower and middle class. "Xenophobia" has nothing to do with wanting to install a reasonable immigration policy, like the ones that New Zealand and Australia have already.
The other main issue I have with Trump: because he's such a buffoon (I guess), the tax bill and other legislation is more Paul Ryan's work than Trump's. It does not generally reflect the platform on which he was elected. The main exception is the corporate tax cut, which I agree is going to be painful in the short run, but needed to happen if you take the long view. But, the bill doesn't include Trump's ideas of taxing the hedge fund loophole and allowing a one-time minimally-taxed repatriation of overseas cash. That's a shame.
-
I'm not concerned about what's been revealed in the Russian investigation. The special investigation looks like a waste of time and money.
Fascinating. As there are 2 guilty pleas, and 2 additional indictments, it begs the question: When will you be concerned?
If Kushner does the perp walk, will you be concerned?
If Sessions has an arraignment, will you be concerned?
If Trump follows Nixon, and resigns before he's brought into Congress, would you give even a little credence to the possibility of collusion?
Or is this all a liberal plot organized by (?) Soros and Hillary?
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Yes, it is insulting. Also, if the mainline Republicans kicked out the racist xenophobes, that argument would be completely invalid. As it stands, they need racist votes to maintain their seats.
-
But, the bill doesn't include Trump's ideas of taxing the hedge fund loophole and allowing a one-time minimally-taxed repatriation of overseas cash. That's a shame.
Yeah, why didn't this make it into the bill? Do corporations not care enough?
-
I'm not concerned about what's been revealed in the Russian investigation. The special investigation looks like a waste of time and money.
Fascinating. As there are 2 guilty pleas, and 2 additional indictments, it begs the question: When will you be concerned?
If Kushner does the perp walk, will you be concerned?
If Sessions has an arraignment, will you be concerned?
If Trump follows Nixon, and resigns before he's brought into Congress, would you give even a little credence to the possibility of collusion?
Or is this all a liberal plot organized by (?) Soros and Hillary?
The pleas and indictments are incidental and largely have no relation with campaign activities. The information that has come to light re: the actual campaign is pretty insubstantial.
-
The pleas and indictments are incidental and largely have no relation with campaign activities. The information that has come to light re: the actual campaign is pretty insubstantial.
At least one legal expert has a different opinion: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson
-
I'm not concerned about what's been revealed in the Russian investigation. The special investigation looks like a waste of time and money.
Fascinating. As there are 2 guilty pleas, and 2 additional indictments, it begs the question: When will you be concerned?
If Kushner does the perp walk, will you be concerned?
If Sessions has an arraignment, will you be concerned?
If Trump follows Nixon, and resigns before he's brought into Congress, would you give even a little credence to the possibility of collusion?
Or is this all a liberal plot organized by (?) Soros and Hillary?
The pleas and indictments are incidental and largely have no relation with campaign activities. The information that has come to light re: the actual campaign is pretty insubstantial.
The pleas are minor, true, but there's a reason for that.
In any case, are you implying that you won't be concerned even if, for example, Kushner goes to prison for collusion? That you'll keep believing the investigation is a waste of time and money? That it's a liberal conspiracy orchestrated by...Podesta? Is there a point when you'll admit it's true?
Even Clintonistas will admit that Bill got a blow job and lied about it.
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Yes, it is insulting. Also, if the mainline Republicans kicked out the racist xenophobes, that argument would be completely invalid. As it stands, they need racist votes to maintain their seats.
Hey....Im still waiting to meet a trump voter who's not racist. I know several.....my parents, their friends, my cousin, brother, SIL, my business partner, my best from from elementary school, ect. The crazy shit Ive heard come out of their mouths the last 8 years was horrifying.
-
I'm not concerned about what's been revealed in the Russian investigation. The special investigation looks like a waste of time and money.
Fascinating. As there are 2 guilty pleas, and 2 additional indictments, it begs the question: When will you be concerned?
If Kushner does the perp walk, will you be concerned?
If Sessions has an arraignment, will you be concerned?
If Trump follows Nixon, and resigns before he's brought into Congress, would you give even a little credence to the possibility of collusion?
Or is this all a liberal plot organized by (?) Soros and Hillary?
So obviously I can't speak for the poster, but perhaps I can elaborate on this. This investigation is looking more and more politically motivated each day because of the nature of the charges and the investigators themselves.
Mike Flynn is charged with lying to FBI about talking with the Russians while Trump was president-elect. I don't understand how this indicates Trump-Russia collusion. It indicates lying about a legal and typical behavior for incoming administrations, which is baffling to me.
Manafort and Yates are charged with felonies that aren't directly related to Trump-Russia collusion. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/heres-what-the-charges-against-manafort-and-gates-mean.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/heres-what-the-charges-against-manafort-and-gates-mean.html)
I think, so far, the biggest smoking gun is the Papadopoulos plea. He was supposedly directed to talking with individuals he thought were connected to the Russian government in order to get dirt on Clinton. tbh, his story seems pretty fishy, but I'm keeping my eye out for what the investigation says.
Just to be clear, these people have broken the law. I'm fully supportive of any just charges brought against them. However, it's a far stretch to use these to say that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. Furthermore, one of the top investigators was taken off the investigation for spreading very pro-Clinton posts around, and Mueller himself has vague ties to Clinton. Shouldn't the investigators themselves be unimpeachable as these seemingly political ties draw doubt on the integrity of the investigation?
-
Mike Flynn is charged with lying to FBI about talking with the Russians while Trump was president-elect. I don't understand how this indicates Trump-Russia collusion. It indicates lying about a legal and typical behavior for incoming administrations, which is baffling to me.
It's not specifically about Fynn's plea.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/01/why-flynn-s-guilty-plea-is-bad-news-for-team-trump.html
However, it's a far stretch to use these to say that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.
Agreed. That's why we have a Special Prosecutor.
Furthermore, one of the top investigators was taken off the investigation for spreading very pro-Clinton posts around,
Mueller dismissed this agent when he found out. This should be a good thing.
and Mueller himself has vague ties to Clinton. Shouldn't the investigators themselves be unimpeachable as these seemingly political ties draw doubt on the integrity of the investigation?
Is there anything specific about him that's unseemly?
Mueller was appointed to FBI Director by a Republican President. Obama kept him on; is that considered too close to Clinton?
He was praised by both Republicans and Democrats when he was appointed.
Mueller "is a guy whose career is unimpeachable." -- Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
"The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent with this goal, and I welcome his role at the Department of Justice." -- Paul Ryan
Appointing Mueller is "a very positive development." -- Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.)
Etc., etc.
So he's now tainted because...he's investigating the Republican POTUS? Or did he do something else in the past 6 months?
-
So obviously I can't speak for the poster, but perhaps I can elaborate on this. This investigation is looking more and more politically motivated each day because of the nature of the charges and the investigators themselves.
Mike Flynn is charged with lying to FBI about talking with the Russians while Trump was president-elect. I don't understand how this indicates Trump-Russia collusion. It indicates lying about a legal and typical behavior for incoming administrations, which is baffling to me.
Flynn got a creampuff deal because he's now a witness for the prosecution. They hit him with the lowest charge they possibly could've given him, and apparently won't prosecute his son at all, in exchange for his testimony against people higher up the food chain (only Trump and Pence are higher on the food chain). They had him dead to rights on much more serious charges. He was negotiating rewards to a foreign power in exchange for their campaign-related actions.
The real evidence and charges have yet to see the light of day.
-
I genuinely cannot understand continued support for Trump. During the election, he admitted to boasting about sexual assault. He's now claiming that the voice on the recording - the voice he already admitted was his - may be fake. That leaves exactly three possible true scenarios:
1 - the recording is fake, and a major presidential campaign decided to admit to an incredibly damaging story that had no basis in fact. I would hope that we can all acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely.
2 - Trump honestly thinks it's not him, and has forgotten that he already admitted to it. This would make him manifestly unfit to serve; a president with those kinds of memory issues would be a catastrophe waiting to happen.
3 - Trump knows it's him, but thinks he can gain something from lying about it. This is the most unsettling implication: if this is the case, we have a US president who sees nothing wrong with blatant and obvious lying - in other words, a president who cannot be trusted on any level whatsoever.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at that behaviour and see something still worth defending.
-
I genuinely cannot understand continued support for Trump. During the election, he admitted to boasting about sexual assault. He's now claiming that the voice on the recording - the voice he already admitted was his - may be fake. That leaves exactly three possible true scenarios:
1 - the recording is fake, and a major presidential campaign decided to admit to an incredibly damaging story that had no basis in fact. I would hope that we can all acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely.
2 - Trump honestly thinks it's not him, and has forgotten that he already admitted to it. This would make him manifestly unfit to serve; a president with those kinds of memory issues would be a catastrophe waiting to happen.
3 - Trump knows it's him, but thinks he can gain something from lying about it. This is the most unsettling implication: if this is the case, we have a US president who sees nothing wrong with blatant and obvious lying - in other words, a president who cannot be trusted on any level whatsoever.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at that behaviour and see something still worth defending.
Billy Bush wrote an op-ed essentially saying "Yes, it's real. There were seven witnesses."
My money is on #3. It's the simplest explanation.
-
Mike Flynn is charged with lying to FBI about talking with the Russians while Trump was president-elect. I don't understand how this indicates Trump-Russia collusion. It indicates lying about a legal and typical behavior for incoming administrations, which is baffling to me.
It's not specifically about Fynn's plea.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/01/why-flynn-s-guilty-plea-is-bad-news-for-team-trump.html
And Fox News reported: “While it is unclear who Flynn himself is prepared to name, Fox News has been told by a former senior intelligence officer with knowledge of Trump transition activities that then-President-Elect Trump directed Flynn during that period to contact the Russians – while also directing him and his team to contact 12 other countries.”
I guess I don't understand what about this is illegal and/or indicates collusion. Maybe it's to early to speculate until we find out what the plea deal was.
However, it's a far stretch to use these to say that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.
Agreed. That's why we have a Special Prosecutor.
Furthermore, one of the top investigators was taken off the investigation for spreading very pro-Clinton posts around,
Mueller dismissed this agent when he found out. This should be a good thing.
I agree, unless it's discovered that Mueller knew about it and only fired him after the public found out. Your's is the simplest explanation though, until any contradictory evidence comes forward. edit: You're right about this. He was dismissed before public found out.
and Mueller himself has vague ties to Clinton. Shouldn't the investigators themselves be unimpeachable as these seemingly political ties draw doubt on the integrity of the investigation?
Is there anything specific about him that's unseemly?
Mueller was appointed to FBI Director by a Republican President. Obama kept him on; is that considered too close to Clinton?
He was praised by both Republicans and Democrats when he was appointed.
Mueller "is a guy whose career is unimpeachable." -- Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
"The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent with this goal, and I welcome his role at the Department of Justice." -- Paul Ryan
Appointing Mueller is "a very positive development." -- Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.)
Etc., etc.
So he's now tainted because...he's investigating the Republican POTUS? Or did he do something else in the past 6 months?
I have actually been generally supportive of Mueller. But with the first charges arising not necessarily indicated collusion, and with several congressmen questioning his partiality, it casts doubts at least.
http://www.newsweek.com/gop-using-muellers-role-uranium-deal-call-his-resignation-russia-probe-701673 (http://www.newsweek.com/gop-using-muellers-role-uranium-deal-call-his-resignation-russia-probe-701673)
-
Bob Mueller is a lifelong republican.
-
The pleas and indictments are incidental and largely have no relation with campaign activities. The information that has come to light re: the actual campaign is pretty insubstantial.
At least one legal expert has a different opinion: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson
Yeah, I think violation of an obscure act from the 1790s that has never been used to prosecute anyone, a violation committed by a Presidential transition team, does not justify a special investigation.
Again, maybe there is more evidence, but this doesn't alarm me at all. I would actually need to see the evidence of these additional charges.
-
I do not regret voting for him at all. I was initially put off by his manner etc. Generally can't stand watching the narcissistic blowhard. Voted Cruz in the primaries. I still don't like who he is but I'm thrilled with what he's DOING.
In retrospect I'm extremely glad I had the opportunity to vote for the Great Orange Swamp-Drainer and will do it again in 3yrs! For the first time since at least Reagan we have an unapologetic hard-charging dam' the torpedoes Patriot in the White House.
And quit calling me racist. Just proves you've got nothing of substance, so let's sink to the worst of all personal attacks: good old tried-n-true racism, maybe stir in some misogyny for flavor and make snide comments about the South while you're at it. Easy to throw the accusations, placates the ego, places the opposition on defense, and most importantly, prevents any intellectual discourse.
-
Thanks for posting this thread. The replies have been interesting, although there are more "lulz" Trump voters than I would have thought. I was sort of dismayed by this, but then I realized that it's probably an evolution towards regret.
Like it goes from "MAGA" to "lulz-so entertaining" to "well, he sucks but he's still pissing Pelosi off. Liberal tearzz" to [incompetence on my pet issue like net neutrality or pot] to "eh-I'm not voting next time"
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Yes, it is insulting. Also, if the mainline Republicans kicked out the racist xenophobes, that argument would be completely invalid. As it stands, they need racist votes to maintain their seats.
Hey....Im still waiting to meet a trump voter who's not racist. I know several.....my parents, their friends, my cousin, brother, SIL, my business partner, my best from from elementary school, ect. The crazy shit Ive heard come out of their mouths the last 8 years was horrifying.
I know trump voters who aren't racist. (Then again, everyone's a little bit racist (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnM1uHhsOI), right?) I would say most are obtuse when it comes to race, but not outright racist. I'm still working on several to convince them that unconscious bias and white privilege (IMO systemic injustice is a better term) is real and that they should care about it. But these types of conversations have to happen within the context of a relationship...trying to shame people to a certain way of thinking, no matter how right or how convinced you are of your righteousness, isn't effective. On the contrary, dismissing Trump voters as racist is a conversation stopper, code for writing people off as nothing more as "deplorable" and irredeemable. For a Trump voter it just gives them an excuse to completely ignore the content of your message.
But don't take my word for it, FiveThirtyEight has published a number of articles about how yes, some Trump voters are racist (btw, a decent percentage of Dem voters are also racist (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/), though not clear how many of these ended up voting Trump), but other issues such as economic anxiety (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-saying-trumps-win-had-nothing-to-do-with-economics/) are also important factors, which means there are a statistically significant number of people who voted for Trump who are not racist.
Everyone vastly underestimated the anti-establishment mood of the country leading up to the 2016 election. One party went though great lengths to make sure that a "safe" establishment candidate was on the ticket. The other party was in dismay as the anti-establishment candidate won the nomination. In fact, I remember Democrats gleefully rejoicing the day Trump was nominated because they thought, as did I, that he was unelectable. If the DNC hadn't intervened to make sure HRC got the nomination and it was Bernie v. Rubio (or any number of establishment Republicans) then I think we'd have a Sanders administration and people would asking if any Bernie voters regretted their anti-establishment vote.
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Over the past year, I have had a personal shift in my overarching mindset that has affected what I think and how I act, particularly when it comes to politics and general social issues. Last year, I may not have called a Trump supporter a racist to their face, but I was definitely thinking it. I was so quick to judge without considering what other reasons could exist for making someone want to align with him (even if they were not good reasons). I do not rush to judgment anymore.
I think this speaks to extreme polarity though. I have what I'd consider to be far-left friends who think anyone right of here is a racist, fascist, Nazi sympathizer. I also have friends who think anyone who didn't vote Trump are tree-hugging Lefty libtards. (Their words, not mine.)
The inability of people to empathize with or understand people from outside their particular section of the spectrum is an issue that I doubt will ever be fixed.
-
In retrospect I'm extremely glad I had the opportunity to vote for the Great Orange Swamp-Drainer and will do it again in 3yrs! For the first time since at least Reagan we have an unapologetic hard-charging dam' the torpedoes Patriot in the White House.
Please explain what this means?
You even alive when Reagan was president? Comparing those times and now is impossible. Also, Reagan's policies would put him in left field in these political times.
-
Reagan's policies would put him in left field in these political times.
Reagan was a pinko commie compared to the modem GOP.
How would Reagan have felt about publicly endorsing a child molester for the Senate?
-
Didn't vote for him but woo boy...reading these responses. People are bending over backwards to try to justify the *****-grabber in Chief. And apparently buried their heads in the sand on the Muslim tweets last week, white supremacist crap WRT Charlottesville, etc.
It is pretty mind-blowing to read people justifying the actions of the most-corrupt President since Nixon.
Carry on.
-
The claim that Trump is a "patriot" is one of the weirder claims to come out of the pro-Trump enthusiasts. He's done more to wreck American standing and American soft power than anyone in modern history, even ending up abusing the mayor of London and the prime minister of the United Kingdom for not being Islamophobic enough. That's the polar opposite of patriotism: he's making it harder for America to achieve its foreign policy goals by ensuring that being seen to be close to him is electoral poison for most leaders.
The UK is frantically trying to figure out how to cancel a state visit planned for 2018, because they're genuinely and legitimately concerned that a visit from the president of Britain's oldest and firmest ally will be met with a never-ending barrage of abuse and invective from the British public. Imagine thousands of people hurling rotten fruit at the presidential motorcade for fifteen miles straight: that's honestly a real possibility. Having Trump abuse her on Twitter has legitimately been the best thing that has happened to Theresa May in the last six months. That's not patriotism: it's catastrophe.
-
I do not regret voting for him at all. I was initially put off by his manner etc. Generally can't stand watching the narcissistic blowhard. Voted Cruz in the primaries. I still don't like who he is but I'm thrilled with what he's DOING.
What has he done, specifically, that you are thrilled about?
In retrospect I'm extremely glad I had the opportunity to vote for the Great Orange Swamp-Drainer and will do it again in 3yrs! For the first time since at least Reagan we have an unapologetic hard-charging dam' the torpedoes Patriot in the White House.
Shortly before Election Day last year, Donald Trump rolled out a package of ethics reforms that he promised to implement as president, using for the first time a now-famous phrase: “drain the swamp.”
A year later and nearly nine months into his presidency, Trump has failed to deliver on most of those reforms. Of a five-point list of proposals he unveiled to tighten the rules for Washington lobbying, only one has been fully implemented.
And rather than draining the swamp, many Washington lobbyists say business is better than ever. Spending on lobbying in Washington totaled almost $1.7 billion in the first half of the year, the highest since 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/trump-drain-swamp-promises-243924
Corey Lewandowski, who worked as Trump’s campaign manager, moved to Washington, D.C., and started a Beltway lobbying firm, where he accepted lots of money from special interests that were trying to influence Trump. Meanwhile, The New York Times reported, “Established K Street firms were grabbing any Trump people they could find: Jim Murphy, Trump’s former political director, joined the lobbying giant BakerHostetler, while another firm, Fidelis Government Relations, struck up a partnership with Bill Smith, Mike Pence’s former chief of staff. All told, close to 20 ex-aides of Trump, friends, and hangers-on had made their way into Washington’s influence business.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/meet-the-new-swamp/540540/
He has already spent more than two months worth of his time in office at one of the golf properties in which he has a financial stake. Because he refuses to fully divest his financial interests, each trip to a Trump-owned commercial property essentially forces the American people to deposit funds into his families’ bank account. His large entourage of staff and security personnel also pay lodging and meal expenses at these Trump properties with taxpayer funds.
So 1) what has he done that you are trilled about?
And 2) How can you say with a straight face he's "drained the swamp?"
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Over the past year, I have had a personal shift in my overarching mindset that has affected what I think and how I act, particularly when it comes to politics and general social issues. Last year, I may not have called a Trump supporter a racist to their face, but I was definitely thinking it. I was so quick to judge without considering what other reasons could exist for making someone want to align with him (even if they were not good reasons). I do not rush to judgment anymore.
I think this speaks to extreme polarity though. I have what I'd consider to be far-left friends who think anyone right of here is a racist, fascist, Nazi sympathizer. I also have friends who think anyone who didn't vote Trump are tree-hugging Lefty libtards. (Their words, not mine.)
The inability of people to empathize with or understand people from outside their particular section of the spectrum is an issue that I doubt will ever be fixed.
+1
This has been perhaps the most disheartening thing about the past year or so. We talk about Trump supporters being in a bubble all the time, but there is also a second bubble full of anti-Trump folks. Neither of which try or care to understand the other side. We've seen politically motivated violence rise, I think in part because we dehumanize the other side. This is truly awful behavior that needs to stop.
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
Name a specific racist policy that the Trump administration has implemented. No one takes your virtue signaling seriously.
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
If I were going to "be fair" to them, I'd say something like, "Well, they're just falling for racist dog whistles. They don't know they're being racist because it's not explicit."
That's the only "defense" I've got.
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
Name a specific racist policy that the Trump administration has implemented. No one takes your virtue signaling seriously.
Wait, are you accepting that he's a racist candidate who ran a racist campaign, but protesting the characterization of racist policies?
How about the policy of defending Nazis? Was that racist enough for you?
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
Name a specific racist policy that the Trump administration has implemented. No one takes your virtue signaling seriously.
I'm not bothering with anyone who thinks using the phrase 'virtue signalling' means they've made a point.
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
Name a specific racist policy that the Trump administration has implemented. No one takes your virtue signaling seriously.
Oh Stop it! Obviously no one is talking about Trump proposing blatantly racist polices. We have laws and courts for stuff like this.
Were talking about the power of his words and rhetoric
-
I have three questions for all the non-racist Trump supporters on here.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
Name a specific racist policy that the Trump administration has implemented. No one takes your virtue signaling seriously.
Wait, are you accepting that he's a racist candidate who ran a racist campaign, but protesting the characterization of racist policies?
How about the policy of defending Nazis? Was that racist enough for you?
No, I don't accept the assertion that he was a racist candidate who ran a racist campaign. My point is that if he is truly racist, why is there no evidence that he has used his presidency to push racist policy? People use racist so much without any underlying evidence that others will stop believe all claims of racism. The only people harmed by this are the real victims of racist acts.
I've never supported Trump's statements of the 'good people on both sides' etc. To say he ran a racist campaign on this is pretty disingenuous imo
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
Name a specific racist policy that the Trump administration has implemented. No one takes your virtue signaling seriously.
Wait, are you accepting that he's a racist candidate who ran a racist campaign, but protesting the characterization of racist policies?
How about the policy of defending Nazis? Was that racist enough for you?
No, I don't accept the assertion that he was a racist candidate who ran a racist campaign. My point is that if he is truly racist, why is there no evidence that he has used his presidency to push racist policy? People use racist so much without any underlying evidence that others will stop believe all claims of racism. The only people harmed by this are the real victims of racist acts.
I've never supported Trump's statements of the 'good people on both sides' etc. To say he ran a racist campaign on this is pretty disingenuous imo
He ran a racist campaign by:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American.
-Scapegoating Mexicans.
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.")
-Scapegoating Muslims.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims.
But all of this is neither here nor there, because you no doubt know about all of this and don't regard it as racist. There's nothing to be gained from discussing this, because your definition of racism is so narrow as to be meaningless.
-
He ran a racist campaign by:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American.
-Scapegoating Mexicans.
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.")
-Scapegoating Muslims.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims.
But all of this is neither here nor there, because you no doubt know about all of this and don't regard it as racist. There's nothing to be gained from discussing this, because your definition of racism is so narrow as to be meaningless.
About these:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American. Was this motivated by Barack's race? If so, is he claiming all biracial people aren't American?
-Scapegoating Mexicans. Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.") Without looking into this at all, this one at least sounds like it could be racially motivated. His name sounding Hispanic and his parents being Hispanics from Mexico and all.
-Scapegoating Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion. Religion is not a race.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
So of these, only one seems like it can be specifically racial. Are these others silly and ridiculous? Yes. Nationalistic to the point of absurdity? Possibly. Just all-around ignorant? Yes. Specifically racist? Seems unlikely for most of them.
Although to be fair, I am not certain Trump is "with it" enough to separate one's religion from their race, or vice versa, so *shrug*.
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Over the past year, I have had a personal shift in my overarching mindset that has affected what I think and how I act, particularly when it comes to politics and general social issues. Last year, I may not have called a Trump supporter a racist to their face, but I was definitely thinking it. I was so quick to judge without considering what other reasons could exist for making someone want to align with him (even if they were not good reasons). I do not rush to judgment anymore.
I think this speaks to extreme polarity though. I have what I'd consider to be far-left friends who think anyone right of here is a racist, fascist, Nazi sympathizer. I also have friends who think anyone who didn't vote Trump are tree-hugging Lefty libtards. (Their words, not mine.)
The inability of people to empathize with or understand people from outside their particular section of the spectrum is an issue that I doubt will ever be fixed.
When I listen to snide thinly veiled racist comments about a black president for 8 years then I can be pretty confident about who around me are racists and now with their support for Trump - misogynists. These are not people whom I believe value honesty, manners or fairness. I have no idea how they rationalize their purported Christian beliefs with their support of Trump.
I hear them lecture about all sorts of sins and then profess their support for Trump. Just mind boggling.
-
If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.
Name a specific racist policy that the Trump administration has implemented. No one takes your virtue signaling seriously.
Wait, are you accepting that he's a racist candidate who ran a racist campaign, but protesting the characterization of racist policies?
How about the policy of defending Nazis? Was that racist enough for you?
No, I don't accept the assertion that he was a racist candidate who ran a racist campaign. My point is that if he is truly racist, why is there no evidence that he has used his presidency to push racist policy? People use racist so much without any underlying evidence that others will stop believe all claims of racism. The only people harmed by this are the real victims of racist acts.
I've never supported Trump's statements of the 'good people on both sides' etc. To say he ran a racist campaign on this is pretty disingenuous imo
He ran a racist campaign by:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American.
-Scapegoating Mexicans.
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.")
-Scapegoating Muslims.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims.
But all of this is neither here nor there, because you no doubt know about all of this and don't regard it as racist. There's nothing to be gained from discussing this, because your definition of racism is so narrow as to be meaningless.
Do you want to go through each of these statements individually? I can only offer what I think the reasoning behind his statements were, and how they are not necessarily racist. I do not claim that I support what he said or how he said it. Keep in mind the OP's original question and my answer to it;
It's an honest question. I'm really curious as to whether anyone voted republican and now regrets it because:
...
6. General lack of decorum
...
6. Don't like it. D-
This really isn't the proper topic to discuss it though, since this has been rehashed over and over.
I'll give another reason why I do not regret voting for Trump. Folks in the topic have personally attacked me several times already without any underlying evidence to back up their claims. They've insinuated that I'm uneducated, don't care about the environment, racist. My vote for Trump was more reactionary than based on policy, unfortunately. I'm going to continue pushing back against those who are willing to make such ridiculous claims.
-
He ran a racist campaign by:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American.
-Scapegoating Mexicans.
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.")
-Scapegoating Muslims.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims.
But all of this is neither here nor there, because you no doubt know about all of this and don't regard it as racist. There's nothing to be gained from discussing this, because your definition of racism is so narrow as to be meaningless.
About these:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American. Was this motivated by Barack's race? If so, is he claiming all biracial people aren't American?
-Scapegoating Mexicans. Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.") Without looking into this at all, this one at least sounds like it could be racially motivated. His name sounding Hispanic and his parents being Hispanics from Mexico and all.
-Scapegoating Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion. Religion is not a race.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
So of these, only one seems like it can be specifically racial. Are these others silly and ridiculous? Yes. Nationalistic to the point of absurdity? Possibly. Just all-around ignorant? Yes. Specifically racist? Seems unlikely for most of them.
Although to be fair, I am not certain Trump is "with it" enough to separate one's religion from their race, or vice versa, so *shrug*.
Assuming I concede the truth of every argument you make, that changes Trump to a bigoted candidate running a bigoted campaign based on bigoted policies. Is that any better?
-
I'll give another reason why I do not regret voting for Trump. Folks in the topic have personally attacked me several times already without any underlying evidence to back up their claims. They've insinuated that I'm uneducated, don't care about the environment, racist. My vote for Trump was more reactionary than based on policy, unfortunately. I'm going to continue pushing back against those who are willing to make such ridiculous claims.
Because, this might be a shock, candidates are elected largely because of the policies they promise to enact.
I know, I know...novel concept in a democracy. Supporting a candidate = supporting at least most of their policies.
-
Assuming I concede the truth of every argument you make, that changes Trump to a bigoted candidate running a bigoted campaign based on bigoted policies. Is that any better?
It would at least do society the benefit of not minimizing the seriousness of racism and claiming certain behaviors or actions are racist. I do not want actual racism watered down with claims like these.
-
Assuming I concede the truth of every argument you make, that changes Trump to a bigoted candidate running a bigoted campaign based on bigoted policies. Is that any better?
It would at least do society the benefit of not minimizing the seriousness of racism and claiming certain behaviors or actions are racist. I do not want actual racism watered down with claims like these.
The stuff Trump has been doing isn't lesser than racism. It's a marginally different shade of vicious bigotry, and calling it racism is a very mild category error, not a whitewashing of racial animus.
-
I'll give another reason why I do not regret voting for Trump. Folks in the topic have personally attacked me several times already without any underlying evidence to back up their claims. They've insinuated that I'm uneducated, don't care about the environment, racist. My vote for Trump was more reactionary than based on policy, unfortunately. I'm going to continue pushing back against those who are willing to make such ridiculous claims.
Because, this might be a shock, candidates are elected largely because of the policies they promise to enact.
I know, I know...novel concept in a democracy. Supporting a candidate = supporting at least most of their policies.
I don't think this is necessarily exact. You can go out on the street and tell people a bunch a Trump policies/quotes, but say they are Clinton policies/quotes. They will say they support them.
https://youtu.be/IzC-l7tovFk (https://youtu.be/IzC-l7tovFk)
You are, or course, correct that policies matter. But a large part of this election in particular was cultural, more so than any I've paid attention to.
-
Assuming I concede the truth of every argument you make, that changes Trump to a bigoted candidate running a bigoted campaign based on bigoted policies. Is that any better?
It would at least do society the benefit of not minimizing the seriousness of racism and claiming certain behaviors or actions are racist. I do not want actual racism watered down with claims like these.
The stuff Trump has been doing isn't lesser than racism. It's a marginally different shade of vicious bigotry, and calling it racism is a very mild category error, not a whitewashing of racial animus.
I do not disagree with you that he is a bigoted prick. But categorization in this case matters. Calling some of these things racism undercuts the real arguments and points you want to make, because people may write your words off since what you're describing isn't actually racism. It doesn't matter if what Trump is doing is better or worse than racism, it matters that you look like you know what you're talking about when you call him out. And I again insist that this type of rhetoric waters down actual cases of racism.
-
I'm comfortable that people whose opinions I have any respect for don't rush to discount my words when I describe Trump as a racist rather than as a definite bigot and almost certain racist who's on record has having said openly racist things
-
I'm comfortable that people whose opinions I have any respect for don't rush to discount my words when I describe Trump as a racist rather than as a definite bigot and almost certain racist who's on record has having said openly racist things
You may have respect for their opinions and hold them in high regard, but if those same people offer your opinions respect when you make a claim while not providing any evidence of worth, it raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do these people not value intellectual honesty? Facts? Evidence? If I offer opinions to others and offer poor evidence, I'd have more respect for those people if they found my claims dubious at best.
EDIT: I realized after rereading this that it could come off really combative. That wasn't my intent. But I'll leave it as is.
-
I have three questions for all the non-racist Trump supporters on here.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
My money is you get zero genuine responses to your questions here from Trump voters.
-
7. I'm not aware of any harm or potential harm to the environment that Trump has done.
Seems like there is some harm or potential harm to the environment here since he's removing protections to national monuments in favor of oil/gas drilling.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42226752
-
Your experience is really interesting for me and I have to admit that mine has been the opposite. I'm quite liberal but with a 90% very conservative, trump-voting family.
I have historically given my family the benefit of the doubt when it comes to voting for the current republican party - they are my family. I love them and obviously don't want to think of them as holding beliefs that are anathema to me .
But over the last year (and if I'm honest - the last several years) I have heard increasingly xenophobic and bigoted language coming from my loved ones. I'm having a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore. When folks (who ancestors for fought for the union in the civil war) begin to talk about "protecting our heritage" in the form of confederate flags or saying that the liberals in Charlottesville shouldn't have protested or (with the straw that broke this camel's back) called Obama "that arrogant black Muslim" I have to admit that there might be racism (or at least Xenophobia) at play here.
And by defending my family for years and saying that they are just strongly anti-abortion I feel like I haven't been doing anyone any favors. I am barely holding it together this holiday season.
Right there with you, StarBright. My two family members who voted for Trump are racist (birthers; believe POC shot by police deserve it; that BLM are a terrorist organization; that the Civil War wasn't about slavery and that some Black people were better off in the Confederacy), xenophobic ("build the wall!" with a delicious side of irony in that they both employ undocumented workers; want to kick out DACA students), and Islamophobic (explicitly want to marginalize/ban Muslim individuals; believe that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion). I don't know whether they've always held these repugnant views, but didn't feel comfortable expressing them until Trump and the far-right wing of the Republican party normalized it; or whether Trump et al. assisted in their bolt to the right. I could rattle off more examples for each of those categories, and don't have the emotional energy to dip my toe into the sludge of misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia.
Neither regrets voting for Trump. One is disappointed that he hasn't done more to drain the swamp/expel Muslims/etc, but he was never going to vote for that lying shrew Hillary. I've done my best to be empathetic and thoughtful and see things from their perspective, and I don't think all Trump voters are AS racist/Islamophobic/etc as the two that I'm closest to...but there's no way around the fact that every single Trump voter saw a campaign that was racist, Islamophobic, anti-disability, and misogynistic, and still voted for him. That's a tacit endorsement of those beliefs.
-
Someone mentioned Nixon as a comparison for Trump earlier in this thread. I don't that's accurate. He's a lot more like Warren G. Harding in my estimation. The 1920s were a time of roaring stock markets, arrogant wealth, and social division that ended with the Great Depression. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about our near future.
-
To those in this thread piling on and attacking Trump voters, you're defeating what I believe was OP's purpose of having a real discussion. If all you want to do is attack, start your own thread. I understand the frustration you feel but all you're doing is playing whack-a-mole with anyone who dares peek their head out of the ground to have an honest conversation. Even if someone's reasoning is flawed, you need to understand it before you can debate it.
-
To those in this thread piling on and attacking Trump voters, you're defeating what I believe was OP's purpose of having a real discussion. If all you want to do is attack, start your own thread. I understand the frustration you feel but all you're doing is playing whack-a-mole with anyone who dares peek their head out of the ground to have an honest conversation. Even if someone's reasoning is flawed, you need to understand it before you can debate it.
I've voted republican all my life but couldn't do it this time. I ended up voting for Gary Johnson.
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
-
I'm comfortable that people whose opinions I have any respect for don't rush to discount my words when I describe Trump as a racist rather than as a definite bigot and almost certain racist who's on record has having said openly racist things
You may have respect for their opinions and hold them in high regard, but if those same people offer your opinions respect when you make a claim while not providing any evidence of worth, it raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do these people not value intellectual honesty? Facts? Evidence? If I offer opinions to others and offer poor evidence, I'd have more respect for those people if they found my claims dubious at best.
EDIT: I realized after rereading this that it could come off really combative. That wasn't my intent. But I'll leave it as is.
The people I'm referencing are mostly former university debaters, with a couple of world finalists and a world champion among them. There's also a fair few legal professionals and academics. By and large, they are extremely interested in the value of words and the power of persuasive argument.
But that's neither here nor there. We're talking about a man who was sued by the Justice Department for discriminating against black tenants, who spent an obscene amount of money to demand that the Central Park Five be executed (and never apologised following their acquital), who made himself the public face of the claim that America's first black president wasn't really American, and who was called out for racism by the head of his own party during his own election campaign. He's a racist and a bigot.
-
My impressions of trump voters comes from message boards and responses to articles, where their statements are things like killary, she lost, the liberals are crying, and ignorant statements. I work with veterans and two times in the last couple months, maybe because I'm a blonde female, white older men have come up to me to say things like glad we have trump, followed by something atrocious like got that Muslim out of here, or gesturing to my fellow employees who are black, look at all these blacks, it disgusts me. Trump's going to get rid of these folks, while I feel the color leave my face. There are many reasons I feel trump is unqualified to be president. One of the smaller being signalling the end of civil society, and any sense of a unified values and goals and commonalities in our country.
I don't know if you want to call it racist, bigoted, what have you, but Trump has been signalling, unless you are part of his base, you are not a "real American" you are a 2nd class citizen. This includes everyone from government workers, scientists, Democrats, as well as African Americans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, immigrants, Muslim, and especially, poor people. He has contempt for anyone not like him.
And he is NOT a patriot, and does not represent American values. He did not serve, none of his kids served, his father was arrested at a white supremacist/Nazi rally, and he has said things as I work at the VA I find personally offensive, such as McCain is not a real hero because he was a prisoner of war, he knows more than the generals, and casting aspersions on parents of medal of honor recipients. He has no honor. No clue about personal sacrifice, or sacrifice for one's country. He is self-serving and lies constantly. Not white lies or shading, bald faced lies. That alone make him unfit to be the President, and Commander in Chief.
-
Race, Ethnicity and religion are distinct identifiers but they also have significant overlap. While being anti Muslim may not technically be racist, the majority of those who hold contempt for Muslims are also making judgments based on the color of their skin and where they were born. Among people I know racism and bigotry go hand in hand so it's hard not to see them as one in the same.
This comes into play with Obama's birth certificate and the conspiracy theory that he is a Muslim as well. If he was a white man, do you really think the birther conspiracy would have taken off the way it did? Certain people, who were in fact racist whether they know it or not, were looking for a way to discredit a black person and this was the answer. Others may have joined in because he was a democrat and not because of his skin color so yes, accusing everyone who believed the conspiracy of racism would be incorrect, but that feeling is not without basis.
So it's difficult enough to define race, but then we have the question of what is racism? I would imagine when someone is accused of being racist what they hear is "you think less of other races because of the color of their skin" to which they might respond "no I don't, that would be silly". But what the accuser really means is "you think less of a group of people based on what some people in that group have done and even worse based on what you think certain people in that group have done". For example I've had the conversation more than once where someone supports profiling of middle easterners by the TSA and says "well I'm not racist, I just think that we should search the people who are most likely to be terrorists". To them, their logic is sound but in reality there are no statistics to support that opinion. To me, the fact that they accepted the idea that middle easterners are more likely to be terrorists without doing the research to back it up does make them racist but in a much different way than just hating someone for their skin color/religion/ethnicity.
As someone mentioned earlier WE ARE ALL RACIST. Arguing about whether someone is or isn't racist is pointless because it's a sliding scale. Not only that, it's a 3-dimensional sliding scale.
-
I do not regret voting for him at all. I was initially put off by his manner etc. Generally can't stand watching the narcissistic blowhard. Voted Cruz in the primaries. I still don't like who he is but I'm thrilled with what he's DOING.
In retrospect I'm extremely glad I had the opportunity to vote for the Great Orange Swamp-Drainer and will do it again in 3yrs! For the first time since at least Reagan we have an unapologetic hard-charging dam' the torpedoes Patriot in the White House.
And quit calling me racist. Just proves you've got nothing of substance, so let's sink to the worst of all personal attacks: good old tried-n-true racism, maybe stir in some misogyny for flavor and make snide comments about the South while you're at it. Easy to throw the accusations, placates the ego, places the opposition on defense, and most importantly, prevents any intellectual discourse.
I'm not sure why you're excited about Trump. He seems patriotic enough, but he's an ineffective President and highly polarizing. There are other candidates who would have done a better job (and at this point I might revisit my decision to prefer Trump over Cruz).
You can't really "drain the swamp" just by asserting it. You need to work within the existing power structures.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
1. Yeah.
2. No, not really. He seems like he's probably one of those Cafeteria Christians, and probably goes to church for the same reason he doesn't smoke: Michelle badgers him about it. Obama does not strike as a True Believer. I am guessing you are getting at whether I think he's a secret Muslim: No.
3. Acceptable in what sense? It's not the behavior of polite society, so I don't support it.
-
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
What, exactly, are the Democrats doing wrong?
-
7. I'm not aware of any harm or potential harm to the environment that Trump has done.
Seems like there is some harm or potential harm to the environment here since he's removing protections to national monuments in favor of oil/gas drilling.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42226752
Thanks for finding this, as this topic often challenges my principles. How do we balance the conservation of our land while continuing to allow states and local communities the freedom to choose the best use of that land?
To the best of my knowledge, Bears Ears was already public land (mix of federal and state) when President Obama designated it a National Monument last year. Many of the state republicans believe it was an executive overreach to make this designation, and had been in the process of writing legislation to deal with the land (mix of conservation and development).
Quite frankly, I don't know the answer to what is right. I can think of a few scenarios where I would be supportive and non-supportive of Trump's actions. I also couldn't find if the land is turned over to the state or what the plan is. I simply think there are not enough facts to make an informed decision.
Supportive: It's possible Obama overreached in his designation and included vast swaths of land that are not in the spirit of the antiquities act:
That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected
If the land Trump is leaving in the National Monument fall within the scope of the Antiquities Act, I would be supportive of his action.
Opposed to: It's also possible that Trump is overreaching by shrinking this monument. It's possible that he's opening up culturally and historically significant places to development, which I would not be supportive of.
-
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
What, exactly, are the Democrats doing wrong?
playing identity politics and focusing in smaller fringe groups instead of driving a national agenda.
-
Smaller fringe groups like...women? I think they're overdoing it on the transgender stuff, but most of the groups they've been focusing on are not exactly fringe.
-
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
What, exactly, are the Democrats doing wrong?
playing identity politics and focusing in smaller fringe groups instead of driving a national agenda.
So we can't have net neutrality because the Democrats didn't suck your dick long enough?
MOD EDIT: Uh, no. Read forum rule #1
-
[wishing there was a 'leave thread' feature...shoulda known better]
-
Smaller fringe groups like...women? ... but most of the groups they've been focusing on are not exactly fringe.
Small as in "needs aren't important enough to consider", not small as in "not many of them".
Hope that clarifies the GOP platform for you.
As for the OP's question, No, I don't regret voting Republican. I vote in the Republican primaries for the most centrist, least fundamentalist, least corporate lackey, and least neo-fascist whack job on the ballot. I do that in the hope that we might get less objectionable candidates from that party.
Then I vote Democrat in the general election because the reasonable GOP candidates rarely get past the primaries. :(
-
He ran a racist campaign by:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American.
-Scapegoating Mexicans.
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.")
-Scapegoating Muslims.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims.
But all of this is neither here nor there, because you no doubt know about all of this and don't regard it as racist. There's nothing to be gained from discussing this, because your definition of racism is so narrow as to be meaningless.
About these:
-Claiming Obama wasn't really American. Was this motivated by Barack's race? If so, is he claiming all biracial people aren't American?
-Scapegoating Mexicans. Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.") Without looking into this at all, this one at least sounds like it could be racially motivated. His name sounding Hispanic and his parents being Hispanics from Mexico and all.
-Scapegoating Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion. Religion is not a race.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
So of these, only one seems like it can be specifically racial. Are these others silly and ridiculous? Yes. Nationalistic to the point of absurdity? Possibly. Just all-around ignorant? Yes. Specifically racist? Seems unlikely for most of them.
Although to be fair, I am not certain Trump is "with it" enough to separate one's religion from their race, or vice versa, so *shrug*.
Assuming I concede the truth of every argument you make, that changes Trump to a bigoted candidate running a bigoted campaign based on bigoted policies. Is that any better?
LOL Shit! Touche
-
I find it hard to believe that Trump was elected by a passel of racist, xenophobic Americans because he would put the damn Muslims/Mexicans/Blacks whatever back where they belonged.
I prefer to believe that his supporters are feeling anxiety about:
- economics: job loss (perceived as to developing countries, but also from automation and changing demand)
- national identity: the US used to be the biggest & best superpower in the world. China has largely caught up.
- cultural changes: the internet has changed everything in the way people interact
and so on.
Trump's campaign played to these anxieties. He blamed the Democrats for all this stuff happening and promised to put things back to the way they were.
-
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
What, exactly, are the Democrats doing wrong?
playing identity politics and focusing in smaller fringe groups instead of driving a national agenda.
So we can't have net neutrality because the Democrats didn't suck your dick long enough?
They didn't even give me a tickle man...
-
I'm amused that pretty much all the financial benefits of Trump's "election" have basically gone to Clinton's voters. Now that he's basically defunded the ACA and killed his own constituents' health insurance to give tax cuts to corporations, Clinton's college-educated white collar investor voters with employer-provided insurance get to enjoy larger dividends. I don't think Trump's voters really thought through what they were doing.
-
Smaller fringe groups like...women? I think they're overdoing it on the transgender stuff, but most of the groups they've been focusing on are not exactly fringe.
in the attempt to big tent every specific group they've forgetting what it means to be American.
Focusing on things that differentiate us instead of unite us. It just sucks.
Republicans gave up ruling what 20 years ago but atleast I get to keep more of my money.
-
I find it hard to believe that Trump was elected by a passel of racist, xenophobic Americans because he would put the damn Muslims/Mexicans/Blacks whatever back where they belonged.
I prefer to believe that his supporters are feeling anxiety about:
- economics: job loss (perceived as to developing countries, but also from automation and changing demand)
- national identity: the US used to be the biggest & best superpower in the world. China has largely caught up.
- cultural changes: the internet has changed everything in the way people interact
and so on.
Trump's campaign played to these anxieties. He blamed the Democrats for all this stuff happening and promised to put things back to the way they were.
If by "national identity" and "cultural changes" you mean that we're ever so slowly inching our way towards a society that's not completely and wholly dominated by rich/white/straight/men, then perhaps you have a point there.
Smaller fringe groups like...women? I think they're overdoing it on the transgender stuff, but most of the groups they've been focusing on are not exactly fringe.
in the attempt to big tent every specific group they've forgetting what it means to be American.
Focusing on things that differentiate us instead of unite us. It just sucks.
Republicans gave up ruling what 20 years ago but atleast I get to keep more of my money.
You're either part of the 1% or woefully misinformed about recent events.
-
No regrets on my (R) vote.
I have no idea if I would vote differently next time not knowing the future political landscape of events, issues and candidates. Are you asking how we would vote if 2020 is a choice between Hillary, Trump and Johnson again?
-
I'm comfortable that people whose opinions I have any respect for don't rush to discount my words when I describe Trump as a racist rather than as a definite bigot and almost certain racist who's on record has having said openly racist things
You may have respect for their opinions and hold them in high regard, but if those same people offer your opinions respect when you make a claim while not providing any evidence of worth, it raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do these people not value intellectual honesty? Facts? Evidence? If I offer opinions to others and offer poor evidence, I'd have more respect for those people if they found my claims dubious at best.
EDIT: I realized after rereading this that it could come off really combative. That wasn't my intent. But I'll leave it as is.
The people I'm referencing are mostly former university debaters, with a couple of world finalists and a world champion among them. There's also a fair few legal professionals and academics. By and large, they are extremely interested in the value of words and the power of persuasive argument.
But that's neither here nor there. We're talking about a man who was sued by the Justice Department for discriminating against black tenants, who spent an obscene amount of money to demand that the Central Park Five be executed (and never apologised following their acquital), who made himself the public face of the claim that America's first black president wasn't really American, and who was called out for racism by the head of his own party during his own election campaign. He's a racist and a bigot.
So again, to my point, when making claims during a conversation/debate/argument/whatever about anything (including Trump), back your claim with things relevant to your claim. You claimed he was racist and then proceeded to give numerous points that actually had nothing to do with racism. This kind of approach will turn your audience off because it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
If I have to spell it out for you, I'm not arguing against your claim that he is racist. I am arguing in favor of citing specific, accurate examples that demonstrate your claim. That is all.
-
I'm comfortable that people whose opinions I have any respect for don't rush to discount my words when I describe Trump as a racist rather than as a definite bigot and almost certain racist who's on record has having said openly racist things
You may have respect for their opinions and hold them in high regard, but if those same people offer your opinions respect when you make a claim while not providing any evidence of worth, it raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do these people not value intellectual honesty? Facts? Evidence? If I offer opinions to others and offer poor evidence, I'd have more respect for those people if they found my claims dubious at best.
EDIT: I realized after rereading this that it could come off really combative. That wasn't my intent. But I'll leave it as is.
The people I'm referencing are mostly former university debaters, with a couple of world finalists and a world champion among them. There's also a fair few legal professionals and academics. By and large, they are extremely interested in the value of words and the power of persuasive argument.
But that's neither here nor there. We're talking about a man who was sued by the Justice Department for discriminating against black tenants, who spent an obscene amount of money to demand that the Central Park Five be executed (and never apologised following their acquital), who made himself the public face of the claim that America's first black president wasn't really American, and who was called out for racism by the head of his own party during his own election campaign. He's a racist and a bigot.
So again, to my point, when making claims during a conversation/debate/argument/whatever about anything (including Trump), back your claim with things relevant to your claim. You claimed he was racist and then proceeded to give numerous points that actually had nothing to do with racism. This kind of approach will turn your audience off because it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
If I have to spell it out for you, I'm not arguing against your claim that he is racist. I am arguing in favor of citing specific, accurate examples that demonstrate your claim. That is all.
Are you arguing that Black people are humans therefore it isn't racist? Because that's what it looks like at this point.
-
I'm comfortable that people whose opinions I have any respect for don't rush to discount my words when I describe Trump as a racist rather than as a definite bigot and almost certain racist who's on record has having said openly racist things
You may have respect for their opinions and hold them in high regard, but if those same people offer your opinions respect when you make a claim while not providing any evidence of worth, it raises a lot of questions in my mind. Do these people not value intellectual honesty? Facts? Evidence? If I offer opinions to others and offer poor evidence, I'd have more respect for those people if they found my claims dubious at best.
EDIT: I realized after rereading this that it could come off really combative. That wasn't my intent. But I'll leave it as is.
The people I'm referencing are mostly former university debaters, with a couple of world finalists and a world champion among them. There's also a fair few legal professionals and academics. By and large, they are extremely interested in the value of words and the power of persuasive argument.
But that's neither here nor there. We're talking about a man who was sued by the Justice Department for discriminating against black tenants, who spent an obscene amount of money to demand that the Central Park Five be executed (and never apologised following their acquital), who made himself the public face of the claim that America's first black president wasn't really American, and who was called out for racism by the head of his own party during his own election campaign. He's a racist and a bigot.
So again, to my point, when making claims during a conversation/debate/argument/whatever about anything (including Trump), back your claim with things relevant to your claim. You claimed he was racist and then proceeded to give numerous points that actually had nothing to do with racism. This kind of approach will turn your audience off because it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
If I have to spell it out for you, I'm not arguing against your claim that he is racist. I am arguing in favor of citing specific, accurate examples that demonstrate your claim. That is all.
Are you arguing that Black people are humans therefore it isn't racist? Because that's what it looks like at this point.
No. I'm arguing that they need to use actual evidence to support a claim. The quoted text above is missing the original context, in which runbikerun said the following specifically about Trump's racism (with my responses in bold):
"-Claiming Obama wasn't really American. Was this motivated by Barack's race? If so, is he claiming all biracial people aren't American?
-Scapegoating Mexicans. Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.") Without looking into this at all, this one at least sounds like it could be racially motivated. His name sounding Hispanic and his parents being Hispanics from Mexico and all.
-Scapegoating Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion. Religion is not a race.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims. Muslims are not a race."
While I would agree that Trump is a bigoted prick, most of the stuff they listed has nothing to do with racism, and it runs the risk of their opponents (whomever they are) ignoring them because they didn't actually provide a list of evidence about Trump's racism.
It's getting surprising to me that people have so much of an issue with this concept.
-
No. I'm arguing that they need to use actual evidence to support a claim. The quoted text above is missing the original context, in which runbikerun said the following specifically about Trump's racism (with my responses in bold):
So the part about housing discrimination, that's not racist?
-
I have three questions for all the non-racist Trump supporters on here.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
My money is you get zero genuine responses to your questions here from Trump voters.
Ha, yeah, they're not exactly jumping out of the woodwork to answer, are they?
-
No. I'm arguing that they need to use actual evidence to support a claim. The quoted text above is missing the original context, in which runbikerun said the following specifically about Trump's racism (with my responses in bold):
So the part about housing discrimination, that's not racist?
Yes, that is a good example that runbikerun definitely could've thrown in their initial list that started this thread derailment.
-
I do not regret voting for him at all. I was initially put off by his manner etc. Generally can't stand watching the narcissistic blowhard. Voted Cruz in the primaries. I still don't like who he is but I'm thrilled with what he's DOING.
In retrospect I'm extremely glad I had the opportunity to vote for the Great Orange Swamp-Drainer and will do it again in 3yrs! For the first time since at least Reagan we have an unapologetic hard-charging dam' the torpedoes Patriot in the White House.
And quit calling me racist. Just proves you've got nothing of substance, so let's sink to the worst of all personal attacks: good old tried-n-true racism, maybe stir in some misogyny for flavor and make snide comments about the South while you're at it. Easy to throw the accusations, placates the ego, places the opposition on defense, and most importantly, prevents any intellectual discourse.
I'm not sure why you're excited about Trump. He seems patriotic enough, but he's an ineffective President and highly polarizing. There are other candidates who would have done a better job (and at this point I might revisit my decision to prefer Trump over Cruz).
You can't really "drain the swamp" just by asserting it. You need to work within the existing power structures.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
1. Yeah.
2. No, not really. He seems like he's probably one of those Cafeteria Christians, and probably goes to church for the same reason he doesn't smoke: Michelle badgers him about it. Obama does not strike as a True Believer. I am guessing you are getting at whether I think he's a secret Muslim: No.
3. Acceptable in what sense? It's not the behavior of polite society, so I don't support it.
I see. What gives you the impression that Michelle badgers him about going to church?
And by these criteria, I'm guessing you don't consider Donald Trump a Christian, either?
-
The reason this is odd is that in virtually every public sphere (the media, politics etc), there's little meaningful distinction between racism and bigotry. Racism is understood as a subset of bigotry, and a broad subset at that. The birther claims are racist: it's a targeting of American's first black president as not being truly American. Only an absurdly reductionist definition of racism could exclude it.
Likewise, nationality and religious identity are frequently understood as proxies for race, and bigotry based on those is treated as being racist in nature.
But the big thing is this: it's really, really fucking weird to focus manically on the specific use of "racist" as opposed to "bigoted" in a conversation of this nature. As I said, Trump has a long history of racist actions, was called out for racism by the head of his own party, and a huge swathe of his policies are bigoted in a deeply racially tinged way. Getting hung up on the use of the term "racist" when you've already conceded that he's been openly racist is a thoroughly weird choice of priorities. He's a racist and a bigot, and you're arguing over whether a subset of his behaviour is racist or merely bigoted. It's akin to stepping into a debate on whether a politician should resign for cocaine use and posting "He wasn't using cocaine, he was using crack!"
-
And by these criteria, I'm guessing you don't consider Donald Trump a Christian, either?
I'm always amazed at how people are willing to believe that a man who says "I"m a Christian" is in fact muslim AND at the same time have no problem believing that Mr. "Two Corinthians" knows their values and is willing to stand up for them.
-
Might I suggest this electronic, illustrated debate book to everyone? https://bookofbadarguments.com/
While I agree that there are relationships between race and things like nationality and religion, they are still not the same thing. And to someone who you're arguing or conversing with, it will matter. As someone who has argued/conversed with lots of people of opposing viewpoints due to a nonprofit I help run, I can assure you this. If Trump actually was racist with, say, the "Muslim ban" (and I have no reason to suspect he wasn't), making the claim from the angle of religion will allow someone to write you off. People have a tendency, when faced with an opposing argument, to search for any shred that they can use to dismiss your claims. It's just part of human psychology. Being logically coherent in your approach can avoid this kind of stuff, even if in the end the other person still decides to not agree with you.
That is literally all. Please think critically. By calling into question the approach runbikerun made does mean I disagree with their claims - only their approach. I am only trying to help.
-
To those in this thread piling on and attacking Trump voters, you're defeating what I believe was OP's purpose of having a real discussion. If all you want to do is attack, start your own thread. I understand the frustration you feel but all you're doing is playing whack-a-mole with anyone who dares peek their head out of the ground to have an honest conversation. Even if someone's reasoning is flawed, you need to understand it before you can debate it.
I think you are right. And while I wouldn't consider my post upthread as an attack, I have removed it in the spirit of not "piling on."
-
Might I suggest this electronic, illustrated debate book to everyone? https://bookofbadarguments.com/
While I agree that there are relationships between race and things like nationality and religion, they are still not the same thing. And to someone who you're arguing or conversing with, it will matter. As someone who has argued/conversed with lots of people of opposing viewpoints due to a nonprofit I help run, I can assure you this. If Trump actually was racist with, say, the "Muslim ban" (and I have no reason to suspect he wasn't), making the claim from the angle of religion will allow someone to write you off. People have a tendency, when faced with an opposing argument, to search for any shred that they can use to dismiss your claims. It's just part of human psychology. Being logically coherent in your approach can avoid this kind of stuff, even if in the end the other person still decides to not agree with you.
That is literally all. Please think critically. By calling into question the approach runbikerun made does mean I disagree with their claims - only their approach. I am only trying to help.
This has gone way too far off topic. I'm not sure the thread is gaining anything from my continued involvement, so am calling it a day.
-
I do not regret voting for him at all. I was initially put off by his manner etc. Generally can't stand watching the narcissistic blowhard. Voted Cruz in the primaries. I still don't like who he is but I'm thrilled with what he's DOING.
In retrospect I'm extremely glad I had the opportunity to vote for the Great Orange Swamp-Drainer and will do it again in 3yrs! For the first time since at least Reagan we have an unapologetic hard-charging dam' the torpedoes Patriot in the White House.
And quit calling me racist. Just proves you've got nothing of substance, so let's sink to the worst of all personal attacks: good old tried-n-true racism, maybe stir in some misogyny for flavor and make snide comments about the South while you're at it. Easy to throw the accusations, placates the ego, places the opposition on defense, and most importantly, prevents any intellectual discourse.
I'm not sure why you're excited about Trump. He seems patriotic enough, but he's an ineffective President and highly polarizing. There are other candidates who would have done a better job (and at this point I might revisit my decision to prefer Trump over Cruz).
You can't really "drain the swamp" just by asserting it. You need to work within the existing power structures.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
1. Yeah.
2. No, not really. He seems like he's probably one of those Cafeteria Christians, and probably goes to church for the same reason he doesn't smoke: Michelle badgers him about it. Obama does not strike as a True Believer. I am guessing you are getting at whether I think he's a secret Muslim: No.
3. Acceptable in what sense? It's not the behavior of polite society, so I don't support it.
I see. What gives you the impression that Michelle badgers him about going to church?
And by these criteria, I'm guessing you don't consider Donald Trump a Christian, either?
There was a good This American Life piece about Barack and Michelle and their former pastor Jeremiah Wright.
When his controversial sermons began to play on the news, it put them in a tight spot - either they didn't attend church all that regularly and didn't catch any of his radical sermons, or they listened to his radical sermons and came back every Sunday.
Knowing how skilled of a politician Obama is, his senate and presidential ambitions, how aware he is - it seems MUCH more likely they just didn't attend church very often. But that's a tough thing to admit, it makes it seem like you're not all that committed to your faith and by extension your values and principles.
I imagine Obama is probably a Christian in the way that I have come to be a Christian - embracing Christian values that are beneficial to oneself and society, but not necessarily literally/historically true.
-
No. I'm arguing that they need to use actual evidence to support a claim. The quoted text above is missing the original context, in which runbikerun said the following specifically about Trump's racism (with my responses in bold):
"-Claiming Obama wasn't really American. Was this motivated by Barack's race? If so, is he claiming all biracial people aren't American?
-Scapegoating Mexicans. Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality
-Accusing Gonzalo Curiel of bias based on his ethnic heritage (which was defined by Paul Ryan as "the textbook definition of a racist comment.") Without looking into this at all, this one at least sounds like it could be racially motivated. His name sounding Hispanic and his parents being Hispanics from Mexico and all.
-Scapegoating Muslims. Muslims are not a race.
-Insulting a Gold Star family on the basis of their religion. Religion is not a race.
-Instituting a travel ban as one of his very first actions which specifically targeted Muslims. Muslims are not a race."
While I would agree that Trump is a bigoted prick, most of the stuff they listed has nothing to do with racism, and it runs the risk of their opponents (whomever they are) ignoring them because they didn't actually provide a list of evidence about Trump's racism.
It's getting surprising to me that people have so much of an issue with this concept.
Reposting my earlier comment as it was not directed at anyone and you may have missed it:
Race, Ethnicity and religion are distinct identifiers but they also have significant overlap. While being anti Muslim may not technically be racist, the majority of those who hold contempt for Muslims are also making judgments based on the color of their skin and where they were born. Among people I know racism and bigotry go hand in hand so it's hard not to see them as one in the same.
This comes into play with Obama's birth certificate and the conspiracy theory that he is a Muslim as well. If he was a white man, do you really think the birther conspiracy would have taken off the way it did? Certain people, who were in fact racist whether they know it or not, were looking for a way to discredit a black person and this was the answer. Others may have joined in because he was a democrat and not because of his skin color so yes, accusing everyone who believed the conspiracy of racism would be incorrect, but that feeling is not without basis.
So it's difficult enough to define race, but then we have the question of what is racism? I would imagine when someone is accused of being racist what they hear is "you think less of other races because of the color of their skin" to which they might respond "no I don't, that would be silly". But what the accuser really means is "you think less of a group of people based on what some people in that group have done and even worse based on what you think certain people in that group have done". For example I've had the conversation more than once where someone supports profiling of middle easterners by the TSA and says "well I'm not racist, I just think that we should search the people who are most likely to be terrorists". To them, their logic is sound but in reality there are no statistics to support that opinion. To me, the fact that they accepted the idea that middle easterners are more likely to be terrorists without doing the research to back it up does make them racist but in a much different way than just hating someone for their skin color/religion/ethnicity.
As someone mentioned earlier WE ARE ALL RACIST. Arguing about whether someone is or isn't racist is pointless because it's a sliding scale. Not only that, it's a 3-dimensional sliding scale.
I see no point in arguing the semantics around what is and isn't racist in the context of this discussion. Typically I'm all about precise definitions and drilling down to the real meaning of a word, but in this case racism and bigotry are essentially the same. They come from the same place (fear of the unknown/tribal identification) and they lead to the same results (unfair treatment of a group by our society.)
By your standards you might also argue that banning travelers from 7 majority Muslim countries isn't based on religion because only 90-99% of their populations are Muslim, what about the others?. But you do recall that even trump himself called it a Muslim ban. And even if it wasn't, then what? It's an ethnicity ban based on non-existent statistics of terrorism?
When trump and his followers refer to Mexican immigrants what do you picture? White Mexicans coming into the country illegally? He called Mexican immigrants as a group rapists and murderers and when he did so, no one was picturing anything other than a dark skinned Hispanic.
There's no need to distinguish between the types of bigotry because what he and many of his followers are guilty of is varying degrees of populism with a narrow definition of ordinary people. They define ordinary people as straight white Christians, preferably those born as citizens.
-
You can't really "drain the swamp" just by asserting it. You need to work within the existing power structures.
With all due respect, this is just outright false:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuGIgf-ICHM
-
Over 100 posts.
0 people who regret THEIR Trump vote (and a few who "Knew Someone" that did). I believe most Trump supporters truly believe he is taking on an incredible task, and that it will take time to get the results they desire. I think that is largely why so many presidents win re-election, regardless of their accomplishments the first 4 years.
I think the OP's question is answered for now. I think the same question posed 4 or 8 years from now would yield a better discussion.
-
Your experience is really interesting for me and I have to admit that mine has been the opposite. I'm quite liberal but with a 90% very conservative, trump-voting family.
I have historically given my family the benefit of the doubt when it comes to voting for the current republican party - they are my family. I love them and obviously don't want to think of them as holding beliefs that are anathema to me .
But over the last year (and if I'm honest - the last several years) I have heard increasingly xenophobic and bigoted language coming from my loved ones. I'm having a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore. When folks (who ancestors for fought for the union in the civil war) begin to talk about "protecting our heritage" in the form of confederate flags or saying that the liberals in Charlottesville shouldn't have protested or (with the straw that broke this camel's back) called Obama "that arrogant black Muslim" I have to admit that there might be racism (or at least Xenophobia) at play here.
And by defending my family for years and saying that they are just strongly anti-abortion I feel like I haven't been doing anyone any favors. I am barely holding it together this holiday season.
Right there with you, StarBright. My two family members who voted for Trump are racist (birthers; believe POC shot by police deserve it; that BLM are a terrorist organization; that the Civil War wasn't about slavery and that some Black people were better off in the Confederacy), xenophobic ("build the wall!" with a delicious side of irony in that they both employ undocumented workers; want to kick out DACA students), and Islamophobic (explicitly want to marginalize/ban Muslim individuals; believe that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion). I don't know whether they've always held these repugnant views, but didn't feel comfortable expressing them until Trump and the far-right wing of the Republican party normalized it; or whether Trump et al. assisted in their bolt to the right. I could rattle off more examples for each of those categories, and don't have the emotional energy to dip my toe into the sludge of misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia.
Neither regrets voting for Trump. One is disappointed that he hasn't done more to drain the swamp/expel Muslims/etc, but he was never going to vote for that lying shrew Hillary. I've done my best to be empathetic and thoughtful and see things from their perspective, and I don't think all Trump voters are AS racist/Islamophobic/etc as the two that I'm closest to...but there's no way around the fact that every single Trump voter saw a campaign that was racist, Islamophobic, anti-disability, and misogynistic, and still voted for him. That's a tacit endorsement of those beliefs.
I was hopeful for most of my middle aged life that these bad behaviors and beliefs would "breed out" by the time I was an old man. I can see that this was ridiculously short sighted.
-
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
What, exactly, are the Democrats doing wrong?
playing identity politics and focusing in smaller fringe groups instead of driving a national agenda.
These are broad generalizations. I'm looking for specifics.
-
Over 100 posts.
0 people who regret THEIR Trump vote (and a few who "Knew Someone" that did). I believe most Trump supporters truly believe he is taking on an incredible task, and that it will take time to get the results they desire. I think that is largely why so many presidents win re-election, regardless of their accomplishments the first 4 years.
I think the OP's question is answered for now. I think the same question posed 4 or 8 years from now would yield a better discussion.
Maybe. I often wonder whether the people who supported Nixon ever changed their mind. I'm assuming many of them never did.
-
Smaller fringe groups like...women? I think they're overdoing it on the transgender stuff, but most of the groups they've been focusing on are not exactly fringe.
in the attempt to big tent every specific group they've forgetting what it means to be American.
Focusing on things that differentiate us instead of unite us. It just sucks.
What? Is that not like the entire point of America? Immigrants from all over the world coming together in one country and being allowed to live out their culture, religion, etc. in freedom?
Also, Democrats seem to focus on those who have not had the same opportunity as the upper class / wealthy - women, immigrants, minorities, LGBTQ...I'd rather my party fight for those folks (which, spoiler, is a majority of the country when taken as a whole) than a party who seems to be catering to rich white folks only.
-
This thread was meant to be about individuals who voted for Trump and how they feel now. I'm still interested in having that conversation. I will do my best to not make blanket statements about his supporters because you are all individuals, however I will continue to point out his flaws and the fact that anyone who still supports him is overlooking those flaws.
To those suggesting that he hasn't passed racist policy, he doesn't need to. His campaign has caused damage to race relations since the beginning. The societal changes he has caused worry me more than any legal actions he has taken. Our government is made up of not only the laws we have in place, but the people and what is happening inside their heads. Our democracy may not be as representative as we would like but it is a representative democracy and what the people want matters.
When you convince people in our country that building a wall between us and our neighbors will fix low wages and stop the drug trade, you're lying to them. If that lie were to result in a wall being built the real consequences would a massive waste of money, damaged relationship with Mexico, Environmental damage, and countless legal battles with Texans who are not willing to give up the land needed to build the wall. Illegal immigrants would continue to fly into the country and both immigrants and drugs would continue to roll through checkpoints as they do everyday right now. Oh and the 60ft deep tunnels will continue to operate under that 6ft underground barrier he has touted.
Anyone who wants to argue that the wall isn't bigoted, let me hear you're thoughts. You may feel there are economic and safety reasons to support the wall and that is what we should be discussing. If we can come to the conclusion that those reasons are not legitimate and you still support the wall, now I have to believe it is a matter of bigotry.
-
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
What, exactly, are the Democrats doing wrong?
playing identity politics and focusing in smaller fringe groups instead of driving a national agenda.
These are broad generalizations. I'm looking for specifics.
Me too. If Democrats won't give you a tickle, what is a tickle to you?
1. What specific actions did Democrats take that alienated you? Not just a feeling, but actual events.
2. What specific actions did Trump take that reassured you, despite your general disagreement with his policies, that you-as a white man-were in better hands even if he pursued policies that you don't like?
3. What actions and policy position can a political party take that means they aren't "forgetting what it means to be an American"?
4. What policy positions focus on things that unite us? What actions focus on things that unite us?
5. Would you rather vote for someone who said things you like but did things you didn't like or the opposite?
-
Where's OP?
-
Over 100 posts.
0 people who regret THEIR Trump vote (and a few who "Knew Someone" that did). I believe most Trump supporters truly believe he is taking on an incredible task, and that it will take time to get the results they desire. I think that is largely why so many presidents win re-election, regardless of their accomplishments the first 4 years.
I think the OP's question is answered for now. I think the same question posed 4 or 8 years from now would yield a better discussion.
Having it in writing makes it harder to retract.
If it's only words, there's some deniability.
Dad circa 1973: "Well, I supported Vietnam but then I became uneasy with it pretty quickly."
Son: "...(That's not how I remember it, dad.)"
Now, with a written record, it's much harder to eat crow. It takes courage to admit being wrong and even more courage to admit being 100% wrong.
In other words, even if he's impeached for taking personal Russian loans in trade for reduced sanctions, it'll still be some mass liberal/Hillary/Podesta/Obama conspiracy.
-
To answer acroy's question, here is OP:
I appreciate everyone's responses thus far. It has been a tumulterous time this past year, and I'm doing my best to try to "listen" to those who may a have a difference of opinion than mine. Perhaps most importantly, I'm trying to see if circumstances are not what you expected, does this change one's mind--or has politics become so "tribal" that there is never any room for such a change...
Fwiw, last logged in ~18 hours ago - seems like PP could be back soon.
-
Where's OP?
Swinging around New York rooftops I expect.
-
Hey Dabnasty, I did want to address this, as I was one of posters talking about racist policy.
I absolutely agree that words and rhetoric have an impact, and Trump has no tact. I'm sure most of us would say that race relations in the US have been on the decline for several years. But why do we think this? Is there some metric we can base this decline off of? What has caused the tension? What is the solution? I can't give you a solid answer on any of these questions, and the answers are likely pretty complicated. This is why I point to something real and understandable as a policy that disproportionately and intentionally harms others, so we have a defined issue that we can fight together.
I know this is a pretty high bar to set, but it's the best real solution I can think of. I'd wager that minorities trapped in generational poverty, what I think is the largest racial issue in the country, is not driven by rhetoric. It's driven by policy of city, states, and federal government, in that order. This is why I weigh Trump's actions by 80% and his words by 20%.
I do disagree with the logic behind a couple of your statements; I hope we can discuss.
His campaign has caused damage to race relations since the beginning. The societal changes he has caused worry me more than any legal actions he has taken. Our government is made up of not only the laws we have in place, but the people and what is happening inside their heads.
I would argue that the problem is two fold. Trump says something that's offensive and controversial. The media assigns the worst possible racist motive to his statements and takes it out of context. I think his feud with Rep. Frederica Wilson over a phone call to a slain soldier's widow is a good example of this. Rep. Wilson began by suggesting Trump was uncaring and the soldier "knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurts." So, with only that quote from a politically charged, showboating Rep, most media outlets assign the best possible motive to Rep. Wilson and the worst possible motive to Trump. Then, of course, Trump attacks back, and it turns into a shit-show of stupidity. Charging this instance, no matter how stupid on Trump's part, as racism does really harm us culturally. I want to fight racism as much as you, but it harms the cause when we assign racism to everything. That white kid who shot up a church is racist. We could argue that the police officer who shot a black man in the back was motivated by racism. We don't care about these anymore because everything's racist.
OK, so that was longer and more rambling than I intended. I guess the gist of my argument is that I think you don't have the complete picture. Damage to race relations did not get set in motion by Trump's campaign. A large part, but not all, of this damage does come from unjustly charging Trump of racism without evidence. It will not stop until we take feelings completely out of the argument and point to actual racism that we can fight together.
-
Where's OP?
Swinging around New York rooftops I expect.
I'm here. I wanted to ask an honest question about whether anyone regretted their vote for republicans (Trump). A few brave souls came forward and said they didn't. No one personally said they regretted voting republican and/or for Trump.
I'm guess I'm not surprised--If someone did regret it, I suppose it would be hard to admit that (but IMHO very brave). I have tried to stay out of it because I didn't want to muddy the waters and I was genuinely curious. I guess I got my answer.
I have some feelings about it and I would be happy to share them, but I was really more concerned about YOUR rationale....It has been very enlightening--and I appreciate the answers. Thank You!
-
Where's OP?
Swinging around New York rooftops I expect.
I'm here. I wanted to ask an honest question about whether anyone regretted their vote for republicans (Trump). A few brave souls came forward and said they didn't. No one personally said they regretted voting republican and/or for Trump.
I'm guess I'm not surprised--If someone did regret it, I suppose it would be hard to admit that (but IMHO very brave). I have tried to stay out of it because I didn't want to muddy the waters and I was genuinely curious. I guess I got my answer.
I have some feelings about it and I would be happy to share them, but I was really more concerned about YOUR rationale....It has been very enlightening--and I appreciate the answers. Thank You!
His approval rate is holding fairly steady between 37-38%. Given that 26% of registered voters voted for Trump, few people having regrets doesn't surprise me all that much.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
-
I sure as hell didn't vote Trump, but I can answer the question put forth about how the democrats have alienated me. Before the election Obama, who I voted for, made a speech where he stated that if you were not going to vote for Hillary and you were male then you should ask yourself if you're sexist. That rhetoric really put me off of the democrats. That's the identity politics that is being referred to. Add to that the moral superiority and their penchant for calling anything they don't agree with racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. Of course, that could not drive me to vote for trump, but it solidified the fact that I did not want to vote for Hilary.
Now we not only have increased tension between races but also increased tension between the sexes. It is almost as if something systematic and sinister is going on behind the scenes to divide us, hmm.
Racial tensions are getting worse and worse, to the point where a university newspaper publishes an insanely racist article:
“Whiteness will be over because we want it to be. And when it dies, there will be millions of cultural zombies aimlessly wandering across a vastly changed landscape. Ontologically speaking, white death will mean liberation for all… Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.”
(http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/1060x600-254731591619793e5858d4c7a6718a63.jpg)
This will not end well.
-
“Whiteness will be over because we want it to be. And when it dies, there will be millions of cultural zombies aimlessly wandering across a vastly changed landscape. Ontologically speaking, white death will mean liberation for all… Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.”
Ooooh, looks like we have a two-fer and I get to add zoltani to my list of unfavorite forum posters. First you disparage sexual assault victims (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1798260;topic=81370.250) as liars and then you disparage oppressed minorities as racists? That's fantastic! I no longer have to wonder, because you're clearly an ugly person!
Here's the cliffnotes version for you in case you're unclear on whether you're a racist: do you recognize that centuries of systemic oppression of racial and ethnic minorities has resulted in a society in which white people were given preferential treatment, which still echoes today? Do you think academic affirmative action is a sin even though black people still make 70% of what white people do? Do you believe this pay gap is due to black people's natural inferiority?
Just because some aggrieved uni journalist major once wrote an article expressing their frustration at systemic racism in American culture does not mean that there is a great conspiracy to tear down white people. There IS a social movement toward merit-based rewards, where people are judged by their abilities and not their skin color. Do you see the difference?
-
Voted for Harambe, zero ragrets ;)
-
Some regret:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpgret/comments/7hpnxd/i_didnt_vote_for_trump_but_i_didnt_stop_his/
So...this guy voted for Trump because he was triggered when Obama talked about helping "Johnny as well as Jamal" find jobs. He literally saw including what was meant to be a white guy and a black guy together-both needing jobs, both acknowledged-as being an attack on white people and him.
How do you fix that mindset? I'm reminded of the poster who says that democrats threw him aside for being a white man. Is this the sort of thing he meant? To me, this is a classic: when you are used to privilege, equality looks like oppression. The unemployment rate for black men is higher than for white men, and there's our president saying we've got to help BOTH of them. What's the problem? Do you want him to say helping "person x of indeterminate race and gender" find a job? Because that sounds like the SJW PC stuff you guys are supposed to hate.
-
Some regret:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpgret/comments/7hpnxd/i_didnt_vote_for_trump_but_i_didnt_stop_his/
So...this guy voted for Trump because he was triggered when Obama talked about helping "Johnny as well as Jamal" find jobs. He literally saw including what was meant to be a white guy and a black guy together-both needing jobs, both acknowledged-as being an attack on white people and him.
How do you fix that mindset? I'm reminded of the poster who says that democrats threw him aside for being a white man. Is this the sort of thing he meant? To me, this is a classic: when you are used to privilege, equality looks like oppression. The unemployment rate for black men is higher than for white men, and there's our president saying we've got to help BOTH of them. What's the problem? Do you want him to say helping "person x of indeterminate race and gender" find a job? Because that sounds like the SJW PC stuff you guys are supposed to hate.
Is this post from a Mustachian and therefore applicable?
-
I respectfully disagree with you cliffhanger, that "a large part, but not all, of this damage does come from unjustly charging Trump of racism without evidence. It will not stop until we take feelings completely out of the argument and point to actual racism that we can fight together." I think there is plenty of evidence that previously the Democratic party, and then at some point Republicans inflamed racial divisions, in both their rhetoric, policies and also jerrymanding to win elections. There is a ton of evidence of this, which as I'm at work I can't cite, but you can dip your toes in by looking at robocalls and mailings done which were funded by Karl Rove. In the state I am in (NC) the jerrymanding done to increase Republican control by having African American votes be concentrated or split depending on what would work, was so bad it was declared unconstitutional. However it didn't undo the election results and we are still dealing with it. Democrats, by saying that everyone in this country should have access to good education, healthcare, jobs, etc is NOT racist. It's what this country stands for. That politicians who say it is not a level playing field are simply pointing out the obvious. Don't shoot the messenger.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-butler-anthony-senecal-facebook-kill-obama/#
I don't need any additional evidence that Trump is actively hostile and contemptuous to anyone who is not like him. The whole Obama is from Kenya should be enough for anyone. Or that the KKK endorsed him as a candidate. Or the lawsuits. Or the people he favors, such as his longtime butler Anthony Senecal whom he kept on even after his incredibly racist comments were publicized. Or Steven Bannon who said at the 2016 Republican Convention "We are the party of the alt-right." If you don't understand why a huge percentage of the US population feels alienated by having Trump be in office, not sure I can help you. I think it's more Trump supporters do understand, and either don't care, or share the same views.
-
I sure as hell didn't vote Trump, but I can answer the question put forth about how the democrats have alienated me. Before the election Obama, who I voted for, made a speech where he stated that if you were not going to vote for Hillary and you were male then you should ask yourself if you're sexist. That rhetoric really put me off of the democrats. That's the identity politics that is being referred to. Add to that the moral superiority and their penchant for calling anything they don't agree with racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. Of course, that could not drive me to vote for trump, but it solidified the fact that I did not want to vote for Hilary.
Now we not only have increased tension between races but also increased tension between the sexes. It is almost as if something systematic and sinister is going on behind the scenes to divide us, hmm.
You know what's increased tension between the sexes? A decades (centuries?) long domination of one sex over the other. I cannot point to any greater evidence than the #MeToo movement with thousands of women sharing their stories of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Look at how many power guys in various industries are now being called out for sexual misconduct and losing their jobs - film/television, journalism, music, politics (save for...wait for it...Donald Trump and Roy Moore. What do those two have in common? Hmmm), etc.
If you think women in all walks of life experiencing sexual misconduct and thinking, "wow, this is some effed up **** that I don't like and I don't want anyone else to have to experience it" is "something systematic and sinister is going on behind the scenes to divide us" I can't help you.
-
Hey Dabnasty, I did want to address this, as I was one of posters talking about racist policy.
I absolutely agree that words and rhetoric have an impact, and Trump has no tact. I'm sure most of us would say that race relations in the US have been on the decline for several years. But why do we think this? Is there some metric we can base this decline off of? What has caused the tension? What is the solution? I can't give you a solid answer on any of these questions, and the answers are likely pretty complicated. This is why I point to something real and understandable as a policy that disproportionately and intentionally harms others, so we have a defined issue that we can fight together.
I know this is a pretty high bar to set, but it's the best real solution I can think of. I'd wager that minorities trapped in generational poverty, what I think is the largest racial issue in the country, is not driven by rhetoric. It's driven by policy of city, states, and federal government, in that order. This is why I weigh Trump's actions by 80% and his words by 20%.
I do disagree with the logic behind a couple of your statements; I hope we can discuss.
His campaign has caused damage to race relations since the beginning. The societal changes he has caused worry me more than any legal actions he has taken. Our government is made up of not only the laws we have in place, but the people and what is happening inside their heads.
I would argue that the problem is two fold. Trump says something that's offensive and controversial. The media assigns the worst possible racist motive to his statements and takes it out of context. I think his feud with Rep. Frederica Wilson over a phone call to a slain soldier's widow is a good example of this. Rep. Wilson began by suggesting Trump was uncaring and the soldier "knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurts." So, with only that quote from a politically charged, showboating Rep, most media outlets assign the best possible motive to Rep. Wilson and the worst possible motive to Trump. Then, of course, Trump attacks back, and it turns into a shit-show of stupidity. Charging this instance, no matter how stupid on Trump's part, as racism does really harm us culturally. I want to fight racism as much as you, but it harms the cause when we assign racism to everything. That white kid who shot up a church is racist. We could argue that the police officer who shot a black man in the back was motivated by racism. We don't care about these anymore because everything's racist.
OK, so that was longer and more rambling than I intended. I guess the gist of my argument is that I think you don't have the complete picture. Damage to race relations did not get set in motion by Trump's campaign. A large part, but not all, of this damage does come from unjustly charging Trump of racism without evidence. It will not stop until we take feelings completely out of the argument and point to actual racism that we can fight together.
I would agree that Trump did not suddenly create the racial tension we have today but I'm also not sure I would agree that race relations have been on the decline. Like you said it's more a matter of what the media decides to report on and we have no metric to measure. And yes, I do blame anti trump media for overplaying the small things but on the other hand he's said plenty of and done plenty of horrible things that are just as horrible in context. Do you really feel that touting a Muslim ban is taken out of context? Or calling Mexicans immigrants rapists and murderers? There are so many examples in this thread, most of which I don't feel are overplayed.
There's a tactic to create negative feelings toward a group of people that trump and the right wing media in particular uses everyday (again, not just trump but he has legitimized the feelings that already existed). When Fox News and even more so online outlets like Breitbart find every case in the US where an illegal immigrant, transgender person, gay person, or Muslim has committed a crime and report on it as if it is national news, that leads people who consume that media to believe it is the norm. There may have been 1,000 other murders that day, some of them against one of these groups, but that's not the message they want to send.
Your comment on the media blowing every little thing up as racist has some merit but if you are getting that message through a right-leaning news outlet, remember that they are going to take the worst examples of everything. Much like they pick out the minorities who commit crimes they will pick out the ridiculous news sources like Daily KOS, Rachel Maddow and even celebrities who don't know shit and they'll assign everything they say to the "liberals". For the record I don't take those sources seriously at all. They do whine too much. That doesn't mean everyone who is anti-trump is whining along with them.
This topic is broad enough that it's tough to stay on track but I would like to add one more thing. During the campaign trump tweeted an info graphic (terrible little things) claiming that 81% of whites murdered in 2015 were killed by blacks and other completely false statistics on murder. The real number is 15% and most of those were people who knew each other so it wasn't the mugger in an alley scenario that he's trying to scare us with. Even if the stats were accurate this is not something a president should be doing. What purpose does it serve? to get people riled up and scared? But it wasn't true. He, as a person who has followers who take what he says as fact while discounting anyone who disagrees now have another little "fact" to fuel their hatred.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/)
Trump is a classic example of a fear mongering politician. Lot's of politicians (and the media) are guilty of using this tactic and it is insidious but trump has taken it to another level. I think we would all benefit from trying to better understand our own psychology but just as a start I would recommend some research on why fear mongering is so effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering)
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/10/why-are-political-ads-so-frightening.html (https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/10/why-are-political-ads-so-frightening.html)
-
I didn't vote Republican, but here are some thoughts in response to your list
1: I am FI, dropping the ACA Mandate will actually be less of a cost Burden for us and our situation. I dont care either way
2: I dont support the Plan, but the plan is better for us in terms of keeping more of what we earn
3: What about Trump Russia? Doesn't really bother me
4: I never needed consumer protection. We live pretty frugal
5: Not worried
6: Politics has always lowered the bar.... what did you expect!? Both sides are trying to win, not be noble
7: Not worried
8: This is much deeper a problem than "because Republicans are in office"
9: Cant really say since I am not a woman, however I asked my wife a self made accomplished business woman she doesn't know what all the fuss is about.....
-
“Whiteness will be over because we want it to be. And when it dies, there will be millions of cultural zombies aimlessly wandering across a vastly changed landscape. Ontologically speaking, white death will mean liberation for all… Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.”
Ooooh, looks like we have a two-fer and I get to add zoltani to my list of unfavorite forum posters. First you disparage sexual assault victims (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1798260;topic=81370.250) as liars and then you disparage oppressed minorities as racists? That's fantastic! I no longer have to wonder, because you're clearly an ugly person!
Here's the cliffnotes version for you in case you're unclear on whether you're a racist: do you recognize that centuries of systemic oppression of racial and ethnic minorities has resulted in a society in which white people were given preferential treatment, which still echoes today? Do you think academic affirmative action is a sin even though black people still make 70% of what white people do? Do you believe this pay gap is due to black people's natural inferiority?
Just because some aggrieved uni journalist major once wrote an article expressing their frustration at systemic racism in American culture does not mean that there is a great conspiracy to tear down white people. There IS a social movement toward merit-based rewards, where people are judged by their abilities and not their skin color. Do you see the difference?
Thanks sol, it's an honor to be on your list of deplorables, your morals are clearly superior to mine.
I think that calling an entire race's DNA an abomination and saying that they shold not exist is racist. Those are. some serious mental gymnastics you use to say that it's not. I would say the same of the article was about any race. The fact that the article even made it to press is indicative of a larger issue on college campuses. It has been retracted and called racist by the university president. Of course the author shares the same sentiment as you, that it can't be racist because it's about white people.
I heard about the article from reading an essay about it written by a minority.
http://quillette.com/2017/12/05/racism-disguised-anti-racism/
There is a backlash to this kind of stuff, like trumps rise to power and more white supremacists groups. It's the same thing Alan watts was describing in one of his talks. I've posted this before, but I will again.
"In any foreseeable future there are going to be thousands and thousands of people who detest and abominate Negroes, communists, Russians, Chinese, Jews, Catholics, beatniks, homosexuals, and "dope-fiends." These hatreds are not going to be healed, but only inflamed, by insulting those who feel them, and the abusive labels with which we plaster them—squares, fascists, rightists, know-nothings—may well become the proud badges and symbols around which they will rally and consolidate themselves. Nor will it do to confront the opposition in public with polite and nonviolent sit-ins and demonstrations, while boosting our collective ego by insulting them in private. If we want justice for minorities and cooled wars with our natural enemies, whether human or non-human, we must first come to terms with the minority and the enemy in ourselves and in our own hearts, for the rascal is there as much as anywhere in the "external" world—-especially when you realize that the world outside your skin is as much yourself as the world inside. For want of this awareness, no one can be more belligerent than a pacifist on the rampage, or more militantly nationalistic than an anti-imperialist."
Alan Watts
-
I'm pretty sure race relations have never been good. Perhaps because we are prone to only viewing ourselves based on the era and bubble we live in, we think that race relations have gone down. There's that SNL sketch with Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock on election night.
I think 8 years after Obama made us forget the early stages. I still remember people protesting with monkey signs.
-
I didn't vote Republican, but here are some thoughts in response to your list
1: I am FI, dropping the ACA Mandate will actually be less of a cost Burden for us and our situation. I dont care either way
2: I dont support the Plan, but the plan is better for us in terms of keeping more of what we earn
3: What about Trump Russia? Doesn't really bother me
4: I never needed consumer protection. We live pretty frugal
5: Not worried
6: Politics has always lowered the bar.... what did you expect!? Both sides are trying to win, not be noble
7: Not worried
8: This is much deeper a problem than "because Republicans are in office"
9: Cant really say since I am not a woman, however I asked my wife a self made accomplished business woman she doesn't know what all the fuss is about.....
No offense, but you can't stick your head in a sand and have these issues go away. That may not be what you're doing but it seems like it.
For many of us, the "doesn't impact me" rationale isn't enough when you look at the groups of people who are going to lose. You know, caring about other citizens.
Not sure what OP meant by "women's issues/rights" but I'm guessing the wage gap, general sexual misconduct going unnoticed, unreported, or not believed for various reasons further worsening the workplace for women, certain employers now being able to deny birth control being included in their health insurance, etc.
-
I'm amused that pretty much all the financial benefits of Trump's "election" have basically gone to Clinton's voters. Now that he's basically defunded the ACA and killed his own constituents' health insurance to give tax cuts to corporations, Clinton's college-educated white collar investor voters with employer-provided insurance get to enjoy larger dividends. I don't think Trump's voters really thought through what they were doing.
Not so sure about that one . . .
https://www.vanityfair.com/newsletter/2017/12/trump-crony-admits-tax-plan-is-an-elaborate-middle-finger-to-liberals
-
I think that calling an entire race's DNA an abomination and saying that they shold not exist is racist. Those are. some serious mental gymnastics you use to say that it's not. I would say the same of the article was about any race. The fact that the article even made it to press is indicative of a larger issue on college campuses. It has been retracted and called racist by the university president. Of course the author shares the same sentiment as you, that it can't be racist because it's about white people.
I agree that it's a racist article but it's a college newspaper. Having worked in one when I was in school, the editorial department goes out of their way to be inflammatory. It's one way to engage otherwise apathetic students.
Realistically, it in no way represents the college, newspaper, and probably not even the author (it's most likely an extreme version of the author's views). To even give it a second thought is a waste of time and the fretting over it is amusing ("OMG! Liberals are anti-white people!!!111!").
-
It's an honest question. I'm really curious as to whether anyone voted republican and now regrets it because:
1. Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
2. The republican tax plan
3. Trump/Russia
4. Less consumer protection (deregulation)
5. Korea
6. General lack of decorum
7. Environmental issues/climate change issues
8. Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions
9. Women's rights/issues
I'm actually curious. And I'm wondering if you will vote differently next time?
1. Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare. My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies. Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream). (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance. I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone. Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)
If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA: https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder (https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder)
2. The republican tax plan
Great. Cut spending and cut taxes. I would prefer true overhaul (complete repeal and replace) with something more of a % based system with no deductions, but I don't mind this. Senate plan buts AMT back in for corporations so many of the deductions / exemptions for corporations are now baselines at 20%. I would like to see more loopholes closed, but overall dont mind the changes. (FYI, I don't recall hear Dems clamoring for loopholes to be closed in 2007 or 2015...)
Also I would like to see reductions in defense spending (especially overrunning D&D projects), consolidation of resources, and us not policing the world or giving away humanitarian aid at the federal level.... But the only party pushing for that is Libertarian (mostly) and they don't stand a chance under the current system.
3. Trump/Russia
Don't care. You are going to have to prove to me that actual laws were broken or known to be broken by the POTUS for me to care. Any Dems here care about Obama's gun running scandal (Fast and Furious)? Laws were broken there too.
4. Less consumer protection (deregulation)
Great. I work in industries where regulations are stifling growth and many don't even actually help with overall greenhouse gas emissions but instead forwards them to up-front costs in lieu of life-of-product costs. One example being the 2015 IECC which is absolute garbage.
5. Korea
Complicated. NK is not going to willingly give up nuclear capabilities and it is my understanding that Clinton would have handled it exactly the same way (giving up nukes being the precondition to negotiations). I think she would actually be more hawkish than Trump. Also, saber-rattling is the name of the game over there, I think the leadership knows that. If NK actually decides to do a Pacific Air-Burst Nuke Test, we might be having a different conversation. Either way, I don't find this to be a minus for Trump because I'm thinking he is handling it the same or better than Clinton would have.
6. General lack of decorum
Don't like it but I understand it. A TON of people have been getting real tired of Political Correctness, and I see this as an obvious blowback.
7. Environmental issues/climate change issues
Paris Accords are useless politically as long as Texas is strangled by regulation and Mexico's air passes right over the border (which is still the case). Kill it and let innovation start taking care of emissions problems.
8. Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions
It is my understanding that predominantly, a complete view of Islam (from within) is incompatible with American system of government. Albeit there are different views, and one could say the same for Christianity's end-game Theocracy, I do think Islam has more specific inconsistencies with our system of government that prevent it from being compatible... Either way, I don't blame Trump for American insistence on setting up dictators and f#$%ing up the rest of the world. Travel ban or not, that is a problem that no one else seems to be discussing or willing to fix.
9. Women's rights/issues
Saying some inappropriate things in a private setting years ago doesn't deter me or change my opinion. Other than that, I don't see any other rights that have changed or degraded... Still waiting on someone to point some out.
Don't regret my vote despite what I think of Trump's character.
-
3. Trump/Russia
Don't care. You are going to have to prove to me that actual laws were broken or known to be broken by the POTUS for me to care.
??? That's why we have a Special Counsel investigating it.
Any Dems here care about Obama's gun running scandal (Fast and Furious)? Laws were broken there too.
What's Obama got to do with Trump and Russia collusion? He's no longer the sitting President; Trump is.
Is this a quid pro quo ("I'll care if you care")? False equivalency?
-
I didn't vote Republican, but here are some thoughts in response to your list
1: I am FI, dropping the ACA Mandate will actually be less of a cost Burden for us and our situation. I dont care either way
2: I dont support the Plan, but the plan is better for us in terms of keeping more of what we earn
3: What about Trump Russia? Doesn't really bother me
4: I never needed consumer protection. We live pretty frugal
5: Not worried
6: Politics has always lowered the bar.... what did you expect!? Both sides are trying to win, not be noble
7: Not worried
8: This is much deeper a problem than "because Republicans are in office"
9: Cant really say since I am not a woman, however I asked my wife a self made accomplished business woman she doesn't know what all the fuss is about.....
No offense, but you can't stick your head in a sand and have these issues go away. That may not be what you're doing but it seems like it.
For many of us, the "doesn't impact me" rationale isn't enough when you look at the groups of people who are going to lose. You know, caring about other citizens.
Not sure what OP meant by "women's issues/rights" but I'm guessing the wage gap, general sexual misconduct going unnoticed, unreported, or not believed for various reasons further worsening the workplace for women, certain employers now being able to deny birth control being included in their health insurance, etc.
says the credit pusher........
-
Where's OP?
Swinging around New York rooftops I expect.
I'm here. I wanted to ask an honest question about whether anyone regretted their vote for republicans (Trump). A few brave souls came forward and said they didn't. No one personally said they regretted voting republican and/or for Trump.
I'm guess I'm not surprised--If someone did regret it, I suppose it would be hard to admit that (but IMHO very brave). I have tried to stay out of it because I didn't want to muddy the waters and I was genuinely curious. I guess I got my answer.
I have some feelings about it and I would be happy to share them, but I was really more concerned about YOUR rationale....It has been very enlightening--and I appreciate the answers. Thank You!
Thanks for starting the thread OP, interesting question & some interesting responses. Too bad the non-Trump voters who hafta be heard polluted it up, made it hard to sift through.
-
Thank you Trump-voters for taking the time to answer. This has been very informative for me.
-
To those in this thread piling on and attacking Trump voters, you're defeating what I believe was OP's purpose of having a real discussion. If all you want to do is attack, start your own thread. I understand the frustration you feel but all you're doing is playing whack-a-mole with anyone who dares peek their head out of the ground to have an honest conversation. Even if someone's reasoning is flawed, you need to understand it before you can debate it.
I've voted republican all my life but couldn't do it this time. I ended up voting for Gary Johnson.
My biggest issue is that the democrats have no interest in me as a constituent. I do better under republicans but I tend to care more about the social issues the democrats support like net neutrality and more progressive tax plans(even though it's worse for me).
I have no interest in living in a wildly unfair society.
but this straight non-minority gendered white male has no interest in voting for democrats until they start focusing on the core and stop playing identity politics.
I'd honestly like to hear more from you, as a democrat. When you say identity politics, what do you mean exactly? To me, the Dems (myself included) are just saying that everyone should get a level playing field, and admitting that right now not everyone is. I believe in equality but to do so, we need to be exact when we call out inequality. Is there something else that you see as an outsider?
-
3. Trump/Russia
Don't care. You are going to have to prove to me that actual laws were broken or known to be broken by the POTUS for me to care. Any Dems here care about Obama's gun running scandal (Fast and Furious)? Laws were broken there too.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
2) Watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8fCEoAbfI). Watch this (https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY?t=372) from 6:12 to 8:52.
-
3. Trump/Russia
Don't care. You are going to have to prove to me that actual laws were broken or known to be broken by the POTUS for me to care. Any Dems here care about Obama's gun running scandal (Fast and Furious)? Laws were broken there too.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
2) Watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8fCEoAbfI). Watch this (https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY?t=372) from 6:12 to 8:52.
This is inaccurate because I did refute the point.
Don't care. You are going to have to prove to me that actual laws were broken or known to be broken by the POTUS for me to care.
Besides, I was stating my position rather than refuting something or presenting a counter-argument.
You are trying to dissent my statement regarding the "whataboutism" while refusing to acknowledge that ACTUAL point I made, as in nothing is proven yet.
-
3. Trump/Russia
Don't care. You are going to have to prove to me that actual laws were broken or known to be broken by the POTUS for me to care. Any Dems here care about Obama's gun running scandal (Fast and Furious)? Laws were broken there too.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
2) Watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8fCEoAbfI). Watch this (https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY?t=372) from 6:12 to 8:52.
This is inaccurate because I did refute the point.
Don't care. You are going to have to prove to me that actual laws were broken or known to be broken by the POTUS for me to care.
Besides, I was stating my position rather than refuting something or presenting a counter-argument.
You are trying to dissent my statement regarding the "whataboutism" while refusing to acknowledge that ACTUAL point I made, as in nothing is proven yet.
Why are you attempting to divert the discussion back to Obama, then?
-
I have three questions for all the non-racist Trump supporters on here.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
As someone who generally votes GOP and did not vote for HRC:
1) I know for a fact BO was born in the United States, this isn't a matter of faith. No serious individual on the right was bringing this up, liberal media highlighted crackpots over and over to discredit serious people on the right, and ultimately elected one of those crackpots president, and even now as evidenced by your question do not take responsibility for this unbelievably divisive form of journalism. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian? For someone outside the faith looking in, I think he probably looks like he is. As a christian, I'd love to have a conversation with him, because I worry that he has been led astray by a particularly pervasive ideology within christianity that is not very helpful. It's like being a B- Christian when I think if I had a couple of hours I could get him up to A+ territory. You can PM me if you are genuinely curious about it, but it's alot less interesting than you probably think.
3) I don't believe it is acceptable that DT has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim. But I also believe trollish behavior of any sort is unacceptable, and the only way to deal with it is to ignore it. I sincerely wish these aspects of Trump had been ignored. Ya'all got trolled hard, and you could not stop feeding that troll.
I have some questions for you, I will limit them to three.
A) Do you believe Democratic Voters who voted for BO but did not show up for HRC are racist?
B) Do you acknowledge now that given the known baggage of an HRC nomination she was probably not the best choice?
C) Are you at all concerned that neither party seems to care what the other party thinks of their nominee, and have seemingly decided that moderates/independents/undecideds are not worth pursuing? That HRC was probably the single most hated registered democrat by the GOP voter is perversely seen as an asset and not a liability? And likewise, that Democrats were incensed by the very idea of Trump was seen as a good thing by most in the GOP? I gather, from reading editorials of the day, that there was a grudging respect for the candidate on the other side, by even the most stringent partisan, in the before times.
"They're both decent human beings but I like mine better?" Is nowhere on the horizon. There's barely twelve politicians in all of Congress/Executive branch I don't actively dislike.
Trump is an absolute train wreck of a president. Just as he was as a candidate. Everyone has considered what happens when an immovable object encounters an unstoppable object. Well this presidency is what happens when two unelectable people run for office - chaos and horribleness.
I can't tell you how relieved I was when the democrats nominated BO instead of HRC. Whichever democrat ran after Bush2 was going to win, and HRC would be terrible as president, absolutely break the government. I knew nothing about BO (because I'm racist obviously, not because I'm not from Chicago and he hadn't done much), but by default he was a better choice than HRC. That breaking happened anyway, and racism probably played more into it than either side is willing to admit (racist democrats only voting because he was black, giving the democrats a false sense that the whole country really wanted the ACA, and racist republicans putting up with some bullshit from their own party just because he was black). Voted for McCain in the 2000 primary by the way because war hero, and I still wonder how much better off we'd all be if it had been McCain vs Gore in 2000, Gore getting his ass handed to him legit and not starting the Democrats down a very dark path in order to win what they increasingly seemed to think was a rigged game.
The ACA didn't need to happen and it is a massive unfunded entitlement program that can be opposed without being a heartless racist asshole. But from 2008 to 2016 if you opposed anything the Democrats did you were a heartless racist asshole, so no, in the original version of that story, the boy who cried wolf got eaten by the wolf. The Democrats who cried racist got eaten by a racist. You see where we are now? THAT's a racist opposition. See the difference? Now apologize because you all look like assholes. No? So much for revising opinions based on new information...
2004: 62 million votes for GB2, 59 million votes for Kdog (we'll use this as the baseline, because at this point nobody liked Bush but Kerry was, *shakes head* such a bad option, 2 rich old white men that believe in tax and spend though so no obvious racist reason to prefer either)
2008: 69.5 million votes for BO, 59 million for McC (here we see the ten million racist democrats show up to vote)
2012: 65.9 million votes for BO, 60 million for MtR (five million democrats became racist the other way, no other reason is possible to not vote for BO)
2016: 65.8 million votes for HRC, 62 million votes for McDbag (nother hundred thousand democrats went the racist route, two million racists decided to join the GoP, I put it closer to twelve million, because most of the GOP I know stayed the fuck home #notmycandidate)
To keep the GOP base motivated, a candidate has to speak to the religious right, the nationalistic right, the small government right, and the uber wealthy right. To keep the Democratic base interested, the candidate must BE BLACK. Stop calling everyone else racist and claiming some moral high ground. Start caring about winning and pick candidates we don't think are scum. If both sides keep picking garbage candidates we're going to have random outcomes and that is what's going to bring down the empire.
This post has all been rhetorical and I believe none of it, but this article at Vox pretty much sums up why nobody to the right of the far left can get into their echo chamber, or is really interested in trying:
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
"It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason." - from the article linked above.
Anyone who can engage a smug liberal and walk away seemingly unfazed can win an election now, that's how intolerable that style is. As it happens, yes, the Trump voter will forgive anything if their candidate can make you go apoplectic.
As for regretting my vote - as someone's signature notes, I voted 3rd party, which is what you all should have done. Say what you want about where we'd be, at least we'd be high.
The tax plan has been interesting to see it develop. I haven't checked yet to see where it landed but aside from the massively irresponsible deficit spending it was headed in a direction that makes sense to me.
I'm seemingly in favor of a constitutional amendment prohibiting POTUS from using Twitter though. For real we should get on that.
-
says the credit pusher........
What?
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Over the past year, I have had a personal shift in my overarching mindset that has affected what I think and how I act, particularly when it comes to politics and general social issues. Last year, I may not have called a Trump supporter a racist to their face, but I was definitely thinking it. I was so quick to judge without considering what other reasons could exist for making someone want to align with him (even if they were not good reasons). I do not rush to judgment anymore.
I think this speaks to extreme polarity though. I have what I'd consider to be far-left friends who think anyone right of here is a racist, fascist, Nazi sympathizer. I also have friends who think anyone who didn't vote Trump are tree-hugging Lefty libtards. (Their words, not mine.)
The inability of people to empathize with or understand people from outside their particular section of the spectrum is an issue that I doubt will ever be fixed.
+1
This has been perhaps the most disheartening thing about the past year or so. We talk about Trump supporters being in a bubble all the time, but there is also a second bubble full of anti-Trump folks. Neither of which try or care to understand the other side. We've seen politically motivated violence rise, I think in part because we dehumanize the other side. This is truly awful behavior that needs to stop.
+1000. Look at all the presumably otherwise intelligent people in this thread that have made themselves dumb through tribalism.
I get Trump is terrible. But Clinton was terrible. And Bernie Sanders was terrible. I can understand how anyone could convince themselves that any of those three was the least evil option. I don't really get how anybody could be particularly fired up about any of those options except for Bernie, just because free stuff that other people pay for is always going to be enticing to a sizable portion of the population. But I'm not so stupid to assume that everybody that actually likes Clinton or Trump (much less just came to a different decision as to which was the lesser evil), is either irredeemably stupid or has some irredeemable character flaw.
As far as Trump, there are plenty of reasons for voters to be happy:
1) Gorsuch. That was an excellent S.Ct. pick. He is making good picks up and down the line to my knowledge.
2) Gridlock. Congress hasn't made many things worse yet. The tax bills are a mix of good and bad, but they're not really making things worse. We're eventually going to have to reconcile revenue and spending, and they are going to move the timeline up on that marginally.
3) Rolling back executive power (or at least slowing its expansion). As big of an egomaniac as Trump is, he is shockingly doing less to expand presidential powers than the last two presidents. I'm not sure it's intentional, but nonetheless, a good thing.
4) Maybe a respect for the consitution and separation of powers? --> People on the left all of the sudden think that maybe separation of powers is a good thing. This probably won't last when another democrat is in power, but maybe there will be slight hesitation to expand executive power or to undo longstanding restraints on power. Certainly you'd think they have to wonder whether doing away with the filibuster was a good idea in hindsight.
5) A press that cares. The press is generally filled with mediocrities who aren't currently capable of doing much more than flinging poo. But, I'd rather have them flinging poo than being sycophants.
6) Sexual harassment/assault is suddenly taboo even in leftist enclaves. Not entirely sure this is a result of the Trump presidency, but I wonder whether all these powerful leftists in leftist controlled industries would really be paying the piper if Hillary (who herself was pretty accomplished at attacking victims of sexual assault) was the president.
7) Due process is going to be reestablished on campus.
8) Clamor for paring back the first amendment has died down.
9) Whatever Trump's weaknesses, it doesn't look like he is going to drive us off a cliff or precipitate any disasters (or at least he isn't any more likely than the last few presidents to do so).
-
9. Women's rights/issues
Saying some inappropriate things in a private setting years ago doesn't deter me or change my opinion. Other than that, I don't see any other rights that have changed or degraded... Still waiting on someone to point some out.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2017/04/25/430969/100-days-100-ways-trump-administration-harming-women-families/
By undoing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, Trump eliminated a requirement for federal contractors to provide employees with basic information about their pay, including hours worked, overtime earnings, and any pay deductions. Such information is critical for all workers—particularly women, who are more likely to work in hourly jobs—to ensure that they are being paid what they have earned.
By undoing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, Trump also made it easier for federal contractors with chronic violations of sex discrimination and other employment laws to keep getting federal funding.
Trump’s federal hiring freeze forced at least two military bases to suspend enrollment at military child care facilities when they were unable to hire child care providers. Service members depend on high-quality child care to perform their duties each day.
Trump’s administration made no movement on equal pay in the first 100 days, despite referencing support for equal pay occasionally throughout his campaign. Trump offered no concrete action to strengthen equal pay protections.
The Trump budget would cut $403 million in health profession and nurse training programs, jobs that are disproportionately held by women workers.
The Trump-championed American Health Care Act, or AHCA, proposed the elimination of essential health benefits, which include pediatric services—meaning that a family’s insurance might not cover vaccines, eye exams, and well-child visits. This would disproportionately affect women, who often take on the primary responsibility for ensuring their family gets the heath care it needs.
Trump signed a bill to overturn Obama-era protections for Title X grantees, allowing states to block Title X funding for providers that also offer abortion with nonfederal funds, including Planned Parenthood. Title X funding provides critical reproductive, educational, and counseling services related to family planning and contraception to 4 million clients each year.
In an Oval Office interview, Trump defended conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly from sexual harassment allegations despite evidence that Fox has already paid more than $13 million to settle five claims against O’Reilly. Trump’s assumption that the complaints were false reveals his instinct to doubt women who experience harassment and assault and mirrors the attitudes that make it hard for victims to come forward.
Trump’s Cabinet has just four women. It is more white and more male than any first Cabinet since President Ronald Reagan’s
Per an analysis of the appointees for jobs that do not need Senate confirmation, Trump has hired three men for every woman.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/10/12/16464204/patients-suffer-trump-new-birth-control-rule
In 2012, the United Nations declared access to contraception a “basic human right.” Last Friday, the Trump administration made moves to decimate women’s access to birth control — thereby continuing his administration’s war against women.
Last week, the Trump administration announced the rollback of an Obama-era requirement that employers to provide women with insurance that covers birth control. Under the new rule, employers can exempt themselves from this requirement for “religious or moral” reasons. Any employer, regardless of the business, can now opt out of covering contraception. If you are a woman, whether you have to pay for birth control out of your own pocket will soon be dictated by the religious and moral opinions of your employer.
Access to birth control has been proven over and over again to be good not only for women’s health but also for the health of their families. Planned pregnancies result in healthier pregnancies and higher educational and economic attainment for both parents.
Of the 61 million women ages 15 to 44, 62 percent of them are using a contraceptive method. The importance of the ACA contraceptive coverage mandate is highlighted in data showing how many women benefit from this coverage. In just two years between 2012 and 2014, the percentage of women accessing the birth control pill — the most common form of contraception — without any cost rose from 15 percent to 67 percent.
On March 27, Trump revoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order then-President Barack Obama put in place to ensure that companies with federal contracts comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws. The Fair Pay order was put in place after a 2010 Government Accountability Office investigation showed that companies with rampant violations were being awarded millions in federal contracts.
In an attempt to keep the worst violators from receiving taxpayer dollars, the Fair Pay order included two rules that impacted women workers: paycheck transparency and a ban on forced arbitration clauses for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination claims.
Is that enough for you?
-
nothing is proven yet.
I'm assuming that you don't consider multiple people pleading guilty to felony charges as proof of anything illegal happening?
-
I have three questions for all the non-racist Trump supporters on here.
1) Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?
3) Do you believe it is acceptable that Donald Trump has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim?
As someone who generally votes GOP and did not vote for HRC:
1) I know for a fact BO was born in the United States, this isn't a matter of faith. No serious individual on the right was bringing this up, liberal media highlighted crackpots over and over to discredit serious people on the right, and ultimately elected one of those crackpots president, and even now as evidenced by your question do not take responsibility for this unbelievably divisive form of journalism. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
2) Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian? For someone outside the faith looking in, I think he probably looks like he is. As a christian, I'd love to have a conversation with him, because I worry that he has been led astray by a particularly pervasive ideology within christianity that is not very helpful. It's like being a B- Christian when I think if I had a couple of hours I could get him up to A+ territory. You can PM me if you are genuinely curious about it, but it's alot less interesting than you probably think.
3) I don't believe it is acceptable that DT has asserted on numerous occasions that Obama was not born in this country and has suggested repeatedly that he is actually a Muslim. But I also believe trollish behavior of any sort is unacceptable, and the only way to deal with it is to ignore it. I sincerely wish these aspects of Trump had been ignored. Ya'all got trolled hard, and you could not stop feeding that troll.
I have some questions for you, I will limit them to three.
A) Do you believe Democratic Voters who voted for BO but did not show up for HRC are racist?
B) Do you acknowledge now that given the known baggage of an HRC nomination she was probably not the best choice?
C) Are you at all concerned that neither party seems to care what the other party thinks of their nominee, and have seemingly decided that moderates/independents/undecideds are not worth pursuing? That HRC was probably the single most hated registered democrat by the GOP voter is perversely seen as an asset and not a liability? And likewise, that Democrats were incensed by the very idea of Trump was seen as a good thing by most in the GOP? I gather, from reading editorials of the day, that there was a grudging respect for the candidate on the other side, by even the most stringent partisan, in the before times.
"They're both decent human beings but I like mine better?" Is nowhere on the horizon. There's barely twelve politicians in all of Congress/Executive branch I don't actively dislike.
Trump is an absolute train wreck of a president. Just as he was as a candidate. Everyone has considered what happens when an immovable object encounters an unstoppable object. Well this presidency is what happens when two unelectable people run for office - chaos and horribleness.
I can't tell you how relieved I was when the democrats nominated BO instead of HRC. Whichever democrat ran after Bush2 was going to win, and HRC would be terrible as president, absolutely break the government. I knew nothing about BO (because I'm racist obviously, not because I'm not from Chicago and he hadn't done much), but by default he was a better choice than HRC. That breaking happened anyway, and racism probably played more into it than either side is willing to admit (racist democrats only voting because he was black, giving the democrats a false sense that the whole country really wanted the ACA, and racist republicans putting up with some bullshit from their own party just because he was black). Voted for McCain in the 2000 primary by the way because war hero, and I still wonder how much better off we'd all be if it had been McCain vs Gore in 2000, Gore getting his ass handed to him legit and not starting the Democrats down a very dark path in order to win what they increasingly seemed to think was a rigged game.
The ACA didn't need to happen and it is a massive unfunded entitlement program that can be opposed without being a heartless racist asshole. But from 2008 to 2016 if you opposed anything the Democrats did you were a heartless racist asshole, so no, in the original version of that story, the boy who cried wolf got eaten by the wolf. The Democrats who cried racist got eaten by a racist. You see where we are now? THAT's a racist opposition. See the difference? Now apologize because you all look like assholes. No? So much for revising opinions based on new information...
2004: 62 million votes for GB2, 59 million votes for Kdog (we'll use this as the baseline, because at this point nobody liked Bush but Kerry was, *shakes head* such a bad option, 2 rich old white men that believe in tax and spend though so no obvious racist reason to prefer either)
2008: 69.5 million votes for BO, 59 million for McC (here we see the ten million racist democrats show up to vote)
2012: 65.9 million votes for BO, 60 million for MtR (five million democrats became racist the other way, no other reason is possible to not vote for BO)
2016: 65.8 million votes for HRC, 62 million votes for McDbag (nother hundred thousand democrats went the racist route, two million racists decided to join the GoP, I put it closer to twelve million, because most of the GOP I know stayed the fuck home #notmycandidate)
To keep the GOP base motivated, a candidate has to speak to the religious right, the nationalistic right, the small government right, and the uber wealthy right. To keep the Democratic base interested, the candidate must BE BLACK. Stop calling everyone else racist and claiming some moral high ground. Start caring about winning and pick candidates we don't think are scum. If both sides keep picking garbage candidates we're going to have random outcomes and that is what's going to bring down the empire.
This post has all been rhetorical and I believe none of it, but this article at Vox pretty much sums up why nobody to the right of the far left can get into their echo chamber, or is really interested in trying:
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
"It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason." - from the article linked above.
Anyone who can engage a smug liberal and walk away seemingly unfazed can win an election now, that's how intolerable that style is. As it happens, yes, the Trump voter will forgive anything if their candidate can make you go apoplectic.
As for regretting my vote - as someone's signature notes, I voted 3rd party, which is what you all should have done. Say what you want about where we'd be, at least we'd be high.
The tax plan has been interesting to see it develop. I haven't checked yet to see where it landed but aside from the massively irresponsible deficit spending it was headed in a direction that makes sense to me.
I'm seemingly in favor of a constitutional amendment prohibiting POTUS from using Twitter though. For real we should get on that.
A) No.
B) Given that the two choices were Bernie and Hillary... meh.
C) The GOP has been running on a politics of extreme hatred, fear-mongering, and distortion of the other side since Newt Gingrich. I see no real evidence that HRC was probably the single most hated registered democrat by the GOP voter was seen as an asset and not a liability. And honestly, I see no real evidence that the RNC saw that the Democrats were incensed by the very idea of Trump as a good thing. What I did see was that once Trump was elected, they went with what they had. They played up the demonizing of HRC, in the hopes that this would overcome the distaste of the mainline Republicans for Trump, while keeping the hard right frothing at the mouth at the possibility that Clinton could get elected.
Honestly, I did see a grudging respect of HRC from a very few of the older guard of the Republicans. The ones who never endorsed Trump, and the very few who even said they were voting for Clinton. (Including George HW Bush.)
On the other side: I'm sorry, but I don't see the inability of Democrats to have grudging respect for Trump as anything to call them out for. He is not worthy of it.
-
9. Women's rights/issues
Saying some inappropriate things in a private setting years ago doesn't deter me or change my opinion. Other than that, I don't see any other rights that have changed or degraded... Still waiting on someone to point some out.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2017/04/25/430969/100-days-100-ways-trump-administration-harming-women-families/
By undoing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, Trump eliminated a requirement for federal contractors to provide employees with basic information about their pay, including hours worked, overtime earnings, and any pay deductions. Such information is critical for all workers—particularly women, who are more likely to work in hourly jobs—to ensure that they are being paid what they have earned.
This seems like a stretch and isn't specifically targeted at women. He was removing regulations and the drastic overreaching of the previous president. Was he focused specifically on removing women's rights when he signed this...? Probably not.
Also I would gander that there is a massively statistical over-representation of men in the jobs described, thus naturally affecting women less predominantly than men, since the description is in regards to information that pertains to all workers, (IE hours, pay etc) rather than specifically women.
Also haven't heard of a job that doesn't provide this basic info on every paycheck....
By undoing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, Trump also made it easier for federal contractors with chronic violations of sex discrimination and other employment laws to keep getting federal funding.
Don't see any actual example, just speculation. Also, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order was addressed above. Count is still at (1).
Trump’s federal hiring freeze forced at least two military bases to suspend enrollment at military child care facilities when they were unable to hire child care providers. Service members depend on high-quality child care to perform their duties each day.
Unfortunate side-effect with no possible way of foreseeing it, but I do recall many here asking for reduced Defense spending so there ya go!!
Trump’s administration made no movement on equal pay in the first 100 days, despite referencing support for equal pay occasionally throughout his campaign. Trump offered no concrete action to strengthen equal pay protections.
Not intentionally pursuing something in not equal to a violation on womens rights, sorry strikeout.
The Trump budget would cut $403 million in health profession and nurse training programs, jobs that are disproportionately held by women workers.
Not specifically aimed at women.
The Trump-championed American Health Care Act, or AHCA, proposed the elimination of essential health benefits, which include pediatric services—meaning that a family’s insurance might not cover vaccines, eye exams, and well-child visits. This would disproportionately affect women, who often take on the primary responsibility for ensuring their family gets the heath care it needs.
There are plenty on the right who are against ACA, myself included. That includes these provisions by necessity. Again, not specifically targeting women.
Trump signed a bill to overturn Obama-era protections for Title X grantees, allowing states to block Title X funding for providers that also offer abortion with nonfederal funds, including Planned Parenthood. Title X funding provides critical reproductive, educational, and counseling services related to family planning and contraception to 4 million clients each year.
Some of us are against abortion, including blocking federal funds that would flow to abortion providers. Not looking to get into that discussion. If you want to call that an attack on women's rights have at it, but that isn't a Trump specific thing.
In an Oval Office interview, Trump defended conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly from sexual harassment allegations despite evidence that Fox has already paid more than $13 million to settle five claims against O’Reilly. Trump’s assumption that the complaints were false reveals his instinct to doubt women who experience harassment and assault and mirrors the attitudes that make it hard for victims to come forward.
I fail to see how this actually impacts women's rights...?
Trump’s Cabinet has just four women. It is more white and more male than any first Cabinet since President Ronald Reagan’s
Any statistics on previous presidents? Are they better or worse?
Doesn't impact women's rights AND is not provably worse than any other president or even any worse than the potential Clinton presidency.
Per an analysis of the appointees for jobs that do not need Senate confirmation, Trump has hired three men for every woman.
See note above. Also, doesn't actually impact womens rights.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/10/12/16464204/patients-suffer-trump-new-birth-control-rule
In 2012, the United Nations declared access to contraception a “basic human right.” Last Friday, the Trump administration made moves to decimate women’s access to birth control — thereby continuing his administration’s war against women.
Last week, the Trump administration announced the rollback of an Obama-era requirement that employers to provide women with insurance that covers birth control. Under the new rule, employers can exempt themselves from this requirement for “religious or moral” reasons. Any employer, regardless of the business, can now opt out of covering contraception. If you are a woman, whether you have to pay for birth control out of your own pocket will soon be dictated by the religious and moral opinions of your employer.
Again, we can have the abortion debate elsewhere, but this isn't a Trump-specific thing. Why is the federal government in the business of forcing an employer to provide or purchase something for their employee anyway?...
Access to birth control has been proven over and over again to be good not only for women’s health but also for the health of their families. Planned pregnancies result in healthier pregnancies and higher educational and economic attainment for both parents.
See above.
Of the 61 million women ages 15 to 44, 62 percent of them are using a contraceptive method. The importance of the ACA contraceptive coverage mandate is highlighted in data showing how many women benefit from this coverage. In just two years between 2012 and 2014, the percentage of women accessing the birth control pill — the most common form of contraception — without any cost rose from 15 percent to 67 percent.
ACA is its own basket of worms and not Trump-specific. Also not specifically a women's rights thing.
On March 27, Trump revoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order then-President Barack Obama put in place to ensure that companies with federal contracts comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws. The Fair Pay order was put in place after a 2010 Government Accountability Office investigation showed that companies with rampant violations were being awarded millions in federal contracts.
In an attempt to keep the worst violators from receiving taxpayer dollars, the Fair Pay order included two rules that impacted women workers: paycheck transparency and a ban on forced arbitration clauses for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination claims.
Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order was addressed above.
Is that enough for you?
I count 5, 3 of which aren't even relevant.... So no.
-
nothing is proven yet.
I'm assuming that you don't consider multiple people pleading guilty to felony charges as proof of anything illegal happening?
You literally cut my quote down to that one snippet.
I had been on the fence but I'm adding Sol to the ignore list...
-
9. Women's rights/issues
Saying some inappropriate things in a private setting years ago doesn't deter me or change my opinion. Other than that, I don't see any other rights that have changed or degraded... Still waiting on someone to point some out.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2017/04/25/430969/100-days-100-ways-trump-administration-harming-women-families/
By undoing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, Trump eliminated a requirement for federal contractors to provide employees with basic information about their pay, including hours worked, overtime earnings, and any pay deductions. Such information is critical for all workers—particularly women, who are more likely to work in hourly jobs—to ensure that they are being paid what they have earned.
This seems like a stretch and isn't specifically targeted at women. He was removing regulations and the drastic overreaching of the previous president. Was he focused specifically on removing women's rights when he signed this...? Probably not.
Also I would gander that there is a massively statistical over-representation of men in the jobs described, thus naturally affecting women less predominantly than men, since the description is in regards to information that pertains to all workers, (IE hours, pay etc) rather than specifically women.
The Trump budget would cut $403 million in health profession and nurse training programs, jobs that are disproportionately held by women workers.
Not specifically aimed at women.
The first one is irrelevant because there's more men than women, but the second one is irrelevant because it's "not specifically aimed at women"?
You can't have it both ways.
-
The first one is irrelevant because there's more men than women, but the second one is irrelevant because it's "not specifically aimed at women"?
You can't have it both ways.
Two different points refuted with two different arguments, so why not?
Reducing spending on one area of training is not equal to targeting women's rights.
I think the conversation may need to swing to you guys defining exactly what you believe "women's rights" are.
I consider them (1) equal pay for the same work, (2) right to vote or (3) the same rights as anyone else would get... The federal government reducing spending on an educational program is not the same as targeting women's rights....
-
nothing is proven yet.
I'm assuming that you don't consider multiple people pleading guilty to felony charges as proof of anything illegal happening?
You literally cut my quote down to that one snippet.
I had been on the fence but I'm adding Sol to the ignore list...
Well it does seem to be the relevant portion. In context, you were arguing that there was nothing to worry about until something is proven, and you think nothing is proven yet so there's nothing to worry about. Better?
I was just pointing out that many of us consider a guilty plea to a felony charge as proof of guilt. I realize that a plea is not technically the same as a conviction, but that seems like a semantic difference in this case.
But while we're on the topic, Trump has lost something like 40 court cases in his life, where a judge banged a gavel and said "guilty", and yet many of his supporters continue to call Clinton a "criminal" despite her never even going to court. This is the sort of cognitive dissonance that so concerns me about this situation, like he could get impeached for perjury or obstruction or treason and it just wouldn't matter. nothing will happen to him. He's Teflon Don, immune to facts and all laws, living in his own fantasy version of reality that exists only in his head and is made manifest for the rest of us by supporters who believe his every word is unassailable truth.
Eventually reality is going to have to snap back into hard focus, as facts reassert themselves. Hopefully that gets triggered by something short of a mushroom cloud.
-
Hey Dabnasty, I did want to address this, as I was one of posters talking about racist policy.
I absolutely agree that words and rhetoric have an impact, and Trump has no tact. I'm sure most of us would say that race relations in the US have been on the decline for several years. But why do we think this? Is there some metric we can base this decline off of? What has caused the tension? What is the solution? I can't give you a solid answer on any of these questions, and the answers are likely pretty complicated. This is why I point to something real and understandable as a policy that disproportionately and intentionally harms others, so we have a defined issue that we can fight together.
I know this is a pretty high bar to set, but it's the best real solution I can think of. I'd wager that minorities trapped in generational poverty, what I think is the largest racial issue in the country, is not driven by rhetoric. It's driven by policy of city, states, and federal government, in that order. This is why I weigh Trump's actions by 80% and his words by 20%.
I do disagree with the logic behind a couple of your statements; I hope we can discuss.
His campaign has caused damage to race relations since the beginning. The societal changes he has caused worry me more than any legal actions he has taken. Our government is made up of not only the laws we have in place, but the people and what is happening inside their heads.
I would argue that the problem is two fold. Trump says something that's offensive and controversial. The media assigns the worst possible racist motive to his statements and takes it out of context. I think his feud with Rep. Frederica Wilson over a phone call to a slain soldier's widow is a good example of this. Rep. Wilson began by suggesting Trump was uncaring and the soldier "knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurts." So, with only that quote from a politically charged, showboating Rep, most media outlets assign the best possible motive to Rep. Wilson and the worst possible motive to Trump. Then, of course, Trump attacks back, and it turns into a shit-show of stupidity. Charging this instance, no matter how stupid on Trump's part, as racism does really harm us culturally. I want to fight racism as much as you, but it harms the cause when we assign racism to everything. That white kid who shot up a church is racist. We could argue that the police officer who shot a black man in the back was motivated by racism. We don't care about these anymore because everything's racist.
OK, so that was longer and more rambling than I intended. I guess the gist of my argument is that I think you don't have the complete picture. Damage to race relations did not get set in motion by Trump's campaign. A large part, but not all, of this damage does come from unjustly charging Trump of racism without evidence. It will not stop until we take feelings completely out of the argument and point to actual racism that we can fight together.
I would agree that Trump did not suddenly create the racial tension we have today but I'm also not sure I would agree that race relations have been on the decline. Like you said it's more a matter of what the media decides to report on and we have no metric to measure. And yes, I do blame anti trump media for overplaying the small things but on the other hand he's said plenty of and done plenty of horrible things that are just as horrible in context. Do you really feel that touting a Muslim ban is taken out of context? Or calling Mexicans immigrants rapists and murderers? There are so many examples in this thread, most of which I don't feel are overplayed.
There's a tactic to create negative feelings toward a group of people that trump and the right wing media in particular uses everyday (again, not just trump but he has legitimized the feelings that already existed). When Fox News and even more so online outlets like Breitbart find every case in the US where an illegal immigrant, transgender person, gay person, or Muslim has committed a crime and report on it as if it is national news, that leads people who consume that media to believe it is the norm. There may have been 1,000 other murders that day, some of them against one of these groups, but that's not the message they want to send.
Your comment on the media blowing every little thing up as racist has some merit but if you are getting that message through a right-leaning news outlet, remember that they are going to take the worst examples of everything. Much like they pick out the minorities who commit crimes they will pick out the ridiculous news sources like Daily KOS, Rachel Maddow and even celebrities who don't know shit and they'll assign everything they say to the "liberals". For the record I don't take those sources seriously at all. They do whine too much. That doesn't mean everyone who is anti-trump is whining along with them.
This topic is broad enough that it's tough to stay on track but I would like to add one more thing. During the campaign trump tweeted an info graphic (terrible little things) claiming that 81% of whites murdered in 2015 were killed by blacks and other completely false statistics on murder. The real number is 15% and most of those were people who knew each other so it wasn't the mugger in an alley scenario that he's trying to scare us with. Even if the stats were accurate this is not something a president should be doing. What purpose does it serve? to get people riled up and scared? But it wasn't true. He, as a person who has followers who take what he says as fact while discounting anyone who disagrees now have another little "fact" to fuel their hatred.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/)
I think that at the end of the day, we have a lot of agreement on the potential harm of powerful folks misrepresenting the truth whether it's Fox News, CNN, or even Trump. Everybody has some bias, and these organizations and people have incentive to make anything more outrageous than it seems. Scott Adams does talk a lot about the persuasion of Trump (http://blog.dilbert.com/2015/08/13/clown-genius/) if you're interested in another take. I wish things could be different, but I don't see how this cycle will end. It's almost like we're in an outrage economic cycle. We live in great times, so the supply of real world outrage far outstrips the demand. The gap has to be manufactured.
Trump is a classic example of a fear mongering politician. Lot's of politicians (and the media) are guilty of using this tactic and it is insidious but trump has taken it to another level. I think we would all benefit from trying to better understand our own psychology but just as a start I would recommend some research on why fear mongering is so effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering)
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/10/why-are-political-ads-so-frightening.html (https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/10/why-are-political-ads-so-frightening.html)
Trump may have taken it to the next step, but we're currently trying to shoot through the roof. Let's just stop
https://youtu.be/S0mUp2-LygU (https://youtu.be/S0mUp2-LygU)
https://youtu.be/wVckRJvuBQY (https://youtu.be/wVckRJvuBQY)
I guess the best thing I can do is what I control. Be civil and calm myself while others aren't. It won't help on the national political level, but at least it will make a difference to me and those around me.
-
I respectfully disagree with you cliffhanger, that "a large part, but not all, of this damage does come from unjustly charging Trump of racism without evidence. It will not stop until we take feelings completely out of the argument and point to actual racism that we can fight together." I think there is plenty of evidence that previously the Democratic party, and then at some point Republicans inflamed racial divisions, in both their rhetoric, policies and also jerrymanding to win elections. There is a ton of evidence of this, which as I'm at work I can't cite, but you can dip your toes in by looking at robocalls and mailings done which were funded by Karl Rove. In the state I am in (NC) the jerrymanding done to increase Republican control by having African American votes be concentrated or split depending on what would work, was so bad it was declared unconstitutional. However it didn't undo the election results and we are still dealing with it. Democrats, by saying that everyone in this country should have access to good education, healthcare, jobs, etc is NOT racist. It's what this country stands for. That politicians who say it is not a level playing field are simply pointing out the obvious. Don't shoot the messenger.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-butler-anthony-senecal-facebook-kill-obama/#
I don't need any additional evidence that Trump is actively hostile and contemptuous to anyone who is not like him. The whole Obama is from Kenya should be enough for anyone. Or that the KKK endorsed him as a candidate. Or the lawsuits. Or the people he favors, such as his longtime butler Anthony Senecal whom he kept on even after his incredibly racist comments were publicized. Or Steven Bannon who said at the 2016 Republican Convention "We are the party of the alt-right." If you don't understand why a huge percentage of the US population feels alienated by having Trump be in office, not sure I can help you. I think it's more Trump supporters do understand, and either don't care, or share the same views.
I think the gerrymandering you brought up is a great point. I'm of the general opinion that redistricting needs some serious reform. I still hate what they're doing, even if I give them a complete pass on racism charges. At best they are trying to solidify political power. I looked into it a little and thought this was a decent opposition from a conservative perspective (http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/24/north-carolina-strikes-fifth-time-supreme-court-redistricting/). As best I can describe, redistricting these two districts to include more democrats would produce the same results as redistricting to include more black people. A previous case ruled that the plaintiffs had to provide what an alternative non-racially drawn district map would like look to validate their claim that the district was racially drawn. They didn't do that in this case. Obviously I accept the ruling of the court, I just thought it an interesting read to hear the other perspective. Check out Justice Alito's response too if you have the time.
My point is that something like this case is a big deal. We should be focusing on this and others like it, but we don't because the overused charge of racism dilutes the case.
As for the second half of your post. I really don't want to defend Trump on the bad things he has done, like the birther thing or keeping Senecal around. However, I don't think it's fair to judge a potential president by the people that endorse him. And it is definitely not right to generalize his supporters as not caring about all of these things. Isn't it possible that we weighed all the bad things about Trump, and still voted for him even though we don't support those bad things?
-
Provides links of literally 50+ examples of how women are worse off under Trump.
"Well, look man, these policies aren't TARGETING WOMEN SPECIFICALLY."
Like, how am I supposed to have an honest debate here? Of course Trump isn't going to sign into law a bill that says women can only earn $20/hour. It's not going to be explicit. But there's at least 100 examples (probably more for those with more time to Google) of women being worse off, losing rights, etc. Just because none are an explicit target doesn't mean the whole picture isn't worth viewing.
Honestly, how am I supposed to have this discussion? Every point gets explained away because it's not explicit.
-
nothing is proven yet.
I'm assuming that you don't consider multiple people pleading guilty to felony charges as proof of anything illegal happening?
You literally cut my quote down to that one snippet.
I had been on the fence but I'm adding Sol to the ignore list...
Sol, are you going to be okay? Remember, there are hotlines to help you deal with life's devastating moments.
-
And you guys wonder why its so hard for people like OP who are genuinely curious to get actual responses.
I'm out.
-
Honestly, I did see a grudging respect of HRC from a very few of the older guard of the Republicans. The ones who never endorsed Trump, and the very few who even said they were voting for Clinton. (Including George HW Bush.)
On the other side: I'm sorry, but I don't see the inability of Democrats to have grudging respect for Trump as anything to call them out for. He is not worthy of it.
Oh agreed, Trump is total garbage and that's cool. But Romney, McCain, and Bush got the same treatment as Trump did, that's my point. Right Now! Finally! The opposition candidate deserves the treatment, but the power of treating someone that way, the impact that has, was all pissed away. The very first time you dump coffee on someone and walk out of the meeting, that has an impact. The very first time you end a conversation and leave the room because your opponent is unworthy of further engagement, that has an impact.
Democrats have been throwing up their hands and leaving the room for 16 years now. There are people driving now who were not alive to see Bill Clinton testifying about something that should never have been out there for public consumption, to see a blatantly politically motivated sex scandal disrupt the highest levels of government. The next election will see people vote who didn't see how the war started, who don't know the history, and who do not care about it (because it isn't relevant anymore).
Being disrespectful isn't acceptable. Full stop. Justifying that behavior "because reasons" is whataboutism. A five year old learns this, it doesn't matter what that other kid did to you, YOU are judged based on YOUR actions and what comes out of YOUR mouth. I can have compassion for when you've been treated badly, I can have compassion for when your emotions run high, but as I'm injecting the needle to execute a criminal I'm not hurling slurs at him. Prisoners are addressed by title, the scum of the earth accused are accorded a basic dignity. You can't sling mud without getting down there with the pigs, and you are de-facto a pig at that point.
A huge criticism of Trump, and rightly so, John Oliver put it very well, is whataboutism. But there's an element to that criticism that is entirely disingenuous. When Barack Obama was massively abusing the power of the executive office "because congress wouldn't do it" there were those of us screaming that it wasn't OK to do that, and that we'd all regret it. And Democrats came back at us with two arguments, the default: Stop being racist, and the other: well what about when George W. did this, you didn't mind then?
And we were screaming: WE DID MIND THEN! I said when BO abused his power to create the net neutrality rules that we would all regret it when the next president came up, because then undoing it would be so easy, and here we are. It matters how you do things. In most cases it matters just as much as what you are doing. I was apoplectic at George W using "national security" as justification for all sorts of bullshit executive power grabs. And then BO came in and didn't immediately undo all of those orders, or limit executive power by making those types of orders illegal, which he specifically campaigned on! He fucking re-issued like fifty of them! It was day two or some shit.
The GOP establishment is being disrupted by the backlash from using whataboutism to defend reprehensible tactics. People are pissed about how badly congress is doing. Democrats started the shenanigans with the passage of the ACA, but Republicans using that as an excuse to do the exact same shit for 7 years was not OK.
Likewise, Democrats completely failing to acknowledge that their ideology is at least as divisive as Trump's because of "what about Trump" is not OK. It doesn't matter that the other guy is worse. You still have to be good. Better than them isn't good enough, not when them has clearly decided to give no fucks.
There are mirror-image pathologies playing out here, and unfortunately there is not a path forward anymore that includes throwing up your hands and walking away. The first group to sit down at the table and act like an adult, however justified they may be in throwing a tantrum and leaving, the first group to genuinely abandon whataboutism, will be at a huge advantage with the electorate. And you should be scared shitless that it appears to be Republicans in Congress and that it appears to be about taxes. Democrats are about to miss the fucking train. Everyone's been tearing their hair out during the most horrible musical chairs dance ever played, the music just stopped and most of the seats are full. Clothes have been pulled straight and spittle wiped from mouths. A decision was made to declare victory and move on. Their is a huge strategic advantage in both sides agreeing to ignore what happened before, lock the chaos away, and move on. No actual winning was done. Neither side won. Both houses burned to the ground. It will stay that way forever if either side keeps starting fires. It will never get better until both sides stop. Trying to get so much power that there's no fight anymore was a fool's errand. The job is not to make there be no fight, the job is to fight the fight well.
Trump is an opportunity for Congress to sieze back control of everything they've allowed, through their own dysfunction, to fall to the executive.
Once upon a time, Republicans in the House viewed Democrats in the House as the opposition, and the Senate as the enemy.
That's how compromise was possible. Right now there's this brief window, and it is rapidly closing, where right and left can come together in opposition to Trump, and restore limits on executive power, bring rationality to budgeting and taxation, and focus on things that are both within the purview of the government to fix, and that need to be fixed.
Or we can keep blaming each other, and thinking of Trump voters as a problem for America.
It is somewhat wickedly awesome that Republicans can propose a bill, Democrats oppose it for several reasons, and the President tweet something out that makes obvious 1. He doesn't know what is going on, 2. He's a raving lunatic, and 3. He probably doesn't really care. It lets the Congress work it out like they're supposed to, as both parties realize they're on their own for the midterms, party unity isn't a thing that's going to be possible, and we're going to have to defend this to our voters, because we won't have the money to win re-election any other way.
For the first time in my life, the President of the United States can be ignored.
Fuckin' wish I had voted for him. Greatest President in History.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on Dems' treatment of Romney, McCain and Bush.
For the first time in my life, the President of the United States can be ignored.
Not exactly.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sources-tillerson-mattis-opposed-embassy-move-trump-jerusalem-israel/
Last sentence of this article... in The American Conservative:
“Pay attention: this is what it feels like to live in a nation whose moment has passed.”
-
For the first time in my life, the President of the United States can be ignored.
Fuckin' wish I had voted for him. Greatest President in History.
I'm confused. You think Trump is the greatest President in history because he's so bad at the job? You think abdicating world leadership is good for America?
-
Provides links of literally 50+ examples of how women are worse off under Trump.
"Well, look man, these policies aren't TARGETING WOMEN SPECIFICALLY."
Like, how am I supposed to have an honest debate here? Of course Trump isn't going to sign into law a bill that says women can only earn $20/hour. It's not going to be explicit. But there's at least 100 examples (probably more for those with more time to Google) of women being worse off, losing rights, etc. Just because none are an explicit target doesn't mean the whole picture isn't worth viewing.
Honestly, how am I supposed to have this discussion? Every point gets explained away because it's not explicit.
To be fair, much of your argument consists of (1) here is a progressive policy I like, (2) it's being rolled back, which I think is bad (or in one case, just not being moved forward beyond the current state of the law); (3) many people are women, therefore Trump is bad for women. And of those parts of your argument, much of what you referenced are regulatory and administrative burdens. There are probably some people who benefit from them. There are definitely people who are harmed by them. You assume the cost benefit analysis you didn't do is superior to the cost benefit analysis which someone else may have done.
And then there's the old standby of equating not subsidizing something (whether through tax and transfer or simply a mandate) with denying access to something.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on Dems' treatment of Romney, McCain and Bush.
For the first time in my life, the President of the United States can be ignored.
Not exactly.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sources-tillerson-mattis-opposed-embassy-move-trump-jerusalem-israel/
Last sentence of this article... in The American Conservative:
“Pay attention: this is what it feels like to live in a nation whose moment has passed.”
Out of curiosity, is there another country in the world that you don't think we should recognize what they claim as their capital?
-
You assume the cost benefit analysis you didn't do is superior to the cost benefit analysis which someone else may have done.
Sure, this is the same calculus women in Alabama have made regarding Roy Moore. "Well, one the one hand he appears to have a long history of sexual assault against underaged girls, but on the other hand he also really REALLY believes that I shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about my own body, so I guess I have to vote for him anyway?"
I predict Roy Moore will be a Senator. He'll win his election, and then Republican leadership will decide against any sort of ethics investigation, much less expelling him from the Senate like originally promised.
And I think they'll use the same defense Kelly Ann and Sarah Huck-Sand use about Trump's sexual assault allegations, "this was litigated by the American people and he's innocent because he was elected." NO! The electorate cannot determine criminal guilt or innocence! Do you not understand how criminal justice works?
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on Dems' treatment of Romney, McCain and Bush.
For the first time in my life, the President of the United States can be ignored.
Not exactly.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sources-tillerson-mattis-opposed-embassy-move-trump-jerusalem-israel/
Last sentence of this article... in The American Conservative:
“Pay attention: this is what it feels like to live in a nation whose moment has passed.”
Out of curiosity, is there another country in the world that you don't think we should recognize what they claim as their capital?
To be fair, there aren't too many places in the world where a capital city is claimed by two countries.
-
To be fair, there aren't too many places in the world where a capital city is claimed by two countries.
Hrmmmm, not so sure about that. Capitals get disputed all the time, for all kinds of reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_multiple_capitals
-
You assume the cost benefit analysis you didn't do is superior to the cost benefit analysis which someone else may have done.
Sure, this is the same calculus women in Alabama have made regarding Roy Moore. "Well, one the one hand he appears to have a long history of sexual assault against underaged girls, but on the other hand he also really REALLY believes that I shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about my own body, so I guess I have to vote for him anyway?"
I predict Roy Moore will be a Senator. He'll win his election, and then Republican leadership will decide against any sort of ethics investigation, much less expelling him from the Senate like originally promised.
And I think they'll use the same defense Kelly Ann and Sarah Huck-Sand use about Trump's sexual assault allegations, "this was litigated by the American people and he's innocent because he was elected." NO! The electorate cannot determine criminal guilt or innocence! Do you not understand how criminal justice works?
Is that an actual quote from "women in Alabama"?
-
Is that an actual quote from "women in Alabama"?
Of course it is. I went to Alabama and interviewed every woman in the state and they all gave me that exact answer.
Also, CNN agrees (http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/white-women-class-divide-gender-divide/index.html) with me. Moore enjoyed majority support among white Alabama women both before and after the revelations of his predatory behavior, and they generally cite his position on abortion as the reason why. This is exactly why the Moore campaign has aired so many ads trying to paint his democratic opponent as a "baby killer" (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/pervert-versus-baby-killer/).
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on Dems' treatment of Romney, McCain and Bush.
For the first time in my life, the President of the United States can be ignored.
Not exactly.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sources-tillerson-mattis-opposed-embassy-move-trump-jerusalem-israel/
Last sentence of this article... in The American Conservative:
“Pay attention: this is what it feels like to live in a nation whose moment has passed.”
Out of curiosity, is there another country in the world that you don't think we should recognize what they claim as their capital?
You do realize that Israel is a unique situation, yes?
And you did read the article and learn that the president's own Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense have said this is a really bad idea, right?
It is a bad idea for many, many reasons.
This will basically kill any hope for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Admittedly, this was never going to go anywhere anyway in the current climate with Netenyahu as prime minister, so frankly that is the least of the worries. But:
It will put American citizens who work at the embassy in danger. This was the main reason for the embassy being in Tel Aviv until now.
This move will further incite Iran and Islamist militants against both the U.S. and Israel, almost certainly leading to more terrorist violence in Israel and the U.S.
The shaky steps that Saudi Arabia and Israel have been taking to form a partnership against the threat posed by Iran is likely to disintegrate. So Iran will be more dangerous in the region as a result.
The U.S. further isolates itself from its European allies with this move. We will be the only country in the world with an embassy in Jerusalem. We are basically removing ourselves as the leader of anything in this situation. Or indeed, as the leader of anything at all on the world stage.
We will now be seen by even our allies in the Middle East as provoking Muslims.
And for what? So that Trump can make his base of evangelical Christians and a small percentage of very right-wing Jewish Republicans happy. That's all it is. It's pathetic. Sad, pathetic, and with consequences that will negatively impact a whole lot of people and the future of any positive influence we can have on the world stage.
EDITED TO add:
Apparently, President Trump did not "fully understand" how colossally fucking stupid this decision was:
http://deadstate.org/white-house-sources-say-trump-did-not-fully-understand-implications-of-his-jerusalem-decision/
LOL yeah, no shit.
-
Damn dude, you get around. That must have taken a long time. Thanks for your dedication.
-
And you guys wonder why its so hard for people like OP who are genuinely curious to get actual responses.
I'm out.
Let's be honest, it's naive to expect any actual sensible arguments. You get the standard answers like "he drained the swamp" except he didn't. Or they "support his policies," which of course have either not been passed or he has done a complete 180 on them. Heck one poster even went on a tirade about being called racist when no one even brought race into the discussion.
I believe a more valid question, as I believe one poster actually claimed to ignore the racism, is how nearly a year into his policy one can still support Trump while casually hand waving away the blatant racism, xenophobia, sexism, and now his vocal support for a child molester? Of course I expect not one single sensible answer as well, because there are no sensible answers? It reminds of the saying "you can't make sense of nonsense."
And Let's be honest about his policies. Many of them are purposefully meant to further oppress ethnic and racial minorities. So claiming you can ignore race while still supporting his policies quite frankly, is contradictory.
-
You assume the cost benefit analysis you didn't do is superior to the cost benefit analysis which someone else may have done.
Sure, this is the same calculus women in Alabama have made regarding Roy Moore. "Well, one the one hand he appears to have a long history of sexual assault against underaged girls, but on the other hand he also really REALLY believes that I shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about my own body, so I guess I have to vote for him anyway?"
I predict Roy Moore will be a Senator. He'll win his election, and then Republican leadership will decide against any sort of ethics investigation, much less expelling him from the Senate like originally promised.
I'm curious, are you really ignorant of the breakdown of views on abortion between genders and party affiliation? That would seem like an incredible lack of curiosity to rant about it so much without ever thinking to ask, I wonder if women really are as monolithic as I think they are on the issue of abortion? But it also seems like an incredible choice to choose to portray yourself as ignorant on the issue.
-
Some of these answers were interesting, as was the breakdown
1. Trump sucks, but he's not a baby killer: we got a little of this, but not as much as I expected because, tbh, this is a rationale that has internally consistent logic, and I would think would be the first refuge of embarrassed Trump voters
2. Wake up sheeple! I voted third party: we got some of this, too. About as much as I'd expect from a group of college educated high earners who are more likely libertarians
3. KILLARY: about as much of this as I expected (also featured in the responses in point 2 above)
4. Lulz, liberal tearzz: way more than I expected, but this may be because this group skews heavily towards the reddit user base
5. Obama is the real racist: also way more than I expected. This is the most interesting to me, because I bet some of these people voted for Obama in 2008. I've been probing about what they meant by this, but haven't really gotten any deeper thoughts
6. Gas up the jet, Poppy-Ann and Mitt are expecting us: Also surprising to me how few seemed to be wealth motivated Trump voters. This is a wealthy group, but-by and large-the wealthier MMMers come across as liberal. I think that this would be different on the Bogle boards. Our higher earning members seem to be mostly dual income wage earners from the coasts
7. Democrats hate our troops! Thank god we have a real patriotic American president who doesn't apologize for America being the best: about as much as I expected. This is a common sentiment of base voters I am guessing, but not so much in MMM world
-
For the first time in my life, the President of the United States can be ignored.
Fuckin' wish I had voted for him. Greatest President in History.
I'm confused. You think Trump is the greatest President in history because he's so bad at the job? You think abdicating world leadership is good for America?
First off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
It ought to change the conversation that he's enforcing a law that was on the fucking books. Our government just doesn't work. That's insane. Congress passes a law in 1995, 4 presidents just straight up don't bother, one finally does, and he's a lunatic because of it and it's somehow his fault. *facepalm*
I think setting the individual holding the office of the president up as the representative of the U.S on the world stage was a catastrophically stupid thing to do in the first place. We have ambassadors, we have the state department, there's no reason for a figurehead and every President that ever acted that way should have been ritually eviscerated at the voting booth.
I think if abdicating world leadership is something to be worried about, the ship sailed a long time ago. I don't think Trump is smart enough to understand what he did, but the sentiments of american foreign policy supported by BO and the fears expressed at this Trump action reek of appeasement. Israel is a nation under siege. Go study the history of the actual people living within the borders of that country, read the actual language of the various treaties and agreements and cease-fires, put yourself in the place of someone who lives there, perform the thought-experiment. There is literally nothing we can do there to make the situation better or worse short of an outright invasion or making them the 51st state. That whole part of the world is totally fucked, and the end-game involves the total annihilation of Israel by its neighbors, in an outright act of aggression by the Arab world, motivated solely by a hateful, racist ideology.
If appeasement worked, I'd call for the full evacuation of every non-Palestinian from Israel and surrendering the country, then I'd give the Israeli's some part of New Mexico we aren't using and enjoy the tax revenue. But it doesn't. They hate us over there, they hate us over here, the Islamic world is overwhelmingly extremist, racist, and violent, toward us and anyone who thinks like us. It is a religion of violence, and anyone who claims otherwise has not read their book. Israel defends itself by defeating every invasion thoroughly and completely. And the longer the Arab world insists that no compromise is possible, the less anything but full throated support of Israel is defensible. I personally feel like the rejection of the two state proposal and aggressive war by virtually every neighboring state and the Palestinians in 1947 was the end of it. They decided to stop talking and fight it out, Israel won, and anybody who says anything to the Palestinians besides "get over it" is doing them a huge disservice. One major reason you don't go to war is that you might lose. They lost.
I...that history, from 1920 to now, is 100 years of just...gah. And I can't believe that Trump understands it. So I can understand a knee-jerk objection to him just flailing around in one of the most dangerous areas of the world, but I'm not super worried it's going to lead to the end of America. That's not any different from the over-reaction on the right from Obama's World Apology Tour. Very little of our impact on the world comes from POTUS. And this thing specifically? Naw. They'll be offended by our embassy placement? Fuck them, they're offended by our very existence. Why not, they should be worried about offending us? Why is OK for them to behave that way? Why can't they be expected to be nice to us?
Also...objections related to embassy security? Really? *shakes head* I thought that wasn't an important qualification for president, ya'all need to make up your mind.
It will put American citizens who work at the embassy in danger. This was the main reason for the embassy being in Tel Aviv until now.
The U.S. further isolates itself from its European allies with this move. We will be the only country in the world with an embassy in Jerusalem. We are basically removing ourselves as the leader of anything in this situation. Or indeed, as the leader of anything at all on the world stage.
There are 10 countries with diplomatic missions in Jerusalem already, including the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Israel
These are not "embassies to Israel" or "embassies to Palestine" but rather "missions to Jerusalem."
It is a rhetorical difference not a practical one. The objection is partisan, not borne of any actual understanding that the danger is higher. Any American personnel in the arab world are at risk, all the time, because they hate us. Our embassy in Tel Aviv wasn't safe, our embassy in Jerusalem isn't safe, and it's because they are racist, bigoted, violent, assholes. The actual capital, the government of Israel is in Jerusalem, and it is stupid to attempt to appease anyone by calling our embassy there something else. At least as stupid as calling it an embassy just because they would rather you didn't, but still stupid.
The crazy thing is that if the arab world decided to attack Israel over this you'd blame Trump. Do you get that that is perverted thinking?
You walk through the park and if you get mugged it's the mugger's fault. Stop blaming the victim.
-
It was a pretty complicated decision, but I voted for Trump and don't regret it. These answers are just off the top of my head, but perhaps I could elaborate later.
1. With the rate premiums have been rising, I don't think the ACA is sustainable long-term so I have never seriously considered it a FIRE option (10 years off). I'm not well versed on the issue tbh, but I generally don't support the idea of forcing the purchase of health care. I believe people should be free to choose what is best for their lives.
2. The majority of taxpayers will pay less next year. I support the tax plan, even though I don't like the manner in which it was passed and the deficit increase. Get your spending under control, Government!
3. I'm skeptical of the notion that Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the election. The most recent 'bombshell' ABC report about Flynn had to be corrected or erroneous reporting and the author was suspended for this behavior. I'll remain open to this when more facts come in. This is possibly something that could flip me for the next election.
4. To this day, I still say that one of the best executive orders was Trump's rollback of unnecessary regulation. I am not in the camp that more regulation = good. If someone could point out a specific one that causes harm, we can surely discuss.
5. I predict this will be the biggest test of his Presidency. I think it's really too early to tell.
6. Don't like it. D-
7. I'm not aware of any harm or potential harm to the environment that Trump has done.
8. Race relations have been degrading many years before Trump. I remember Obama talking if he had a son, he'd look like Travvon Martin. I remember the media lying about 'hands up don't shoot' concerning Michael Brown. The behavior of politics and media surrounding these two events flipped the direction of race relations. What has Trump done that's damaging?
9. What has Trump done that's damaging? What specific rights don't women have that they did during Obama's term?
With respect to actual concrete changes in the form of policy I am not surprised to find most of his supporters would have no major issues. Not much has been done one way or the other and most of it is in line with general Republican thinking.
With regards to what he has done to harm race relations I think a lot of that depends on how you view the media. I suspect that most people who are okay with Trump distrust the media more than they do Trump. Not a position I would take given his track record, but maybe that characterization is too black and white.
I fully sympathize and acknowledged that the 24 hour news cycle is full of a lot of bullshit. But news agency that lean right or left both equally spew bullshit so if you are more centrists you have to take reported facts for what they are and try to tune out the narrative they wrap them in. Major news orgs like Fox and CNN in their most basic reporting tend not to report blatant lies, though you may find the conclusions they draw laughable.
I think Trumps continual attacks on the media are doing great harm because the reality is the media is our only tool to hold politicians accountable for misleading us. It is not a coincidence that every country more corrupt than ours has state run media, see exhibit A, Russia. From that angle I think Trumps need to constantly tear down anyone who would challenge him with no respect for their core mandate is corrosive to our democracy. Though I would not carry this so far as worry that he will become a dictator. I just think it is the first step along the path to a more corrupt and less accountable government with a less powerful media.
Clearly you have noted some things said under Obama that left you feeling like he was overstepping and degrading race relations. That is fine. But transgressions by a previous president against your sense of what is overstepping do not excuse similar behavior from others. And at least half the country feels Trump regularly oversteps in his views on white nationalists and certain immigrant communities. Now you may find these statements to be true or funny, or not too big a deal. But consider that many felt the same way about the statements Obama made that may have bothered you.
Most would agree race relations have never been perfect in the US. I don't find Obama to be any kind of turning point except that he happened to be half black at a time when BLM became a thing.
Views on Mexican immigration have always been poor in this country. Frankly at times I fall into some of those negative views and I am freakin half mexican by blood. So I know that typical US culture doesn't breed people with a particularly good view of Mexican immigration.
The turning point against Muslims is easy to pin point, probably 9/11 for most of us. Before that sure certain religious groups like Israeli Jews hated them, but really most of the US were indifferent until they posed a physical threat. Isis and the refugee crises has understandably made this even worse.
But in most of these areas I feel like Trump is reinforcing the worst of the conservative narrative with regards to these three main groups. For you or others of a similar mind you may find it refreshing, and I am not saying we should bend to the extreme left on all things and grievances. But there are more rational voices that are center left and center right willing to compromise to alleviate the fears of both conservative and liberal constituents.
Trump is not one of those rational center right voices. His fuel derives from overselling fear and passion in his base on long standing grievances. I don't expect that to change as long as he is a public figure.
-
[quote author=TheOldestYoungMan link=topic=82376.msg1799391#msg1799391
Anyone who can engage a smug liberal and walk away seemingly unfazed can win an election now, that's how intolerable that style is. As it happens, yes, the Trump voter will forgive anything if their candidate can make you go apoplectic.
[/quote]
This is the real problem. Nearly all other considerations can be ignored if you can get down in the pit and fight.
We need politicians who can appeal to peoples rational side and find compromises that both win for their constituents, compromise, and work out problems without having to tear the other side down.
I am hopeful the pendulum will swing back towards moderation, but I suspect things will have to get worse before we have a chance of going back towards a more centrist political arena.
On our worst days most of us scan get smug. But on the job when you are trying to work on hard problems with people you don't fully agree with, there is zero room for smugness or arrogance. Shitting on your political opponents just forces the opposite reaction. But I guess the later is more news worthy.
-
My fear is that whoever the dems put forth in 2020 will lose because their campaign will focus on the fact that they are not trump. That and they'll play identity politics again.
-
My fear is that whoever the dems put forth in 2020 will lose because their campaign will focus on the fact that they are not trump. That and they'll play identity politics again.
Trump plays identity politics too, and it seems to work well for him. The only difference is that he caters to the white male christian coal miner identity.
-
My fear is that whoever the dems put forth in 2020 will lose because their campaign will focus on the fact that they are not trump. That and they'll play identity politics again.
Trump plays identity politics too, and it seems to work well for him. The only difference is that he caters to the white male christian coal miner identity.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Trump voters are _______! (Racist, sexist, bigots, white male Christian coal miners, etc)
Another example is a thread on here during the election in which the op wanted to know how to comfort her minority neighbors after another neighbor put up a trump sign in their yard. The op made so many assumptions about the identity of the trump supporter, their neighbors, their neighbors' views, their races, political views, all based on a sign. Everyone must fit neatly into their identity box. It's dichotomous thinking, and it's rampant right now, on both sides.
-
My fear is that whoever the dems put forth in 2020 will lose because their campaign will focus on the fact that they are not trump. That and they'll play identity politics again.
Trump plays identity politics too, and it seems to work well for him. The only difference is that he caters to the white male christian coal miner identity.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Trump voters are _______! (Racist, sexist, bigots, white male Christian coal miners, etc)
Another example is a thread on here during the election in which the op wanted to know how to comfort her minority neighbors after another neighbor put up a trump sign in their yard. The op made so many assumptions about the identity of the trump supporter, their neighbors, their neighbors' views, their races, political views, all based on a sign. Everyone must fit neatly into their identity box. It's dichotomous thinking, and it's rampant right now, on both sides.
Yeah, but thinking identity politics is bad is different than pointing out that it works or doesn't work. I think lying is bad, but it works in politics.
I'm also not totally sold on the idea that conservatives are made because liberals are mean and smug. If we were nicer to Trump voters, I don't think any of you would vote any differently. Trump is an asshole, and it didn't matter to his voters at all. He was their asshole, and he was an asshole to the people they hate. So, I think it's pretty self-serving of Trump voters to suddenly be so victimized because liberals are mean. So what if we don't invite you around anymore? You think we suck.
-
My fear is that whoever the dems put forth in 2020 will lose because their campaign will focus on the fact that they are not trump. That and they'll play identity politics again.
The Dems behave as if they have absolutely no political vision to express and instead want to convert technocratic mumbling and cynical identity politics into victory. Along with her baggage (much of it contrived by political opponents), lack of big-picture thinking was a major problem with Hillary's campaign. Trump's political vision--though it often resembles a Mel Gibson acid trip--at least enables him to create a compelling narrative about how he would lead instead of merely legislate.
-
My fear is that whoever the dems put forth in 2020 will lose because their campaign will focus on the fact that they are not trump. That and they'll play identity politics again.
The Dems behave as if they have absolutely no political vision to express and instead want to convert technocratic mumbling and cynical identity politics into victory. Along with her baggage (much of it contrived by political opponents), lack of big-picture thinking was a major problem with Hillary's campaign. Trump's political vision--though it often resembles a Mel Gibson acid trip--at least enables him to create a compelling narrative about how he would lead instead of merely legislate.
She lost because typical Democratic voters didn't turn out. Look at Michigan. Those voters didn't turn to Trump because he had a more inspiring vision. They simply didn't show up at the polls.
If the Dem voters have a reason to vote -- and voting "not Trump" might be enough -- they could win. Virginia is a good example of this.
-
My fear is that whoever the dems put forth in 2020 will lose because their campaign will focus on the fact that they are not trump. That and they'll play identity politics again.
Trump plays identity politics too, and it seems to work well for him. The only difference is that he caters to the white male christian coal miner identity.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Trump voters are _______! (Racist, sexist, bigots, white male Christian coal miners, etc)
Another example is a thread on here during the election in which the op wanted to know how to comfort her minority neighbors after another neighbor put up a trump sign in their yard. The op made so many assumptions about the identity of the trump supporter, their neighbors, their neighbors' views, their races, political views, all based on a sign. Everyone must fit neatly into their identity box. It's dichotomous thinking, and it's rampant right now, on both sides.
I don't think this comment says that all people who voted for Trump are ______, It says that he catered to that group. Would you dispute that? And based on statistics it worked out for him - white male Christians vote. Obviously lots of women and other races voted for him as well but who voted isn't the point, it's how identity is used by a candidate/party.
-
First off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
It ought to change the conversation that he's enforcing a law that was on the fucking books. Our government just doesn't work. That's insane. Congress passes a law in 1995, 4 presidents just straight up don't bother, one finally does, and he's a lunatic because of it and it's somehow his fault. *facepalm*
1. If you don't understand why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea, then I can't help you. Trump is not enforcing a law, he is only attempting to pander to a certain group by this move, and does not understand the implications of doing so.
2. It was the last three presidents who deferred from moving the embassy: Clinton, Bush, Obama.
3. You should also really read your own source:
From 1998 to June 2017, the relocation of the embassy from Tel Aviv was suspended by the sitting President semi-annually based on national security concerns as provided for in section 7 of the Act.
If that makes me a smug liberal to point that out... well... I'd rather be a smart ass than a dumb ass.
-
First off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
It ought to change the conversation that he's enforcing a law that was on the fucking books. Our government just doesn't work. That's insane. Congress passes a law in 1995, 4 presidents just straight up don't bother, one finally does, and he's a lunatic because of it and it's somehow his fault. *facepalm*
1. If you don't understand why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea, then I can't help you. Trump is not enforcing a law, he is only attempting to pander to a certain group by this move, and does not understand the implications of doing so.
2. It was the last three presidents who deferred from moving the embassy: Clinton, Bush, Obama.
3. You should also really read your own source:
From 1998 to June 2017, the relocation of the embassy from Tel Aviv was suspended by the sitting President semi-annually based on national security concerns as provided for in section 7 of the Act.
If that makes me a smug liberal to point that out... well... I'd rather be a smart ass than a dumb ass.
I'm unconvinced it's a bad idea because, really, how successful were Clinton, Bush, Obama at securing a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian situation? I forget the word for doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...
I agree that Trump's motivations are probably not enlightened with respect to the decision but that doesn't necessarily mean (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-06/israelis-will-pay-for-trump-s-jerusalem-gambit) the decision is a bad one; here's an excerpt:
Yet there is one possible silver lining to the coming storm -- a consequence of the decision that may affect the calculus of the peace process more positively. Trump, intentionally or not, is signaling to all concerned that he is unafraid of backing Israel in ways that go further than the traditional pro-Israel U.S. stance.
That’s a huge threat to the Palestinians -- if peace talks fail, Trump could be prepared to support Israeli annexation of more of the West Bank. And it’s an implicit promise to the Israelis that also contains an implicit threat: Given how generous Trump is being to Israel, its leaders had better agree to whatever deal Trump will seek to impose on them -- or else.
-
That’s a huge threat to the Palestinians -- if peace talks fail, Trump could be prepared to support Israeli annexation of more of the West Bank. And it’s an implicit promise to the Israelis that also contains an implicit threat: Given how generous Trump is being to Israel, its leaders had better agree to whatever deal Trump will seek to impose on them -- or else.[/i]
So Clinton, Bush, Obama... and every president since the '40s didn't solve Middle East peace, so we should just take a shit on this? Or else what? Will more dead military make America great again?
I'm sure organizations that include suicide bombers are really worried about what a Trump deal means for them.
-
That’s a huge threat to the Palestinians -- if peace talks fail, Trump could be prepared to support Israeli annexation of more of the West Bank. And it’s an implicit promise to the Israelis that also contains an implicit threat: Given how generous Trump is being to Israel, its leaders had better agree to whatever deal Trump will seek to impose on them -- or else.[/i]
So Clinton, Bush, Obama... and every president since the '40s didn't solve Middle East peace, so we should just take a shit on this? Or else what? Will more dead military make America great again?
I'm sure organizations that include suicide bombers are really worried about what a Trump deal means for them.
I don't think I parsed the point you're making (what Americans are dying in Israel or Palestine?) but here is a more extreme position (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/trump-s-deregulation-policy-has-minimal-impact-on-stock-market) which was an enjoyable read.
-
I don't think I parsed the point you're making (what Americans are dying in Israel or Palestine?) but here is a more extreme position (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/trump-s-deregulation-policy-has-minimal-impact-on-stock-market) which was an enjoyable read.
I was referring to the "or else." Are we going to invade Palestine? Shore up Isreal's defenses with our troops?
I'd ask what the plan is, but let's be honest: there is no plan. This guy and his staff are in way over their heads.
-
I don't think I parsed the point you're making (what Americans are dying in Israel or Palestine?) but here is a more extreme position (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/trump-s-deregulation-policy-has-minimal-impact-on-stock-market) which was an enjoyable read.
I was referring to the "or else." Are we going to invade Palestine? Shore up Isreal's defenses with our troops?
I'd ask what the plan is, but let's be honest: there is no plan. This guy and his staff are in way over their heads.
Well if you followed the link, that is explained:
The basis for the secret threat to Netanyahu will have to be that, as the most nakedly pro-Israel president ever, Trump has the clout to blame Netanyahu if he is truly responsible for the breakdown of the deal. Trump can say what no other president could: that the world, including pro-Israel American Jews, will believe him if he says Netanyahu is the problem and that he should no longer be prime minister. Trump could even credibly threaten that U.S. support for Israel would be substantially reduced in the future if Netanyahu blinks.
-
Well if you followed the link, that is explained:
The basis for the secret threat to Netanyahu will have to be that, as the most nakedly pro-Israel president ever, Trump has the clout to blame Netanyahu if he is truly responsible for the breakdown of the deal. Trump can say what no other president could: that the world, including pro-Israel American Jews, will believe him if he says Netanyahu is the problem and that he should no longer be prime minister. Trump could even credibly threaten that U.S. support for Israel would be substantially reduced in the future if Netanyahu blinks.
Kindly fix your link for the story in question.
-
3. You should also really read your own source:
From 1998 to June 2017, the relocation of the embassy from Tel Aviv was suspended by the sitting President semi-annually based on national security concerns as provided for in section 7 of the Act.
If that makes me a smug liberal to point that out... well... I'd rather be a smart ass than a dumb ass.
OK accolay. I did read it, and I reject soundly that "because national security" is a good reason to deny the capital of an ally is their capital. Without the benefit of hindsight I would reject it, but in this case we actually did the experiment. So lets go down that road: We don't want to antagonize the League of Arab Nations, because we're afraid of being attacked, so we don't send the embassy. National Security used as a reason to ignore a law passed by Congress.
Then we were attacked. And so was Israel. Repeatedly. So it didn't work. Not doing the thing because reason might happen and then reason happened anyway. Might as well do the thing.
Now if the thing is a bad thing, if causes actual, real harm to someone, then that's why you don't do it. But this isn't that. It's actually a good thing to recognize in others what they would like you to recognize. I'm a woman who wants to marry another woman. I'm a guy who wants to be referred to as a girl. My capital is actually over here, as are all of my important government functions, and it'd be great if your personnel that are here specifically to liaise with us were actually here.
What makes you a smug liberal is not that you pointed it out, it's that you wrap your analysis of events in obvious partisan biases and dismiss the opinions of others because they are a "dumbass." It is ideologically inconsistent, because liberalism at its heart is about accepting more than one idea and more than one worldview. When you refuse to engage because "if you don't already understand I just can't help you, dumbass" you have climbed off the moral high ground to wade deep into the mud. And there are huge swaths of voters who see this, myself included, and just shake our heads and try to muddle through as best we can. I improve my understanding of the world through interactions with people who disagree with me, and not all of those people are civil. That's fine. I can point out the hypocrisy of that incivility, that's fine too.
How much better off would we be as a world if, instead of going to war with Iraq after 9/11, we had instead moved our embassy to Jerusalem? Appeasement does not work. There's your border, you can do whatever the fuck you want to do inside it, and you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.
But yea I totally miscounted how many presidents had ignored it, for whatever reason I was thinking '96 as the start of Clinton1, my bad. I'm going to blame old age. No way was 1996 more than five years ago...
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
-
What makes you a smug liberal is not that you pointed it out, it's that you wrap your analysis of events in obvious partisan biases and dismiss the opinions of others because they are a "dumbass." It is ideologically inconsistent, because liberalism at its heart is about accepting more than one idea and more than one worldview. When you refuse to engage because "if you don't already understand I just can't help you, dumbass" you have climbed off the moral high ground to wade deep into the mud. And there are huge swaths of voters who see this, myself included, and just shake our heads and try to muddle through as best we can. I improve my understanding of the world through interactions with people who disagree with me, and not all of those people are civil. That's fine. I can point out the hypocrisy of that incivility, that's fine too.
How much better off would we be as a world if, instead of going to war with Iraq after 9/11, we had instead moved our embassy to Jerusalem? Appeasement does not work. There's your border, you can do whatever the fuck you want to do inside it, and you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.
But yea I totally miscounted how many presidents had ignored it, for whatever reason I was thinking '96 as the start of Clinton1, my bad. I'm going to blame old age. No way was 1996 more than five years ago...
I guess I'll keep not understanding why it makes someone smug to point out what's in a law and why it was an perfectly legit option for prior presidents to defer the embassy move. For over 20 years. And why presidents before them didn't move it there. Got any info on why the Jerusalem Embassy Act was even written?
Sorry if I hurt your feelings but I did not mean to infer that you or anyone with your views was a dumb ass- just that I was not one. But it is hard keeping my multiple worldviews when people keep doing dumb ass, illogical, irrational things.
Last I checked, Bush was a Republican, and a lot of people didn't think things could get worse while he was president. And even his administration deferred from moving the embassy. Yikes.
What if we hadn't invaded Iraq, AND not moved the embassy? Fact- we would have been much better off not invading Iraq. What a waste of good people and treasure. What a mess we created.
As far as Israel, I have difficulty in feeling sorry for them. Not that I want them annihilated, but seems like they could be doing more to not shoot themselves in the foot. This embassy move wont help that. Much rather keep the status quo here then start another war.
Steering this back towards the topic, I think it was Forest Gump who once said, "dumb ass is as dumb ass does" (could be wrong.) I think the president continues to go out of his way to prove that.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
Kasich is my governor (Ohio).
I voted for Trump in the primary because I knew Kasich would win and I was a little caught up in the MAGA nonsense.
Between the primary and the election I had dumped Trump as I realized what was happening and who he was.
I voted for Gary Johnson.
I can't believe people are tolerating trump's nonsense. I can't believe conservatives and republicans are actually supporting him. He only sounds like a republican some of the time but honestly the party, supporting Roy Moore. I just... I just don't understand. It's madness.
I have an unclear path going forward. The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
Kasich is my governor (Ohio).
I voted for Trump in the primary because I knew Kasich would win and I was a little caught up in the MAGA nonsense.
Between the primary and the election I had dumped Trump as I realized what was happening and who he was.
I voted for Gary Johnson.
I can't believe people are tolerating trump's nonsense. I can't believe conservatives and republicans are actually supporting him. He only sounds like a republican some of the time but honestly the party, supporting Roy Moore. I just... I just don't understand. It's madness.
I have an unclear path going forward. The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
I submit that the only way the Republican Party will change is to lose all the reasonable people to the Democrats. Make them lose their shirts. Repeatedly. It’s the only possible way to stop the utter madness on the right.
-
The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
The democrats want everyone as a constituent. Just like the republicans, they are absolutely craven in their lust for your vote. They will happily accept your support if you are anything short of David Duke. And the republicans won't even disavow him.
As a general rule, I think democrats want more equality in American life. They want people to be rewarded for their abilities and accomplishments, not their skin color or birth right. As long as you are a hard worker, you have nothing to fear from their proposed egalitarian society. If you are a straight white male who has been skating by only because women and people of color weren't allowed to compete in your arena, then yea you might be fearful of the free market for labor and talent actually becoming more free.
Even that situation doesn't mean democrats don't want your straight white male vote. They just want you to actually deserve the success you find. You know, individual responsibility and bootstraps and all that. Let the cream rise to the top. Be successful because you've earned it, not because we've systematically suppressed the opportunities for success for all of your competition.
-
I submit that the only way the Republican Party will change is to lose all the reasonable people to the Democrats. Make them lose their shirts. Repeatedly. It’s the only possible way to stop the utter madness on the right.
I categorically reject that. In fact I'd say it's gone the opposite direction.
They've doubled down on voter suppression.
They've doubled down on crazy.
They've doubled down on vitriol and false governance.
-
The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
The democrats want everyone as a constituent. Just like the republicans, they are absolutely craven in their lust for your vote. They will happily accept your support if you are anything short of David Duke. And the republicans won't even disavow him.
As a general rule, I think democrats want more equality in American life. They want people to be rewarded for their abilities and accomplishments, not their skin color or birth right. As long as you are a hard worker, you have nothing to fear from their proposed egalitarian society. If you are a straight white male who has been skating by only because women and people of color weren't allowed to compete in your arena, then yea you might be fearful of the free market for labor and talent actually becoming more free.
Even that situation doesn't mean democrats don't want your straight white male vote. They just want you to actually deserve the success you find. You know, individual responsibility and bootstraps and all that. Let the cream rise to the top. Be successful because you've earned it, not because we've systematically suppressed the opportunities for success for all of your competition.
Call me crazy but I feel they've abandoned the center for the fringes. I point to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as my evidence.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
Kasich is my governor (Ohio).
I voted for Trump in the primary because I knew Kasich would win and I was a little caught up in the MAGA nonsense.
Between the primary and the election I had dumped Trump as I realized what was happening and who he was.
I voted for Gary Johnson.
I can't believe people are tolerating trump's nonsense. I can't believe conservatives and republicans are actually supporting him. He only sounds like a republican some of the time but honestly the party, supporting Roy Moore. I just... I just don't understand. It's madness.
I have an unclear path going forward. The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
I did spend 3 years in Ohio while Kasich was governor. I have never had anyone admit a Trump primary vote to me who wasn't also an Ohio resident under him.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
Kasich is my governor (Ohio).
I voted for Trump in the primary because I knew Kasich would win and I was a little caught up in the MAGA nonsense.
Between the primary and the election I had dumped Trump as I realized what was happening and who he was.
I voted for Gary Johnson.
I can't believe people are tolerating trump's nonsense. I can't believe conservatives and republicans are actually supporting him. He only sounds like a republican some of the time but honestly the party, supporting Roy Moore. I just... I just don't understand. It's madness.
I have an unclear path going forward. The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
I did spend 3 years in Ohio while Kasich was governor. I have never had anyone admit a Trump primary vote to me who wasn't also an Ohio resident under him.
Just to be clear I think Kasich is an amazing governor and would have made a great president as well.
-
The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
The democrats want everyone as a constituent. Just like the republicans, they are absolutely craven in their lust for your vote. They will happily accept your support if you are anything short of David Duke. And the republicans won't even disavow him.
As a general rule, I think democrats want more equality in American life. They want people to be rewarded for their abilities and accomplishments, not their skin color or birth right. As long as you are a hard worker, you have nothing to fear from their proposed egalitarian society. If you are a straight white male who has been skating by only because women and people of color weren't allowed to compete in your arena, then yea you might be fearful of the free market for labor and talent actually becoming more free.
Even that situation doesn't mean democrats don't want your straight white male vote. They just want you to actually deserve the success you find. You know, individual responsibility and bootstraps and all that. Let the cream rise to the top. Be successful because you've earned it, not because we've systematically suppressed the opportunities for success for all of your competition.
Call me crazy but I feel they've abandoned the center for the fringes. I point to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as my evidence.
Can you please elaborate?
-
9) Whatever Trump's weaknesses, it doesn't look like he is going to drive us off a cliff or precipitate any disasters (or at least he isn't any more likely than the last few presidents to do so).
Except rile up the folks in the Middle East all over again by taking sides and doing flybys of North Korea perhaps sparking war. I think the war would be a quick one b/c North Korea can't even feed its own people but I would expect them to lob a few nuclear bombs before they were done.
-
I guess I'll keep not understanding why it makes someone smug to point out what's in a law and why it was an perfectly legit option for prior presidents to defer the embassy move. For over 20 years. And why presidents before them didn't move it there. Got any info on why the Jerusalem Embassy Act was even written?
The act was written at the behest of supporters of Israel in the U.S. who felt it was time, after decades, to recognize the accurate capital of an ally. Your implication here is that it is OK for a president to ignore an act of congress if they feel the reason congress passed the law didn't pass some sort of (I don't really know because you haven't really said). The truth is Clinton wasn't willing to risk the political fallout of vetoing the law, and he also knew he could use the provision regarding national security within the act to never actually move on it. Because national security can always be used as an excuse to thwart the will of the people. I don't argue that doing it was politically viable. I argue that doing it was cowardly, weak, and ineffective. The Cole still got bombed. 9/11 still happened. Israel was still attacked. Several times. Pretty much constantly. Since 1947. Maybe you can argue that it made sense for Clinton to defer it as there was active movement on a deal heading into the 2000 Camp David Summit, but the Palestinians are not and have never been interested in a deal. The wholesale slaughter-not removal or evacuation-but the wholesale slaughter of every jew in Israel is the only acceptable solution to those people. And that's not me making it up, it's what they publish on state media for broad consumption. Not recognizing the capital of Israel is appeasement, it is weakness, it has made zero difference in how we are viewed by the Islamic community and any argument to the contrary is partisan trashing. Trump is a bastard pile of garbage who accidentally did something that was long overdue. There's no possible way he understands why what he did was right, but the "international community" is wrong on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
You cannot reason with the unreasonable. You just do the right thing and you deal with what happens.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings but I did not mean to infer that you or anyone with your views was a dumb ass- just that I was not one. But it is hard keeping my multiple worldviews when people keep doing dumb ass, illogical, irrational things.
My feelings aren't hurt. I stand to gain a lot if even one liberal stops dismissing anyone with different talking points as irrational. Maybe you'll read a book or talk to someone who was there and realize that the current talking points with respect to Israel have no basis in reality. The set of assumptions you have to believe to think anything is accomplished by refusing to recognize the actual capital of a country you have diplomatic relations with...it staggers me. It is in and of itself a denial of reality, an attempt to express an untruth in a profound way as though you could manifest a different history.
Last I checked, Bush was a Republican, and a lot of people didn't think things could get worse while he was president. And even his administration deferred from moving the embassy. Yikes.
If he was the incarnate of all that was wrong, then he was wrong on this too. Cherry picking is a thing, that's fine. I'm guessing the argument you're making here is that as incompetent as he was he still wasn't dumb enough to do this dumb thing, but again, you have yet to state any reason why recognizing Jerusalem is a bad idea. While actively at war with two Muslim countries we don't want to antagonize muslims? By establishing an embassy? With a country we already have diplomatic relations with? I'd love to understand it but I'm struggling to argue against "if you don't understand I can't explain it." In the context of open hostility in the middle east it makes even less sense not to recognize Jerusalem.
The U.S. government, at the demand of the Islamic Community, burned a ton of bibles in the middle east that had been brought over for use of and by christian servicemen and women. One asshole in Florida burned a Koran and the Islamic Community attacked and brutally murdered U.N. aid workers, not even soldiers but aid workers. In this situation, you blame the asshole in Florida, but any rational person blames the religious extremists who actually did the murder.
They are responsible for what they do, and it makes no damn sense for us to do the wrong thing in some vain attempt to keep crazy people from doing crazy things.
What if we hadn't invaded Iraq, AND not moved the embassy? Fact- we would have been much better off not invading Iraq. What a waste of good people and treasure. What a mess we created.
Exactly. But you didn't answer my question. I make the assumption that the U.S. did have to respond, it would have been sort of nice if we'd taken a moral high-road action such as this. Our failure to recognize Jerusalem was largely an open hand extended to the Islamic world, and it clearly doesn't care.
As far as Israel, I have difficulty in feeling sorry for them. Not that I want them annihilated, but seems like they could be doing more to not shoot themselves in the foot. This embassy move wont help that. Much rather keep the status quo here then start another war.
That's the crazy part of your argument. Nothing Israel has done started any of those conflicts. Aside from having the audacity to live there at all. When your existence is offensive you are not to blame for giving offense. The status quo is: the Palestinians actively and constantly attack the Israelis and always will. Not the Israeli military. Not governmental establishments. They bomb bakeries and private residences. They blow up busses filled with any random group of people who happen to be in Israel at the moment. Their grievance is that they started a war they subsequently lost because it turns out Jews aren't actually racially inferior and please mommy won't someone reset the game. Israel exists in a constant, ongoing state of open conflict with state-funded religious extremists. And their largest vulnerability is that they do reach out with compassion and they do tolerate people who hate them to coexist with them. Nothing else like it has ever been seen in history. Israel absolutely has the capability to wipe out the Palestinians and survive the resulting backlash from the international community, but they won't do it. Even while being attacked. And if any ethnic group in the U.S. began behaving like the Palestinians, if tomorrow everyone from Oklahoma just started killing everyone else, we wouldn't stop with expelling them from the rest of the states, we'd burn Oklahoma to the fucking ground. It'd be two hundred years before anyone wanted to be known as an Oklahoman, and then we'd all get to feel guilty about what we did.
Steering this back towards the topic, I think it was Forest Gump who once said, "dumb ass is as dumb ass does" (could be wrong.) I think the president continues to go out of his way to prove that.
Well no argument from me, but even a stupid clock is right twice a day...or something...that's not quite right.
-
Your implication here is that it is OK for a president to ignore an act of congress if they feel the reason congress passed the law didn't pass some sort of (I don't really know because you haven't really said).
My implication wasn't that they are "ignoring" a law, but they're actually participating in the law as it was written due to security concerns. How more explicit do you want it? Like Prego- its in there. Maybe you have more insight into why they added that part of the law. But maybe there's some rational 50 years of conflict explanation for it. And just as we were squashing Al Qaeda, this nice little recruitment tool is invented. I already hate being right on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
You cannot reason with the unreasonable. You just do the right thing and you deal with what happens.
Does this count as Godwin's Law?
My feelings aren't hurt. I stand to gain a lot if even one liberal stops dismissing anyone with different talking points as irrational.
"But it matters for that one starfish..." But that's just it. Talking points aren't a rational discussion meant to inform about a topic or have a different point of view. They come from both sides and half the time they're political nonsense. They're just small quips with no information to get people who have no deeper interest in a topic to agree. Platitudes that don't really have any room for nuance or information. It's a snip to get people angry and on your side. Don't be so surprised if you're dismissed after throwing a talking point at someone who doesn't agree with you and might know a little about your topic.
If he was the incarnate of all that was wrong, then he was wrong on this too. .... In this situation, you blame the asshole in Florida, but any rational person blames the religious extremists who actually did the murder.
Bush wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he did have Cheney and Rove managing things. I blame the asshole in Florida and the extremists.
That's the crazy part of your argument. Nothing Israel has done started any of those conflicts. Aside from having the audacity to live there at all. When your existence is offensive you are not to blame for giving offense. The status quo is: the Palestinians actively and constantly attack the Israelis and always will. Not the Israeli military.
Honestly, if we want to blame anybody, it should be the British, no? To be a fly on the wall when they came up with that idea... If Israel has done nothing to start it, they sure haven't done anything to stop it. Israel doesn't get away squeaky clean here though. Really in recent history we're talking about settlements. Have you seen a map?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/West_Bank_%26_Gaza_Map_2007_%28Settlements%29.png
If they really want it over, do the two state solution. Let Palestine be it's own thing. Israel should get their settlements out of there. Make Jerusalem an international city. If fighting continues after that, then I will STFU.
-
Well if you followed the link, that is explained:
The basis for the secret threat to Netanyahu will have to be that, as the most nakedly pro-Israel president ever, Trump has the clout to blame Netanyahu if he is truly responsible for the breakdown of the deal. Trump can say what no other president could: that the world, including pro-Israel American Jews, will believe him if he says Netanyahu is the problem and that he should no longer be prime minister. Trump could even credibly threaten that U.S. support for Israel would be substantially reduced in the future if Netanyahu blinks.
Kindly fix your link for the story in question.
I posted two separate Bloomberg articles. The first one points to the correct page with the quote above. For convenience:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-06/israelis-will-pay-for-trump-s-jerusalem-gambit
-
The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
The democrats want everyone as a constituent. Just like the republicans, they are absolutely craven in their lust for your vote. They will happily accept your support if you are anything short of David Duke. And the republicans won't even disavow him.
As a general rule, I think democrats want more equality in American life. They want people to be rewarded for their abilities and accomplishments, not their skin color or birth right. As long as you are a hard worker, you have nothing to fear from their proposed egalitarian society. If you are a straight white male who has been skating by only because women and people of color weren't allowed to compete in your arena, then yea you might be fearful of the free market for labor and talent actually becoming more free.
Even that situation doesn't mean democrats don't want your straight white male vote. They just want you to actually deserve the success you find. You know, individual responsibility and bootstraps and all that. Let the cream rise to the top. Be successful because you've earned it, not because we've systematically suppressed the opportunities for success for all of your competition.
Call me crazy but I feel they've abandoned the center for the fringes. I point to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as my evidence.
Can you please elaborate?
Sure, a good portion of the country felt like they had been abandoned for coastal liberals, minorities and the LGBT gender spectrum kids.
Trump comes along and starts spouting stuff they want to hear while tossing in some "other" language to blame those groups and they get on board.
Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988. That says something to me.
Perhaps I feel it more acutely because the democratic platform offers me nothing. In the attempt to widen the tent they lost any type of message that resonates with me. Maybe net neutrality...
I prefer economic unity not identity politics.
-
Provides links of literally 50+ examples of how women are worse off under Trump.
"Well, look man, these policies aren't TARGETING WOMEN SPECIFICALLY."
Like, how am I supposed to have an honest debate here? Of course Trump isn't going to sign into law a bill that says women can only earn $20/hour. It's not going to be explicit. But there's at least 100 examples (probably more for those with more time to Google) of women being worse off, losing rights, etc. Just because none are an explicit target doesn't mean the whole picture isn't worth viewing.
Honestly, how am I supposed to have this discussion? Every point gets explained away because it's not explicit.
Obligatory disclaimer: I dislike both parties. I did not vote the presidential ticket at all because I also disliked the third party options. If I was in a swing state, I would have voted HRC, despite not supporting many parts of the DNC platform, because I don't think a corrupt (as proven in multiple courts of law), middling to bad businessman and sexual predator reality TV star with no relevant experience whatsoever is someone who makes sense to vote in as POTUS. Sadly, I was not surprised when many millions of Americans disagreed.
Anyway, I said in a post some time back that a Trump presidency would be a true stress test of the bounds of cognitive dissonance. This thread alone seems to prove they are just as vast as I surmised. Sol has it right. Trump can do no wrong. People who still support him now cannot allow themselves to feel any differently (or if they admit wrongdoing it has to be explained away by one tu quoque fallacy after another). It's sad that the America I love has been reduced to this, but I still believe that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. May I live long enough to see us finally get there...
PS - smug liberal elitism is absolutely a thing. I live in Silicon Valley, the capital of such behavior. But people on this board complaining about it shouldn't use that as an excuse for their voting patterns if they also want to claim objectivity in their decision-making.
-
Provides links of literally 50+ examples of how women are worse off under Trump.
"Well, look man, these policies aren't TARGETING WOMEN SPECIFICALLY."
Like, how am I supposed to have an honest debate here? Of course Trump isn't going to sign into law a bill that says women can only earn $20/hour. It's not going to be explicit. But there's at least 100 examples (probably more for those with more time to Google) of women being worse off, losing rights, etc. Just because none are an explicit target doesn't mean the whole picture isn't worth viewing.
Honestly, how am I supposed to have this discussion? Every point gets explained away because it's not explicit.
Obligatory disclaimer: I dislike both parties. I did not vote the presidential ticket at all because I also disliked the third party options. If I was in a swing state, I would have voted HRC, despite not supporting many parts of the DNC platform, because I don't think a corrupt (as proven in multiple courts of law), middling to bad businessman and sexual predator reality TV star with no relevant experience whatsoever is someone who makes sense to vote in as POTUS. Sadly, I was not surprised when many millions of Americans disagreed.
Anyway, I said in a post some time back that a Trump presidency would be a true stress test of the bounds of cognitive dissonance. This thread alone seems to prove they are just as vast as I surmised. Sol has it right. Trump can do no wrong. People who still support him now cannot allow themselves to feel any differently (or if they admit wrongdoing it has to be explained away by one tu quoque fallacy after another). It's sad that the America I love has been reduced to this, but I still believe that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. May I live long enough to see us finally get there...
PS - smug liberal elitism is absolutely a thing. I live in Silicon Valley, the capital of such behavior. But people on this board complaining about it shouldn't use that as an excuse for their voting patterns if they also want to claim objectivity in their decision-making.
The obvious corollary is people opposed to Trump generally can't perceive any of his actions as being correct either (or more accurately, can't compartmentalize Trump the buffoon & Trump's decisions so that they can be evaluated separately). The problem with Trump for his opponents in general and the US left in particular is his sloppy, factually deviant rhetoric is too easy to contradict, which leads to intellectual laziness in his progressive opponents and feeds into the smugness machine of late night TV, HuffPo, etc. The test of your beliefs shouldn't be the town fool-in-chief who brings the worst arguments, but rather, should be measured versus the best opposing arguments.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
Kasich is my governor (Ohio).
I voted for Trump in the primary because I knew Kasich would win and I was a little caught up in the MAGA nonsense.
Between the primary and the election I had dumped Trump as I realized what was happening and who he was.
I voted for Gary Johnson.
I can't believe people are tolerating trump's nonsense. I can't believe conservatives and republicans are actually supporting him. He only sounds like a republican some of the time but honestly the party, supporting Roy Moore. I just... I just don't understand. It's madness.
I have an unclear path going forward. The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
+1 for realizing your mistake before you made it. Kasich for me, was probably the best Republican candidate. But I am not a huge fan of him ever since he practically dismantled the renewable energy industry in Ohio. I saw local companies taking business elsewhere and larger corporations, wanting to run on renewable energy, not even give Ohio a second thought when it came time to open another office/warehouse. Places like Middletown, Dayton and some other struggling communities could use the jobs.
There is an alternative to Republican and Democrat. I registered as a Republican and voted Republican for a while. Likely never again seeing how the party has transformed. Republicans supporting Trump and putting him in office was icing on the cake. Now I am an independent and vote who I feel is the best candidate. Could be Republican, could be democrat or it could be neither. No need to pick a side and vote long party lines all the time.
-
The democrats don't want me as a constituent so it's unclear how I'll vote but the republican party is a mess.
The democrats want everyone as a constituent. Just like the republicans, they are absolutely craven in their lust for your vote. They will happily accept your support if you are anything short of David Duke. And the republicans won't even disavow him.
As a general rule, I think democrats want more equality in American life. They want people to be rewarded for their abilities and accomplishments, not their skin color or birth right. As long as you are a hard worker, you have nothing to fear from their proposed egalitarian society. If you are a straight white male who has been skating by only because women and people of color weren't allowed to compete in your arena, then yea you might be fearful of the free market for labor and talent actually becoming more free.
Even that situation doesn't mean democrats don't want your straight white male vote. They just want you to actually deserve the success you find. You know, individual responsibility and bootstraps and all that. Let the cream rise to the top. Be successful because you've earned it, not because we've systematically suppressed the opportunities for success for all of your competition.
Call me crazy but I feel they've abandoned the center for the fringes. I point to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as my evidence.
Can you please elaborate?
Sure, a good portion of the country felt like they had been abandoned for coastal liberals, minorities and the LGBT gender spectrum kids.
Trump comes along and starts spouting stuff they want to hear while tossing in some "other" language to blame those groups and they get on board.
Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988. That says something to me.
Perhaps I feel it more acutely because the democratic platform offers me nothing. In the attempt to widen the tent they lost any type of message that resonates with me. Maybe net neutrality...
I prefer economic unity not identity politics.
I'm confused: What exactly does it say to you? I don't understand how the bolded statement bolsters your argument. Pennsylvania is predominately white, working and middle class, and not coastal liberal elite. Yet it has mostly swung blue in the past few decades. Perhaps the state will now swing red for the next few decades, at which point you could potentially argue that they are voting that way after a few decades of feeling abandoned by Dem government. But a single, populist election choice between two unpopular candidates doesn't necessarily bolster that argument (assuming that is what you mean).
I also don't understand your "the Dems don't want my vote" statements. If you personally hold actual conservative or libertarian economic views, then of course the Dems aren't going to work for your vote. That's a feature, not a bug in the Dem party. Why is that a problem? You don't agree with their policies. If you have an inflexible anti-abortion stance, then no, the Dems and Libs aren't going to work hard for your vote. The GOP will.
But if you don't object to their platform, and are withholding your vote out of some sense of aggrieved 'tribal' abandonment, I just don't grasp how that is in your best interest. Nor is it the same as the Democratic party "not wanting your vote". What a strange idea.
I would actually agree with you and some other posters that the Dems rely far too heavily on identity politics as an electoral strategy. It's IMO stupid to excessively play identity politics during election season for the very reason that humans are tribal and are triggered to be MORE tribal by highlighting differences among them, which is counterproductive when trying build a bigger tent. However, I'm a mature, well informed voter who doesn't need to be constantly name checked by politicians in order to figure out what is in my best interest. The fact that the Dems aren't constantly telling me what a special snowflake I am doesn't put me off at all. I vote Dem (usually) because (usually) their goals and general governing policies match mine most closely. I don't give a shit whether they name-check straight, white, middle-class, childfree women from small-business-owning Mid-Western families in all their stupid election speeches.
My husband is from a poor-childhood, farm-country raised, non-union-family background and pulled himself up to the upper middle class by his bootstraps. He's straight, white, a military/border patrol veteran, etc, which I guess is the demographic you are arguing the Dems don't want the vote of. But he could not fathom EVER withholding his vote from the party with the governing platform with which he most agrees (Dems) just because they aren't constantly verbally courting his vote.
Both of us having plenty of complaints about the Dems policies and governing strategy, but that is a different issue having little to nothing to do with their electoral use of identity politics.
-
Provides links of literally 50+ examples of how women are worse off under Trump.
"Well, look man, these policies aren't TARGETING WOMEN SPECIFICALLY."
Like, how am I supposed to have an honest debate here? Of course Trump isn't going to sign into law a bill that says women can only earn $20/hour. It's not going to be explicit. But there's at least 100 examples (probably more for those with more time to Google) of women being worse off, losing rights, etc. Just because none are an explicit target doesn't mean the whole picture isn't worth viewing.
Honestly, how am I supposed to have this discussion? Every point gets explained away because it's not explicit.
Obligatory disclaimer: I dislike both parties. I did not vote the presidential ticket at all because I also disliked the third party options. If I was in a swing state, I would have voted HRC, despite not supporting many parts of the DNC platform, because I don't think a corrupt (as proven in multiple courts of law), middling to bad businessman and sexual predator reality TV star with no relevant experience whatsoever is someone who makes sense to vote in as POTUS. Sadly, I was not surprised when many millions of Americans disagreed.
Anyway, I said in a post some time back that a Trump presidency would be a true stress test of the bounds of cognitive dissonance. This thread alone seems to prove they are just as vast as I surmised. Sol has it right. Trump can do no wrong. People who still support him now cannot allow themselves to feel any differently (or if they admit wrongdoing it has to be explained away by one tu quoque fallacy after another). It's sad that the America I love has been reduced to this, but I still believe that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. May I live long enough to see us finally get there...
PS - smug liberal elitism is absolutely a thing. I live in Silicon Valley, the capital of such behavior. But people on this board complaining about it shouldn't use that as an excuse for their voting patterns if they also want to claim objectivity in their decision-making.
Im not sure you understand tu quoque fallacy. It's not a fallacy to compare and contrast individuals' flaws when you are picking between two(or more) terrible people. Also, the tu quoque fallacy is the only argument the vast majority of anti trump people use. There's plenty to criticize for trump's actual policies and actions in office, but it's too emotionally satisfying to most anti trumpers to just harp on the fact that he is an orange headed conartist who is an idiot savant when it comes to marketing. So they just keep ranting like irate monkeys, ignoring the fact that the alternative to trump was Hillary freaking Clinton, so arguments from people who voted for Hillary Clinton about how terrible trump is just aren't going to be persuasive.
-
As someone who voted for Trump in the recent election, I thought this post had great potential. I read a few sincere responses by cliffhanger & FINate on the 1st page, and then the messages just went downhill quickly. Its honestly disappointing that people just can't keep it together, even on a forum on the internet which is sad. If the topic of politics ever comes up in person, chances are that the people are liberal given that I live in Chicago. I approach these conversations with the goal of understanding their perspective, learning about a new topic, and finding commonalities. Most of the time, our viewpoints are actually more similar than different. The only times these conversations become annoying is if there is a know-it-all from either side of the aisle present who feels the need to talk over everyone to 'educate' them, regurgitate talking points and try change people's opinions. Anyway, to answer a few of the OPs questions:
- I didn't vote "republican." I don't consider myself a member of either party. I just voted for a candidate who had some ideas I agreed with and others that I don't.
- I work as a CPA and am okay with the tax plan although I think it could be simplified further.
- Trump/Russia - In my viewpoint, the USA has influenced more elections abroad than any other country. So I'm not exactly surprised that another country tried to influence ours. Any news that have come from this have not changed my viewpoints one way or another.
- lack of decorum - This is a difficult one to answer since I don't know Trump in person. I do know that he knows how to get under the skin of his opponents and label them with words or phrases that stick, and uses unconventional techniques in doing so.
- women's rights - I think women are going to come out more powerful during Trump's term. I'm glad that Hollywood is finally cleaning house of some of the men who took advantage of their power and I hope they continue to do so.
-
I did spend 3 years in Ohio while Kasich was governor. I have never had anyone admit a Trump primary vote to me who wasn't also an Ohio resident under him.
I don't have a list of my Republican friends primary votes... However, there's a couple common themes:
- They still love Trump despite everything
- The only ones that admitted any kind of positive feeling towards Kasich were not ones from Ohio.
To add my own opinion, while Kasich is doing a reasonable job in office, I see him as the worst case scenario career politician. I see no evidence that he cares at all about doing the right thing. Everything he does appears to be carefully staged to gain power no matter who it hurts. So far the results have been acceptable, but I don't know that it would continue. I can trust Trump to be Trump. I can't trust Kasich at all, I'm not sure there's a real person in there.
Note, I did not vote for either at any time...
-
As someone who voted for Trump in the recent election, I thought this post had great potential.
The responses answering the OP's original question are not surprising at all to me, as I mentioned upthread.
What IS surprising is the NUMBER of responses, given that so far the actual number of Trump voters that said they do regret doing so is a resounding ZERO. Why wasn't this post met with zero reply's, except for maybe the few that did admit some of the things on the list they were not all that happy about, but it would not change their vote?
Given there are so few Trump voters that want to change their mind, I found boogabooga's reply very helpful. Voted Trump. Gave no reasons to regret his decision so far and listed several reasons his/her vote was the right one.
-
What IS surprising is the NUMBER of responses, given that so far the actual number of Trump voters that said they do regret doing so is a resounding ZERO.
I don't find it surprising it all.
Trump effectively alienated all but the most die-hard republicans. Moderates fled. There is approximately 30% of the country that lives and breathes Fox News and Breitbart, and they will continue to vote for Trump long after he's ineligible to run for office anymore.
As we've previously discussed, Trump failed to grow the tent in the 2016 election at all. He got the same number of votes that Romney and McCain both got, yet he won when they lost because the democratic voter turnout was so heavily suppressed (apparently by Russian conspiracy theories spread on social media?). Trump's great victory was not in uniting the electorate, it was in holding on to evangelicals (and also white supremacists, apparently) while effectively casting aspersions about his opponent. Basically, Hillary lost that election more than Trump won it.
And in that context, the die-hard minority that still voted for him should probably be expected to respond with "America, Fuck Yea" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1mlCPMYtPk) when asked if they regret their vote. They will never regret their vote! Some of them are wishing he would be even more bigoted and destructive to American ideals than he has been so far.
-
The last time I voted Republican for President was in 1992, and yes, I regretted it.
I should have voted Libertarian. Or maybe for Ross Perot.
I've voted Libertarian every time since, except for 2008, when I cast a "screw you, John McCain" spite vote for Obama. Yeah, I know, that wasn't a great move, but the Libertarian candidate that year was a warmonger like McCain (and, as it turns out, Obama), so I didn't want to vote for him.
I couldn't vote for an awful candidate like Trump. Or Hillary.
It still seems hard to believe that both major parties managed to pick absolutely horrific candidates in the same year. The two worst major party candidates in the past 100+ years, and they both run in the same year?
-
The act was written at the behest of supporters of Israel in the U.S. who felt it was time, after decades, to recognize the accurate capital of an ally.
I am beginning to think that it is time, after decades of Israel exercising the prerogatives of statehood over the West Bank and Gaza - enforcing (military) law, controlling the borders for people and goods, and determining land ownership rights - to recognise the accuracy of the single State solution. One without an apartheid regime, obviously.
-
As someone who voted for Trump in the recent election, I thought this post had great potential.
The responses answering the OP's original question are not surprising at all to me, as I mentioned upthread.
What IS surprising is the NUMBER of responses, given that so far the actual number of Trump voters that said they do regret doing so is a resounding ZERO. Why wasn't this post met with zero reply's, except for maybe the few that did admit some of the things on the list they were not all that happy about, but it would not change their vote?
Given there are so few Trump voters that want to change their mind, I found boogabooga's reply very helpful. Voted Trump. Gave no reasons to regret his decision so far and listed several reasons his/her vote was the right one.
Well, I did mention my father. He would fit the OP's criteria. Trump supporter and voter. Now wants to see Trump impeached.
-
Well, I did mention my father. He would fit the OP's criteria. Trump supporter and voter. Now wants to see Trump impeached.
Point well taken. There have been a couple people who knew somebody, but still not one poster on this forum who want their vote back.
-
Wading into the disclaimer it has not been proven Trump is racist/bigoted/discrimminatory, apparently the black reporter and the gay reporter from the WH press corps were not invited to the White House Christmas party, apparently singled out. https://www.snopes.com/2017/12/10/black-lgbt-reporters-wh-christmas-party/
And while it is unproven that minority children were not invited to the White House Easter egg roll, it is true that the White House said that "tickets were given to all the schools in the area" but no tickets were given to the three districts closest to the White house (D.C., Arlington and Alexandria). These are racially diverse districts previously invited to WH Easter egg hunts.
https://www.snopes.com/white-easter-egg-roll/
Curious. Any Trump supporters here who are not white and male?
Also curious. Are any Trump supporter concerned with the fact that Trump lies all the time? And I'm not talking about political shading type lies. Doesn't that make him at the very least, untrustworthy? Unfit? Or that his Twitter feed is dominated by bots, a large number of those being Russian bots?
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-twitter-army-228923
I guess I have never gotten a coherent answer why Trump supporters are unconcerned, really, not even that curious why Russia undermined Hillary and pushed Trump, of all possible candidates. Russia is a foreign country who is NOT an ally. The reason why the US has previously tried to influence elections, is to further our own agenda over that other countries interest, and/or destabilize, make that country weaker. I would think that would concern any Trump voter, that Russia believes that Trump being president furthers their agenda over ours and makes our country weaker.
-
If they really want it over, do the two state solution. Let Palestine be it's own thing. Israel should get their settlements out of there. Make Jerusalem an international city. If fighting continues after that, then I will STFU.
Every. Single. Time. This has been on the table and not only did the Palestinians reject it they initiated open conflict against the Israelis. It's literally how the conflict started. Israel is open to the idea of the above and if you look at how they actually govern this is how it works in all but name.
"But it matters for that one starfish..." But that's just it. Talking points aren't a rational discussion meant to inform about a topic or have a different point of view. They come from both sides and half the time they're political nonsense. They're just small quips with no information to get people who have no deeper interest in a topic to agree. Platitudes that don't really have any room for nuance or information. It's a snip to get people angry and on your side. Don't be so surprised if you're dismissed after throwing a talking point at someone who doesn't agree with you and might know a little about your topic.
*smacks head against wall* Yes, coming to the table to declare Trump's decision to move the embassy as the end of rational foreign policy and the breakdown of America as a world leader was definitely not a talking point. There is nothing I can argue to a liberal that disagrees with their worldview that doesn't get me dismissed. That was my whole point, thank you for proving it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
You cannot reason with the unreasonable. You just do the right thing and you deal with what happens.
Does this count as Godwin's Law?
Technical violation perhaps. In the context of making concessions to foreign powers in the interest of peace, particularly foreign powers intent on wiping out the Jews, I don't think the sentiment of the Godwin's Law observation is as relevant here as you might like. What I would like, for my own ability to come up with a cogent argument for appeasement, is an example of where it worked. Like for instance, if the U.S. refusing to recognize Israel's capital had led to a sustained peace for Israel, the U.S., or the region in general. Oh wait. There isn't one. The experiment has been tried a dozen times now all over the world and it has always led to open conflict.
It makes sense to lowkey not acknowledge Taiwan as an independent state, no need to antagonize the Chinese, and not antagonizing the Chinese has a benefit. The residents of the region are still trying to convince each other that unification with China is good or that, alternatively, independence is good. Peacefully. When the unification talks break down, neighbors don't go home and plot to exterminate each other. They don't sponsor state terrorism against us or our allies. It makes sense not to antagonize the North Koreans, they're chillin' brutalizing their own people in a horrific regime of death, agony, and hopelessness, but I understand the willingness to say "not my monkey, not my circus."
In the context of U.S. state department official diplomatic actions, there is no reason not to recognize Jerusalem, failing to recognize it bought us nothing. It made no difference. It was a hollow gesture, without meaning. Our leadership on the issue is likely why lots of other nations did the same, it is not that we did it made us leaders, us being leaders is why everyone else did it.
Recruiting tool for Al Qaeda? Really? We destroyed two nations, leading to apocalyptic conditions that killed millions, devastation so bad that the word decimate definitionally is inadequate, and sat by and watched as the whole region descended into chaos. It's been open recruitment for awhile. How about that's a bullshit reason not to do the right thing.
You've had your opportunity to explain why not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a terrible idea, and that's all you've come up with. People who already hate us will still hate us, Palestinians who refuse to negotiate (we don't even know what they want because they won't propose anything, choosing instead to reject any proposal as offensive, leave the table, and start killing Israelis in open, armed, conflict), and worries over the safety of our personnel, which is the only one I'd accept, if we didn't already have a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem that'll be a shit-sight more safe with a full embassy contingent on hand for emergencies. Oh, and also, you can't explain it because I clearly should just know, because it's that obvious.
For your own edification, go look at what places in the world the state department has lost the most people, where our embassies have been taken out by hostile forces. Since 1979 there have been 24 attacks that I know of conducted by/carried out by the type of person likely to be offended by us moving our embassy to Jerusalem. 22 of those since Congress passed the act to move the embassy, the first since that passage (which probably should have stirred up some trouble all on its own if it was going to, yes?) the first was 1998. The only place in that part of the world where our personnel have been safe is Israel, because it's the only place in that part of the world where the authorities respect the value of a non-muslim life.
The national security argument is a bullshit one. It was fine in 1995, but it clearly hasn't made a damn bit of difference, except to be a slap in the face to the only ally over there who isn't secretly hoping we fail as a nation/outright calling for our extermination in a rain of fire and death.
And what drives me crazy, what drives me absolutely batshit crazy, is that ignorant liberals with no concept of the context and depth and history of the struggle in the middle east, who think the beauty pageant answer of "peace in the middle east" is just that, who see the nation of Israel as powerful and the Palestinians as weak and therefore Israel must have done something wrong, who have probably hundreds of things they could focus on with what Trump is doing wrong, instead choose to say that not only is he out of his depth on foreign policy, but that this somehow marks the end of...
Of course he's an idiot. Of course he did this, and I shit you not I wouldn't be surprised at all if he did this: because six months ago they asked him to sign the waiver, he recognized it coming across his desk again, and said, "what do I have to do to not sign this waiver every 6 months, I came here to golf not sign shit twice a year", and so they're moving the fucking embassy.
That's what the criticism should be about. He clearly has no fucking clue what he's doing. Doesn't make moving the embassy a bad idea though. I say we recognize Israel as the leader of the Arab League the next time jihadi's blow shit up. Just keep upgrading our offensive rhetoric. You kill a bunch of comics? We put an image of your prophet giving Jesus a handy on our currency. You decapitate an american journalist, we air drop translations of the quran that your people can actually read all over the countryside. You go on TV and call for the extermination of the West, we announce we found your prophet's body and he had an inter-cranial infection of parasites, entire religion is actually a hallucination, also, was a hermaphrodite, technically female in terms of chromosomes. You'll note I say your prophet, I actually didn't use the name, because I didn't want some fucked-up crazy person to murder people because I posted something offensive on the internet.
Passive Aggressive is a foreign policy strategy I can get behind. It's cheap and effective.
-
It's literally how the conflict started.
Actually the conflict started with the West collectively decided to salve its conscience after WW2 by taking a bit of land in the middle east that had been occupied for centuries by another society and give it to the Jewish people.
You can argue till the cows come home that it was either the right or wrong thing to do and whether or not anything can be done about that monumentally stupid and self serving conquest now but there wasn't a conflict between the Palestinians and Jews before that.
-
If they really want it over, do the two state solution. Let Palestine be it's own thing. Israel should get their settlements out of there. Make Jerusalem an international city. If fighting continues after that, then I will STFU.
Every. Single. Time. This has been on the table and not only did the Palestinians reject it they initiated open conflict against the Israelis. It's literally how the conflict started. Israel is open to the idea of the above and if you look at how they actually govern this is how it works in all but name.
Really? It's tit for tat. Chicken or egg. Don't give me some bullshit that Israel's all skittles and beer while the Arabs did everything. You can't just plant some people in a place that's already occupied and expect everyone to like it. What could go wrong?
And what drives me crazy, what drives me absolutely batshit crazy, is that ignorant liberals with no concept of the context and depth and history of the struggle in the middle east, who think the beauty pageant answer of "peace in the middle east" is just that, who see the nation of Israel as powerful and the Palestinians as weak and therefore Israel must have done something wrong, who have probably hundreds of things they could focus on with what Trump is doing wrong, instead choose to say that not only is he out of his depth on foreign policy, but that this somehow marks the end of...
Barf. Nobody said that. I think that if the US stopped supporting Israel and say we moved our embassy out of there altogether, Israel wouldn't exist. But that's just this one ignorant liberal's opinion.
That's what the criticism should be about. He clearly has no fucking clue what he's doing.
Passive Aggressive is a foreign policy strategy I can get behind. It's cheap and effective.
I thought that was what all of theseliberals were talking about for the last two years. So you say he's an idiot, complete fucking moron even, but somehow his foreign policy is something you can get behind. You sir, are an enigma.
I stand by my prediction about this embassy move. I read somewhere that it will take two years to either plan out or build. We'll see what happens with Mueller so maybe by then somebody with some common sense will be in charge.
-
It's literally how the conflict started.
Actually the conflict started with the West collectively decided to salve its conscience after WW2 by taking a bit of land in the middle east that had been occupied for centuries by another society and give it to the Jewish people.
You can argue till the cows come home that it was either the right or wrong thing to do and whether or not anything can be done about that monumentally stupid and self serving conquest now but there wasn't a conflict between the Palestinians and Jews before that.
Well... actually there was some conflict starting in like the 1880s apparently. Those were the easy days.
-
This is hilarious. If Hillary was our president she would be making the rounds of the Middle East and whoever else would "celebrate" or whatever else she calls giving her money. After the Clinton Foundation had several tens of billions of dollars and she had completely sold out the USA, we would all be happy that a woman finally was president? Give me a break.
I wish I could make the same disparaging remarks about our last president, maybe call him horrible names and refer to his skin color, but then I would be racist. Great how that works for the left.
Get ready for 3 more years of winning soy-cucks. And have fun in California with your taxes!!!
[MOD NOTE: I have no idea what a "soy-cuck" is, but we're really done with Pick-up Artist lingo around here.]
-
This is hilarious. If Hillary was our president she would be making the rounds of the Middle East and whoever else would "celebrate" or whatever else she calls giving her money. After the Clinton Foundation had several tens of billions of dollars and she had completely sold out the USA, we would all be happy that a woman finally was president? Give me a break.
I wish I could make the same disparaging remarks about our last president, maybe call him horrible names and refer to his skin color, but then I would be racist. Great how that works for the left.
Get ready for 3 more years of winning soy-cucks. And have fun in California with your taxes!!!
So basically your answer is "what about Clinton...." Pretty terrible troll job.
-
It's literally how the conflict started.
Actually the conflict started with the West collectively decided to salve its conscience after WW2 by taking a bit of land in the middle east that had been occupied for centuries by another society and give it to the Jewish people.
You can argue till the cows come home that it was either the right or wrong thing to do and whether or not anything can be done about that monumentally stupid and self serving conquest now but there wasn't a conflict between the Palestinians and Jews before that.
Like much in this thread, this is factually incorrect. Unfortunately I do not have the time to educate you beyond this post, so I ask respectfully that you try to educate yourself before offering your opinion as fact.
The Balfour declaration was before WWII. So was the San Remo conference, so were all the times Arabs in the area decided it was a good time to kill Jews (1929, etc.) The reason people think the conflict is newer is because in the 60s some Arabs decided to start calling themselves Palestinians in hope of create an identity that they previously shunned (under British rule, almost only Jews referred to themselves as citizens of Palestine, see for example the previous name of the Jerusalem post; Arabs believed the land belonged to one of the Arab countries in the area, or a combination thereof).
In fact, the whole "Israel is a result of guilty conscience" argument falls flat on its face because the Brits were most antagonistic towards Jewish emigration to Israel before, during, and after the Holocaust. The Holocaust might have made it easier for foreign powers to understand why Jews need their own homeland, but it did not create Israel, nor Zionism's idea of a modern state of Israel.
Your comment also blatantly ignores that most of the coastal plains were purchased by Jews by the time the WW2 was over, not to mention all the land purchased since then - land was not taken and given by Western powers.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
Why would you vote for Kasich? He obviously had no chance of winning. He was running 4th in a 3 man race.
By Super Tuesday, your options were Trump or Cruz. Rubio was probably not going to win Florida, meaning he wasn't going to win anywhere else.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
You cannot reason with the unreasonable. You just do the right thing and you deal with what happens.
Does this count as Godwin's Law?
Technical violation perhaps. In the context of making concessions to foreign powers in the interest of peace, particularly foreign powers intent on wiping out the Jews, I don't think the sentiment of the Godwin's Law observation is as relevant here as you might like. What I would like, for my own ability to come up with a cogent argument for appeasement, is an example of where it worked. Like for instance, if the U.S. refusing to recognize Israel's capital had led to a sustained peace for Israel, the U.S., or the region in general. Oh wait. There isn't one. The experiment has been tried a dozen times now all over the world and it has always led to open conflict.
It makes sense to lowkey not acknowledge Taiwan as an independent state, no need to antagonize the Chinese, and not antagonizing the Chinese has a benefit. The residents of the region are still trying to convince each other that unification with China is good or that, alternatively, independence is good. Peacefully. When the unification talks break down, neighbors don't go home and plot to exterminate each other. They don't sponsor state terrorism against us or our allies. It makes sense not to antagonize the North Koreans, they're chillin' brutalizing their own people in a horrific regime of death, agony, and hopelessness, but I understand the willingness to say "not my monkey, not my circus."
In the context of U.S. state department official diplomatic actions, there is no reason not to recognize Jerusalem, failing to recognize it bought us nothing. It made no difference. It was a hollow gesture, without meaning. Our leadership on the issue is likely why lots of other nations did the same, it is not that we did it made us leaders, us being leaders is why everyone else did it.
Recruiting tool for Al Qaeda? Really? We destroyed two nations, leading to apocalyptic conditions that killed millions, devastation so bad that the word decimate definitionally is inadequate, and sat by and watched as the whole region descended into chaos. It's been open recruitment for awhile. How about that's a bullshit reason not to do the right thing.
You've had your opportunity to explain why not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a terrible idea, and that's all you've come up with. People who already hate us will still hate us, Palestinians who refuse to negotiate (we don't even know what they want because they won't propose anything, choosing instead to reject any proposal as offensive, leave the table, and start killing Israelis in open, armed, conflict), and worries over the safety of our personnel, which is the only one I'd accept, if we didn't already have a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem that'll be a shit-sight more safe with a full embassy contingent on hand for emergencies. Oh, and also, you can't explain it because I clearly should just know, because it's that obvious.
For your own edification, go look at what places in the world the state department has lost the most people, where our embassies have been taken out by hostile forces. Since 1979 there have been 24 attacks that I know of conducted by/carried out by the type of person likely to be offended by us moving our embassy to Jerusalem. 22 of those since Congress passed the act to move the embassy, the first since that passage (which probably should have stirred up some trouble all on its own if it was going to, yes?) the first was 1998. The only place in that part of the world where our personnel have been safe is Israel, because it's the only place in that part of the world where the authorities respect the value of a non-muslim life.
The national security argument is a bullshit one. It was fine in 1995, but it clearly hasn't made a damn bit of difference, except to be a slap in the face to the only ally over there who isn't secretly hoping we fail as a nation/outright calling for our extermination in a rain of fire and death.
And what drives me crazy, what drives me absolutely batshit crazy, is that ignorant liberals with no concept of the context and depth and history of the struggle in the middle east, who think the beauty pageant answer of "peace in the middle east" is just that, who see the nation of Israel as powerful and the Palestinians as weak and therefore Israel must have done something wrong, who have probably hundreds of things they could focus on with what Trump is doing wrong, instead choose to say that not only is he out of his depth on foreign policy, but that this somehow marks the end of...
Of course he's an idiot. Of course he did this, and I shit you not I wouldn't be surprised at all if he did this: because six months ago they asked him to sign the waiver, he recognized it coming across his desk again, and said, "what do I have to do to not sign this waiver every 6 months, I came here to golf not sign shit twice a year", and so they're moving the fucking embassy.
That's what the criticism should be about. He clearly has no fucking clue what he's doing. Doesn't make moving the embassy a bad idea though. I say we recognize Israel as the leader of the Arab League the next time jihadi's blow shit up. Just keep upgrading our offensive rhetoric. You kill a bunch of comics? We put an image of your prophet giving Jesus a handy on our currency. You decapitate an american journalist, we air drop translations of the quran that your people can actually read all over the countryside. You go on TV and call for the extermination of the West, we announce we found your prophet's body and he had an inter-cranial infection of parasites, entire religion is actually a hallucination, also, was a hermaphrodite, technically female in terms of chromosomes. You'll note I say your prophet, I actually didn't use the name, because I didn't want some fucked-up crazy person to murder people because I posted something offensive on the internet.
Passive Aggressive is a foreign policy strategy I can get behind. It's cheap and effective.
So basically, you are saying that you don't believe in the entire concept of international relations or diplomacy. OOKay. I'm sure you know so much more about this than diplomats, military leaders, and power brokers dealing with people in these countries all these decades. If you want to create an us vs them situation, sure that's easy to do. If you want to have these other countries to buy into controlling and guiding their own people away from violent acts, you have given them no, actually negative motivation to do so. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, and it sure seems like you have little to no regard for innocents who are casualties on either side.
-
It's literally how the conflict started.
Actually the conflict started with the West collectively decided to salve its conscience after WW2 by taking a bit of land in the middle east that had been occupied for centuries by another society and give it to the Jewish people.
You can argue till the cows come home that it was either the right or wrong thing to do and whether or not anything can be done about that monumentally stupid and self serving conquest now but there wasn't a conflict between the Palestinians and Jews before that.
Like much in this thread, this is factually incorrect. Unfortunately I do not have the time to educate you beyond this post, so I ask respectfully that you try to educate yourself before offering your opinion as fact.
The Balfour declaration was before WWII. So was the San Remo conference, so were all the times Arabs in the area decided it was a good time to kill Jews (1929, etc.) The reason people think the conflict is newer is because in the 60s some Arabs decided to start calling themselves Palestinians in hope of create an identity that they previously shunned (under British rule, almost only Jews referred to themselves as citizens of Palestine, see for example the previous name of the Jerusalem post; Arabs believed the land belonged to one of the Arab countries in the area, or a combination thereof).
In fact, the whole "Israel is a result of guilty conscience" argument falls flat on its face because the Brits were most antagonistic towards Jewish emigration to Israel before, during, and after the Holocaust. The Holocaust might have made it easier for foreign powers to understand why Jews need their own homeland, but it did not create Israel, nor Zionism's idea of a modern state of Israel.
Your comment also blatantly ignores that most of the coastal plains were purchased by Jews by the time the WW2 was over, not to mention all the land purchased since then - land was not taken and given by Western powers.
Thank you! We all have a responsibility to go look into the history ourselves, not just believe whatever narrative of convenience is being put forward by agendas with a vested interest.
-
Like much in this thread, this is factually incorrect. Unfortunately I do not have the time to educate you beyond this post, so I ask respectfully that you try to educate yourself before offering your opinion as fact.
The Balfour declaration was before WWII. So was the San Remo conference, so were all the times Arabs in the area decided it was a good time to kill Jews (1929, etc.) The reason people think the conflict is newer is because in the 60s some Arabs decided to start calling themselves Palestinians in hope of create an identity that they previously shunned (under British rule, almost only Jews referred to themselves as citizens of Palestine, see for example the previous name of the Jerusalem post; Arabs believed the land belonged to one of the Arab countries in the area, or a combination thereof).
In fact, the whole "Israel is a result of guilty conscience" argument falls flat on its face because the Brits were most antagonistic towards Jewish emigration to Israel before, during, and after the Holocaust. The Holocaust might have made it easier for foreign powers to understand why Jews need their own homeland, but it did not create Israel, nor Zionism's idea of a modern state of Israel.
Your comment also blatantly ignores that most of the coastal plains were purchased by Jews by the time the WW2 was over, not to mention all the land purchased since then - land was not taken and given by Western powers.
I heard almost this exact same argument from a friend of mine. He loves to explain, to anyone who will listen, how the history of the Jews is more complicated than most people realize. He also loves to explain how the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and Hitler was a great leader in a terrible time, one who unified a struggling and oppressed people in defense of their besieged culture. His interpretation of "complicated history" is primarily an effort to undermine the "good vs evil" narrative that most people hold about WWII, as a way of apologizing for Naziism. Unsurprisingly, he's a huge Trump supporter.
So while I appreciate your efforts to inject a little history into this discussion, I think you need to be careful about how the thematic thrust of your argument will be perceived, and about what company you keep in advancing those arguments.
-
History is pretty complicated, but most eras in history would've been appalled by the Holocaust, and I don't think anyone past early antiquity, not even the Mongols, would've drawn up plans to kill or displace 100+ million Slavs.
-
History is pretty complicated, but most eras in history would've been appalled by the Holocaust, and I don't think anyone past early antiquity, not even the Mongols, would've drawn up plans to kill or displace 100+ million Slavs.
I suspect that the will was there in the past. People have always done pretty horrific stuff to one another. WWII was a special coming together of will, large minority population, and technological advances that allowed it to take place the way it did.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
Why would you vote for Kasich? He obviously had no chance of winning. He was running 4th in a 3 man race.
By Super Tuesday, your options were Trump or Cruz. Rubio was probably not going to win Florida, meaning he wasn't going to win anywhere else.
This is a legitimate question, and I feel I have to answer for my Kasich vote (in the GOP primary). I had a lot of discussions with other conservative friends, and I concluded that--in the primary--it was the duty of a primary voter to indicate which available candidate was the best choice for the office. No strategy, no assuming there'd be a certain matchup in the general election, just ranking the (GOP) choices and indicating the best one.
-
I am new to this thread, but I would love to hear from Trump *Primary* voters as well. I'm assuming everyone here so far was merely comparing him to Sec. Clinton. But I would really like to hear from people who were comparing him to guys like John Kasich.
If it's helpful, both of my Trump-voting relatives voted for him in the primary, for the same reasons that they voted for him in the general election (albeit with less #Killary). One was maybe more into the fact that he would run America more "like a business," relative to the establishment candidates. Both wanted someone who would shake things up and MAGA. One has been a steady, party-line Republican voter; one skews libertarian and often votes third-party in the general election.
-
Like much in this thread, this is factually incorrect. Unfortunately I do not have the time to educate you beyond this post, so I ask respectfully that you try to educate yourself before offering your opinion as fact.
The Balfour declaration was before WWII. So was the San Remo conference, so were all the times Arabs in the area decided it was a good time to kill Jews (1929, etc.) The reason people think the conflict is newer is because in the 60s some Arabs decided to start calling themselves Palestinians in hope of create an identity that they previously shunned (under British rule, almost only Jews referred to themselves as citizens of Palestine, see for example the previous name of the Jerusalem post; Arabs believed the land belonged to one of the Arab countries in the area, or a combination thereof).
Oh, I thought we were talking about a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Since there was no Israel for at least a few centuries, I also figured we were talking about the modern state of Israel. It seemed to me that this was the case because the comment was made by TheOldestYoungMan that the rejection of the two-state solution by the Palestinians was "literally how the conflict started." You know, that solution that was only formulated and proposed after the formation of the modern state of Israel and in response to the modern conflict between the Palestinians and the state of Israel.
Now I guess he must have been talking about that other two state solution that was talked about before the modern state of Israel was even formed.
I do admit though, that Arabs and Jewish people have been at each others throats for centuries, so yes you are correct. I'd argue it's not quite as clear cut how that animosity and conflict began as you and TheOldestYoungMan may like to believe and that laying the entirety of the blame at the feet of the Arab peoples is probably a bit simplistic no matter how comforting it may be.
In fact, the whole "Israel is a result of guilty conscience" argument falls flat on its face because the Brits were most antagonistic towards Jewish emigration to Israel before, during, and after the Holocaust. The Holocaust might have made it easier for foreign powers to understand why Jews need their own homeland, but it did not create Israel, nor Zionism's idea of a modern state of Israel.
No western nation of any significance was supportive of creating a Jewish homeland prior to the Holocaust. Many were after the Holocaust. I know correlation does not equal causation but it's a heck of a correlation.
Your comment also blatantly ignores that most of the coastal plains were purchased by Jews by the time the WW2 was over, not to mention all the land purchased since then - land was not taken and given by Western powers.
Purchasing land within a geographical area currently occupied does mean you now have your own nation state. I own my own house and land but I don't get to be king of my own nation because of that.
-
So basically, you are saying that you don't believe in the entire concept of international relations or diplomacy. OOKay. I'm sure you know so much more about this than diplomats, military leaders, and power brokers dealing with people in these countries all these decades. If you want to create an us vs them situation, sure that's easy to do. If you want to have these other countries to buy into controlling and guiding their own people away from violent acts, you have given them no, actually negative motivation to do so. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, and it sure seems like you have little to no regard for innocents who are casualties on either side.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is a huge difference between complying with a reasonable request of someone, or even with their demand, if you get something for it, and continuing to do so long after it has been demonstrated that you get nothing for it. Even if all you get is an intangible such as the oft-cited "goodwill" of other nations. And the precedent of using embassy locations as part of ongoing dialogues is well established by this point, as I mentioned, we do it elsewhere and it works, there isn't open violence, and the parties at least pretend to talk, even if no progress is ever made.
But when the other side of the negotiating table puts a gun to your head, and demands you do something or they'll pull the trigger, and you go ahead and do it, because you don't want them to pull the trigger...and then they pull the trigger anyway, at what point does the reasonable man stop believing that giving in to their demands will yield positive results?
The other side of the table is not negotiating in good faith. It is not OK that the announcement of the U.S. moving an embassy would cause violence in the middle east. It is also not our fault or our problem. The people who choose violence are at fault. We don't need to give them motivation to not choose violence, but I reject your premise that we haven't. Given every opportunity to pursue solutions through peaceful means, talking, diplomacy, negotiations, they have instead chose violence. Regardless of where our embassy is.
The objection here is rooted in partisan politics, Trump hatred, and a resistance to a perceived status quo that never existed. The idea that our doing this caused something over there to happen...if it hadn't been this it would have been something else. So today they got to blow some people up because we announced we were moving the embassy, such a shame, they would have had to blow people up because it was Monday otherwise.
It's a false correlation. Do not believe the narrative that some innocuous action of the west, some mundane feature of living our lives as we best see fit, is sufficient justification for horrific violence. That is patently absurd. Only in the context of a worldview that sees the west as evil incarnate is that OK.
The seductiveness of a viable solution involving Jerusalem, a united, independent, Jerusalem as an international city is potent. But it is incompatible with fundamental tenants of Islamic ideology, and it is incompatible with the pathology of the peoples there who refuse to value their neighbors as human because of their religion. The idea is born of fiction, laid on a foundation of selective history, where the strong are always wrong and Bad Things Only Happen to Bad People.
As to me knowing more than all these experts, of course I don't know more than them, but I can look at the state of the Middle East right now and see the most stable part of it is Israel, probably Saudi Arabia too. Normalized relations with us is apparently good for you. Kuwait seems like a pretty decent place to live, having decided to not try and kill us and just sell us oil. It isn't that not choosing violence means we'll be nice to you and stop our negative mojo and you'll be a successful stable country, it's that if you're choosing violence everything is unstable and eventually turns to shit.
I can look at world leaders, who specifically cite not wanting to incite terrorist violence, and call them cowards and idiots besides. The terrorist violence has never needed a reason, and if they did, that ship sailed long ago. The sooner we stop trying to reason with people who left the negotiating table long ago, the better off we'll all be.
-
Like much in this thread, this is factually incorrect. Unfortunately I do not have the time to educate you beyond this post, so I ask respectfully that you try to educate yourself before offering your opinion as fact.
The Balfour declaration was before WWII.
I've taken your advice and educated myself. It has made your response a bit puzzling.
The text of the Balfour declaration:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
So . . . literally nothing was said about establishing a Jewish state that would aggressively annex it's neighbours.
So was the San Remo conference,
Text of Resolution (edited for just the relevant bits):
It was agreed –
(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procčs-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine
(b) The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
So again, there was no establishment of a Jewish state prior to WWII and European guilt.
so were all the times Arabs in the area decided it was a good time to kill Jews (1929, etc.)
I'm obviously not going to condone murdering people, which has happened on both sides in the Jewish-Arab conflicts over the years.
You're implying with your statement that this occurred without any cause though. A couple days before, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the western wall in Jerusalam shouting slogans like "The Wall Is Ours" and raising the Jewish flag. There were reports of Jewish youth attacking Arabs, cursing Mohammed, and rumours that they were planning to attack the al-Aqsa Mosque.
Your comment also blatantly ignores that most of the coastal plains were purchased by Jews by the time the WW2 was over, not to mention all the land purchased since then - land was not taken and given by Western powers.
As an American, would you be OK with a few Mexican people who were in the country legally buying some coastal property and then illegally inviting a few hundred thousand of their countrymen to come stay with them? Then continuing to invite more until they start to forcibly take land from the Americans who live there?
-
Oh, I thought we were talking about a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Since there was no Israel for at least a few centuries, I also figured we were talking about the modern state of Israel. It seemed to me that this was the case because the comment was made by TheOldestYoungMan that the rejection of the two-state solution by the Palestinians was "literally how the conflict started." You know, that solution that was only formulated and proposed after the formation of the modern state of Israel and in response to the modern conflict between the Palestinians and the state of Israel.
Now I guess he must have been talking about that other two state solution that was talked about before the modern state of Israel was even formed.
I do admit though, that Arabs and Jewish people have been at each others throats for centuries, so yes you are correct. I'd argue it's not quite as clear cut how that animosity and conflict began as you and TheOldestYoungMan may like to believe and that laying the entirety of the blame at the feet of the Arab peoples is probably a bit simplistic no matter how comforting it may be.
I cannot stress enough, you do not know what you are talking about.
Claim the first: the conflict between those people calling themselves Palestinians and those calling themselves Israelis started after the Holocaust, is somehow the result of nationbuilding in the post-ww2 era.
Why this is false: The best direct path to trace the violence has it starting due to resentment of the seeming betrayal of the arabs by the British, who instead of recognizing arab independence in the reason in return for them helping to defeat the Ottoman Empire in WW1, created Mandatory Palestine and had notions of creating a jewish homeland in the region.
Claim the second: the two state solution was proposed after the creation of modern Israel.
Why this is false: With some slight variation, the two state solution was the idea put forward as a compromise between the two nationalistic movements within Mandatory Palestine after the founding of the United Nations. Given that the U.N. charter insists on the rights of people to self-determination, it doesn't really make sense to have a one state solution, was the thinking. So a compromise was developed, where certain parts of the country would be Israel and others Palestine, and still others were to be Syria. I think. It was only after this proposal was presented to the U.N. and agreed to that open conflict started. The Palestinians and their Arab allies believed they could force a better deal, that the Jews were weak and could be removed from the area through force. They were wrong, they lost the war, the Jews soundly defeated them, and many Arabs fled. Israel was born, after the rejection of the two-state solution.
It is important to note, that at the negotiating table after the war, the Jews were still willing to accept a two-state solution, and ceded territories outside the proposed borders of the two-state solution to Palestinian/Syrian/Arab control. Because they are reasonable people and understand that a two-state solution could work, and likely nothing else would.
Claim the third: It is comforting to lay the blame at the feet of the Arabs, but that is too simplistic a view.
Why this is false: The Israelis have never left the negotiating table. It wasn't their idea to make a deal with the British in WW1. They never asked for special consideration prior to WW1 or tried to re-create a homeland in the area. After 1920, arabs in the area in response to British rule began harassing and oppressing jews in the area, because that's how their religion works. Jews responded not with violence, but by seeking the right of self-determination, as is reasonable of all thinking beings. It is only after 1936, when Arabs began violently attacking Jews, that the Jews began militarizing, for the first time, as far as I know, since antiquity.
Every solution that does not involve the Jews giving up their hard-won power, and stepping aside to turn complete control and autonomy of the entire region over to Palestinians, is met with the Palestinians leaving the table and initiating open, armed conflict. And they don't form a military and attack the Israeli government, they just start wholesale slaughtering anyone they can get their hands on, bombing restaurants and sending mortars into residential neighborhoods.
The Palestinians started a civil war, which they then lost, and that is the history of Modern Israel. The conflict is ongoing because the Jews will not eliminate the Palestinians. There are only two likely resolutions to the conflict: The Palestinians eventually overcome the IDF and kill every Jew in Israel, or the end of time arrives and we all go out with a tiny little whimper. The last Palestinians who actually lived in the areas they were displaced from during the civil war are dying of old age, but the conflict still has no end in sight. There will literally be generations of Arabs who think of themselves as living in exile because their supposed allies will not do the job of a friend, and tell them they've lost. They're the guy chasing the girl who got married to someone else fifty years ago. It stopped being healthy awhile ago, and it was never understandable.
Claim the fourth: Arabs and Jews have been at each others throats for centuries.
Why this is false: Arabs attack Jews, and sometimes, not always but sometimes, Jews defend themselves. It's a subtle but significant difference. I get the sentiment behind "I wish they would just get along" but it belies a consistent failure to pay attention. Sometimes when the kids fight its both of their fault. This isn't one of those times. It hasn't been for awhile.
I'm curious, do you recognize the Confederate States of America? They fought a civil war and lost, so no.
What about Scotland? An independent Scotland? Sure, if they vote and that's what they want.
Now what if the vote is close, and about 45% of the people want to stay, lets call them Brits. The vote happens, the Scots win, and the Brits go out that night and start murdering Scots. The Scots manage to fight them off, and push them out of town, and eventually the Brits give up after years of fighting.
Are you really saying the Brits in that situation deserve anything? And then the Scots go ahead and offer them half the country to live in, and they say no, fuck you, and start murdering scots again?
That's what this is. It was messy, sure, it would be wouldn't it? But when the dust clears the victim isn't necessarily the one in the dirt.
-
so were all the times Arabs in the area decided it was a good time to kill Jews (1929, etc.)
I'm obviously not going to condone murdering people, which has happened on both sides in the Jewish-Arab conflicts over the years.
You're implying with your statement that this occurred without any cause though. A couple days before, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the western wall in Jerusalam shouting slogans like "The Wall Is Ours" and raising the Jewish flag. There were reports of Jewish youth attacking Arabs, cursing Mohammed, and rumours that they were planning to attack the al-Aqsa Mosque.
Condone? Perhaps no. Rationalize? Shit yea. Acceptable response to protestors: burn their fields to the ground, murder their children in their beds. Got it. Note to self, don't protest near GuitarStv.
Your comment also blatantly ignores that most of the coastal plains were purchased by Jews by the time the WW2 was over, not to mention all the land purchased since then - land was not taken and given by Western powers.
As an American, would you be OK with a few Mexican people who were in the country legally buying some coastal property and then illegally inviting a few hundred thousand of their countrymen to come stay with them? Then continuing to invite more until they start to forcibly take land from the Americans who live there?
If a few Mexican people started launching rockets and mortars at El Paso because it used to be part of Mexico, I expect we would "aggressively annex" some territory as well. As it turns out, if someone starts a war and then loses, and in the course of that war they lose territory, the loss might be permanent. The terms of the end of the war might include territory concessions, or it might not. Open armed conflict moves borders. That's why you don't start killing neighbors in the street in a horrifying civil war when the other side is still talking. The restraint shown by Israel is impressive really. If Mexicans in Juarez did to Texas what the Palestinians do to Israel, the Southern border of the U.S. would cut across somewhere in Tabasco. Manifest Destiny.
As for the rest of your post, yes, that's what we're saying. The relentless quest to find the source of that conflict in interference from outside powers is fallacy. It wasn't a result of post WW2 western guilt, it wasn't a result of some zionist conspiracy. Jews and Arabs living in the region both wanted regional autonomy. The origin of the conflict, the actual origin, is when Arabs left the negotiating table because of one round not going in their favor, and initiated a civil war. Instead of continuing to negotiate and fight in a civilized way, to move forward to a solution they would find tolerable, they chose to just wipe out the infidels. And then lost. And won't get over it.
Israel has shown remarkable restraint, patience, and tolerance. We (Americans) would have annihilated the Palestinians. Assimilate or GTFO. We'd have set up little Palestinian reservations and ordained that they drink whiskey and get mediocre healthcare.
-
Arabs attack Jews, and sometimes, not always but sometimes, Jews defend themselves. It's a subtle but significant difference.
Torching Arab mosques: https://www.thejc.com/judaism/features/does-the-torah-back-burning-mosques-1.18965 (https://www.thejc.com/judaism/features/does-the-torah-back-burning-mosques-1.18965)
Mailbombing: https://www.jweekly.com/1995/06/16/jdl-member-gets-life-term-in-bombing/ (https://www.jweekly.com/1995/06/16/jdl-member-gets-life-term-in-bombing/)
Religious arguments for murder of anyone not Jewish: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2.209/the-king-s-torah-a-rabbinic-text-or-a-call-to-terror-1.261930 (https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2.209/the-king-s-torah-a-rabbinic-text-or-a-call-to-terror-1.261930)
Indiscriminate Murder: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/28/world/west-bank-massacre-before-killing-final-prayer-and-final-taunt.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/28/world/west-bank-massacre-before-killing-final-prayer-and-final-taunt.html?pagewanted=all)
Settlers attacking Palestinians and property, not for defense: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3725186,00.html (https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3725186,00.html)
"For more than a decade, the Jewish Defense League (JDL) has been one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States. [...] Since 1968, JDL operations have killed 7 persons and wounded at least 22. Thirty-nine percent of the targets were connected with the Soviet Union; 9 percent were Palestinian; 8 percent were Lebanese; 6 percent, Egyptian; 4 percent, French, Iranian, and Iraqi; 1 percent, Polish and German; and 23 percent were not connected with any states. Sixty-two percent of all JDL actions are directed against property; 30 percent against businesses; 4 percent against academics and academic institutions; and 2 percent against religious targets." - Department of Energy, Terrorism in the United States and the Potential Threat to Nuclear Facilities, R-3351-DOE, January 1986, pp. 11–16
That difference must be too subtle for me to see. Or maybe, just maybe . . . everyone involved is human. There are terrible things done on both sides of this conflict. Things that have been going on for years.
-
I cannot stress enough, you do not know what you are talking about.
Claim the first: the conflict between those people calling themselves Palestinians and those calling themselves Israelis started after the Holocaust, is somehow the result of nationbuilding in the post-ww2 era.
Why this is false: The best direct path to trace the violence has it starting due to resentment of the seeming betrayal of the arabs by the British, who instead of recognizing arab independence in the reason in return for them helping to defeat the Ottoman Empire in WW1, created Mandatory Palestine and had notions of creating a jewish homeland in the region.
Your opinion, much disputed.
Claim the second: the two state solution was proposed after the creation of modern Israel.
Why this is false: With some slight variation, the two state solution was the idea put forward as a compromise between the two nationalistic movements within Mandatory Palestine after the founding of the United Nations. Given that the U.N. charter insists on the rights of people to self-determination, it doesn't really make sense to have a one state solution, was the thinking. So a compromise was developed, where certain parts of the country would be Israel and others Palestine, and still others were to be Syria. I think. It was only after this proposal was presented to the U.N. and agreed to that open conflict started. The Palestinians and their Arab allies believed they could force a better deal, that the Jews were weak and could be removed from the area through force. They were wrong, they lost the war, the Jews soundly defeated them, and many Arabs fled. Israel was born, after the rejection of the two-state solution.
It is important to note, that at the negotiating table after the war, the Jews were still willing to accept a two-state solution, and ceded territories outside the proposed borders of the two-state solution to Palestinian/Syrian/Arab control. Because they are reasonable people and understand that a two-state solution could work, and likely nothing else would.
Ok, you got me there. There two state solution was proposed before the actual creation of the modern state of Israel but after the intention to create it was clear and the process had already begun. A technical difference but you are correct.
Claim the third: It is comforting to lay the blame at the feet of the Arabs, but that is too simplistic a view.
Why this is false: The Israelis have never left the negotiating table. It wasn't their idea to make a deal with the British in WW1. They never asked for special consideration prior to WW1 or tried to re-create a homeland in the area. After 1920, arabs in the area in response to British rule began harassing and oppressing jews in the area, because that's how their religion works. Jews responded not with violence, but by seeking the right of self-determination, as is reasonable of all thinking beings. It is only after 1936, when Arabs began violently attacking Jews, that the Jews began militarizing, for the first time, as far as I know, since antiquity.
Well this all depends on when you want to claim hostilities began.
I made the claim they began after the creation of the modern state of Israel and you deny that because there have been hostilities prior to that. How far back do you want to go? There's a whole book of stories about Jewish people killing every man, woman and child of their enemies at the behest of the God because "that's how their religion works".
Every solution that does not involve the Jews giving up their hard-won power, and stepping aside to turn complete control and autonomy of the entire region over to Palestinians, is met with the Palestinians leaving the table and initiating open, armed conflict. And they don't form a military and attack the Israeli government, they just start wholesale slaughtering anyone they can get their hands on, bombing restaurants and sending mortars into residential neighborhoods.
Funny how a people who have occupied a region for centuries want it back isn't it. Sure in a perfect world the conquered would simply slink away and leave the conquerors in peace to enjoy the spoils but it doesn't usually work that way.
The Palestinians started a civil war, which they then lost, and that is the history of Modern Israel. The conflict is ongoing because the Jews will not eliminate the Palestinians. There are only two likely resolutions to the conflict: The Palestinians eventually overcome the IDF and kill every Jew in Israel, or the end of time arrives and we all go out with a tiny little whimper. The last Palestinians who actually lived in the areas they were displaced from during the civil war are dying of old age, but the conflict still has no end in sight. There will literally be generations of Arabs who think of themselves as living in exile because their supposed allies will not do the job of a friend, and tell them they've lost. They're the guy chasing the girl who got married to someone else fifty years ago. It stopped being healthy awhile ago, and it was never understandable.
You can only have a civil war between members of the same nation state. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is not a civil war.
The Israelis had not occupied any part of Palestine as a nation state for centuries. They grabbed some land and decided it was theirs and have held on to it ever since. The Palestinians have been fighting to get rid of them ever since.
Claim the fourth: Arabs and Jews have been at each others throats for centuries.
Why this is false: Arabs attack Jews, and sometimes, not always but sometimes, Jews defend themselves. It's a subtle but significant difference. I get the sentiment behind "I wish they would just get along" but it belies a consistent failure to pay attention. Sometimes when the kids fight its both of their fault. This isn't one of those times. It hasn't been for awhile.
Remember that book I mentioned up above?
You seem desperate to believe the Jewish people have never raised a finger in anger or hate or oppression. It just aint so mate.
I'm curious, do you recognize the Confederate States of America? They fought a civil war and lost, so no.
Now that's a civil war and illustrates the point exactly. Just because you own land in a nation state doesn't mean you get to start your own little country there.
What about Scotland? An independent Scotland? Sure, if they vote and that's what they want.
Now what if the vote is close, and about 45% of the people want to stay, lets call them Brits. The vote happens, the Scots win, and the Brits go out that night and start murdering Scots. The Scots manage to fight them off, and push them out of town, and eventually the Brits give up after years of fighting.
Are you really saying the Brits in that situation deserve anything? And then the Scots go ahead and offer them half the country to live in, and they say no, fuck you, and start murdering scots again?
If Scotland votes to leave the UK then they should be allowed to leave. If a bunch of Brits don't want to they have the choice of moving to England. Again, that's a perfect illustration of what could possibly leave to a civil war.
That's what this is. It was messy, sure, it would be wouldn't it? But when the dust clears the victim isn't necessarily the one in the dirt.
No that isn't what this is. A better example is the British arriving in the Americas and telling the inhabitants there it is no longer their country.
You obviously believe might makes right. The Israelis decided to make their own country in Palestine. With the backing of the west they were able to do so and have been able to hold onto it ever since. it is not a civil war though. It is a war of conquest.
-
I'm curious, do you recognize the Confederate States of America? They fought a civil war and lost, so no.
Now that's a civil war and illustrates the point exactly. Just because you own land in a nation state doesn't mean you get to start your own little country there.
What about Scotland? An independent Scotland? Sure, if they vote and that's what they want.
Now what if the vote is close, and about 45% of the people want to stay, lets call them Brits. The vote happens, the Scots win, and the Brits go out that night and start murdering Scots. The Scots manage to fight them off, and push them out of town, and eventually the Brits give up after years of fighting.
Are you really saying the Brits in that situation deserve anything? And then the Scots go ahead and offer them half the country to live in, and they say no, fuck you, and start murdering scots again?
If Scotland votes to leave the UK then they should be allowed to leave. If a bunch of Brits don't want to they have the choice of moving to England. Again, that's a perfect illustration of what could possibly leave to a civil war.
That's what this is. It was messy, sure, it would be wouldn't it? But when the dust clears the victim isn't necessarily the one in the dirt.
No that isn't what this is. A better example is the British arriving in the Americas and telling the inhabitants there it is no longer their country.
You obviously believe might makes right. The Israelis decided to make their own country in Palestine. With the backing of the west they were able to do so and have been able to hold onto it ever since. it is not a civil war though. It is a war of conquest.
That's where your misconception is coming from. Prior to WW2, ~1/3 of the population of the region was Jewish. It is true that there was immigration of Jews, but it is also true that there was immigration of Arabs and Egyptians. Astonishingly few of the people there in 1947 can claim to be much more than second generation. You think there were no Jews in Israel at some point, that it was all the people who now call themselves Palestinians. That at some point the Jews left and then came back, but it isn't true. It is true that after the 1947 civil war which created the modern state of Israel, lots of Jewish people emigrated there, with another huge group arriving after the relaxed travel restrictions from the soviet union, which was 1989 ish or something, not going to look it up right now, but it absolutely was a civil war. It was a particularly brutal civil war, because unlike the U.S. civil war, where there were different regions separated by distance that mobilized and clashed, this was literal neighbors in conflict, your grocer might be the one to set your house on fire that night, sort of fight. And the Israeli's did not choose to instigate that civil war.
I don't believe that might makes right but I also don't believe that might makes wrong. The only thing the Israeli's could have done differently is roll over and die. There is no reason at all to assume that even if they gave up, surrendered to the Palestinians, turned over control to Arabs, that they would be allowed to live in peace. All evidence in historical fact, modern history, and current rhetoric from the Palestinians makes clear what Israeli's can expect, and it is entirely rational for them to defend themselves.
In any case, I genuinely believe it just comes from you being where I was a few years ago, largely ignorant of the history as you've admitted to, and believing that going back farther than the creation of the modern state isn't necessary for a proper analysis because "how far back do you go." There's a thousand year + gap between what happened in antiquity and restarting the violence, and no rational person accepts that a grudge like that is justification for a modern conflict. Forget about what your particular side is arguing, go look at each individual event, plot them on a timeline, be doubtful, you'll get here.
Thanks for arguing with me, I appreciate the opportunity.
-
Per Wiki, the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine at the end of WWI was 94,000, or about 1/7 of the population. They definitely had a pretty sizable/lasting presence by the time of the War of Independence, though it had definitely swelled due the 1930s immigration. But by the time of the war for independence, you're talking about a lot of people who are already there for almost 20 years or more.
-
Per Wiki, the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine at the end of WWI was 94,000, or about 1/7 of the population. They definitely had a pretty sizable/lasting presence by the time of the War of Independence, though it had definitely swelled due the 1930s immigration. But by the time of the war for independence, you're talking about a lot of people who are already there for almost 20 years or more.
1800 - 8%
1890 - 7.6%
1914 - 10.2%
1922 - 11%
1931 - 16.9%
1947 - 32%
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))
Maybe half of the Jewish people involved in the war for independence had been there for 20 years. There was a pretty substantial flood of both legal and illegal immigration of Jewish people to Palestine between 1931 and 1947, which was the cause of much of the unrest and uneasiness with the Arab population.
-
Per Wiki, the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine at the end of WWI was 94,000, or about 1/7 of the population. They definitely had a pretty sizable/lasting presence by the time of the War of Independence, though it had definitely swelled due the 1930s immigration. But by the time of the war for independence, you're talking about a lot of people who are already there for almost 20 years or more.
1800 - 8%
1890 - 7.6%
1914 - 10.2%
1922 - 11%
1931 - 16.9%
1947 - 32%
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))
Maybe half of the Jewish people involved in the war for independence had been there for 20 years. There was a pretty substantial flood of both legal and illegal immigration of Jewish people to Palestine between 1931 and 1947, which was the cause of much of the unrest and uneasiness with the Arab population.
Kind of reminds me of voters who agitate for a Big Beautiful Wall to prevent immigrants from coming in...
-
The presence of new Jews doesn't mean the Old Jews aren't there and don't deserve national self-determination. The Arabs made their attempt at stopping the partition plan, which was reasonable in its own logic, and it failed. If you try to resolve disputes by force and end up on the losing side, terms will almost always be less favorable than what you were offered in the first place.
There's nothing particularly unusual about Israel's policies or actions after independence. The only real exception is the not-at-all-discrete nuclear program. The Suez Crisis is pretty blatant aggression, but the UK and France were on board with it, so Israel's actions can't be said to be outside international norms of the time.
-
Per Wiki, the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine at the end of WWI was 94,000, or about 1/7 of the population. They definitely had a pretty sizable/lasting presence by the time of the War of Independence, though it had definitely swelled due the 1930s immigration. But by the time of the war for independence, you're talking about a lot of people who are already there for almost 20 years or more.
1800 - 8%
1890 - 7.6%
1914 - 10.2%
1922 - 11%
1931 - 16.9%
1947 - 32%
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))
Maybe half of the Jewish people involved in the war for independence had been there for 20 years. There was a pretty substantial flood of both legal and illegal immigration of Jewish people to Palestine between 1931 and 1947, which was the cause of much of the unrest and uneasiness with the Arab population.
Kind of reminds me of voters who agitate for a Big Beautiful Wall to prevent immigrants from coming in...
Not quite. You would have to imagine if the Mexicans who illegally immigrated and the Americans who already lived there were told by the UN that half of the US belonged to the Mexicans now, and the US was going to be partitioned into two countries.
The presence of new Jews doesn't mean the Old Jews aren't there and don't deserve national self-determination. The Arabs made their attempt at stopping the partition plan, which was reasonable in its own logic, and it failed. If you try to resolve disputes by force and end up on the losing side, terms will almost always be less favorable than what you were offered in the first place.
There's nothing particularly unusual about Israel's policies or actions after independence. The only real exception is the not-at-all-discrete nuclear program. The Suez Crisis is pretty blatant aggression, but the UK and France were on board with it, so Israel's actions can't be said to be outside international norms of the time.
After the Israeli's conquered the people who had been living in the land they wanted with outside help from several Western countries, there's not too much that's outside international norms of the time - agreed. But the UN telling a bunch of people to move into an area and then arming them/helping them fight off the inhabitants so they can make a new country . . . that's kinda a weird scenario that started the whole mess.
-
This came up on my Quora Digest today:
https://www.quora.com/Is-Palestine-occupied-by-Israel-My-father-who-is-a-Palestinian-said-so-but-some-people-say-otherwise-Who-is-correct
There's some good content and discussion in the comments below.
-
Per Wiki, the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine at the end of WWI was 94,000, or about 1/7 of the population. They definitely had a pretty sizable/lasting presence by the time of the War of Independence, though it had definitely swelled due the 1930s immigration. But by the time of the war for independence, you're talking about a lot of people who are already there for almost 20 years or more.
1800 - 8%
1890 - 7.6%
1914 - 10.2%
1922 - 11%
1931 - 16.9%
1947 - 32%
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))
Maybe half of the Jewish people involved in the war for independence had been there for 20 years. There was a pretty substantial flood of both legal and illegal immigration of Jewish people to Palestine between 1931 and 1947, which was the cause of much of the unrest and uneasiness with the Arab population.
Kind of reminds me of voters who agitate for a Big Beautiful Wall to prevent immigrants from coming in...
Not quite. You would have to imagine if the Mexicans who illegally immigrated and the Americans who already lived there were told by the UN that half of the US belonged to the Mexicans now, and the US was going to be partitioned into two countries.
The presence of new Jews doesn't mean the Old Jews aren't there and don't deserve national self-determination. The Arabs made their attempt at stopping the partition plan, which was reasonable in its own logic, and it failed. If you try to resolve disputes by force and end up on the losing side, terms will almost always be less favorable than what you were offered in the first place.
There's nothing particularly unusual about Israel's policies or actions after independence. The only real exception is the not-at-all-discrete nuclear program. The Suez Crisis is pretty blatant aggression, but the UK and France were on board with it, so Israel's actions can't be said to be outside international norms of the time.
After the Israeli's conquered the people who had been living in the land they wanted with outside help from several Western countries, there's not too much that's outside international norms of the time - agreed. But the UN telling a bunch of people to move into an area and then arming them/helping them fight off the inhabitants so they can make a new country . . . that's kinda a weird scenario that started the whole mess.
That is similar to another analogy I've always thought of (though not perfect one): prior to the U.S. annexing CA, the population in what became CA was about 3/4ers Latin American/Mexican, and a quarter Spanish, American, and European. Eventually the escalating conflict with Mexico led to the U.S. annexing and holding the state. But many decades later, descendants of all the original groups were still there. It would be very strange to then suddenly declare (lets say) southern CA to be an independent nation to be held by the descendants of Mexican residents, and relegate all citizens who were descendants of the European and American who lived there to second class status.
-
Per Wiki, the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine at the end of WWI was 94,000, or about 1/7 of the population. They definitely had a pretty sizable/lasting presence by the time of the War of Independence, though it had definitely swelled due the 1930s immigration. But by the time of the war for independence, you're talking about a lot of people who are already there for almost 20 years or more.
1800 - 8%
1890 - 7.6%
1914 - 10.2%
1922 - 11%
1931 - 16.9%
1947 - 32%
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))
Maybe half of the Jewish people involved in the war for independence had been there for 20 years. There was a pretty substantial flood of both legal and illegal immigration of Jewish people to Palestine between 1931 and 1947, which was the cause of much of the unrest and uneasiness with the Arab population.
Kind of reminds me of voters who agitate for a Big Beautiful Wall to prevent immigrants from coming in...
Not quite. You would have to imagine if the Mexicans who illegally immigrated and the Americans who already lived there were told by the UN that half of the US belonged to the Mexicans now, and the US was going to be partitioned into two countries.
The presence of new Jews doesn't mean the Old Jews aren't there and don't deserve national self-determination. The Arabs made their attempt at stopping the partition plan, which was reasonable in its own logic, and it failed. If you try to resolve disputes by force and end up on the losing side, terms will almost always be less favorable than what you were offered in the first place.
There's nothing particularly unusual about Israel's policies or actions after independence. The only real exception is the not-at-all-discrete nuclear program. The Suez Crisis is pretty blatant aggression, but the UK and France were on board with it, so Israel's actions can't be said to be outside international norms of the time.
After the Israeli's conquered the people who had been living in the land they wanted with outside help from several Western countries, there's not too much that's outside international norms of the time - agreed. But the UN telling a bunch of people to move into an area and then arming them/helping them fight off the inhabitants so they can make a new country . . . that's kinda a weird scenario that started the whole mess.
It's a bit weird, but mess is baked into the cake in the Middle East, and given the volume of illegal immigration into Mandate Palestine, I don't think the UK could've really prevented the mess. Plus Jordan was eyeing up Palestine the entire time.
-
That's where your misconception is coming from. Prior to WW2, ~1/3 of the population of the region was Jewish. It is true that there was immigration of Jews, but it is also true that there was immigration of Arabs and Egyptians. Astonishingly few of the people there in 1947 can claim to be much more than second generation. You think there were no Jews in Israel at some point, that it was all the people who now call themselves Palestinians.
No I don't think that at all.
The situation is analogous to the USA. There are a bunch of Mexicans living there and have been ever since the USA conquered the whole New Mexico area. That doesn't mean they get to declare a part of the USA to be their own and create their own country.
That at some point the Jews left and then came back, but it isn't true.
No again.
At some point, a few centuries ago, the Jewish people were conquered and the Arabs took over the place. That's unfortunate but it's also ancient history. Yes, some Jews remained. Again, analogous to the Brits coming to the USA and taking over from the Native Americans. Yes some of them are left in the USA. The solution today is not for the Native Americans to grab a patch of land and declare it their own country and then to start expanding that area whenever they feel like it.
It is true that after the 1947 civil war which created the modern state of Israel, lots of Jewish people emigrated there, with another huge group arriving after the relaxed travel restrictions from the soviet union, which was 1989 ish or something, not going to look it up right now, but it absolutely was a civil war. It was a particularly brutal civil war, because unlike the U.S. civil war, where there were different regions separated by distance that mobilized and clashed, this was literal neighbors in conflict, your grocer might be the one to set your house on fire that night, sort of fight. And the Israeli's did not choose to instigate that civil war.
Civil war -
"a war between citizens of the same country"
So no, not a civil war as the Jewish people in the region were not citizens of the same country as the Palestinians. As you have mentioned previously, they were stateless and happened to be living in a part of another country.
I don't believe that might makes right but I also don't believe that might makes wrong.
So it's not right or wrong to take over part of another nation state and decide it is now yours just because you have the military to do so. Gotcha.
I guess it mostly depends on which side you're on. I'm betting if the Palestinians had the military might to win the conflict in a decisive and final way you would have no problem with that?
The only thing the Israeli's could have done differently is roll over and die. There is no reason at all to assume that even if they gave up, surrendered to the Palestinians, turned over control to Arabs, that they would be allowed to live in peace. All evidence in historical fact, modern history, and current rhetoric from the Palestinians makes clear what Israeli's can expect, and it is entirely rational for them to defend themselves.
I agree there is no evidence to suggest they would be left alone to live in peace if they turned over control to the Palestinians. I'll even agree that if they all up and left and created a new Israel in, say, the USA, the fundamentalist Muslim minority would still probably want to kill them. Of course setting up in the USA isn't going to happen because the USA isn't partial to having parts of its territory annexed and given away and has the military might to ensure that doesn't happen whereas the Palestinians didn't.
Of course that has nothing to do with what started the present conflict, which was the point I was discussing.
In any case, I genuinely believe it just comes from you being where I was a few years ago, largely ignorant of the history as you've admitted to,
I never admitted to being "largely ignorant". I do admit you've pointed out a couple of minor points I didn't know. The rest is a matter of opinion that we differ on, not indisputable historical facts that I am ignorant of.
and believing that going back farther than the creation of the modern state isn't necessary for a proper analysis because "how far back do you go."
Let me be clear. I do understand that one needs to go back further than the creation of the modern state of Israel to understand the historical hostility between Arabs and Jews. That historical enmity of course plays a part in the modern conflict.
What I don't agree with is that you can unilaterally decide on a point of origin that suits your argument and claim that is undeniably the beginning of the current conflict. If you want to go back before the creation of the modern state of Israel then go back and look at it all.
There's a thousand year + gap between what happened in antiquity and restarting the violence, and no rational person accepts that a grudge like that is justification for a modern conflict. Forget about what your particular side is arguing, go look at each individual event, plot them on a timeline, be doubtful, you'll get here.
Your attitude of smug superiority and condescending implication that I will "get there" if only I educate myself seems a lot like the "smug liberalism" that so many in this thread (yourself included I think though I couldn't be bothered going back through your posts to be certain about) have railed against. I guess it's ok to be a smug conservative though.
Thanks for arguing with me, I appreciate the opportunity.
Except for the above mentioned attitude it's been interesting.
-
There's a thousand year + gap between what happened in antiquity and restarting the violence, and no rational person accepts that a grudge like that is justification for a modern conflict. Forget about what your particular side is arguing, go look at each individual event, plot them on a timeline, be doubtful, you'll get here.
Your attitude of smug superiority and condescending implication that I will "get there" if only I educate myself seems a lot like the "smug liberalism" that so many in this thread (yourself included I think though I couldn't be bothered going back through your posts to be certain about) have railed against. I guess it's ok to be a smug conservative though.
It was definitely TOYM, on several occasions. He posted an article about it.
In a political environment where people have become this divided it's no surprise that those on both sides are acting smug. Not all, but many. When you think you know something and you have enough sources (reputable or not) to back you up it takes effort not to act smug, effort which TOYM has not put forth. Not in this debate and not in the many lengthy rants he's gone on lately.
-
The more important the position the more important policy matters. The less important the position, the more important character matters. This is why Trump won, and Roy Moore lost. A senate seat was important enough to make it close.
-
There's nothing inherently wrong with ethnic Mexicans in the United States who no longer identify as American demanding their own nation or even demanding to become part of Mexico. It really doesn't make a lot of sense, since they already HAVE a nation just south of the US, but there's nothing inherently wrong in it, either. If the US wishes to stop this possibility, it should bar immigration from Mexico and pursue policies that bolster a common American identity, which also isn't inherently wrong.
You'd also have to be an idiot to want to keep such people in the nation, particularly after decades of already existing conflict. You think I'd want to keep SoCal if it becomes overrun with Mexican revanchists that operate their own militias and multiple civil wars? Yeah, no, I'm not sending millions of people to their deaths in an effort to retain San Diego. If I try and I end up losing all of California due to Mexico wanting to safeguard its new territory, thems the breaks.
-
The more important the position the more important policy matters. The less important the position, the more important character matters. This is why Trump won, and Roy Moore lost. A senate seat was important enough to make it close.
Which particular aspects of Trump's policy do you believe won him the election?
-
The more important the position the more important policy matters. The less important the position, the more important character matters. This is why Trump won, and Roy Moore lost. A senate seat was important enough to make it close.
Which particular aspects of Trump's policy do you believe won him the election?
Mainly his strongly held policy of not being Hillary Clinton.
Now, which policies won him the primary? No freaking clue. Not being Jeb Bush or Rubio helped. But Cruz was also not Jeb Bush or Rubio.
-
https://shareblue.com/gop-went-all-in-for-pedophilia-and-they-can-never-undo-it/
Not only did Roy Moore lose Alabama’s Senate race against Doug Jones, but in the process, the Republican Party cemented its status as a safe space for pedophilia.
A moment of moral cowardice will stain the party for years to come.
Despite his sordid past and bigoted present, Moore was able to count on the support of Donald Trump, who used his status as president to aggressively campaign on Moore’s behalf. Trump, who has admitted to sexually assaulting women, was eager to back his fellow Republican, even as credible reports of pedophilia surfaced.
Thanks to the political maneuvering of its leadership, the linkage of pedophilia and the Republican Party will be cemented, further turning the party that once claimed Abraham Lincoln into one in which serial sexual assault, racism, and now child molestation is no stumbling block in the pursuit of power.
This is your modern day GOP. I certainly couldn't sleep at night voting Republican.
-
https://shareblue.com/gop-went-all-in-for-pedophilia-and-they-can-never-undo-it/
Not only did Roy Moore lose Alabama’s Senate race against Doug Jones, but in the process, the Republican Party cemented its status as a safe space for pedophilia.
A moment of moral cowardice will stain the party for years to come.
Despite his sordid past and bigoted present, Moore was able to count on the support of Donald Trump, who used his status as president to aggressively campaign on Moore’s behalf. Trump, who has admitted to sexually assaulting women, was eager to back his fellow Republican, even as credible reports of pedophilia surfaced.
Thanks to the political maneuvering of its leadership, the linkage of pedophilia and the Republican Party will be cemented, further turning the party that once claimed Abraham Lincoln into one in which serial sexual assault, racism, and now child molestation is no stumbling block in the pursuit of power.
This is your modern day GOP. I certainly couldn't sleep at night voting Republican.
At this point I would not be surprised to see the GOP party apparatus offer financial support to an avowed neoNazi for office. Or even someone convicted of murder. Seriously, I thought things were bad under W, but I'm pretty sure the party has reached a point of having no depth to which it will not dive. I would NEVER have believed this 10 years ago.
-
At this point I would not be surprised to see the GOP party apparatus offer financial support to an avowed neoNazi for office.
Will the Nazi vote for tax cuts for billionaires?
As I've previously pointed out in other threads, the republican party doesn't actually care about social issues or religion. It only cares about protecting the financial interests of the ultra-rich donors that fund the party coffers and pay all of the party salaries. So Nazis are probably fine, as long as they support tax reform. Pedophiles apparently get their full support, too. And we know that generic (non-pedo) sexual predators are on the approved list, since they nominated an avowed pussy grabber.
All forms of social evils will continue to be acceptable to the GOP until actual conservative Americans retake their party from the hands of the plutocrats that currently run their show. Average Americans who legitimately share the party's stated (but not lived) positions on social issues seemingly haven't noticed the GOP's complete betrayal of those values in pursuit of toxic wealth transfers from the poor to the rich.
Nothing could be more unamerican than the GOP's current fiscal policies. They are anti-individualism, anti-bootstrap, anti-hard-work, and anti-personal-responsibility. Since the party no longer supports conservative social values (see: Moore, Trump), what else is left for those voters?
In that light it's almost shocking that Alabama was a close election. Maybe people are starting to catch on the con? At least the ones under 65?
-
I just don't see that happening. What you are seeing is the RESULT of the "actual American conservatives" taking back the party from the plutocrat RINOs. They cannot build any sort of majority, so they are stuck supporting all manner of unsavory characters to keep their policy positions. They'd sooner unseat John McCain than they would Roy Moore, because McCain voted against ACA and Moore wouldn't. They'd be less inclined to have this positon if they had 60 votes in the Senate, but they don't.
-
The more important the position the more important policy matters. The less important the position, the more important character matters. This is why Trump won, and Roy Moore lost. A senate seat was important enough to make it close.
Which particular aspects of Trump's policy do you believe won him the election?
I probably didn't state what I meant very well. I meant because the president is the most important position in government, a lot of people were willing to overlook his character flaws. Many Republicans voted for him because he was claiming to be Republican, even though we/they disliked him personally.
At work yesterday, I heard something along the lines of, "Would I leave my kids alone with Roy Moore? Of course not. But he is more likely to make the country the way I think is best than Doug Jones."
The twitter spam, his lack of respect for women and minorities, his ego, and anything else you personally don't like about the man, can all be overlooked if you believe his policy will make America better than the opponent's policy. Hillary would follow a similar path as Obama, and I did not like much of Obama's policy. Sadly, Hillary was the only other realistic choice.
Of course Trump didn't win on policy alone, but a lot of people who disliked him, still voted for him because of the R by his name. And because it's for the most powerful government position in the US, that was enough.
-
The more important the position the more important policy matters. The less important the position, the more important character matters. This is why Trump won, and Roy Moore lost. A senate seat was important enough to make it close.
Which particular aspects of Trump's policy do you believe won him the election?
I probably didn't state what I meant very well. I meant because the president is the most important position in government, a lot of people were willing to overlook his character flaws. Many Republicans voted for him because he was claiming to be Republican, even though we/they disliked him personally.
At work yesterday, I heard something along the lines of, "Would I leave my kids alone with Roy Moore? Of course not. But he is more likely to make the country the way I think is best than Doug Jones."
The twitter spam, his lack of respect for women and minorities, his ego, and anything else you personally don't like about the man, can all be overlooked if you believe his policy will make America better than the opponent's policy. Hillary would follow a similar path as Obama, and I did not like much of Obama's policy. Sadly, Hillary was the only other realistic choice.
Of course Trump didn't win on policy alone, but a lot of people who disliked him, still voted for him because of the R by his name. And because it's for the most powerful government position in the US, that was enough.
Yeah, but . . . much of his policy was pretty flawed from an implementation standpoint.
He wanted to build a wall between Mexico and the US. He wanted to prevent Muslims from entering the country. He wanted to repeal the ACA. He promised to lock up Hilary Clinton.
Did people not understand that this policy would be nigh impossible to follow through on?
-
*Snip*
Yeah, but . . . much of his policy was pretty flawed from an implementation standpoint.
He wanted to build a wall between Mexico and the US. He wanted to prevent Muslims from entering the country. He wanted to repeal the ACA. He promised to lock up Hilary Clinton.
Did people not understand that this policy would be nigh impossible to follow through on?
If you understand much of his policies would nearly be impossible to follow through on, and then you understand that all politicians have policy that's impossible/nearly impossible to implement.
If you don't understand much of his policies would nearly be impossible to follow through on, then you probably won't be paying attention when they don't get implemented.
-
*Snip*
Yeah, but . . . much of his policy was pretty flawed from an implementation standpoint.
He wanted to build a wall between Mexico and the US. He wanted to prevent Muslims from entering the country. He wanted to repeal the ACA. He promised to lock up Hilary Clinton.
Did people not understand that this policy would be nigh impossible to follow through on?
If you understand much of his policies would nearly be impossible to follow through on, and then you understand that all politicians have policy that's impossible/nearly impossible to implement.
Typically the impossible stuff doesn't make up the majority of the stated policy positions.
-
So basically, you are saying that you don't believe in the entire concept of international relations or diplomacy. OOKay. I'm sure you know so much more about this than diplomats, military leaders, and power brokers dealing with people in these countries all these decades. If you want to create an us vs them situation, sure that's easy to do. If you want to have these other countries to buy into controlling and guiding their own people away from violent acts, you have given them no, actually negative motivation to do so. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, and it sure seems like you have little to no regard for innocents who are casualties on either side.
As to me knowing more than all these experts, of course I don't know more than them, but I can look at the state of the Middle East right now and see the most stable part of it is Israel, probably Saudi Arabia too. Normalized relations with us is apparently good for you. Kuwait seems like a pretty decent place to live, having decided to not try and kill us and just sell us oil. It isn't that not choosing violence means we'll be nice to you and stop our negative mojo and you'll be a successful stable country, it's that if you're choosing violence everything is unstable and eventually turns to shit.
I can look at world leaders, who specifically cite not wanting to incite terrorist violence, and call them cowards and idiots besides. The terrorist violence has never needed a reason, and if they did, that ship sailed long ago. The sooner we stop trying to reason with people who left the negotiating table long ago, the better off we'll all be.
If you think Saudi Arabia is stable right now, I'd suggest more study: THE ECONOMIST has some pretty in-depth reporting about Crown Prince MBS's recent power plays, including imprisoning one of his wealthiest cousins. The power structure and economy there are very fragile, and the looming IPO of ARAMCO could either make them or break them. They are being drained of resources by the proxy war in Yemen. This is a country with several major threats right now.
-
The more important the position the more important policy matters. The less important the position, the more important character matters. This is why Trump won, and Roy Moore lost. A senate seat was important enough to make it close.
Which particular aspects of Trump's policy do you believe won him the election?
I probably didn't state what I meant very well. I meant because the president is the most important position in government, a lot of people were willing to overlook his character flaws. Many Republicans voted for him because he was claiming to be Republican, even though we/they disliked him personally.
At work yesterday, I heard something along the lines of, "Would I leave my kids alone with Roy Moore? Of course not. But he is more likely to make the country the way I think is best than Doug Jones."
The twitter spam, his lack of respect for women and minorities, his ego, and anything else you personally don't like about the man, can all be overlooked if you believe his policy will make America better than the opponent's policy. Hillary would follow a similar path as Obama, and I did not like much of Obama's policy. Sadly, Hillary was the only other realistic choice.
Of course Trump didn't win on policy alone, but a lot of people who disliked him, still voted for him because of the R by his name. And because it's for the most powerful government position in the US, that was enough.
Yeah, but . . . much of his policy was pretty flawed from an implementation standpoint.
He wanted to build a wall between Mexico and the US. He wanted to prevent Muslims from entering the country. He wanted to repeal the ACA. He promised to lock up Hilary Clinton.
Did people not understand that this policy would be nigh impossible to follow through on?
I consider myself a bit of a technocrat and couldn't understand why Trump's incoherent positions appealed to voters. But I heard from several experts who work for the major forecasting firms--think IHS, Moody's, etc.--who said they found the sheer volume of policy papers released to them by the Clinton campaign equally difficult to parse. Her campaign simply created soooo many policies that it would have been impossible to do more than a small fraction of them, particularly with a GOP House.
-
If you think Saudi Arabia is stable right now, I'd suggest more study: THE ECONOMIST has some pretty in-depth reporting about Crown Prince MBS's recent power plays, including imprisoning one of his wealthiest cousins. The power structure and economy there are very fragile, and the looming IPO of ARAMCO could either make them or break them. They are being drained of resources by the proxy war in Yemen. This is a country with several major threats right now.
$4 gasoline by summer again?
-
their inability to push up the price of gas is one of those threats.
-
So basically, you are saying that you don't believe in the entire concept of international relations or diplomacy. OOKay. I'm sure you know so much more about this than diplomats, military leaders, and power brokers dealing with people in these countries all these decades. If you want to create an us vs them situation, sure that's easy to do. If you want to have these other countries to buy into controlling and guiding their own people away from violent acts, you have given them no, actually negative motivation to do so. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, and it sure seems like you have little to no regard for innocents who are casualties on either side.
As to me knowing more than all these experts, of course I don't know more than them, but I can look at the state of the Middle East right now and see the most stable part of it is Israel, probably Saudi Arabia too. Normalized relations with us is apparently good for you. Kuwait seems like a pretty decent place to live, having decided to not try and kill us and just sell us oil. It isn't that not choosing violence means we'll be nice to you and stop our negative mojo and you'll be a successful stable country, it's that if you're choosing violence everything is unstable and eventually turns to shit.
I can look at world leaders, who specifically cite not wanting to incite terrorist violence, and call them cowards and idiots besides. The terrorist violence has never needed a reason, and if they did, that ship sailed long ago. The sooner we stop trying to reason with people who left the negotiating table long ago, the better off we'll all be.
If you think Saudi Arabia is stable right now, I'd suggest more study: THE ECONOMIST has some pretty in-depth reporting about Crown Prince MBS's recent power plays, including imprisoning one of his wealthiest cousins. The power structure and economy there are very fragile, and the looming IPO of ARAMCO could either make them or break them. They are being drained of resources by the proxy war in Yemen. This is a country with several major threats right now.
Yup, but compare SA to its neighbors. I think Jordan is more stable, but SA is a sight better than anyone else. Maybe you can make an argument that Iran is more stable...but I think that'd be tenuous.
-
*Snip*
Yeah, but . . . much of his policy was pretty flawed from an implementation standpoint.
He wanted to build a wall between Mexico and the US. He wanted to prevent Muslims from entering the country. He wanted to repeal the ACA. He promised to lock up Hilary Clinton.
Did people not understand that this policy would be nigh impossible to follow through on?
If you understand much of his policies would nearly be impossible to follow through on, and then you understand that all politicians have policy that's impossible/nearly impossible to implement.
Typically the impossible stuff doesn't make up the majority of the stated policy positions.
It really does, at least implicitly. If any politician tried to pitch realistic policy, they'd be lucky to even make it on the ballot, much less compete in any election. It's pretty much a prerequisite for any politician in a federal position to pretend that we are going to be able to continue providing entitlements at the "promised" level and that whoever has to pay for them, it will be somebody else, not you the voter.
-
I always vote straight ticket GOP. I wouldn't say I regret voting for W, because Gore would have been worse. I definitely do NOT regret voting for Trump. Honestly, best two votes I ever cast (primary and general). I'm a paleoconservative and love McKinley and the early 20th century GOP. Can't wait for Trump to get us out of NAFTA.
-
Can't wait for Trump to get us out of NAFTA.
Yeah, sounds like a great idea.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2017/05/06/ending-nafta-would-be-the-disaster/#c5daf036c8f7 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2017/05/06/ending-nafta-would-be-the-disaster/#c5daf036c8f7)
-
I wouldn't say I regret voting for W, because Gore would have been worse.
I'm always curious on what basis these claims are made. (e.g. Hillary would be worse).
It's really not possible to know, because they were never in power so you cannot make that judgement.
One might wonder if the simple act of gaining power changes people. In the case of certain Australian politicians recently, on ascension to the top job there have been fundamental changes in those people and a significant weakening of their convictions.
It's easy to spout hyper partisan policy when you are preaching to your base in the pre-election campaigning period (which is probably what you are basing your "Al Gore would be worse" assumption on). Everyone moderates when they are in power, and the same will happen with your current dear leader.
-
Everyone moderates when they are in power, and the same will happen with your current dear leader.
We keep waiting for Trump to show some hint of decorum or intelligent forethought to his actions, but so far it's all "she's a fat pig" and "grab 'em by the pussy" and Nazis are very fine people and Little Rocket Man and BUILD THE WALL, BUILD THE WALL over and over again. Last week he accused a female senator who accused him of sexual misconduct of offering him a blowjob in exchange for a campaign contribution.
He calls it being "modern day presidential".
-
Trump has been a real treat to behold...
-
Everyone moderates when they are in power, and the same will happen with your current dear leader.
We keep waiting for Trump to show some hint of decorum or intelligent forethought to his actions, but so far it's all "she's a fat pig" and "grab 'em by the pussy" and Nazis are very fine people and Little Rocket Man and BUILD THE WALL, BUILD THE WALL over and over again. Last week he accused a female senator who accused him of sexual misconduct of offering him a blowjob in exchange for a campaign contribution.
He calls it being "modern day presidential".
I don't think this is being fair to the "moderates in power" claim; Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the Health Care bills, the tax plan, appointment of judges.
-
Everyone moderates when they are in power, and the same will happen with your current dear leader.
We keep waiting for Trump to show some hint of decorum or intelligent forethought to his actions, but so far it's all "she's a fat pig" and "grab 'em by the pussy" and Nazis are very fine people and Little Rocket Man and BUILD THE WALL, BUILD THE WALL over and over again. Last week he accused a female senator who accused him of sexual misconduct of offering him a blowjob in exchange for a campaign contribution.
He calls it being "modern day presidential".
I don't think this is being fair to the "moderates in power" claim; Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the Health Care bills, the tax plan, appointment of judges.
Maybe don't hang your hat on this one .... Gorsuch I get, but Petersen? Talley?
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
Same reason they don't mind electing child molesters and serial pussy grabbers to office, because these "mainstream" choices will make sure the "right" laws are passed/upheld. The depths of these official's incompetence is irrelevant as long as they check the right boxes on wedge issues. Amazingly, these so-callled "mainstream" republicans have convinced themselves this is somehow politics as usual.
-
I regret that I voted for trump. I did so largely, because I thought Clinton would win, and wanted to not add to any mandate she felt she had.
That said, locally, our Democrats are a disaster. My mayor is an idiot, who talks about 'science based' driving his policy, yet he can't grasp the basic data about a number of issues I'm working on in my area. Then there's 'dopey' jeff merkely. Ive met the guy, and I'm surprised he was able to read a teleprompter long enough to make his campaign adds. He's not corrupt that I know of, but just... he's not bright. Or wyden. He doesn't even LIVE in this state anymore.
Not to mention kate brown... a poster child for failure. I won't go into this here, but she's awful. So, I have no regrets about voting for Republicans locally, or the candidates for the house/senate who ran here... but, now that things have come to light about a state rep who is in the middle of his own sexual harassment scandal, I wouldn't be able to support him if he were in my district. I hope someone qualified comes along I could support.
-
I regret that I voted for trump. I did so largely, because I thought Clinton would win, and wanted to not add to any mandate she felt she had.
That said, locally, our Democrats are a disaster. My mayor is an idiot, who talks about 'science based' driving his policy, yet he can't grasp the basic data about a number of issues I'm working on in my area. Then there's 'dopey' jeff merkely. Ive met the guy, and I'm surprised he was able to read a teleprompter long enough to make his campaign adds. He's not corrupt that I know of, but just... he's not bright. Or wyden. He doesn't even LIVE in this state anymore.
Not to mention kate brown... a poster child for failure. I won't go into this here, but she's awful. So, I have no regrets about voting for Republicans locally, or the candidates for the house/senate who ran here... but, now that things have come to light about a state rep who is in the middle of his own sexual harassment scandal, I wouldn't be able to support him if he were in my district. I hope someone qualified comes along I could support.
Become the solution: stand for something yourself.
-
I'm a paleoconservative and love McKinley and the early 20th century GOP.
The modern day GOP looks nothing like the early 20th century GOP.
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
I believe you're referencing the completely unqualified judge who's been circulating on the internet. Indeed he is even less qualified for a judge-ship than Harriet Miers (a W appointee) was for the Supreme Court. But there are many qualified judges who are very strict constitutionalists that Trump is appointing (guys like Don Willet). He's basically going down a Federalist Society Roster to name them. And--if you're a true conservative--you should be excited about these judges.
If you're to the left, you find these people horrifying not because of their knowledge of the law, but because you think originalism is not a legitimate legal doctrine.
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
I believe you're referencing the completely unqualified judge who's been circulating on the internet. Indeed he is even less qualified for a judge-ship than Harriet Miers (a W appointee) was for the Supreme Court. But there are many qualified judges who are very strict constitutionalists that Trump is appointing (guys like Don Willet). He's basically going down a Federalist Society Roster to name them. And--if you're a true conservative--you should be excited about these judges.
If you're to the left, you find these people horrifying not because of their knowledge of the law, but because you think originalism is not a legitimate legal doctrine.
In the case of Gorsuch, I think it's more because Mitch McConnell literally stole the nomination from Obama when he refused to have hearings on Merrick Garland for ten F'ing months.
-
So basically, you are saying that you don't believe in the entire concept of international relations or diplomacy. OOKay. I'm sure you know so much more about this than diplomats, military leaders, and power brokers dealing with people in these countries all these decades. If you want to create an us vs them situation, sure that's easy to do. If you want to have these other countries to buy into controlling and guiding their own people away from violent acts, you have given them no, actually negative motivation to do so. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, and it sure seems like you have little to no regard for innocents who are casualties on either side.
As to me knowing more than all these experts, of course I don't know more than them, but I can look at the state of the Middle East right now and see the most stable part of it is Israel, probably Saudi Arabia too. Normalized relations with us is apparently good for you. Kuwait seems like a pretty decent place to live, having decided to not try and kill us and just sell us oil. It isn't that not choosing violence means we'll be nice to you and stop our negative mojo and you'll be a successful stable country, it's that if you're choosing violence everything is unstable and eventually turns to shit.
I can look at world leaders, who specifically cite not wanting to incite terrorist violence, and call them cowards and idiots besides. The terrorist violence has never needed a reason, and if they did, that ship sailed long ago. The sooner we stop trying to reason with people who left the negotiating table long ago, the better off we'll all be.
If you think Saudi Arabia is stable right now, I'd suggest more study: THE ECONOMIST has some pretty in-depth reporting about Crown Prince MBS's recent power plays, including imprisoning one of his wealthiest cousins. The power structure and economy there are very fragile, and the looming IPO of ARAMCO could either make them or break them. They are being drained of resources by the proxy war in Yemen. This is a country with several major threats right now.
Yup, but compare SA to its neighbors. I think Jordan is more stable, but SA is a sight better than anyone else. Maybe you can make an argument that Iran is more stable...but I think that'd be tenuous.
The Middle-East is closer to a complete breakdown than to an all-around peace treaty. All the stability you see reported by media is made-up. There's tons of micro peace-deals between warring tribes and factions. The US Military works hard to earn the trust of their counterparts, respect is destroyed by a series of tweets from POTUS. Stability is a relative term. Get your news from Vice.
-
In the case of Gorsuch, I think it's more because Mitch McConnell literally stole the nomination from Obama when he refused to have hearings on Merrick Garland for ten F'ing months.
Yea, that was SUPER "originalist".
I suspect the irony is lost on most people. Blatantly disregard the constitution in order to deprive our democracy of its legally defined judicial replacement process, in the name of protecting the constitution.
It's not too different from draining the swamp by appointing lobbyists, or helping the middle class by passing a tax bill for rich people, or prosecuting the corrupt Clinton campaign by colluding with Russia, or giving everyone great insurance by depriving 13 million people of insurance. The entire Trump operation has been one long experiment in finding out just how blatantly you can lie to your own voters before they finally turn on you. The consistency of his betrayals is breathtaking. It's not even hypocrisy anymore, I think he's just trolling his supporters on purpose.
Judicial appointments are just icing on the cake. He's telling everyone he's defending the constitution by supporting people who have made their careers by shredding it. I wish I could be shocked.
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
I believe you're referencing the completely unqualified judge who's been circulating on the internet.
The "judge" you're referring to worked for the FEC and had never held the position of judge (in fact had minimal legal experience of any kind given that he had only worked as a lawyer for three years). His appointment has been circulating on the internet because he was selected by Donald Trump for nomination as a United States District Judge . . . with what appears to be minimal knowledge of law at all. That's kinda weird.
As you pointed out, it's not like there's a dearth of qualified people with right wing viewpoints.
-
Judicial appointments are just icing on the cake. He's telling everyone he's defending the constitution by supporting people who have made their careers by shredding it. I wish I could be shocked.
Are they though? Laws can be changed. Elected officials come and go. Federal judges are really hard to impeach.
-
Judicial appointments are just icing on the cake. He's telling everyone he's defending the constitution by supporting people who have made their careers by shredding it. I wish I could be shocked.
Are they though? Laws can be changed. Elected officials come and go. Federal judges are really hard to impeach.
You're suggesting that undermining the constitution by appointing anti-constitutionalist judges is actually the cake, and the rest of the administration's campaign betrayals are the icing because they can theoretically be reversed by future elections?
Sure, I can see the merit in that perspective. Unfortunately, this does not make me feel any better about the future of my country.
-
Judicial appointments are just icing on the cake. He's telling everyone he's defending the constitution by supporting people who have made their careers by shredding it. I wish I could be shocked.
Are they though? Laws can be changed. Elected officials come and go. Federal judges are really hard to impeach.
You're suggesting that undermining the constitution by appointing anti-constitutionalist judges is actually the cake, and the rest of the administration's campaign betrayals are the icing because they can theoretically be reversed by future elections?
Basically, yes. That, and banning abortion.
Sure, I can see the merit in that perspective. Unfortunately, this does not make me feel any better about the future of my country.
Well yeah, I didn't say you should feel better about that.
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
Do you want judges who have never had any experience other than litigation? Particularly if their litigation is focused on one area of law?
There is a lot to be said for having judges that have experience outside of the courtroom. It won't take long to figure out a courtroom, but a judge that has never had any experience other than practicing litigation is never going to be able to get any practical everyday experience. Probably doesn't matter when you are handling a car wreck case. It could matter a lot with a criminal trial or a trial over a commercial dispute.
That said, Peterson was particularly ill prepared for his questioning. I assume he just choked in giving his responses. It'd be hard to be a lawyer of any kind and not know what a motion in limine is; I think he mistakenly gave the impression he didn't know what it was by jumping to the justification of why his lack of courtroom experience should not be a deal breaker. Similarly with the Daubert standard; my only guess there is that he was not familiar with the pronunciation and his brain froze up when he didn't recognize it immediately. That's certainly not the first or second most common pronunciation in parts of the country.
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
Do you want judges who have never had any experience other than litigation? Particularly if their litigation is focused on one area of law?
No, but that's not what I said.
It won't take long to figure out a courtroom[/b
[[Citation Needed]]
Even assuming that I agree with you that a judge will have no problem learning how to do his job while everyone in the courtroom is forced to wait for him to figure out how to do the job the president gave him, doesn't that make it look all the worse that he did so poorly under questioning? He couldn't be bothered to spend that short period of time to prepare himself for the confirmation hearing? Or is the argument that he gets flustered easily and can't handle pressure well (good traits for a judge to have)?
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?283224-1/republican-reaction-obama-economic-speech
Facing the worst economic crisis in generations, Republican leaders scoffed at the $1 trillion price tag for relief.
They want to pass a tax cut when the economy is fine and will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
This puts to bed, without a shadow of a doubt, that the modern day GOP doesn't give one s*** about deficits or fiscal responsibility.
-
Trump has moderated in many policy dimensions by moving toward mainstream conservative Republican positions. See the ... appointment of judges.
Mainstream conservative Republicans want judges appointed who have never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom, never tried a case in state or federal court, never argued a motion, or conducted a deposition on their own like Petersen? Is being totally unqualified for a position something that conservative Republicans are really clamoring for? If so, why?
Do you want judges who have never had any experience other than litigation? Particularly if their litigation is focused on one area of law?
No, but that's not what I said.
It won't take long to figure out a courtroom[/b
[[Citation Needed]]
I have been in a court room. It's not rocket science. And being able to take a deposition is not even a skill a judge needs. The relevant question is whether the judge can resolve discovery disputes when they come up. Much easier than taking an effective deposition.
Also, you know how people get experience being judges? By being judges. That's why there are basically crash courses for attorneys becoming judges for the first time. It's a different job than litigation.
Even assuming that I agree with you that a judge will have no problem learning how to do his job while everyone in the courtroom is forced to wait for him to figure out how to do the job the president gave him,
There really won't be any waiting.
doesn't that make it look all the worse that he did so poorly under questioning? He couldn't be bothered to spend that short period of time to prepare himself for the confirmation hearing?
I'm not sure it's a short amount of time to prepare for a hearing if you're not naturally gifted at interviews.
Or is the argument that he gets flustered easily and can't handle pressure well (good traits for a judge to have)?
The argument is that not being a litigator does not mean somebody isn't qualified to be a judge. Nor does being a litigator necessarily qualify somebody to be a judge. As far as getting flustered, certainly people that do not get flustered and are impervious to pressure tend to be good at a lot of things (I'm not sure getting flustered when essentially interviewing on camera for a federal judgeship qualifies as "easy"), but on the flip side, i would say it's rare for a judge to get essentially cross examined while they're on the bench.
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?283224-1/republican-reaction-obama-economic-speech
Facing the worst economic crisis in generations, Republican leaders scoffed at the $1 trillion price tag for relief.
They want to pass a tax cut when the economy is fine and will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
This puts to bed, without a shadow of a doubt, that the modern day GOP doesn't give one s*** about deficits or fiscal responsibility.
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
-
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
You clearly don't understand how money works.
In both cases, the plan created debt that will have to be managed and repaid in the future. In one case they gave the money created by that debt to failing (but too big to fail) US businesses, in the other they are giving it to thriving successful businesses. Seems very little difference to me.
-
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
You clearly don't understand how money works.
In both cases, the plan created debt that will have to be managed and repaid in the future. In one case they gave the money created by that debt to failing (but too big to fail) US businesses, in the other they are giving it to thriving successful businesses. Seems very little difference to me.
I fully understand that a reduction in taxes from some assumed baseline, looks exactly like an expense/creates the same debt as an actual expense. But I have a hard time with that supposition... as you could have that assumed baseline be 100% of income... then any relief is 'creating debt that has to be managed."
There's a difference between "Here's 1trn we're printing up and handing to you" and "We're not going to collect $1trn from you." The failure here is that nobody is curtailing the spending side. That's where criticism is due, I believe.
-
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
You clearly don't understand how money works.
In both cases, the plan created debt that will have to be managed and repaid in the future. In one case they gave the money created by that debt to failing (but too big to fail) US businesses, in the other they are giving it to thriving successful businesses. Seems very little difference to me.
What'ss funny is, I actually did have a mistake in my post, but you didn't even catch it because you dont understand enough to recognize it. its no where near as bad and obviously wrong as your post. But still pretty obvious and one I should have caught when I typed it out.
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?283224-1/republican-reaction-obama-economic-speech
Facing the worst economic crisis in generations, Republican leaders scoffed at the $1 trillion price tag for relief.
They want to pass a tax cut when the economy is fine and will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
This puts to bed, without a shadow of a doubt, that the modern day GOP doesn't give one s*** about deficits or fiscal responsibility.
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
Could you explain the differences to me as if it were not obvious please?
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
-
Does anyone else feel like this thread has drifted very far from its initial topic?
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?283224-1/republican-reaction-obama-economic-speech
Facing the worst economic crisis in generations, Republican leaders scoffed at the $1 trillion price tag for relief.
They want to pass a tax cut when the economy is fine and will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
This puts to bed, without a shadow of a doubt, that the modern day GOP doesn't give one s*** about deficits or fiscal responsibility.
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
Could you explain the differences to me as if it were not obvious please?
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Again, my original statement was not exactly accurate, as the stimulus didn't use a trillion dollars of resources. It did use some resources, but it mostly just redistributed a lot of money. That can be better or worse than them actually using the resources depending on what they are used on and in the case of redistribution, what they are incentivizing. (e.g., looking at it from a societal wealth standpoint, if they just did interstate highways, that'd probably be better than redistributing it. Alternatively, if they threw it all at the high speed rail planned for California, that'd probably be worse than simply just redistributing all of it based on political clout).
On the flipside, that $1.5 trillion dollars the government would have taken if not for the tax bill, will generally be spent on things people want, not allocated based on political calculations and power. (A chunk of it will go to things mandated by the government or to excess rents firms get because of crony capitalism, but luckily that's no where near the majority, yet). If you are skeptical of central planning and/or believe in public choice theory, that is a huge, huge improvement.
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?283224-1/republican-reaction-obama-economic-speech
Facing the worst economic crisis in generations, Republican leaders scoffed at the $1 trillion price tag for relief.
They want to pass a tax cut when the economy is fine and will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
This puts to bed, without a shadow of a doubt, that the modern day GOP doesn't give one s*** about deficits or fiscal responsibility.
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
Could you explain the differences to me as if it were not obvious please?
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Again, my original statement was not exactly accurate, as the stimulus didn't use a trillion dollars of resources. It did use some resources, but it mostly just redistributed a lot of money. That can be better or worse than them actually using the resources depending on what they are used on and in the case of redistribution, what they are incentivizing. (e.g., looking at it from a societal wealth standpoint, if they just did interstate highways, that'd probably be better than redistributing it. Alternatively, if they threw it all at the high speed rail planned for California, that'd probably be worse than simply just redistributing all of it based on political clout).
On the flipside, that $1.5 trillion dollars the government would have taken if not for the tax bill, will generally be spent on things people want, not allocated based on political calculations and power. (A chunk of it will go to things mandated by the government or to excess rents firms get because of crony capitalism, but luckily that's no where near the majority, yet). If you are skeptical of central planning and/or believe in public choice theory, that is a huge, huge improvement.
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
-
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
Either way it's still horrible for the debt/deficit. As a conservative, I'm pretty pissed about it. I had a debate about it at work with a Republican who was trying to convince everyone it's good for the deficit.
Theoretically, it's possible that if you reduce taxes by $1, it doesn't actually increase the debt by a whole $1, because what is saved, is then spent then taxed. In practice it's nearly impossible to measure the difference though. You can lower rates by not affecting the debt, if you combine it with removing tax deductions, lower spending, or something like that, but that's not what's going on here.
-
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
Either way it's still horrible for the debt/deficit. As a conservative, I'm pretty pissed about it. I had a debate about it at work with a Republican who was trying to convince everyone it's good for the deficit.
Theoretically, it's possible that if you reduce taxes by $1, it doesn't actually increase the debt by a whole $1, because what is saved, is then spent then taxed. In practice it's nearly impossible to measure the difference though. You can lower rates by not affecting the debt, if you combine it with removing tax deductions, lower spending, or something like that, but that's not what's going on here.
It might not be horrible for the debt/deficit either, depending how much you think the reduced taxes will stimulate economic activity, or widen the tax-base. It's not inconcievable that reducing taxes increases disposable income, which increases spending -> more demain -> employment -> more salarys to collect taxes from and less spending on entitlement programs.
I think the cuts in the case of this tax reform are a bit too focused on higher incomes and you'd get more economic growth if the taxes were more focused on the middle class. This tax bill should have come with a spending decrease to make it not add to the debt.
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?283224-1/republican-reaction-obama-economic-speech
Facing the worst economic crisis in generations, Republican leaders scoffed at the $1 trillion price tag for relief.
They want to pass a tax cut when the economy is fine and will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
This puts to bed, without a shadow of a doubt, that the modern day GOP doesn't give one s*** about deficits or fiscal responsibility.
Not that republicans are fiscally responsible, but there is a huge difference between the government using a trillion dollars worth of resources versus a government taking 1.5 Trillion dollars less out of the economy, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about being against one but for the other.
Could you explain the differences to me as if it were not obvious please?
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Again, my original statement was not exactly accurate, as the stimulus didn't use a trillion dollars of resources. It did use some resources, but it mostly just redistributed a lot of money. That can be better or worse than them actually using the resources depending on what they are used on and in the case of redistribution, what they are incentivizing. (e.g., looking at it from a societal wealth standpoint, if they just did interstate highways, that'd probably be better than redistributing it. Alternatively, if they threw it all at the high speed rail planned for California, that'd probably be worse than simply just redistributing all of it based on political clout).
On the flipside, that $1.5 trillion dollars the government would have taken if not for the tax bill, will generally be spent on things people want, not allocated based on political calculations and power. (A chunk of it will go to things mandated by the government or to excess rents firms get because of crony capitalism, but luckily that's no where near the majority, yet). If you are skeptical of central planning and/or believe in public choice theory, that is a huge, huge improvement.
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
There are two things you are missing. The most important is that even if you agree that not taking money from other people by definition increases the deficit, it's still two different calculations as far as cost benefits go. Increasing the deficit for the government to spend another trillion dollars, whether it's actually spending resources or just redistributing dollars, is going to generally result in well less than a trillion dollars of benefit, at least measured by what people would pay for it voluntarily (and talking about any developed country, where the government revenue is way, way past what is necessary to provide public goods).
On the flip side, if you let people spend 1.5 trillion dollars, they are generally going to end up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 trillion dollars richer (or really probably much more when you account for the gains from trade and investment).
So even buying the argument that not taking somebody's money "cost money", it's perfectly logical to think a deficit for not taking money is acceptable and a deficit from spending (or redistributing) more money is not.
-
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
There are two things you are missing. The most important is that even if you agree that not taking money from other people by definition increases the deficit, it's still two different calculations as far as cost benefits go. Increasing the deficit for the government to spend another trillion dollars, whether it's actually spending resources or just redistributing dollars, is going to generally result in well less than a trillion dollars of benefit, at least measured by what people would pay for it voluntarily (and talking about any developed country, where the government revenue is way, way past what is necessary to provide public goods).
On the flip side, if you let people spend 1.5 trillion dollars, they are generally going to end up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 trillion dollars richer (or really probably much more when you account for the gains from trade and investment).
So even buying the argument that not taking somebody's money "cost money", it's perfectly logical to think a deficit for not taking money is acceptable and a deficit from spending (or redistributing) more money is not.
Sure. But it's also perfectly logical to think that a deficit for stimulating the economy is acceptable and a deficit for lower tax rates during good times is not acceptable. So why should I buy your argument and not the other?
Honestly, I don't think the deficit is an issue currently so it's not something that I'm personally holding against this bill. It's just that I'm less likely now to believe conservatives in the future when they say that the reason liberals shouldn't be allowed to pass their proposed legislation is because it increases the deficit, since what they seem to mean is more like 'it increase the deficit for something that I don't agree with.' Which really boils down to 'I don't agree with this' rather than any actual concern about the deficit.
-
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
Either way it's still horrible for the debt/deficit. As a conservative, I'm pretty pissed about it. I had a debate about it at work with a Republican who was trying to convince everyone it's good for the deficit.
Theoretically, it's possible that if you reduce taxes by $1, it doesn't actually increase the debt by a whole $1, because what is saved, is then spent then taxed. In practice it's nearly impossible to measure the difference though. You can lower rates by not affecting the debt, if you combine it with removing tax deductions, lower spending, or something like that, but that's not what's going on here.
It might not be horrible for the debt/deficit either, depending how much you think the reduced taxes will stimulate economic activity, or widen the tax-base. It's not inconcievable that reducing taxes increases disposable income, which increases spending -> more demain -> employment -> more salarys to collect taxes from and less spending on entitlement programs.
I think the cuts in the case of this tax reform are a bit too focused on higher incomes and you'd get more economic growth if the taxes were more focused on the middle class. This tax bill should have come with a spending decrease to make it not add to the debt.
Do you have a real life example of where this has happened in the US? Where say, removing $1 in taxes only dropped the deficit by $0.75? I remember looking years ago, and what I found was like $1 less in taxes dropped the deficit by $0.98, with $0.02 uncertainty (not the actual numbers, but something similar to this).
-
Sure. But it's also perfectly logical to think that a deficit for stimulating the economy is acceptable and a deficit for lower tax rates during good times is not acceptable. So why should I buy your argument and not the other?
Honestly, I don't think the deficit is an issue currently so it's not something that I'm personally holding against this bill. It's just that I'm less likely now to believe conservatives in the future when they say that the reason liberals shouldn't be allowed to pass their proposed legislation is because it increases the deficit, since what they seem to mean is more like 'it increase the deficit for something that I don't agree with.' Which really boils down to 'I don't agree with this' rather than any actual concern about the deficit.
I'm sure some said that, "This bill is not worth the increase in deficit," which translates to your, "I don't agree with this." That message could easily get truncated to, "Don't do it because it increases the deficit" by the media. I don't really know. I do know some news stations at the time were whining that the debt (depending on how it's measured) was > 100% of GDP, which would indicate it is mostly a deficit/debt problem.
I personally think the debt is too high. A government having high debt is great, until some disaster, whether it's natural or a war, drops the GDP and makes the debt run out of control. After 2008/09 banks were required to do stress testing, so one bank crashing wouldn't crash the whole sector. I wish the government was required to do something similar. Granted something would have to be fairly major to break the US.
-
Yup, when democrats want to increase the deficit for infrastructure spending (which would create local US jobs), Republicans are all boo-hiss, not on my watch, clutching their pearls.
When they want to give their wealthy donors giant tax cuts, oh yeah, trickle down economics, yessir.
Please don;t try to explain to me this whole tax bill was for the greater good. It was most certainly not. I moved here from a third world country. Whats going on in the US right now, is the same script I grew up seeing (and still see when I travel back). What amazes me is how quickly the entire institutional framework crumbled. Maybe its a natural effect of any nation growing rich & powerful, nowhere to go but down.
-
Yup, when democrats want to increase the deficit for infrastructure spending (which would create local US jobs), Republicans are all boo-hiss, not on my watch, clutching their pearls.
When they want to give their wealthy donors giant tax cuts, oh yeah, trickle down economics, yessir.
Please don;t try to explain to me this whole tax bill was for the greater good. It was most certainly not. I moved here from a third world country. Whats going on in the US right now, is the same script I grew up seeing (and still see when I travel back). What amazes me is how quickly the entire institutional framework crumbled. Maybe its a natural effect of any nation growing rich & powerful, nowhere to go but down.
In my experience, democrats do not spend on infastructure.... they spend on things that benefit thier wealthy union donors while doing little to generate any additional utility for those dollars.
-
Yup, when democrats want to increase the deficit for infrastructure spending (which would create local US jobs), Republicans are all boo-hiss, not on my watch, clutching their pearls.
When they want to give their wealthy donors giant tax cuts, oh yeah, trickle down economics, yessir.
Please don;t try to explain to me this whole tax bill was for the greater good. It was most certainly not. I moved here from a third world country. Whats going on in the US right now, is the same script I grew up seeing (and still see when I travel back). What amazes me is how quickly the entire institutional framework crumbled. Maybe its a natural effect of any nation growing rich & powerful, nowhere to go but down.
In my experience, democrats do not spend on infastructure.... they spend on things that benefit thier wealthy union donors while doing little to generate any additional utility for those dollars.
Wasn't that what the Republicans fought tooth & nail Obama over ? (amongst many other things)
Oh, and for good measure, they are taking out the healthcare mandate, ie, ACA in jeopardy, as well as the CHIP program is unfunded. The richest country in the world, ladies & gentlemen...
And do I hear calls from Fox news about FBI/Robert Mueller being "corrupt", so they can take the heat off their corrupt & depraved leader? In a proud country, with the best democratic ideals, that the rest of the world should emulate...
-
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
There are two things you are missing. The most important is that even if you agree that not taking money from other people by definition increases the deficit, it's still two different calculations as far as cost benefits go. Increasing the deficit for the government to spend another trillion dollars, whether it's actually spending resources or just redistributing dollars, is going to generally result in well less than a trillion dollars of benefit, at least measured by what people would pay for it voluntarily (and talking about any developed country, where the government revenue is way, way past what is necessary to provide public goods).
On the flip side, if you let people spend 1.5 trillion dollars, they are generally going to end up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 trillion dollars richer (or really probably much more when you account for the gains from trade and investment).
So even buying the argument that not taking somebody's money "cost money", it's perfectly logical to think a deficit for not taking money is acceptable and a deficit from spending (or redistributing) more money is not.
Sure. But it's also perfectly logical to think that a deficit for stimulating the economy is acceptable and a deficit for lower tax rates during good times is not acceptable. So why should I buy your argument and not the other?
You can buy either argument you want. I was just pointing out that the posters clutching their pearls and claiming hypocrisy were either being dense or deliberately dishonest.
Honestly, I don't think the deficit is an issue currently so it's not something that I'm personally holding against this bill. It's just that I'm less likely now to believe conservatives in the future when they say that the reason liberals shouldn't be allowed to pass their proposed legislation is because it increases the deficit, since what they seem to mean is more like 'it increase the deficit for something that I don't agree with.' Which really boils down to 'I don't agree with this' rather than any actual concern about the deficit.
I think it's more "i'm against it because it increases deficit for something that's not worth increasing the deficit." Or alternatively, we already have a huge spending problem and are not going to meet our "promises" with respect to future entitlements. We don't need to add to our spending problem.
-
9 million kids without healthcare - CHIP costs $14 billion to fund. Orrin Hatch says, "We don't have the money."
800,000 American DREAMers legal status up in the air as Congress sits on DACA.
Republicans:
"Hey, let's celebrate this $1 trillion tax cut, nearly all of which benefits the top 1%."
Idiots.
-
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
There are two things you are missing. The most important is that even if you agree that not taking money from other people by definition increases the deficit, it's still two different calculations as far as cost benefits go. Increasing the deficit for the government to spend another trillion dollars, whether it's actually spending resources or just redistributing dollars, is going to generally result in well less than a trillion dollars of benefit, at least measured by what people would pay for it voluntarily (and talking about any developed country, where the government revenue is way, way past what is necessary to provide public goods).
On the flip side, if you let people spend 1.5 trillion dollars, they are generally going to end up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 trillion dollars richer (or really probably much more when you account for the gains from trade and investment).
So even buying the argument that not taking somebody's money "cost money", it's perfectly logical to think a deficit for not taking money is acceptable and a deficit from spending (or redistributing) more money is not.
Sure. But it's also perfectly logical to think that a deficit for stimulating the economy is acceptable and a deficit for lower tax rates during good times is not acceptable. So why should I buy your argument and not the other?
You can buy either argument you want. I was just pointing out that the posters clutching their pearls and claiming hypocrisy were either being dense or deliberately dishonest.
Honestly, I don't think the deficit is an issue currently so it's not something that I'm personally holding against this bill. It's just that I'm less likely now to believe conservatives in the future when they say that the reason liberals shouldn't be allowed to pass their proposed legislation is because it increases the deficit, since what they seem to mean is more like 'it increase the deficit for something that I don't agree with.' Which really boils down to 'I don't agree with this' rather than any actual concern about the deficit.
I think it's more "i'm against it because it increases deficit for something that's not worth increasing the deficit." Or alternatively, we already have a huge spending problem and are not going to meet our "promises" with respect to future entitlements. We don't need to add to our spending problem.
Yeah, the problem is that I can make the same argument against this bill. I don't think giving rich people and corporations tax breaks during a time when the nation is doing well economically is worth increasing the deficit. I'm against it because it increases the deficit for something that's not worth increasing the deficit for. Or alternatively, we already have a huge funding problem and are not going to meet our "promises" with respect to future entitlements. We don't need to add to our funding problem.
I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it still just seems to me like your okay with increasing the deficit for the things that you think are important but not for what others may consider important.
-
So, I get that, from a conservative perspective, allowing 'the people' to spend X amount of money is better than 'the government' spending X amount of money. But how does that change the effect on the national debt/deficit? It just seems to me like your essentially saying you don't mind the debt/deficit increasing, as long it's increased in service to your priorities.
I'm just finding it hard to take conservative complaints about the debt/deficit seriously when the first major legislation they attempt to pass, after eight years of loudly complaining about it, is expected to significantly increase it.
There are two things you are missing. The most important is that even if you agree that not taking money from other people by definition increases the deficit, it's still two different calculations as far as cost benefits go. Increasing the deficit for the government to spend another trillion dollars, whether it's actually spending resources or just redistributing dollars, is going to generally result in well less than a trillion dollars of benefit, at least measured by what people would pay for it voluntarily (and talking about any developed country, where the government revenue is way, way past what is necessary to provide public goods).
On the flip side, if you let people spend 1.5 trillion dollars, they are generally going to end up being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 trillion dollars richer (or really probably much more when you account for the gains from trade and investment).
So even buying the argument that not taking somebody's money "cost money", it's perfectly logical to think a deficit for not taking money is acceptable and a deficit from spending (or redistributing) more money is not.
Sure. But it's also perfectly logical to think that a deficit for stimulating the economy is acceptable and a deficit for lower tax rates during good times is not acceptable. So why should I buy your argument and not the other?
You can buy either argument you want. I was just pointing out that the posters clutching their pearls and claiming hypocrisy were either being dense or deliberately dishonest.
Honestly, I don't think the deficit is an issue currently so it's not something that I'm personally holding against this bill. It's just that I'm less likely now to believe conservatives in the future when they say that the reason liberals shouldn't be allowed to pass their proposed legislation is because it increases the deficit, since what they seem to mean is more like 'it increase the deficit for something that I don't agree with.' Which really boils down to 'I don't agree with this' rather than any actual concern about the deficit.
I think it's more "i'm against it because it increases deficit for something that's not worth increasing the deficit." Or alternatively, we already have a huge spending problem and are not going to meet our "promises" with respect to future entitlements. We don't need to add to our spending problem.
Yeah, the problem is that I can make the same argument against this bill. I don't think giving rich people and corporations tax breaks during a time when the nation is doing well economically is worth increasing the deficit. I'm against it because it increases the deficit for something that's not worth increasing the deficit for. Or alternatively, we already have a huge funding problem and are not going to meet our "promises" with respect to future entitlements. We don't need to add to our funding problem.
I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it still just seems to me like your okay with increasing the deficit for the things that you think are important but not for what others may consider important.
I think that statement would more or less true for everybody that thinks the deficit is meaningful? Or at least if you add "that are not things I think are important" to the end?
-
I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it still just seems to me like your okay with increasing the deficit for the things that you think are important but not for what others may consider important.
I think that statement would more or less true for everybody that thinks the deficit is meaningful? Or at least if you add "that are not things I think are important" to the end?
That may very well be true. But everybody thinking that way does not make it right, nor does it make it non-hypocritical. It also may be why our debt continues to increase regardless of the party in power. I mean, why worry about the deficit when the legislation I'm working on is super important and will make America great again/bring about change we can believe in, right?
-
I read a couple pages of the thread, but not the entire thing. As usual I'm impressed by the ability of people here to have an intellectual conversation about something this controversial without devolving into name-calling, etc.
I have more leanings toward 3rd / 4th party so I wasn't the target of this thread, but I'll throw my thought process in anyways.
..
Note the numbers below organize my thoughts. They do not correspond to the numbers in the Op thread:
1. I'm in a strong republican state. Essentially there is a near zero likelihood that my vote will have any effect on my state's vote, much less the overall election outcome.
2. I don't like the current 2 party system. The lousy choice of candidates in this last election shows just how bad the problem has gotten.
3. Therefore I feel the best use of my vote is to vote for a 3rd party candidate. The more people that vote 3rd party the more viable the option actually comes.
4. I voted for Jill Stein since Green Party aligns most with my values. (Despite disagreeing that we should just wipe out student loan debt and make college free. - I would love these ideas were I younger and could benefit from them.)
5. I also really like Gary Johnson. I felt he was the best overall candidate even though I disagreed with the Environmental side of his platform. I would have voted for Gary Johnson had I felt there was any chance of him gaining a significant portion of the poplar vote. (3 above explains my reasoning.)
Edit to add: Just noticed shenlong55 is also in Kentucky. Awesome.
-
I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it still just seems to me like your okay with increasing the deficit for the things that you think are important but not for what others may consider important.
I think that statement would more or less true for everybody that thinks the deficit is meaningful? Or at least if you add "that are not things I think are important" to the end?
That may very well be true. But everybody thinking that way does not make it right, nor does it make it non-hypocritical. It also may be why our debt continues to increase regardless of the party in power. I mean, why worry about the deficit when the legislation I'm working on is super important and will make America great again/bring about change we can believe in, right?
Well, the alternative is to think the deficit is the only thing that matters. That would probably be an improvement if our politicians acted like that now, but probably not during WWII, WWI, Civil War, and probably some others?
-
I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it still just seems to me like your okay with increasing the deficit for the things that you think are important but not for what others may consider important.
I think that statement would more or less true for everybody that thinks the deficit is meaningful? Or at least if you add "that are not things I think are important" to the end?
That may very well be true. But everybody thinking that way does not make it right, nor does it make it non-hypocritical. It also may be why our debt continues to increase regardless of the party in power. I mean, why worry about the deficit when the legislation I'm working on is super important and will make America great again/bring about change we can believe in, right?
Well, the alternative is to think the deficit is the only thing that matters. That would probably be an improvement if our politicians acted like that now, but probably not during WWII, WWI, Civil War, and probably some others?
I get what your saying but here's the thing...
Conservatives believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Liberals believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Do you get how this can look hypocritical to those without the exact same views as yours? The only difference I see is that conservatives have been whining about liberal policies increasing the deficit for the past eight years. Based on that rhetoric I would expect them to place a higher priority on it once they gain power. They haven't though, so it gives the appearance that they only care about the deficit when it comes to liberal policies. Maybe instead of worrying about the deficit only when it's the opposition in power we should focus on decreasing the impact on the deficit when our own party is in power and just debate the actual policy when the opposition is in power.
-
Conservatives believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Liberals believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Most of the liberals I know would love to decrease the deficit (in boom times). A lot of the spending decrease just has to come from one of the elephants in the room, which is taboo to most Republicans.
-
Conservatives believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Liberals believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Most of the liberals I know would love to decrease the deficit (in boom times). A lot of the spending decrease just has to come from one of the elephants in the room, which is taboo to most Republicans.
Exactly.
-
Conservatives believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Liberals believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Most of the liberals I know would love to decrease the deficit (in boom times). A lot of the spending decrease just has to come from one of the elephants in the room, which is taboo to most Republicans.
Exactly.
You can change the name of the parties around and have it be just as accurate.
-
Conservatives believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Liberals believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Most of the liberals I know would love to decrease the deficit (in boom times). A lot of the spending decrease just has to come from one of the elephants in the room, which is taboo to most Republicans.
Exactly.
You can change the name of the parties around and have it be just as accurate.
We are in an expanding economy and Republicans, and only Republicans, just passed a tax cut that will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
So, no you can't.
-
Conservatives believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Liberals believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Most of the liberals I know would love to decrease the deficit (in boom times). A lot of the spending decrease just has to come from one of the elephants in the room, which is taboo to most Republicans.
Exactly.
You can change the name of the parties around and have it be just as accurate.
We are in an expanding economy and Republicans, and only Republicans, just passed a tax cut that will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
So, no you can't.
Minor point: that's 1.5 trillion over ten years. $150bn was added to the yearly deficit.
I thought we were talking about your average, day to day liberal/republican?
Either way, Obama ran very similar deficits to Bush when you ignore the TARP/financial crisis stuff, and didn't do anything to reduce the deficits. Democrats didn't pass any spending cuts.
Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people.
Democrats increase the deficit by taking more from the people, and SPENDING even more yet.
-
Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people.
Democrats increase the deficit by taking more from the people, and SPENDING even more yet.
Hahahahaha. Good one. *wipes tears* If you think Republicans don't spend like drunken sailors given the chance, ask John McCain.
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/01/mccain_says_congress_spends_like_drunken_sailor/
So your comment is more accurate as,
"Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people, and SPENDING even more yet."
But, yes, each party has their taboo elephants.
-
Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people.
Democrats increase the deficit by taking more from the people, and SPENDING even more yet.
Hahahahaha. Good one. *wipes tears* If you think Republicans don't spend like drunken sailors given the chance, ask John McCain.
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/01/mccain_says_congress_spends_like_drunken_sailor/
So your comment is more accurate as,
"Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people, and SPENDING even more yet."
But, yes, each party has their taboo elephants.
The poors aren't people though, only the rich are. If you read the response with that fact in mind, it actually makes a lot of sense.
-
Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people.
Democrats increase the deficit by taking more from the people, and SPENDING even more yet.
Hahahahaha. Good one. *wipes tears* If you think Republicans don't spend like drunken sailors given the chance, ask John McCain.
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/01/mccain_says_congress_spends_like_drunken_sailor/
So your comment is more accurate as,
"Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people, and SPENDING even more yet."
But, yes, each party has their taboo elephants.
Yup, both major parties routinely waste our tax dollars- they just waste them differently.
That's one of the reasons I don't support either of the big government major parties.
-
Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people.
Democrats increase the deficit by taking more from the people, and SPENDING even more yet.
Hahahahaha. Good one. *wipes tears* If you think Republicans don't spend like drunken sailors given the chance, ask John McCain.
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/01/mccain_says_congress_spends_like_drunken_sailor/
So your comment is more accurate as,
"Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people, and SPENDING even more yet."
But, yes, each party has their taboo elephants.
Yup, both major parties routinely waste our tax dollars- they just waste them differently.
That's one of the reasons I don't support either of the big government major parties.
So which party do you support?
-
So which party do you support?
Maybe he supports candidates for office, instead of parties?
That's been the easy out for me. I definitely disagree with some of the party positions, but those positions are not shared by every candidate. It's not uncommon to find a candidate you can support, even if they belong to a party you're not very happy with.
-
To the OP's original question.
No.
God help us if Hillary would or won
-
God help us if Hillary would or won
Because she would've been a moderately competent, unpopular technocrat who got nothing done? *clutches pearls*
-
God help us if Hillary would or won
Because she would've been a moderately competent, unpopular technocrat who got nothing done? *clutches pearls*
I think he’s talking about the child porn pizza ring she would have installed in the White House.
-
So which party do you support?
Maybe he supports candidates for office, instead of parties?
That's been the easy out for me. I definitely disagree with some of the party positions, but those positions are not shared by every candidate. It's not uncommon to find a candidate you can support, even if they belong to a party you're not very happy with.
Except the last tax bill was voted completely on party lines, and for the last decade the GOP has evolved to expect that from their elected officials.
-
So which party do you support?
Maybe he supports candidates for office, instead of parties?
That's been the easy out for me. I definitely disagree with some of the party positions, but those positions are not shared by every candidate. It's not uncommon to find a candidate you can support, even if they belong to a party you're not very happy with.
Sorry, forgot the /s (see poster's name). /s
I absolutely agree with the rational that you should vote for a candidate and not a party. I've argued that point to many a person who tells me that voting third party is a waste. My opinion is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's given us the two party system.
ETA: Oh, and Kris's signature
-
So which party do you support?
Maybe he supports candidates for office, instead of parties?
That's been the easy out for me. I definitely disagree with some of the party positions, but those positions are not shared by every candidate. It's not uncommon to find a candidate you can support, even if they belong to a party you're not very happy with.
Sorry, forgot the /s (see poster's name). /s
I absolutely agree with the rational that you should vote for a candidate and not a party. I've argued that point to many a person who tells me that voting third party is a waste. My opinion is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's given us the two party system.
ETA: Oh, and Kris's signature
Not to derail, but the Libertarian party (or any third party) doesn’t have a chance until they build an actual party, not just run a ramshackle presidential campaign once in awhile.
They need people running for every office, city, state, and national. If every one of them ran for an office, they might have just about enough to have a presence in those elections. At that point, maybe people would start noticing them and listening to what they had to say.
-
Sorry, forgot the /s (see poster's name). /s
Well then nevermind. He clearly voted for a party.
-
So which party do you support?
Maybe he supports candidates for office, instead of parties?
That's been the easy out for me. I definitely disagree with some of the party positions, but those positions are not shared by every candidate. It's not uncommon to find a candidate you can support, even if they belong to a party you're not very happy with.
Sorry, forgot the /s (see poster's name). /s
I absolutely agree with the rational that you should vote for a candidate and not a party. I've argued that point to many a person who tells me that voting third party is a waste. My opinion is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's given us the two party system.
ETA: Oh, and Kris's signature
Not to derail, but the Libertarian party (or any third party) doesn’t have a chance until they build an actual party, not just run a ramshackle presidential campaign once in awhile.
They need people running for every office, city, state, and national. If every one of them ran for an office, they might have just about enough to have a presence in those elections. At that point, maybe people would start noticing them and listening to what they had to say.
That's a fair point. I would also say that the wasted vote mentality extends to those who want to be involved in politics. You can make your path to success a whole lot easier if you attach yourself to a mainstream party so that's inevitably where most of the talent goes. So maybe you're right, they need to start small and be patient.
-
So which party do you support?
Maybe he supports candidates for office, instead of parties?
That's been the easy out for me. I definitely disagree with some of the party positions, but those positions are not shared by every candidate. It's not uncommon to find a candidate you can support, even if they belong to a party you're not very happy with.
Sorry, forgot the /s (see poster's name). /s
I absolutely agree with the rational that you should vote for a candidate and not a party. I've argued that point to many a person who tells me that voting third party is a waste. My opinion is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's given us the two party system.
ETA: Oh, and Kris's signature
Not to derail, but the Libertarian party (or any third party) doesn’t have a chance until they build an actual party, not just run a ramshackle presidential campaign once in awhile.
They need people running for every office, city, state, and national. If every one of them ran for an office, they might have just about enough to have a presence in those elections. At that point, maybe people would start noticing them and listening to what they had to say.
That's not really a fair criticism.
Building an actual party is antithetical to the core Libertarian philosophy of anarchism. How can you claim to be the small government at all costs party while keeping a large organization together? That's why supporting the part is brilliant if you're a fan of simply opting out of politics beyond making snide remarks . . . they'll never be in a position of power, so your choice will never really come under fire for actions taken.
-
So which party do you support?
Maybe he supports candidates for office, instead of parties?
That's been the easy out for me. I definitely disagree with some of the party positions, but those positions are not shared by every candidate. It's not uncommon to find a candidate you can support, even if they belong to a party you're not very happy with.
Sorry, forgot the /s (see poster's name). /s
I absolutely agree with the rational that you should vote for a candidate and not a party. I've argued that point to many a person who tells me that voting third party is a waste. My opinion is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's given us the two party system.
ETA: Oh, and Kris's signature
Not to derail, but the Libertarian party (or any third party) doesn’t have a chance until they build an actual party, not just run a ramshackle presidential campaign once in awhile.
They need people running for every office, city, state, and national. If every one of them ran for an office, they might have just about enough to have a presence in those elections. At that point, maybe people would start noticing them and listening to what they had to say.
That's not really a fair criticism.
Building an actual party is antithetical to the core Libertarian philosophy of anarchism. How can you claim to be the small government at all costs party while keeping a large organization together? That's why supporting the part is brilliant if you're a fan of simply opting out of politics beyond making snide remarks . . . they'll never be in a position of power, so your choice will never really come under fire for actions taken.
It is a fair criticism.
Libertarians, I suspect, are far too enamored of being able to stand back and critique, safe in the belief that their apart-ness absolves them of responsibility, to actually mount any serious coherent strategy for creating a viable third party option. Which makes them largely ridiculous in my eyes. But not all third-party advocates are libertarians. And my remarks stand for any and all of them.
-
Merry Christmas to all the other Trumpkins on this forum. Yes, we seem to be a slim minority but we know that our President will put America First. He, and we, will never apologize for that. God Bless our President and here's to another great year for our economy! MAGA!
-
Merry Christmas to all the other Trumpkins on this forum. Yes, we seem to be a slim minority but we know that our President will put America First. He, and we, will never apologize for that. God Bless our President and here's to another great year for our economy! MAGA!
Because nobody else gives any shits about America.
*eyeroll*
-
Merry Christmas to all the other Trumpkins on this forum. Yes, we seem to be a slim minority but we know that our President will put America First. He, and we, will never apologize for that. God Bless our President and here's to another great year for our economy! MAGA!
Do you feel he put America first when he repealed the fiduciary rule for financial advisors? That one seems pretty straightforward to me, this was a rule that legally protected you from predatory advisors who would sell you high-fee products in order to line their own pockets, and Trump hates it. He actively sought to overturn it, to make it legal for sharks to hunt you. Congratulations, do you feel more free?
Similarly for repealing Dodd-Frank. This was a law designed to put Americans first, to avoid another financial meltdown, and he killed it because, presumably, he wants another financial meltdown? I just don't get why anyone supports this sort of thing. You might as well say the 1st Amendment has to go because it's extraneous regulation burdening our economy. No! Some laws are good for America because they protect us!
-
Merry Christmas to all the other Trumpkins on this forum. Yes, we seem to be a slim minority but we know that our President will put America First. He, and we, will never apologize for that. God Bless our President and here's to another great year for our economy! MAGA!
Holy brainwash Batman!
-
Merry Christmas to all the other Trumpkins on this forum. Yes, we seem to be a slim minority but we know that our President will put America First. He, and we, will never apologize for that. God Bless our President and here's to another great year for our economy! MAGA!
We used to make fun of North Korea for this stuff.
-
Merry Christmas to all the other Trumpkins on this forum. Yes, we seem to be a slim minority but we know that our President will put America First. He, and we, will never apologize for that. God Bless our President and here's to another great year for our economy! MAGA!
I don't read enough of the threads here to be familiar with CheapScholar but surely this is an epic troll? Even a proud Trump supporter could not really be that in denial could they?
-
I'm no troll. Just a Midwestern paleo-conservative who loves the old GOP of protectionism and American Exceptionalism.
-
I'm no troll. Just a Midwestern paleo-conservative who loves the old GOP of protectionism and American Exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism dies with Trump. So, yeah. Congrats.
I always knew the twenty-first century would be the one where the US lost its position as the leader pf the world. I just didn’t think it would happen so quickly.
-
paleo-conservative who loves the old GOP of protectionism and American Exceptionalism.
What exactly does that mean to you ? Did you not feel exceptional before nor protected ?
What's a paleo-conservative ??????
-
I'd define paleo-conservatism as having roots with the early GOP (Fremont and Lincoln) and until Eisenhower. But I'd say the pinnacle was McKinley. And when I said protectionism, I meant trade policy, so no I sure don't feel protected at all.
-
I'd define paleo-conservatism as having roots with the early GOP (Fremont and Lincoln) and until Eisenhower. But I'd say the pinnacle was McKinley. And when I said protectionism, I meant trade policy, so no I sure don't feel protected at all.
Wow. I never thought even the most ardent, blinkered and dare I say it, deluded Trumpite would ever think to suggest Trump or his policies were even in the same ball game much less the same league as Lincoln.
I congratulate you on being capable of the mental gymnastics it must take to avoid the otherwise debilitating cognitive dissonance holding such a viewpoint must surely inflict.
-
It's an honest question. I'm really curious as to whether anyone voted republican and now regrets it because: No regrets at all.
1. Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans... Obamacare deserves to be gutted. The fact that multimillionaires on this forum can receive government subsidies which are paid for by taxpayers (some of whom are struggling working families) goes to the heart of what's wrong with the so-called "ACA". Welfare for the wealthy. No one should be forced by the government to purchase private health insurance. We still have liberty in this country.
2. The republican tax plan Support the GOP tax plan. Not perfect (and probably won't lower my taxes in the near term) but corporate rates needed to come down.
3. Trump/Russia Fake news. No evidence of "collusion". Also, collusion is not a crime. I believe Mueller was supposed to look into Russian meddling in 2016 election. Russia always meddles in elections. Soviets supported civil rights movement and anti-war movements in 60s and 70s. They also invariably support the Mueller investigation because it sows dissension internally and weakens the U.S.
4. Less consumer protection (deregulation) Consumer is better protected by competition in the marketplace than government regulation. Who protects us from the government?
5. Korea Previous administrations allowed NK to develop nuclear weapons. Trump inherited this mess
6. General lack of decorum Dems have always lacked decorum. Trump is fighting back.
7. Environmental issues/climate change issues Need less regulation here as well. The climate does change. Gov't policy has little to no effect on this. Even warmists acknowledge this.
8. Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions Getting blown up by radical islamists tends to create tension. This is not Trump's fault.
9. Women's rights/issues Are you referring to abortion? Roe v Wade decision was a travesty. There is no Const. "right" to an abortion. Needs to be overturned and allow states to decide since there is no federal right.
I'm actually curious. And I'm wondering if you will vote differently next time? Will definitely vote Republican next time.
-
I'd define paleo-conservatism as having roots with the early GOP (Fremont and Lincoln) and until Eisenhower. But I'd say the pinnacle was McKinley. And when I said protectionism, I meant trade policy, so no I sure don't feel protected at all.
Wow. I never thought even the most ardent, blinkered and dare I say it, deluded Trumpite would ever think to suggest Trump or his policies were even in the same ball game much less the same league as Lincoln.
I congratulate you on being capable of the mental gymnastics it must take to avoid the otherwise debilitating cognitive dissonance holding such a viewpoint must surely inflict.
Would be hard to argue that Lincoln and Trump do not have similar policies on international trade. The GOP was pro-tariff back then and I'm happy we are getting back to our roots.. Trump is also similar to Lincoln on immigration. Anyway, I didn't say that Trump and Lincoln were twins, I said that Paleo-conservatism (which Trump best fits) traces its roots back to the mid 19th century GOP.
-
What exactly is the problem with increasing the deficit, for anyone who thinks it's a problem (Republican or Democrat)?
-
Fascinating. All cult45 members sound pretty much the same. It is honestly scary how people will rationalize any behavior in order to fall in line with the tribe. The same people who screamed about the deficit are now totally fine with jacking it up. The same people who were behind the “law and order” president are screaming that the FBI is corrupt.
Humans are truly awful creatures sometimes.
-
I'd define paleo-conservatism as having roots with the early GOP (Fremont and Lincoln) and until Eisenhower. But I'd say the pinnacle was McKinley. And when I said protectionism, I meant trade policy, so no I sure don't feel protected at all.
I'd mention Smoot-Hawley but that'll probably be dismissed as "it was different then."
The modern example is of course Brexit. In just over a year, inflation has risen and England has fallen out of the top 5 world economies. The rest of the world has decent to high growth rate but England's has dropped to 1.5%. It's expected to drop further next year.
Protectionism simply doesn't work in a modern economy.
-
Would be hard to argue that Lincoln and Trump do not have similar policies on international trade. The GOP was pro-tariff back then and I'm happy we are getting back to our roots.. Trump is also similar to Lincoln on immigration. Anyway, I didn't say that Trump and Lincoln were twins, I said that Paleo-conservatism (which Trump best fits) traces its roots back to the mid 19th century GOP.
Like I said, impressive mental gymnastics.
-
I'm no troll. Just a Midwestern paleo-conservative who loves the old GOP of protectionism and American Exceptionalism.
I'm with you brother.Keep the faith!
-
I'd define paleo-conservatism as having roots with the early GOP (Fremont and Lincoln) and until Eisenhower. But I'd say the pinnacle was McKinley. And when I said protectionism, I meant trade policy, so no I sure don't feel protected at all.
I'd mention Smoot-Hawley but that'll probably be dismissed as "it was different then."
The modern example is of course Brexit. In just over a year, inflation has risen and England has fallen out of the top 5 world economies. The rest of the world has decent to high growth rate but England's has dropped to 1.5%. It's expected to drop further next year.
Protectionism simply doesn't work in a modern economy.
Don't forget about all the Bernie Sanders supporters in the primaries. When you add up the Trump and Sanders supporters, I'd wager a MAJORITY of Americans voted for protectionist candidates. Like Trump said, "Crazy Bernie was crazy, but he was right on trade."
Free trade doesn't work in a modern economy. Heck, the fringe left of the Democratic Party was vehemently protectionist until Trump adopted the position.
-
I'd define paleo-conservatism as having roots with the early GOP (Fremont and Lincoln) and until Eisenhower. But I'd say the pinnacle was McKinley. And when I said protectionism, I meant trade policy, so no I sure don't feel protected at all.
I'd mention Smoot-Hawley but that'll probably be dismissed as "it was different then."
The modern example is of course Brexit. In just over a year, inflation has risen and England has fallen out of the top 5 world economies. The rest of the world has decent to high growth rate but England's has dropped to 1.5%. It's expected to drop further next year.
Protectionism simply doesn't work in a modern economy.
Don't forget about all the Bernie Sanders supporters in the primaries. When you add up the Trump and Sanders supporters, I'd wager a MAJORITY of Americans voted for protectionist candidates. Like Trump said, "Crazy Bernie was crazy, but he was right on trade."
Free trade doesn't work in a modern economy. Heck, the fringe left of the Democratic Party was vehemently protectionist until Trump adopted the position.
?? So they were wrong too.
What's that got to do with Smoot and Brexit causing problems in the economy?
-
For the Trump supporters:
The Trump administration is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or placed them in grave risk of injury.
Source: http://nyti.ms/2BBIZnC
Can you tell me why this is good?
-
For the Trump supporters:
The Trump administration is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or placed them in grave risk of injury.
Source: http://nyti.ms/2BBIZnC
Can you tell me why this is good?
Free market, man! The consumer can take their business elsewhere! :sarcasm:
-
Would be hard to argue that Lincoln and Trump do not have similar policies on international trade. The GOP was pro-tariff back then and I'm happy we are getting back to our roots.. Trump is also similar to Lincoln on immigration. Anyway, I didn't say that Trump and Lincoln were twins, I said that Paleo-conservatism (which Trump best fits) traces its roots back to the mid 19th century GOP.
Tariffs? Oh boy. Where do you think those increase trickle down?
You know that Mexico, our next door neighbor is already talking about exports to Canada and Europe? This is due to all of 45's big rhetoric. Our farmers are freaking out a bit.
-
Once we kill NAFTA we can enter agricultural trade agreements. No sense in us growing avocados in greenhouses or Mexico trying to grow crappy apples. But most things we use and consume can be made in our country. Cars being the prime example. The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose. And I've lived long enough in the rust belt to see this lost generation of men and women who cannot find work and thus have no dignity and put off home ownership and having children. The U3 unemployment rate is also bullshit. Look at the number of people on food stamps for crying out loud. We are going to MAKE AMERICAN AND BUY AMERICAN.
-
For the Trump supporters:
The Trump administration is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or placed them in grave risk of injury.
Source: http://nyti.ms/2BBIZnC
Can you tell me why this is good?
Free market, man! The consumer can take their business elsewhere! :sarcasm:
Yeah.
In my experience, whenever I have asked a question like this, the answer tends to be radio silence.
Who knows, though... maybe this time will be different.
-
Once we kill NAFTA we can enter agricultural trade agreements. No sense in us growing avocados in greenhouses or Mexico trying to grow crappy apples. But most things we use and consume can be made in our country. Cars being the prime example. The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose. And I've lived long enough in the rust belt to see this lost generation of men and women who cannot find work and thus have no dignity and put off home ownership and having children. The U3 unemployment rate is also bullshit. Look at the number of people on food stamps for crying out loud. We are going to MAKE AMERICAN AND BUY AMERICAN.
Good lord.
You actually believe this.
-
For the Trump supporters:
The Trump administration is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or placed them in grave risk of injury.
Source: http://nyti.ms/2BBIZnC
Can you tell me why this is good?
Did you read the article?
David Gifford, the American Health Care Association’s senior vice president for quality, said daily fines were intended to prompt quick remedies but were pointless when applied to past errors that had already been fixed by the time inspectors discovered them.
“What was happening is you were seeing massive fines accumulating because they were applying them on a per-day basis retrospectively,” Mr. Gifford said.
As someone who deals with our state's Department of Environmental Quality, I can say definitely that regulation and moronic application and enforement there-of has forced me to install equipment that was more costly to run and less effective at what it was supposed to do, because it was the only way to meet the 'regulations' as they're (poorly) written. So, this one below rings true:
“Rather than spending quality time with their patients, the providers are spending time complying with regulations that get in the way of caring for their patients and doesn’t increase the quality of care they provide,” Dr. Goodrich said
I'll give you that reducing the fines levied in some of the egregious cases brought up seems imprudent. I could definitely quibble about the details of the changes. But if you use too heavy a hammer for the small non-life-health-safety stuff, you just drive the cost of care up further without actually improving anything.
-
Do you feel he put America first when he repealed the fiduciary rule for financial advisors? That one seems pretty straightforward to me, this was a rule that legally protected you from predatory advisors who would sell you high-fee products in order to line their own pockets, and Trump hates it. He actively sought to overturn it, to make it legal for sharks to hunt you. Congratulations, do you feel more free?
It's less straightforward than you make it. One, the rule was issued by the DOL. That's really a stretch of their jurisdiction. That's more of a rule of law issue than a substantive critique of the rule, but it does matter. It's a bad practice for government bureaucrats or appointees to get beyond their field because they feel "something" needs to be done and the entity with the appropriate power and jurisdiction isn't "doing something". Second, you're assuming that the people who were getting overly expensive advice will now get appropriately priced advice, or that they will learn on their own. But what will really happen is that a lot of people who would have gotten overly expensive advice that would generally prevent them from doing something catastrophic (like leaving their savings in straight cash) will now end up without any advice.
I'm personally in favor of the rule (although I do not think the DOL should issue it), but I get that it's not a slam dunk case and there will be real harm that accompanies the benefits.
Similarly for repealing Dodd-Frank. This was a law designed to put Americans first, to avoid another financial meltdown, and he killed it because, presumably, he wants another financial meltdown? I just don't get why anyone supports this sort of thing. You might as well say the 1st Amendment has to go because it's extraneous regulation burdening our economy. No! Some laws are good for America because they protect us!
Dodd-Frank was not designed to avoid another financial meltdown. Dodd Frank was designed to allow politicians to "do something" and to also create opportunities for graft. Some things Dodd Frank does are good and worth the costs, some things Dodd Frank does are good but not worth the costs, and some things are just bad. There has been some relief granted, but Dodd Frank did encourage consolidation in the banking industry because it raised the regulatory burden on small and mid sized financial institutions. I would say that's bad. I'm not an expert enough to know where it falls out. People who are experts that I trust think it is overall a net negative by a significant margin. But they do come from a few different particular backgrounds and experiences and have their own biases.
-
Do you feel he put America first when he repealed the fiduciary rule for financial advisors? That one seems pretty straightforward to me, this was a rule that legally protected you from predatory advisors who would sell you high-fee products in order to line their own pockets, and Trump hates it. He actively sought to overturn it, to make it legal for sharks to hunt you. Congratulations, do you feel more free?
It's less straightforward than you make it. One, the rule was issued by the DOL. That's really a stretch of their jurisdiction. That's more of a rule of law issue than a substantive critique of the rule, but it does matter. It's a bad practice for government bureaucrats or appointees to get beyond their field because they feel "something" needs to be done and the entity with the appropriate power and jurisdiction isn't "doing something". Second, you're assuming that the people who were getting overly expensive advice will now get appropriately priced advice, or that they will learn on their own. But what will really happen is that a lot of people who would have gotten overly expensive advice that would generally prevent them from doing something catastrophic (like leaving their savings in straight cash) will now end up without any advice.
I'm personally in favor of the rule (although I do not think the DOL should issue it), but I get that it's not a slam dunk case and there will be real harm that accompanies the benefits.
Similarly for repealing Dodd-Frank. This was a law designed to put Americans first, to avoid another financial meltdown, and he killed it because, presumably, he wants another financial meltdown? I just don't get why anyone supports this sort of thing. You might as well say the 1st Amendment has to go because it's extraneous regulation burdening our economy. No! Some laws are good for America because they protect us!
Dodd-Frank was not designed to avoid another financial meltdown. Dodd Frank was designed to allow politicians to "do something" and to also create opportunities for graft. Some things Dodd Frank does are good and worth the costs, some things Dodd Frank does are good but not worth the costs, and some things are just bad. There has been some relief granted, but Dodd Frank did encourage consolidation in the banking industry because it raised the regulatory burden on small and mid sized financial institutions. I would say that's bad. I'm not an expert enough to know where it falls out. People who are experts that I trust think it is overall a net negative by a significant margin. But they do come from a few different particular backgrounds and experiences and have their own biases.
I know of a few small, 2-3 location banks in the Midwest that are about to fold up shop because of the reg burden of Dodd-frank. It consolidates banks into yet more 'to big to fail' behemoths.
That said, who am I supposed to beleive? The bankers know what regulations screw them unnecessarily, but we all think (with very good reason) that anything they ask for releif on is another scheme to screw us.
-
I have never regretted voting Republican.
I voted for Donald J. Trump in the primary, and I voted for Donald J. Trump in the Presidential election.
I am grateful that he is my President.
MAGA.
-
Conservatives believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Liberals believe that their policies are different/better and therefore worth increasing the deficit.
Most of the liberals I know would love to decrease the deficit (in boom times). A lot of the spending decrease just has to come from one of the elephants in the room, which is taboo to most Republicans.
Exactly.
You can change the name of the parties around and have it be just as accurate.
We are in an expanding economy and Republicans, and only Republicans, just passed a tax cut that will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
So, no you can't.
Minor point: that's 1.5 trillion over ten years. $150bn was added to the yearly deficit.
I thought we were talking about your average, day to day liberal/republican?
Either way, Obama ran very similar deficits to Bush when you ignore the TARP/financial crisis stuff, and didn't do anything to reduce the deficits. Democrats didn't pass any spending cuts.
Republicans increase the deficit by taking less from the people.
Democrats increase the deficit by taking more from the people, and SPENDING even more yet.
Sequester was still on the books as Obama went out the door. GOP House demanded (and got) spending cuts from a Democratic President, exactly like they always do.
-
Sequester was still on the books as Obama went out the door. GOP House demanded (and got) spending cuts from a Democratic President, exactly like they always do.
Federal expenditures were $3.51T in 2014 and $3.85T in 2016. The 2017 requested budget was $4.15T. The deficit was $485B in 2014, $587B in 2016, and $503B (requested) for 2017.
Where are these budget cuts and why aren't they reflected in the expenditures or deficit?
-
Sequester was still on the books as Obama went out the door. GOP House demanded (and got) spending cuts from a Democratic President, exactly like they always do.
Federal expenditures were $3.51T in 2014 and $3.85T in 2016. The 2017 requested budget was $4.15T. The deficit was $485B in 2014, $587B in 2016, and $503B (requested) for 2017.
Where are these budget cuts and why aren't they reflected in the expenditures or deficit?
A common tactic is to call a reduction in the rate of increase of a particular budget item a "budget cut." This is commonly used by Democrats to accuse republicans of cutting the budget for poor or sick people... it's also used by republicans to say how much they cut a budget without actually doing so. How big the cut is depends on the assumed baseline %increase that budget item is assumed to get... and that baseline can be based on the % increase it got lastyear, or whatever arbitrary percentage is needed to support a particular narrative.
-
Sequester was still on the books as Obama went out the door. GOP House demanded (and got) spending cuts from a Democratic President, exactly like they always do.
Federal expenditures were $3.51T in 2014 and $3.85T in 2016. The 2017 requested budget was $4.15T. The deficit was $485B in 2014, $587B in 2016, and $503B (requested) for 2017.
Where are these budget cuts and why aren't they reflected in the expenditures or deficit?
A common tactic is to call a reduction in the rate of increase of a particular budget item a "budget cut." This is commonly used by Democrats to accuse republicans of cutting the budget for poor or sick people... it's also used by republicans to say how much they cut a budget without actually doing so. How big the cut is depends on the assumed baseline %increase that budget item is assumed to get... and that baseline can be based on the % increase it got lastyear, or whatever arbitrary percentage is needed to support a particular narrative.
This same tactic was used to explain why three consecutive years of 0% raises for government employees were not actually a pay cut, despite inflation of 8% over the same period. Thanks Obama!
Somehow they found it in their hearts to give the military inflation-based raises, because we have to support our troops, but not civilian employees.
-
Trickle down! GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. AT&T announce they are laying off 1,400. 555 layoffs at Carrier. More layoffs in steel and mining. Merry Christmas from Trumpland!
-
GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. T&T announce they are laying off 1,400.
This has nothing to do with Trump (or Obama). Stop with the rhetoric.
If you've worked in multinationals and conglomerates, certain divisions fall behind. GE's Power division isn't contributing as much to the bottom line as their aviation and healthcare business. GE wants out of the lightbulb business. They want to focus on their strengths. And they're moving from manufacturing into IoT and smart devices world. They're hiring engineers with the new skills.
AT&T has over 200,000 US employees. 1,400 is less than 1%. End of year you get rid of bad performers. Or there's business reorganization according to the company's long-term strategic plan.
Every single company does this. It's called change. Adapt or die. We live in a capitalistic society. Deal with it.
I expected forum members here to do some due diligence using this thing called computerz on the interwebz with the Google. Or ask Google or Siri on smartphone.
-
GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. T&T announce they are laying off 1,400.
This has nothing to do with Trump (or Obama). Stop with the rhetoric.
If you've worked in multinationals and conglomerates, certain divisions fall behind. GE's Power division isn't contributing as much to the bottom line as their aviation and healthcare business. GE wants out of the lightbulb business. They want to focus on their strengths. And they're moving from manufacturing into IoT and smart devices world. They're hiring engineers with the new skills.
AT&T has over 200,000 US employees. 1,400 is less than 1%. End of year you get rid of bad performers. Or there's business reorganization according to the company's long-term strategic plan.
Every single company does this. It's called change. Adapt or die. We live in a capitalistic society. Deal with it.
I expected forum members here to do some due diligence using this thing called computerz on the interwebz with the Google. Or ask Google or Siri on smartphone.
You must have missed the /s of my post. Trump and Trumpies went crazy over the Christmas bonuses announced last week. They've said the tax bill will create "many, many jobs" and here we have a bunch of reports of companies slashing jobs.
-
I'd define paleo-conservatism as having roots with the early GOP (Fremont and Lincoln) and until Eisenhower. But I'd say the pinnacle was McKinley. And when I said protectionism, I meant trade policy, so no I sure don't feel protected at all.
I'd mention Smoot-Hawley but that'll probably be dismissed as "it was different then."
The modern example is of course Brexit. In just over a year, inflation has risen and England has fallen out of the top 5 world economies. The rest of the world has decent to high growth rate but England's has dropped to 1.5%. It's expected to drop further next year.
Protectionism simply doesn't work in a modern economy.
Don't forget about all the Bernie Sanders supporters in the primaries. When you add up the Trump and Sanders supporters, I'd wager a MAJORITY of Americans voted for protectionist candidates. Like Trump said, "Crazy Bernie was crazy, but he was right on trade."
Free trade doesn't work in a modern economy. Heck, the fringe left of the Democratic Party was vehemently protectionist until Trump adopted the position.
Sanders-istas aren't really voting for protectionism, they're just voting against rich people and corporations.
-
GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. T&T announce they are laying off 1,400.
This has nothing to do with Trump (or Obama). Stop with the rhetoric.
If you've worked in multinationals and conglomerates, certain divisions fall behind. GE's Power division isn't contributing as much to the bottom line as their aviation and healthcare business. GE wants out of the lightbulb business. They want to focus on their strengths. And they're moving from manufacturing into IoT and smart devices world. They're hiring engineers with the new skills.
AT&T has over 200,000 US employees. 1,400 is less than 1%. End of year you get rid of bad performers. Or there's business reorganization according to the company's long-term strategic plan.
Every single company does this. It's called change. Adapt or die. We live in a capitalistic society. Deal with it.
I expected forum members here to do some due diligence using this thing called computerz on the interwebz with the Google. Or ask Google or Siri on smartphone.
You must have missed the /s of my post. Trump and Trumpies went crazy over the Christmas bonuses announced last week. They've said the tax bill will create "many, many jobs" and here we have a bunch of reports of companies slashing jobs.
You didn't have the /s. If you meant it, you should have added it at the end. Can't read your mind over the internet, bud!
I agree that GOP and Trump supporters going crazy, however there were similar things under Obama that his supporters thought would grow jobs enormously.
You can't trust a politician's predictions, they switch based on the lobbyist buying dinner that night.
Both parties have divided and conquered the American public.
Companies will do whatever it is to increase profits, that comes from being a publicly listed company beholden to bond and stockholders whose interests lie first.
The bonus game is deflection to either get attention or mask other intentions.
The fact is the current job market requires continuous education and learning to keep the job, as it keeps on changing. Those who are in legacy jobs or refuse to adapt will be casualties.
And we have too many "reporters" who write stories without in-depth analysis. This short-stories/ twitter/ buzzfeed journalism doesn't help anyone.
-
Trickle down! GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. AT&T announce they are laying off 1,400. 555 layoffs at Carrier. More layoffs in steel and mining. Merry Christmas from Trumpland!
Unemployment is lower today than it has been at any point since December 2000.
Don't let facts get in the way of your blind, ignorant hatred.
MAGA.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
-
Free trade doesn't work in a modern economy.
Huh?
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
-
I bet a bunch of people will explain how Trump didn't actually cause those things to happen.
You guys should see some of the new labour regulations the Ontario government is bringing in. In many ways they are diametrically opposed to Trump.
I suspect that the overall effect will be to reduce employment by encouraging employers to automate.
I'm not a Trump fan, but he is getting government out of the way of business.
-
The single greatest reason that I am grateful that I voted for PRESIDENT Donald. J. Trump is ........Neil Gorsuch.
He will be helping to guide the United States of America for decades.
Instead of Merrick Garland.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
2) Happens for a lot of Presidents because the market generally goes up. Obama also had the highest market at any time in history. It looks like Bush had a historic high, too, and so did Clinton and H.W. and Reagan.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
I want one of those hats. I met 3 American tourists on my recent holiday to Central Australia and none of them had a MAGA hat.
Totes disappointed.
Seriously though... you are like Bush yelling "mission accomplished" and guess what... you guys are still in Iraq.
Long ways to go yet.
-
Folks in Kentucky and West Virginia will probably eventually end up regretting their votes, when they realize that they voted to do away with their own health insurance subsidies. I don't think that's really sunk in yet with them, but maybe it will dawn on them once premiums skyrocket 20% from the individual mandate being outlawed. So far, nearly all the economic benefits of Trump seizing power have gone to Hillary Clinton's supporters, which is the very epitome of irony.
-
Deep irony here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/us/politics/pollution-epa-regulations.html
-
The single greatest reason that I am grateful that I voted for PRESIDENT Donald. J. Trump is ........Neil Gorsuch.
He will be helping to guide the United States of America for decades.
Instead of Merrick Garland.
Shouldn't that be a vote of thanks to Mitch McConnell for subverting the confirmation process in a way that handed Trump the opportunity to make an appointment that he would not otherwise have had? All Trump did was take advantage of an opportunity handed to him on a plate and then not eff it up.
Granted, it's something Trump did manage not to eff up (if you believe in so-called "conservative" values), which is in itself surprising.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
-
I was kinda wondering why the full name was being typed over and over again. It's not like there's any other president Trump that someone could get confused with.
-
I was kinda wondering why the full name was being typed over and over again. It's not like there's any other president Trump that someone could get confused with.
I think it's to emphasize all the electoral winning. Librul tears and all that.
-
I was kinda wondering why the full name was being typed over and over again. It's not like there's any other president Trump that someone could get confused with.
I think it's to emphasize all the electoral winning. Librul tears and all that.
It's because he used his full name on his TV show, which means it's a fancy name and very prestigious. He had a TV show, people!
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
-
Once we kill NAFTA we can enter agricultural trade agreements. No sense in us growing avocados in greenhouses or Mexico trying to grow crappy apples. But most things we use and consume can be made in our country. Cars being the prime example. The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose. And I've lived long enough in the rust belt to see this lost generation of men and women who cannot find work and thus have no dignity and put off home ownership and having children. The U3 unemployment rate is also bullshit. Look at the number of people on food stamps for crying out loud. We are going to MAKE AMERICAN AND BUY AMERICAN.
I've been in the rust belt since '94 and have witnessed many auto plants close and move across the border. It sucks. The landscape changed drastically from middle class to lower income.
But to think that Trump is going to bring those jobs back is ludicrous. The automakers (let's say the Big 3) have no reason to bring those jobs back to then pay a higher wage for the same work they get at 10cents on the dollar in Mexico.
I'm all for locals supporting locals, but this idea that manufacturing is going to come back because of Trump is rather foolish. I hope it does, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
Was their dash south of the border also an effort to get out from under the unions? Business with unions seems from my POV to be both expensive and time consuming. Difficult.
A fair number of these factories found a happy middle ground in the southern states.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
I can post dozens of links showing loonies claiming the President Donald J. Trump is "not their president" to supposrt my position.
https://www.today.com/video/-not-my-president-anti-donald-trump-protests-erupt-across-the-country-after-election-805571139670
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Right, but I assume you acknowledge he won the presidency via legal electoral college vote, right? I mean, I don't know anyone who doesn't think he is legally president. I know tons of people who think he shouldn't be president, or who think without Russian meddling in the election he wouldn't be president, or who (as do I) think he's an atrocious and unqualified president. But that's a different thing.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
-
Once we kill NAFTA we can enter agricultural trade agreements. No sense in us growing avocados in greenhouses or Mexico trying to grow crappy apples. But most things we use and consume can be made in our country. Cars being the prime example. The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose. And I've lived long enough in the rust belt to see this lost generation of men and women who cannot find work and thus have no dignity and put off home ownership and having children. The U3 unemployment rate is also bullshit. Look at the number of people on food stamps for crying out loud. We are going to MAKE AMERICAN AND BUY AMERICAN.
I've been in the rust belt since '94 and have witnessed many auto plants close and move across the border. It sucks. The landscape changed drastically from middle class to lower income.
But to think that Trump is going to bring those jobs back is ludicrous. The automakers (let's say the Big 3) have no reason to bring those jobs back to then pay a higher wage for the same work they get at 10cents on the dollar in Mexico.
I'm all for locals supporting locals, but this idea that manufacturing is going to come back because of Trump is rather foolish. I hope it does, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
Was their dash south of the border also an effort to get out from under the unions? Business with unions seems from my POV to be both expensive and time consuming. Difficult.
A fair number of these factories found a happy middle ground in the southern states.
I would've to say yes.
The UAW, as much as it wants to portray itself as having made great contract negotiations with/for it's members, also made it difficult for the automakers to compete against cheaper Japanese imports in the mid-late 80's, causing the brands to start looking across the border.
I work in the automotive industry and have been in it for over 14 years. My father worked for a contractor of Ford/GM during the 90's. I, just like my dad back in the 90's, have seen the unions come in and promise plenty but deliver almost nothing. It's a joke.
Another issue with the auto union is the fact that once you got in, it was almost impossible to get fired, so the quality of work dropped rapidly once the employees knew there were no repercussions for their actions. That, along with the "Job Title" aspect of things, meaning if you were in the "stamping department" you couldn't get asked to go to another part of the plant because it wasn't your job title, no matter how slow you were. So instead of having one employee do different jobs, the plant had to higher another person, even if the first employee was just standing around all day.
Unions worked but the abuse of power that came with them was ridiculous.
I'm a union member and I'm glad for it because I have fantastic health benefits (especially compared to my nonexistent health plan when I was a young adult.) Lots of people with my sort of background are opposed to labor unions because all they see are dues being taken out of paychecks. They fail to see the benefits like sick pay/paid vacation/health insurance/dental insurance/increased wages/etc. It's a shame because a lot of folks from my old stomping grounds have basically shot themselves in the face by supporting union breaking. They make nowhere near as much money as my household does.
The auto industry wouldn't be able to undercut the Rust Belt states if the southern states took care of their people better. No matter what, these auto companies need access to the American market, so if everybody stuck together they'd have the industry over a barrel when it comes to worker compensation. Oh, well. Folks do what they're going to do.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
Recognize one of your own kind, huh? Small world. Welcome, brethren!
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
No, not even close.
Care to back up your assertions with facts?
I realize that you don't like facts, you prefer wild emotions. And that is fine as long as you don't want to thrive in the real world.
-
Don't feed the troll.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
No, not even close.
Care to back up your assertions with facts?
I realize that you don't like facts, you prefer wild emotions. And that is fine as long as you don't want to thrive in the real world.
What assertions and facts are you talking about? Do you even realize how silly you sound?
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
No, not even close.
Care to back up your assertions with facts?
I realize that you don't like facts, you prefer wild emotions. And that is fine as long as you don't want to thrive in the real world.
What assertions and facts are you talking about? Do you even realize how silly you sound?
I wasn't the one that called another member an asshole.
Your condescension and ignorance are why President Donald J. Trump was elected. And why he will be re-elected.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
No, not even close.
Care to back up your assertions with facts?
I realize that you don't like facts, you prefer wild emotions. And that is fine as long as you don't want to thrive in the real world.
What assertions and facts are you talking about? Do you even realize how silly you sound?
I wasn't the one that called another member an asshole.
Your condescension and ignorance are why President Donald J. Trump was elected. And why he will be re-elected.
Git-R-Dun!
-
Trickle down! GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. AT&T announce they are laying off 1,400. 555 layoffs at Carrier. More layoffs in steel and mining. Merry Christmas from Trumpland!
Unemployment is lower today than it has been at any point since December 2000.
Don't let facts get in the way of your blind, ignorant hatred.
MAGA.
Average Monthly Job Gains
-January through November
2017: +174,000
2016: +190,000
2015: +225,000
2014: +249,000
2013: +205,000
2012: +173,000
2011: +171,000
2010: +89,000
The economy added more jobs in each year of Obama's 2nd term than Trump's first.
Fact.
-
Trickle down! GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. AT&T announce they are laying off 1,400. 555 layoffs at Carrier. More layoffs in steel and mining. Merry Christmas from Trumpland!
Unemployment is lower today than it has been at any point since December 2000.
Don't let facts get in the way of your blind, ignorant hatred.
MAGA.
Average Monthly Job Gains
-January through November
2017: +174,000
2016: +190,000
2015: +225,000
2014: +249,000
2013: +205,000
2012: +173,000
2011: +171,000
2010: +89,000
The economy added more jobs in each year of Obama's 2nd term than Trump's first.
Fact.
And what were the unemployment figures for all of those years?
Yes, they were lowest under President Donald J. Trump.
Fact.
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
No, not even close.
Care to back up your assertions with facts?
I realize that you don't like facts, you prefer wild emotions. And that is fine as long as you don't want to thrive in the real world.
What assertions and facts are you talking about? Do you even realize how silly you sound?
I wasn't the one that called another member an asshole.
Your condescension and ignorance are why President Donald J. Trump was elected. And why he will be re-elected.
Not sure what ignorance you are referring to either. But by all means, keep digging.
-
Trickle down! GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. AT&T announce they are laying off 1,400. 555 layoffs at Carrier. More layoffs in steel and mining. Merry Christmas from Trumpland!
Unemployment is lower today than it has been at any point since December 2000.
Don't let facts get in the way of your blind, ignorant hatred.
MAGA.
Average Monthly Job Gains
-January through November
2017: +174,000
2016: +190,000
2015: +225,000
2014: +249,000
2013: +205,000
2012: +173,000
2011: +171,000
2010: +89,000
The economy added more jobs in each year of Obama's 2nd term than Trump's first.
Fact.
And what were the unemployment figures for all of those years?
Yes, they were lowest under President Donald J. Trump.
Fact.
Thanks, Obama!
-
Unemployment dropped from 10% to 4.7% (5.3%) during the Obama years. It is 4.1% now, a drop of 0.6% in Trumps first year. It is still is 0.2% higher than it was at it's lowest point around 2000 (3.9%).
So you agree that unemployment under President Donald J. Trump is lower than any point since December 2000? Great!
President Donald J. Trump has taken 1) unemployment to lows not seen in 17 full years and 2) the US stock market to highs never seen at any time in history.
I hope facts don't trigger you.
MAGA.
Is typing the word "president" in bold font giving you a sexual thrill or something? Seriously, what's with that?
It is because so many American citizens tried to claim that he isn't their president.
Surprise! He is their president! Any will be for the next three years! And most likely the following four years!
Mmmm...ok. But no one here is claiming he isn't the president.
Nah, I don't accept Trump as President and I don't feel I should have to follow anything he says. As far as I'm concerned, America is like Mad Max right now. Anarchy and anything goes.
Your screen name seems very accurate.
You're kind of an asshole, aren't you?
No, not even close.
Care to back up your assertions with facts?
I realize that you don't like facts, you prefer wild emotions. And that is fine as long as you don't want to thrive in the real world.
What assertions and facts are you talking about? Do you even realize how silly you sound?
I wasn't the one that called another member an asshole.
Your condescension and ignorance are why President Donald J. Trump was elected. And why he will be re-elected.
Not sure what ignorance you are referring to either. But by all means, keep digging.
Can't honestly debate based on facts so you call someone an asshole......so you ignore your own ignorance.
Best of luck to you.
-
Don't feed the troll.
But apparently some people have so much troll food just lying around...
The whole point of the very first sarcastic post was that the economy and unemployment tell us little to nothing about the president's abilities.
At least stop quoting the whole thread in your nonsense argument.
-
C'mon, folks. Let's be a little more civilized here. Even up on Hillbilly Mountain, we still had the courtesy to take the Marlboro out of our mouth before we told someone to kiss our ass.
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
-
So I spoke to my formerly Trump supporting father, who now wants to see him impeached (as I noted earlier in the thread). I asked him why he supported him, in more detail. What it came down to was essentially, he didn't want to vote for Hillary and because he hadn't followed much political coverage during the campaign, he didn't realize until after the election how terrible a candidate and human being Trump was.
He had watched the GOP convention, which was one of the few times Trump was very highly scripted and on message, and thought Trump seemed 'fine'.
He has always wanted a business man as president (his own business bias, being a real estate guy himself). Now he admits that he didn't realize that most of Trump's money came from 'salesman' work/name licensing deals rather than as my dad put it, ACTUAL business.
He said that he was immensely impressed with Trump's children, which he assumed reflected well on Trump's character. Then he joked rather bitterly that he's now seriously wondering if those kids are really Trump's, or all the kids are secretly horrible/stupid as well.
He hadn't watched Trump in any public appearances except the debates and brief clips...no interviews etc. As he said on the phone (paraphrased from multiple minutes of Dad ranting), 'That guy is just a flat out IDIOT, and there is obviously some kind of major psychological problems, too. He can't say a coherent sentence and he doesn't know anything about ANYTHING!'
When I pointed out that Trump had not changed his behavior at all since the campaign, and that all these characteristics were apparent back then, he just admitted he hadn't bothered to do his homework at all. He was, in fact, not even aware going into the booth that a very good, older school, conservative candidate (Evan McMullin) was on the ballot for him to consider.
So, there is some detail to answer the OP's question, from a data point of one miserably sorry independent voter.
-
I am a supporter of President Trump and of what he is trying to do, but I think he and his family are like highly-colored Marvel comics characters. They were very rich and did and went wherever they pleased, and suddenly they were transported into a 19th-century mansion and are expected to behave in highly artificial ways.
I think our expectations of the presidency are a little toxic, truthfully.
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
I had several questions reading your post but I think it's best to take things one at a time in these conversations.
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
Why were people afraid to say Merry Christmas? Does your employer not follow federal holidays were Christmas is off, so you believe them to be anti-Christmas? I truly am confused by this statement.
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
Why were people afraid to say Merry Christmas? Does your employer not follow federal holidays were Christmas is off, so you believe them to be anti-Christmas? I truly am confused by this statement.
Yeah, I've never heard of anyone being "afraid" to say Merry Christmas. I can envision it in Saudi Arabia but not in Chicago or Mobile or Seattle.
My last employer had a mandatory week shutdown, which happened during Christmas week because it was Christmas week.
-
On a related note, when the market takes its inevitable tumble, which happens every so often, will the Trumpkins accept blame for his failure? Or is this a one-way type of thing?
It's actually bad strategy by Trump to crow about the market. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
I had several questions reading your post but I think it's best to take things one at a time in these conversations.
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
We were being oppressed by a Jezebel spirit, which emasculates men, causes women to practice destructive sexual magic, incites mothers to murder their children, and causes discord between brothers and friends.
The Jezebel spirit hates Christmas and everything it means. That is why saying "Merry Christmas" keeps coming up, it's quite relevant spiritually.
-
Once we kill NAFTA we can enter agricultural trade agreements. No sense in us growing avocados in greenhouses or Mexico trying to grow crappy apples. But most things we use and consume can be made in our country. Cars being the prime example. The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose. And I've lived long enough in the rust belt to see this lost generation of men and women who cannot find work and thus have no dignity and put off home ownership and having children. The U3 unemployment rate is also bullshit. Look at the number of people on food stamps for crying out loud. We are going to MAKE AMERICAN AND BUY AMERICAN.
I've been in the rust belt since '94 and have witnessed many auto plants close and move across the border. It sucks. The landscape changed drastically from middle class to lower income.
But to think that Trump is going to bring those jobs back is ludicrous. The automakers (let's say the Big 3) have no reason to bring those jobs back to then pay a higher wage for the same work they get at 10cents on the dollar in Mexico.
I'm all for locals supporting locals, but this idea that manufacturing is going to come back because of Trump is rather foolish. I hope it does, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
Was their dash south of the border also an effort to get out from under the unions? Business with unions seems from my POV to be both expensive and time consuming. Difficult.
A fair number of these factories found a happy middle ground in the southern states.
I would've to say yes.
The UAW, as much as it wants to portray itself as having made great contract negotiations with/for it's members, also made it difficult for the automakers to compete against cheaper Japanese imports in the mid-late 80's, causing the brands to start looking across the border.
I work in the automotive industry and have been in it for over 14 years. My father worked for a contractor of Ford/GM during the 90's. I, just like my dad back in the 90's, have seen the unions come in and promise plenty but deliver almost nothing. It's a joke.
Another issue with the auto union is the fact that once you got in, it was almost impossible to get fired, so the quality of work dropped rapidly once the employees knew there were no repercussions for their actions. That, along with the "Job Title" aspect of things, meaning if you were in the "stamping department" you couldn't get asked to go to another part of the plant because it wasn't your job title, no matter how slow you were. So instead of having one employee do different jobs, the plant had to higher another person, even if the first employee was just standing around all day.
Unions worked but the abuse of power that came with them was ridiculous.
I'm a union member and I'm glad for it because I have fantastic health benefits (especially compared to my nonexistent health plan when I was a young adult.) Lots of people with my sort of background are opposed to labor unions because all they see are dues being taken out of paychecks. They fail to see the benefits like sick pay/paid vacation/health insurance/dental insurance/increased wages/etc. It's a shame because a lot of folks from my old stomping grounds have basically shot themselves in the face by supporting union breaking. They make nowhere near as much money as my household does.
The auto industry wouldn't be able to undercut the Rust Belt states if the southern states took care of their people better. No matter what, these auto companies need access to the American market, so if everybody stuck together they'd have the industry over a barrel when it comes to worker compensation. Oh, well. Folks do what they're going to do.
I guess it all depends on the employer/union.
I'm non-union and having been looking for work for the past 4 months closer to home and coming across 2 dealerships with unions, I'm glad I'm not in them. Both had a maximum hourly salary $6+ less than my workplace. Benefits are pretty much equal and no unions dues for me.
Again, I guess it all depends on the employer and the actual union. Glad to know yours is treating you good.
Indeed. I work in a non-union shop that gives benefits quite lavish compared to any of the union shops I worked in. And it isnt even the benefits and wages that make a union shop uncompetitive, its the 20-25% increase in admin overhead needed to administrate the union; the reduced flexibility, and that unions have a financial interest in creating conflict and strife to stay relevant, even in places that treat thier employees well. They have to go more and more wacky with thier demands to seem like they're doing something.
Alot of this doesn't apply to trade unions like electricians and pipe fitters... these unions seem to have thier incentives aligned with the workers and employers in a way that makes it work fairly well - I'm speaking more about unions in manufacturing facilities... these unions have financial incentives that are out of line with the employers, and only tangentially aligned with the workers.
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
I had several questions reading your post but I think it's best to take things one at a time in these conversations.
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
We were being oppressed by a Jezebel spirit, which emasculates men, causes women to practice destructive sexual magic, incites mothers to murder their children, and causes discord between brothers and friends.
The Jezebel spirit hates Christmas and everything it means. That is why saying "Merry Christmas" keeps coming up, it's quite relevant spiritually.
Plus, now that Trump is in office, we can all say, “grab ‘em by the pussy!” In public!
Also quite spiritually relevant.
Oh, brother...
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
I had several questions reading your post but I think it's best to take things one at a time in these conversations.
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
We were being oppressed by a Jezebel spirit, which emasculates men, causes women to practice destructive sexual magic, incites mothers to murder their children, and causes discord between brothers and friends.
The Jezebel spirit hates Christmas and everything it means. That is why saying "Merry Christmas" keeps coming up, it's quite relevant spiritually.
Plus, now that Trump is in office, we can all say, “grab ‘em by the pussy!” In public!
Also quite spiritually relevant.
Oh, brother...
Do you notice more people saying that?
I notice long-rotted sores of sexual oppression breaking open and draining at last, don't you? Hollywood, politicians who specialized in virtue-signaling, media figures.
This is good.
It wasn't women with pussy hats on their heads that gave us this deliverance, either.
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
I had several questions reading your post but I think it's best to take things one at a time in these conversations.
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
We were being oppressed by a Jezebel spirit, which emasculates men, causes women to practice destructive sexual magic, incites mothers to murder their children, and causes discord between brothers and friends.
The Jezebel spirit hates Christmas and everything it means. That is why saying "Merry Christmas" keeps coming up, it's quite relevant spiritually.
Plus, now that Trump is in office, we can all say, “grab ‘em by the pussy!” In public!
Also quite spiritually relevant.
Oh, brother...
Do you notice more people saying that?
I notice long-rotted sores of sexual oppression breaking open and draining at last, don't you? Hollywood, politicians who specialized in virtue-signaling, media figures.
This is good.
It wasn't women with pussy hats on their heads that gave us this deliverance, either.
Before Trump, the word pussy would be bleeped on TV or asterisked in print media, as being too off-color for polite audiences.
No more. Now, we’re treated to the word in all its glory. Little kids get to hear it before they’re even old enough to know what it means. Little girls get to learn what it means, and know the president is fine with them being grabbed there. And that he supported a man for the Alabama senate who preyed on young girls.
So, uh, thanks Trump?
Sores of sexual oppression breaking open, eh?
Huh.
-
Kris, (the quote is getting so long I left it off) -
The Jezebel spirit preys especially on women who have been brutalized by male power.
Sometimes it is difficult to tell what is of human origin and what is from a wicked spirit. The way to know for sure is, when the evil is reaching its zenith, the spirit wants to show its face. It makes its victims mock themselves. Picture the worst kind of bully in school, taking down the littlest kid, smacking him with his own hand and jeering, "Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself."
That is what a pussy hat is.
The Jezebel spirit comes along after other spirits and opportunistically infects the wounds.
We've all fallen for some kind of spirit or another.
-
Wow. This thread certainly took an unexpected turn.
-
Personally, I think the worst thing about the Jezebel spirit is that I have to do all the cooking in my home, because my wife absolutely refuses to make anything other than pancakes and pasta. Who wants to eat pancakes and pasta everyday? Not me. Men unite and overthrow your oppressors!
-
Virgin:
I am reinserting the quote, because the person you voted for as president is a serial brutalizer of reluctant women. Which we know because he has said so. And bragged about it.
Before Trump, the word pussy would be bleeped on TV or asterisked in print media, as being too off-color for polite audiences.
No more. Now, we’re treated to the word in all its glory. Little kids get to hear it before they’re even old enough to know what it means. Little girls get to learn what it means, and know the president is fine with them being grabbed there. And that he supported a man for the Alabama senate who preyed on young girls.
So, uh, thanks Trump?
Sores of sexual oppression breaking open, eh?
Huh.
The hat you are referring to is pink yarn. With cat ears.
Because the non-vulgar/non-Trump meaning of that word is cat.
Blaming yarn for the wickedness in the soul of a brutalizer of women is sick. It's also a desperate attempt to turn attention from his wickedness.
-
People afraid to say Merry Christmas, Jezebel spirits, destructive sexual magic, mothers killing children, discord between brothers(thankfully not sisters apparently)......
And after 9 days of praying a novena on your marrowbones, receiving God's un-tampered with communications, Trump as President was the answer.
Wow, just wow.
-
You could go back to arguing around in circles and vilifying each other.
-
If the Jezebels do witchcraft, do they weigh the same as a duck?
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
I had several questions reading your post but I think it's best to take things one at a time in these conversations.
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
We were being oppressed by a Jezebel spirit, which emasculates men, causes women to practice destructive sexual magic, incites mothers to murder their children, and causes discord between brothers and friends.
The Jezebel spirit hates Christmas and everything it means. That is why saying "Merry Christmas" keeps coming up, it's quite relevant spiritually.
Is this sarcasm?
-
We should not be harming each other by talking like this. It feels smart and clever but it's futile really. Changes in the world are only a tiny percent made by talking.
I voted for the Republican this time, and this is how it personally happened for me. I was distressed at what seemed the negative direction of our country, deeply distressed. So for nine days before the election I got down on my marrowbones and prayed a novena, prayed with all my heart - not so much for a specific result, but for the good of my country.
It seemed so hopeless. On the ninth day (election day) I voted, and felt a pervasive sense that all would be well. I turned off the news with its noisy predictions of Inevitable Result, did some little things around the house, and went peacefully to sleep, sleep without dreams.
Sometime after morning coffee I checked the election results, not in a hurry, and smiled and shook my head at the pundits and their stunned "How could we be so wrong." You see they talked a lot. But they didn't listen, and they didn't see, and so they believed in the Inevitable, which turned out not to be so.
Last year, people in my megacorp workplace were still afraid to say "Merry Christmas." This year I heard it from everybody; we even had an Ugly Christmas Sweater day, which was hilarious. I do not regret voting for the Republican this time at all.
Many people were praying, not so much for a specific result, but for deliverance in crisis. We didn't know each other, but God knew all of us, and His communications cannot be intercepted or tampered with.
Talking in harmful or futile ways does not change the world.
I had several questions reading your post but I think it's best to take things one at a time in these conversations.
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
We were being oppressed by a Jezebel spirit, which emasculates men, causes women to practice destructive sexual magic, incites mothers to murder their children, and causes discord between brothers and friends.
The Jezebel spirit hates Christmas and everything it means. That is why saying "Merry Christmas" keeps coming up, it's quite relevant spiritually.
Is this sarcasm?
Nope.
-
Wow. This thread certainly took an unexpected turn.
Yes, it is suddenly the best thread on the entire forum.
-
People who pray instead of thinking are my favorite.
-
I'm going to name my next band "Jezebel Spirit".
-
How did this Jezebel spirit manifest itself at your megacorp? Was there a memo about "Merry Christmas?" Or were other religions just acknowledged?
Was the Christmas party cancelled and Hanukkah celebrated instead? Or perhaps everyone was encouraged to meet on the solstice at midnight?
Was there a hidden sign/signal/handshake to indicate that you're a Christian?
Do you work in Saudi Arabia or another Muslim country?
-
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
Your phrasing struck me, and I'm curious why/how you are required to answer the question?
-
Wow. This thread certainly took an unexpected turn.
It may not be possible to have this conversation on this forum.
We'll see.
-
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
Your phrasing struck me, and I'm curious why/how you are required to answer the question?
I took it as a serious spiritual question. If I know some part of the answer, I have to say so. Yes?
-
I'm still unclear on what a "Jezebel Spirit" is. Can you clarify for me?
Do you mean "Jezebel" in the biblical sense, like the woman who led her husband to worship a different god aside from the bible's one "approved" version? Are you using it as a stand-in for feminism and equality, or for the supposed over-extension of equality to too many people?
-
Wow. This thread certainly took an unexpected turn.
Yes, it is suddenly the best thread on the entire forum.
It does seem far afield of investing, but I guess it is officially classified as “Off Topic.”
-
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
Your phrasing struck me, and I'm curious why/how you are required to answer the question?
I took it as a serious spiritual question. If I know some part of the answer, I have to say so. Yes?
You took it wrong then. My question had nothing to do with spirituality, which I believe should be kept as far away from politics as possible.
You are clearly a very spiritual person and so you may color in the lines of other people's words with what is important in your life. If you would like to have a real conversation with others on the forum about this I suggest:
1) start another thread
2) be WAY more open minded towards different views. You sound very sure of yourself which is directly opposed to being "Wise"
-
In what ways do you feel the country was going in a negative direction?
I am required to answer this kind of question.
Your phrasing struck me, and I'm curious why/how you are required to answer the question?
I took it as a serious spiritual question. If I know some part of the answer, I have to say so. Yes?
You took it wrong then. My question had nothing to do with spirituality, which I believe should be kept as far away from politics as possible.
You are clearly a very spiritual person and so you may color in the lines of other people's words with what is important in your life. If you would like to have a real conversation with others on the forum about this I suggest:
1) start another thread
2) be WAY more open minded towards different views. You sound very sure of yourself which is directly opposed to being "Wise"
Oh, so not a serious spiritual question. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
The politics are threadbare and repetitive.
-
1) start another thread
Sshhhh, don't ruin a good thing.
This is an OT thread about people's voting history and the way the events of the past year have colored their perception. I think a discussion about pussy grabbers/hats is absolutely on point.
I'm still fuzzy on the Jezebel Spirits, thing, though. There's just so much to unpack there.
-
1) start another thread
Sshhhh, don't ruin a good thing.
This is an OT thread about people's voting history and the way the events of the past year have colored their perception. I think a discussion about pussy grabbers/hats is absolutely on point.
I'm still fuzzy on the Jezebel Spirits, thing, though. There's just so much to unpack there.
Sorry, Sol, you already blew it in this thread. I regard any comments from you as insincere.
My time is worth something. How about yours?
-
I'm still unclear on what a "Jezebel Spirit" is. Can you clarify for me?
Do you mean "Jezebel" in the biblical sense, like the woman who led her husband to worship a different god aside from the bible's one "approved" version? Are you using it as a stand-in for feminism and equality, or for the supposed over-extension of equality to too many people?
@Wise Virgin if you won't answer this for Sol, can you please clarify it for me? The only reason I did not ask was because he had.
-
My time is worth something. How about yours?
You spent 9 days praying a novena on your marrowbones!
-
I regard any comments from you as insincere.
Not at all! You told us you thought the country was headed in a bad direction, and when asked to explain why you offered us a story I still don't quite understand. Is the Jezebel Spirit an over-reaction to women's liberation? Is it a metaphor for moral decay? Your discussion genuinely intrigues me, and while I don't share the spiritual undertones of your views that doesn't mean your complaints themselves aren't legitimate.
So please, flesh it out a little for me. What was wrong with the country before the election, that is now better/worse because of the election, and how does that color your feelings about your vote? That's what this thread is about, right?
-
Fine, I'm in. Let's talk about the Jezebel spirit.
Can you elaborate Wise Virgin?
-
The Jezebel spirit preys especially on women who have been brutalized by male power.
So is it related to the recent spate of sexual assault revelations currently plaguing entertainment and politics? Those women have been "brutalized by male power" but I consider the widespread dissemination of their stories to be a good thing for the world. We need to recognize these problems if we're ever going to fix them.
I'm hoping this isn't another one of those "blame the victim" ideologies that churches sometimes push, like poor people suffer because they they aren't virtuous enough, and women get raped because of the clothes they wear. Please tell me that's not where you were heading with this Jezebel Spirit analogy, because right now it still sounds like you're suggesting that women are at fault for the abuses of the patriarchy.
Sometimes it is difficult to tell what is of human origin and what is from a wicked spirit.
My take on it is that everything like this is of human origin, though lots of it is the product of complicated group dynamics and not individual humans. I can sort of justify blaming an evil spirit for a Black Friday store-opening trampling death, for example, even though I don't believe in literal ghosts. Angry crowds react in unpredictable ways. Stock market bubbles, too, can be metaphorically attributed to animal spirits.
The way to know for sure is, when the evil is reaching its zenith, the spirit wants to show its face. It makes its victims mock themselves... That is what a pussy hat is.
Which victims are we talking about here, still women brutalized by male power? You think the pussy hats are women mocking themselves? Because I got a VERY different vibe off of that whole thing.
And how does any of this relate to the state of the country before the election, which caused you to "pray a novena on your marrowbones"? Aside from being a delightful turn of phrase, I'm still unclear on what problem you prayed on, and how you are able to interpret President Trump as an answer to those prayers. Because from my perspective, if you were worried about sexual assault then our country electing a sexual assaulter to the Presidency is more like victims mocking themselves than just about anything else imaginable.
-
Hold the phone!
Google has answered all of my questions. The Jezebel Spirit is a widely embraced theory in some dark corners of the interwebz. Dark fundie corners.
There is SO much to learn!
https://www.bible-knowledge.com/the-jezebel-spirit-and-how-it-operates/
https://aandbcounseling.com/12-warning-signs-person-influence-jezebel-spirit/
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jezebel-spirit.html
https://www.curtlandry.com/40-signs-you-are-being-destroyed-by-jezebel-and-a-religious-spirit/
http://www.biblewaymag.com/what-are-the-characteristics-of-the-jezebel-spirit/
Short answer: There is a great spiritual war being waged on earth, between the forces of God and the forces of Satan. The Jezebel Spirit is one of Satan's generals in this war.
I am not shitting you.
Frankly I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping this was just a muddled metaphor for a more succinct criticism of modern society, because I believe there are many such criticisms worth discussing in relation to our electoral system, and the Trump administration, and the current cultural zeitgeist. But, alas, no.
-
Hold the phone!
Google has answered all of my questions. The Jezebel Spirit is a widely established theory in some dark corners of the internet.
There is SO much to learn!
https://www.bible-knowledge.com/the-jezebel-spirit-and-how-it-operates/
https://aandbcounseling.com/12-warning-signs-person-influence-jezebel-spirit/
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jezebel-spirit.html
https://www.curtlandry.com/40-signs-you-are-being-destroyed-by-jezebel-and-a-religious-spirit/
http://www.biblewaymag.com/what-are-the-characteristics-of-the-jezebel-spirit/
Short answer: There is a great spiritual war being waged on earth, between the forces of God and the forces of Satan. The Jezebel Spirit is one of Satan's generals in this war.
I am not shitting you.
This reminds me of scientology. Once I was explaining their foundational beliefs to a couple of coworkers (back in the dark ages when it wasn't easy to just wikipedia for it), and they could not believe it. They were sure I was making it up.
-
Re: Trump being a good choice to combat victimization of women. I could kind of squint and see that if someone was a sincere believer in spirits working on earth, cosmic struggle between god and the devil etc, that you could decide (via voice of god telling you, answered prayers, random feels) that Trump, as a confessed and accused sexual assaulter, would by his visibility force the issue (Satan?) into the open where society (God?) could finally deal openly with it. So in that case Trump, however evil his own actions, would be acting in a greater than earthly capacity, and because deities' reasons are always obscure, it would be ok for Trump himself to face no earthly consequence for his own actions because he would be judged at his death. Him being a crap person and generally incompetent at his job would be of less importance than his use as a divine instrument.
I'm not implying that's what Wise Virgin was saying or believing, only that I can create a tortuous logic of that sort, if I were to believe in supernatural entities or events.
-
I'm assuming that Hillary is a Jezebel spirit and, thus, the vote for Trump.
Of course, Trump meets almost all of the tests as well (a Jezebel spirit doesn't always have to be in a woman!).
I suspect that any strong, non-religious, woman meets the tests. 1st Timothy 2:11-12 and all.
-
Frankly I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping this was just a muddled metaphor for a more succinct criticism of modern society, because I believe there are many such criticisms worth discussing in relation to our electoral system, and the Trump administration, and the current cultural zeitgeist. But, alas, no.
Are you kidding? It's way fascinating. This is what...20%? of the nation believes. As in, truly believes. God talks to them when they pray.
-
I think it's important to point out that Hillary Clinton is a practicing Methodist and a life-long Christian. Donald Trump is an unrepentant adulterer and philanderer who gleefully brags about cheating people out of money. He is prideful, violent, lustful, avaricious, wrathful, and slothful (hence the constant golfing vacations every weekend.) He does not truly accept Christ as his lord and savior, but pays lip service to Jesus to suck up to some easily fooled evangelicals.
There were quite a few Republican candidates in this past Presidential election cycle who were genuine practicing Christians -- Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc. Trump was and is not one of them.
-
First google result for "Jezebel Spirit":
https://truthinreality.com/2012/09/24/30-consistent-traits-of-the-jezebel-spirit/ (https://truthinreality.com/2012/09/24/30-consistent-traits-of-the-jezebel-spirit/)
1, 2, 5, & 10
Trump meets almost all of the traits but these ones just... I think maybe I'm starting to believe in this Jezebel spirit business?
-
I'm going to name my next band "Jezebel Spirit".
good song (https://youtu.be/R5LhnBKCgU8) by that name fwiw.
-
Can't honestly debate based on facts so you call someone an asshole......so you ignore your own ignorance.
Best of luck to you.
So, have you already picked out which traitors and child molesters you are going to support in the coming elections? Or, are you just going to go with whoever the republicans nominate?
-
First google result for "Jezebel Spirit":
https://truthinreality.com/2012/09/24/30-consistent-traits-of-the-jezebel-spirit/ (https://truthinreality.com/2012/09/24/30-consistent-traits-of-the-jezebel-spirit/)
1, 2, 5, & 10
Trump meets almost all of the traits but these ones just... I think maybe I'm starting to believe in this Jezebel spirit business?
Wow, no kidding. It’s hard to think of anyone who embodies most of those characteristics better than D.J. Trump.
Looks like Virgin really backed the wrong horse.
-
I've stopped saying 'Merry Christmas' but am still having trouble in my quest to locate women willing to perform destructive sexual magic. Could you drop me a few hints as to the best practices that I'll need to follow and the most likely places to find 'em?
-
I honestly find this fetish about saying Merry Christmas utterly mystifying. I work and live in communities that include people of many faiths. Why would I insist on saying Merry Christmas to someone when I know they don’t celebrate it? Did anyone ever stop saying it to people who do celebrate it? I just don’t get the culture of victimhood and martyrdom among broad swaths of the Christian community. To me they come across as a bunch of whiners. And then to throw their lot in with someone who demonstrates no adherence to Christian values whatsoever. Makes me think they haven’t read their favorite book too carefully.
-
I've stopped saying 'Merry Christmas' but am still having trouble in my quest to locate women willing to perform destructive sexual magic. Could you drop me a few hints as to the best practices that I'll need to follow and the most likely places to find 'em?
Dude, aren't you married with kids?
-
I honestly find this fetish about saying Merry Christmas utterly mystifying. I work and live in communities that include people of many faiths. Why would I insist on saying Merry Christmas to someone when I know they don’t celebrate it? Did anyone ever stop saying it to people who do celebrate it? I just don’t get the culture of victimhood and martyrdom among broad swaths of the Christian community. To me they come across as a bunch of whiners. And then to throw their lot in with someone who demonstrates no adherence to Christian values whatsoever. Makes me think they haven’t read their favorite book too carefully.
Word. The "Put Christ back into Christmas" people need to put on their big girl panties and stop triggering when someone says "Happy Holidays." That includes my parents.
-
I've stopped saying 'Merry Christmas' but am still having trouble in my quest to locate women willing to perform destructive sexual magic. Could you drop me a few hints as to the best practices that I'll need to follow and the most likely places to find 'em?
Google "bilquis scene american gods video" and there's a Vimeo link (NSFW). She got her man at a bar.
-
I've stopped saying 'Merry Christmas' but am still having trouble in my quest to locate women willing to perform destructive sexual magic. Could you drop me a few hints as to the best practices that I'll need to follow and the most likely places to find 'em?
Dude, aren't you married with kids?
Yep. My wife said Jezebel spirit induced destructive sex magic performing women who are combated by the power of saying 'Merry Christmas' are totally fair game.
Also allowed - mermaids, fairies (w/wings, not chest hair), nymphs, dryads, naiads, vampires (only old school - no sparkly emo ones), and succubus.
-
I've stopped saying 'Merry Christmas' but am still having trouble in my quest to locate women willing to perform destructive sexual magic. Could you drop me a few hints as to the best practices that I'll need to follow and the most likely places to find 'em?
Google "bilquis scene american gods video" and there's a Vimeo link (NSFW). She got her man at a bar.
I could not believe the showrunners actually pulled that scene off and made it effective. When I heard they were making that book into a tv series, I remember wondering how they would ever pull it off.
-
I've stopped saying 'Merry Christmas' but am still having trouble in my quest to locate women willing to perform destructive sexual magic. Could you drop me a few hints as to the best practices that I'll need to follow and the most likely places to find 'em?
Dude, aren't you married with kids?
I read that as saying any man who was married with kids had witnessed destructive sexual magic... LOL.
Getting married and having kids does take its toll on 20-something bachelorhood. Responsibilities et al.
So Bible believers are still going on about how women are dangerous huh? Please join us in 2018.
Half of the human population are not dangerous by default. They are made a little differently and sometimes have a different POV but its likely women who keep us men from reverting to Neanderthals.
-
Re: Trump being a good choice to combat victimization of women. I could kind of squint and see that if someone was a sincere believer in spirits working on earth, cosmic struggle between god and the devil etc, that you could decide (via voice of god telling you, answered prayers, random feels) that Trump, as a confessed and accused sexual assaulter, would by his visibility force the issue (Satan?) into the open where society (God?) could finally deal openly with it. So in that case Trump, however evil his own actions, would be acting in a greater than earthly capacity, and because deities' reasons are always obscure, it would be ok for Trump himself to face no earthly consequence for his own actions because he would be judged at his death. Him being a crap person and generally incompetent at his job would be of less importance than his use as a divine instrument.
I'm not implying that's what Wise Virgin was saying or believing, only that I can create a tortuous logic of that sort, if I were to believe in supernatural entities or events.
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
-
Re: Trump being a good choice to combat victimization of women. I could kind of squint and see that if someone was a sincere believer in spirits working on earth, cosmic struggle between god and the devil etc, that you could decide (via voice of god telling you, answered prayers, random feels) that Trump, as a confessed and accused sexual assaulter, would by his visibility force the issue (Satan?) into the open where society (God?) could finally deal openly with it. So in that case Trump, however evil his own actions, would be acting in a greater than earthly capacity, and because deities' reasons are always obscure, it would be ok for Trump himself to face no earthly consequence for his own actions because he would be judged at his death. Him being a crap person and generally incompetent at his job would be of less importance than his use as a divine instrument.
I'm not implying that's what Wise Virgin was saying or believing, only that I can create a tortuous logic of that sort, if I were to believe in supernatural entities or events.
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
Intentionally walking into the dressing rooms of women while they change and grabbing women by their genitals without asking is consensual? These are the incidents that come to mind when you say he bragged about it, were there others?
Hollywood and media organizations are particularly susceptible to sexual harassment but it's because of the organizational structure, it has nothing to do with left vs. right. And I guess you don't consider Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes part of "the media"?
The only point I can partially agree with here is that Trump may have helped bring about the current movement. But of course this isn't based on anything good he's done, only on the fact that our country elected an admitted sexual abuser. That was one more straw on the camels back, nothing more. This sounds like saying James Earl Ray was good for blacks because he advanced the civil rights movement.
-
This sounds like saying James Earl Ray was good for blacks because he advanced the civil rights movement.
I heard Pete Rose getting a coaching job was the best thing ever to happen to baseball. We never would have cracked down on insider gambling if not for him.
And Osama bin Laden is the reason we're winning the war on terror. And every day I give thanks to Mussolini for putting an end to fascism. And Lance Armstrong is responsible for cleaning up cycling.
Except NO, all five of these people were held accountable for their crimes when the world got fed up. We don't credit the perpetrators, we punish them. Unless they are the US President, then we buy red hats and write internet posts defending their abominable choices as catalysts for positive change?
-
Re: Trump being a good choice to combat victimization of women. I could kind of squint and see that if someone was a sincere believer in spirits working on earth, cosmic struggle between god and the devil etc, that you could decide (via voice of god telling you, answered prayers, random feels) that Trump, as a confessed and accused sexual assaulter, would by his visibility force the issue (Satan?) into the open where society (God?) could finally deal openly with it. So in that case Trump, however evil his own actions, would be acting in a greater than earthly capacity, and because deities' reasons are always obscure, it would be ok for Trump himself to face no earthly consequence for his own actions because he would be judged at his death. Him being a crap person and generally incompetent at his job would be of less importance than his use as a divine instrument.
I'm not implying that's what Wise Virgin was saying or believing, only that I can create a tortuous logic of that sort, if I were to believe in supernatural entities or events.
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
Wow. I never seen such a back breaking convoluted argument before, that Hillary would be worst than Trump regarding women's issues. Wooo... I think the watershed moment was Harvey Weinstein being exposed. The media who did the expose were the New York Times and the New Yorker ("liberal media"). And of course the many brave women who reported on someone considered "untouchable" and would ruin their careers if outed. He was going down no matter what, but there was a groundswell of more women (and men) reporting abuse from other people, especially in the workplace. The only way I would say that Trump being a good choice, is that his many many actions and words that are so disrespectful of women (he initially even refused to shake Ms. Merkel's hand) was like someone else said, the straw that broke the camel's back.
Regarding Trump. In addition to the Thousands of lawsuits Trump has against him, some including employees, he has been sued by a woman who attests she was raped by him when she was 13. She has now gone into hiding. Ivana also reports domestic violence so bad her hair was ripped out by him. I don't think that was consensual either.
-
Re: Trump being a good choice to combat victimization of women. I could kind of squint and see that if someone was a sincere believer in spirits working on earth, cosmic struggle between god and the devil etc, that you could decide (via voice of god telling you, answered prayers, random feels) that Trump, as a confessed and accused sexual assaulter, would by his visibility force the issue (Satan?) into the open where society (God?) could finally deal openly with it. So in that case Trump, however evil his own actions, would be acting in a greater than earthly capacity, and because deities' reasons are always obscure, it would be ok for Trump himself to face no earthly consequence for his own actions because he would be judged at his death. Him being a crap person and generally incompetent at his job would be of less importance than his use as a divine instrument.
I'm not implying that's what Wise Virgin was saying or believing, only that I can create a tortuous logic of that sort, if I were to believe in supernatural entities or events.
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
Wow. I never seen such a back breaking convoluted argument before, that Hillary would be worst than Trump regarding women's issues. Wooo... I think the watershed moment was Harvey Weinstein being exposed. The media who did the expose were the New York Times and the New Yorker ("liberal media"). And of course the many brave women who reported on someone considered "untouchable" and would ruin their careers if outed. He was going down no matter what, but there was a groundswell of more women (and men) reporting abuse from other people, especially in the workplace. The only way I would say that Trump being a good choice, is that his many many actions and words that are so disrespectful of women (he initially even refused to shake Ms. Merkel's hand) was like someone else said, the straw that broke the camel's back.
Regarding Trump. In addition to the Thousands of lawsuits Trump has against him, some including employees, he has been sued by a woman who attests she was raped by him when she was 13. She has now gone into hiding. Ivanka also reports domestic violence so bad her hair was ripped out by him. I don't think that was consensual either.
That was Ivana Trump while he was raping her (his wife not his daughter).
-
Lance Armstrong is responsible for cleaning up cycling.
He certainly wasn't alone. Speaking of which, we're about to have Chris Froome to thank for more of the same . . .
:P
-
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
The #METOO movement that is at the forefront of the movement to bring the issue of sexual assault and harassment of women out into the open was initiated in 2012. Yes, that's 2012. A full 5 years before Trump became President.
If you do a little research about what you are posting about before posting you greatly reduce the likelihood of looking ignorant.
-
I changed my party affiliation to Democrat about a decade ago . . . so this whole thread has been ignored until now.
But, I really can't believe no one has noted that the Jezebel spirit is so pervasive that she (it?) actively blogs (about politics and other things):
https://theslot.jezebel.com/ (https://theslot.jezebel.com/)
-
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
The #METOO movement that is at the forefront of the movement to bring the issue of sexual assault and harassment of women out into the open was initiated in 2012. Yes, that's 2012. A full 5 years before Trump became President.
If you do a little research about what you are posting about before posting you greatly reduce the likelihood of looking ignorant.
How does this rule out Trump's election being the catalyst that brought about the change?
You might as well say it's really the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that was the watershed movement. After all, that's actually what entitles everyone to a non-hostile workplace.
-
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
The #METOO movement that is at the forefront of the movement to bring the issue of sexual assault and harassment of women out into the open was initiated in 2012. Yes, that's 2012. A full 5 years before Trump became President.
If you do a little research about what you are posting about before posting you greatly reduce the likelihood of looking ignorant.
Exactly. A full five years before Trump became President, but suddenly it became effective w/r/t hollywood, the Media, and politicians after president Trump became president. Certainly doesn't rule out that it's a coincidence, but you are inadvertently arguing against yourself. If you say things out loud before you type them, you could greatly reduce the likelihood of looking illogical.
-
You don't have to squint or believe in spirites. Trump was a good choice to combat victimization of women. If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary, who has consistently viciously attacked both credible victims of sexual assault and rape and also a <22 year old girl/woman that engaged in sexual activities with a much higher ranking superior at work.
If a normal candidate had been elected, they might not have been as vested in suppressing issues regarding sexual abuse, but they wouldn't have been particularly interested either.
But with Trump, they thought they could bring him down by attacking him for alleged sexual abuses (although they oddly latched onto him bragging about consensual sexual encounters to do it), and by doing so, they inadvertently weakened the "wall of silence" that was protecting their political allies.
I'm not sure anybody saw this coming, but it's pretty easy to understand with hindsight that Trump was a better choice for women, particularly those in hollywood, the media, and politics, who wanted to speak out about sexual abuse they had experienced but were convinced (probably correctly) that before the issue got some momentum because of the potential to harm trump, they would have been attacked by the left if they did so.
The #METOO movement that is at the forefront of the movement to bring the issue of sexual assault and harassment of women out into the open was initiated in 2012. Yes, that's 2012. A full 5 years before Trump became President.
If you do a little research about what you are posting about before posting you greatly reduce the likelihood of looking ignorant.
Exactly. A full five years before Trump became President, but suddenly it became effective w/r/t hollywood, the Media, and politicians after president Trump became president. Certainly doesn't rule out that it's a coincidence, but you are inadvertently arguing against yourself. If you say things out loud before you type them, you could greatly reduce the likelihood of looking illogical.
I just want you to actually explain how you think Trump brought us to this watershed moment.
-
How does this rule out Trump's election being the catalyst that brought about the change?
You might as well say it's really the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that was the watershed movement. After all, that's actually what entitles everyone to a non-hostile workplace.
Exactly. A full five years before Trump became President, but suddenly it became effective w/r/t hollywood, the Media, and politicians after president Trump became president. Certainly doesn't rule out that it's a coincidence, but you are inadvertently arguing against yourself. If you say things out loud before you type them, you could greatly reduce the likelihood of looking illogical.
Jrr85 claimed "If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary".
The "left", along with many from the middle and the right I'm sure, were actively trying to bring to light the issue a full 5 years before Trump was elected. They were doing so during the entire period Hillary campaigned both in the primaries and the general election. They were demonstrably NOT ignoring the sexual abuse. But lets not let facts get the way of the narrative of MAGA hey?
The fact you two were not aware of the movement to bring to light this issue until Trump started boasting about sexually harassing women says a lot about you both. The fact you seem to believe it should be the perpetrator of such acts that should be lauded as the catalyst for change says even more. I imagine you would feel differently about Trump and other such creatures if it were your daughter/wife/sister/mother that was the one being grabbed by the pussy. I rather doubt you would waxing lyrical about Trump being "a good choice to combat the victimization of women" in that situation.
-
As I wrote in my journal, one time in college, two girls infested with the Jezebel spirit tried to use their destructive sexual magic on me at the same time. Luckily, I Forrest Gumped my way out of that situation before they claimed my soul for Satan. Thank God, they didn't get to me. I'd probably have ended up the subject of an article in New York magazine.
-
As I wrote in my journal, one time in college, two girls infested with the Jezebel spirit tried to use their destructive sexual magic on me at the same time. Luckily, I Forrest Gumped my way out of that situation before they claimed my soul for Satan. Thank God, they didn't get to me. I'd probably have ended up the subject of an article in New York magazine.
I had this exact same situation in college, only it was two dudes infested with the Jezebel Spirit. They seemed to get it on just fine without me afterwards.
-
As I wrote in my journal, one time in college, two girls infested with the Jezebel spirit tried to use their destructive sexual magic on me at the same time. Luckily, I Forrest Gumped my way out of that situation before they claimed my soul for Satan. Thank God, they didn't get to me. I'd probably have ended up the subject of an article in New York magazine.
I've searched high and low for a couple of Jezebel spirit infested women for just such an experience of destructive sexual magic, all to no avail. :(
-
Dodging the destructive sexual magics of the Jezebel spirit to trigger the libs itt
-
How does this rule out Trump's election being the catalyst that brought about the change?
You might as well say it's really the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that was the watershed movement. After all, that's actually what entitles everyone to a non-hostile workplace.
Exactly. A full five years before Trump became President, but suddenly it became effective w/r/t hollywood, the Media, and politicians after president Trump became president. Certainly doesn't rule out that it's a coincidence, but you are inadvertently arguing against yourself. If you say things out loud before you type them, you could greatly reduce the likelihood of looking illogical.
Jrr85 claimed "If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary".
The "left", along with many from the middle and the right I'm sure, were actively trying to bring to light the issue a full 5 years before Trump was elected. They were doing so during the entire period Hillary campaigned both in the primaries and the general election. They were demonstrably NOT ignoring the sexual abuse. But lets not let facts get the way of the narrative of MAGA hey?
The fact you two were not aware of the movement to bring to light this issue until Trump started boasting about sexually harassing women says a lot about you both. The fact you seem to believe it should be the perpetrator of such acts that should be lauded as the catalyst for change says even more. I imagine you would feel differently about Trump and other such creatures if it were your daughter/wife/sister/mother that was the one being grabbed by the pussy. I rather doubt you would waxing lyrical about Trump being "a good choice to combat the victimization of women" in that situation.
The Civil Rights Act was trying to stop hostile workplaces a full 40 years before #MeToo. The fact that you are not aware of basic law until #MeToo started says a lot about you.
Really, the idea that Trump getting elected provided a catalyst to make sexual harassment a much bigger issue is NOT far-fetched. I'm not even saying I agree with: I'm saying your dismissal of it out of hand is stupid, and your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you is "ignorant" is intellectual arrogance bordering on the obscene.
-
The Civil Rights Act was trying to stop hostile workplaces a full 40 years before #MeToo. The fact that you are not aware of basic law until #MeToo started says a lot about you.
I don't think anyone has ever said that #MeToo was about changing the existing law. It's about ensuring that the existing law can be applied the way that was intended but which has not happened to date because of prevailing social attitudes about men, women, sexuality, power and violence.
One of the first lessons any lawyer learns is that there is a gap between the words of the law and the practice of the law. That gap is biggest where it involves issues of power and powerlessness, as sexual violence does. The recent scandals about men using their positions of power to perpetrate sexual abuse, which chimes with the #MeToo movement, looks like it might be a significant move towards reducing that gap (although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some slippage I'm hoping the baseline has been moved at least a little).
-
How does this rule out Trump's election being the catalyst that brought about the change?
You might as well say it's really the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that was the watershed movement. After all, that's actually what entitles everyone to a non-hostile workplace.
Exactly. A full five years before Trump became President, but suddenly it became effective w/r/t hollywood, the Media, and politicians after president Trump became president. Certainly doesn't rule out that it's a coincidence, but you are inadvertently arguing against yourself. If you say things out loud before you type them, you could greatly reduce the likelihood of looking illogical.
Jrr85 claimed "If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary".
The "left", along with many from the middle and the right I'm sure, were actively trying to bring to light the issue a full 5 years before Trump was elected. They were doing so during the entire period Hillary campaigned both in the primaries and the general election. They were demonstrably NOT ignoring the sexual abuse. But lets not let facts get the way of the narrative of MAGA hey?
The fact you two were not aware of the movement to bring to light this issue until Trump started boasting about sexually harassing women says a lot about you both. The fact you seem to believe it should be the perpetrator of such acts that should be lauded as the catalyst for change says even more. I imagine you would feel differently about Trump and other such creatures if it were your daughter/wife/sister/mother that was the one being grabbed by the pussy. I rather doubt you would waxing lyrical about Trump being "a good choice to combat the victimization of women" in that situation.
The Civil Rights Act was trying to stop hostile workplaces a full 40 years before #MeToo. The fact that you are not aware of basic law until #MeToo started says a lot about you.
Really, the idea that Trump getting elected provided a catalyst to make sexual harassment a much bigger issue is NOT far-fetched. I'm not even saying I agree with: I'm saying your dismissal of it out of hand is stupid, and your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you is "ignorant" is intellectual arrogance bordering on the obscene.
I think we all agree that his election (along with some other events) were likely a catalyst; the issue I and some others take with Jrr85's wording is that he makes it sound like Trump did a good thing. Which is actually a very Trumpish thing to do, take credit for good outcomes regardless of his own role as the antagonist to women.
Also Jrr85, your assumption that liberal media would have actively kept these issues out of the spotlight had Hillary been elected as a way to protect her is mostly unfounded. As has been mentioned, these issues were already on the radar and being talked about. I can find hundreds if not thousands of articles on the topic discussing allegations against celebrities, republicans, and democrats prior to November 8 2016 from sources that you would consider liberal media.
-
I think electing the first woman president would have been a better watershed moment for women's rights than electing a groper. The emergence of a women-led resistance to this presidency is a silver lining, but saying we should credit Trump for it is like saying we should thank cancer for the invention of taxol.
-
I'm in total agreement. Elect a woman president, another person of color - anyone besides another aging white male boomer with limited mental space for anyone but more white people.
-
I think electing the first woman president would have been a better watershed moment for women's rights than electing a groper. The emergence of a women-led resistance to this presidency is a silver lining, but saying we should credit Trump for it is like saying we should thank cancer for the invention of taxol.
I'm in total agreement. Elect a woman president, another person of color - anyone besides another aging white male boomer with limited mental space for anyone but more white people.
I'm glad we're in agreement about a President Nikki Haley, should she ever choose to run!
-
I think electing the first woman president would have been a better watershed moment for women's rights than electing a groper. The emergence of a women-led resistance to this presidency is a silver lining, but saying we should credit Trump for it is like saying we should thank cancer for the invention of taxol.
I'm in total agreement. Elect a woman president, another person of color - anyone besides another aging white male boomer with limited mental space for anyone but more white people.
I'm glad we're in agreement about a President Nikki Haley, should she ever choose to run!
Nimrata Randhawa Haley hasn't been as horrible as an ambassador as I thought she would be, considering she has absolutely no foreign policy experience at all. Though she seems to be infected with a similar strain of "try to mask your ignorance with lies" that many other people in the Trump administration are. Which makes her, like them, sadly susceptible to manipulation by bad actors.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366712-russian-comedians-appear-to-prank-nikki-haley
I wouldn't doubt she decided to sell her soul to the Trump administration to up her profile for a presidential run. Which pretty much disqualifies her in my mind: she's too easy to buy.
In addition, she's too eyerollingly hypocritical on the "I'm a conservative who says government should get out of people's lives except when I want government to legislate people's private lives" for me to ever vote for her.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Nikki_Haley.htm
We shall see.
-
Nikki "We're taking names on the vote" Haley? LOL ok.
-
The Civil Rights Act was trying to stop hostile workplaces a full 40 years before #MeToo. The fact that you are not aware of basic law until #MeToo started says a lot about you.
Really, the idea that Trump getting elected provided a catalyst to make sexual harassment a much bigger issue is NOT far-fetched. I'm not even saying I agree with: I'm saying your dismissal of it out of hand is stupid, and your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you is "ignorant" is intellectual arrogance bordering on the obscene.
I never made the claim, for example, that legislators were actively ignoring sexual abuse of women. So your ridiculous analogy and claim I did not know about the Civil Rights Act is rather lame. Furthermore I never made the claim that the election of Trump did not bring the issue even more to light. I only pointed out that the issue was being talked about long before the election of Trump and that the left was not "actively ignoring" it and that believing Trump should be lauded as the catalyst for change is a rather telling attitude to have.
On the other hand, Jrr85 did make the claim that "the left" was "actively ignoring" the abuse of women. Jrr85's claim is demonstrably false. Jrr85's claim does show he/she to be ignorant of the facts. Pointing out that ignorance is no more arrogant than pointing out that generally speaking water is wet.
-
Corey Feldman has been talking about abuse in Hollywood since at least 2013, nobody cared. He was even accused of trying to "damage the industry".
Still no one is talking about the pedophilia in Hollywood Feldman was trying to expose.
-
How does this rule out Trump's election being the catalyst that brought about the change?
You might as well say it's really the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that was the watershed movement. After all, that's actually what entitles everyone to a non-hostile workplace.
Exactly. A full five years before Trump became President, but suddenly it became effective w/r/t hollywood, the Media, and politicians after president Trump became president. Certainly doesn't rule out that it's a coincidence, but you are inadvertently arguing against yourself. If you say things out loud before you type them, you could greatly reduce the likelihood of looking illogical.
Jrr85 claimed "If Hillary had won, you would have had the entire left, which includes the media and hollywood (which are apparently particularly hellish places for women as far as the developed world), actively ignoring the sexual abuse within their midst because they wouldn't want to negatively impact Hillary".
The "left", along with many from the middle and the right I'm sure, were actively trying to bring to light the issue a full 5 years before Trump was elected. They were doing so during the entire period Hillary campaigned both in the primaries and the general election. They were demonstrably NOT ignoring the sexual abuse. But lets not let facts get the way of the narrative of MAGA hey?
The fact you two were not aware of the movement to bring to light this issue until Trump started boasting about sexually harassing women says a lot about you both. The fact you seem to believe it should be the perpetrator of such acts that should be lauded as the catalyst for change says even more. I imagine you would feel differently about Trump and other such creatures if it were your daughter/wife/sister/mother that was the one being grabbed by the pussy. I rather doubt you would waxing lyrical about Trump being "a good choice to combat the victimization of women" in that situation.
The Civil Rights Act was trying to stop hostile workplaces a full 40 years before #MeToo. The fact that you are not aware of basic law until #MeToo started says a lot about you.
Really, the idea that Trump getting elected provided a catalyst to make sexual harassment a much bigger issue is NOT far-fetched. I'm not even saying I agree with: I'm saying your dismissal of it out of hand is stupid, and your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you is "ignorant" is intellectual arrogance bordering on the obscene.
I think we all agree that his election (along with some other events) were likely a catalyst; the issue I and some others take with Jrr85's wording is that he makes it sound like Trump did a good thing. Which is actually a very Trumpish thing to do, take credit for good outcomes regardless of his own role as the antagonist to women.
Also Jrr85, your assumption that liberal media would have actively kept these issues out of the spotlight had Hillary been elected as a way to protect her is mostly unfounded. As has been mentioned, these issues were already on the radar and being talked about. I can find hundreds if not thousands of articles on the topic discussing allegations against celebrities, republicans, and democrats prior to November 8 2016 from sources that you would consider liberal media.
I more or less agree with this, but there are probably a handful of consequetionalists out there that would still think that Trump being the catalyst would make Trump the better candidate. Counter-intuitive, but actions get judged by consequences, not intentions.
I'd think these people would be no more than a handful. Most of the people who are voting for Trump either don't believe the pussy-grabbing tape or don't think it's a big deal, not that Trump accidentally turned out to be better for women's rights by creating a backlash.
I disagree that political and economic leaders on the Political Left didn't attempt to protect their own. There's left advocacy and interest groups that attempt to expose the accusers, but it's a big stretch from there to "everyone on the left was devoted to taking these guys down." People like Weisenstein (sp?) would have people protecting them, otherwise they would've gone down years ago. Some of those people are obviously going to be on the Left. I don't know WHO was playing political cover, but some people definitely were.
-
Nope. Wish he would shut his mouth and tweet less but I do not regret my vote.
-
I've lately been attached to this narrative that Trump is basically building out the biggest political deal of our time with the Republican party. This tax reform that was just passed is something that--once it is understood--should be appealing to any true economic/business conservative. The appointment of Neil Gorsuch (and other judges), should mollify social and constitutional conservatives.
In exchange, the GOP has to accept Trump, tweets, personality flaws, addiction to cable news, conflicts of interest, misogony, embrace of the alt-right, criminal indictments, everything. It's kind of a faustian bargain made to advance conservative priorities during what would have been four wasted years had Clinton won the Presidency. What is unresolved is whether these costs will so damage the Republican brand going forward that it will be difficult to retain power after 2020.
What Trump receives: a vast building out of his own (family) brand and business using the tools of the Presidency, as well as a lighter treatment via the estate tax when he passes away.
-
It's pretty clear by now (and the White House has no come back on this) that President Trump is the intellectual, emotional and moral equivalent of a toddler. (Apologies to anyone who has a lovely toddler.)
The appointment of Neil Gorsuch is entirely the triumph of Mitch McConnell, who bent the constitution past any reasonable interpretation in order to prevent the appointment of an Obama nomination. It's nothing to do with Trump.
-
I've lately been attached to this narrative that Trump is basically building out the biggest political deal of our time with the Republican party. This tax reform that was just passed is something that--once it is understood--should be appealing to any true economic/business conservative. The appointment of Neil Gorsuch (and other judges), should mollify social and constitutional conservatives.
In exchange, the GOP has to accept Trump, tweets, personality flaws, addiction to cable news, conflicts of interest, misogony, embrace of the alt-right, criminal indictments, everything. It's kind of a faustian bargain made to advance conservative priorities during what would have been four wasted years had Clinton won the Presidency. What is unresolved is whether these costs will so damage the Republican brand going forward that it will be difficult to retain power after 2020.
What Trump receives: a vast building out of his own (family) brand and business using the tools of the Presidency, as well as a lighter treatment via the estate tax when he passes away.
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game. (This opinion is independent of whether Trump SHOULD be impeached).
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
They don't have one.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
"Naked power and money grab."
It has the added benefit of being short and with not very many syllables, so Trump can read it.
-
Nikki "We're taking names on the vote" Haley? LOL ok.
Well, she seems to have survived so far without looking like Trump's pathetic lap dog, which is a fate that far more experienced political operators like Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie didn't avoid.
I don't want her to be president for the reason I don't want most republicans to be president: I disagree with her policy positions. However, she seems like a generic republican, deviating from the norm in only the degree of how much she hates unions. Also, she managed not to look like a secret member of the KKK in supporting the removal of relics of the confederacy. So, if a republican has to be president again, she's no worse than most. And, it would be a nice opportunity for republicans to show they aren't racist misogynists, which I imagine they'd welcome. And, electing an unremarkable female president would be a stab towards equality in the sense that mediocre white men have been reaching beyond their abilities for years. Why not a mediocre woman? Btw-I won't vote for her, which pokes a hole in the theory that liberals will vote for any minority and any woman.
Let's hope that we've learned our lesson about putting republicans in power. We probably haven't, but perhaps upper middle class republicans will learn basic math skills when their tax bill come due this year.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
It pretty much consists of not being the Democratic Party. That might be giving it a little too much credit, because much of the GOP is trying to be the Democratic Party, and even Trump is essentially holding together a coalition (such as it is) that is highly dependent on the old populist and nationalist segment of the Democratic party.
But basically both of our parties are dysfunctional right now because there is no easy way to align the existing major factions into two parties. You have the free trade group in the republican party, you have the nationalist and protectionist people that were before split between the parties (with probably much more of a presence in the Democratic party) by some factors not obvious to me who are now mostly (but somewhat tentatively) siding with republicans now. You have the rich, white and urban and major metropolitan suburban "elites" in the democrat party along with the anti-white, anti-male extremists. You have the rich white and rural and minor metropolitan suburban "elites" split between the democrat and republican party (with the republicans probably having an advantage). You have a tiny portion of libertarianish people who have no home but probably have moved slightly towards republicans. You have anti-police factions in the democratic party along with pro-police union factions in the democratic party, neither of which are compatible with each other but also aren't really compatible iwth the republican party. You have crony capitalists split pretty equally between the parties, although they support different industries. You have the people "for" the poor in the democratic party along with the greenies that effectively want to make the lives of the poor much worse.
You arrange those into coalitions that come close to being compatible while also getting somewhere around 50%+ of electoral votes and also being competitive in state and local elections.
-
It pretty much consists of not being the Democratic Party. That might be giving it a little too much credit, because much of the GOP is trying to be the Democratic Party, and even Trump is essentially holding together a coalition (such as it is) that is highly dependent on the old populist and nationalist segment of the Democratic party.
But basically both of our parties are dysfunctional right now because there is no easy way to align the existing major factions into two parties. You have the free trade group in the republican party, you have the nationalist and protectionist people that were before split between the parties (with probably much more of a presence in the Democratic party) by some factors not obvious to me who are now mostly (but somewhat tentatively) siding with republicans now. You have the rich, white and urban and major metropolitan suburban "elites" in the democrat party along with the anti-white, anti-male extremists. You have the rich white and rural and minor metropolitan suburban "elites" split between the democrat and republican party (with the republicans probably having an advantage). You have a tiny portion of libertarianish people who have no home but probably have moved slightly towards republicans. You have anti-police factions in the democratic party along with pro-police union factions in the democratic party, neither of which are compatible with each other but also aren't really compatible iwth the republican party. You have crony capitalists split pretty equally between the parties, although they support different industries. You have the people "for" the poor in the democratic party along with the greenies that effectively want to make the lives of the poor much worse.
You arrange those into coalitions that come close to being compatible while also getting somewhere around 50%+ of electoral votes and also being competitive in state and local elections.
It sounds strangely like you are suggesting that both major parties, at least to some degree, are trying create coalitions by accepting "factions" that take into account and try to represent the many varied and often competing desires and values of the broad population?
It certainly would be a strange world if major parties tried to govern in a way that at least made a pretense towards being in the best interests of all.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
It pretty much consists of not being the Democratic Party. That might be giving it a little too much credit, because much of the GOP is trying to be the Democratic Party, and even Trump is essentially holding together a coalition (such as it is) that is highly dependent on the old populist and nationalist segment of the Democratic party.
But basically both of our parties are dysfunctional right now because there is no easy way to align the existing major factions into two parties. You have the free trade group in the republican party, you have the nationalist and protectionist people that were before split between the parties (with probably much more of a presence in the Democratic party) by some factors not obvious to me who are now mostly (but somewhat tentatively) siding with republicans now. You have the rich, white and urban and major metropolitan suburban "elites" in the democrat party along with the anti-white, anti-male extremists. You have the rich white and rural and minor metropolitan suburban "elites" split between the democrat and republican party (with the republicans probably having an advantage). You have a tiny portion of libertarianish people who have no home but probably have moved slightly towards republicans. You have anti-police factions in the democratic party along with pro-police union factions in the democratic party, neither of which are compatible with each other but also aren't really compatible iwth the republican party. You have crony capitalists split pretty equally between the parties, although they support different industries. You have the people "for" the poor in the democratic party along with the greenies that effectively want to make the lives of the poor much worse.
You arrange those into coalitions that come close to being compatible while also getting somewhere around 50%+ of electoral votes and also being competitive in state and local elections.
+1. You can't have two parties (one for conservatives and one for progressives) that can meet the policies wanted by the extremes (left/right) and the moderates on so many issues. We are in the age where we need more stronger 3rd and 4th parties. Especially when there are a significant number of independent voters. The Dems and Reps have played divide-and-conquer far too long; but they never really represent the electorate's interests, especially now that corporations are people. We need an American People's party. Many many parties. The best parties. The current situation is SAD!
-
Look, you libtards, Trump gots a bunch of money and a hot wife and he had his own TV show, so he's a god emperor. Now shut your pieholes! [/sarcasm]
-
Don't forget he was a top TV STAR!
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/6/16857492/trump-tweets-mental-health
-
+1. You can't have two parties (one for conservatives and one for progressives) that can meet the policies wanted by the extremes (left/right) and the moderates on so many issues. We are in the age where we need more stronger 3rd and 4th parties. Especially when there are a significant number of independent voters. The Dems and Reps have played divide-and-conquer far too long; but they never really represent the electorate's interests, especially now that corporations are people. We need an American People's party. Many many parties. The best parties. The current situation is SAD!
+1. Unfortunately we have an electoral college and we're not a parliamentary system, which means it's literally impossible for us to have competitive 3rd or 4th parties without changing the constitution, IIRC.
-
I don't see the value in additional parties vs. simply having flexible parties. Sure, Dems have some pro-police and some pro-civil rights factions that are in opposition, but I think that's better than multiple parties that are enforcing strict party discipline and have rigid, inflexible orthodoxies.
My major complaint with the US system is that we don't seem to get very good value for our money. That seems to be more an issue with local and state governments, so maybe we need to take more pages from other governments on that front. More competitive bidding, oversight, audits, anything else?
-
The strength of democracy is also it's weakness.
For a functioning democracy, you need a well informed and educated electorate who will hold public officials responsible for their actions. We're in a kind of interesting time in that legitimate news organizations have been slowly dismantled over the past 20 years or so. Opinion as news has been phenomenally successful (due to a mix of factors - from targeted misinformation campaigns by media owners to consumer complacency and lack of skills interpreting/understanding scientific information, little understanding of history or even basic geography) at taking the place of what once were a plethora of researched and reasonably unbiased stories. Combine that with fiercely divided (almost tribal) loyalties to particular groups (and demonization of the other) and you end up with the current political climate.
-
The strength of democracy is also it's weakness.
For a functioning democracy, you need a well informed and educated electorate who will hold public officials responsible for their actions. We're in a kind of interesting time in that legitimate news organizations have been slowly dismantled over the past 20 years or so. Opinion as news has been phenomenally successful (due to a mix of factors - from targeted misinformation campaigns by media owners to consumer complacency and lack of skills interpreting/understanding scientific information, little understanding of history or even basic geography) at taking the place of what once were a plethora of researched and reasonably unbiased stories. Combine that with fiercely divided (almost tribal) loyalties to particular groups (and demonization of the other) and you end up with the current political climate.
Pretty much this.
For the most part, anyone who was uninformed enough to vote for Trump in 2016 isn't going to be sufficiently more informed at the beginning of 2018 to regret it.
-
and you end up with the current political climate.
You said climate. I'm triggered.
My tribal loyalties are kicking in. Save the whales!
-
I don't see the value in additional parties vs. simply having flexible parties. Sure, Dems have some pro-police and some pro-civil rights factions that are in opposition, but I think that's better than multiple parties that are enforcing strict party discipline and have rigid, inflexible orthodoxies.
My major complaint with the US system is that we don't seem to get very good value for our money. That seems to be more an issue with local and state governments, so maybe we need to take more pages from other governments on that front. More competitive bidding, oversight, audits, anything else?
I think coalition governments work well in some European countries. There's some value here - the politicians have to reach compromises instead of having one party make all the decisions.
I'm really really ready for a minority government up here.
-
I don't see the value in additional parties vs. simply having flexible parties. Sure, Dems have some pro-police and some pro-civil rights factions that are in opposition, but I think that's better than multiple parties that are enforcing strict party discipline and have rigid, inflexible orthodoxies.
My major complaint with the US system is that we don't seem to get very good value for our money. That seems to be more an issue with local and state governments, so maybe we need to take more pages from other governments on that front. More competitive bidding, oversight, audits, anything else?
It's not about the value of having a coalition of multiple parties versus forming one party with informal coalitions. There are very real differences in how things get worked out in a constitutional republic like the U.S. versus more common parliamentarian systems, and one or the other is probably a better system for handling certain situations, but I think a majority of voters in the U.S. would be unhappy with how the coalitions fell out in either system. There's just not an easy way to form a coalition that makes sense, and even if they get their best possible deal, many voters are going to be unhappy with it because it will involve "their" leaders voting against their preference on a pretty significant issue to them.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
Not true. GOP has remade society over the last 38 years in response to LBJ's great society, with the incredible starting handicap of Watergate sullying one of their most important political minds.
Ronald Reagan took power when conservatism first entered into national debate with a new argument: the idea that tax cuts would actually stimulate the economy to the point that Federal revenue would not be reduced by them long-term.
Then, each of two successive Democratic Presidents were pressured into shrinking the welfare state by power Republican opposition leaders: Newt Gingrich pressured Bill CLinton into Welfare Reform, and Mitch McConnel pressured Obama into the sequester, both of which are on the books to this day.
As soon as Republican Presidents succeeded these Democratic Presidents, the hard work of cutting spending had been done, and it was...time for tax cuts. George W. Bush in 2001 and again in 2003, and the Trump Tax cuts that just happened last month. For all the progress the progressive movement can claim, this is the central narrative of the Reagan-Gingrich-McConnel era we have been living through.
-
The strength of democracy is also it's weakness.
For a functioning democracy, you need a well informed and educated electorate who will hold public officials responsible for their actions. We're in a kind of interesting time in that legitimate news organizations have been slowly dismantled over the past 20 years or so. Opinion as news has been phenomenally successful (due to a mix of factors - from targeted misinformation campaigns by media owners to consumer complacency and lack of skills interpreting/understanding scientific information, little understanding of history or even basic geography) at taking the place of what once were a plethora of researched and reasonably unbiased stories. Combine that with fiercely divided (almost tribal) loyalties to particular groups (and demonization of the other) and you end up with the current political climate.
I really agree with this. I think that the public is overall less informed, educated, and much more partisan (indeed both sides) than we were in the 70's-2000's. I don't think it is an accident. I think it was done for people to gain and consolidate power. I just don't know if we can turn it around.
-
note: I have a Ph.D. in economics, so I feel compelled to add: the argument that tax cuts ultimately lead to more revenue is not supported by most economic study.
Nevertheless, it's been an important tool of Gingrich and McConnel during the last twenty years, because it serves both sides of their plans well...
It allows them to say they care about deficits when there's a Democratic President, and then lower taxes when there's a GOP president.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
Not true. GOP has remade society over the last 38 years in response to LBJ's great society, with the incredible starting handicap of Watergate sullying one of their most important political minds.
Ronald Reagan took power when conservatism first entered into national debate with a new argument: the idea that tax cuts would actually stimulate the economy to the point that Federal revenue would not be reduced by them long-term.
Then, each of two successive Democratic Presidents were pressured into shrinking the welfare state by power Republican opposition leaders: Newt Gingrich pressured Bill CLinton into Welfare Reform, and Mitch McConnel pressured Obama into the sequester, both of which are on the books to this day.
As soon as Republican Presidents succeeded these Democratic Presidents, the hard work of cutting spending had been done, and it was...time for tax cuts. George W. Bush in 2001 and again in 2003, and the Trump Tax cuts that just happened last month. For all the progress the progressive movement can claim, this is the central narrative of the Reagan-Gingrich-McConnel era we have been living through.
I guess the one problem is that the Reagan idea of cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, actually doesn't work. Other terms for this is trickle down economics, voodoo economics. And so the outcome of these tax cuts is blowing up the deficit, so that taxes would need to be increased. The other idea of cutting corporate taxes to increase jobs, has also not been borne out. We had higher productivity when corporate taxes were high (in the 50s-60's) and higher, actually livable wages for average people during that time. In addition a large amount of the government budget is nonfungible mandates, so all of these tax cuts down the road run into ugly reality.
-
The strength of democracy is also it's weakness.
For a functioning democracy, you need a well informed and educated electorate who will hold public officials responsible for their actions. We're in a kind of interesting time in that legitimate news organizations have been slowly dismantled over the past 20 years or so. Opinion as news has been phenomenally successful (due to a mix of factors - from targeted misinformation campaigns by media owners to consumer complacency and lack of skills interpreting/understanding scientific information, little understanding of history or even basic geography) at taking the place of what once were a plethora of researched and reasonably unbiased stories. Combine that with fiercely divided (almost tribal) loyalties to particular groups (and demonization of the other) and you end up with the current political climate.
My post got eaten. :(
I don't have much of a memory before the late Clinton era, so unfortunately I can't judge much. It definitely seems like news media has devolved entirely into "infotainment," coupled with a lot of critical mass rage-fests spurred on by social media. I have more or less resigned myself to this for the time being. Hopefully the environment will change in 10-20 years. I don't expect us to return to the era of post-war consensus or something like that, but I expect it get better.
My biggest frustration is the lack of reporting and analysis on state and local issues. I specifically started a subscription to the Chicago Tribune, hoping to get a better picture of our local politics. But it's horrible. I really don't care that some CPS officials misused gift cards, I care about how much money is going into pensions and what money is getting kicked in by the state.
There's a lot more digestible information about this about FEDERAL issues than there are STATE issues.
-
Trump's hit list:
-Obama's birth certificate
-Charlottesville
-Immigrants from Haiti/Africa/not-Norway are from sh!%hole countries
-Calls for complete Muslim ban
-Judge Curiel can't serve because he's Mexican
This is racism. Trump is a racist. Most of the country cringes at this but his base eats it up. This is who Republicans (mostly) are now. So 70+% of the country will scream, "Look! This guy is a racist! This is outrageous." The 30% or so (his base) will laugh and say, "Look, the rest of the country is so sensitive! Trump is just saying what we think."
The difference could not be more stark. There is no questioning who Republicans are now - racists.
-
Trump's hit list:
-Obama's birth certificate
-Charlottesville
-Immigrants from Haiti/Africa/not-Norway are from sh!%hole countries
-Calls for complete Muslim ban
-Judge Curiel can't serve because he's Mexican
This is racism. Trump is a racist. Most of the country cringes at this but his base eats it up. This is who Republicans (mostly) are now. So 70+% of the country will scream, "Look! This guy is a racist! This is outrageous." The 30% or so (his base) will laugh and say, "Look, the rest of the country is so sensitive! Trump is just saying what we think."
The difference could not be more stark. There is no questioning who Republicans are now - racists.
And then there are the "shithole" comments of yesterday. Which will outrage exactly zero new people. Because 100% of his base thinks the same way.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/368631-fox-host-on-trump-s-hole-remark-this-is-how-the-forgotten-men
By "the forgotten men and women," he means racists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. This Fox host himself is equating them. So, yeah.
-
The strength of democracy is also it's weakness.
For a functioning democracy, you need a well informed and educated electorate who will hold public officials responsible for their actions. We're in a kind of interesting time in that legitimate news organizations have been slowly dismantled over the past 20 years or so. Opinion as news has been phenomenally successful (due to a mix of factors - from targeted misinformation campaigns by media owners to consumer complacency and lack of skills interpreting/understanding scientific information, little understanding of history or even basic geography) at taking the place of what once were a plethora of researched and reasonably unbiased stories. Combine that with fiercely divided (almost tribal) loyalties to particular groups (and demonization of the other) and you end up with the current political climate.
I really agree with this. I think that the public is overall less informed, educated, and much more partisan (indeed both sides) than we were in the 70's-2000's. I don't think it is an accident. I think it was done for people to gain and consolidate power. I just don't know if we can turn it around.
I agree that it's happening and that it's a problem. I don't know if I'd go far as to say it's deliberate. The media produces what sells. Being angry at "the other side" sells.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
Not true. GOP has remade society over the last 38 years in response to LBJ's great society, with the incredible starting handicap of Watergate sullying one of their most important political minds.
Ronald Reagan took power when conservatism first entered into national debate with a new argument: the idea that tax cuts would actually stimulate the economy to the point that Federal revenue would not be reduced by them long-term.
Then, each of two successive Democratic Presidents were pressured into shrinking the welfare state by power Republican opposition leaders: Newt Gingrich pressured Bill CLinton into Welfare Reform, and Mitch McConnel pressured Obama into the sequester, both of which are on the books to this day.
As soon as Republican Presidents succeeded these Democratic Presidents, the hard work of cutting spending had been done, and it was...time for tax cuts. George W. Bush in 2001 and again in 2003, and the Trump Tax cuts that just happened last month. For all the progress the progressive movement can claim, this is the central narrative of the Reagan-Gingrich-McConnel era we have been living through.
I guess the one problem is that the Reagan idea of cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, actually doesn't work. Other terms for this is trickle down economics, voodoo economics. And so the outcome of these tax cuts is blowing up the deficit, so that taxes would need to be increased. The other idea of cutting corporate taxes to increase jobs, has also not been borne out. We had higher productivity when corporate taxes were high (in the 50s-60's) and higher, actually livable wages for average people during that time. In addition a large amount of the government budget is nonfungible mandates, so all of these tax cuts down the road run into ugly reality.
Shocking how wrong this is. We are seeing a number of companies provide additional wage increases due to the corporate rate cuts
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/11/list-companies-paid-bonuses-boosted-pay-since-tax-bill-passed/1023848001/
GDP growth has been plus 3% for two straight quarters, possibly three straight quarters for the first time since 2005.
Say what you want about Trump -- i think he is a fool and a charlatan -- for the economies sake he's been gangbusters as he isn't a Democrat.
And, lets be honest, he is a crude scumbag. No one here who is expressing surprise about this had a problem with Bill Clinton when he was credibly accused of rape. If you support moveon.org then you support everything that Trump has done.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
Not true. GOP has remade society over the last 38 years in response to LBJ's great society, with the incredible starting handicap of Watergate sullying one of their most important political minds.
Ronald Reagan took power when conservatism first entered into national debate with a new argument: the idea that tax cuts would actually stimulate the economy to the point that Federal revenue would not be reduced by them long-term.
Then, each of two successive Democratic Presidents were pressured into shrinking the welfare state by power Republican opposition leaders: Newt Gingrich pressured Bill CLinton into Welfare Reform, and Mitch McConnel pressured Obama into the sequester, both of which are on the books to this day.
As soon as Republican Presidents succeeded these Democratic Presidents, the hard work of cutting spending had been done, and it was...time for tax cuts. George W. Bush in 2001 and again in 2003, and the Trump Tax cuts that just happened last month. For all the progress the progressive movement can claim, this is the central narrative of the Reagan-Gingrich-McConnel era we have been living through.
I guess the one problem is that the Reagan idea of cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, actually doesn't work. Other terms for this is trickle down economics, voodoo economics. And so the outcome of these tax cuts is blowing up the deficit, so that taxes would need to be increased. The other idea of cutting corporate taxes to increase jobs, has also not been borne out. We had higher productivity when corporate taxes were high (in the 50s-60's) and higher, actually livable wages for average people during that time. In addition a large amount of the government budget is nonfungible mandates, so all of these tax cuts down the road run into ugly reality.
Shocking how wrong this is. We are seeing a number of companies provide additional wage increases due to the corporate rate cuts
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/11/list-companies-paid-bonuses-boosted-pay-since-tax-bill-passed/1023848001/
GDP growth has been plus 3% for two straight quarters, possibly three straight quarters for the first time since 2005.
Say what you want about Trump -- i think he is a fool and a charlatan -- for the economies sake he's been gangbusters as he isn't a Democrat.
And, lets be honest, he is a crude scumbag. No one here who is expressing surprise about this had a problem with Bill Clinton when he was credibly accused of rape. If you support moveon.org then you support everything that Trump has done.
http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/presumption/false-equivalence
-
Shocking how wrong this is. We are seeing a number of companies provide additional wage increases due to the corporate rate cuts
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/11/list-companies-paid-bonuses-boosted-pay-since-tax-bill-passed/1023848001/
GDP growth has been plus 3% for two straight quarters, possibly three straight quarters for the first time since 2005.
Say what you want about Trump -- i think he is a fool and a charlatan -- for the economies sake he's been gangbusters as he isn't a Democrat.
And, lets be honest, he is a crude scumbag. No one here who is expressing surprise about this had a problem with Bill Clinton when he was credibly accused of rape. If you support moveon.org then you support everything that Trump has done.
They're paying small, one-time bonuses. It's a PR stunt. Hell, WalMart simultaneously paid a bonus and closed locations/laid off workers.
-
You need to do some research on logical fallacies before saying these tax cuts, do what u say they do. We've already had this experiment with Reagan. Or you can ask economists what they think(people who study this for a living) and 15 out of 16 say it doesn't work like that. Saying we had 2 quarters of growth, is like the people who say climate change doesn't exist because we had a cold winter. This entire thread really reminds me of confirmation bias. The people who voted for trump, believe in trump. No matter the evidence to the contrary, are going to look for evidence to confirm their decision, and ignore, dismiss, the alarming shit he's doing. I do agree passing this tax cuts was an acheivement. I think it will hurt the us strength in the long term, but politically it was a big success for him. I have no respect for the Republican party because they have consistently traded doing what is right for this country, to maintain power. They should take their American flag lapel pins off and remove the American flags from their offices.
-
Shocking how wrong this is. We are seeing a number of companies provide additional wage increases due to the corporate rate cuts
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/11/list-companies-paid-bonuses-boosted-pay-since-tax-bill-passed/1023848001/
GDP growth has been plus 3% for two straight quarters, possibly three straight quarters for the first time since 2005.
Say what you want about Trump -- i think he is a fool and a charlatan -- for the economies sake he's been gangbusters as he isn't a Democrat.
And, lets be honest, he is a crude scumbag. No one here who is expressing surprise about this had a problem with Bill Clinton when he was credibly accused of rape. If you support moveon.org then you support everything that Trump has done.
They're paying small, one-time bonuses. It's a PR stunt. Hell, WalMart simultaneously paid a bonus and closed locations/laid off workers.
Wal-Mart basically had to raise their minimum pay. They were paying $2/hr less than retailers like Target and were having extreme difficulty keeping workers. The pressure from their employees and labor groups all but sealed that deal. Target is projected to keep upping workers pay and I bet Wal-Mart will too.
It's quite telling too that the first year projection of cost to Wal-Mart to implement these raises/bonuses is $700 million while tax cuts will save them roughly $2 billion/year. It will cost them less (sans one time bonuses) in subsequent years. That's the lovely thing about trickle down. The folks at the top see the largest benefit, likely millions in pay raises/bonuses. Meanwhile the folks at the bottom squabble over the remaining scraps and folks like bdylan point out how awesome getting a $2/hr pay raise is and we should all be thankful for Lord Trump making it possible.
Remember this Trump "success?"
http://www.newsweek.com/carrier-plant-layoff-215-more-workers-indiana-trump-778040 (http://www.newsweek.com/carrier-plant-layoff-215-more-workers-indiana-trump-778040)
-
I'm not so sure it's the tax cuts that are stimulating the economy. I think the reduced regulation is more likely. Governments always get in the way of business. As a real estate developer, Trump is well aware what a PITA all those regulations are - hence his directive to eliminate 2 existing regulations for every 1 that is added.
You can see examples of this in Toronto and Vancouver real estate. The government is mucking around with foreign buyers tax and empty house tax and double land transfer tax and mortgage stress tests. I suspect that if they just got out of the way and let the real estate developers to their thing that this would do more to address the high real estate prices.
Don't get me wrong, government regulation is a good thing most of the time. Think pollution for example.
My point is that a business is much more likely to commit capital to new projects if they think the government will let them make money. This is what stimulates the economy. Part of the might be reducing the level of taxation, but part of that is also reducing the level of regulation and oversight.
-
I think that if the Dem Party wants to scuttle their own chances of regaining any power, they should make a huge and noisy effort to impeach Trump if they regain the House. And I suspect they will do just that. Because the Dem Party is shit at strategy and playing any kind of long game.
Please explain the brilliant strategy of the current GOP.
Not true. GOP has remade society over the last 38 years in response to LBJ's great society, with the incredible starting handicap of Watergate sullying one of their most important political minds.
Ronald Reagan took power when conservatism first entered into national debate with a new argument: the idea that tax cuts would actually stimulate the economy to the point that Federal revenue would not be reduced by them long-term.
Then, each of two successive Democratic Presidents were pressured into shrinking the welfare state by power Republican opposition leaders: Newt Gingrich pressured Bill CLinton into Welfare Reform, and Mitch McConnel pressured Obama into the sequester, both of which are on the books to this day.
As soon as Republican Presidents succeeded these Democratic Presidents, the hard work of cutting spending had been done, and it was...time for tax cuts. George W. Bush in 2001 and again in 2003, and the Trump Tax cuts that just happened last month. For all the progress the progressive movement can claim, this is the central narrative of the Reagan-Gingrich-McConnel era we have been living through.
I guess the one problem is that the Reagan idea of cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, actually doesn't work. Other terms for this is trickle down economics, voodoo economics. And so the outcome of these tax cuts is blowing up the deficit, so that taxes would need to be increased. The other idea of cutting corporate taxes to increase jobs, has also not been borne out. We had higher productivity when corporate taxes were high (in the 50s-60's) and higher, actually livable wages for average people during that time. In addition a large amount of the government budget is nonfungible mandates, so all of these tax cuts down the road run into ugly reality.
Shocking how wrong this is. We are seeing a number of companies provide additional wage increases due to the corporate rate cuts
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/11/list-companies-paid-bonuses-boosted-pay-since-tax-bill-passed/1023848001/
GDP growth has been plus 3% for two straight quarters, possibly three straight quarters for the first time since 2005.
Say what you want about Trump -- i think he is a fool and a charlatan -- for the economies sake he's been gangbusters as he isn't a Democrat.
And, lets be honest, he is a crude scumbag. No one here who is expressing surprise about this had a problem with Bill Clinton when he was credibly accused of rape. If you support moveon.org then you support everything that Trump has done.
I'm surprised that you chose a user name to honor Bob Dylan, yet you sound like you believe every word in corporate press releases claiming very small end-of-year bonuses are only possible because of a tax reform plan that hadn't technically taken effect yet. You may wish to re-listen to a lot of material from before his London concert.
*end of user-name teasing and beginning of substantive argument*
Indeed, you're correct that the economy is good right now. It was also almost as good 15 months ago. It's still very difficult to know exactly how much of that is because of Trump, and because of which thing Trump is doing. Some of what he is doing--clearing regulatory burdens--is good for businesses, but bad for consumers. Some of what he is doing--such as pulling US out of TPP--will be bad for us, but we won't realize how bad until years for now. Some of what he is doing is fine for the economy but unpopular within the profession, such as replacing Janet Yellen with Jay Powell.
It's not fair to assess Trump as "good for business" or "bad for business" when there are so many discrete pieces that we should evaluate.
-
It's an honest question. I'm really curious as to whether anyone voted republican and now regrets it because:
I have only read a few posts, I expect a lot of anti Trump rhetoric if other threads are any predictor, I could be wrong, I'll read it later when I have more time1. Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I didn't want it from the beginning, my private insurance skyrocketed 18.4%, 19.2% AND 24% after Obamacare regulations started. It covered a pretty small amount of the population, and many that got huge subsidies were those that could have afforded a non-subsidized loan.
2. The republican tax plan
I think it is good for business and most of the population. Even a poor family can make up to about $35k with no Federal income taxes.3. Trump/Russia
You must be caught up in the media hype, I think they have about given up pushing what started with a fake dossier.4. Less consumer protection (deregulation)
Point a couple out that seem to bother you.5. Korea
Korea is Trump's problem, but not because of Trump, but because Korea was not
handled before they became a nuclear problem. Blame the Korea problem on previous presidents.
6. General lack of decorum
The MMM forum is known for a few fucks and shits, you can ignore Trump's colorful language.7. Environmental issues/climate change issues
Re: oil drilling, spills happen, clean them up and move on. I wouldn't mind paying a little more for a cleanup brigade.
I think technology will eventually come up with a clean energy source. Oil is on it's way out with electric cars, but
with the increased electricity demand we need more electric sources. I'm in favor of nuclear, but I'm afraid I've lost that source.
8. Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions
Trump didn't start that war, but he has a duty to protect our land until we can figure out who we are letting in.
The odds are more in our favor letting in a Norwegian than a Saudi. Sorry, just the way it is.9. Women's rights/issues
This is not Trump's design, it is society's, he has plenty of women working with him, and society is slowly working out the kinks. It's been tough, because, guess what, men and women ARE different.I'm actually curious. And I'm wondering if you will vote differently next time?
Nope, hope he gets the wall built, although I want a cheaper, two tall fences 30 yards apart with constantine wire in between and a road to check for tunnels. I hope he gets a chance to shrink government, but I have a big doubt anyone can do that, 'eternal life' and all that. Lower corporate taxes allows us to better compete with a world that has caught up with us. Some of that tax reduction may also get passed on to consumers. The world is not a peaceful place, we need a strong military and a strong leader to keep ourselves safe. I'm not concerned about the high tax states, they voted that for themselves not for me. They can correct that as soon as they want.
I would like it if Trump could move towards giving the states more rights, 50 state experiments.
I've been on this forum long enough to know I will be face punched multiple times, so go ahead snowflakes, tell me how your feeling are hurt.
All in good fun though. :-)
Last paragraph withdrawn until I read the thread. :-)
-
No face punch from me, BTD. I was nodding my head in approval as I read your post. Pure poetry as far as I'm concerned. The left hates Trump. The media hates him. And, in turn, every liberal on earth tries to shame us for supporting our President. You can't post something even nominally supportive of Trump on FB or twitter without some old acquaintances calling you Hitler. And, of course, same goes here on the forum unfortunately. We're just stupid backwater racist ideologues. And they will call us "Trolls" for posting this even though THEY started the thread and even though we've been on this forum well before Trump, talking about FIRE and personal finance.
I'm proud of my President. God bless him!
-
3. Trump/Russia
You must be caught up in the media hype, I think they have about given up pushing what started with a fake dossier
This right here is why no one can take Trump voters seriously.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576789880/author-of-russia-dossier-worried-trump-was-being-blackmailed
Steele later told Simpson that he believed the FBI would consider his information credible because the bureau had corroborating intelligence, including from a human source within the Trump organization.
The dossier was not the genesis of the (very real) Russia investigation, an investigation which to date has resulted in (at least) two guilty pleas and (at least) two indictments. These include Trump's former campaign manager and his associate, Trump's national security adviser, and his foreign policy adviser on the campaign.
There are at least five ongoing investigations (Senate Intel Committee, House Intel Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) appointed by the Justice Department.
To try to suggest this as fake or media hype is completely disingenuous and why most of the rest of the population has a hard time having conversations with Trump supporters.
-
The media hates him.
Reporting what he says and does is not hatred. It's called journalism.
-
The media hates him.
Reporting what he says and does is not hatred. It's called journalism.
The media hates him reports 90% negative stories and anything positive is ignored.
More American would be for Trump if the media wasn't constantly brainwashing them with negatives and started
telling some of the positives.
It will be interesting who gets the blame for the market downturn today. Trump or Hoyer.
-
The media hates him.
Reporting what he says and does is not hatred. It's called journalism.
The media hates him reports 90% negative stories and anything positive is ignored.
More American would be for Trump if the media wasn't constantly brainwashing them with negatives and started
telling some of the positives.
Perhaps...wait for it...it's because 90% of the stories are ACTUALLY negative?
I'd love to hear some of the positives of the first year of his presidency since I have been brainwashed.
-
The media hates him.
Reporting what he says and does is not hatred. It's called journalism.
The media hates him reports 90% negative stories and anything positive is ignored.
More American would be for Trump if the media wasn't constantly brainwashing them with negatives and started
telling some of the positives.
It will be interesting who gets the blame for the market downturn today. Trump or Hoyer.
Trump's own twitter does a damn good job of telling me all about these negative stories. It's mostly incessant whining about anyone he doesn't like. Where's the actual accomplishment? Professionalism?
Brainwashing is a rather apt description of how Trump talks to his followers about democrats.
-
The media hates him.
Reporting what he says and does is not hatred. It's called journalism.
The media hates him reports 90% negative stories and anything positive is ignored.
More American would be for Trump if the media wasn't constantly brainwashing them with negatives and started
telling some of the positives.
It will be interesting who gets the blame for the market downturn today. Trump or Hoyer.
I would say over 90% of what Trump Tweets is negative, insulting or just outright false. Apparently that just gets casually hand waved away.
No, more American's wouldn't be for Trump. Because "more Americans" can also see what Trump writes, says and does and most importantly, what he represents. It's not the media's fault he bragged about sexually molesting women. It's not the media's fault he shreds veterans. It's not the media's fault he is racist, narcissistic, and xenophobic. It's not the media's fault he lies incessantly and without pause. The media didn't force him to dislike the Constitution. They didn't force him to call black athletes SOB's or claim there are some "good people" in a group of White Nationalist. The media most certainly didn't force him to bang a prostitute very recently and pay her off.
But in typical Trump supporter fashion, it's somehow everyone's else's fault Trump is largely disliked. It's certainly not Trump's fault. Good grief.
-
I'm proud of my President. God bless him!
Proud? Really?
I can understand that some folks agree with republican policy positions, but no one is really proud of policies. We're proud of people, when they do things we admire, and I don't see much in Trump the person that I might be proud of, as distinct from things that Trump the president might support that I could agree with.
As a human being, he is a disappointment. He has cheated on all three of his wives. His business is three different kinds of corrupt. His public commentary is deliberately inflammatory. He's not a very nice person. I'm pretty sure I would not be proud of him, even if I agreed with the things he had done as president.
He just seems like a really bad role model in every possible way. I'm not sure why so many people claim to look up to him.
-
He just seems like a really bad role model in every possible way. I'm not sure why so many people claim to look up to him.
Because he has money.
In a land obsessed with the dollar above all else, it is not surprising many would admire someone simply because they have a lot of money. Regardless of how that person got it or what else they have done and said. Money Trumps all else. (yes, pun intended)
-
Sad that so many people on this site are so hateful.
I really appreciate and am thankful for the knowledge I have gained but it gets harder and harder to be part of a site where so many people are so angry and blinded by their hate.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
Being critical of an absolutely abhorrent president cannot be so easily dismissed as simple “hate”.
Though I get that it’s easier to just do that than admit how truly awful he is.
-
I could care less what anyone's opinion is of the president and that is not the hate I am speaking about.
I am referring to the treatment of some of the members of this community.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
I didn't say he is a Saint. You can be proud of someone despite their flaws. That's what I find so funny about this thread. OP asks if we regret voting Republican. Some of us say no, and you guys just can't believe it. Trump is so repugnant to you it's hard to imagine that anyone with the IQ greater than that of a ferret could possibly support him. Am I proud that Trump tried to sell steaks at Sharper Image decades ago? No. But I'm very proud he's appointing an army of pro-life judges throughout the entire federal court system. I'm proud he's trying to renegotiate trade deals and increase manufacturing jobs with old school Republican protectionism. I'm proud he's kicking MS13 gang members out of my country. I could go on and on but I won't.
Where you're wrong is this. I really AM proud of the policies of my party. And I'm proud of Trump because he's getting the job done after W's dumpster fire and Mr. Nice Guy Romney screwed the pooch. I'm one of those nerds who reads the platforms every 4 years, and I firmly believe in our ideas. And part of the reason I'm proud of Trump is because he made the platform better IMO. He had the guts to say that Crazy Bernie was right on trade and that Reagan was wrong on trade. I think the lesson learned in 2016 was that there were a lot of rust belt Republicans (or leaning independents) ready to hit the polls for the right guy. I never thought GOP would nominate a protectionist candidate for President again, but Trump found a way. The fact that we won with MI, WI, PA (and almost MN) makes the victory all the better. I look forward to Trump's team making NAFTA better for us. If Mexico and Canada will not give him what he wants I hope he goes on twitter and notifies them (and the world) that he is initiating the 6 month withdrawal from NAFTA and they can go fuck off. Yeah, I'd be damn proud if he did that. But I'm a Republican from a red state in the Midwest.
-
I could care less what anyone's opinion is of the president and that is not the hate I am speaking about.
I am referring to the treatment of some of the members of this community.
If you see any examples here or elsewhere of forum members personally mistreating other forum members, please use the "report to moderator" button right below it.
-
NAFTA withdrawal would result in the loss of 3 million jobs, but hey....fuck Canada, right? #MAGA
-
NAFTA withdrawal would result in the loss of 3 million jobs, but hey....fuck Canada, right? #MAGA
I don't believe those reports. And even if leaving NAFTA meant short term job losses, I'm convinced that in the long term, economic protectionism (you can call it economic nationalism, I'm totally fine with that) would be a net win. More jobs. People less dependent on the welfare state. Resurrect the rust belt and give people dignity and the chance to buy homes and start families. I'm ok with new trade agreements 1:1 based on agriculture but I don't think cars assembled abroad should be allowed in this country, but hey that's just my opinion after living in Detroit for three years. I remember taking a class on NAFTA in law school. Yup, one entire three credit hour class just on NAFTA. I remember thinking what a fuct up POS deal it was. I remember talking to other Republicans in the class and asking WHY DOES OUR PARTY SUPPORT THIS SHIT? Most of them agreed and we scratched our heads and realized it probably wouldn't change. But it did change with Trump. I've READ David Ricardo, Krugman, other economists and all the free trade bull shit. But I've LIVED in Midwestern cities that have been wiped by globalization. I don't care what report you have about millions of jobs or what some economists in an ivory tower say. In this instance I'm with Trump and the far left. Make American, Employ American, Buy American. MAGA!
-
I'm convinced that in the long term, economic protectionism (you can call it economic nationalism, I'm totally fine with that) would be a net win.
Um, WHEN has that ever worked?
That's a totally serious question. Like, please give me a list of historical cases where economic protectionism caused a modern nation to prosper. I'm having a hard time.
In economics circles, protectionism is almost a self-referential joke, used to describe things that hurt the very people they are designed to help. It sounds good, but it universally weakens economies. I'm frankly baffled to hear anyone seriously espousing it as good policy.
Like try googling the Corn Laws, or the Tariff Act of 1789. This is high school history class stuff.
Free trade is the single greatest cause of modern prosperity. It is absolutely central to the very idea of capitalism. Protectionism is a step backwards in time.
-
It's hard to cite a very long run of prosperity under protectionism because there's different political factors (reconstruction starting in 1865), different currency bases (gold standard, bimetalism, transition to fiat), wars, famines, etc. The GOP was most protectionist from the beginning (Lincoln) up until the mid 20th century. Obviously this includes the long depression in the 1870s, some pretty bad years in the 1890s. I think McKinley gave us some great years. But again, it's hard to assign the entire shape of the US economy based on trade policies because it's just one input in a very long equation. So I can't name a country and give you a solid 30 years and say "obviously their protectionist trade policies led to prosperity! Hooray!" Just like you can't say any single economic policy did that, because we have less than 300 years of capitalist history and, again, there's too much happening. What I do believe is that free trade leads to a race to the bottom. It incentivizes countries to participate in a race to the bottom that exploits workers, trashes the environment, and leaves workers in wealthier countries with no chance to earn a living (which leads to crime, drug abuse, the break up of families, and an American Dream out of reach). You cite the Corn Laws as an example even though in my previous post I said we should reinstitute trade agreements based on agriculture. Ricardo is correct that comparative advantage makes trade worthwhile when there are serious surpluses or natural advantages. So we can send Mexico apples and they can send us avocados. I'm all for that. What I'm NOT for is a car company building a car in Mexico and then sending it to Michigan while we drive by our shuttered car factories. Fuck that. So, like I said, I'm with Crazy Bernie and the far left. I'm with McKinley and the GOP of old. Most importantly, I'm with the guy currently in the Oval Office. We are going to use American workers to ignite the greatest period of American prosperity. We are going to restore people's dignity with real work and close our trade deficit. I actually love your posts, sol. You're one of the most entertaining people on the forum. If memory serves, you are a government employee? And you live in the PNW? Let me tell you, you live a WORLD away from the struggling towns in the Midwest where people cannot find work.
-
Unemployment has been dropping steadily since 2009.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx
What am I missing here?
-
Unemployment has been dropping steadily since 2009.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx
What am I missing here?
What are you missing? Maybe the real unemployment U6 ratings that include people who have given the fuck up. Maybe the people who are "employed" at McDonalds working 30 hours a week so they can live in a shitty apartment and not be able to provide health insurance for their kids. People putting off marriage and home ownership because we have become a country that doesn't make anything anymore. I don't know, spend a day driving around metro Detroit and you tell me.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/u-3-and-u-6-unemployment-by-state-2015.htm
-
Unemployment has been dropping steadily since 2009.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx
What am I missing here?
What are you missing? Maybe the real unemployment U6 ratings that include people who have given the fuck up. Maybe the people who are "employed" at McDonalds working 30 hours a week so they can live in a shitty apartment and not be able to provide health insurance for their kids. People putting off marriage and home ownership because we have become a country that doesn't make anything anymore. I don't know, spend a day driving around metro Detroit and you tell me.
So....these (http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate) numbers, which are the lowest in the last 24 years except for the 3.5 year window in the late 90's (also known as the .com bubble)?
(https://i.imgur.com/I36qLiv.png)
-
Yup, those numbers. Because when you're in a state like Michigan that is built historically on making stuff, U6 unemployment of over 10% is still REALLY fucking high. Because those people don't have income and don't spend money, and then it's hard for others to build businesses to serve others. And realize that Michigan had population growth of only .80% last year, one of the lowest in the country. People (especially the young) are leaving the state because (to sound like Trump) our jobs went to fucking Mexico. Trump was the first presidential candidate in what...60 years...to finally call bullshit on this. And we REWARDED HIM! I'd submit that even the U6 numbers are flawed in the way it measures "underemployment" because it measures part-time workers who wish to be full time. But it doesn't do a good job catching a guy working a shitty minimum wage job 40 hours a week (and probably stopping by a food bank to make ends meet) when he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
-
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
"Should"?
You and I seem to have very different ideas about capitalism. And entitlement.
-
Unemployment has been dropping steadily since 2009.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx
What am I missing here?
What are you missing? Maybe the real unemployment U6 ratings that include people who have given the fuck up. Maybe the people who are "employed" at McDonalds working 30 hours a week so they can live in a shitty apartment and not be able to provide health insurance for their kids. People putting off marriage and home ownership because we have become a country that doesn't make anything anymore. I don't know, spend a day driving around metro Detroit and you tell me.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/u-3-and-u-6-unemployment-by-state-2015.htm
If you think Trump, or Trump policies will help this group of people out, you are delusional. The rich are his base, and who are the true recipients of his policies. Do you think banning abortion is truly going to help out women who can't even feed the children they already have?
All he's going to do is give them false hope, and f' up our environment in the process. https://qz.com/1118162/coal-miners-are-so-confident-trump-will-bring-coal-back-that-theyre-rejecting-alternate-career-retraining/
I do give credit where it is due, and Trump is an consummate politician, he's really good in telling people, his base, what they WANT to hear. Not saying he can deliver any of those things, but he's good at knowing how to press people's emotion buttons.
-
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
"Should"?
You and I seem to have very different ideas about capitalism. And entitlement.
Oh no, the capitalist police! Yeah, I subscribe to the American School of economics and believe in economic protectionism for non-agricultural goods. Guess I'm comrade Karl Marx up in here. So I'm guessing you're a purist and don't believe in ANY elements of a mixed economy? Do you favor any of these: minimum wage, Medicare, social security, public universities, libraries, public research grants? I'm sure if I looked hard enough you're on other threads saying how awesome ACA is.
And those auto jobs SHOULD belong to Michiganders. It's not "entitlement" and I'm not saying every man has a "right" to a job. I'm saying that an economy can't operate with a 20T debt forever, and that can't be fixed until you have your own consumers buy products made by your people.
-
when he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
By that logic I should be paid $250k/year
-
Man, I hope everyone remembers this line of conversation when Bernie Sanders rears his ugly head again.
-
OK, maybe we just disagree on what are basics that government should provide. In addition to defense, roads/infrastructure, public education, I would add universal healthcare coverage. This would actually spur free enterprise, because people would feel free to leave their job that gives them healthcare coverage, to create their own business or work for themselves. It's hard to imagine people having "life" liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you can't get affordable medical care.
I disagree anyone is "owed" a job. I think governments should work towards a healthy vibrant economy, and a country with high unemployment, high disparity (lots of low income workers and fewer middle class) is not a healthy economy. Governments can do their part by ensuring lack of corruption, public education, and R & D. But any one person is not guaranteed a job. No one is going to give you a job.
-
NAFTA withdrawal would result in the loss of 3 million jobs, but hey....fuck Canada, right? #MAGA
I don't believe those reports.
Just because it's a report you don't like doesn't mean it's not true. Jesus Christ...another perfect example of why people have a hard time with you Trump supporters. We provide numbers, data, etc. from people who STUDY THESE THINGS FOR A LIVING and you guys are just like, "NOPE. I don't believe it." This is perhaps the most frustrating part of the Trump presidency - dismissing reports that are negative of the President or his agenda.
-
It's hard to cite a very long run of prosperity under protectionism because there's different political factors (reconstruction starting in 1865), different currency bases (gold standard, bimetalism, transition to fiat), wars, famines, etc. The GOP was most protectionist from the beginning (Lincoln) up until the mid 20th century. Obviously this includes the long depression in the 1870s, some pretty bad years in the 1890s. I think McKinley gave us some great years. But again, it's hard to assign the entire shape of the US economy based on trade policies because it's just one input in a very long equation. So I can't name a country and give you a solid 30 years and say "obviously their protectionist trade policies led to prosperity! Hooray!" Just like you can't say any single economic policy did that, because we have less than 300 years of capitalist history and, again, there's too much happening. What I do believe is that free trade leads to a race to the bottom. It incentivizes countries to participate in a race to the bottom that exploits workers, trashes the environment, and leaves workers in wealthier countries with no chance to earn a living (which leads to crime, drug abuse, the break up of families, and an American Dream out of reach). You cite the Corn Laws as an example even though in my previous post I said we should reinstitute trade agreements based on agriculture. Ricardo is correct that comparative advantage makes trade worthwhile when there are serious surpluses or natural advantages. So we can send Mexico apples and they can send us avocados. I'm all for that. What I'm NOT for is a car company building a car in Mexico and then sending it to Michigan while we drive by our shuttered car factories. Fuck that. So, like I said, I'm with Crazy Bernie and the far left. I'm with McKinley and the GOP of old. Most importantly, I'm with the guy currently in the Oval Office. We are going to use American workers to ignite the greatest period of American prosperity. We are going to restore people's dignity with real work and close our trade deficit. I actually love your posts, sol. You're one of the most entertaining people on the forum. If memory serves, you are a government employee? And you live in the PNW? Let me tell you, you live a WORLD away from the struggling towns in the Midwest where people cannot find work.
As a fellow Michigander, there's much that I agree with here. I won't get into the automotive industry, as I think there are other factors involved--*cough, unions. I don't believe the guy in the oval office really gives a shit about us, but I think that reexamining all these trade agreements that seem to alwsys be reflexively supported is a good thing. Blowing them up, is not, but making sure we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot is.
-
Ricardo is correct that comparative advantage makes trade worthwhile when there are serious surpluses or natural advantages. So we can send Mexico apples and they can send us avocados. I'm all for that. What I'm NOT for is a car company building a car in Mexico and then sending it to Michigan while we drive by our shuttered car factories. Fuck that.
Unskilled labour at very cheap rates is a serious surplus/natural advantage that other countries have. That's why most of this work has moved out of the US. The strength of the American economy is in skilled and trained labour. That's what you should focus on selling.
You just said that you were for taking advantage of surpluses and advantages. Notice how there aren't any avocado farms near you? That's because it makes more sense to grow them in a tropical country. Just like it makes more sense to build a car in a country with cheap labour. Your main concern seems to be about change (you don't like it) rather than taking advantages of existing surpluses and advantages.
We are going to use American workers to ignite the greatest period of American prosperity.
See, here is where your argument of protectionism runs into shaky ground. When you introduce tariffs, you create a competitive advantage for goods produced in the country of origin. You do this by artificially driving up the price of goods or services imported until it's not economically viable to buy them. That raises the costs for everyone in the country. The people who have brand spanking new unskilled labour jobs now need to pay 30% more to own a car. The net impact of this is to reduce standard of living since people can afford less. Is that really your goal?
Not only that, but tariffs don't work one way. When you negotiate a tariff with another country (say on cars) they tend to impose tariffs on you (say on software exports). All of a sudden you're losing skilled jobs in order to protect unskilled ones. Is that really your goal?
-
"Free market capitalist" Republicans want Americans to only buy certain products? That's, uh, not how capitalism works. Please pick one.
-
NAFTA withdrawal would result in the loss of 3 million jobs, but hey....fuck Canada, right? #MAGA
I don't believe those reports.
Just because it's a report you don't like doesn't mean it's not true. Jesus Christ...another perfect example of why people have a hard time with you Trump supporters. We provide numbers, data, etc. from people who STUDY THESE THINGS FOR A LIVING and you guys are just like, "NOPE. I don't believe it." This is perhaps the most frustrating part of the Trump presidency - dismissing reports that are negative of the President or his agenda.
Cheap Solar is doing a bad job of articulating it, but has it occurred to you that the data is for the whole nation, whereas CheapSolar is discussing local, perhaps even regional conditions. Your charts don't line up with what he's experiencing. Now, he is making the mistake of extrapolating those conditions to the country as a whole, whereas you're making the mistake of assuming the average condition of the whole country is what the rust belt is like. You're both right, and you're both wrong. Being condescending jackasses to eachother accomplishes nothing.
That said, as someone who believes in free markets, it's really too bad for the rust belt. Sorry, the world changed and the basis of your prosperity has left or changed. Adapt or die. You are not entitled to a $85k factory job within 25 miles of where you were born or where your last one was. Economic migration has been a fact of life for millennia, even into the last century. The obliteration of the economy of the rest of the world in the 1940's created a temporary respite from that, allowing 2, maybe 3 generations to find work and live out their lives in one area, but that is far from the norm.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
-
Ricardo is correct that comparative advantage makes trade worthwhile when there are serious surpluses or natural advantages. So we can send Mexico apples and they can send us avocados. I'm all for that. What I'm NOT for is a car company building a car in Mexico and then sending it to Michigan while we drive by our shuttered car factories. Fuck that.
Unskilled labour at very cheap rates is a serious surplus/natural advantage that other countries have. That's why most of this work has moved out of the US. The strength of the American economy is in skilled and trained labour. That's what you should focus on selling.
You just said that you were for taking advantage of surpluses and advantages. Notice how there aren't any avocado farms near you? That's because it makes more sense to grow them in a tropical country. Just like it makes more sense to build a car in a country with cheap labour. Your main concern seems to be about change (you don't like it) rather than taking advantages of existing surpluses and advantages.
We are going to use American workers to ignite the greatest period of American prosperity.
See, here is where your argument of protectionism runs into shaky ground. When you introduce tariffs, you create a competitive advantage for goods produced in the country of origin. You do this by artificially driving up the price of goods or services imported until it's not economically viable to buy them. That raises the costs for everyone in the country. The people who have brand spanking new unskilled labour jobs now need to pay 30% more to own a car. The net impact of this is to reduce standard of living since people can afford less. Is that really your goal?
Not only that, but tariffs don't work one way. When you negotiate a tariff with another country (say on cars) they tend to impose tariffs on you (say on software exports). All of a sudden you're losing skilled jobs in order to protect unskilled ones. Is that really your goal?
Re: tariffs
Perhaps adding tariffs to the price of goods make them better reflect the cost , including environmental costs, of making shit and shipping it all the way to the other side of the world. Maybe that would mean less shit is produced, and subsequently thrown away, which as a moderate environmentalist, I feel is a good thing. On the other hand, economic interdependancy between nations is also a good thing in order to prevent war.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
-
Because when you're in a state like Michigan that is built historically on making stuff, U6 unemployment of over 10% is still REALLY fucking high. Because those people don't have income and don't spend money, and then it's hard for others to build businesses to serve others. And realize that Michigan had population growth of only .80% last year, one of the lowest in the country. People (especially the young) are leaving the state because (to sound like Trump) our jobs went to fucking Mexico.
Maybe Michigan is just a really unfortunate state?
I mean I've heard this exact same argument from people in West Virginia, about coal mines. And California, after the gold rush. And Alaska, when the price of oil dropped. Even my own city, when the railroad relocated the western terminus to Seattle, went through a period of dismal economic prospects and never fully recovered. My point is only that capitalism requires creative destruction. Industries rise and fall, and it hurts when they fall. Some places are going to lose out. Like Detroit.
I think the principle of what CheapScholar is saying should be obvious. Keep jobs here, pay a good wage and have locals support locals.
In paper it should work. Unfortunately corporations don't give a shit about principles and they only care about the bottom line. So you have all of them sending their manufacturing jobs abroad.
Protectionism is a seductive lie. It makes things worse for workers, not better. It sounds good on the face of it to keep jobs locally, but in every case for which we have good economic data the net impact is negative. You don't help your economy grow by forcing goods to be produced inefficiently. That tends to raise the cost of goods more than it raises the cost of wages (both of which are bad for businesses, btw), and the workers end up with a lower standard of living.
Free trade solves this problem. It allows goods to be produced in the most optimal way. It keeps prices lower. Do you really believe you could buy 99 cent tshirts at Walmart if we required all clothing to be manufactured in the US?
There are of course other down sides to free trade, like environmental destruction and shitty working conditions in free trade zones, but these are the price of first world prosperity. America benefits from cheap foreign labor. Some American workers get paid less, but everyone gets to buy more. On balance, this helps the economy.
If Michigan successfully reclaimed all of their auto manufacturing jobs, it would absolutely be a death sentence for American auto manufacturers. Protectionists are asking us to kill the very thing they love.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
We aren't talking about an industry that has become irrelevant, though, we are talking about one that has moved farther away from it's customers.
I'm not going to argue for keeping the auto makers in Michigan, though. I still see auto plants in other states. I think it has to do with the UAW and it's shitty practices, at least somewhat. Unions were good and useful, until they went too far.
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea. If auto makers face a decline in sales due to market demand then, sure, some workers need to shift into different sectors and that's a natural part of a capitalist economy. I'm not submitting that people have a natural or legal right to a job or a specific wage; the 50k salary was just some round arbitrary number. I don't know what auto makers made before NAFTA adjusted for inflation. Fortunately for me, I earned my JD and have a nice life. I think it's funny that someone responds to my auto arguments with an article on coal. Hard to respond when we are all over the map like this, but yeah, I think coal is a dying industry and the best Trump can do is try to sustain it to pre-Obama numbers for maybe a decade until renewable energy becomes cheaper. The difference is, coal is being replaced by other forms of energy and it's conceivable that protectionist policies could force solar panels and wind turbines to be produced in the USA (God I hope so). That's different in the auto example where I say the cars we previously produced in Michigan are now being made in Mexico and then sold back to us. Totally different things.
Now, explore Ricardo and comparative advantage. You're saying that cheap labor is a natural advantage for a country. First of all, no. Paying people a shit wage and then dumping products into a foreign market is not a natural advantage. Especially when you get into currency manipulation and the vale of socialized medicine that other countries provide their citizens. Sunshine is a natural advantage and I keep saying I'm all for agricultural free trade but it's getting lost in the noise. I love avocados.
Back to the original question, yes, I am embarrassed I voted Republican. I'm embarrassed I voted for W and he led us into a stupid war. I'm very embarrassed I volunteered on Willard Mitt Romney's campaign in Michigan. He could have won the state had he campaigned protectionist but he wasn't smart like Trump. I'm too young to have voted before 1998, but I'm embarrassed Republican members of congress voted for NAFTA. More Democrats in the House and Senate voted AGAINST NAFTA than for it. I applaud them. To a point above, I agree that trade unions are a part of this equation and it's clear the increasing wages helped lead to the destruction of the domestic auto sector and probably NAFTA itself. That doesn't make Free Trade right and it doesn't make protectionism incompatible with capitalism. I could also start posting articles that show the jobs lost due to NAFTA. And when I say that Michigan has U6 unemployment of over 10% and that even U6 has problems I'm just answered with more article links and "you're stupid, you don't read our data!"
But I'm not embarrassed for voting for Trump. He's the best negotiator we could have. Even IF Mitt ran as a protectionist and WON, can you imagine that pansy trying to be tough and renegotiate NAFTA? Total joke. Perhaps Trump can salvage NAFTA and make it a bad financial prospect for companies to make cars in Mexico and ship them over the boarder while keeping agriculture in place. Trump also seems to be against the NAFTA provision not letting federal governments favor procurement from their own domestic companies. If Trump can't get both of those things I expect him to notify Mexico and Canada that we are leaving NAFTA (I hope via twitter and I hope he has a great joke to go with it). This will start the 6 month warning to withdraw. And we all know that's how Trump negotiates. It's the Art of the Deal! And Trudeau and Nieto will have to fly to DC and beg my President behind closed doors to make a deal on NAFTA. And at the end of the day, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, Trump will renegotiate a great deal that protects the American auto industry and provides jobs for Americans ushering a revival of the rust belt. Trump will make Trudeau and Nieto get on their hands and knees and beg, and then he will hold rallies across the mitten state and tell jokes about it. And we will stand in lines outside stadiums just to get in. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
-
Ricardo is correct that comparative advantage makes trade worthwhile when there are serious surpluses or natural advantages. So we can send Mexico apples and they can send us avocados. I'm all for that. What I'm NOT for is a car company building a car in Mexico and then sending it to Michigan while we drive by our shuttered car factories. Fuck that.
Unskilled labour at very cheap rates is a serious surplus/natural advantage that other countries have. That's why most of this work has moved out of the US. The strength of the American economy is in skilled and trained labour. That's what you should focus on selling.
You just said that you were for taking advantage of surpluses and advantages. Notice how there aren't any avocado farms near you? That's because it makes more sense to grow them in a tropical country. Just like it makes more sense to build a car in a country with cheap labour. Your main concern seems to be about change (you don't like it) rather than taking advantages of existing surpluses and advantages.
We are going to use American workers to ignite the greatest period of American prosperity.
See, here is where your argument of protectionism runs into shaky ground. When you introduce tariffs, you create a competitive advantage for goods produced in the country of origin. You do this by artificially driving up the price of goods or services imported until it's not economically viable to buy them. That raises the costs for everyone in the country. The people who have brand spanking new unskilled labour jobs now need to pay 30% more to own a car. The net impact of this is to reduce standard of living since people can afford less. Is that really your goal?
Not only that, but tariffs don't work one way. When you negotiate a tariff with another country (say on cars) they tend to impose tariffs on you (say on software exports). All of a sudden you're losing skilled jobs in order to protect unskilled ones. Is that really your goal?
Re: tariffs
Perhaps adding tariffs to the price of goods make them better reflect the cost , including environmental costs, of making shit and shipping it all the way to the other side of the world. Maybe that would mean less shit is produced, and subsequently thrown away, which as a moderate environmentalist, I feel is a good thing. On the other hand, economic interdependancy between nations is also a good thing in order to prevent war.
Agreed. I'm all for less consumption, and shipping jobs overseas is also shorthand for offloading manufacturing pollution. I'm not entirely convinced that tariffs cause wars either.
That said, I was responding to a post about how tariffs were going to 'increase American prosperity' . . . and it seems pretty clear that raising prices across the country, and trading high paid skilled for med-low paid unskilled jobs (likely subject to obsolescence through robotics in the near future) will not do that.
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
Probably when you posted this:
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
To be fair, CheapScholar doesn't argue that this is a right, just something that should happen.
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
Should in theory. No legal right. Again, I used 50k somewhat arbitrarily because it's a lot better than making minimum wage at Wal-Mart.
I just bought a pair of LL Bean boots recently. Hand stitched and made in Maine. Only $85. Why can't we make shoes in America? Why do we have to buy shit Nike shoes made by a poor woman in Southeast Asia who was paid shit wages working 12 hour days and possibly raped in the company bathroom? Why can't we make iPhones in Wisconsin? Go ahead and keep posting your articles though. I keep looking at the 2016 electoral map and laughing my ass off.
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
To be fair, CheapScholar doesn't argue that this is a right, just something that should happen.
Damn, thank you! Can't believe I need a Canadian to back my ass up!!!
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
Should in theory. No legal right. Again, I used 50k somewhat arbitrarily because it's a lot better than making minimum wage at Wal-Mart.
I just bought a pair of LL Bean boots recently. Hand stitched and made in Maine. Only $85. Why can't we make shoes in America? Why do we have to buy shit Nike shoes made by a poor woman in Southeast Asia who was paid shit wages working 12 hour days and possibly raped in the company bathroom? Why can't we make iPhones in Wisconsin? Go ahead and keep posting your articles though. I keep looking at the 2016 electoral map and laughing my ass off.
I see a lot of LL Bean boots and similar wear, but it's mostly because I work among relatively wealthy, privileged urban workers. For a lot of families, $85 is a lot of money, especially when you are talking about outfitting multiple people in expensive boots. And everything ELSE will be getting more expensive, too, and most likely lower quality because of the reduced competition.
I don't mind paying higher prices for products. It's better than paying taxes that get sent out as income transfers, IMO. But plenty of people wouldn't be able to afford it, at least not without a lot of struggle.
-
The global economy is a tough nut to crack when you are not playing using the same rules.
For example patent infringement and countries such as China selling products at a loss to corner the market (solar for example)
I have moved and adapted as my jobs have been outsourced to other low paying countries and always figured that is just part of the new economy and I adapt or suffer.
However as other countries scale in the global economy and automation continues to advance I find it harder to adapt but fortunately I will be FIRE by then.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
Because when you're in a state like Michigan that is built historically on making stuff, U6 unemployment of over 10% is still REALLY fucking high. Because those people don't have income and don't spend money, and then it's hard for others to build businesses to serve others. And realize that Michigan had population growth of only .80% last year, one of the lowest in the country. People (especially the young) are leaving the state because (to sound like Trump) our jobs went to fucking Mexico.
Maybe Michigan is just a really unfortunate state?
I mean I've heard this exact same argument from people in West Virginia, about coal mines. And California, after the gold rush. And Alaska, when the price of oil dropped. Even my own city, when the railroad relocated the western terminus to Seattle, went through a period of dismal economic prospects and never fully recovered. My point is only that capitalism requires creative destruction. Industries rise and fall, and it hurts when they fall. Some places are going to lose out. Like Detroit.
I think the principle of what CheapScholar is saying should be obvious. Keep jobs here, pay a good wage and have locals support locals.
In paper it should work. Unfortunately corporations don't give a shit about principles and they only care about the bottom line. So you have all of them sending their manufacturing jobs abroad.
Protectionism is a seductive lie. It makes things worse for workers, not better. It sounds good on the face of it to keep jobs locally, but in every case for which we have good economic data the net impact is negative. You don't help your economy grow by forcing goods to be produced inefficiently. That tends to raise the cost of goods more than it raises the cost of wages (both of which are bad for businesses, btw), and the workers end up with a lower standard of living.
Free trade solves this problem. It allows goods to be produced in the most optimal way. It keeps prices lower. Do you really believe you could buy 99 cent tshirts at Walmart if we required all clothing to be manufactured in the US?
There are of course other down sides to free trade, like environmental destruction and shitty working conditions in free trade zones, but these are the price of first world prosperity. America benefits from cheap foreign labor. Some American workers get paid less, but everyone gets to buy more. On balance, this helps the economy.
If Michigan successfully reclaimed all of their auto manufacturing jobs, it would absolutely be a death sentence for American auto manufacturers. Protectionists are asking us to kill the very thing they love.
I think Michigan will be fine eventually, though maybe not Detroit so much. It was too dependent upon the auto industry, but there's a lot more to the state than just that.
Now as for the above bolded selection. That is a seductive lie. I would contend that the 99 cent t-shirt from Walmart is an huge exercise in waste. The externalities are more numerous than anyone here has mentioned. The lax health, safely and environmental standards in the places where they are produced are coupled with the waste of transportation across to the other side of the globe, in addition to the impact where they are purchased. They are considered cheap, disposable goods. People will buy more and replace much more frequently, as the quality is worse and people don't want to bother with cleaning and repair, filling our waste sites in the process. Compare 20 99 cent shirts from China to one well-made and cherished T-shirt that is kept for years. We are destroying our environment and using up natural resources much more quickly for a few more pennies in profit and shitty quality.
-
to say that if Michigan was to acquire back all of the jobs it lost would be the end of the auto industry is rather difficult to grasp.
Let me walk you through it.
If US companies had to manufacture their products in the US where wages are higher, their costs to produce would rise and so their prices would have to rise too.
If the wages of all of their customers also went up (what protectionist want) and the cost of all of their competitors products also went up, then this would work out fine. The two big problems here are 1. that US corporations sell to global markets, so not all customers would see increased wages, and 2. not all global companies manufacture in the US, so their products would not get more expensive.
Capitalism thrives on market competition, and in this scenario foreign made goods of equal quality become relatively cheaper, and so gain market share. US companies are stuck with a more expensive product that doesn't sell. The US companies can't compete, because they are wasting money on inefficient production.
Then you have to remember that the US is already an evolved economy full of middle class consumers, but the rest of the world has approximately 3 billion third world inhabitants on the cusp of middle class prosperity, who will become active consumers in the coming decades. That is where future profits will be generated, and US companies need to sell in those markets. Those new consumers will not choose overpriced US-made goods if there are equivalent but less expensive foreign-made goods made by the same US companies, or foreign competitors.
In order to be competitive in a growing global market, US companies need to keep their costs down to keep their goods affordable, and that means making them where labor is cheap. Cars and avocados are not different, in this respect.
So Detroit is doomed, unless workers there accept Mexican wages. Sorry. You can't grow avacados in Michigan, either, because that is also too expensive to be price competitive. Paying avacado farm workers in Michigan more makes this problem worse, not better, for all of the same reasons.
Which part of that whole story is so hard to grasp? I totally get the transparent motivations behind protectionist policies, I just think they are overly simplistic and short-sighted self interest. In reality, protectionist policies make things worse instead of better.
Like you, I also want to support the US economy. I also want good jobs, and high wages, and widespread prosperity for every economic class. Protectionism accomplishes none of that, unfortunately.
Protectionism is a seductive lie that politicians tell to unemployed factory workers to get their votes, without mentioning that it would only destroy our economy even further.
-
I would contend that the 99 cent t-shirt from Walmart is an huge exercise in waste. The externalities are more numerous than anyone here has mentioned. The lax health, safely and environmental standards in the places where they are produced are coupled with the waste of transportation across to the other side of the globe, in addition to the impact where they are purchased... We are destroying our environment and using up natural resources much more quickly for a few more pennies in profit and shitty quality.
As I mentioned above, I think this is a legitimate criticism of global capitalism.
It is also unrelated to advancing our short term economic prosperity. I think free trade is bad for the environment, but it's also good for the economy. Restricting trade with protectionist policies would hurt US corporate profits, would make goods more expensive, and would ultimately lower US wages. America would lose out on the coming century of prosperity caused by billions of new middle class consumers coming online to buy our cars and refrigerators. Other countries would move in to fill the demand. It doesn't make any sense and basically every economist in the world agrees on this point. The only people who still argue for protectionism are factory workers left behind by a globally competitive labor force, and the politicians who court them with pretty fantasies.
-
I didn't know LL Bean boots were made in the USA, thanks for letting me know. I need work boots.
Just be careful . . . 75% of the goods that LL Bean sells are not made in the US.
-
Sol, as I mentioned before, corporations only care about the bottom line, which your example of the American Auto industry collapsing if all the jobs were to come back to Michigan, makes sense because of this.
My only argument is that Ford/GM can still manufacture their cars here, sell them for the SAME price and STILL make a profit - only not as big as the one they are currently making with cheap labor.
This won't happen, never ever ever. The higher cost will undoubtedly be passed onto the consumer. I just think it's idiotic for people who were shafted by GM/Ford to still buy their products, but that's not really the point here.
I only hope Tesla can prove us wrong. If they can get their shit together and manufacture their cars in the US, and grow, that will be a nice change of pace.
Even if Tesla makes their cars in the states, the vast majority of the work is going to be done by robots. The human jobs will be for skilled technicians, not unskilled assembly line workers. America should be focusing on the jobs of the next century, not the last one. History tells us that obsolete industries are phased out, and whoever can't see that and adapt is left behind. To ensure future prosperity, you have to be prepared for whats coming and let go of what's gone. This means education, retraining, strategic investments in infrastructure, support for blue collar workers who need new skills, etc. I read recently that a majority of Republicans think university is BAD for the country. WTF?
(source: http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-believe-college-education-bad-america-donald-trump-media-fake-news-634474)
-
Sol, as I mentioned before, corporations only care about the bottom line, which your example of the American Auto industry collapsing if all the jobs were to come back to Michigan, makes sense because of this.
In a competitive global economy, corporations bid down their own profit margins in the same way that stock market investors bid down dividend yields. As long as someone is willing to make less money than you, they will happily cut ever closer to the bone. That's how free markets are supposed to work.
So I don't really blame Ford quite as much as you seem to. They need to make money, and if we cut their profit margin far enough they won't bother anymore. What investor will volunteer their capital to a company that isn't going to maximize their profit?
I only hope Tesla can prove us wrong. If they can get their shit together and manufacture their cars in the US, and grow, that will be a nice change of pace.
Tesla is trying the German model of car manufacturing. They can afford to pay higher wages because they maintain ridiculously high profit margins by selling luxury products. It works well for BMW, it just doesn't scale well. Most of the available market is not buying luxury goods.
Tesla also has the potential advantage of having a genuinely more profitable product. BMW can't pay German wages and still compete with Honda volume on price because the materials and production costs are fundamentally so similar. EVs are technologically much more simple machines to produce, so theoretically Tesla should eventually be able to sell the same car at the same price, but spend more on wages than on production compared to ICE car makers. Until a competitor comes along, that is, and uses those savings to lower prices instead of overpaying auto workers. Isn't the free market great?
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
Should in theory. No legal right. Again, I used 50k somewhat arbitrarily because it's a lot better than making minimum wage at Wal-Mart.
I just bought a pair of LL Bean boots recently. Hand stitched and made in Maine. Only $85. Why can't we make shoes in America? Why do we have to buy shit Nike shoes made by a poor woman in Southeast Asia who was paid shit wages working 12 hour days and possibly raped in the company bathroom? Why can't we make iPhones in Wisconsin? Go ahead and keep posting your articles though. I keep looking at the 2016 electoral map and laughing my ass off.
The articles I posted were to support my claim that unemployment, despite your crying, is already going down and has been for years.
Enjoy your laughing while it lasts. :-)
-
Sol, do you support a minimum wage for US workers?
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
My husband and I moved to WNY for grad school, now we are in Iowa with our two kids. Because THAT IS WHERE THE JOBS WERE. It is not complicated, it takes work but it is simple.
-
Sol, we are not talking about a few thousand dollars, we are talking millions/billions.
For example, in 2009 Ford closed the local engine plant laying off 1100 employees. That same year Ford's CEO, Alan Mulally not only got paid his regular $1.4 million salary, he was compensated with $16.5 million bonus.
YES, I know it's not that simple. But if you are a blue collar worker, having given the company years of labor, and then you get laid off and that same year the CEO gets a $16m bonus, wouldn't you be upset?
That bonus is something like $80 per employee. Optics might not look great, but when you have a couple hundred thousand employees, there will be people that are laid off at the same time that others are getting hired, and people that are laid off even when the company in general is doing well. If that's not happening, that pretty much ensures that many more people will be laid off when the economy turns.
Honestly, we are going to go around in circles. Outsiders saying that globalization and labor outsourcing are not bad, haven't been hit by them. I'm not going to go into details but if you weren't a part of it, it's difficult to grasp the damage it did. And to say, "Well you should had gone to college blah blah blah" is a slap in the face after the fact.
BTW I didn't vote for Trump. I'm just talking from a rustbelt residents' perspective.
Globalization and labor outsourcing aren't bad. It's much easier to see that and appreciate it when you are shielded from its negative effects (as many people on this forum probably are, either because of education and/or because of regulatory protections). But there are lots of formerly desperately poor people that are now just sort of poor and many previously poor people that are now economically secure all over the globe. It is very psychologically difficult for people who previously benefited from "frictions", either physical, technological, or regulatory from having to compete with similarly skilled or even much less skilled people from all over the world, but it's psychologically difficult because we've all been so comparatively fortunate up to this point.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
We aren't talking about an industry that has become irrelevant, though, we are talking about one that has moved farther away from it's customers.
I'm not going to argue for keeping the auto makers in Michigan, though. I still see auto plants in other states. I think it has to do with the UAW and it's shitty practices, at least somewhat. Unions were good and useful, until they went too far.
Unions went too far, lol. That is funny. Why do you think auto workers had decent paychecks? If not for unions autoworkers would be paid just like any other low skill job. And the increase in pay did not hurt the auto industry's profit. Compare the cost of it, to the C-level increases.
-
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
"Should"?
You and I seem to have very different ideas about capitalism. And entitlement.
I think the principle of what CheapScholar is saying should be obvious. Keep jobs here, pay a good wage and have locals support locals.
In paper it should work. Unfortunately corporations don't give a shit about principles and they only care about the bottom line. So you have all of them sending their manufacturing jobs abroad.
Two things still baffled me, while working in the automotive industry.
A lot of Ford owners won't use a foreign car, as a rental, when their Fords are in the shop. Apparently not knowing that their cars, a lot of them, were built in Mexico.
I recall before Toyota was allowed into Nascar, it was a controversy, because Toyota was a foreign company.
But the nascar body styles, Ford Fusion was built in Canada, the Chevy Impala in Mexico and the Toyota Camry was built in---- Tennessee!
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
We aren't talking about an industry that has become irrelevant, though, we are talking about one that has moved farther away from it's customers.
I'm not going to argue for keeping the auto makers in Michigan, though. I still see auto plants in other states. I think it has to do with the UAW and it's shitty practices, at least somewhat. Unions were good and useful, until they went too far.
Unions went too far, lol. That is funny. Why do you think auto workers had decent paychecks? If not for unions autoworkers would be paid just like any other low skill job. And the increase in pay did not hurt the auto industry's profit. Compare the cost of it, to the C-level increases.
I once had a GM employee tell me his job was worth about $5 an hr, that was 30 year ago. He included he wouldn't do it for $5, he was a good union employee.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
My husband and I moved to WNY for grad school, now we are in Iowa with our two kids. Because THAT IS WHERE THE JOBS WERE. It is not complicated, it takes work but it is simple.
It is complicated when you have parents that need your help, or you need help with your own kids. Normally people don't relocate to a LCOLA for work, but a higher one, with higher costs for care. Count yourself fortunate if you were able to relocate with worrying about anyone else. Not all of us are that lucky.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
We aren't talking about an industry that has become irrelevant, though, we are talking about one that has moved farther away from it's customers.
I'm not going to argue for keeping the auto makers in Michigan, though. I still see auto plants in other states. I think it has to do with the UAW and it's shitty practices, at least somewhat. Unions were good and useful, until they went too far.
Unions went too far, lol. That is funny. Why do you think auto workers had decent paychecks? If not for unions autoworkers would be paid just like any other low skill job. And the increase in pay did not hurt the auto industry's profit. Compare the cost of it, to the C-level increases.
I wasn't even thinking about the pay aspect of it, but dirty bullying practices that I've heard of from many people.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
My husband and I moved to WNY for grad school, now we are in Iowa with our two kids. Because THAT IS WHERE THE JOBS WERE. It is not complicated, it takes work but it is simple.
It is complicated when you have parents that need your help, or you need help with your own kids. Normally people don't relocate to a LCOLA for work, but a higher one, with higher costs for care. Count yourself fortunate if you were able to relocate with worrying about anyone else. Not all of us are that lucky.
Or you stand on your own two feet. Even if I lived a mile from my mother, she would not be taking care of my children, that is my job as their parent. I chose to have children that I could afford which includes daycare. And honestly with the exception of a few cities (like boston which we chose not to move to because of the cost of daycare), daycare is not much cheaper in the LCOL areas because supply is limited.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
My husband and I moved to WNY for grad school, now we are in Iowa with our two kids. Because THAT IS WHERE THE JOBS WERE. It is not complicated, it takes work but it is simple.
It is complicated when you have parents that need your help, or you need help with your own kids. Normally people don't relocate to a LCOLA for work, but a higher one, with higher costs for care. Count yourself fortunate if you were able to relocate with worrying about anyone else. Not all of us are that lucky.
Or you stand on your own two feet. Even if I lived a mile from my mother, she would not be taking care of my children, that is my job as their parent. I chose to have children that I could afford which includes daycare. And honestly with the exception of a few cities (like boston which we chose not to move to because of the cost of daycare), daycare is not much cheaper in the LCOL areas because supply is limited.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Exactly.
Life is made of choices.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
My husband and I moved to WNY for grad school, now we are in Iowa with our two kids. Because THAT IS WHERE THE JOBS WERE. It is not complicated, it takes work but it is simple.
It is complicated when you have parents that need your help, or you need help with your own kids. Normally people don't relocate to a LCOLA for work, but a higher one, with higher costs for care. Count yourself fortunate if you were able to relocate with worrying about anyone else. Not all of us are that lucky.
Or you stand on your own two feet. Even if I lived a mile from my mother, she would not be taking care of my children, that is my job as their parent. I chose to have children that I could afford which includes daycare. And honestly with the exception of a few cities (like boston which we chose not to move to because of the cost of daycare), daycare is not much cheaper in the LCOL areas because supply is limited.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Well, if you were still on the old message board, you'd be familiar with my story, but I will say that it has been light years easier and cheaper to get care for my kids than for my mother.
-
I'm sometimes baffled by people that say, "I did it, so why can't you?
I'm excusing myself from the conversation. I didn't vote for Trump (nor Hillary) so I don't really have any reason to be in this thread ;)
I know, right? And I did vote for Hillary.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
We aren't talking about an industry that has become irrelevant, though, we are talking about one that has moved farther away from it's customers.
I'm not going to argue for keeping the auto makers in Michigan, though. I still see auto plants in other states. I think it has to do with the UAW and it's shitty practices, at least somewhat. Unions were good and useful, until they went too far.
Unions went too far, lol. That is funny. Why do you think auto workers had decent paychecks? If not for unions autoworkers would be paid just like any other low skill job. And the increase in pay did not hurt the auto industry's profit. Compare the cost of it, to the C-level increases.
they had decent paychecks for a time, because about the time John got sick of buying Ford's union built junk and bought a chevy, Tom got sick of Chevy's union built junk and bought a Dodge, and Jerry got sick of Dodge union built junk and bought a Ford. During all this, the big 3 could put up with the UAW's nonsense and ridulous demands and pay the floor sweeper 100K, make a profit, and not improve thier product.
Then toyota and Honda came along. When someone bought a honda or Toyota, they didn't end up with a bad taste in thier mouth and kept buying them. the union, in thier infinite greed, wouldn't dial back thier parasitic bleeding of thier hosts... and killed off all but three of the american automakers.
-
I'm sometimes baffled by people that say, "I did it, so why can't you?
I'm excusing myself from the conversation. I didn't vote for Trump (nor Hillary) so I don't really have any reason to be in this thread ;)
I'm equally baffled by people that say "all our jobs are gone" but they refuse to consider other options.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
We aren't talking about an industry that has become irrelevant, though, we are talking about one that has moved farther away from it's customers.
I'm not going to argue for keeping the auto makers in Michigan, though. I still see auto plants in other states. I think it has to do with the UAW and it's shitty practices, at least somewhat. Unions were good and useful, until they went too far.
Unions went too far, lol. That is funny. Why do you think auto workers had decent paychecks? If not for unions autoworkers would be paid just like any other low skill job. And the increase in pay did not hurt the auto industry's profit. Compare the cost of it, to the C-level increases.
they had decent paychecks for a time, because about the time John got sick of buying Ford's union built junk and bought a chevy, Tom got sick of Chevy's union built junk and bought a Dodge, and Jerry got sick of Dodge union built junk and bought a Ford. During all this, the big 3 could put up with the UAW's nonsense and ridulous demands and pay the floor sweeper 100K, make a profit, and not improve thier product.
Then toyota and Honda came along. When someone bought a honda or Toyota, they didn't end up with a bad taste in thier mouth and kept buying them. the union, in thier infinite greed, wouldn't dial back thier parasitic bleeding of thier hosts... and killed off all but three of the american automakers.
And how much do the C-level executives earn? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass, like you did with the salary you posted?
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
Should in theory. No legal right. Again, I used 50k somewhat arbitrarily because it's a lot better than making minimum wage at Wal-Mart.
I just bought a pair of LL Bean boots recently. Hand stitched and made in Maine. Only $85. Why can't we make shoes in America? Why do we have to buy shit Nike shoes made by a poor woman in Southeast Asia who was paid shit wages working 12 hour days and possibly raped in the company bathroom? Why can't we make iPhones in Wisconsin? Go ahead and keep posting your articles though. I keep looking at the 2016 electoral map and laughing my ass off.
Because it's estimated the iPhone would cost roughly 2K if made strictly in the United States.
https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/business/ive-always-wondered/how-much-would-all-american-iphone-cost (https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/business/ive-always-wondered/how-much-would-all-american-iphone-cost)
I looked into this years ago as I had the same question. One thing to note as well in the analysis. They say "labor’s not the most significant financial advantage to manufacturing the iPhone in China."
Of course this really drives home Sol's point about jacking up the price and running into obvious difficulties now selling the product. You would literally price the iPhone right out of the market. Samsung and others would love to see Apple move iPhone production to the US. But it isn't going to happen, because they aren't stupid.
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
Should in theory. No legal right. Again, I used 50k somewhat arbitrarily because it's a lot better than making minimum wage at Wal-Mart.
I just bought a pair of LL Bean boots recently. Hand stitched and made in Maine. Only $85. Why can't we make shoes in America? Why do we have to buy shit Nike shoes made by a poor woman in Southeast Asia who was paid shit wages working 12 hour days and possibly raped in the company bathroom? Why can't we make iPhones in Wisconsin? Go ahead and keep posting your articles though. I keep looking at the 2016 electoral map and laughing my ass off.
Because it's estimated the iPhone would cost roughly 2K if made strictly in the United States.
https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/business/ive-always-wondered/how-much-would-all-american-iphone-cost (https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/business/ive-always-wondered/how-much-would-all-american-iphone-cost)
I looked into this years ago as I had the same question. One thing to note as well in the analysis. They say "labor’s not the most significant financial advantage to manufacturing the iPhone in China."
Of course this really drives home Sol's point about jacking up the price and running into obvious difficulties now selling the product. You would literally price the iPhone right out of the market. Samsung and others would love to see Apple move iPhone production to the US. But it isn't going to happen, because they aren't stupid.
Right, but under protectionism Samsung would also have to produce in the US. And the entire premise of American School economics is that wages rise and therefore more people can afford items they value. Maybe iPhones are underpriced (due to unfair and unsafe working conditions in Asia) and we're tethered to consumerist bullshit? Still waiting to hear if sol supports minimum wage laws in the United States or if he's an Ayn Rand libertarian.
-
As someone who's moved across the country for work, I find the notion of "we deserve good jobs to be given to us at home" to be laughable...
Where does it stop, though? Would you move to India or China? There is the family support factor as well. It may not be an issue for you in your particular place in life, but it can be a huge factor for others--support with childcare (schools and snowdays) and/or eldercare (taking a declining parent to doctor appointments).
I'm not saying that you should never have to expect to move, but that it can be much more complicated than just moving a single you.
Is it society's responsibility to make sure all industries stay relevant? Horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, VCR repairs have all gone by the wayside. It happens. Industry changes.
It can be complicated, absolutely. I'm saying that I think the sense of entitlement is absurd.
We aren't talking about an industry that has become irrelevant, though, we are talking about one that has moved farther away from it's customers.
I'm not going to argue for keeping the auto makers in Michigan, though. I still see auto plants in other states. I think it has to do with the UAW and it's shitty practices, at least somewhat. Unions were good and useful, until they went too far.
Unions went too far, lol. That is funny. Why do you think auto workers had decent paychecks? If not for unions autoworkers would be paid just like any other low skill job. And the increase in pay did not hurt the auto industry's profit. Compare the cost of it, to the C-level increases.
they had decent paychecks for a time, because about the time John got sick of buying Ford's union built junk and bought a chevy, Tom got sick of Chevy's union built junk and bought a Dodge, and Jerry got sick of Dodge union built junk and bought a Ford. During all this, the big 3 could put up with the UAW's nonsense and ridulous demands and pay the floor sweeper 100K, make a profit, and not improve thier product.
Then toyota and Honda came along. When someone bought a honda or Toyota, they didn't end up with a bad taste in thier mouth and kept buying them. the union, in thier infinite greed, wouldn't dial back thier parasitic bleeding of thier hosts... and killed off all but three of the american automakers.
And how much do the C-level executives earn? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass, like you did with the salary you posted?
I shouldn't bother addressing this, as your response is non-sequitor and, I think, you may be confusing me with someone else... but I can't help myself.
Sorry, the $100K janitor is really a $270K per year janitor who is a public employee union in LA. Public employee unions are another level of corrupt and dispicable, so I won't go into that any further here.
So, How many of these 'C level executives' do you think there really are in a company like GM? Not a whole lot, I'd think. A conversation about whether some exec deserves 500K is one a company should have when it struggles, and i'll bet that those guys did get a haircut or fired during the lean 80's, 90's, and early 2000's.
But Consider the sheer numbers of hourly employees (there are 225,000 according to Wikipedia right now). Paying them lavishly can run a company under pretty quick, when the company is facing slowing sales. With that many employees, every $1 per hour paid, on straight time alone, is nearly 500million dollars... let alone the social security taxes, etc that the employer has to pay.
Throw in the games unions play that cost productivity for zero gain for the worker, and you're talking huge quantities of money.
Read my last post closer. You will see I clearly laid some of the blame at the feet of the executives who didn't innovate or see fit to improve the quality of what they sold. That does NOT absolve the UAW of it's role in thier own demise, and unions, going forward, must honestly assess thier relationship to thier host companies if they want to survive. Your attitude, of unions can do no wrong, will just ensure they demise.
I want to boil this down concisely so it fits in everyone's attention span: Unions are not soley to blame for the demise of American auto manufacturing, but thier demands became especially painful during the lean years of the late 70s through mid 2000s, and accelerated the bleeding and outsourcing. unions must accept that globalisation is here to stay, and they may need to change the way they do things if they want to continue to exist.
-
Why would a foreign company like Samsung have to produce their products in the United States?
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
-
Why would a foreign company like Samsung have to produce their products in the United States?
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
The tariffs apply to goods entering the country. The HQ of the company isn't so relevant.
-
I'm not saying anyone has a right to employment. I don't know where people keep getting that idea.
really?
he should have a steady salary at the Ford plant making 50K and benefits.
Should in theory. No legal right. Again, I used 50k somewhat arbitrarily because it's a lot better than making minimum wage at Wal-Mart.
I just bought a pair of LL Bean boots recently. Hand stitched and made in Maine. Only $85. Why can't we make shoes in America? Why do we have to buy shit Nike shoes made by a poor woman in Southeast Asia who was paid shit wages working 12 hour days and possibly raped in the company bathroom? Why can't we make iPhones in Wisconsin? Go ahead and keep posting your articles though. I keep looking at the 2016 electoral map and laughing my ass off.
Because it's estimated the iPhone would cost roughly 2K if made strictly in the United States.
https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/business/ive-always-wondered/how-much-would-all-american-iphone-cost (https://www.marketplace.org/2014/05/20/business/ive-always-wondered/how-much-would-all-american-iphone-cost)
I looked into this years ago as I had the same question. One thing to note as well in the analysis. They say "labor’s not the most significant financial advantage to manufacturing the iPhone in China."
Of course this really drives home Sol's point about jacking up the price and running into obvious difficulties now selling the product. You would literally price the iPhone right out of the market. Samsung and others would love to see Apple move iPhone production to the US. But it isn't going to happen, because they aren't stupid.
Right, but under protectionism Samsung would also have to produce in the US. And the entire premise of American School economics is that wages rise and therefore more people can afford items they value. Maybe iPhones are underpriced (due to unfair and unsafe working conditions in Asia) and we're tethered to consumerist bullshit? Still waiting to hear if sol supports minimum wage laws in the United States or if he's an Ayn Rand libertarian.
LMAO, no that's not how it works. Samsung and Apple will not produce in the US because no one is going to purchase a 2K phone. Try reading the article. It answered your question.
-
Unions are often greedy and inflate wages above market price. That's wrong and stupid. But it doesn't itself mean free trade is good economic policy. The two issues are rather separate.
-
Actually that IS how protectionism works. Foreign companies don't get to dump foreign made products in the country. You don't have to like the theory or believe in it, but that IS how it works.
As to whether or not people would pay 2k for an iPhone, I'm think they would. But who cares anyway. I'd rather have one for $700. So what if we have 10% U6 unenploymemt in this country, millions on food stamps, and huge consumer debt that fills landfills with last year's iPhones and packaging. And who cares if the lady who made my iPhone was paid peanuts and worked 12 hour days. Fuck her, I want a $700 iPhone.
-
From HuffPost;
The raw materials mined in Congo are then sent to factories in China — most notably, the Foxconn plant in Shenzhen. The factory has been described by local media as a “labor camp,” in which teenage students are sought out for employment and are forced to work more than double or even triple the overtime limit (36 hours a month under China’s labor laws), and workers are routinely uncompensated for injuries suffered on the job. Seventeen workers attempted suicide, and 14 died jumping from the roof of the building in 2010. The company responded by putting anti-suicide nets around the building, and forced employees to sign agreements stating that their employer would be exempt from lawsuits brought by family members in the event of their suicide. Foxconn claims to have raised workers’ wages to $298 per month, but workers say those pay raises never came.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/how-the-iphone_b_5800262.html
Whatevs, got me a deal on my phone!
-
Actually that IS how protectionism works. Foreign companies don't get to dump foreign made products in the country. You don't have to like the theory or believe in it, but that IS how it works.
As to whether or not people would pay 2k for an iPhone, I'm think they would. But who cares anyway. I'd rather have one for $700. So what if we have 10% U6 unenploymemt in this country, millions on food stamps, and huge consumer debt that fills landfills with last year's iPhones and packaging. And who cares if the lady who made my iPhone was paid peanuts and worked 12 hour days. Fuck her, I want a $700 iPhone.
We've been under 10% U6 for over two years now, but lets not let facts get in the way of a rational discussion.
-
Sorry, 10% in parts of the country. Like Michigan. But screw us, right?
Tweet 20 minutes ago:
Donald J. Trump
During the campaign, I promised to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN by bringing businesses and jobs back to our country. I am very proud to see companies like Chrysler moving operations from Mexico to Michigan where there are so many great American workers!
-
Sorry, 10% in parts of the country. Like Michigan. But screw us, right?
Tweet 20 minutes ago:
Donald J. Trump
During the campaign, I promised to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN by bringing businesses and jobs back to our country. I am very proud to see companies like Chrysler moving operations from Mexico to Michigan where there are so many great American workers!
12.6% in Alaska, 11.9% in New Mexico, 11.4% in Nevada..and yes, if you round up then Michigan can be at 10% too.
Apple is bringing many billions of $ into the US, which is nice.
-
Actually that IS how protectionism works. Foreign companies don't get to dump foreign made products in the country. You don't have to like the theory or believe in it, but that IS how it works.
As to whether or not people would pay 2k for an iPhone, I'm think they would. But who cares anyway. I'd rather have one for $700. So what if we have 10% U6 unenploymemt in this country, millions on food stamps, and huge consumer debt that fills landfills with last year's iPhones and packaging. And who cares if the lady who made my iPhone was paid peanuts and worked 12 hour days. Fuck her, I want a $700 iPhone.
I said nothing of how protectionism works
Sure some folks would fork over 2k. But not enough to justify moving an entire production line to the states. I am sure they are perfectly content making in China and Americans will enjoy purchasing at a deeply discounted rate. Amazing how we all benefit. Ain't life grand 😁
-
(https://i.redd.it/e85awv24r9b01.jpg)
-
<snip>
The streets are public and there ain't no litmus test for marching.
-
<snip>
The streets are public and there ain't no litmus test for marching.
Nor is it just women, nor is it purely about women "issues." Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
-
Actually that IS how protectionism works. Foreign companies don't get to dump foreign made products in the country. You don't have to like the theory or believe in it, but that IS how it works.
As to whether or not people would pay 2k for an iPhone, I'm think they would. But who cares anyway. I'd rather have one for $700. So what if we have 10% U6 unenploymemt in this country, millions on food stamps, and huge consumer debt that fills landfills with last year's iPhones and packaging. And who cares if the lady who made my iPhone was paid peanuts and worked 12 hour days. Fuck her, I want a $700 iPhone.
So you think the person buying a $700 iPhone is the one saying fuck the worker, and not the person that wants to prevent her from having her job?
-
Sol, as I mentioned before, corporations only care about the bottom line, which your example of the American Auto industry collapsing if all the jobs were to come back to Michigan, makes sense because of this.
My only argument is that Ford/GM can still manufacture their cars here, sell them for the SAME price and STILL make a profit - only not as big as the one they are currently making with cheap labor.
This won't happen, never ever ever. The higher cost will undoubtedly be passed onto the consumer. I just think it's idiotic for people who were shafted by GM/Ford to still buy their products, but that's not really the point here.
I only hope Tesla can prove us wrong. If they can get their shit together and manufacture their cars in the US, and grow, that will be a nice change of pace.
I'm not an expert here, but I've heard GM/Ford mostly make SUVs and Trucks here, which are high profit margin vehicles. Most of their smaller cars are made in Mexico. This is only possible because of American consumer suckas. Few foreign companies make SUVs and Trucks as large as we do here, so there's less competition.
It's really been a twist to me, Republicans were rarely protectionist in the still recent past.
-
More good news. My President just placed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, which were being produced in China. But now even Whirlpool says this will result in more jobs in the US, and that consumers and workers will win. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/22/news/economy/us-tariff-washing-machines-solar-cells/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom
NAFTA comes next!
-
consumers and workers will win.
You do realize that these two groups are on opposite sides of the offshoring debate, right? What's good for workers is bad for consumers (namely, protectionist policies that drive up the prices for goods).
-
consumers and workers will win.
You do realize that these two groups are on opposite sides of the offshoring debate, right? What's good for workers is bad for consumers (namely, protectionist policies that drive up the prices for goods).
Disagree. Protectionism works because it keeps money circulating in our economy, provides our workers with steady reliable and fair income. Just my opinion. I'd rather pay more for my Ford knowing people near me have jobs.
Sol, you support minimum wage in the US?
-
Sol, you support minimum wage in the US?
Sometimes, yes.
The difference between a minimum wage (for US workers living in the US) and a protectionist trade policy is that protectionism disadvantages american companies compared to international ones. A minimum wage is like the idealized best case version of protectionism, because it increases the cost of goods (from having to pay higher wages) at the same time and place that it increases the available customer supply (from giving consumers more wages to buy stuff with). That works out okay in places where all of the money stays in the same economy and there is no outside competition for production or labor.
Global trade isn't like that all. If an american company has to pay higher labor costs, there is an international labor market that will undercut them and sell identical goods cheaper, and there is an international consumer market full of people who are not making those new higher wages and so can't afford the newly more expensive US goods. This is why protectionism undercuts the country that does it. It disadvantages US corporations, and gives up market share to foreign competitors.
We've covered this ground before. International trade has absolutely been the magical key to unlocking the power of capitalism. It is the reason why first world nations are as prosperous as they are. The world would be a very different place if every country could only make and buy their own goods. It would not be a better world.
And before you go off the deep end on me, I recognize that there are necessary protections in this race to the bottom. Most people don't want cheaper electronics if it means buying them from a country that uses slavery or abused children to staff their factories. But it DOES make goods cheaper to violate human rights like that, and we need to recognize that refusing to buy goods from slavery or child abuse legitimately increases our prices on the consumer end. As long as everyone in the global economy agrees with us, those places go out of business. If a large enough piece of the international market doesn't mind buying ipods manufactured by abducted children, then those cheap goods will continue to be produced and you need to decide whether or not you want to pay more to avoid them. If you are prosperous, you may have that choice. Not every consumer in the global marketplace shares your luck.
In the case of US manufacturing jobs, where wages are 10x or 25x higher than they are in places like China or Vietnam, US corporations would be instantly noncompetitive in the global marketplace, in most industries. You can't build an air conditioner in Manhattan at the same price that you can build it in Mexico City, and that difference is the reason why both of those places can profit off of that transaction. If you tried to force Manhattan to build all of its own air conditioners, you would quickly discover five different reasons why that's not going to work out.
-
It strikes me that Protectionism is sort of like Communism - great in theory but no one can actually point out an example of where it has worked well in practice.
-
consumers and workers will win.
You do realize that these two groups are on opposite sides of the offshoring debate, right? What's good for workers is bad for consumers (namely, protectionist policies that drive up the prices for goods).
Disagree. Protectionism works because it keeps money circulating in our economy, provides our workers with steady reliable and fair income. Just my opinion. I'd rather pay more for my Ford knowing people near me have jobs.
I'm being pedantic but money will be "circulating in our economy" regardless since the balance of payments must be zero and any current account deficit will be matched with a capital account surplus. It's actually a bit of a surprising and long-lasting scheme on our part to buy consumer goods while selling Treasuries overseas accruing real interest at rates below 0% (the two aren't directly connected but are offsetting items in the BOP).
It's wrong to assume if Fords aren't built in the US that your neighbors won't have jobs. There are some subtle problems with the position of free trade/comparative advantage fundamentalists, but generally, open economies are more successful than protectionist ones. I consider it possible that there is such a thing as Really Smart Mercantilism that results in superior performance at a national level to free trade but my suspicion is Really Smart Mercantilism is a very difficult set of trading policies to successfully discover and enact.
-
It strikes me that Protectionism is sort of like Communism - great in theory but no one can actually point out an example of where it has worked well in practice.
What's required is a highly desirable resource owned exclusively by that country/company/entity.
Except for the conspiracy, and the natural predators, it worked well for House Atreides.
-
consumers and workers will win.
You do realize that these two groups are on opposite sides of the offshoring debate, right? What's good for workers is bad for consumers (namely, protectionist policies that drive up the prices for goods).
I'd rather pay more for my Ford knowing people near me have jobs.
Funny how protectionism works only when you apply logic that doesn't represent the typical consumer.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-made-in-america-attitudes-20170721-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-made-in-america-attitudes-20170721-story.html)
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/13/news/economy/donald-trump-buy-american/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/13/news/economy/donald-trump-buy-american/index.html)
Makes sense as to why Trump still keeps manufacturing products in China, Indonesia and Bangladesh among many others.
-
It strikes me that Protectionism is sort of like Communism - great in theory but no one can actually point out an example of where it has worked well in practice.
Asian economies (https://www.amazon.com/How-Asia-Works-Joe-Studwell/dp/0802121322). The gist is that successful Asian economies used protectionist policies to defend certain key industries while they leaped up the learning curve. Market discipline was imposed by forcing companies to meet export quotas: You didn't have to compete in the home market, but you had to sell a certain number of cars in the competitive American market, or else you would be forced to sell off your company to one of the more profitable economies.
Communism doesn't work and can't work. There's a possible logic behind the protectionist arguments, but for economies like the US it is basically just rewarding producers at the expense of consumers.
-
Wait, you guys are free market capitalists I thought? I can't keep up. Do you support free market capitalism or government intervention in the market? Please pick one.
The tariff move, btw, is expected to cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
-
Wait, you guys are free market capitalists I thought? I can't keep up. Do you support free market capitalism or government intervention in the market? Please pick one.
The tariff move, btw, is expected to cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
It depends. Do you think China should prop up industries to produce items below market value to destroy US companies? They did it with steel. China also does intellectual theft with impunity.
By the nature of the tariff, US Solar installation industry will lose. US Solar manufactures win.
-
Wait, you guys are free market capitalists I thought? I can't keep up. Do you support free market capitalism or government intervention in the market? Please pick one.
The tariff move, btw, is expected to cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
That's the thing, historically the GOP had NOT been free market unfettered capitalism. Fremont and Lincoln were hardcore protectionists and the GOP more or less held that view well into the mid 20th century. Read up on McKinley. It was American School of economics. Still capitalistic but clearly based on economic nationalism. Then the neo-cons took over. Like Trump said, Reagan was a great president but he was wrong on trade. I can't speak for every Republican but if you want me to "pick one" I pick the economic stance that our party had in the beginning. If that makes me an impure capitalist I really don't care. MAGA
-
Wait, you guys are free market capitalists I thought? I can't keep up. Do you support free market capitalism or government intervention in the market? Please pick one.
The tariff move, btw, is expected to cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
Free trade agreements are currently a minority position within the GOP as the base has gotten more nativist over the last few cycles. The leadership has usually been mostly on board with the free-trade agreements, and has been for decades (probably longer).
I'm pretty much with the neoliberals.
-
It strikes me that Protectionism is sort of like Communism - great in theory but no one can actually point out an example of where it has worked well in practice.
Well, it works if your goal is to make people work more. Think if you took it to its logical extreme, and decided that any money you "exported" outside of your household made you poorer. You wouldn't just have one job per person, you'd have multiple jobs per person and never have to worry about being unemployed. You'd almost certainly be a subsistence level farmer and desperately poor, but you'd never be unemployed.
You might could also have zero unemployment if you were protectionist at the city level, depending on how big the city is, but you'd also likely be pretty poor.
-
Wait, you guys are free market capitalists I thought? I can't keep up. Do you support free market capitalism or government intervention in the market? Please pick one.
The tariff move, btw, is expected to cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
It depends. Do you think China should prop up industries to produce items below market value to destroy US companies? They did it with steel. China also does intellectual theft with impunity.
By the nature of the tariff, US Solar installation industry will lose. US Solar manufactures win.
Manufacturers will not "win" as much as you may think. There are only roughly 38,000 people employed in solar manufacturing across the US. First year projections alone are roughly 23,000 folks losing their jobs, some even in manufacturing. There are several hundred thousand employed in installation with "solar installer" poised to become one of the fastest growing jobs in the US.
Panels themselves represent only about a third or less of the total cost. BUT, even a 10-15 cent/watt increase in price greatly extends payback time. That's vitally important to folks like myself and others who have or are contemplating putting up a solar array. Everyone loses. No one wins.
Nothing like applauding a decision to further push the US behind in renewable energy installation, destroying jobs, and not seeking to exploit the fastest growing energy market on the planet, as most developed countries are currently doing.
-
Wait, you guys are free market capitalists I thought? I can't keep up. Do you support free market capitalism or government intervention in the market? Please pick one.
The tariff move, btw, is expected to cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
It depends. Do you think China should prop up industries to produce items below market value to destroy US companies? They did it with steel. China also does intellectual theft with impunity.
By the nature of the tariff, US Solar installation industry will lose. US Solar manufactures win.
If China is manipulating it, tax Chinese solar panels specifically - and defer that issue to Congress...Who, by the way, should handle all taxes and tariffs as our Constitution mandates. (Weren't Republicans the ones running around with pocket book Constitutions?)
Imagine a 30% tariff being placed on DVD players at the turn of the century for the sake of the VCR industry. That's what this is. It's ****ing stupid.
If you believe China is manipulating solar prices (also...washers? wtf? Does Whirlpool need that much help?) to undercut American manufacturers...either allow Congress to enact a tax on Chinese solar panels or subsidize American manufacturers (oh wait...that was on Obama-era subsidy/tax credit. We can't have that, right?) to keep them more in line.
Look, obviously the government gets involved quite a bit with subsidies, grants, taxes, tax credits, etc. in business. But those go through Congress, not the White House. Isn't that what the right was screaming for years under Obama?
-
If China is manipulating it, tax Chinese solar panels specifically - and defer that issue to Congress...Who, by the way, should handle all taxes and tariffs as our Constitution mandates. (Weren't Republicans the ones running around with pocket book Constitutions?)
Everyone loves executive orders until their team isn't in power.
Imagine a 30% tariff being placed on DVD players at the turn of the century for the sake of the VCR industry. That's what this is. It's ****ing stupid.
False equivalence. China has stolen solar companies trade/manufacturing secrets. They are essentially stealing from US Companies, sell it back to us at artificially low prices to gain market share, and raise prices slowly after the competition is gone.
Steel is closer to a real world example. The EU imposed a 13% tariff on China steel because of their practice.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/27/news/companies/us-steel-china-investigation-trade/index.html
If you believe China is manipulating solar prices (also...washers? wtf? Does Whirlpool need that much help?) to undercut American manufacturers...either allow Congress to enact a tax on Chinese solar panels or subsidize American manufacturers (oh wait...that was on Obama-era subsidy/tax credit. We can't have that, right?) to keep them more in line.
Look, obviously the government gets involved quite a bit with subsidies, grants, taxes, tax credits, etc. in business. But those go through Congress, not the White House. Isn't that what the right was screaming for years under Obama?
Your post seems to concede something needs/could be done but let Congress. You seem more concerned with score keeping than your interest in US success. Executive orders can be given and be unconstitutional.
When you're President, as Obama has seen, the sluggish turn of Congress is unbearable.
Although, some subsidies would be helpful about now.
-
Wait, you guys are free market capitalists I thought? I can't keep up. Do you support free market capitalism or government intervention in the market? Please pick one.
The tariff move, btw, is expected to cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
That's the thing, historically the GOP had NOT been free market unfettered capitalism. Fremont and Lincoln were hardcore protectionists and the GOP more or less held that view well into the mid 20th century. Read up on McKinley. It was American School of economics. Still capitalistic but clearly based on economic nationalism. Then the neo-cons took over. Like Trump said, Reagan was a great president but he was wrong on trade. I can't speak for every Republican but if you want me to "pick one" I pick the economic stance that our party had in the beginning. If that makes me an impure capitalist I really don't care. MAGA
That's like saying historically, Democrats have been the party of racists. While technically true, you're going back a long ways to make that true.
In the last 40 years or so, I don't consider Democrats being the party of racists, and I don't consider the GOP being protectionists.
-
In the last 40 years or so, I don't consider Democrats being the party of racists, and I don't consider the GOP being protectionists.
Why not both? If you're going to hew to distant historical party positions, Trump is just as much a racist democrat as he is a protectionist republican.
Which suggests to me that Trump isn't so much tied to modern political party ideologies as he is tied to long-abandoned positions from our historical past. His idea of MAGA appears to be returning us to the 1860s.
-
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44707.pdf
The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to impose and collect taxes, tariffs, duties, and the like, and to regulate international commerce. While the Constitution gives the President authority to negotiate international agreements, it assigns him no specific power over international commerce and trade.
If you are 1) going to carry the Constitution around in a pocket-sized book you don't then get to praise the President for violating the Constitution and 2) one of the people upset at the number of EO's Barack Obama signed you should remain consistent in your views and hold Trump to the same standard of not picking winners and losers.
As I said above, are Republicans actually capitalists or not? Protectionism by definition is anti-free market capitalism. I don't care either way. Just pick one and then stick to it.
There are 38,000 solar manufacturing jobs and many companies have come out and said this is going to kill jobs. That number may be cut in half IN A YEAR. So don't feed me the B.S. that Trump cares about Americans when he's signing an EO that will kill thousands of jobs in the solar industry.
If Republicans are now anti-free market capitalists, pro-EO, anti-Constitutionalists...fine. Just say it and own it and stop running back and forth between positions when it's politically convenient.
-
In the last 40 years or so, I don't consider Democrats being the party of racists, and I don't consider the GOP being protectionists.
Why not both? If you're going to hew to distant historical party positions, Trump is just as much a racist democrat as he is a protectionist republican.
Which suggests to me that Trump isn't so much tied to modern political party ideologies as he is tied to long-abandoned positions from our historical past. His idea of MAGA appears to be returning us to the 1860s.
Yeah, I never considered Trump to be a conservative. The GOP seems to be moving away from conservatism, I guess.
As I said above, are Republicans actually capitalists or not? Protectionism by definition is anti-free market capitalism. I don't care either way. Just pick one and then stick to it.
There are many Republicans, some are capitalists, some are not. Most I know are capitalists, but I cannot say for the majority.
-
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-solar-tariff-backfires-36cb1c4f7fbc/
The bottom line is that Trump’s new tariff on solar imports will have a very limited impact on China or domestic solar manufacturers, but red states will take a disproportionate share of the lost revenues and lost jobs from the reduction in U.S. solar installations — and taxpayers will end up footing much of the bill. This, sadly, is the kind of counterproductive impact we have come to expect from Trump’s energy policies.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/trumps-solar-tax-will-hurt-trump-more-than-solar.html?utm_campaign=di&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s1
Analysts expect that the tariffs will create negligible American jobs in solar-panel manufacturing. Turning the clock back on solar adoption by about two years is not going to do much to save coal or prevent the continued spread of clean energy. Like many of his attacks on the Obama legacy, he is throwing sand in the gears of operations that he cannot stop.
It’s also worth noting that clean energy is really, really popular. People may not like carbon taxes, but they definitely like the idea of supporting new renewable energy.
That’s why John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 both gave at least lip service to the idea of supporting more renewable energy, and Trump claimed to harbor an abiding affection for solar energy. (“I know a lot about solar. I love solar.”) He was not promising to tax solar energy. That’s another unpopular action he’ll have to defend in 2020.
-
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-solar-tariff-backfires-36cb1c4f7fbc/
The bottom line is that Trump’s new tariff on solar imports will have a very limited impact on China or domestic solar manufacturers, but red states will take a disproportionate share of the lost revenues and lost jobs from the reduction in U.S. solar installations — and taxpayers will end up footing much of the bill. This, sadly, is the kind of counterproductive impact we have come to expect from Trump’s energy policies.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/trumps-solar-tax-will-hurt-trump-more-than-solar.html?utm_campaign=di&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s1
Analysts expect that the tariffs will create negligible American jobs in solar-panel manufacturing. Turning the clock back on solar adoption by about two years is not going to do much to save coal or prevent the continued spread of clean energy. Like many of his attacks on the Obama legacy, he is throwing sand in the gears of operations that he cannot stop.
It’s also worth noting that clean energy is really, really popular. People may not like carbon taxes, but they definitely like the idea of supporting new renewable energy.
That’s why John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 both gave at least lip service to the idea of supporting more renewable energy, and Trump claimed to harbor an abiding affection for solar energy. (“I know a lot about solar. I love solar.”) He was not promising to tax solar energy. That’s another unpopular action he’ll have to defend in 2020.
I am glad we did our rooftop solar installation before all of this happened. We need more people adopting solar and wind. Not less. We're going to end up so far behind the rest of the world at this rate.
-
Yeah, I never considered Trump to be a conservative. The GOP seems to be moving away from conservatism, I guess.
Trump is basically a populist democrat from 10-15 years ago, and that's more or less what put him over the edge, is winning populist democrats who were turned off by identify politics, environmentalism as religion, and coastal elitism of the modern democrat party.
Conservative doesn't really meaningfully describe any significant faction in the current political landscape.
Liberal still reasonably describes something to people, even if it is more or less the exact opposite of the dictionary definition of the word liberal. Many "conservatives" are in fact radicals that want to go back to a federal government limited to enumerated powers, but not enough of them for that to be a useful word the way liberal is to describe statists. There's still a small group of people who are "standing athwart history and yelling stop", but they are a very small group also. Just not a lot of people that think the current level of government scope and powers are appropriate without wanting to expand them. There is probably a small group of people in the republican party who do want to roll back government, but incrementally. But mostly I think people have given up on principled approaches to government. They are just less obvious versions of trump, picking positions out of the air with no rhyme or reason other than a few issues they particularly are impacted by personally or are just passionate about a particular issue.
As I said above, are Republicans actually capitalists or not? Protectionism by definition is anti-free market capitalism. I don't care either way. Just pick one and then stick to it.
There are many Republicans, some are capitalists, some are not. Most I know are capitalists, but I cannot say for the majority.
I would say most are free market capitalist except protectionist when it comes to their business/profession/employment (maybe by being pro licensing, pro-regulation that limits competition, or straight up protectionist trade policy). Similarly to most people on the left being pro-regulation generally, but the regulation in the industry that they have expertise in just happens to be particularly bad.
-
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-solar-tariff-backfires-36cb1c4f7fbc/
The bottom line is that Trump’s new tariff on solar imports will have a very limited impact on China or domestic solar manufacturers, but red states will take a disproportionate share of the lost revenues and lost jobs from the reduction in U.S. solar installations — and taxpayers will end up footing much of the bill. This, sadly, is the kind of counterproductive impact we have come to expect from Trump’s energy policies.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/trumps-solar-tax-will-hurt-trump-more-than-solar.html?utm_campaign=di&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s1
Analysts expect that the tariffs will create negligible American jobs in solar-panel manufacturing. Turning the clock back on solar adoption by about two years is not going to do much to save coal or prevent the continued spread of clean energy. Like many of his attacks on the Obama legacy, he is throwing sand in the gears of operations that he cannot stop.
It’s also worth noting that clean energy is really, really popular. People may not like carbon taxes, but they definitely like the idea of supporting new renewable energy.
That’s why John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 both gave at least lip service to the idea of supporting more renewable energy, and Trump claimed to harbor an abiding affection for solar energy. (“I know a lot about solar. I love solar.”) He was not promising to tax solar energy. That’s another unpopular action he’ll have to defend in 2020.
I am glad we did our rooftop solar installation before all of this happened. We need more people adopting solar and wind. Not less. We're going to end up so far behind the rest of the world at this rate.
Good for you! Yep we are already really far behind. This will put us further behind. But it will be applauded by Trump supporters mostly. Only in America is passing legislature, jacking up prices, stifling an industry and causing massive layoffs considered a prerequisite for making our country great (again) I guess. Seems to be the theme the last few days on here.
-
Trump is basically a populist democrat from 10-15 years ago, and that's more or less what put him over the edge, is winning populist democrats who were turned off by identify politics
Building a wall to keep Mexicans out, trying to ban Muslims from entering the country, supporting the Klan, condoning sexual violence against women, attacking black football players, . . . An awful lot of Trump's ideas (both before and after being elected) revolve around identity politics. If identity politics are important to you, I don't see how you could possibly be a Trump supporter.
-
Trump did say he wanted to bring back coal. What better way than to kill off part of the renewable industry?
Just another reason to avoid supporting the GOP on voting day.
-
Trump did say he wanted to bring back coal. What better way than to kill off part of the renewable industry?
You say that as if it's an amusing side effect, but I thought that was always transparently the point. When he said he wanted to bring back coal, what he was really saying was that he was going to stop renewable energy. It wasn't even coded the way these things usually are (e.g. "states rights", "Barack Hussein Obama", "welfare queens").
This sort of language is designed to sound innocuous to some voters, but to convey a second meaning to some subset of the base, usually a subset that shares media exposure to conservative media that repeats these phrases ad naseum in the context of denigrating something. But Trump's announcements about how much he loves the coal industry aren't even hidden very well, they just seem like obvious anti-renewable-energy talk to me, and I assumed to everyone else too.
-
"This sort of language is designed to sound innocuous to some voters, but to convey a second meaning to some subset of the base, usually a subset that shares media exposure to conservative media that repeats these phrases ad naseum in the context of denigrating something."
That's a main strategy tool of the GOP - its all double speak. I can't listen to anything they say without considering any potential alternative messages.
The DEMs - not so much. They seem to say what they mean more often. They aren't perfect.
-
Trump did say he wanted to bring back coal. What better way than to kill off part of the renewable industry?
Just another reason to avoid supporting the GOP on voting day.
Renewables aren't killing off coal. Renewables are mostly just a wealth transfer mechanism in the U.S., generally moving money from poor to wealthy if it is a state level policy like net metering or renewable portfolio standard supporting renewables, and from taxpayer to richer taxpayer as far as the 30% tax credit for solar or the production credit for wind. But even with all that, they don't displace much coal. They are small percentage of energy produced to begin with and even where there are large concentrations, they tend to displace natural gas rather than coal because of the intermittent nature of their load.
Coal has been killed by a combination of costly regulations and cheap natural gas, and probably most importantly for the long term, by the regulatory uncertainty. IN the short term, natural gas has displaced a lot of coal because of economics and a lot of coal plants have been shut down or converted because of CSPR, MATS, Clean Power Plan, etc. Even the regulations that are ultimately shut down or not even implemented cause coal plants to be shuttered or converted because utilities have to plan as if they are going to be implemented. That's really hurt the coal industry in the short term, as a ton of their domestic market just disappeared. But what's killing coal in the long term is that coal plants are baseload plants that are really capital intensive but make sense economically because they provide economic power for 40 years. Nobody is going to build coal plants when they might get shut down in ten years (or less).
For the long term, U.S. coal that stays in the U.S. is going to go to industrial processes and the U.S. coal industry will be dependent on foreign demand to replace the demand that has disappeared from the U.S. utility industry.
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
Bans... protests...?
An American said that?
-
The dictator is strong in this one.
-
The DEMs - not so much. They seem to say what they mean more often. They aren't perfect.
You're kidding, right? So many things the democrats say are like this. It's a politician thing. Republicans certainly do it, but the Dems, ABSOLUTELY do this to, and in similar magnitudes. It would be a delusion to think otherwise or consider this somehow unique to the GOP.
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
Please revise your post to state what he ACTUALLY said. He didn't say "Ban protests." He wanted assurances he wouldn't be met with them, which is a subtle yet key difference than requesting that they be banned. she didn't comply, he went anyway. (I thought he went to the UK, he's actually currently in Switzerland.)
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
Please revise your post to state what he ACTUALLY said. He didn't say "Ban protests." He wanted assurances he wouldn't be met with them, which is a subtle yet key difference than requesting that they be banned. she didn't comply, he went anyway.
How would it have been in her power to prevent Trump from being met with protests without banning them (at least in particular areas)?
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
Please revise your post to state what he ACTUALLY said. He didn't say "Ban protests." He wanted assurances he wouldn't be met with them, which is a subtle yet key difference than requesting that they be banned. she didn't comply, he went anyway.
How would it have been in her power to prevent Trump from being met with protests without banning them (at least in particular areas)?
I'm not sure, and I'm not saying that was a reasonable request Like I said, it's it is a subtle difference, yet not at all like demanding she BAN protests of trump.
but they could be confined to a specific area of town. that's not the same as banning them. When Obama visited small rural town I used to live near, those who wanted to protest him, and what he was there to say and do, were kept well away from where he was going to be. The reporters also didn't bother showing up, despite the large crowd.
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
-
The request could not have been fulfilled without banning protests in areas that Trump was likely to go . . . so therefore it was a request to ban protests. You were unable to provide another interpretation of the comment. That would therefore seem to be a reasonable way to view the situation without 'frothy, naked, or irrational hatred of Trump'.
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
Please revise your post to state what he ACTUALLY said. He didn't say "Ban protests." He wanted assurances he wouldn't be met with them, which is a subtle yet key difference than requesting that they be banned. she didn't comply, he went anyway.
He went anyway?
Uh,what?
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
-
The request could not have been fulfilled without banning protests in areas that Trump was likely to go . . . so therefore it was a request to ban protests. You were unable to provide another interpretation of the comment. That would therefore seem to be a reasonable way to view the situation without 'frothy, naked, or irrational hatred of Trump'.
Have none of you really ever been asked for a personal representation for a judgment you are in a better position to make?
Maybe Trump was actually asking for protests to be banned (even though he hasn't tried to ban protests in the U.S.), but it seems more likely he was looking for something along the lines of (1) Tell me the truth, am I going to be walking into a shitstorm or (2) Tell me the truth, are you going to be able to arrange our appearances so I'm not in the middle of a shit storm (which in the U.S. might take the form of doing the "appearance" on a military base or some other restricted access but looks public site). But it definitely takes a lack of imagination and any real world experience to claim he was for sure asking for protests to be banned.
-
Maybe Trump was actually asking for protests to be banned (even though he hasn't tried to ban protests in the U.S.),
Eh.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/10/16758148/trump-dave-weigel-washington-post-crowd-size (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/10/16758148/trump-dave-weigel-washington-post-crowd-size)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432064/donald-trump-first-amendment-hed-gut-it (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432064/donald-trump-first-amendment-hed-gut-it)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/04/trumps-cease-and-desist-letter-a-desperate-attempt-to-silence-bannon/?utm_term=.2ab746cfeca8 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/04/trumps-cease-and-desist-letter-a-desperate-attempt-to-silence-bannon/?utm_term=.2ab746cfeca8)
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/trump-tillerson-moron-nbc-news-stephanie-ruhle-20171005.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/trump-tillerson-moron-nbc-news-stephanie-ruhle-20171005.html)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/23/trump_thanksgiving_tweet_menacingly_singles_out_reporter_for_calling_him.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/23/trump_thanksgiving_tweet_menacingly_singles_out_reporter_for_calling_him.html)
. . . etc.
Banning protests is certainly within the realm of Trumps typical behaviour to silence critics in the US.
it seems more likely he was looking for something along the lines of (1) Tell me the truth, am I going to be walking into a shitstorm or (2) Tell me the truth, are you going to be able to arrange our appearances so I'm not in the middle of a shit storm (which in the U.S. might take the form of doing the "appearance" on a military base or some other restricted access but looks public site).
So you believe it's more likely that he was asking for something that he didn't request? And that he failed to travel to the country because his lack of request to meet at a military base wasn't met?
But it definitely takes a lack of imagination and any real world experience to claim he was for sure asking for protests to be banned.
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
A fine point, but it applies the other way to. Not understanding why people dispised Clinton enough to vote against here doesn't make them irrational, either.
There is a level of disgust and dispisement of trump that is reasonable. What I see a ton of, is speculation on what might have said, what he might say, what he might mean if you read-between-the-lines-just-so, that everyone gets fired up about. I understand the rational reasons to dispise trump, and I'm not talking about that. He's a gross human being. Cheated on his wife, has no decorum, is bombastic and provactive (and not in the way that might shake things up and cause some creative desruction).
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
Please revise your post to state what he ACTUALLY said. He didn't say "Ban protests." He wanted assurances he wouldn't be met with them, which is a subtle yet key difference than requesting that they be banned. she didn't comply, he went anyway.
He went anyway?
Uh,what?
Heh, yeah I made a mistake. He's in Switzerland, not the UK. I had mixed that up.
-
And today in “our president is an idiot,” Donald Trump tells Theresa May he won’t visit the UK unless she bans protests.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-tells-theresa-may-he-wont-visit-uk-unless-she-bans-protests-1656638
Please revise your post to state what he ACTUALLY said. He didn't say "Ban protests." He wanted assurances he wouldn't be met with them, which is a subtle yet key difference than requesting that they be banned. she didn't comply, he went anyway.
He went anyway?
Uh,what?
He's scheduled to go, hasn't gone yet.
As you might have noticed, Trump is not fond of free speech of others so, yeah while he didn't say ban them, he also said he didn't want to be bothered by them. But sometimes that's the price of freedom. I'm fine with that as long as it is done peacefully.
-
The request could not have been fulfilled without banning protests in areas that Trump was likely to go . . . so therefore it was a request to ban protests. You were unable to provide another interpretation of the comment. That would therefore seem to be a reasonable way to view the situation without 'frothy, naked, or irrational hatred of Trump'.
Have none of you really ever been asked for a personal representation for a judgment you are in a better position to make?
Maybe Trump was actually asking for protests to be banned (even though he hasn't tried to ban protests in the U.S.), but it seems more likely he was looking for something along the lines of (1) Tell me the truth, am I going to be walking into a shitstorm or (2) Tell me the truth, are you going to be able to arrange our appearances so I'm not in the middle of a shit storm (which in the U.S. might take the form of doing the "appearance" on a military base or some other restricted access but looks public site). But it definitely takes a lack of imagination and any real world experience to claim he was for sure asking for protests to be banned.
Trump was lined up to open the new US Embassy in London. It's in Battersea, which is inner London. The chances of his visit not being a shitstorm of protest (even if not quite at the level of bare bottoms along the Mall) were nil. Any attempts by Prime Minister May to limit legitimate, peaceful protest would have been politically ruinous.
tl;dr Trump was asking for a ban, May said no, Trump didn't come, outcome excellent.
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
No, not necessarily.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump? ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
I think what he said was not the wrong word. The only way it would be wrong is if there is no irrational Trump hate.
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
No, not necessarily.
Not "necessarily," but in this context it absolutely is.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
A fine point, but it applies the other way to. Not understanding why people dispised Clinton enough to vote against here doesn't make them irrational, either.
There is a level of disgust and dispisement of trump that is reasonable. What I see a ton of, is speculation on what might have said, what he might say, what he might mean if you read-between-the-lines-just-so, that everyone gets fired up about. I understand the rational reasons to dispise trump, and I'm not talking about that. He's a gross human being. Cheated on his wife, has no decorum, is bombastic and provactive (and not in the way that might shake things up and cause some creative desruction).
Don't forget he cheated on ALL his wives - at least once with a porn star and perhaps with prostitutes. Said some creepy stuff about his daughters too. He doesn't get to lecture anyone about morality or truth anymore. I'm not even a prude about that stuff but he can't travel through life launching frequent self-righteous attacks on other people while he is breaking the law, breaking his marital vows, lying, etc. He's a lousy person.
-
I really think we should just let this one go. I'm confident that if banning protests could have gotten Trump what he wanted he would be all for it, but I don't think that's what he said. Either A) he was asking that protests be restricted to certain areas or B) he was asking for something that he didn't think all the way through. B is my assumption in this case because not thinking through the logistics and technical issues of accomplishing a thing is par for the course coming from Trump.
But the real reason I think we should let it go is that there are so many concrete examples of Trump saying and doing things worse than this that we shouldn't spend too much time arguing about the details of what he meant when there's actually a plausible alternative to him asking for a ban. For fuck's sake, he puts random quotation marks in his tweets so he can say he wasn't being literal or that he was just quoting someone. That's the kind of excuse 12 year olds make. If he thinks he's fooling anyone with that (unfortunately he probably is) he wouldn't think twice about this request.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump? ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
I think what he said was not the wrong word. The only way it would be wrong is if there is no irrational Trump hate.
Well, as people tend to use words like “rational” in these cases to mean “that which I agree with” and “irrational” as “everything else,” it’s mostly just a word game used as a way to dismiss others’ legitimate complaints. So, meh.
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
No, not necessarily.
Not "necessarily," but in this context it absolutely is.
I don't agree. We have significant precedent for corralling protestors away from certain areas and not calling it a "ban on protests." I agree it's a bit childish for trump to want to be sheilded from it, the same way it was childish for Obama, Bush, the mayor (former mayor?) of Portland, et all, to do the same thing.
Let me pose a different scenario.
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor to quit leaving crap on his lawn."
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor dead" are NOT the same. GuitarStv is not responsible for someone interpreting the first statement as equal to the second, that lies with the knuckleheads who falsely equate the two.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump? ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
I think what he said was not the wrong word. The only way it would be wrong is if there is no irrational Trump hate.
Well, as people tend to use words like “rational” in these cases to mean “that which I agree with” and “irrational” as “everything else,” it’s mostly just a word game used as a way to dismiss others’ legitimate complaints. So, meh.
Even with those definitions, to say it's the wrong word means you've never heard a complaint about Trump that went too far.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump?
Nope because I don't/can't pretend to know every reason why someone loves or hates Trump.
ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
Irrational is subjective. For instance you might find it irrational to despise a racist. Whereas I find it perfectly rational. Who is correct? What you mean is you are fine with the "hatred" that you agree with and try to point out hatred you don't agree with. Even that is subjective since "hatred" is often misconstrued.
Point being, you can't possibly understand, completely the mental well being of another that influences their emotional state enough to put some sort of rational/irrational label on it. Certainly not on some Internet forum where there is no face to face.
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
Well, when you (apparently) have no real world experience, you need to do something to account for that. Imagination does have a connotation of fanciful, but I don't know how else to describe being able to anticipate situations you haven't encountered. I would say just use logic, because it seems pretty easy to infer potential meanings using logic, but apparently, it's not as easy as it seems and maybe I would be similarly limited if I didn't have any relevant real life experiences.
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
No, not necessarily.
Not "necessarily," but in this context it absolutely is.
I don't agree. We have significant precedent for corralling protestors away from certain areas and not calling it a "ban on protests." I agree it's a bit childish for trump to want to be sheilded from it, the same way it was childish for Obama, Bush, the mayor (former mayor?) of Portland, et all, to do the same thing.
Let me pose a different scenario.
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor to quit leaving crap on his lawn."
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor dead" are NOT the same. GuitarStv is not responsible for someone interpreting the first statement as equal to the second, that lies with the knuckleheads who falsely equate the two.
Are you referring to the mayor of Portland who asked the federal government to rescind/deny the permits for alt-right rallies last year? The ones that the federal government refused to revoke because of that pesky free speech thing we're supposed to support?
If you can cite a case where Obama or Bush banned protests, that'd be appreciated.
-
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
Well, when you (apparently) have no real world experience, you need to do something to account for that. Imagination does have a connotation of fanciful, but I don't know how else to describe being able to anticipate situations you haven't encountered. I would say just use logic, because it seems pretty easy to infer potential meanings using logic, but apparently, it's not as easy as it seems and maybe I would be similarly limited if I didn't have any relevant real life experiences.
Hold me back bro, I'm a millennial with (apparently) no real life experience and there are tide pods in my house . . .
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Whether you support him now or not, your vote for him means you did support him. Everything after that is merely justification.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump? ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
I think what he said was not the wrong word. The only way it would be wrong is if there is no irrational Trump hate.
Well, as people tend to use words like “rational” in these cases to mean “that which I agree with” and “irrational” as “everything else,” it’s mostly just a word game used as a way to dismiss others’ legitimate complaints. So, meh.
Even with those definitions, to say it's the wrong word means you've never heard a complaint about Trump that went too far.
No, it just means, why engage in an argument that you believe to have been undertaken in bad faith?
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump? ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
I think what he said was not the wrong word. The only way it would be wrong is if there is no irrational Trump hate.
Well, as people tend to use words like “rational” in these cases to mean “that which I agree with” and “irrational” as “everything else,” it’s mostly just a word game used as a way to dismiss others’ legitimate complaints. So, meh.
Even with those definitions, to say it's the wrong word means you've never heard a complaint about Trump that went too far.
No, it just means, why engage in an argument that you believe to have been undertaken in bad faith?
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
No, not necessarily.
Not "necessarily," but in this context it absolutely is.
I don't agree. We have significant precedent for corralling protestors away from certain areas and not calling it a "ban on protests." I agree it's a bit childish for trump to want to be sheilded from it, the same way it was childish for Obama, Bush, the mayor (former mayor?) of Portland, et all, to do the same thing.
Let me pose a different scenario.
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor to quit leaving crap on his lawn."
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor dead" are NOT the same. GuitarStv is not responsible for someone interpreting the first statement as equal to the second, that lies with the knuckleheads who falsely equate the two.
Are you referring to the mayor of Portland who asked the federal government to rescind/deny the permits for alt-right rallies last year? The ones that the federal government refused to revoke because of that pesky free speech thing we're supposed to support?
If you can cite a case where Obama or Bush banned protests, that'd be appreciated.
I was referring to a protest of the mayor's housing plans that was quitely denied a permit... as well as the incident where Patriot Prayer, an right-wing group that has denounce racists and the alt right, was unfairly characterized as 'alt-right.'
Your definition seems to be, than any effort to contain a protest to a specific area is considered a ban on protests. If so, they any time there's been a permit issued for a protest that specified a route, location, time, or whatever, then somehow a protest was banned.
My definition of banning a protest doesn't include speciying a specific place for it to occur.
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump? ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
I think what he said was not the wrong word. The only way it would be wrong is if there is no irrational Trump hate.
Well, as people tend to use words like “rational” in these cases to mean “that which I agree with” and “irrational” as “everything else,” it’s mostly just a word game used as a way to dismiss others’ legitimate complaints. So, meh.
Even with those definitions, to say it's the wrong word means you've never heard a complaint about Trump that went too far.
No, it just means, why engage in an argument that you believe to have been undertaken in bad faith?
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
No, not necessarily.
Not "necessarily," but in this context it absolutely is.
I don't agree. We have significant precedent for corralling protestors away from certain areas and not calling it a "ban on protests." I agree it's a bit childish for trump to want to be sheilded from it, the same way it was childish for Obama, Bush, the mayor (former mayor?) of Portland, et all, to do the same thing.
Let me pose a different scenario.
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor to quit leaving crap on his lawn."
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor dead" are NOT the same. GuitarStv is not responsible for someone interpreting the first statement as equal to the second, that lies with the knuckleheads who falsely equate the two.
Are you referring to the mayor of Portland who asked the federal government to rescind/deny the permits for alt-right rallies last year? The ones that the federal government refused to revoke because of that pesky free speech thing we're supposed to support?
If you can cite a case where Obama or Bush banned protests, that'd be appreciated.
I was referring to a protest of the mayor's housing plans that was quitely denied a permit... as well as the incident where Patriot Prayer, an right-wing group that has denounce racists and the alt right, was unfairly characterized as 'alt-right.'
Your definition seems to be, than any effort to contain a protest to a specific area is considered a ban on protests. If so, they any time there's been a permit issued for a protest that specified a route, location, time, or whatever, then somehow a protest was banned.
My definition of banning a protest doesn't include speciying a specific place for it to occur.
You have exceptionally slippery logic and a solid case of what-about-ism.
Trump refuses to go to the UK unless he can get a "warm welcome."
In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.
source (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-may)
It is clear that Trump considers the existence of protests to be...well, not a warm welcome. How exactly are his criteria going to be met unless you "officially or legally prohibit" protests?
-
Long story short, Trump's not going to London. Unless the British government physically lock down every metre of road between Heathrow, number 10 and Buckingham Palace, he's going to be greeted by a deafening cacophony of booing at the very least. It's genuinely hard to get across to people in the US just how wildly, spectacularly unpopular Trump is in western Europe. All the back and forth currently going on is obscuring the reality of the situation: the Tories have absolutely no way of even beginning to create the kind of environment Trump would expect, and even though they're isolationist rightwingers, huge swathes of the parliamentary party would sooner eat a bag of dog food than be seen to denigrate the right to protest in order to make Donald Trump happy. The trip isn't happening, because it would be an unmitigated disaster in every direction.
-
From what I hear, it's scheduled in February. I don't think a visit like this can be canceled at this late notice.
-
From what I hear, it's scheduled in February. I don't think a visit like this can be canceled at this late notice.
All I can find is something scheduled for October (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-braced-for-biggest-protest-in-uk-history-against-trump-visit-as-celebrities-and-politicians-a3751666.html).
-
Oh there was one scheduled Feb 2018, but it looks like it's canceled. I hope that didn't cost the taxpayers any money.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/12/trump-cancels-london-visit-blaming-obamas-embassy-decision/1027345001/
-
Please note: I am only here to counteract the frothy, naked, irrational hatred of Trump. I do not support the man, my vote for him was only a vote to undermine the 'inevitable' mandate that hillary might have felt she had, had she been elected. His impeachment, provided evidence of actual wrong doing, would be A-OK with me. The anti-trump sentiment is quite well represented so I remain silent on that.
Seems like you really picked the wrong word here. Not understanding why folks despise Trump does not make them irrational.
Are you suggesting there is no irrational hatred of Trump? ncornilsen is only here to counteract the irrational hatred. He's perfectly fine with the rational hatred, as am I.
I think what he said was not the wrong word. The only way it would be wrong is if there is no irrational Trump hate.
Well, as people tend to use words like “rational” in these cases to mean “that which I agree with” and “irrational” as “everything else,” it’s mostly just a word game used as a way to dismiss others’ legitimate complaints. So, meh.
Even with those definitions, to say it's the wrong word means you've never heard a complaint about Trump that went too far.
No, it just means, why engage in an argument that you believe to have been undertaken in bad faith?
I prefer not to deal with imagination when talking to people . . . but to take their words at face value. In my real world experience, imagining new meanings to everything that someone says is both unproductive and wrong.
so why are you doing it with what Trump said?
I'm not.
Let's say I told you to kill someone, while pointing at a fat white guy.
"GuitarStv tells ncornilsen to kill someone" is true.
"GuitarStv demands death of fat white guy" is also true.
Neither deal with imagination.
Telling someone that you're not going to visit their country because you don't want to deal with protests is no different from telling them to ban protests or you won't visit.
No, not necessarily.
Not "necessarily," but in this context it absolutely is.
I don't agree. We have significant precedent for corralling protestors away from certain areas and not calling it a "ban on protests." I agree it's a bit childish for trump to want to be sheilded from it, the same way it was childish for Obama, Bush, the mayor (former mayor?) of Portland, et all, to do the same thing.
Let me pose a different scenario.
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor to quit leaving crap on his lawn."
"guitarstv tells ncornilsen that he wants his neighbor dead" are NOT the same. GuitarStv is not responsible for someone interpreting the first statement as equal to the second, that lies with the knuckleheads who falsely equate the two.
Are you referring to the mayor of Portland who asked the federal government to rescind/deny the permits for alt-right rallies last year? The ones that the federal government refused to revoke because of that pesky free speech thing we're supposed to support?
If you can cite a case where Obama or Bush banned protests, that'd be appreciated.
I was referring to a protest of the mayor's housing plans that was quitely denied a permit... as well as the incident where Patriot Prayer, an right-wing group that has denounce racists and the alt right, was unfairly characterized as 'alt-right.'
Your definition seems to be, than any effort to contain a protest to a specific area is considered a ban on protests. If so, they any time there's been a permit issued for a protest that specified a route, location, time, or whatever, then somehow a protest was banned.
My definition of banning a protest doesn't include speciying a specific place for it to occur.
You have exceptionally slippery logic and a solid case of what-about-ism.
Trump refuses to go to the UK unless he can get a "warm welcome."
In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.
source (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-may)
It is clear that Trump considers the existence of protests to be...well, not a warm welcome. How exactly are his criteria going to be met unless you "officially or legally prohibit" protests?
If it's been acceptable, to this point, to specify locations for assemblies, establish routes for the demonstrations, etc... then a request to keep the protests out of Trumps sight is NOT a goddamned ban on protests. Trump is an ignorant enough buffoon to not understand why that isn't possible in this case, which makes him dumb, not a dictator. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
And the 'whatabout'ism is purely a response to the left trying to call trump Hitler for doing things alot of other presidents have done.
-
If it's been acceptable, to this point, to specify locations for assemblies, establish routes for the demonstrations, etc... then a request to keep the protests out of Trumps sight is NOT a goddamned ban on protests. Trump is an ignorant enough buffoon to not understand why that isn't possible in this case, which makes him dumb, not a dictator. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
And the 'whatabout'ism is purely a response to the left trying to call trump Hitler for doing things alot of other presidents have done.
Which other US presidents have refused to enter the UK because of the possibility of protests?
-
If it's been acceptable, to this point, to specify locations for assemblies, establish routes for the demonstrations, etc... then a request to keep the protests out of Trumps sight is NOT a goddamned ban on protests. Trump is an ignorant enough buffoon to not understand why that isn't possible in this case, which makes him dumb, not a dictator. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
And the 'whatabout'ism is purely a response to the left trying to call trump Hitler for doing things alot of other presidents have done.
The objection here isn't just that Trump is afraid of protests, it's that he is SO afraid of protests that he would refuse to even visit a foreign ally.
Like he's such a fragile snowflake that the prospect of anything except a carefully curated crowd of adoring fans in matching hats is somehow unfathomable to him. Like so many strong-men dictators who are actually insecure, they thought of anything except abject subservience from the masses threatens his personal narrative about his life story.
For reference, let's remember that a foreign journalist literally threw a shoe at George W. Bush's head. Bush isn't exactly remembered for his bravery, but can you imagine Trump voluntarily taking the podium in a room like that? Without pre-screened questions from an approved list of friendly journos, where the hostility against him is so raw that it devolves into literal violence? Trump is a TV personality more concerned with optics than democracy, he doesn't do tough situations like that and he CERTAINLY doesn't do them on camera.
(https://romancatholicworld.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/shoe-being-thrown-at-president-george-w-bush-during-a-visit-to-iraq.png?w=317)
-
If it's been acceptable, to this point, to specify locations for assemblies, establish routes for the demonstrations, etc... then a request to keep the protests out of Trumps sight is NOT a goddamned ban on protests. Trump is an ignorant enough buffoon to not understand why that isn't possible in this case, which makes him dumb, not a dictator. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
And the 'whatabout'ism is purely a response to the left trying to call trump Hitler for doing things alot of other presidents have done.
Which other US presidents have refused to enter the UK because of the possibility of protests?
Please stop moving the goalposts. The manufactured outrage was about trump trying to "Ban protests." Please look at Kris's original post. It was not about cancelling the trip because of the possibility of protests. those are different things. However, refusing to go the UK because of possible protests is exactly what trump did, and is absolutely childish, but I'm not sure if it's unprecedented. It's certainly quite a different thing than being a "dictator" who was trying to 'ban protests."
-
This reminds of the time I heard "the travel ban isn't a ban."
-
If it's been acceptable, to this point, to specify locations for assemblies, establish routes for the demonstrations, etc... then a request to keep the protests out of Trumps sight is NOT a goddamned ban on protests. Trump is an ignorant enough buffoon to not understand why that isn't possible in this case, which makes him dumb, not a dictator. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
And the 'whatabout'ism is purely a response to the left trying to call trump Hitler for doing things alot of other presidents have done.
Which other US presidents have refused to enter the UK because of the possibility of protests?
Please stop moving the goalposts. The manufactured outrage was about trump trying to "Ban protests." Please look at Kris's original post. It was not about cancelling the trip because of the possibility of protests. those are different things. However, refusing to go the UK because of possible protests is exactly what trump did, and is absolutely childish, but I'm not sure if it's unprecedented. It's certainly quite a different thing than being a "dictator" who was trying to 'ban protests."
So very slippery.
If you're "not sure it's unprecedented," perhaps there's an answer for GuitarStv's question?
Which other US presidents have refused to enter the UK because of the possibility of protests?
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bush-torture/bushs-swiss-visit-off-after-complaints-on-torture-idUSTRE7141CU20110205
Here's one where Bush canceled a trip because of the possibility of being prosecuted for illegal torture of soldiers. Not quite the same but there were protests planned there as well.
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bush-torture/bushs-swiss-visit-off-after-complaints-on-torture-idUSTRE7141CU20110205
Here's one where Bush canceled a trip because of the possibility of being prosecuted for illegal torture of soldiers. Not quite the same but there were protests planned there as well.
That's not remotely the same, lol.
-
If it's been acceptable, to this point, to specify locations for assemblies, establish routes for the demonstrations, etc... then a request to keep the protests out of Trumps sight is NOT a goddamned ban on protests. Trump is an ignorant enough buffoon to not understand why that isn't possible in this case, which makes him dumb, not a dictator. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
And the 'whatabout'ism is purely a response to the left trying to call trump Hitler for doing things alot of other presidents have done.
Which other US presidents have refused to enter the UK because of the possibility of protests?
Please stop moving the goalposts. The manufactured outrage was about trump trying to "Ban protests." Please look at Kris's original post. It was not about cancelling the trip because of the possibility of protests. those are different things. However, refusing to go the UK because of possible protests is exactly what trump did, and is absolutely childish, but I'm not sure if it's unprecedented. It's certainly quite a different thing than being a "dictator" who was trying to 'ban protests."
So very slippery.
If you're "not sure it's unprecedented," perhaps there's an answer for GuitarStv's question?
Which other US presidents have refused to enter the UK because of the possibility of protests?
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
As for Bush not going to Switzerland... the protests don't seem to be the thing that kept him away. Being subjected to arrest and what would inevitably be an unfair trial were the primary drivers there, I'd say.
-
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
My position is that Trump wants the UK to ban protests for him or he won't visit. If your quibble is the "dictator" comment, you need to go talk to the person who said that. If your quibble is over the definition of "ban", I will defer to the dictionary.
-
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
My position is that Trump wants the UK to ban protests for him or he won't visit. If your quibble is the "dictator" comment, you need to go talk to the person who said that. If your quibble is over the definition of "ban", I will defer to the dictionary.
You know, I did try to address it with the two individuals who said it. Include thier names? No. I dare not do that because I've known those individuals to consider that a personal attack and report me. Others piled in and tried to change the subject, insisting on converting my refusal to call the guy a dictator for something he didn't do into other things and aurguing about that. (should I put the strawman link here?) Every other post of mine since then, has been attempts at rephrasing my position in ways that these others would understand.
I've made it very clear that I think trump's request on it's face is lame, and does not reflect well on him. (or us). I just don't think he asked for an outright ban on protests of him, nor do I think he's a dictator because of it. I don't know the layout of London, and perhaps limiting the locations, times and routes isn't practical... but trump may not know that, which is why I don't think he was even implicitly requesting a ban.
I don't think it's honest to call any regulation or restriction on said protests to be a Ban. You would have to start calling all other kinds of regulation and restrictions "BANS" then, and of the issues that come to mind right away, I don't think that's what either side of the political aisle wants to see.
-
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
My position is that Trump wants the UK to ban protests for him or he won't visit. If your quibble is the "dictator" comment, you need to go talk to the person who said that. If your quibble is over the definition of "ban", I will defer to the dictionary.
You know, I did try to address it with the two individuals who said it. Include thier names? No. I dare not do that because I've known those individuals to consider that a personal attack and report me. Others piled in and tried to change the subject, insisting on converting my refusal to call the guy a dictator for something he didn't do into other things and aurguing about that. (should I put the strawman link here?) Every other post of mine since then, has been attempts at rephrasing my position in ways that these others would understand.
I've made it very clear that I think trump's request on it's face is lame, and does not reflect well on him. (or us). I just don't think he asked for an outright ban on protests of him, nor do I think he's a dictator because of it. I don't know the layout of London, and perhaps limiting the locations, times and routes isn't practical... but trump may not know that, which is why I don't think he was even implicitly requesting a ban.
I don't think it's honest to call any regulation or restriction on said protests to be a Ban. You would have to start calling all other kinds of regulation and restrictions "BANS" then, and of the issues that come to mind right away, I don't think that's what either side of the political aisle wants to see.
Trump wants "a warm welcome." Even my infantile logic is able to deduce that Trump would interpret the existence of any significant protest, whether it directly interfered with his travels or not, as something other than "a warm welcome." He was arguing about the size of his inauguration crowd for months...simply making sure he's not walking through masses of protesters is not enough to provide him with what he would consider to be "a warm welcome."
I'll just leave this here.
(https://i.imgur.com/rE7kWK2.png)
-
Trump is a fairly obvious case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder as defined by the DSM-V. Take a look at the characteristics of the disorder here and see how many fit Trump's behavior (pretty much all of them): https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662)
-
Trump is a fairly obvious case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder as defined by the DSM-V. Take a look at the characteristics of the disorder here and see how many fit Trump's behavior (pretty much all of them): https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662)
I know someone who was in actual hard core treatment for NPD, and Trump behaves and talks exactly like them (in public, at least). It's kind of comical in a sick way.
-
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
My position is that Trump wants the UK to ban protests for him or he won't visit. If your quibble is the "dictator" comment, you need to go talk to the person who said that. If your quibble is over the definition of "ban", I will defer to the dictionary.
You know, I did try to address it with the two individuals who said it. Include thier names? No. I dare not do that because I've known those individuals to consider that a personal attack and report me. Others piled in and tried to change the subject, insisting on converting my refusal to call the guy a dictator for something he didn't do into other things and aurguing about that. (should I put the strawman link here?) Every other post of mine since then, has been attempts at rephrasing my position in ways that these others would understand.
Are you talking about when I made this joke:
The dictator is strong in this one.
?
If you'll notice, I didn't actually call Trump a dictator while making the joke. Just because he does a lot of things that you would typically associate with a dictator doesn't make Trump a dictator. While I strongly suspect that given the chance he would fall nicely into a dictatorial role, Trump has not yet been given the chance. There are many protections inherent in the US political system that prevent this.
-
There are many protections inherent in the US political system that prevent this.
Hopefully. They did say the same thing about the electoral college though...
-
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
My position is that Trump wants the UK to ban protests for him or he won't visit. If your quibble is the "dictator" comment, you need to go talk to the person who said that. If your quibble is over the definition of "ban", I will defer to the dictionary.
You know, I did try to address it with the two individuals who said it. Include thier names? No. I dare not do that because I've known those individuals to consider that a personal attack and report me. Others piled in and tried to change the subject, insisting on converting my refusal to call the guy a dictator for something he didn't do into other things and aurguing about that. (should I put the strawman link here?) Every other post of mine since then, has been attempts at rephrasing my position in ways that these others would understand.
Are you talking about when I made this joke:
The dictator is strong in this one.
?
If you'll notice, I didn't actually call Trump a dictator while making the joke. Just because he does a lot of things that you would typically associate with a dictator doesn't make Trump a dictator. While I strongly suspect that given the chance he would fall nicely into a dictatorial role, Trump has not yet been given the chance. There are many protections inherent in the US political system that prevent this.
I am talking about that, for one... mainly the headline in the article you were refering to. Apparently, I'm supposed to take the words people say, then extrapolate that to the most ingenerous interpretation of it I can come up with, and attack that.
Anyway, I've made my case, you've made yours, I understand what you're trying to say, and why you think it's equivilent to a ban, I just don't agree with it.
-
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
My position is that Trump wants the UK to ban protests for him or he won't visit. If your quibble is the "dictator" comment, you need to go talk to the person who said that. If your quibble is over the definition of "ban", I will defer to the dictionary.
You know, I did try to address it with the two individuals who said it. Include thier names? No. I dare not do that because I've known those individuals to consider that a personal attack and report me. Others piled in and tried to change the subject, insisting on converting my refusal to call the guy a dictator for something he didn't do into other things and aurguing about that. (should I put the strawman link here?) Every other post of mine since then, has been attempts at rephrasing my position in ways that these others would understand.
Are you talking about when I made this joke:
The dictator is strong in this one.
?
If you'll notice, I didn't actually call Trump a dictator while making the joke. Just because he does a lot of things that you would typically associate with a dictator doesn't make Trump a dictator. While I strongly suspect that given the chance he would fall nicely into a dictatorial role, Trump has not yet been given the chance. There are many protections inherent in the US political system that prevent this.
I am talking about that, for one... mainly the headline in the article you were refering to. Apparently, I'm supposed to take the words people say, then extrapolate that to the most ingenerous interpretation of it I can come up with, and attack that.
Anyway, I've made my case, you've made yours, I understand what you're trying to say, and why you think it's equivilent to a ban, I just don't agree with it.
Just curious if you still consider this "manufactured outrage" and if this is an example to you, of the "irrational hatred" you are claiming to try and combat.
-
If my logic is slippery, your logic is infantile in it's inability to grasp nuance of a situation and differentiate between trump meerly being a bad person and president versus being a dictator.
I shall sum your logic up for you: It is OK to place restrictions on the time, place, marching route, etc, of a protest, unless trump requests something that might, only possibly, require that to be done... in which case its a BAN and he's a dictator.
you realize that if this had been brought up as "Look at that wimp trump, he won't even go to the UK because he's worried they'll protest him!" there wouldn't really be anything to discuss, right? Instead, someone blew it up into "Trump wants to ban protests, what a dictator!" that's all I'm trying to point out! The series of strawmen and moved goalposts that ensued has been ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
My position is that Trump wants the UK to ban protests for him or he won't visit. If your quibble is the "dictator" comment, you need to go talk to the person who said that. If your quibble is over the definition of "ban", I will defer to the dictionary.
You know, I did try to address it with the two individuals who said it. Include thier names? No. I dare not do that because I've known those individuals to consider that a personal attack and report me. Others piled in and tried to change the subject, insisting on converting my refusal to call the guy a dictator for something he didn't do into other things and aurguing about that. (should I put the strawman link here?) Every other post of mine since then, has been attempts at rephrasing my position in ways that these others would understand.
Are you talking about when I made this joke:
The dictator is strong in this one.
?
If you'll notice, I didn't actually call Trump a dictator while making the joke. Just because he does a lot of things that you would typically associate with a dictator doesn't make Trump a dictator. While I strongly suspect that given the chance he would fall nicely into a dictatorial role, Trump has not yet been given the chance. There are many protections inherent in the US political system that prevent this.
I am talking about that, for one... mainly the headline in the article you were refering to. Apparently, I'm supposed to take the words people say, then extrapolate that to the most ingenerous interpretation of it I can come up with, and attack that.
Anyway, I've made my case, you've made yours, I understand what you're trying to say, and why you think it's equivilent to a ban, I just don't agree with it.
Just curious if you still consider this "manufactured outrage" and if this is an example to you, of the "irrational hatred" you are claiming to try and combat.
Among the posters on this forum? No, probably not. I think in some cases they will contort things trump does to justify thier hate of him, that they would let slide for anyone else.
I went on to read a number of other articles to see if I could get the actual words Trump used... these articles were clearly trying to manufacture outrage to give those who already hate trump something to read to confirm thier opinion of the many. They would take what trump said and left unsaid (based on other articles) and make tenuous leaps to comparisons with hitler and mussilini. These people, and the commentors there (never read comments!) are irrational.
-
Trump is a fairly obvious case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder as defined by the DSM-V. Take a look at the characteristics of the disorder here and see how many fit Trump's behavior (pretty much all of them): https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
My step-father was diagnosed with NPD and he and Trump are uncannily alike. My step-father was a successful attorney, could persuade the socks off anyone, but would immediately back stab you if he could gain anything out of it. Like Trump, he would hit bottom, and then run away from his problems while blaming anyone else but himself. He would charm a new sucker, and then proceed to start the cycle all over again. He is currently (to my knowledge) on his fourth wife. He went through about 5 different law firms over a 20 year period.
I have been thinking a lot about what makes Trump persuasive to people, because it completely baffles me. I see people who were disparaging him during the campaign, fully on board the Trump train now, and it boggles the mind.
-
Trump is a fairly obvious case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder as defined by the DSM-V. Take a look at the characteristics of the disorder here and see how many fit Trump's behavior (pretty much all of them): https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
My step-father was diagnosed with NPD and he and Trump are uncannily alike. My step-father was a successful attorney, could persuade the socks off anyone, but would immediately back stab you if he could gain anything out of it. Like Trump, he would hit bottom, and then run away from his problems while blaming anyone else but himself. He would charm a new sucker, and then proceed to start the cycle all over again. He is currently (to my knowledge) on his fourth wife. He went through about 5 different law firms over a 20 year period.
I have been thinking a lot about what makes Trump persuasive to people, because it completely baffles me. I see people who were disparaging him during the campaign, fully on board the Trump train now, and it boggles the mind.
I keep reminding myself that the NPD sufferer I know could be immensely persuasive, charming, and successful, as long as the people he was interacting with did things his way and reinforced his own opinion of himself. Thus, he actually made friends and attracted people quite easily. It was sustaining successful relationships that was incredibly difficult for him. On the other hand, although he superficially behaves and talks similarly to Trump (in terms of speech patterns and self importance), he's far more personally attractive, funny, couth, and charming. Also more ethical in business matters. Trump just reads as a sleazy car salesman or tv huckster to me and always has, not to mention thoroughly revolting in appearance and manner. Trump doesn't even seem like a real person, but more like the cliched embodiment of every disgusting characteristic America can produce.
So I'm not sure why he's so attractive to people, except that Americans are conditioned from birth to equate fame (no matter how derived) with skill/talent/general awesomeness.
It is very strange, that's for sure.
-
There are many people who think if you are wealthy and/or famous, you must have done something good in your life, been worthy of gaining that wealth and fame.
-
There are many people who think if you are wealthy and/or famous, you must have done something good in your life, been worthy of gaining that wealth and fame.
It's the flip side of the just universe fallacy.
-
There are many people who think if you are wealthy and/or famous, you must have done something good in your life, been worthy of gaining that wealth and fame.
It seems to have worked for the Kardashians. And Donald Trump.
-
There have been a shit ton of protests in the US, can he just not come back here either?
-
I watched SOTU from start to finish and if nothing else, I was surprised. There was the typical meaningless chatter at the beginning, but a few lines were real zingers, such as the one about standing for the national anthem. Kudos to the speechwriter on that. The comments about the opioid epidemic also seem to be effective, as both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have posted about how it's a big problem.
Kind of puts things in perspective... I try and have friends of all types, but I really have no idea how the other half lives. Many people in this country are in the clutches of alcohol, drugs, and worse. It's really eye opening.
-
It's being reported from Moscow that the heads of all the Russian security services visited Washington last week. Including one who is under sanctions imposed by Congress for being responsible for the illegal armed Russian invasion of peaceful Ukraine. Not announced by the Trump government.
You have a bunch of traitors who are in hock to the Russians in the White House and running the US government.
-
but a few lines were real zingers, such as the one about standing for the national anthem. Kudos to the speechwriter on that.
Why was it a Zinger? Just curious why you thought that since it was grossly misrepresented by the POTUS and others.
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/donald-trump-just-asked-congress-to-end-the-rule-of-law.html
His statement saying: "I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.” That is, the head of the agencies themselves, or the DOJ would not be in charge of hiring and firing, but Trump's cabinet members. And I wouldn't be surprised if the hirings and firings are based on political reasons, not performance. I would not be surprised if this led to a witch hunt of firings based on anyone saying anything bad about Trump, publically or personally.
-
Given that Trump has demonstrated a dangerous lack of understanding regarding climate science (one that both undermines the public trust and fails the American people), I guess he is trying to set up a way to get himself fired?
-
Here's my rambling theory:
Trump joined the campaign as a lark to get more attention for his TV show. He ended up winning despite outlandish statements.
Now that he's in the big chair, he can't handle the duties of the office. Too much stakeholder drama, satisfying rival factions, can't focus on his business, can't goof around like the good ol' days, etc. He can't have it his way all time, he's annoyed, irritated, frustrated. He won't up and quit because that a sad, sore, evil loser move.
The upside is a clearing of career politicians, more on the GOP side, but some Dems too. If the DOJ and FBI probes bring anything good, it'll strengthen the laws, and clean up the swamp as Trump wants.
If Hillary was elected, chances are slim that the DC corruption would have been exposed as it is under this administration. It'd be the same old, same old.
Change is good, even when bad.
-
can't goof around like the good ol' days, etc.
Trump has played golf 95 time in his first year in office. That's almost twice a week.
So let's not feel TOO bad for him. Seems like he's finding a way to play twice as much golf as Obama played, and has spent roughly 1/3 of his time in office at golf resorts. I don't think he's exactly overworked.
-
I'm all for anything that peacefully teaches America to be smarter. Maybe people won't be so damn flippant about who they vote for. The past decade has certainly taught DW and I alot about the people we thought we knew best.
-
can't goof around like the good ol' days, etc.
Trump has played golf 95 time in his first year in office. That's almost twice a week.
So let's not feel TOO bad for him. Seems like he's finding a way to play twice as much golf as Obama played, and has spent roughly 1/3 of his time in office at golf resorts. I don't think he's exactly overworked.
Don't you know most deals are made on the golf course? There's several anecdotal data points to support my view. He isn't playing, he's perfecting his business pitch to sell America like he did at Davos and MAGA!
-
I'm all for anything that peacefully teaches America to be smarter. Maybe people won't be so damn flippant about who they vote for. The past decade has certainly taught DW and I alot about the people we thought we knew best.
Many people who voted for Trump took that decision seriously. I'm guessing about the same amount of people who took voting seriously voted for Trump as voted for Hillary. The reason Trump won isn't that the Trump voters were flippant, it's that they weighted the pros and cons differently.
I think if someone tried to make voters value voting more, it wouldn't dramatically change the results. Democrats might be saying they need more intelligent/serious/etc. voters now, but Republicans were saying it during the Obama years. To win you need them to value the same things the same way.
-
The reason Trump won isn't that the Trump voters were flippant, it's that they weighted the pros and cons differently.
I think that the reason Trump won is that democratic voter turnout was effectively suppressed by negative media coverage of Hillary (thanks Russia!).
Remember that Trump didn't get more voters, or different voters, than Romney or McCain got, and they both lost. He basically got the same voters that the Republican candidate always gets. This time around that was enough, because a bunch of democratic voters stayed home or voted third party.
Which is why this thread is kind of silly. There are almost no crossover voters among Republicans. They vote party, or they don't vote. Approximately zero percent of them are going to vote for a democrat, regardless of candidate quality. I think our pussy grabber in chief makes that point rather elegantly.
-
Which is why this thread is kind of silly. There are almost no crossover voters among Republicans. They vote party, or they don't vote. Approximately zero percent of them are going to vote for a democrat, regardless of candidate quality.
I agree, and if you swap the parties, it's mostly true too. I'm not really here to switch how I vote, more to understand and therefore empathize and be compassionate of the other side. Sometimes I struggle :)
-
The reason Trump won isn't that the Trump voters were flippant, it's that they weighted the pros and cons differently.
I think that the reason Trump won is that democratic voter turnout was effectively suppressed by negative media coverage of Hillary (thanks Russia!).
Remember that Trump didn't get more voters, or different voters, than Romney or McCain got, and they both lost. He basically got the same voters that the Republican candidate always gets. This time around that was enough, because a bunch of democratic voters stayed home or voted third party.
Which is why this thread is kind of silly. There are almost no crossover voters among Republicans. They vote party, or they don't vote. Approximately zero percent of them are going to vote for a democrat, regardless of candidate quality. I think our pussy grabber in chief makes that point rather elegantly.
He got a lot of democrat blue collar voters that were previously Obama voters, and then he lost a lot of republican voters who did not want to vote for him because he's not conservative (although he has mostly governed as one, but they couldn't know that) and/or because, well, he's Trump, with all the negatives that entails.
Not huge numbers percentage wise, but he got them in important states.
-
Despite the bluster and near constant carnival side show, the substance of what has happened in Trump's first year has fairly reasonable from my perspective.
First, he hasn't started any new wars (so far). There have been a couple actions in already existing conflicts, but nothing compared to some others (think Bush the 2nd in Iraq, or Clinton in Somalia).
Second, the tax code has been simplified by reducing the number of people itemizing.
Third, there's Gorsuch.
Fourth, the individual mandate of the ACA has been removed. While I do appreciate that my United Healthcare stock is up 650% since Obamacare was enacted, with skyrocketing premiums something needs to be done. My thinking is that if ACA is still around the next time the Democrats take control, they will be less likely to try another major overhaul (i.e., Single Payer Medicare for All).
-
Third, there's Gorsuch.
Why are people crediting Trump with Gorsuch? It was Mitch McConnell who played ducks and drakes with Senate procedures so that the Supreme Court vacancy became a Republican one rather than a Democratic one. Trump was handed a slam dunk, and Gorsuch just one of many qualified conservative judges who would have been appointed by any Republican in office.
-
Why are people crediting Trump with Gorsuch? It was Mitch McConnell who played ducks and drakes with Senate procedures so that the Supreme Court vacancy became a Republican one rather than a Democratic one. Trump was handed a slam dunk, and Gorsuch just one of many qualified conservative judges who would have been appointed by any Republican in office.
Who said anything about giving Trump, and Trump alone, the credit for all those things?
Regarding the four things I mentioned, my approximation of who was responsible would be:
1. 95% Trump / 5% Congress
2. 20% Trump / 80% Congress
3. 50% Trump / 50% Congress
4. 20% Trump / 80% Congress
Also, getting Soutered again is a big concern in Supreme Court picks, so I will give Trump credit for publishing his list of candidates for the high court during his campaign, and sticking to it.
-
Also, getting Soutered again is a big concern in Supreme Court picks, so I will give Trump credit for publishing his list of candidates for the high court during his campaign, and sticking to it.
Yes. Let's ignore his nominations for lower courts.
It's like we're grading on a curve here.
-
Despite the bluster and near constant carnival side show, the substance of what has happened in Trump's first year has fairly reasonable from my perspective.
First, he hasn't started any new wars (so far). There have been a couple actions in already existing conflicts, but nothing compared to some others (think Bush the 2nd in Iraq, or Clinton in Somalia).
Second, the tax code has been simplified by reducing the number of people itemizing.
Third, there's Gorsuch.
Fourth, the individual mandate of the ACA has been removed. While I do appreciate that my United Healthcare stock is up 650% since Obamacare was enacted, with skyrocketing premiums something needs to be done. My thinking is that if ACA is still around the next time the Democrats take control, they will be less likely to try another major overhaul (i.e., Single Payer Medicare for All).
It's actually a pretty sad indictment that the first thing you can think to list as an achievement is that your President has not started any new wars "yet".
-
Despite the bluster and near constant carnival side show, the substance of what has happened in Trump's first year has fairly reasonable from my perspective.
First, he hasn't started any new wars (so far). There have been a couple actions in already existing conflicts, but nothing compared to some others (think Bush the 2nd in Iraq, or Clinton in Somalia).
Second, the tax code has been simplified by reducing the number of people itemizing.
Third, there's Gorsuch.
Fourth, the individual mandate of the ACA has been removed. While I do appreciate that my United Healthcare stock is up 650% since Obamacare was enacted, with skyrocketing premiums something needs to be done. My thinking is that if ACA is still around the next time the Democrats take control, they will be less likely to try another major overhaul (i.e., Single Payer Medicare for All).
It's actually a pretty sad indictment that the first thing you can think to list as an achievement is that your President has not started any new wars "yet".
The “yet” is also pretty accurate...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
-
Anyone who researches it, would be for our country enacting single payer. It's less expensive per person, with better public health outcomes. We are in the minority of civilized countries, who doesn't realize that healthcare is a public concern. It impacts almost every aspect of society, from pregnancy, to childbirth, to preventative care, to the ability of the populace to hold down a job and do those jobs safely.
-
but a few lines were real zingers, such as the one about standing for the national anthem. Kudos to the speechwriter on that.
Why was it a Zinger? Just curious why you thought that since it was grossly misrepresented by the POTUS and others.
It flowed perfectly and brashly and unapologetically acknowledged a patriotic tradition. It is the distillation of civic nationalism into a single sentence. It's part of the reason the rebuttals to SOTU have been mediocre at best... there wasn't that much to criticize.
As far as POTUS's golfing habits go, I say good, and I wish he would play much more golf.
As far as the lack of new wars go, I do have to give him credit for that... and on a related note, we are rapidly approaching the deployment of troops to Afghanistan who were born AFTER 9/11. To put things in contrast, 9/11 is as far in the past from now as Pearl Harbor was from 1958 - five years AFTER the end of the KOREAN War, and the year AFTER Sputnik was launched into orbit!
-
but a few lines were real zingers, such as the one about standing for the national anthem. Kudos to the speechwriter on that.
Why was it a Zinger? Just curious why you thought that since it was grossly misrepresented by the POTUS and others.
It flowed perfectly and brashly and unapologetically acknowledged a patriotic tradition. It is the distillation of civic nationalism into a single sentence. It's part of the reason the rebuttals to SOTU have been mediocre at best... there wasn't that much to criticize.
As far as POTUS's golfing habits go, I say good, and I wish he would play much more golf.
As far as the lack of new wars go, I do have to give him credit for that... and on a related note, we are rapidly approaching the deployment of troops to Afghanistan who were born AFTER 9/11. To put things in contrast, 9/11 is as far in the past from now as Pearl Harbor was from 1958 - five years AFTER the end of the KOREAN War, and the year AFTER Sputnik was launched into orbit!
So if I read you correctly you have determined that the right to peacefully protest, currently a constitutional right provided to all people of this country, takes a back seat to your version of "patriotic tradition?" Ah I see. Obviously I disagree. I know that when I served I signed an oath to the Constitution, not to some sort of perverse form of "patriotic tradition" with complete subservience as the main goal. I think what Kaep is doing is actually carrying on a patriotic tradition, specifically in sports, that started long before him.
"There I was, the black grandson of a slave, the son of a black sharecropper … a symbolic hero to my people. … The band struck up the National Anthem. The flag billowed in the wind. It should have been a glorious moment for me as the stirring words of the National Anthem poured from the stands. Perhaps, it was, but then again….
As I write this 20 years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made." - Jackie Robinson
-
but a few lines were real zingers, such as the one about standing for the national anthem. Kudos to the speechwriter on that.
Why was it a Zinger? Just curious why you thought that since it was grossly misrepresented by the POTUS and others.
It flowed perfectly and brashly and unapologetically acknowledged a patriotic tradition. It is the distillation of civic nationalism into a single sentence. It's part of the reason the rebuttals to SOTU have been mediocre at best... there wasn't that much to criticize.
As far as POTUS's golfing habits go, I say good, and I wish he would play much more golf.
As far as the lack of new wars go, I do have to give him credit for that... and on a related note, we are rapidly approaching the deployment of troops to Afghanistan who were born AFTER 9/11. To put things in contrast, 9/11 is as far in the past from now as Pearl Harbor was from 1958 - five years AFTER the end of the KOREAN War, and the year AFTER Sputnik was launched into orbit!
So if I read you correctly you have determined that the right to peacefully protest, currently a constitutional right provided to all people of this country, takes a back seat to your version of "patriotic tradition?" Ah I see. Obviously I disagree. I know that when I served I signed an oath to the constitution, not to some sort of perverse form of "patriotic tradition" with complete subservience as the main goal. I think what Kaep is doing is actually carrying on a patriotic tradition, specifically in sports, that started long before him.
"There I was, the black grandson of a slave, the son of a black sharecropper … a symbolic hero to my people. … The band struck up the National Anthem. The flag billowed in the wind. It should have been a glorious moment for me as the stirring words of the National Anthem poured from the stands. Perhaps, it was, but then again….
As I write this 20 years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made." - Jackie Robinson
amen
-
But, I never said that the NFL players don't have the right to free expression or that their right to free expression takes a back seat to anything. They absolutely do have the right to kneel during the anthem to protest. It doesn't offend me and if anything, I am somewhat sympathetic to their cause.
With that said, I don't know if you can have a functioning nation of the head of state fails to support civic nationalism and patriotism. POTUS does not seem to have supported the fining or imprisonment of the NFL players, although he does support the right of fans to boycott the NFL and he did acknowledge the value in having patriotic traditions (gasp). What is wrong with that?
-
POTUS does not seem to have supported the fining or imprisonment of the NFL players, although he does support the right of fans to boycott the NFL. What is wrong with that?
He seemed to have supported them being fired and called them sons of bitches. This is our President mind you.
-
Surely employers have the right to fire employees for expressing themselves in undesired ways, especially during work hours. And there also exists the right to call people mean things, even if you are the commander in chief. Maybe it's not as polished or "dignified" as something past Presidents may have said, but it rather does feed into the support of patriotism. "Yeah, you have the right to kneel for the anthem, but if you do, you're a son of a bitch."
-
You're arguing two different things. Stating that the POTUS didn't support fining them, and then stating it's OK if he supports firing them is counterintuitive. They're both effectively the same thing. They're either both OK or they're both not OK.
Employers can absolutely fire employees for their actions while on the job. However, the real crux of the argument is whether it's OK for the POTUS to urge employers to take an action against their employees for doing something he doesn't like. Some people think a POTUS should try to help the citizenry find common ground on tough issues, not encourage divisiveness. Some people think they should fire those sons of bitches. Everyone should do some soul searching and decide which is better for the future of our nation.
-
Interestingly, my take is that people would be far more sympathetic to protesting the actual national anthem rather than using the national anthem to protest something else. If the whole thing was actually sung at sporting events, it wouldn't take long for the singing to stop.
Verse 3:
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
-
You're arguing two different things. Stating that the POTUS didn't support fining them, and then stating it's OK if he supports firing them is counterintuitive. They're both effectively the same thing. They're either both OK or they're both not OK.
There is no contradiction between supporting free speech and also supporting the right of people and businesses to make hiring, firing, buying and selling decisions based on that speech. For example, I absolutely have the right to go for a walk with a swastika flag and sieg heil everyone I come across, and I would have no grounds for a lawsuit if my employer decided to fire me because of it.
This story shows the difference from roughly that perspective. (http://www.citypages.com/music/one-minneapolis-lawyers-neo-nazi-record-label-and-the-fight-to-shut-it-down/440595353) TL;DR: a lawyer by day had a neo Nazi record label by night, and when people found out about it, he faced neither fine nor imprisonment, however his employer was no longer interested in keeping him on the payroll. Free expression was respected, as was freedom of association.
As for the full lyrics of the national anthem, agreed, they are rather ugly. That is why we only sing the decent parts.
-
You're arguing two different things. Stating that the POTUS didn't support fining them, and then stating it's OK if he supports firing them is counterintuitive. They're both effectively the same thing. They're either both OK or they're both not OK.
There is no contradiction between supporting free speech and also supporting the right of people and businesses to make hiring, firing, buying and selling decisions based on that speech.
To me, the contradiction was in your statement that the President didn't support fining the players, but did support firing them. If you meant that the Gov't would be the entity fining them instead of the NFL, I can see your argument more clearly.
-
TIL that the NFL can fine its members.
I guess as long as you choose to associate with the NFL you agree to play by their rules, and if you feel you've been treated unfairly, that's a matter for arbitration or civil court.
Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not particularly upset by the kneeling protests, as they aren't very disrespectful and they do draw attention to a very serious issue. If players were to give the finger to the flag during the anthem though, I would definitely want to see them sanctioned by their employer, up to the point of termination.
-
You're right. Regardless of whether or not people are being oppressed or treated unfairly in this country, we've gotta make sure no one disrespects that flag. It's too important.
-
Interestingly, my take is that people would be far more sympathetic to protesting the actual national anthem rather than using the national anthem to protest something else. If the whole thing was actually sung at sporting events, it wouldn't take long for the singing to stop.
Verse 3:
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" is similar. The lyrics have 2 verses that are rarely sang at events.
In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?
-
You're right. Regardless of whether or not people are being oppressed or treated unfairly in this country, we've gotta make sure no one disrespects that flag. It's too important.
But, I never said that the NFL players don't have the right to free expression or that their right to free expression takes a back seat to anything. They absolutely do have the right to kneel during the anthem to protest. It doesn't offend me and if anything, I am somewhat sympathetic to their cause.
-
You're right. Regardless of whether or not people are being oppressed or treated unfairly in this country, we've gotta make sure no one disrespects that flag. It's too important.
Sadly the flag is disrespected everyday. It's against the flag code to fly it horizontally, yet it happens frequently at sporting events. It's also against flag code to don garments with the flag symbolized on them, yet we see that everyday. Heck it was a common theme at Trump rallies. Kneeling itself is not against flag code.
But back to the original comment. It really wasn't a "zinger" unless you are in agreement that black athletes are "sons of bitches that should be fired." You can disagree with their kneeling while also not supporting Trump's stance. Forced patriotism isn't patriotism. It's totalitarianism.
-
There are plenty of black athletes and others who don't kneel, so to give black athletes in general the credit or blame for kneeling is a mistake. I also have to emphasize that I don't want to criminally or civilly sanction those who disrespect the flag or anthem, I simply hold that myself and others have the right to make our opinions based on how others choose to express themselves, and in turn express ourselves as we see fit, and boycott persons and organizations to our hearts' content. So if you want to call out and boycott a business that violates the flag code, that's totally fine.
-
The whole point of kneeling is that is respectful. You kneel before things you revere.
They're not throwing rotten fruit at it.
-
I think that's a little misleading... in the US, the conventional way to show respect to the flag is to stand with your hand over your heart. The players who are kneeling are doing so specifically to use the national anthem as a way to spread awareness about a political issue, with respect as a distant secondary concern. That this is a political statement is the least controversial aspect of this whole thing.
-
I think that's a little misleading... in the US, the conventional way to show respect to the flag is to stand with your hand over your heart.
Traditionally, sure. And soldiers salute. But the whole kneeling thing started when a veteran told Kap that staying seated during the anthem was disrespectful, and that soldiers sometimes kneel before the flag as a sign of respect in times of mourning, like at the funeral of a fallen comrade. He jumped on the idea, and now they kneel instead of remaining seated. Out of respect and in mourning, just like the military does. Are they sons of bitches too?
They're not trying to be disrespectful of the flag. I'm not surprised that Trump tries to spin it that way, but that is very clearly not the intent. Trump will never address the underlying protest, which is that unarmed black people are routinely murdered by American law enforcement and then face no consequences for it. From that perspective, cops who murder are barely a step above klansmen who used to lynch. Both were considered socially acceptable at the time. Both are probably worthy reasons to respectfully mourn the flag.
-
Soldiers kneel to mourn fallen comrades, yes. Kaepernick does it to make a political statement. Clearly, many of us believe that there are be better times to make political statements than during the national anthem.
Not to mention that when the whole controversy began, Kaepernick said this...
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.
So initially, it was very clearly an attempt to show anger towards the flag and the anthem; respect was not a concern at all. A polishing of the gesture came a bit later. Regardless, making a political statement during the national anthem is more divisive than saying:
Preston's reverence for those who have served our Nation reminds us why we salute our flag, why we put our hands on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance, and why we proudly stand for the national anthem.
One can muster up offense at that if one wishes to. I'll carry on thinking that it was a well thought out and well executed bit of eloquence, or, in shorthand, a zinger.
To address the issue further, first, let me emphasize that I absolutely think there are problems with police brutality, and the worst police brutality often seems to target racial minorities. With that said, even as a minority, I can't bring myself to support BLM, at least not without a great deal of nuancing. The death of Trayvon Martin was one thing, the death of Tamir Rice was another. The death of Walter Scott was shocking and the death of Philandro Castile and the reaction to it were disgusting, and probably the biggest reasons why I won't join the NRA, even though it did result in a fair trial. It's a complicated issue and while I don't particularly mind the anthem protests, I can see the other side and I won't blame anyone for disagreeing with me.
-
Soldiers kneel to mourn fallen comrades, yes. Kaepernick does it to make a political statement.
Um, yea, that's kind of the point. He's making a statement about fallen comrades. Young black people shot and killed while minding their own business, while their killers go free. It's the kind of thing that sort of begs a statement to be made.
-
Soldiers kneel to mourn fallen comrades, yes. Kaepernick does it to make a political statement. Clearly, many of us believe that there are be better times to make political statements than during the national anthem.
Not to mention that when the whole controversy began, Kaepernick said this...
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.
So initially, it was very clearly an attempt to show anger towards the flag and the anthem; respect was not a concern at all.
So the flag and/or anthem was the oppressor? Go back and read the Jackie Robinson quote. Being forced to stand and honor a flag that is supposed to represent equality, among many other things, while being the constant victim of inequality for many many years is not honor. The whole ideal of kneeling was out of respect for service members, for those affected by inexcusable police brutality, continued inequality etc. Reminds me of your earlier post where you tried to play the "patriotism" card. Now it's disrespectful to be be respectful of others? Do you even know what you are arguing?
I'll carry on thinking that it was a well thought out and well executed bit of eloquence, or, in shorthand, a zinger.
It's a complicated issue and while I don't particularly mind the anthem protests, I can see the other side and I won't blame anyone for disagreeing with me.
So which is it? Do you "not mind the protest," or do you think these "sons of bitches should be fired" for peacefully protesting?
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
-
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/nazi-will-be-republican-candidate-for-congress-in-illinois-third-district
An actual Nazi is going to be the Republican candidate for Congress in a Chicago suburb.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that white supremacist Arthur Jones is the only Republican on the ballot for the primary in Illinois' third congressional district, which covers part of Cook County. The deadline for other candidates to file passed weeks ago.
This gives Republican voters in this district the choice between voting for Democrat incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski, or voting for Jones, a Neo-Nazi who calls the Holocaust a "racket" and the "biggest blackest lie in history."
They've gone back to the future...
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Thank you for sharing this.
-
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/nazi-will-be-republican-candidate-for-congress-in-illinois-third-district
An actual Nazi is going to be the Republican candidate for Congress in a Chicago suburb.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that white supremacist Arthur Jones is the only Republican on the ballot for the primary in Illinois' third congressional district, which covers part of Cook County. The deadline for other candidates to file passed weeks ago.
This gives Republican voters in this district the choice between voting for Democrat incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski, or voting for Jones, a Neo-Nazi who calls the Holocaust a "racket" and the "biggest blackest lie in history."
They've gone back to the future...
I agree that the optics are hilariously bad, when republicans can't vote for anyone in their party who is not a Nazi, but let's not oversell the conclusions here. If it's a solidly blue district, there might not even be a functioning republican party office to advance a more reputable candidate. In those cases, fringe candidates sometimes sneak through just because they are the only people who care enough to run.
We've seen the same thing with radical left candidates in solidly red districts, too. They know they will lose, and only run to publicize their ideas. Fortunately the idealistic socialists don't usually come with quite so much baggage as the Nazis do, so they only make the party look starry-eyed instead of hateful.
It's still funny. Who knew that Mitch McConnell's biggest challenge as party leader would be stamping out the Nazis within?
protip for Mitch: I think you might have missed one big one.
-
Luckily, Arthur Jones has absolutely no chance of winning. However, before we start trying to paint the wackos as representative of an entire party I would point out that 6 years ago Illinois' 2nd congressional district was won by a guy who was quite literally in a mental institution.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Jesse-Jackson-Jr-Wins-Reelection--175717941.html
-
This gives Republican voters in this district the choice between voting for Democrat incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski, or voting for Jones, a Neo-Nazi who calls the Holocaust a "racket" and the "biggest blackest lie in history."
Lipinski ran unopposed in 2016 and took 64.6% of the vote in 2014. It's a solid blue district.
-
I'm all for anything that peacefully teaches America to be smarter. Maybe people won't be so damn flippant about who they vote for. The past decade has certainly taught DW and I alot about the people we thought we knew best.
Many people who voted for Trump took that decision seriously. I'm guessing about the same amount of people who took voting seriously voted for Trump as voted for Hillary. The reason Trump won isn't that the Trump voters were flippant, it's that they weighted the pros and cons differently.
I think if someone tried to make voters value voting more, it wouldn't dramatically change the results. Democrats might be saying they need more intelligent/serious/etc. voters now, but Republicans were saying it during the Obama years. To win you need them to value the same things the same way.
I'd argue that around here people voted on the age-old wedge issues. And Abortion. Gun-rights. Hillary's email. Negative campaigning against liberals. People wrapped up in Trump's "hot topics". That's who I mean when I say flippant about their vote. They aren't seeking truth. They are looking for easy reasons to vote GOP. It happens on both sides but I live in a very red state.
-
I'm all for anything that peacefully teaches America to be smarter. Maybe people won't be so damn flippant about who they vote for. The past decade has certainly taught DW and I alot about the people we thought we knew best.
Many people who voted for Trump took that decision seriously. I'm guessing about the same amount of people who took voting seriously voted for Trump as voted for Hillary. The reason Trump won isn't that the Trump voters were flippant, it's that they weighted the pros and cons differently.
I think if someone tried to make voters value voting more, it wouldn't dramatically change the results. Democrats might be saying they need more intelligent/serious/etc. voters now, but Republicans were saying it during the Obama years. To win you need them to value the same things the same way.
I'd argue that around here people voted on the age-old wedge issues. And Abortion. Gun-rights. Hillary's email. Negative campaigning against liberals. People wrapped up in Trump's "hot topics". That's who I mean when I say flippant about their vote. They aren't seeking truth. They are looking for easy reasons to vote GOP. It happens on both sides but I live in a very red state.
I believe the term for that is post-fact.
-
They aren't seeking truth. They are looking for easy reasons to vote GOP. It happens on both sides but I live in a very red state.
I believe the term for that is post-fact.
It's an alternative fact, which supports the "real" truth. Like #releasethememo, it's "sweet revenge" if you're "alt-right".
Also, firing the FBI director for political reasons is actually "defending our institutions from political interference".
Can we start chanting "lock him up" yet?
-
They aren't seeking truth. They are looking for easy reasons to vote GOP. It happens on both sides but I live in a very red state.
I believe the term for that is post-fact.
It's an alternative fact, which supports the "real" truth. Like #releasethememo, it's "sweet revenge" if you're "alt-right".
Also, firing the FBI director for political reasons is actually "defending our institutions from political interference".
Can we start chanting "lock him up" yet?
Ironic that Flynn led the 'lock her up' chant at the 2016 RNC and has now pled guilty to lying to the FBI and could well be heading to jail himself.
-
I've been mumbling that for sometime now... ;)
Apparently we have a checks and balances mechanism that moves very slowly.
I know the investigation has to get it right but this guy DJT seems like an acute risk to the rest of us.
Not that I'm very impressed with our VP either.
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
I get the impression you didn't read the article at all.
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
I get the impression you didn't read the article at all.
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious.
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
That's pretty sobering. I've followed Wittes for a while, and not only is he no bleeding heart, he's about as studiously neutral as possible while still having opinions on things. If he thinks it's gotten bad enough to take a side, then that is a canary in a coal mine.
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
I get the impression you didn't read the article at all.
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious.
*sigh*
The erosion of the rule of law, while especially egregious under Trump, has been fairly consistent for as long as I've been paying attention, which is essentially since Clinton1. At first it was spectacle that took a harsh turn towards a dark place at 9/11. But you can't really say the Democrats are the "we respect the law" party after the utter travesty of that last nomination choice. In the game of pick your future felon, we lose no matter what.
https://youtu.be/w7NeRiNefO0
But clearly since I don't agree with you, I didn't read. Because I suggested an alternate strategy that I believe has far more chance of bringing about actual reform, I'm dismissed.
Definitely voting for the party of open-mindedness!
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
I get the impression you didn't read the article at all.
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious.
*sigh*
The erosion of the rule of law, while especially egregious under Trump, has been fairly consistent for as long as I've been paying attention, which is essentially since Clinton1. At first it was spectacle that took a harsh turn towards a dark place at 9/11. But you can't really say the Democrats are the "we respect the law" party after the utter travesty of that last nomination choice. In the game of pick your future felon, we lose no matter what.
https://youtu.be/w7NeRiNefO0
But clearly since I don't agree with you, I didn't read. Because I suggested an alternate strategy that I believe has far more chance of bringing about actual reform, I'm dismissed.
Definitely voting for the party of open-mindedness!
No. I didn't write the article.
It seems clear you didn't read the article because the things you are saying don't really engage or address what the article actually says.
-
Interestingly, my take is that people would be far more sympathetic to protesting the actual national anthem rather than using the national anthem to protest something else. If the whole thing was actually sung at sporting events, it wouldn't take long for the singing to stop.
Verse 3:
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" is similar. The lyrics have 2 verses that are rarely sang at events.
In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?
Thank you. I'd never have known this.
http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm.
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
I get the impression you didn't read the article at all.
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious.
*sigh*
The erosion of the rule of law, while especially egregious under Trump, has been fairly consistent for as long as I've been paying attention, which is essentially since Clinton1. At first it was spectacle that took a harsh turn towards a dark place at 9/11. But you can't really say the Democrats are the "we respect the law" party after the utter travesty of that last nomination choice. In the game of pick your future felon, we lose no matter what.
https://youtu.be/w7NeRiNefO0
But clearly since I don't agree with you, I didn't read. Because I suggested an alternate strategy that I believe has far more chance of bringing about actual reform, I'm dismissed.
Definitely voting for the party of open-mindedness!
No. I didn't write the article.
It seems clear you didn't read the article because the things you are saying don't really engage or address what the article actually says.
Yes, they do. He didn't go point by point to make rebuttals, but if you don't think it was responsive, maybe you didn't read the article???
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
I get the impression you didn't read the article at all.
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious.
*sigh*
The erosion of the rule of law, while especially egregious under Trump, has been fairly consistent for as long as I've been paying attention, which is essentially since Clinton1. At first it was spectacle that took a harsh turn towards a dark place at 9/11. But you can't really say the Democrats are the "we respect the law" party after the utter travesty of that last nomination choice. In the game of pick your future felon, we lose no matter what.
https://youtu.be/w7NeRiNefO0
But clearly since I don't agree with you, I didn't read. Because I suggested an alternate strategy that I believe has far more chance of bringing about actual reform, I'm dismissed.
Definitely voting for the party of open-mindedness!
I'm curious, in what ways do you think that democrats have eroded the rule of law?
-
From The Atlantic today.
Republicans and independents take note.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
Yup, and as soon as you realize the Democratic party isn't a "good universe" version of the GOP but rather a different side of the same corrupt, tribal, authoritarian coin, you can join the rest of us who "waste" our votes on third party candidates.
I get the impression you didn't read the article at all.
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious.
*sigh*
The erosion of the rule of law, while especially egregious under Trump, has been fairly consistent for as long as I've been paying attention, which is essentially since Clinton1. At first it was spectacle that took a harsh turn towards a dark place at 9/11. But you can't really say the Democrats are the "we respect the law" party after the utter travesty of that last nomination choice. In the game of pick your future felon, we lose no matter what.
https://youtu.be/w7NeRiNefO0
But clearly since I don't agree with you, I didn't read. Because I suggested an alternate strategy that I believe has far more chance of bringing about actual reform, I'm dismissed.
Definitely voting for the party of open-mindedness!
No. I didn't write the article.
It seems clear you didn't read the article because the things you are saying don't really engage or address what the article actually says.
Yes, they do. He didn't go point by point to make rebuttals, but if you don't think it was responsive, maybe you didn't read the article???
If you think that was any sort of response to the article, then I can’t help you.
-
So, how ‘bout that Dow Jones, eh?
Yup. Electing that businessman is sure working out for America.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-stock-market-down-324880
-
So, how ‘bout that Dow Jones, eh?
Yup. Electing that businessman is sure working out for America.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-stock-market-down-324880
If you are going credit or blame daily market swings to the president, you should also give him credit for the market being up 15%+ since his inauguration (even with the recent pull back).
I'm of the camp that thinks the president's power to affect the economy (good or bad) is generally far overstated.
-
So, how ‘bout that Dow Jones, eh?
Yup. Electing that businessman is sure working out for America.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-stock-market-down-324880
If you are going credit or blame daily market swings to the president, you should also give him credit for the market being up 15%+ since his inauguration (even with the recent pull back).
I'm of the camp that thinks the president's power to affect the economy (good or bad) is generally far overstated.
Yes, generally speaking, it certainly is. In this case, we have a president who doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing and doesn’t care, and just handed the GOP Congress a unique opportunity for a bold-faced money grab that leads us down this path.
Another perspective from Yahoo Finance.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-investors-nervous-stocks-right-now-171447766.html
-
Wait - which party is the party of open-mindedness?
-
So, how ‘bout that Dow Jones, eh?
Yup. Electing that businessman is sure working out for America.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-stock-market-down-324880
If you are going credit or blame daily market swings to the president, you should also give him credit for the market being up 15%+ since his inauguration (even with the recent pull back).
I'm of the camp that thinks the president's power to affect the economy (good or bad) is generally far overstated.
You're kind of missing the point. Trump bragged (stupidly) about new stock record after new stock record which he had nothing to do with (Thanks, Yellen). Now he's quiet with the market dropping.
All the major indecies increased drastically better under Obama's first year than Trump's if he wants to play the stock market headline game.
-
So, how ‘bout that Dow Jones, eh?
Yup. Electing that businessman is sure working out for America.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-stock-market-down-324880
If you are going credit or blame daily market swings to the president, you should also give him credit for the market being up 15%+ since his inauguration (even with the recent pull back).
I'm of the camp that thinks the president's power to affect the economy (good or bad) is generally far overstated.
You're kind of missing the point. Trump bragged (stupidly) about new stock record after new stock record which he had nothing to do with (Thanks, Yellen). Now he's quiet with the market dropping.
All the major indecies increased drastically better under Obama's first year than Trump's if he wants to play the stock market headline game.
The major indeces increased more under Obama's first year because they were recovering from a low base - it's an economic truism that rapid improvement is easier from a low base.
Part of Trump's stupidity, in addition to bragging about something out of his control is that in hyping stock market returns under his Presidency he was choosing to play a game he couldn't win.
-
So, how ‘bout that Dow Jones, eh?
Yup. Electing that businessman is sure working out for America.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-stock-market-down-324880
If you are going credit or blame daily market swings to the president, you should also give him credit for the market being up 15%+ since his inauguration (even with the recent pull back).
I'm of the camp that thinks the president's power to affect the economy (good or bad) is generally far overstated.
You're kind of missing the point. Trump bragged (stupidly) about new stock record after new stock record which he had nothing to do with (Thanks, Yellen). Now he's quiet with the market dropping.
All the major indecies increased drastically better under Obama's first year than Trump's if he wants to play the stock market headline game.
The major indeces increased more under Obama's first year because they were recovering from a low base - it's an economic truism that rapid improvement is easier from a low base.
Part of Trump's stupidity, in addition to bragging about something out of his control is that in hyping stock market returns under his Presidency he was choosing to play a game he couldn't win.
Trump's own Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin has said the same thing -- that the stock market is the Trump administration's report card.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/23/mnuchin-the-stock-market-is-the-trump-administrations-report-card.html
Which means that Mnuchin is too stupid to do his job, or he's a lying sack of shit just like the president is.
-
Or he's a deep state operative trying to bring down the one good man in politics right now. :D
-
Wait - which party is the party of open-mindedness?
Most recently? The right. Even though the polarization we have faced recently by each side is very bad for our nation, the left has gone off the deep end.
Among other things, they have:
Banned pro-life women from the Woman's March. (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-01-19/the-womens-march-on-washington-errs-in-excluding-pro-life-feminists)
Caused enormous security fees for conservative speakers due to threats of violence. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/us/california-today-price-tag-to-protect-speech-at-berkeley-600000.html)
Pushed normally liberal people away. (https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8)
From the last link:
Today's progressivism has become a faux-moral movement hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and a slew of other meaningless buzzwords at anyone they disagree with.
The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme, as long as it’s not that pesky diversity of thought.
This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.
For these reasons, I can no longer call myself a progressive. I don’t really call myself a Democrat either. I’m a classical liberal, a free thinker, and as much as I don’t like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position
-Dave Rubin
I personally was not attracted to the right in my vote for Trump, I was pushed from the left.
-
Wait - which party is the party of open-mindedness?
Most recently? The right. Even though the polarization we have faced recently by each side is very bad for our nation, the left has gone off the deep end.
Among other things, they have:
Banned pro-life women from the Woman's March. (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-01-19/the-womens-march-on-washington-errs-in-excluding-pro-life-feminists)
Caused enormous security fees for conservative speakers due to threats of violence. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/us/california-today-price-tag-to-protect-speech-at-berkeley-600000.html)
Pushed normally liberal people away. (https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8)
From the last link:
Today's progressivism has become a faux-moral movement hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and a slew of other meaningless buzzwords at anyone they disagree with.
The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme, as long as it’s not that pesky diversity of thought.
This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.
For these reasons, I can no longer call myself a progressive. I don’t really call myself a Democrat either. I’m a classical liberal, a free thinker, and as much as I don’t like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position
-Dave Rubin
I personally was not attracted to the right in my vote for Trump, I was pushed from the left.
Agreed, the right is much more inclusive. They happily court and support the type of people that the left wants nothing to do with:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/arthur-jones-republican-nomination_us_5a77d3f6e4b0905433b5bd84 (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/arthur-jones-republican-nomination_us_5a77d3f6e4b0905433b5bd84)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-shithole-countries-neo-nazis-white-supremacists-celebrate-more-or-less-same-page-racist-a8157796.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-shithole-countries-neo-nazis-white-supremacists-celebrate-more-or-less-same-page-racist-a8157796.html)
http://www.businessinsider.com/neo-nazis-celebrate-trumps-remarks-about-charlottesville-riots-2017-8 (http://www.businessinsider.com/neo-nazis-celebrate-trumps-remarks-about-charlottesville-riots-2017-8)
-
Wait - which party is the party of open-mindedness?
Most recently? The right. Even though the polarization we have faced recently by each side is very bad for our nation, the left has gone off the deep end.
Among other things, they have:
Banned pro-life women from the Woman's March. (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-01-19/the-womens-march-on-washington-errs-in-excluding-pro-life-feminists)
Caused enormous security fees for conservative speakers due to threats of violence. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/us/california-today-price-tag-to-protect-speech-at-berkeley-600000.html)
Pushed normally liberal people away. (https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8)
From the last link:
Today's progressivism has become a faux-moral movement hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and a slew of other meaningless buzzwords at anyone they disagree with.
The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme, as long as it’s not that pesky diversity of thought.
This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.
For these reasons, I can no longer call myself a progressive. I don’t really call myself a Democrat either. I’m a classical liberal, a free thinker, and as much as I don’t like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position
-Dave Rubin
I personally was not attracted to the right in my vote for Trump, I was pushed from the left.
If you look at the Republicans of even 20 years ago, it's clear it is the right who have gone off the deep end. At the very least conservatives were constitutionalists. But the current administration has made many statements that if enacted, would undermine the constitution, specificially checks and balances.
I think you conflating people you see on the "left" with the Democratic party positions and legislation. If you look at party positions and legislation of the Democratic party, versus what kinds of legislation the current Republican party and this administration in particular have done, there are still moderate Democrats but the Republican party is under the control of a minority of far right views. It is telling that, if you looked at the policy positions of Hillary Clinton, she is a moderate or even conservative Democrat. in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
-
Wait - which party is the party of open-mindedness?
Most recently? The right.
LMAO, the party of the alt-right, "some" Neo-Nazi's are good people, "some" Mexicans are good people, "shit-hole countries," gay conversion therapy, Roy Moore support, Muslim ban, I could go on and on.
Definitely pales in comparison though to much higher speaking fees. Oh the horror!!!!
-
Oooh, using neo-nazi groups as a representative of the republican party and assuming that republicans are welcoming of them into the party... what an original and logical argument!
Spoiler alert: Arthur Jones is going to lose. He's a despicable human being. The republican party is not supporting his run at all. From the article you provided:
“The Illinois Republican Party and our country have no place for Nazis like Arthur Jones,” Tim Schneider, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, told the Sun-Times. “We strongly oppose his racist views and his candidacy for any public office, including the 3rd Congressional District.”
There are about 8000 klan members and 3000 neo-nazis in the US. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40915356) The republican party does not court these losers.
Contrast that proportionality to the examples I used.
-
Oooh, using neo-nazi groups as a representative of the republican party and assuming that republicans are welcoming of them into the party... what an original and logical argument!
Spoiler alert: Arthur Jones is going to lose. He's a despicable human being. The republican party is not supporting his run at all. From the article you provided:
“The Illinois Republican Party and our country have no place for Nazis like Arthur Jones,” Tim Schneider, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, told the Sun-Times. “We strongly oppose his racist views and his candidacy for any public office, including the 3rd Congressional District.”
There are about 8000 klan members and 3000 neo-nazis in the US. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40915356) The republican party does not court these losers.
Contrast that proportionality to the examples I used.
Meh. You choose silly examples, you get silly examples right back.
I suspect that there are similar numbers of people on the left in favour of suppressing free speech through violence as there are people on the right who support nazis. The democratic party certainly doesn't court those losers.
I'd say that the women's march is probably about as "left" as the privately organized nazi protest march that happened in Charlottesville is "right". It's just a group of people who want to get together with like minded folks to march for what they believe in . . . and certainly doesn't speak for every person in the political spectrum that they're most closely associated with.
-
So, how ‘bout that Dow Jones, eh?
Yup. Electing that businessman is sure working out for America.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/trump-stock-market-down-324880
If you are going credit or blame daily market swings to the president, you should also give him credit for the market being up 15%+ since his inauguration (even with the recent pull back).
I'm of the camp that thinks the president's power to affect the economy (good or bad) is generally far overstated.
You're kind of missing the point. Trump bragged (stupidly) about new stock record after new stock record which he had nothing to do with (Thanks, Yellen). Now he's quiet with the market dropping.
All the major indecies increased drastically better under Obama's first year than Trump's if he wants to play the stock market headline game.
The major indeces increased more under Obama's first year because they were recovering from a low base - it's an economic truism that rapid improvement is easier from a low base.
Part of Trump's stupidity, in addition to bragging about something out of his control is that in hyping stock market returns under his Presidency he was choosing to play a game he couldn't win.
You are giving a lot of credit to US voters. Trump is just Obama on steroids as far as living for the current news cycle and recognizing that the attention span (or lack thereof) of the voter doesn't require any kind of consistency from one news cycle to the next. When the stock market is doing well, he'll pound on the stock market, when it's doing poorly, he'll pound on jobs numbers, if they turn, he'll pound on immigration, etc. He's also Obama on steroids as far as using his insane marketing and interpersonal skills and charisma as a crutch that allows him to coast on substance. I'm still in awe that he looks like a ridiculous caricature and is able to manipulate/persuade people the way he does.
-
You're kind of missing the point. Trump bragged (stupidly) about new stock record after new stock record which he had nothing to do with (Thanks, Yellen). Now he's quiet with the market dropping.
In a beautiful segment on Fox, Trump was talking about MAGA and the great economy with the split screen showing the market drop. Fox dropped his speech partway through.
http://www.fox10tv.com/story/37432213/trumps-embarrassing-split-screen-moment-on-stocks
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
-
These days the alt right = anyone I don't agree with. We have people calling Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson alt right, it's become a joke. People are throwing around that term too loosely.
-
Wait - which party is the party of open-mindedness?
Most recently? The right. Even though the polarization we have faced recently by each side is very bad for our nation, the left has gone off the deep end.
The "right" is not a party. And all of the things you've cited as problems with the left are not supported by the Democratic party.
You're right that the actual list of klan members and outspoken neo-nazis is short but since we're talking about parties, what's relevant is the support* that the president has given them. He's spread the message of these extremist groups by retweeting false statistics and video "evidence" that was taken entirely out of context that originated on the accounts of klan members and nazis. These things cause direct damage to entire racial and religious groups and they encourage close mindedness by increasing fear of the unknown (other races/religions).
And again, if we're talking about parties, I would agree Arthur Jones is a non issue in terms of this discussion. Roy Moore on the other hand received the President's and many other republicans' support. That is AFTER he voiced his opinion on multiple occasions that homosexuals should be punished for their choices. He was once asked if they should be put to death, his response: “Well I don’t, you know, I’m not here to outline any punishments for sodomy." This should have been a resounding "No". And while this was all before the highly credible accusations of sexual abuse to underage girls surfaced, Republicans maintained their support for him after the fact.
If this doesn't at least make you think a little, perhaps we could discuss the scientific evidence that suggests not only are those on the right more close minded but even that as people become more closed minded they also drift towards the right. Really shouldn't come as a surprise considering we also tend to label the parties as conservative and progressive. And by the way this article isn't accusing anyone of anything, it only points out behavioral differences between groups of people and suggests some of the pros and cons.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/)
*If you take issue with my use of the word "support" here, you've got your political blinders on. He has absolutely put wind in the sails of these organizations.
-
These days the alt right = anyone I don't agree with. We have people calling Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson alt right, it's become a joke. People are throwing around that term too loosely.
Yeah, but the connection between Trump and the emboldening of the alt-right, it's not something imaginary. He had Bannon, who ran Breitbart, as his right hand man for months, and the rumor was in addition to having his ear, helped write his talking points. And his cabinet is an alt-right wet dream.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-latest-cabinet-sessions-flynn-pompeo-racist-mike-a7426046.html
-
Spoiler alert: Arthur Jones is going to lose. He's a despicable human being. The republican party is not supporting his run at all.
Funny, this argument is strangely familiar for some reason. I'm having flashbacks to like February 2016, when every republican in the country was denouncing Trump.
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
-
Please name--for the record--the two super powers to which you're alluding.
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
What is the point of the comparison though? I don't understand what this information is supposed to convey.
There must be an assumption that you are making that I am not. That European countries are the goal or they are doing better than we are, or something like that.
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
What is the point of the comparison though? I don't understand what this information is supposed to convey.
There must be an assumption that you are making that I am not. That European countries are the goal or they are doing better than we are, or something like that.
It's relevant, and in response to the statement that the "Left" in the United States have gone off the deep end (have become more extreme, or more left). To examine that statement, you have to have a comparison. You can examine the recent history of the Democratic and Republican parties. You can also compare our system to other democratic systems, where if you place the Democratic and Republican parties to other parties in democratic political system countries, our Democratic party would be considered centrist, while the current Republican party would not. It would be closer to the fascist parties. If you want to argue that the Republican party is not that extreme, only by comparing us to countries like China and Russia which do not adhere to democratic processes, well, you are kind of proving my point.
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
What is the point of the comparison though? I don't understand what this information is supposed to convey.
There must be an assumption that you are making that I am not. That European countries are the goal or they are doing better than we are, or something like that.
It's relevant, and in response to the statement that the "Left" in the United States have gone off the deep end (have become more extreme, or more left). To examine that statement, you have to have a comparison. You can examine the recent history of the Democratic and Republican parties. You can also compare our system to other democratic systems, where if you place the Democratic and Republican parties to other parties in democratic political system countries, our Democratic party would be considered centrist, while the current Republican party would not. It would be closer to the fascist parties. If you want to argue that the Republican party is not that extreme, only by comparing us to countries like China and Russia which do not adhere to democratic processes, well, you are kind of proving my point.
I was definitely missing your point, that's why I asked. I was hoping that was obvious.
By mentioning China and Russia, I wasn't trying to say that was the bar that we must strive to be better than. I was attempting to point out if you are just taking one similarity, and I thought you were tying it to our dominant (Western) European ancestry, you can come up with either answer.
I also bring up the super power thing because that sets us apart from all European countries. I know the Dems want to reduce military spending, but I haven't heard any politicians arguing that we should no longer be a super power. (I'm sure there are individuals that believe that though.) I think this is the main reason we cannot/should not have the same social policies as they do. Military is such a drain on our Federal budget.
Therefore, I don't think comparing us to European countries is very insightful.
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
What is the point of the comparison though? I don't understand what this information is supposed to convey.
There must be an assumption that you are making that I am not. That European countries are the goal or they are doing better than we are, or something like that.
In general (for much of Europe, at least), Europeans have longer life expectancies, have lower murder rates, have higher "happiness" ratings, lead generally healthier lives.
Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/health/american-life-expectancy-shorter-than-europeans/index.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/report-americans-less-healthy-die-younger-than-global-peers
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
What is the point of the comparison though? I don't understand what this information is supposed to convey.
There must be an assumption that you are making that I am not. That European countries are the goal or they are doing better than we are, or something like that.
It's relevant, and in response to the statement that the "Left" in the United States have gone off the deep end (have become more extreme, or more left). To examine that statement, you have to have a comparison. You can examine the recent history of the Democratic and Republican parties. You can also compare our system to other democratic systems, where if you place the Democratic and Republican parties to other parties in democratic political system countries, our Democratic party would be considered centrist, while the current Republican party would not. It would be closer to the fascist parties. If you want to argue that the Republican party is not that extreme, only by comparing us to countries like China and Russia which do not adhere to democratic processes, well, you are kind of proving my point.
I was definitely missing your point, that's why I asked. I was hoping that was obvious.
By mentioning China and Russia, I wasn't trying to say that was the bar that we must strive to be better than. I was attempting to point out if you are just taking one similarity, and I thought you were tying it to our dominant (Western) European ancestry, you can come up with either answer.
I also bring up the super power thing because that sets us apart from all European countries. I know the Dems want to reduce military spending, but I haven't heard any politicians arguing that we should no longer be a super power. (I'm sure there are individuals that believe that though.) I think this is the main reason we cannot/should not have the same social policies as they do. Military is such a drain on our Federal budget.
Therefore, I don't think comparing us to European countries is very insightful.
It was simply in the response to that the perception of some, that the Democratic party is going more left, when in reality it is the Republican party which has changed the most in the last decade or so, in troubling ways. The Military spending is a separate issue. But I think voters can certainly ask if the levels appropriated to our military are appropriate, given that we spend 3x what the next superpower (China) spends, and more than 8 of the next highest military spending countries, combined. When you look at wasteful spending, military is fair game, especially in the current climate where CDC programs for example, are being cut 80%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
All government programs are under scrunity. Yet the DOD cannot account for literally trillions of dollars. This is a problem. One that should not be rewarded by throwing more money at them, which is what Trump proposes.
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/dod_financial_management/issue_summary
-
Registered Republican. First time in my life that I did not vote Republican. I do regret my decision as I voted third-party and we got stuck with Trump.
With the stuff in the news, i.e. GOP obstruction of Russian investigation, "fake news", "treasonous democrats", tax bill, stupid wall, Chinese creation of global warming, and assault riffle blinders, I think I'm going to vote Democrat going forward.
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
What is the point of the comparison though? I don't understand what this information is supposed to convey.
There must be an assumption that you are making that I am not. That European countries are the goal or they are doing better than we are, or something like that.
It's relevant, and in response to the statement that the "Left" in the United States have gone off the deep end (have become more extreme, or more left). To examine that statement, you have to have a comparison. You can examine the recent history of the Democratic and Republican parties. You can also compare our system to other democratic systems, where if you place the Democratic and Republican parties to other parties in democratic political system countries, our Democratic party would be considered centrist, while the current Republican party would not. It would be closer to the fascist parties. If you want to argue that the Republican party is not that extreme, only by comparing us to countries like China and Russia which do not adhere to democratic processes, well, you are kind of proving my point.
I was definitely missing your point, that's why I asked. I was hoping that was obvious.
By mentioning China and Russia, I wasn't trying to say that was the bar that we must strive to be better than. I was attempting to point out if you are just taking one similarity, and I thought you were tying it to our dominant (Western) European ancestry, you can come up with either answer.
I also bring up the super power thing because that sets us apart from all European countries. I know the Dems want to reduce military spending, but I haven't heard any politicians arguing that we should no longer be a super power. (I'm sure there are individuals that believe that though.) I think this is the main reason we cannot/should not have the same social policies as they do. Military is such a drain on our Federal budget.
Therefore, I don't think comparing us to European countries is very insightful.
It was simply in the response to that the perception of some, that the Democratic party is going more left, when in reality it is the Republican party which has changed the most in the last decade or so, in troubling ways. The Military spending is a separate issue. But I think voters can certainly ask if the levels appropriated to our military are appropriate, given that we spend 3x what the next superpower (China) spends, and more than 8 of the next highest military spending countries, combined. When you look at wasteful spending, military is fair game, especially in the current climate where CDC programs for example, are being cut 80%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
All government programs are under scrunity. Yet the DOD cannot account for literally trillions of dollars. This is a problem. One that should not be rewarded by throwing more money at them, which is what Trump proposes.
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/dod_financial_management/issue_summary
My opinion on the perception of the Democrats going more left is this. The Democrats have this general list, A, B, C, D ... of things that they want accomplished. They slowly complete them, and then move on to the next thing. 20 years ago, they might have been working on C and D, and didn't talk much about E and F. Now that C and D are done, out come E and F, which to someone on the right, makes them look more left. Also 100 years ago, we had hardly any social welfare. Now we have "ALL THIS WELFARE" that we didn't have 100 years ago, so each time we get more and more left.
In the opposite side of things, Republicans 20 years ago, would have been trying to reverse A and B, and trying to stop C and D. Now they are trying to reverse A, B, C, and D, and stopping E and F. This also makes them look more right, even though they would have been against E and F before, it just wasn't talked about. Although, some of them are slowly coming around on A and B. Other than military spending, Republicans seem to be losing ground.
Trump is a different story, since he does not seem to agree with much of Republican policy. What he says is definitely more extreme, although it isn't left and right extreme, it's up and down extreme. He is much more authoritarian than most Dems/Repubs, at least based on what he says. I could be wrong about the Republican policy part though, since he is a leader of the party, he could be shaping the policy. We will see in 10 years what their policy is.
-
*snip stuff about Hillary Clinton*
in European countries her views would place her under the moderate conservative party.
I never understood why using Europe as a metric meant anything. Why is mentioning this relevant?
None of those countries are considered super powers, which means their budgets are going to be extremely different. If you compare to the other two super powers, she'd be extremely liberal.
Because they are developed countries with democratic processes, neither controlled by dictatorships or communists. Why, who do you think we should compare ourselves to?
What is the point of the comparison though? I don't understand what this information is supposed to convey.
There must be an assumption that you are making that I am not. That European countries are the goal or they are doing better than we are, or something like that.
In general (for much of Europe, at least), Europeans have longer life expectancies, have lower murder rates, have higher "happiness" ratings, lead generally healthier lives.
Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/health/american-life-expectancy-shorter-than-europeans/index.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/report-americans-less-healthy-die-younger-than-global-peers
That's all well and good, but have you actually lived in Europe? I think most americans that have a hard on for europe have never actually lived there. Visiting is one thing, living there is another.
There is a lot more economic freedom here than in europe. FIRE would be much more difficult in Europe than the US.
For years their emissions standards were applauded in the US, but if you actually go to a large city in europe you will choke on exhaust fumes. All of the european car manufacturers were cheating the system and their cars were polluting up to 40x the allowable limits. It took americans to figure this out and raise the red flag. A lot of the policies and practices that we applaud europe for are actually a nightmare when you live there.
-
Registered Republican. First time in my life that I did not vote Republican. I do regret my decision as I voted third-party and we got stuck with Trump.
With the stuff in the news, i.e. GOP obstruction of Russian investigation, "fake news", "treasonous democrats", tax bill, stupid wall, Chinese creation of global warming, and assault riffle blinders, I think I'm going to vote Democrat going forward.
OCC, I'm not sure if you saw this link, which I posted above, so I'm reposting it for you. You might "enjoy" (odd word) reading it, as I think many reasonable Republicans would draw the same conclusion as you, and this is a good discussion as to one reason it's probably the best course of action going forward.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
-
Or he's a deep state operative trying to bring down the one good man in politics right now. :D
-
Registered Republican. First time in my life that I did not vote Republican. I do regret my decision as I voted third-party and we got stuck with Trump.
With the stuff in the news, i.e. GOP obstruction of Russian investigation, "fake news", "treasonous democrats", tax bill, stupid wall, Chinese creation of global warming, and assault riffle blinders, I think I'm going to vote Democrat going forward.
OCC, I'm not sure if you saw this link, which I posted above, so I'm reposting it for you. You might "enjoy" (odd word) reading it, as I think many reasonable Republicans would draw the same conclusion as you, and this is a good discussion as to one reason it's probably the best course of action going forward.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
I'm not boycotting the Republican party, I'm leaving them.
-
Registered Republican. First time in my life that I did not vote Republican. I do regret my decision as I voted third-party and we got stuck with Trump.
With the stuff in the news, i.e. GOP obstruction of Russian investigation, "fake news", "treasonous democrats", tax bill, stupid wall, Chinese creation of global warming, and assault riffle blinders, I think I'm going to vote Democrat going forward.
OCC, I'm not sure if you saw this link, which I posted above, so I'm reposting it for you. You might "enjoy" (odd word) reading it, as I think many reasonable Republicans would draw the same conclusion as you, and this is a good discussion as to one reason it's probably the best course of action going forward.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
I'm not boycotting the Republican party, I'm leaving them.
Yes, and I think that is wise. I shared this because even these committed Republicans and Libertarians have decided that the party such as it is must be essentially destroyed in order for there to be any possibility of ever having a decent Republcan Party again.
-
Registered Republican. First time in my life that I did not vote Republican. I do regret my decision as I voted third-party and we got stuck with Trump.
With the stuff in the news, i.e. GOP obstruction of Russian investigation, "fake news", "treasonous democrats", tax bill, stupid wall, Chinese creation of global warming, and assault riffle blinders, I think I'm going to vote Democrat going forward.
OCC, I'm not sure if you saw this link, which I posted above, so I'm reposting it for you. You might "enjoy" (odd word) reading it, as I think many reasonable Republicans would draw the same conclusion as you, and this is a good discussion as to one reason it's probably the best course of action going forward.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
I'm not boycotting the Republican party, I'm leaving them.
Add me to that list -- this election cycle got me to change my registered party, and I don't see it going back.
-
Several of my republican friends have told me they haven't left the party, it has left them.
-
Registered Republican. First time in my life that I did not vote Republican. I do regret my decision as I voted third-party and we got stuck with Trump.
With the stuff in the news, i.e. GOP obstruction of Russian investigation, "fake news", "treasonous democrats", tax bill, stupid wall, Chinese creation of global warming, and assault riffle blinders, I think I'm going to vote Democrat going forward.
OCC, I'm not sure if you saw this link, which I posted above, so I'm reposting it for you. You might "enjoy" (odd word) reading it, as I think many reasonable Republicans would draw the same conclusion as you, and this is a good discussion as to one reason it's probably the best course of action going forward.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
I'm not boycotting the Republican party, I'm leaving them.
Add me to that list -- this election cycle got me to change my registered party, and I don't see it going back.
I jumped ship after Bush started an illegal war. I am an independent now though.
-
Wait - which party is the party of open-mindedness?
Pushed normally liberal people away. (https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8)
From the last link:
Today's progressivism has become a faux-moral movement hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and a slew of other meaningless buzzwords at anyone they disagree with.
The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme, as long as it’s not that pesky diversity of thought.
This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.
For these reasons, I can no longer call myself a progressive. I don’t really call myself a Democrat either. I’m a classical liberal, a free thinker, and as much as I don’t like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position
-Dave Rubin
I personally was not attracted to the right in my vote for Trump, I was pushed from the left.
Wow, what a bunch of staw man BS. Impressive that a guy which his own show, and youtube channel don't know the meaning of free speech.
- speakers banned from campuses. Shouldn't students be free to have opinions about who they want to speak? Government never entered the equation, isn't that good? Later I he says customers should choose different bakers if they refuse gay customers. Well shouldn't the speakers, or students, then just choose another university? This is also a vastly overblown issue based on a few over-eager students (like most young people). Also rather strange to conflate the protesting of 20-something students with the official policy of the national Democratic party.
- trigger warnings. Ohno, the horror of informing people of things so they can make choices! Does he also oppose age ratings on movies to inform parent's? Or spoiler alerts? You find them silly (perhaps because you haven't been raped..?) well then just read the book and don't worry about it. What's the harm in telling someone else?
quote:
If you’re black, or female, or Muslim, or Hispanic, or a member of any other minority group, you’re judged differently than the most evil of all things: a white, Christian male. The Regressive Left ranks minority groups in a pecking order to compete in a kind of “Oppression Olympics”. Gold medal goes to the most offended.
Ahh, so we've come to this. The white, christian male victim complex! He may be gay, but he's still offended that more equality to minorities and women means less equality for him. Seems like this always comes down to a "zero-sum equality" issue. I also have a hard time finding the policy of any Democratic/progressive politician the part that state white men are evil, and that minorities should be granted greater rights. Where this belief comes from is never explained, it's just stated as fact.
- the "gay wedding cake". How can you be so ignorant of this basic concept? A business (i.e. limited liability etc) is a privilege granted by the government! In exchange you follow the rules! One of which being in this case don't discriminate! You can't mix individual rights and business rights.
-
Regarding the wedding cake do you think that an artist has the right to refuse work that they do not agree with? The wedding cake issue is exactly that. The baker did not refuse to sell them a product, he offered them a cake off the shelf, he refused to use their artistic expression to convey a message he does not agree with. Should artists be compelled to produce art that they do not agree with? Should a hindu artist be compelled to paint a painting depicting slain cows? Should a democrat artist be compelled to produce art depicting Trump as a great leader? Should a muslim newspaper be compelled to print cartoons of Muhammad?
Obviously these are the questions the supreme court will tackle. I support gay marriage, but this issues is more nuanced than media and people make it out to be.
-
Regarding the wedding cake do you think that an artist has the right to refuse work that they do not agree with? The wedding cake issue is exactly that. The baker did not refuse to sell them a product, he offered them a cake off the shelf, he refused to use their artistic expression to convey a message he does not agree with. Should artists be compelled to produce art that they do not agree with? Should a hindu artist be compelled to paint a painting depicting slain cows? Should a democrat artist be compelled to produce art depicting Trump as a great leader? Should a muslim newspaper be compelled to print cartoons of Muhammad?
Obviously these are the questions the supreme court will tackle. I support gay marriage, but this issues is more nuanced than media and people make it out to be.
They never got to the point in the discussion where the baker would have known whether it was or was not going to have "GOD BLESS GAY MARRIAGE" (or whatever you're dreaming of) on top of it. For all they knew, it could have been a plain cake with nothing on it. The conversation didn't make it that far and they were denied service simply because they were gay.
Link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-supreme-court-the-cake-bakers-reasoning-falls-flat/2017/12/12/8cf321a6-dc60-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.ca6230966b9e)
Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them.
Link (https://medium.com/@AndrewLSeidel/all-you-need-to-know-to-win-an-argument-about-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-8d72a16e12f3)
Here’s what really happened. The couple went into the bakery. They were not there long before the baker realized they were a gay couple. At that point, the baker refused to serve them. The refusal was not because of what they wanted on their cake—they never even discussed the design—but only because they were gay. It was only later on, after the case had commenced, that the baker said he would sell them a bland, undecorated cake. (From a legal standpoint, even if that were factually true, we settled the whole separate is equal stupidity a few decades ago.)
Link (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html)
"The conversation was fairly short," Philips remembered. "I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open."
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
-
Regarding the wedding cake do you think that an artist has the right to refuse work that they do not agree with? The wedding cake issue is exactly that. The baker did not refuse to sell them a product, he offered them a cake off the shelf, he refused to use their artistic expression to convey a message he does not agree with. Should artists be compelled to produce art that they do not agree with? Should a hindu artist be compelled to paint a painting depicting slain cows? Should a democrat artist be compelled to produce art depicting Trump as a great leader? Should a muslim newspaper be compelled to print cartoons of Muhammad?
Obviously these are the questions the supreme court will tackle. I support gay marriage, but this issues is more nuanced than media and people make it out to be.
A baker is an artisan not an artist.
-
The "artist" thing is pretty weak sauce, too. It's a business. Even artists that have storefronts, to sell their sculpture or paintings or whatever, have to sell to minorities and families and disabled people. If they want to discriminate, they can be an artist in their backyard studio.
(Edit:)
There is also some concern that allowing a business to deny someone a service because of the owner's personal beliefs would, in effect, pierce the corporate veil. No business wants that because it would expose the owner (and not just the business) to lawsuits.
-
the baker refused to serve them because of who they were, not because of what product or design they wanted. Yeah I agree any artist can choose to accept or refuse artistic work they don't want to do. That's not the issue here.
-
the baker refused to serve them because of who they were, not because of what product or design they wanted. Yeah I agree any artist can choose to accept or refuse artistic work they don't want to do. That's not the issue here.
+1
There's a difference between refusing to provide a wedding cake that looks like two schlongs rubbing together, and refusing to do a regular wedding cake because the couple asking for it is gay.
-
the baker refused to serve them because of who they were, not because of what product or design they wanted. Yeah I agree any artist can choose to accept or refuse artistic work they don't want to do. That's not the issue here.
On religious grounds...yet, his religion's book specifically tells him how to treat other people:
Matthew 5:44 ESV
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Acts 10:34 ESV
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,
Matthew 7:12 ESV
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Romans 2:11 ESV
For God shows no partiality.
Mark 12:31 ESV
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
1 John 2:11 ESV
But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
James 2:4 ESV
Have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
One could easily argue that the Bible itself says the baker is wrong.
If there's a scripture passage that tells people to discriminate against gay people, I'd love to see it.
-
the baker refused to serve them because of who they were, not because of what product or design they wanted. Yeah I agree any artist can choose to accept or refuse artistic work they don't want to do. That's not the issue here.
On religious grounds...yet, his religion's book specifically tells him how to treat other people:
Matthew 5:44 ESV
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Acts 10:34 ESV
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,
Matthew 7:12 ESV
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Romans 2:11 ESV
For God shows no partiality.
Mark 12:31 ESV
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
1 John 2:11 ESV
But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
James 2:4 ESV
Have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
One could easily argue that the Bible itself says the baker is wrong.
If there's a scripture passage that tells people to discriminate against gay people, I'd love to see it.
I'll add on to your post a bit...
1 Corinthians 9:9-12 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about [people who don't claim to be Christians] who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a [Christian] yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.
It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.
If the interaction was truly 'I don't want to have anything to do with you', then yes, the man was clearly off biblical grounds (and it sounds like that may be the case).
I don't want to interject into the political discussion, but I do want to state that JLee commented verses (though cut down quite a bit) are "Biblically" on-topic for those who may be doubting.
-
Nope no regret,
-He has encouraged large corporations, that were leaving in droves, to repatriate money being held off shore and reinvest in new jobs within the united states. Companies investing in jobs in this country is overwhelmingly a good thing. I’m not sure how anyone could put a bad spin on this, but I wont hold my breath…. I’m sure its coming.
-He passed executive orders designed to eliminate burdensome regulation by requiring that for every new regulation created, two must be eliminated. I see this as a good thing, others will disagree.
-He has eliminated the ACA individual mandate. Again, I see this as a good thing. I dont approve of the government requiring the purchase of anything, and again I know many people disagree. But you probably wouldn’t like it if the GOP passed a law requiring everyone over that age of 18 to own a fire arm to combat crime now would you? I’m sure we could make a case that it would be best for you, we could dig up studies, show you how it is better for the poor and defenseless, should your neighbors suffer because you cant defend yourself? etc….. Forcing people to purchase things is not a good idea period. (some of this is tongue in check, no need to fly off the rails here)
-Trump getting elected has, wither you like him or not, exposed a huge encroachment on personal liberty in this country through the use of the FISA system. I’m not going to pass judgement on if he is or isn’t guilty, but the fact is the investigation process has exposed an opening for corruption to manipulate the FISA warrant system. We should all be discussing how to correct this to prevent future abuse of the system or possibly eliminating mass collection of intelligence on American soil all together.
-My favorite thing though, is he knows how to get under the skin of a liberal, and understands how to manipulate them. With every breath he takes, every move he makes, every word he speaks, the liberals and media are on the verge of losing their collective minds. You don’t get him, he continues to beat you at your own game, and it drives liberals nuts. Which in all honesty is probably exactly what he wants, it’s absolutely brilliant. He has the democrats all so busy chasing their own tail you’re missing the big picture.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
-
Yeah. It's super-awesome that liberals are mad.
Meanwhile, Trump's presidency has actual consequences. Including for the military.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/ret-major-general-pens-jaw-dropping-damnation-trump-parade-not-commander-chief-right-now/
-
Isn't the whole FISA/Nunes Memo thing a red herring and simply a mischaracterization of what actually happened? The "memo" actually showed the investigation began with George P. some time ago and we have subsequently learned: (1) the FISA court knew the funding of the Steele Dossier was politically motivated and (2) the court found their was sufficient NEW evidence presented on atleast 3 subsequent periods that qualified for a continued FISA warrant, which has a exceptionally high standard.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. The part that is funny, is liberals are so convinced their way of thinking is correct that they believe they can predict the future, and everything Trump does ends in rising sea levels or world war 3. Its become total gloom and doom. In fairness, I think republican went through this stage as well a few years back, it was laughable too.
Yea Snowden exposed what "could happen", Trump is an example of what "did happen". So yea Snowden was right, and many of the critics mass surveillance have been proven right as well. We were told these things could not happen..... Well they did and now everyone, especially democrats should be fearful of the box of worms that was exposed. This needs to be revisited and changes need to be made, I think we should have bipartisan support on this.
-
-My favorite thing though, is he knows how to get under the skin of a liberal, and understands how to manipulate them. With every breath he takes, every move he makes, every word he speaks, the liberals and media are on the verge of losing their collective minds. You don’t get him, he continues to beat you at your own game, and it drives liberals nuts. Which in all honesty is probably exactly what he wants, it’s absolutely brilliant. He has the democrats all so busy chasing their own tail you’re missing the big picture.
It is hilarious. And not limited to dems, he did this throughout the R primary etc. I think it's a natural gift he has, he drives his opponents friggin nuts. He owns them. They get so frustrated they cease thinking clearly and just go into full mental Trump Derangement Syndrome mode. TDS FTW!
I say hilarious, but big-picture it's actually quite sad. A sad commentary on the media's (and millions of citizens) maturity level / rationality. One guy can get in their heads and cause hateful derangement of such magnitude.
Like this lady
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column-I-detest-Trump-but-a-redneck-fixed-my-Prius-with-zip-ties-_165095870
Holding hate so close in her heart, letting it own her and ruin her life, and giving this awful example to her daughter. She pre-judges the Good Samaritan who helped her, realizes how 'outraged' she is all the time, making her a worse person, and blames Trump for her own actions. So immature and irrational.
-
Regarding the wedding cake do you think that an artist has the right to refuse work that they do not agree with? The wedding cake issue is exactly that. The baker did not refuse to sell them a product, he offered them a cake off the shelf, he refused to use their artistic expression to convey a message he does not agree with. Should artists be compelled to produce art that they do not agree with? Should a hindu artist be compelled to paint a painting depicting slain cows? Should a democrat artist be compelled to produce art depicting Trump as a great leader? Should a muslim newspaper be compelled to print cartoons of Muhammad?
Obviously these are the questions the supreme court will tackle. I support gay marriage, but this issues is more nuanced than media and people make it out to be.
They never got to the point in the discussion where the baker would have known whether it was or was not going to have "GOD BLESS GAY MARRIAGE" (or whatever you're dreaming of) on top of it. For all they knew, it could have been a plain cake with nothing on it. The conversation didn't make it that far and they were denied service simply because they were gay.
Link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-supreme-court-the-cake-bakers-reasoning-falls-flat/2017/12/12/8cf321a6-dc60-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.ca6230966b9e)
Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them.
Link (https://medium.com/@AndrewLSeidel/all-you-need-to-know-to-win-an-argument-about-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-8d72a16e12f3)
Here’s what really happened. The couple went into the bakery. They were not there long before the baker realized they were a gay couple. At that point, the baker refused to serve them. The refusal was not because of what they wanted on their cake—they never even discussed the design—but only because they were gay. It was only later on, after the case had commenced, that the baker said he would sell them a bland, undecorated cake. (From a legal standpoint, even if that were factually true, we settled the whole separate is equal stupidity a few decades ago.)
Link (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html)
"The conversation was fairly short," Philips remembered. "I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open."
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
If that is the case then it should have been an open and shut case of discrimination and would never have made it to the supreme court. Should be an easy one for the high court to decide then.
-
Isn't the whole FISA/Nunes Memo thing a red herring and simply a mischaracterization of what actually happened? The "memo" actually showed the investigation began with George P. some time ago and we have subsequently learned: (1) the FISA court knew the funding of the Steele Dossier was politically motivated and (2) the court found their was sufficient NEW evidence presented on atleast 3 subsequent periods that qualified for a continued FISA warrant, which has a exceptionally high standard.
Pretty much. From what I have seen so far, a tirade is unleashed any time a court system rules against DJT. Sometimes he rants about a "so-called judge" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/04/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-who-temporarily-blocked-travel-ban/?utm_term=.5e3fb534c3c6), sometimes about how our court system is "broken and unfair (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling-reaction/trump-blasts-immigration-ruling-calls-u-s-court-system-broken-and-unfair-idUSKBN1EZ1MP)," and sometimes accuses the court system and FBI of influencing the election (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/959949725028974592?lang=en) (meanwhile we have undisputed proof that Russia has done exactly that).
It's hypocrisy at its finest.
-
If that is the case then it should have been an open and shut case of discrimination and would never have made it to the supreme court. Should be an easy one for the high court to decide then.
It was pretty open and shut from the perspective of the Colorado judge. I guess we'll find out.
Link (https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)
Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”
“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
This is the world we live in.
-
I wonder how the precedent set in this case will affect the supreme court case.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-judge-rules-bakery-owner-can-refuse-wedding-cake-same-sex-couples/
“A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis,” wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe in a decision late Monday. “It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” he said."
Note that the cake in question had no words.
-
I wonder how the precedent set in this case will affect the supreme court case.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-judge-rules-bakery-owner-can-refuse-wedding-cake-same-sex-couples/
“A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis,” wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe in a decision late Monday. “It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” he said."
Note that the cake in question had no words.
I cannot believe a California judge (of all places), made that ruling.
-
-My favorite thing though, is he knows how to get under the skin of a liberal, and understands how to manipulate them. With every breath he takes, every move he makes, every word he speaks, the liberals and media are on the verge of losing their collective minds. You don’t get him, he continues to beat you at your own game, and it drives liberals nuts. Which in all honesty is probably exactly what he wants, it’s absolutely brilliant. He has the democrats all so busy chasing their own tail you’re missing the big picture.
It is hilarious. And not limited to dems, he did this throughout the R primary etc. I think it's a natural gift he has, he drives his opponents friggin nuts. He owns them. They get so frustrated they cease thinking clearly and just go into full mental Trump Derangement Syndrome mode. TDS FTW!
I say hilarious, but big-picture it's actually quite sad. A sad commentary on the media's (and millions of citizens) maturity level / rationality. One guy can get in their heads and cause hateful derangement of such magnitude.
Like this lady
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column-I-detest-Trump-but-a-redneck-fixed-my-Prius-with-zip-ties-_165095870
Holding hate so close in her heart, letting it own her and ruin her life, and giving this awful example to her daughter. She pre-judges the Good Samaritan who helped her, realizes how 'outraged' she is all the time, making her a worse person, and blames Trump for her own actions. So immature and irrational.
I find the whole thing pretty bizarre. How can anyone allow Fake Donald to control their life and happiness to such a degree?
I also find it a little sad when people on the right delight in the anxiety he induces in the democrats. You guys are all citizens of the same country ffs. Pull together and do great things again.
It was heartening to witness the heavy falcon launch yesterday & the successful recovery of 2 of the boosters. This is the sort of thing that will MAGA. Not internecine warfare in congress.
While the US dicks around with all this crap, China is rapidly displacing you as the predominant power in the world.
-
-My favorite thing though, is he knows how to get under the skin of a liberal, and understands how to manipulate them. With every breath he takes, every move he makes, every word he speaks, the liberals and media are on the verge of losing their collective minds. You don’t get him, he continues to beat you at your own game, and it drives liberals nuts. Which in all honesty is probably exactly what he wants, it’s absolutely brilliant. He has the democrats all so busy chasing their own tail you’re missing the big picture.
It is hilarious. And not limited to dems, he did this throughout the R primary etc. I think it's a natural gift he has, he drives his opponents friggin nuts. He owns them. They get so frustrated they cease thinking clearly and just go into full mental Trump Derangement Syndrome mode. TDS FTW!
I say hilarious, but big-picture it's actually quite sad. A sad commentary on the media's (and millions of citizens) maturity level / rationality. One guy can get in their heads and cause hateful derangement of such magnitude.
Like this lady
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column-I-detest-Trump-but-a-redneck-fixed-my-Prius-with-zip-ties-_165095870
Holding hate so close in her heart, letting it own her and ruin her life, and giving this awful example to her daughter. She pre-judges the Good Samaritan who helped her, realizes how 'outraged' she is all the time, making her a worse person, and blames Trump for her own actions. So immature and irrational.
I find the whole thing pretty bizarre. How can anyone allow Fake Donald to control their life and happiness to such a degree?
I also find it a little sad when people on the right delight in the anxiety he induces in the democrats. You guys are all citizens of the same country ffs. Pull together and do great things again.
It was heartening to witness the heavy falcon launch yesterday & the successful recovery of 2 of the boosters. This is the sort of thing that will MAGA. Not internecine warfare in congress.
While the US dicks around with all this crap, China is rapidly displacing you as the predominant power in the world.
Pathetic, isn't it? Pretty much the opposite of MAGA.
It's fairly amazing that Trump's base actually considers itself the true patriots.
-
While the US dicks around with all this crap, China is rapidly displacing you as the predominant power in the world.
Eh, it's inevitable. China has its own problems, including party warfare, but it has 4x the population. As long as natural resources hold out, and pollution is mitigated, China will have a far larger GDP.
-
Nope no regret,
-He has encouraged large corporations, that were leaving in droves, to repatriate money being held off shore and reinvest in new jobs within the united states. Companies investing in jobs in this country is overwhelmingly a good thing. I’m not sure how anyone could put a bad spin on this, but I wont hold my breath…. I’m sure its coming.
I'm not aware of any President that has encouraged offshoring.
-He passed executive orders designed to eliminate burdensome regulation by requiring that for every new regulation created, two must be eliminated. I see this as a good thing, others will disagree.
This seems very subjective. I mean regulations were put in place to hopefully prevent another financial meltdown. Regulation testing (one of the agencies, "CARB," Trump has threatened), helped exposed the VW "clean diesel" fraud. I guess more smog/pollution is a "good thing?" Thousands of premature deaths every year at the hands of NOx diesel based emissions might say otherwise. I am sure there are regulations that are a bit nonsensical, so why not focus on those instead of painting all regulations with the same "regulations are bad" brush stroke.
-He has eliminated the ACA individual mandate. Again, I see this as a good thing. I dont approve of the government requiring the purchase of anything, and again I know many people disagree. But you probably wouldn’t like it if the GOP passed a law requiring everyone over that age of 18 to own a fire arm to combat crime now would you? I’m sure we could make a case that it would be best for you, we could dig up studies, show you how it is better for the poor and defenseless, should your neighbors suffer because you cant defend yourself? etc….. Forcing people to purchase things is not a good idea period. (some of this is tongue in check, no need to fly off the rails here)
To be fair that's not what Trump campaigned for. He voted for wiping out the ACA completely and forcing millions back into uninsured territory. Repealing the ACA mandate won't have much affect in terms of coverage as most collectively get insurance through their employer, but the CBO predicts it will cause roughly a 10% increase in premiums for those with coverage. The issue is that the healthcare pool will tilt towards having more sick people vs healthy people. Healthy people tend to choose not to buy insurance when given a choice.
-Trump getting elected has, wither you like him or not, exposed a huge encroachment on personal liberty in this country through the use of the FISA system. I’m not going to pass judgement on if he is or isn’t guilty, but the fact is the investigation process has exposed an opening for corruption to manipulate the FISA warrant system. We should all be discussing how to correct this to prevent future abuse of the system or possibly eliminating mass collection of intelligence on American soil all together.
Seems rather hypocritical considering Congress just recently passed the FISA Reauthorization Act of 2017 and Trump signed off on this. Both parties are either for or against surveillance depending on who is in power. Trump didn't really expose anything because he is as much for it as anyone (except of course when Dems are in power). Thank Snowden if you want to thank anyone.
-My favorite thing though, is he knows how to get under the skin of a liberal, and understands how to manipulate them. With every breath he takes, every move he makes, every word he speaks, the liberals and media are on the verge of losing their collective minds. You don’t get him, he continues to beat you at your own game, and it drives liberals nuts. Which in all honesty is probably exactly what he wants, it’s absolutely brilliant. He has the democrats all so busy chasing their own tail you’re missing the big picture.
Not much to say on this except this says nothing about liberals and more about your own attitude towards others. Enjoying the misery of others isn't typically something people will admit to since it points to internal struggles. It's a great example though of just how important partisanship is to some folks in the country.
-
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Republican seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. The part that is funny, is republican are so convinced their way of thinking is correct that they believe they can predict the future,
See:
- banning gay marrige
- war in iraq
- trickle down economics
- "tax cuts will pay for themselves"
- "let the states decide!" Oh, but lets ban states from creating municipal broadband
- transgender people have never harmed me, but they scare me, so let's ban them from the military, and let's decide which bathroom they use
- government should decide what people smoke or ingest in their own homes
- video games harm children!
Can you imagine any more oppressive, worse form of government control than deciding which bathroom they use? Or controlling thoughts and what state of mind adults are allowed to have in their own homes, harming no one?? I can't!
-
Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Funny that's what I say about the GOP...
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
-
I find the whole thing pretty bizarre. How can anyone allow Fake Donald to control their life and happiness to such a degree?
I also find it a little sad when people on the right delight in the anxiety he induces in the democrats. You guys are all citizens of the same country ffs. Pull together and do great things again.
Too many profit from keeping us divided. The media mostly, but also politicians on both sides.
This didn't start with Trump, I know it happened with Obama, and probably Bush before him. There was a clip from one of the talk shows right after Obama getting elected, saying how they liked to see Republicans squirm when talking about Obama.
To some this is just payback for Obama. Which is an emotional response, and not a logical one, but we are mostly emotional beings, so it's understandable, even if it's not respectable.
-
While the US dicks around with all this crap, China is rapidly displacing you as the predominant power in the world.
Eh, it's inevitable. China has its own problems, including party warfare, but it has 4x the population. As long as natural resources hold out, and pollution is mitigated, China will have a far larger GDP.
No, it's not inevitable. Because policy matters. Because human capital matters (and the best place to get it is currently the United States). Because capital matters. Because entrepreneurship matters. Yes, the gap between the world and the US is closing. But China has to fix some serious issues--things that will take decades if they're even possible--to overtake us.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives, and I don't know much about the tariff one. It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
That's like saying Obamacare is about spreading the wealth and taxing the rich. When it really is about ensuring everyone has a minimum level of healthcare. While both are technically true, very few Democrats voted because of the first reason.
-
I see Obama as a uniter, not a divider. Now him calling out about police brutality, that IS a problem in this country. Being the first African American president, he was in the unique role of speaking both as someone in a position of power, and as an African American. Don't shoot the messenger if you are uncomfortable with the message. Fix the problem.
I don't recall Obama ever making comments he was happy or liked seeing Republicans squirm because he was elected. He reached across the aisle and was rebuffed multiple times. Republicans were against Obama, from the start. To the point of saying their agenda, was to make him a one term president. The whole Kenya thing, or Muslim rumors was to delegitimize his presidency. These efforts did not have to do with what Obama said, or his policy positions. It was personal. I still remember seeing the images of Obama effigies hanging from trees, and the many many memes and horrible quotes about him I will not repeat.
-
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives... It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
I'm not sure that "how they see it" really matters when we're talking about restricting people's freedoms. If you think Republicans are really motivated to save lives, then they would SURELY oppose a health care law that results in 18 million people losing coverage. Some tiny fraction of those people will literally die without insurance. In that light, Republicans killed tens of thousands of American citizens, more than died in 9/11.
Or to take a less immediately morbid example, the mayor of NYC tried to ban oversized sodas. He thought he was saving lives, too. Not only did Republicans not support the ban, they openly ridiculed it as an example of what they call "the nanny state". That's what they call everything that Democrats try to do to save lives. The idea of NOT saving lives is central to their whole political philosophy, so I'm unconvinced by your argument that their proscriptions on drugs/immigration/abortion are motivated by kindness.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
whataboutism
Legit points though. I want a small government party, fiscally responsible (I used to say conservative but the word just doesn't mean what it used to). I want that government to stay away from social issues entirely. There is no party like that anymore.
What's crazy to me is that, standing back and looking at it objectively, Trump really hasn't done a whole lot. He's said some shit, sure. He's planning some shit, sure. But he's wildly ineffective and very little has changed in the world as a result of his presidency.
But if you look at the coverage of his presidency, you'd think the world was ending. Without question, by this point, GWB had made far more impactful changes to the country.
Things that deserved this sort of outcry but because "omg terrorists" were passed, often with bipartisan support.
Things that Obama was supposed to dismantle. But then when he got there he found he kinda didn't mind how powerful POTUS is, and maybe that stuff isn't bad as long as Democrats control it.
I'm waiting for the Donald to actually DO something anywhere close to the massive power grab of GWB. It's weird to me how bent out of shape the Democrats are that a loathed and incompetent person is sitting in the seat. It's the second-best outcome next to your guy sitting in the seat. Ahh, I get it now. Make as much noise as you can so you can be in power the next round, make it look as bad as possible, because that's just how we operate now. It's literally SOP for the progressive party.
There's no making them happy. Obama was president for 8 years and somehow that made us a more racist country. Instead of the race card being retired it got a glossy foil overhaul. Show of hands, how many thought they'd shut the fuck up about racist against black people? I did. I remember a thread on this board about that. Can we move on and be post racial? Well no, of course not, because nobody puts down a source of power voluntarily. If you are not a Democrat, you are a racist. That's how its defined now. So fuck it.
Now an actual racist bigot is in the WH, but you can't convince a whole slew of people that's true because you've been hurling that accusation across the aisle, non-stop, my entire life. This is literally the scenario you were warned about. Repeatedly. Do. Not. Cry. Wolf.
A sexist asshole is in the WH, but you can't convince a whole slew of people that's true because you've been hurling that accusation across the aisle, non-stop, my entire life. Do. Not. Cry. Wolf.
Would you please issue an apology to every person whose policies you disagreed with for specific, self-serving reasons, that instead of arguing on merits, you sought to discredit, via slanderous and libelous character assaults? Your vested interest masquerading as a just cause has led us directly to this moment. And the absolute refusal to take any responsibility for where we are is staggering in its uniformity. Both sides blame the other for where we are, and both sides were willing participants for the entire ride. That first time you voted, not your conscience but the lesser of two evils, that first time you swallowed misgivings and voted party line, that's where this started.
You didn't want to play fair for at least the last two decades, and like every other team that cheated to win and then lost anyway, you refuse to disband the team. And you know what, I get it, you'll probably win next time and that's all that matters right? Nevermind that it'll cycle back around again, because you're both terrible in different and unique ways.
Both parties are garbage. Both parties are not interested in representing you. Stop giving them money. Stop voting for their candidates. All the money from all the "evil racists" and "greedy corporations" will amount to nothing if nobody can get elected with a major party affiliation.
"That's just crazy talk."
Yea...
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives, and I don't know much about the tariff one. It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
That's like saying Obamacare is about spreading the wealth and taxing the rich. When it really is about ensuring everyone has a minimum level of healthcare. While both are technically true, very few Democrats voted because of the first reason.
Please please do not conflate being anti-abortion with savings lives. The hypocrisy makes me throw up a little in my mouth. It's about controlling women's bodies. The history of the pro-life movement and it's politicalization, is actually very interesting reading. Life beginning at conception is not in Biblical scripture and not something endorsed by the Abrahamic religions, except when a certain Catholic Bishop decreed it, and it was only in the Catholic faith that was endorsed. If you are a Catholic, you can believe that, and follow your beliefs. But don't impose your religious beliefs on everyone else as we have separation of church and state.
-
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives... It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
I'm not sure that "how they see it" really matters when we're talking about restricting people's freedoms. If you think Republicans are really motivated to save lives, then they would SURELY oppose a health care law that results in 18 million people losing coverage. Some tiny fraction of those people will literally die without insurance. In that light, Republicans killed tens of thousands of American citizens, more than died in 9/11.
Or to take a less immediately morbid example, the mayor of NYC tried to ban oversized sodas. He thought he was saving lives, too. Not only did Republicans not support the ban, they openly ridiculed it as an example of what they call "the nanny state". That's what they call everything that Democrats try to do to save lives. The idea of NOT saving lives is central to their whole political philosophy, so I'm unconvinced by your argument that their proscriptions on drugs/immigration/abortion are motivated by kindness.
I didn't mean to imply Republicans were only motivated by kindness. We are complex beings, we have multiple goals and multiple costs we are willing to pay for them. I was trying to point out that we are judging each other not on our best intentions, but on the worst possible outcome.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives, and I don't know much about the tariff one. It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
That's like saying Obamacare is about spreading the wealth and taxing the rich. When it really is about ensuring everyone has a minimum level of healthcare. While both are technically true, very few Democrats voted because of the first reason.
Please please do not conflate being anti-abortion with savings lives. The hypocrisy makes me throw up a little in my mouth. It's about controlling women's bodies. The history of the pro-life movement and it's politicalization, is actually very interesting reading. Life beginning at conception is not in Biblical scripture and not something endorsed by the Abrahamic religions, except when a certain Catholic Bishop decreed it, and it was only in the Catholic faith that was endorsed. If you are a Catholic, you can believe that, and follow your beliefs. But don't impose your religious beliefs on everyone else as we have separation of church and state.
If you define life begins with conception, anti-abortion by definition saves lives. That is my only point.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives, and I don't know much about the tariff one. It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
That's like saying Obamacare is about spreading the wealth and taxing the rich. When it really is about ensuring everyone has a minimum level of healthcare. While both are technically true, very few Democrats voted because of the first reason.
Please please do not conflate being anti-abortion with savings lives. The hypocrisy makes me throw up a little in my mouth. It's about controlling women's bodies. The history of the pro-life movement and it's politicalization, is actually very interesting reading. Life beginning at conception is not in Biblical scripture and not something endorsed by the Abrahamic religions, except when a certain Catholic Bishop decreed it, and it was only in the Catholic faith that was endorsed. If you are a Catholic, you can believe that, and follow your beliefs. But don't impose your religious beliefs on everyone else as we have separation of church and state.
If you define life begins with conception, anti-abortion by definition saves lives. That is my only point.
Except that isn't always the case. Not allowing abortion has killed women, costing lives of actual humans. Blanket policies don't work here.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives, and I don't know much about the tariff one. It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
That's like saying Obamacare is about spreading the wealth and taxing the rich. When it really is about ensuring everyone has a minimum level of healthcare. While both are technically true, very few Democrats voted because of the first reason.
How does not allowing free movement across borders save lives? I am not personally in support of completely open borders, but there are scores of refugees/immigrants literally fleeing for their lives.
-
"He makes liberals angry therefore I love him" seems to sum it up nicely.
A terrible sentiment for a system of government...
Regarding exposure of surveillance being to Trump's credit... Have you heard of Edward Snowden.....?
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
Hmm. What about:
- Using government powers to legislate that women what women can do with their bodies?
- Using government powers to institute tariffs that end up preventing private individuals from selling their product outside of the country?
- Using government powers to prevent the free movement of people across borders?
- Using government powers to keep losing the war on drugs (an attempt to control what people can choose to put in their own bodies)?
- Using government powers to illegally kidnap and torture people while holding them indefinitely without chance of fair trial?
That certainly sounds like a party that wants to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance. Good thing the right doesn't support any of those issues. :P
whataboutism
While I'm a fan of calling out whataboutism, this is not, by any definition I'm familiar with, whataboutism. GuitarStv is refuting Greenback's claim that there's a difference between liberals and conservatives, in that ONLY liberals "want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance". GuitarStv, correctly, cites examples of conservatives doing this. Whatbaoutism is virtually anytime Obama or Hillary are brought up when a criticism of Trump arises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Legit points though. I want a small government party, fiscally responsible (I used to say conservative but the word just doesn't mean what it used to). I want that government to stay away from social issues entirely. There is no party like that anymore.
And there never has been (not in the U.S. anyway). Anytime there are power discrepancies between groups of people, there needs to be a protector of those being exploited.
What's crazy to me is that, standing back and looking at it objectively, Trump really hasn't done a whole lot. He's said some shit, sure. He's planning some shit, sure. But he's wildly ineffective and very little has changed in the world as a result of his presidency.
But if you look at the coverage of his presidency, you'd think the world was ending. Without question, by this point, GWB had made far more impactful changes to the country.
Trump is pushing the boundaries of what our democracy can tolerate, and the Republicans are largely on board. It's worrying. The release of the Nunes memo, for example, is *absolutely* an attempt to discredit our highest law enforcement institutions. Law enforcement institutions investigating him for potentially treasonous activity. This is not normal. This is deserving of worry.
The man seems compelled to lie about everything. After the state of the union, he bragged that it was the most viewed state of the union ever. It didn't crack the top 5 (not that anyone would care, anyways). He is not well. The emperor has no clothes, and the Republican party is complicit in pretending otherwise because he's currently a useful idiot for them.
-
Kindly let me help you from drowing said the monkey as he put the fish safely up the tree.
-
Archimedes said, "Give me a fulcrum and I will move the Earth"; but there isn't one. It is like betting on the future of the human race — I might wish to lay a bet that the human race would destroy itself by the year 2000, but there is nowhere to place the bet. On the contrary, I am involved in the world and must try to see that it does not blow itself to pieces. I once had a terrible argument with Margaret Mead. She was holding forth one evening on the absolute horror of the atomic bomb, and how everybody should spring into action and abolish it, but she was getting so furious about it that I said to her: "You scare me because I think you are the kind of person who will push the button in order to get rid of the other people who were going to push it first." So she told me that I had no love for my future generations, that I had no responsibility for my children, and that I was a phony swami who believed in retreating from facts. But I maintained my position. As Robert Oppenheimer said a short while before he died, "It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so." You see, many of the troubles going on in the world right now are being supervised by people with very good intentions whose attempts are to keep things in order, to clean things up, to forbid this, and to prevent that. The more we try to put everything to rights, the more we make fantastic messes. Maybe that is the way it has got to be. Maybe I should not say anything at all about the folly of trying to put things to right but simply, on the principle of Blake, let the fool persist in his folly so that he will become wise.
Play to Live : Lectures of Alan Watts
-
-My favorite thing though, is he knows how to get under the skin of a liberal, and understands how to manipulate them. With every breath he takes, every move he makes, every word he speaks, the liberals and media are on the verge of losing their collective minds. You don’t get him, he continues to beat you at your own game, and it drives liberals nuts. Which in all honesty is probably exactly what he wants, it’s absolutely brilliant. He has the democrats all so busy chasing their own tail you’re missing the big picture.
It is hilarious. And not limited to dems, he did this throughout the R primary etc. I think it's a natural gift he has, he drives his opponents friggin nuts. He owns them. They get so frustrated they cease thinking clearly and just go into full mental Trump Derangement Syndrome mode. TDS FTW!
I say hilarious, but big-picture it's actually quite sad. A sad commentary on the media's (and millions of citizens) maturity level / rationality. One guy can get in their heads and cause hateful derangement of such magnitude.
Like this lady
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column-I-detest-Trump-but-a-redneck-fixed-my-Prius-with-zip-ties-_165095870
Holding hate so close in her heart, letting it own her and ruin her life, and giving this awful example to her daughter. She pre-judges the Good Samaritan who helped her, realizes how 'outraged' she is all the time, making her a worse person, and blames Trump for her own actions. So immature and irrational.
What I think is quite sad is that our president is a man whose primary political skill is inciting glee in supporters by provoking emotional overreactions and tactical disarray in opponents through the unrelenting flinging of of mean spirited attacks and blatant lies. Yes he's great at it but it's not leadership. It's a pathetic parody of leadership that is not making America great in any way. It's simply trashing civil society for the very short term gratifications of vanity and greed. People who celebrate that make me sad, but those who know better but stand silent as part of a cynical bargain to get tax cuts or pro life judges are, in my opinion at least, the most pathetic.
I actually agree that people have a responsibility to learn to protect themselves from this emotional and intellectual manipulation and am super frustrated by how long it is taking for people to catch on to and start ignoring this dumb distraction game. But I find it awfully weird for Trump supporters to simultaneously celebrate President Trump's obvious talents at trolling and mock their countrymen/women for allowing their passions to be manipulated by a gifted manipulator. Especially when they refuse to see the game is being played on them too, just not as heavy-handedly.
I'm procrastinating at work so I actually read that article. I found it hopeful. It's another person recognizing how we're all being played. My biggest hope is that enough people learn to put on goggles and forthrightly stride through the poop storm with a clear focus on the rot it's only providing cover for.
As I drove home, I felt the full extent to which Trump has actually diminished my own desire to be kind. He is keeping me so outraged that I hold ill will toward others on a daily basis. Trump is not just ruining our nation, he is ruining me. By the end of the drive, I felt heartbroken.
-
If people are kept in a constant state of mental confusion, cognitive dissonance, then they have trouble thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions. I think you're right that the manipulation taking place is fascinating and quite terrifying. I believe this is very deliberate and happens on both sides. For example Obama won a Nobel peace prize but also the first president to drone strike an American on foreign soil with no trial. That's certainly a mind Fuck.
-
If people are kept in a constant state of mental confusion, cognitive dissonance, then they have trouble thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions. I think you're right that the manipulation taking place is fascinating and quite terrifying. I believe this is very deliberate and happens on both sides. For example Obama won a Nobel peace prize but also the first president to drone strike an American on foreign soil with no trial. That's certainly a mind Fuck.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
-
...I had a well thought out lengthy response that was truly ground breaking, it would have made everyone rethink everything they thought they knew and consider their position on deep subjects. But a slip of the finger caused it to be lost.... Maybe later I will try to recreate it in all its glory.
For now this amazing quote will have to do instead.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
-
...I had a well thought out lengthy response that was truly ground breaking, it would have made everyone rethink everything they thought they knew and consider their position on deep subjects. But a slip of the finger caused it to be lost.... Maybe later I will try to recreate it in all its glory.
For now this amazing quote will have to do instead.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
Is that really so amazing? I don't remember seeing much crowing on the left about Obama's Nobel. I remember being perplexed when it happened, and haven't thought much about it since then.
-
...I had a well thought out lengthy response that was truly ground breaking, it would have made everyone rethink everything they thought they knew and consider their position on deep subjects. But a slip of the finger caused it to be lost.... Maybe later I will try to recreate it in all its glory.
For now this amazing quote will have to do instead.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
To be fair to Obama . . . even he seemed to kinda think it was stupid. From his acceptance speech:
"I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors ... my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I."
-
If that is the case then it should have been an open and shut case of discrimination and would never have made it to the supreme court. Should be an easy one for the high court to decide then.
It was pretty open and shut from the perspective of the Colorado judge. I guess we'll find out.
Link (https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)
Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”
“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
This is the world we live in.
yes, those pedophile cakes are in high demand.
-
While I'm a fan of calling out whataboutism, this is not, by any definition I'm familiar with, whataboutism. GuitarStv is refuting Greenback's claim that there's a difference between liberals and conservatives, in that ONLY liberals "want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance". GuitarStv, correctly, cites examples of conservatives doing this. Whatbaoutism is virtually anytime Obama or Hillary are brought up when a criticism of Trump arises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Actually, whataboutism is bringing up an irrelevant alternative that is also bad to justify your own badness. There's an inherent hypocrisy in calling it out, which your comment perfectly illustrates. There's either a problem with Trump, independent of other considerations, or there is not. There's either a problem with HRC, independent of other considerations, or there is not. Whataboutism is used by both sides to deflect attention from their own shortcomings. I may not be good, but nobody is good, so what's your problem?
It is fundamental to modern politics. I don't know who started it, but as some examples:
Bush: But what about the terrorists.
Obama: But what about Bush.
HRC: But what about Trump.
Sanders: But what about HRC.
Trump: But what about HRC.
You: But what about TOYM.
Etc.
Trump is pushing the boundaries of what our democracy can tolerate, and the Republicans are largely on board. It's worrying. The release of the Nunes memo, for example, is *absolutely* an attempt to discredit our highest law enforcement institutions. Law enforcement institutions investigating him for potentially treasonous activity. This is not normal. This is deserving of worry.
The man seems compelled to lie about everything. After the state of the union, he bragged that it was the most viewed state of the union ever. It didn't crack the top 5 (not that anyone would care, anyways). He is not well. The emperor has no clothes, and the Republican party is complicit in pretending otherwise because he's currently a useful idiot for them.
I don't really know what to make of this. It doesn't reflect the reality I'm currently occupying, I'm not sure which planet you're on. Over here, nobody is under the impression Trump has any idea what's going on. The most shocking thing about the FBI stuff is that suddenly Democrats are coming to the defense of the FBI. Talk about your hypocritical politically motivated flips. Remember, the FBI kills/incarcerates black people. No, I get it, they're going after an enemy of yours so its OK now.
Trump is a compulsive liar! Spread the news! Yes, he is a politician now. What you are seeing is not something new, what you are seeing is incompetence. Your particular brand of politician hasn't been as lazy as Trump, they took the time to craft more self-serving less-obvious lies. Trump lies for seemingly no reason at all, it isn't malicious, he just doesn't know the truth. That concerns me a whole lot less than the available alternatives.
That last bit is at the core of it. He's an idiot. There's either a concerted effort to undermine democracy and fundamentally change the country, or he's an idiot. There isn't both, there's no puppet master, this is a shit-show from day one. It was absolutely preventable and we should all be outraged, but you're directing your anger at all the wrong people and your plans to fix it/prevent it happening again are not going to work.
-
If people are kept in a constant state of mental confusion, cognitive dissonance, then they have trouble thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions. I think you're right that the manipulation taking place is fascinating and quite terrifying. I believe this is very deliberate and happens on both sides. For example Obama won a Nobel peace prize but also the first president to drone strike an American on foreign soil with no trial. That's certainly a mind Fuck.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
They were patting America on the back for so crisply reversing course from the President Bush era. President Obama clearly found it both wildly premature and politically inconvenient, but that's an award you just can't decline.
"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."
He also clearly saw the contradictions: "perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars."
-
If people are kept in a constant state of mental confusion, cognitive dissonance, then they have trouble thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions. I think you're right that the manipulation taking place is fascinating and quite terrifying. I believe this is very deliberate and happens on both sides. For example Obama won a Nobel peace prize but also the first president to drone strike an American on foreign soil with no trial. That's certainly a mind Fuck.
Indeed it is. But he was awarded the prize in 2009 and the missile strike came later in 2011. And to be even more fair, many of Obama's supporters did not agree with awarding him the prize. Hell I didn't even know he won it, or just forgot.
-
Perhaps you need a different example from the left. Gender is a social construct, if people want to switch genders we should support them. We are OK with giving kids puberty blockers until they can decide if they want to go through surgery. I'm not sure which is a construct now. However, I do see the hypocrisy.
-
...I had a well thought out lengthy response that was truly ground breaking, it would have made everyone rethink everything they thought they knew and consider their position on deep subjects. But a slip of the finger caused it to be lost.... Maybe later I will try to recreate it in all its glory.
For now this amazing quote will have to do instead.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
To be fair to Obama . . . even he seemed to kinda think it was stupid. From his acceptance speech:
"I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors ... my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I."
I wonder what Trump would have said if he was given the Nobel peace prize? I tried reading this in Trump's voice and I laughed out loud when I got to "my accomplishments are slight".
-
...I had a well thought out lengthy response that was truly ground breaking, it would have made everyone rethink everything they thought they knew and consider their position on deep subjects. But a slip of the finger caused it to be lost.... Maybe later I will try to recreate it in all its glory.
For now this amazing quote will have to do instead.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
To be fair to Obama . . . even he seemed to kinda think it was stupid. From his acceptance speech:
"I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors ... my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I."
Yes, it is more of an illustration of the blinding infatuation the media and global elite had for him. It was like he was surrounded by a bunch of "Yes men".
-
...I had a well thought out lengthy response that was truly ground breaking, it would have made everyone rethink everything they thought they knew and consider their position on deep subjects. But a slip of the finger caused it to be lost.... Maybe later I will try to recreate it in all its glory.
For now this amazing quote will have to do instead.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
To be fair to Obama . . . even he seemed to kinda think it was stupid. From his acceptance speech:
"I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors ... my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I."
I wonder what Trump would have said if he was given the Nobel peace prize? I tried reading this in Trump's voice and I laughed out loud when I got to "my accomplishments are slight".
It's hard to get past acknowledge in Trumps voice . . . that is a three syllable word.
-
While I'm a fan of calling out whataboutism, this is not, by any definition I'm familiar with, whataboutism. GuitarStv is refuting Greenback's claim that there's a difference between liberals and conservatives, in that ONLY liberals "want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance". GuitarStv, correctly, cites examples of conservatives doing this. Whatbaoutism is virtually anytime Obama or Hillary are brought up when a criticism of Trump arises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Actually, whataboutism is bringing up an irrelevant alternative that is also bad to justify your own badness. There's an inherent hypocrisy in calling it out, which your comment perfectly illustrates. There's either a problem with Trump, independent of other considerations, or there is not. There's either a problem with HRC, independent of other considerations, or there is not. Whataboutism is used by both sides to deflect attention from their own shortcomings. I may not be good, but nobody is good, so what's your problem?
It is fundamental to modern politics. I don't know who started it, but as some examples:
Bush: But what about the terrorists.
Obama: But what about Bush.
HRC: But what about Trump.
Sanders: But what about HRC.
Trump: But what about HRC.
You: But what about TOYM.
Etc.
You left out a critical part of this conversation.
I think there is a fundamental difference between liberals and republican principals. Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance.
From Wikipedia:
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument
the gastropod did in fact directly refute GRS's arguement by contending that republican principles do not have this fundamental difference that GRS was claiming they did.
-
If that is the case then it should have been an open and shut case of discrimination and would never have made it to the supreme court. Should be an easy one for the high court to decide then.
It was pretty open and shut from the perspective of the Colorado judge. I guess we'll find out.
Link (https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)
Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”
“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
This is the world we live in.
yes, those pedophile cakes are in high demand.
I would eat a cake made out of pedophiles. As long as it had bbq sauce.
I can't support using violence to make someone bake a cake. It's stupid. All other aspects of this are irrelevant. The state cannot compel a citizen to bake a cake. There's just no basis for it. cake is not important enough. I don't really know how to explain this to anyone that doesn't understand it. All the complex arguments for the legal basis are so much bullshit. There's no good reason to compel the creation of cake. Cake by itself guarantees someone will create it. All it had to be was delicious.
Or pretty, I guess some people like it because it's pretty.
I don't particularly like cake if I'm honest, I prefer a good brownie. But we're talking about cake here for some reason.
I don't know where you draw this particular line, but it isn't at the cake level. At some point, yes, a homosexual should not be able to be denied service based on that. At the government cake shop sure, because the government shouldn't discriminate, cake for everyone sure. At the corporate cake store...eh it's hard for a corporation to survive the market with policies like that so I can see them choosing not to, and then I can make a case for dismissing an employee for failing to make the cake. That's fine.
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Maybe if there was a monopoly in charge of all baked goods, and this was the sole source, then maybe you could identify actual harm that was done. But you can't.
We can call the baker misguided, homophobic, or stupid. But there's no law that says you have to bake a cake, and if there is a law that says that we should change it, because it's not right to compel the baking of cakes.
-
I can't support using violence to make someone bake a cake. It's stupid.
Agreed. That would be. It's a good thing that the gay couple didn't do this, or they would likely be heading to prison. If the government was doing this, it would be pretty oppressive. Fortunately, that's not the case either!
The state cannot compel a citizen to bake a cake.
We can call the baker misguided, homophobic, or stupid. But there's no law that says you have to bake a cake, and if there is a law that says that we should change it, because it's not right to compel the baking of cakes.
Nobody's compelling anyone to bake a cake. There's no law saying that a cake has to be baked. There is a law requiring that you treat other citizens equally while you're operating a business under the permission of the government. If the baker doesn't like the rules, he's free to stop operating his business. There's no violence at all, the only person compelling the baker to keep baking is himself.
-
If that is the case then it should have been an open and shut case of discrimination and would never have made it to the supreme court. Should be an easy one for the high court to decide then.
It was pretty open and shut from the perspective of the Colorado judge. I guess we'll find out.
Link (https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)
Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”
“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
This is the world we live in.
yes, those pedophile cakes are in high demand.
I would eat a cake made out of pedophiles. As long as it had bbq sauce.
I can't support using violence to make someone bake a cake. It's stupid. All other aspects of this are irrelevant. The state cannot compel a citizen to bake a cake. There's just no basis for it. cake is not important enough. I don't really know how to explain this to anyone that doesn't understand it. All the complex arguments for the legal basis are so much bullshit. There's no good reason to compel the creation of cake. Cake by itself guarantees someone will create it. All it had to be was delicious.
Or pretty, I guess some people like it because it's pretty.
I don't particularly like cake if I'm honest, I prefer a good brownie. But we're talking about cake here for some reason.
I don't know where you draw this particular line, but it isn't at the cake level. At some point, yes, a homosexual should not be able to be denied service based on that. At the government cake shop sure, because the government shouldn't discriminate, cake for everyone sure. At the corporate cake store...eh it's hard for a corporation to survive the market with policies like that so I can see them choosing not to, and then I can make a case for dismissing an employee for failing to make the cake. That's fine.
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Maybe if there was a monopoly in charge of all baked goods, and this was the sole source, then maybe you could identify actual harm that was done. But you can't.
We can call the baker misguided, homophobic, or stupid. But there's no law that says you have to bake a cake, and if there is a law that says that we should change it, because it's not right to compel the baking of cakes.
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
-
If that is the case then it should have been an open and shut case of discrimination and would never have made it to the supreme court. Should be an easy one for the high court to decide then.
It was pretty open and shut from the perspective of the Colorado judge. I guess we'll find out.
Link (https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)
Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”
“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
This is the world we live in.
yes, those pedophile cakes are in high demand.
I would eat a cake made out of pedophiles. As long as it had bbq sauce.
I can't support using violence to make someone bake a cake. It's stupid. All other aspects of this are irrelevant. The state cannot compel a citizen to bake a cake. There's just no basis for it. cake is not important enough. I don't really know how to explain this to anyone that doesn't understand it. All the complex arguments for the legal basis are so much bullshit. There's no good reason to compel the creation of cake. Cake by itself guarantees someone will create it. All it had to be was delicious.
Or pretty, I guess some people like it because it's pretty.
I don't particularly like cake if I'm honest, I prefer a good brownie. But we're talking about cake here for some reason.
I don't know where you draw this particular line, but it isn't at the cake level. At some point, yes, a homosexual should not be able to be denied service based on that. At the government cake shop sure, because the government shouldn't discriminate, cake for everyone sure. At the corporate cake store...eh it's hard for a corporation to survive the market with policies like that so I can see them choosing not to, and then I can make a case for dismissing an employee for failing to make the cake. That's fine.
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Maybe if there was a monopoly in charge of all baked goods, and this was the sole source, then maybe you could identify actual harm that was done. But you can't.
We can call the baker misguided, homophobic, or stupid. But there's no law that says you have to bake a cake, and if there is a law that says that we should change it, because it's not right to compel the baking of cakes.
The point isn't the cake, the point is the discrimination. I believe that everyone should be treated equally, and your ability to buy a cake should not depend on your sexual orientation. Are you trying to make the argument that businesses should be allowed to discriminate? Why?
-
Talk about your hypocritical politically motivated flips. Remember, the FBI kills/incarcerates black people. No, I get it, they're going after an enemy of yours so its OK now.
Where exactly can I read about Democrats saying the FBI kills black people? They don't really do much street arrests of low-level (alleged) criminals/random people. So BLM etc have mainly focused on (often poorly trained) local police. Or were you just parroting "liberals hate police", because you are unable to see nuance?
-
the gastropod did in fact directly refute GRS's arguement by contending that republican principles do not have this fundamental difference that GRS was claiming they did.
Wow man. GRS made a claim about Democratic principles, and gastropod defended those democratic principles by saying "what about..." The Democratic principles were not defended. The original claim:
"Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance."
The broader claim, that this is in contrast to the Republican party, of course makes it relevant.
So was gastropod claiming Liberals are not authoritarian? If so, then the presented arguments were, in fact, whataboutisms. That would be the use as Democrats are trying to apply it to Trump.
If instead gastropod was claiming that both are authoritarian, then yes, you are correct Dabnasty, the presentation of examples of Republicans being authoritarian do not fall into the logical fallacy. I did make an assumption in calling it whataboutism, but in my defense, I was making fun of people who call it out. The inherent assumptions you have to make about both sides of the argument for a charge like that to stick make it unsuitable for its deployment where I'm seeing it nowadays. So instead of having real conversations we devolve into rhetorical bullshit because we're trying to point out logical fallacies instead of trying to understand each other. We're trying to be clever and cute instead of identifying common ground.
Instead of addressing the obvious issue when we perceive the logical fallacy, like I should have, we just shout whataboutism and congratulate ourselves on being clever. I don't have any real hope of changing a person's mind on the relative authoritarian tendencies of our two major parties though, so I let it go.
But perhaps there was an opportunity there.
-
Talk about your hypocritical politically motivated flips. Remember, the FBI kills/incarcerates black people. No, I get it, they're going after an enemy of yours so its OK now.
Where exactly can I read about Democrats saying the FBI kills black people? They don't really do much street arrests of low-level (alleged) criminals/random people. So BLM etc have mainly focused on (often poorly trained) local police. Or were you just parroting "liberals hate police", because you are unable to see nuance?
Uh, you'd need to go back to the reaction post-FBI investigation of some of the 2015/2016 police shootings to see the rhetoric I was referring to. Essentially, whenever the FBI investigates if there were civil rights issues with the local police and doesn't find that they were in fact poorly trained, that it was a "righteous shoot," you see it. Because clearly that's impossible, because clearly its always racism. Or were you just parroting "you disagree with me so you must not know what you're talking about," because you have a selective memory?
-
If people are kept in a constant state of mental confusion, cognitive dissonance, then they have trouble thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions. I think you're right that the manipulation taking place is fascinating and quite terrifying. I believe this is very deliberate and happens on both sides. For example Obama won a Nobel peace prize but also the first president to drone strike an American on foreign soil with no trial. That's certainly a mind Fuck.
Obama winning the nobel peace prize was straight up stupid. I don't know what they were thinking.
True. But that choice had nothing to do with the US government. Or Obama himself, for that matter.
-
If you define life begins with conception, anti-abortion by definition saves lives. That is my only point.
Serious question: do a non-negligible proportion of the U.S. population define life as starting from that point?
I always thought the vast majority of Americans consider their age and when the anniversary of their age occurs as stemming from birth - NOT conception. I guess most government and official forms ask for birth date which is unambiguous (a good thing) but any that asked for age would have complications with the pre-birth life definition.
-
I would eat a cake made out of pedophiles. As long as it had bbq sauce.
I can't support using violence to make someone bake a cake. It's stupid. All other aspects of this are irrelevant. The state cannot compel a citizen to bake a cake. There's just no basis for it. cake is not important enough. I don't really know how to explain this to anyone that doesn't understand it. All the complex arguments for the legal basis are so much bullshit. There's no good reason to compel the creation of cake. Cake by itself guarantees someone will create it. All it had to be was delicious.
Or pretty, I guess some people like it because it's pretty.
I don't particularly like cake if I'm honest, I prefer a good brownie. But we're talking about cake here for some reason.
I don't know where you draw this particular line, but it isn't at the cake level. At some point, yes, a homosexual should not be able to be denied service based on that. At the government cake shop sure, because the government shouldn't discriminate, cake for everyone sure. At the corporate cake store...eh it's hard for a corporation to survive the market with policies like that so I can see them choosing not to, and then I can make a case for dismissing an employee for failing to make the cake. That's fine.
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Maybe if there was a monopoly in charge of all baked goods, and this was the sole source, then maybe you could identify actual harm that was done. But you can't.
We can call the baker misguided, homophobic, or stupid. But there's no law that says you have to bake a cake, and if there is a law that says that we should change it, because it's not right to compel the baking of cakes.
I guess. I mean, those arguments were advanced about who got to sit at the lunch counter (they can just find ANOTHER place to eat! But what about MUH FREEDUMZ running a private business? How dare the government tell me who to serve?), and our society-through the courts-decided that private businesses don't get to discriminate against protected minority classes.
And then, as now, people in the majority unlikely to be affected by someone not serving them lunch, selling them a house, or hiring them even when they were qualified, fell back on free market arguments. Which is convenient, because the free market approaches in the past favored them and permitted widespread discrimination against others. So, it's easy to be sanguine about it (what's the big deal, dude? It's just a cake.) when it's not terribly likely that anyone is going to discriminate against them. One of the arguments advanced in this case is that making a cake is a special kind of business that requires creative output and artist buy-in. I think they are trying to distinguish from the lunch counter case. I'm not convinced. They are a business selling a service with a design component, but we'll see what the courts say. Maybe in this shitty timeline we'll have bathroom tilers who refuse to mosaic for minorities, hairdressers who can't possibly work their magic on Asian hair, etc.
-
If you define life begins with conception, anti-abortion by definition saves lives. That is my only point.
Serious question: do a non-negligible proportion of the U.S. population define life as starting from that point?
I always thought the vast majority of Americans consider their age and when the anniversary of their age occurs as stemming from birth - NOT conception. I guess most government and official forms ask for birth date which is unambiguous (a good thing) but any that asked for age would have complications with the pre-birth life definition.
Well there's a couple of different ways to answer that. In general, the question of age is measured from birth. Birth being a clearly defined and documented arbitrary point in time vs. conception which is typically less so. When trying to gather data, the fixed point of date of birth is going to generally be more useful, simply due to availability of the data.
As to where most consider life beginning, well, that's the conversational landmine of our time. There is an ethically inconvenient arbitrary point in time at which a fertile egg and a viable sperm interact to form a thing that predates the "scientific" definition, which some consider the beginning. Others consider a later arbitrary time defined "by scientists" post conception but prior to birth that they find ethically convenient. There is the classic consideration of it beginning at birth. The members of each of these camps represent significant numbers of population.
The only real minority opinions are that it begins after a clear ability to indicate a desire to live, so that would be 3-4 years old, which I find to be a funny definition that's fun to theorize about.
My personal favorite definition of when life begins, and thus when interference with constitutes murder, is when a fertile person desires conception with another fertile person. Thus, not having sex with me is murder. I'd say that's a very minor fraction of the population that holds that view.
Nevertheless, everyone is absolutely convinced theirs is the only definition that makes any sense, and that everyone else is not only wrong, but maliciously so.
-
the gastropod did in fact directly refute GRS's arguement by contending that republican principles do not have this fundamental difference that GRS was claiming they did.
Wow man. GRS made a claim about Democratic principles, and gastropod defended those democratic principles by saying "what about..." The Democratic principles were not defended. The original claim:
"Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance."
Whataboutism is a specific concept. Using the words "what about" does not instantly qualify the statement as a whataboutism.
The broader claim, that this is in contrast to the Republican party, of course makes it relevant.
So was gastropod claiming Liberals are not authoritarian?
No.
If so, then the presented arguments were, in fact, whataboutisms. That would be the use as Democrats are trying to apply it to Trump.
If instead gastropod was claiming that both are authoritarian, then yes, you are correct Dabnasty, the presentation of examples of Republicans being authoritarian do not fall into the logical fallacy. I did make an assumption in calling it whataboutism, but in my defense, I was making fun of people who call it out. The inherent assumptions you have to make about both sides of the argument for a charge like that to stick make it unsuitable for its deployment where I'm seeing it nowadays. So instead of having real conversations we devolve into rhetorical bullshit because we're trying to point out logical fallacies instead of trying to understand each other. We're trying to be clever and cute instead of identifying common ground.
Instead of addressing the obvious issue when we perceive the logical fallacy, like I should have, we just shout whataboutism and congratulate ourselves on being clever. I don't have any real hope of changing a person's mind on the relative authoritarian tendencies of our two major parties though, so I let it go.
But perhaps there was an opportunity there.
-
the gastropod did in fact directly refute GRS's arguement by contending that republican principles do not have this fundamental difference that GRS was claiming they did.
Wow man. GRS made a claim about Democratic principles, and gastropod defended those democratic principles by saying "what about..." The Democratic principles were not defended. The original claim:
"Liberals seem to want to force their view of the world on others and use government as a means to accomplish compliance."
The broader claim, that this is in contrast to the Republican party, of course makes it relevant.
So was gastropod claiming Liberals are not authoritarian? If so, then the presented arguments were, in fact, whataboutisms. That would be the use as Democrats are trying to apply it to Trump.
If instead gastropod was claiming that both are authoritarian, then yes, you are correct Dabnasty, the presentation of examples of Republicans being authoritarian do not fall into the logical fallacy. I did make an assumption in calling it whataboutism, but in my defense, I was making fun of people who call it out. The inherent assumptions you have to make about both sides of the argument for a charge like that to stick make it unsuitable for its deployment where I'm seeing it nowadays. So instead of having real conversations we devolve into rhetorical bullshit because we're trying to point out logical fallacies instead of trying to understand each other. We're trying to be clever and cute instead of identifying common ground.
Instead of addressing the obvious issue when we perceive the logical fallacy, like I should have, we just shout whataboutism and congratulate ourselves on being clever. I don't have any real hope of changing a person's mind on the relative authoritarian tendencies of our two major parties though, so I let it go.
But perhaps there was an opportunity there.
the original poster never gave any specific claims or instances how Democratic principals are forcing their view on everyone else. We'd have to figure out what was in the mind of that person to respond. However many Republican principals certainly come to mind. What they are doing to restrict access to reproductive services to women comes to mind.
-
I would eat a cake made out of pedophiles. As long as it had bbq sauce.
I can't support using violence to make someone bake a cake. It's stupid. All other aspects of this are irrelevant. The state cannot compel a citizen to bake a cake. There's just no basis for it. cake is not important enough. I don't really know how to explain this to anyone that doesn't understand it. All the complex arguments for the legal basis are so much bullshit. There's no good reason to compel the creation of cake. Cake by itself guarantees someone will create it. All it had to be was delicious.
Or pretty, I guess some people like it because it's pretty.
I don't particularly like cake if I'm honest, I prefer a good brownie. But we're talking about cake here for some reason.
I don't know where you draw this particular line, but it isn't at the cake level. At some point, yes, a homosexual should not be able to be denied service based on that. At the government cake shop sure, because the government shouldn't discriminate, cake for everyone sure. At the corporate cake store...eh it's hard for a corporation to survive the market with policies like that so I can see them choosing not to, and then I can make a case for dismissing an employee for failing to make the cake. That's fine.
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Maybe if there was a monopoly in charge of all baked goods, and this was the sole source, then maybe you could identify actual harm that was done. But you can't.
We can call the baker misguided, homophobic, or stupid. But there's no law that says you have to bake a cake, and if there is a law that says that we should change it, because it's not right to compel the baking of cakes.
I guess. I mean, those arguments were advanced about who got to sit at the lunch counter (they can just find ANOTHER place to eat! But what about MUH FREEDUMZ running a private business? How dare the government tell me who to serve?), and our society-through the courts-decided that private businesses don't get to discriminate against protected minority classes.
And then, as now, people in the majority unlikely to be affected by someone not serving them lunch, selling them a house, or hiring them even when they were qualified, fell back on free market arguments. Which is convenient, because the free market approaches in the past favored them and permitted widespread discrimination against others. So, it's easy to be sanguine about it (what's the big deal, dude? It's just a cake.) when it's not terribly likely that anyone is going to discriminate against them. One of the arguments advanced in this case is that making a cake is a special kind of business that requires creative output and artist buy-in. I think they are trying to distinguish from the lunch counter case. I'm not convinced. They are a business selling a service with a design component, but we'll see what the courts say. Maybe in this shitty timeline we'll have bathroom tilers who refuse to mosaic for minorities, hairdressers who can't possibly work their magic on Asian hair, etc.
We're not talking about lunch though. I get what you're saying. But this isn't transportation where we're saying you have to sit at the back or wait for the next bus. This isn't access to food at all (or even right now). And this isn't a widespread, economy-wide thing. This is cake.
You can make a need-based argument for the other things. You don't need cake.
And if you want to make it into a big thing, then it quickly becomes a much bigger thing. If it isn't about cake, if it's about more than cake, then it has to include what the cake is for. If that's involved, then the cake is for a wedding, which to the baker is a religious thing, and now you're forcing the baker to bake a cake for use in a religious ceremony.
The state sure-as-shit can't compel us to bake religious cakes. There's a Jewish holy bread called like Challah or something, it's delicious, I eat it all the time, they sell it at the grocery store. Right next to the wedding cakes. It's pretty disingenuous to compare this to the state of affairs that preceded the civil rights movement. We're not in separate-but-equal territory, we're in, "there's this one jackass that won't sell us a cake, lets bully him using the law" territory. The minority here is not the homosexual, it's the baker with principles (misguided as those principles may be). The jews will sell anyone their holy bread, because fuck you pay me. Not all of the jews mind you, some ultra-orthodox will not permit me to eat their holy bread. And their discrimination against me is specifically because of my religious affiliation. There's nothing wrong with that, and it causes me no harm. Therefore, something something, right, cake.
The state can't force a catholic church to give Jesus crackers to Muslims. Point of order, at my Baptist church we give Jesus crackers to anyone, just have to be there for snacktime. They don't check ID cards or nothin'. The wine is a lie though, it's just juice.
The baker's actions can be wrong without being illegal, is all I'm saying. And if you don't want to be forced to bake cake you should probably be on his side. I've got important internet arguing I need to do, I can't be baking cake all day.
-
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to. If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination. He's free to choose to do something else with his time. He's free to treat all customers as equal. If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble. But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
-
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Are you also sure that is wrong to use violence to compel the preparation of sandwiches for black people at your lunch counter? Because we do that, too. There was a whole movement about it.
-
I saw this on another forum regarding whataboutism, made me think of this thread (NOT my words)
Lol what about Obama . Can we try just for a minute to imagine what would have happened if in 2009 /10 when President Obama had just finished his first year in office — what if — he had historically low approval ratings & amid stock market volitality and a perpetual looming government shutdown and IF obama was head deep in the midst of numerous scandals ( from paying off an adulterous porn star affair to an unregistered charity he stole from and he had to close down plus many more), If he called various nations crapholes, and IF he was being investigated by the FBI for obstruction of justice, and many other things by a special prosecutor, & being investigated by Congress and the senate —
What if THEN Obama decided to ORDER the Pentagon to stage an unnecessary elaborate military parade for him. ( while of course saying it was for national pride) right after saying those who dont clap for him when he announces good news are committing treason.
:roll2:I am sure the republicans - if it was reversed - would have had a great sense of humor about the whole thing and said hey obama we know you dont mean any harm we can take a joke — lets just forget everything and call it good. :roll2:
-
I would eat a cake made out of pedophiles. As long as it had bbq sauce.
I can't support using violence to make someone bake a cake. It's stupid. All other aspects of this are irrelevant. The state cannot compel a citizen to bake a cake. There's just no basis for it. cake is not important enough. I don't really know how to explain this to anyone that doesn't understand it. All the complex arguments for the legal basis are so much bullshit. There's no good reason to compel the creation of cake. Cake by itself guarantees someone will create it. All it had to be was delicious.
Or pretty, I guess some people like it because it's pretty.
I don't particularly like cake if I'm honest, I prefer a good brownie. But we're talking about cake here for some reason.
I don't know where you draw this particular line, but it isn't at the cake level. At some point, yes, a homosexual should not be able to be denied service based on that. At the government cake shop sure, because the government shouldn't discriminate, cake for everyone sure. At the corporate cake store...eh it's hard for a corporation to survive the market with policies like that so I can see them choosing not to, and then I can make a case for dismissing an employee for failing to make the cake. That's fine.
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Maybe if there was a monopoly in charge of all baked goods, and this was the sole source, then maybe you could identify actual harm that was done. But you can't.
We can call the baker misguided, homophobic, or stupid. But there's no law that says you have to bake a cake, and if there is a law that says that we should change it, because it's not right to compel the baking of cakes.
I guess. I mean, those arguments were advanced about who got to sit at the lunch counter (they can just find ANOTHER place to eat! But what about MUH FREEDUMZ running a private business? How dare the government tell me who to serve?), and our society-through the courts-decided that private businesses don't get to discriminate against protected minority classes.
And then, as now, people in the majority unlikely to be affected by someone not serving them lunch, selling them a house, or hiring them even when they were qualified, fell back on free market arguments. Which is convenient, because the free market approaches in the past favored them and permitted widespread discrimination against others. So, it's easy to be sanguine about it (what's the big deal, dude? It's just a cake.) when it's not terribly likely that anyone is going to discriminate against them. One of the arguments advanced in this case is that making a cake is a special kind of business that requires creative output and artist buy-in. I think they are trying to distinguish from the lunch counter case. I'm not convinced. They are a business selling a service with a design component, but we'll see what the courts say. Maybe in this shitty timeline we'll have bathroom tilers who refuse to mosaic for minorities, hairdressers who can't possibly work their magic on Asian hair, etc.
We're not talking about lunch though. I get what you're saying. But this isn't transportation where we're saying you have to sit at the back or wait for the next bus. This isn't access to food at all (or even right now). And this isn't a widespread, economy-wide thing. This is cake.
You can make a need-based argument for the other things. You don't need cake.
And if you want to make it into a big thing, then it quickly becomes a much bigger thing. If it isn't about cake, if it's about more than cake, then it has to include what the cake is for. If that's involved, then the cake is for a wedding, which to the baker is a religious thing, and now you're forcing the baker to bake a cake for use in a religious ceremony.
The state sure-as-shit can't compel us to bake religious cakes. There's a Jewish holy bread called like Challah or something, it's delicious, I eat it all the time, they sell it at the grocery store. Right next to the wedding cakes. It's pretty disingenuous to compare this to the state of affairs that preceded the civil rights movement. We're not in separate-but-equal territory, we're in, "there's this one jackass that won't sell us a cake, lets bully him using the law" territory. The minority here is not the homosexual, it's the baker with principles (misguided as those principles may be). The jews will sell anyone their holy bread, because fuck you pay me. Not all of the jews mind you, some ultra-orthodox will not permit me to eat their holy bread. And their discrimination against me is specifically because of my religious affiliation. There's nothing wrong with that, and it causes me no harm. Therefore, something something, right, cake.
The state can't force a catholic church to give Jesus crackers to Muslims. Point of order, at my Baptist church we give Jesus crackers to anyone, just have to be there for snacktime. They don't check ID cards or nothin'. The wine is a lie though, it's just juice.
The baker's actions can be wrong without being illegal, is all I'm saying. And if you don't want to be forced to bake cake you should probably be on his side. I've got important internet arguing I need to do, I can't be baking cake all day.
So you are comparing communion crackers to a cake? Uh, you do know the difference between a business and a church, right? They follow different rules. If the baker was actually running a small church yes he can decide who gets to eat his cake.
-
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Are you also sure that is wrong to use violence to compel the preparation of sandwiches for black people at your lunch counter? Because we do that, too. There was a whole movement about it.
I love you Sol.
I can see a difference between lunch, access to lunch, access to your place of business which is ostensibly open to the public, and a wedding cake. You can make a case for a need for sandwiches. It's less clear for me on the need for cake. You can also make a case for the need for a place to eat lunch, and say it's a problem requiring legal protection when everywhere discriminates. But that's not the case here.
The cake's use was for a religious ceremony that the baker wanted no part of. It's not the same thing as lunch Sol. The cake was also cake, which really shouldn't be considered the same as lunch.
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to. If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination. He's free to choose to do something else with his time. He's free to treat all customers as equal. If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble. But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
In America that's not how it works. I can open a business today and immediately begin commerce without consultation with the government at any level. Anywhere in the country. The only interference I can expect from government is where there are specific regulations that have been enacted over time to address particular risks of which we all agree we would like some regulation. So I need certifications and licenses for certain types of business. If I'm serving cake I probably need some sort of health certification that I've proven I understand "washing things is good." But I don't need permission. And if the government compels me to violate my religious principles in order to conduct business then I have no religious freedom.
-
I saw this on another forum regarding whataboutism, made me think of this thread (NOT my words)
Lol what about Obama . Can we try just for a minute to imagine what would have happened if in 2009 /10 when President Obama had just finished his first year in office — what if — he had historically low approval ratings & amid stock market volitality and a perpetual looming government shutdown and IF obama was head deep in the midst of numerous scandals ( from paying off an adulterous porn star affair to an unregistered charity he stole from and he had to close down plus many more), If he called various nations crapholes, and IF he was being investigated by the FBI for obstruction of justice, and many other things by a special prosecutor, & being investigated by Congress and the senate —
What if THEN Obama decided to ORDER the Pentagon to stage an unnecessary elaborate military parade for him. ( while of course saying it was for national pride) right after saying those who dont clap for him when he announces good news are committing treason.
:roll2:I am sure the republicans - if it was reversed - would have had a great sense of humor about the whole thing and said hey obama we know you dont mean any harm we can take a joke — lets just forget everything and call it good. :roll2:
It's not that hypothetical, we saw the total meltdown of the Republicans when the Democrats used their power to ram massive systemic changes to the U.S. Healthcare system down our throats, you know, doing something that actually changed how basic aspects of 20~25% of our economy function. The Democrats were very professional and obeyed all the decorum rules throughout though so I guess that's not as bad as being unable to do much and asking for a parade.
FFS ya'all need to stop watching television.
-
In America that's not how it works. I can open a business today and immediately begin commerce without consultation with the government at any level. Anywhere in the country. The only interference I can expect from government is where there are specific regulations that have been enacted over time to address particular risks of which we all agree we would like some regulation. So I need certifications and licenses for certain types of business. If I'm serving cake I probably need some sort of health certification that I've proven I understand "washing things is good." But I don't need permission. And if the government compels me to violate my religious principles in order to conduct business then I have no religious freedom.
OK. Open a slave trading business, abortion business, or nuclear power plant business and let me know how that works out. I suspect you'll have some government interference . . . because you can only operate a business with government permission. You're confusing the very relaxed set of laws to encourage small business that exist, with total anarchy. One of the few rules that you do have to follow to keep a business open is not to run your business in a way that discriminates against minorities.
-
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to. If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination. He's free to choose to do something else with his time. He's free to treat all customers as equal. If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble. But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
Whether you get in trouble for discriminating depends on the state and the class that you are discriminating against. The exception proves the rule: of course businesses have a right to discriminate against their customers. It takes explicit legislation to say otherwise. It's just not a guaranteed Constitutional right.
At least not until Randroids take over Congress and appoint enough Supreme Court justices that suddenly discover a constitutional right that has not existed in the prior 2 and a half centuries of our existence...
-
To be fair, that's not how the Republicans see those issues. Everyone of those but the tariffs they (or the portion that supports it) see as saving lives... It's hard to say the government shouldn't be trying to save lives.
I'm not sure that "how they see it" really matters when we're talking about restricting people's freedoms. If you think Republicans are really motivated to save lives, then they would SURELY oppose a health care law that results in 18 million people losing coverage. Some tiny fraction of those people will literally die without insurance. In that light, Republicans killed tens of thousands of American citizens, more than died in 9/11.
Or to take a less immediately morbid example, the mayor of NYC tried to ban oversized sodas. He thought he was saving lives, too. Not only did Republicans not support the ban, they openly ridiculed it as an example of what they call "the nanny state". That's what they call everything that Democrats try to do to save lives. The idea of NOT saving lives is central to their whole political philosophy, so I'm unconvinced by your argument that their proscriptions on drugs/immigration/abortion are motivated by kindness.
\
For that matter - anything that attempts to clean or keep clean the environment. Repubs seem to reject that effort outright too. Having grown up in a polluted city decades ago, I can tell you things are MUCH better when I visit today. So yeah, I'll support anything reasonable that keeps the air clean and the water clean.
-
So you are comparing communion crackers to a cake? Uh, you do know the difference between a business and a church, right? They follow different rules. If the baker was actually running a small church yes he can decide who gets to eat his cake.
Ah, but that's the key to the whole thing! Don't you see! The baker can decide who gets to eat his cake. That baker can refuse to sell YOU cake, and ME cake. As long as he doesn't give a reason why. His right to refuse service is unquestionably legal. The state cannot compel you to serve cake. It cannot compel you to serve cake to everyone. It cannot compel you to serve cake to anyone.
What's at issue is can he refuse service because of a specific religious reason? It seems to me he has a constitutional right to do that. And it isn't obvious to me that there is case law or Supreme Court decisions that make it clear he cannot. And if we're weighing in on what those rulings should be, the examples you should seriously consider are not the racially segregated lunch counters, it's the entire history of Europe and the Middle East. Religious freedom may not matter to you personally, but it is far more important than cake. Especially when, from a practical standpoint, there's absolutely zero issues for a homosexual couple who wants cake. Not only is there someone who will sell it to them, most vendors will sell it to them. Almost all I daresay. This is a case of pride vs. religion and it isn't a fight worth having. There's no harm, there's not even no cake.
I'm fine not eating your cake sir, carry on.
-
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
So hard for me to fathom how so many from, the supposedly, "business party" cannot understand this simple concept. There's a difference between individual and business rights.
-
Personally I don't really care about the cake issue. For me what bothers me, are Republicans being OK with for example private business owners deciding which part of my health care is covered or even available. Or an individual pharmacist refusing to fill my birth control pills, based on their personal views. Or an official refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, in a state where gay marriages are now legal.
For any one thing, yeah, the cake thing seems silly because you can go elsewhere. But if the court rules that that's OK, it will set a precedent, all sort of businesses or even individuals can refuse you service, because they don't like this person's status, or performing this particular service even if it's part of their job". You can see how that's a problem. But keep talking about cake.
-
OK. Open a slave trading business, abortion business, or nuclear power plant business and let me know how that works out. I suspect you'll have some government interference . . . because you can only operate a business with government permission. You're confusing the very relaxed set of laws to encourage small business that exist, with total anarchy. One of the few rules that you do have to follow to keep a business open is not to run your business in a way that discriminates against minorities.
Listen! Sir! I'm sure you aren't comparing my hypothetical cake business to slave trading or abortion? Can we simmer down please! Of course there are permits, but those permit you to do certain regulated activities, not business in general. The very idea that I need government permission to engage in economic activity is moronic. Of course I do not, this isn't Soviet Russia. It truly, fundamentally, just does not work that way here.
And you know that because you're only playing dumb here to try and win an internet argument, which is quite frankly a waste of everyone's time.
Listen.
Read rather.
What's the outcome here? What's the ideal situation? The Forced Confectionary.
I'm not eating that hate cake I'll tell you that right fucking now. At that wedding, when those two homosexuals smash that reluctant-violence-produced-cake into each other's faces, and it comes my turn to have a slice, I'm going to pass. Because the king doesn't berate his chef and then eat his dinner. You fire the chef. That's just good safety sense. Their faces are going to melt off and everyone's going to feel pretty stupid.
The baker did the right thing here, out of the options available to him. I'm right there with ya if he sent laxative cake to the joyous celebration, or if he lit the two dudes on fire. This isn't that. He said "nah." And it's important that he has the right to refuse. For all of us. He probably doesn't have the right to organize all the other cake bakers to refuse, he probably should be nice when he refuses. But if he can't refuse, if he's to be compelled by the state to produce, I wouldn't eat that cake man, and you're fucking crazy for thinking that's a good idea.
Especially when we're talking about cake.
Because it's just cake, and nobody should have to worry that it might not actually be cake.
-
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
So hard for me to fathom how so many from, the supposedly, "business party" cannot understand this simple concept. There's a difference between individual and business rights.
What are you even referring to? If you sell candy bars out of a backpack do you forfeit freedoms just because you are engaged in business? Of course not. There are specific legal entities which sacrifice the protections of the individual in order to gain certain other protections, but that's not all "business" it's a specific entity. A corporation or LLC for instance. I can do business under my name as myself and I enjoy all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities and obligations of an individual. There are certain economic advantages to operating in each way, and I have no idea where the specific cake baker fell on this particular spectrum, but I honestly have no clue what you're getting at with this.
-
the cake thing seems silly because you can go elsewhere.
Yea, they can always get their cake somewhere different. Somewhere just as good, but, you know, at another location. Maybe somewhere separate but equal.
Or, just maybe, the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is never equal because it is separate, and is unconstitutional, and we called in the national guard to force desegregation while the religious right stood on the schoolhouse steps and waved bibles in the air to protest this oppression of their right to oppress.
I can't believe we're seriously having this argument in modern America. It's like the 60s never happened.
-
Especially when we're talking about cake.
Because it's just cake, and nobody should have to worry that it might not actually be cake.
Your arguments here are pretty silly, though humorous. But the "it's just cake" thing is particularly weird. You really want the government to start qualitatively rank businesses? Which are more necessary than others? So we just apply equality to the ones that are necessary? By that logic nobody needs to sit at lunch counters either. They could eat oatmeal at their desks. So why was it a problem that black people were refused lunch? If someone has a religious objection to serving sandwiches to black people, or muslims, is that ok?
-
Personally I don't really care about the cake issue. For me what bothers me, are Republicans being OK with for example private business owners deciding which part of my health care is covered or even available. Or an individual pharmacist refusing to fill my birth control pills, based on their personal views. Or an official refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, in a state where gay marriages are now legal.
For any one thing, yeah, the cake thing seems silly because you can go elsewhere. But if the court rules that that's OK, it will set a precedent, all sort of businesses or even individuals can refuse you service, because they don't like this person's status, or performing this particular service even if it's part of their job". You can see how that's a problem. But keep talking about cake.
Oh no totally, I agree it's a line somewhere, I'm just saying that line is above the cake level.
It's massively stupid that health insurance was tied to employment, agreed. I really wish that hadn't happened. The party responsible might surprise you! And when they had the opportunity to fix it Democrats did...something else!
I'm against the idea of having to get medication through a pharmacist at all, I don't know why I can't get it straight from my doctor or the producer but whatever, I guess government is good in all cases right?
I don't think it should be a crime against the state for a person to refuse to give a marriage license. I think they'll get fired and I'm OK with that. You are free to choose not to issue the license and the employer is free to terminate you. You can go open your own marriage license granting business, though it's unclear where the licenses will be valid, or what they're for. I also think this is a great example of where the government just needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business altogether. Why do you need a license? What the hell is going on? Who thought this was a good way to do things?
But keep conflating this specific instance of an individual in their own business exercising their own freedom of religious practice and suffering the economic loss of the lost sale with every other conceivable situation where someone might hurt you if that helps you justify the use of force to compel production of cake.
-
the cake thing seems silly because you can go elsewhere.
Yea, they can always get their cak somewhere different. Somewhere just as good, but, you know, at a different location. Maybe somewhere separate but equal.
I read about the argument the lawyer made and it was actually not about the food, but the art/decoration. This is where I thought the lawyers hit upon something really interesting as relates to "rights" and "discrimination". Is the cake, just cake or is it art? Once we add a level of artistic expression to a contracted task, the artist gets to decide what kind of art they produce. If the artist doesn't feel right about your use of their art, they don't have to enter into a service agreement to provide their art for your use.
Think back to prior political campaigns were musicians made it clear who they would and wouldn't grant the right to use their art. Was Fleetwood Mac discriminating against uptight white guys who use the elephant as their spirit animal?
Should a cake baker be compelled to place a Nazi flag on a cake because you say so? Wait, that's not religious...what about a verse from the Koran which might happen to advocate violence, or a quote from the bible that does the same?
I don't really know who is right or wrong in this, but the artistic expression argument is interesting and adds a level of nuance that bears further discussion.
-
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Are you also sure that is wrong to use violence to compel the preparation of sandwiches for black people at your lunch counter? Because we do that, too. There was a whole movement about it.
Actually, he can refuse customers for a lot of reasons (no shirt/no shoes, or based on their favorite movies, or if they like red velvet). But the courts have carved out protected classes against whom businesses cannot discriminate. "Many fine" people disagree with this, but it's law nonetheless. Some people used to argue and were angry about this, because they didn't really understand why people couldn't get lunch or swim elsewhere. Usually, these were the type of people who were never refused service for anything in their lives and for whom service refusals were amusing theoretical exercises. They were never in the firing line of having to eat lunch elsewhere and having to watch their children go to schools while "many fine" people yelled racist things at them. It turns out that (many fine) Americans cannot be trusted to work these things out on their own. They can't be trusted to serve lunch to minorities or let minority children go their schools. Therefore, they do need the threat of violence.
Some arguments in this thread have centered around the issue of cake. It's unimportant. It's trivial. The law does not have a sliding scale of discrimination, whereby the more important your products are, the less you get to discriminate, and vice versa. That's why we don't have things like Racist Bob's Glitter Emporium and Portlandia Discrimination Free Walmart. We apply the law equally to free enterprise and give you some exceptions for being a religious institution. We also have accommodations for religious employees, and these are available to Hassan and to Steve so they can pray or so that they can tell women that they won't fill their prescriptions for slut pills.
The religious right is relentless though, and they have certainly noticed that it's a better gig to be a religious enterprise if discrimination is your thing. That's why they are trying to get businesses the same rules that religious institutions have.
-
Oh no totally, I agree it's a line somewhere, I'm just saying that line is above the cake level.
The line is most likely at exactly the product or service that is important to you personally.
I don't really know who is right or wrong in this, but the artistic expression argument is interesting and adds a level of nuance that bears further discussion.
It was already discussed and the fact emerged that the artistic expression part was never even brought up. The couple were denied service before any discussion about art was entered into.
Or to put it another way, the "artistic expression" argument was a legal fiction concocted by the lawyers.
-
I don't really know who is right or wrong in this, but the artistic expression argument is interesting and adds a level of nuance that bears further discussion.
In this case the nuance is irrelevant. There was no art. They didn't even discuss what the cake would look like, or say. The baker refused to serve them solely because they were gay.
If you operate a public business, you can not refuse to serve black people, or gay people, or women. You are not compelled or forced to operaate a public business, either. If you don't want to make cake for black people, no one is forcing you to open a bakery. You have the religioius freedom to refuse to open a public bakery.
But if you do open a bakery, you can't refuse to serve blacks, or Mexicans, or gays. You cannot put a "whites only" sign on your front door. The content of your business in this case is not relevant, because the art/food debate isn't even being discussed. He outright refused them service.
It's about as clear as discrimination cases get, IMO. I'm shocked they found a judge who sided with the bigot.
-
Especially when we're talking about cake.
Because it's just cake, and nobody should have to worry that it might not actually be cake.
Your arguments here are pretty silly, though humorous. But the "it's just cake" thing is particularly weird. You really want the government to start qualitatively rank businesses? Which are more necessary than others? So we just apply equality to the ones that are necessary? By that logic nobody needs to sit at lunch counters either. They could eat oatmeal at their desks. So why was it a problem that black people were refused lunch? If someone has a religious objection to serving sandwiches to black people, or muslims, is that ok?
No, I don't want the government to do any such thing. Maybe there are other equally ridiculous things that would come up, worthy of consideration I suppose. I just know the cake thing is stupid and everyone should have called it that. No time should have been spent on this. Dudes, go to literally any other cake shop. Fucking bake a cake yourself. This isn't the lunch counter thing is my point. "The principle of the thing" is a standard that should be employed when there is a widespread mentality of discrimination. And while I have no doubt that, specifically within the wedding sphere, due to the often religious nature of weddings, that this was probably not the first time some aspect of their planned nuptials had hit this particular road block.
But talk about taking your victory and declaring defeat. You can get married now, go fucking do it, and let any assholes along the way miss out on your fabulous mega-cake of expensive markupedness.
The lunch counter thing is different because there were two significant issues there:
1. The primary basis for the decision was race, which is specifically protected against as a means of discrimination.
2. There is demonstrable harm from a lack of places to get lunch.
It isn't true that they could eat oatmeal at their desks, there's plenty of jobs you actually can't eat at. That's still true today, there is just a practical need to go get lunch. The need thing isn't a part of the legal discussion, it's part of the "why should I give a shit" part.
Homosexual couples are not being arrested for trying to buy cake, they aren't being sprayed with fire hoses or having dogs set on them or armed police set on them. This isn't the same thing, and it's approaching godwin's law to make that case.
"If someone has a religious objection to serving sandwiches to black people, or muslims, is that ok?" The Muslim one, it's interesting right. Because Muslims routinely refuse service to you and people like you, and that's OK, because of religion. In particular a devout Muslim will refuse service to homosexuals. The inherent contradiction in tolerance of Muslims is accepting that they will discriminate based on race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. It is required by their book.
The same reasons cited earlier in the thread for discrediting this baker's claim that it is a religious objection because it is decidedly not biblical (Jesus is all about spreading the cake not denying the cake) have to do with biblical references which don't really allow for violence or discrimination. The Quran has no similar prohibitions and requires violence and discrimination, to the extent that you should thank any Muslims you know for permitting you to live at the peril of their own soul.
I know that when we try to force Muslims not to discriminate they sometimes get explody so I'm going to say that we'll allow them to discriminate and then it gets to be a bit of turnabout is fair play. I am definitely not even sitting near the cake you forced the Muslim baker to bake.
Show me the religion that has a problem with black people is my answer to that question. The homosexual thing isn't as clear cut, the religious guidance that baker has to go by is muddied, to the shame of all Christians. There's a significant, as in tens of millions, portion that believes they endanger the soul of the homosexual if they in any way encourage or enable that way of life. Religious tolerance means we have to allow them that belief. We don't have to let them hurt anyone. But we really shouldn't be compelling them to make cake either.
-
the cake thing seems silly because you can go elsewhere.
Yea, they can always get their cak somewhere different. Somewhere just as good, but, you know, at a different location. Maybe somewhere separate but equal.
I read about the argument the lawyer made and it was actually not about the food, but the art/decoration. This is where I thought the lawyers hit upon something really interesting as relates to "rights" and "discrimination". Is the cake, just cake or is it art? Once we add a level of artistic expression to a contracted task, the artist gets to decide what kind of art they produce. If the artist doesn't feel right about your use of their art, they don't have to enter into a service agreement to provide their art for your use.
Think back to prior political campaigns were musicians made it clear who they would and wouldn't grant the right to use their art. Was Fleetwood Mac discriminating against uptight white guys who use the elephant as their spirit animal?
Should a cake baker be compelled to place a Nazi flag on a cake because you say so? Wait, that's not religious...what about a verse from the Koran which might happen to advocate violence, or a quote from the bible that does the same?
I don't really know who is right or wrong in this, but the artistic expression argument is interesting and adds a level of nuance that bears further discussion.
Yeah I agree that is an interesting topic. I would think an artist can refuse to say do a commercial or really any contract based work they don't feel like.
I totally want to attach the Patrick Stewart "the bakery" SNL skit to this thread, but I can't find it. He makes "sexy" cakes.
-
For that matter - anything that attempts to clean or keep clean the environment. Repubs seem to reject that effort outright too. Having grown up in a polluted city decades ago, I can tell you things are MUCH better when I visit today. So yeah, I'll support anything reasonable that keeps the air clean and the water clean.
How would you define reasonable though? Lets just look at a utilities project as an example... Or may a pipeline project since this seems to get a lot of attention. So you have a need to install a pipeline to keep up with rising demand for fuel, truck and train isn't keeping up. These project take years or decades to plan, which is ridiculous. Do you want fuel shortages? Higher price of fuel? Or accept that the pipe will be built to a certain standard and even still might leak? What if the cost of the project due to environmental concerns makes the project infeasible and environmental mitigation makes the project to costly? With or without the project the demand is going to grow, prices will rise, and at some point the project will make sense I suppose. But the community will pay a higher price of fuel now and forever as long as the pipe is pushing fuel. Is $5 per gallon ok to have? Are fuel shortages in the mean time ok?
Now that I think about it, you might be able to trace our lack of infrastructure projects to the cost of environmental concerns and studies. We don't have a spending problem in this country, we already spend a tremendous amount on road maintenance. But is it ok to keep adding to the regulations to the point that it costs to much? Construction projects already require huge upfront capital just to get started, the risk to that capital from the get go is pretty big. You screw up once and don't have your SWPP placard properly displayed and you could be shut down for days. Where does it end?
Its easy to sit here and say "well they should.... whatever", but in reality it adds real cost to projects. Everyone wants to do the right thing, its not always about the bottom line. But companies cannot take losses on projects without going out of business.
Or at what point do we say, maybe we don't need to fix the roads, the cost to the environment is to costly. I've said it before, I'm good bringing back horses or walking to get around.
I feel like this is why republicans are so on edge already about ANY additional environmental concerns, its just never enough. There is a perpetual vicious cycle of regulation breeding regulation, breeding regulation.
-
the cake thing seems silly because you can go elsewhere.
Yea, they can always get their cake somewhere different. Somewhere just as good, but, you know, at another location. Maybe somewhere separate but equal.
Or, just maybe, the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is never equal because it is separate, and is unconstitutional, and we called in the national guard to force desegregation while the religious right stood on the schoolhouse steps and waved bibles in the air to protest this oppression of their right to oppress.
I can't believe we're seriously having this argument in modern America. It's like the 60s never happened.
I can't believe you're willing to conflate segregation to a single baker with a religious objection. I can't believe you're blind to the differences here. Separate but equal was the law. This is just some asshole with a bakery. And it isn't "I won't serve homosexuals" it was "I won't make a wedding cake."
The decision here isn't "should we remove this law that requires discrimination" it is literally "should we force someone to create cake for a religious ceremony they object to?"
But go on telling me how the left isn't authoritarian with their cake production compulsion.
-
The decision here isn't "should we remove this law that requires discrimination" it is literally "should we force someone to create cake for a religious ceremony they object to?"
You keep claiming that but it is patently untrue.
The baker is not being forced to "create cake for a religious ceremony they object to". If the baker does not want to do so they are free to close up shop.
It's a matter of whether the baker believes his principle of being allowed to discriminate is more important to him than his business. It is entirely his choice and no one will force him to create any cake he doesn't want to create.
-
the cake thing seems silly because you can go elsewhere.
Yea, they can always get their cake somewhere different. Somewhere just as good, but, you know, at another location. Maybe somewhere separate but equal.
Or, just maybe, the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is never equal because it is separate, and is unconstitutional, and we called in the national guard to force desegregation while the religious right stood on the schoolhouse steps and waved bibles in the air to protest this oppression of their right to oppress.
I can't believe we're seriously having this argument in modern America. It's like the 60s never happened.
I can't believe you're willing to conflate segregation to a single baker with a religious objection. I can't believe you're blind to the differences here. Separate but equal was the law. This is just some asshole with a bakery. And it isn't "I won't serve homosexuals" it was "I won't make a wedding cake."
The decision here isn't "should we remove this law that requires discrimination" it is literally "should we force someone to create cake for a religious ceremony they object to?"
But go on telling me how the left isn't authoritarian with their cake production compulsion.
The standard for whether someone gets to discriminate isn't "but it's just cake." The alternate availability of the product sold or how trivial or tasty it is isn't the legal question. The second point you brought up:" can I be forced to sell something for someone's religious ceremony" may not be the issue either (does anyone know if the couple planned a religious ceremony?). Some weddings are civil weddings only. In that case, it's "my religion says your civil ceremony is wrong." They are certainly arguing that he doesn't want to participate in a religious ceremony. He's are also trying to carve out an artisan exception for designed products. But none of the arguments center around the "it's just cake" legal theory. There is no legal standard that separates necessary things like lunch or transportation from trivial things in terms of civil rights law.
-
And sorry dude you just jumped the shark.
"The Quran has no similar prohibitions and requires violence and discrimination, to the extent that you should thank any Muslims you know for permitting you to live at the peril of their own soul."
Let me take a wild guess you don't actually know any Muslim people in real life. You probably do know some homosexuals in your daily life, but they sure as hell aren't going to tell you. Any Muslim discriminating against homosexuals in the US, such as refusing them service, is also against the law.
The problem with all of your arguments, is our constitution has a separation of church and state. If you want to practice that kind of stuff, maybe you can live in theocracy or be like the Amish.
-
And sorry dude you just jumped the shark.
"The Quran has no similar prohibitions and requires violence and discrimination, to the extent that you should thank any Muslims you know for permitting you to live at the peril of their own soul."
Let me take a wild guess you don't actually know any Muslim people in real life. You probably do know some homosexuals in your daily life, but they sure as hell aren't going to tell you. Any Muslim discriminating against homosexuals in the US, such as refusing them service, is also against the law.
The problem with all of your arguments, is our constitution has a separation of church and state. If you want to practice that kind of stuff, maybe you can live in theocracy or be like the Amish.
Well it isn't relevant, but I do know some Muslim people "in real life." I also know plenty of homosexuals in my daily life, and as I said, I would have no problem with selling them a wedding cake, I've even officiated two weddings for homosexual couples.
I'm not making a legal argument here. I'm saying that this whole situation is absurd. It isn't a widespread long-term oppression that needs to be dealt with via Supreme Court rulings, and these guys are retarded for going there.
Homosexual couples just got the right to get married. That is a huge win, and overturns centuries of precedent. And you are correct, our constitution provides certain protections, specifically, in the first amendment, part of the bill of rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...
Note that nowhere in the constitution are homosexuals defined as a protected class. That definition exists in legislation and legal precedent, but it is not a constitutional protection.
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
I guess I can admire the confidence. Worked out pretty well for all of us with Citizen's United. And by the way, the protected class status doesn't make it illegal to discriminate for any purpose. It's actually quite specific in the law exactly what is and is not legally prohibited forms of discrimination.
So know, none of you knows for sure how this will turn out, but one thing is absolutely clear:
Cake was not the right reason to pick the fight.
If it goes the wrong way, like it did in California, it sets back the homosexual agenda fifty or a hundred years.
For cake.
That was my point.
-
"If someone has a religious objection to serving sandwiches to black people, or muslims, is that ok?" The Muslim one, it's interesting right. Because Muslims routinely refuse service to you and people like you, and that's OK, because of religion. In particular a devout Muslim will refuse service to homosexuals. The inherent contradiction in tolerance of Muslims is accepting that they will discriminate based on race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. It is required by their book.
The same reasons cited earlier in the thread for discrediting this baker's claim that it is a religious objection because it is decidedly not biblical (Jesus is all about spreading the cake not denying the cake) have to do with biblical references which don't really allow for violence or discrimination. The Quran has no similar prohibitions and requires violence and discrimination, to the extent that you should thank any Muslims you know for permitting you to live at the peril of their own soul.
Please read. You are promoting a dangerous misconception of the Quran and Islam.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788)
-
We should remember that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in, say, Alabama. However, in the cake case, California state law does include sexual orientation as a protected class.
The current SC case (from Colorado) could decide it for the nation. The DOMA majority ruling indicates that sexual orientation is/will be a new protected class. However, the recent evangelical surge could make the on-the-fence justices regret the DOMA decision.
I'm surprised the CA judge bought the "artist" legal strategy. As mentioned, it could really open discrimination by other occupations like architects and interior designers and hairdressers, etc.
-
The decision here isn't "should we remove this law that requires discrimination" it is literally "should we force someone to create cake for a religious ceremony they object to?"
You keep claiming that but it is patently untrue.
The baker is not being forced to "create cake for a religious ceremony they object to". If the baker does not want to do so they are free to close up shop.
It's a matter of whether the baker believes his principle of being allowed to discriminate is more important to him than his business. It is entirely his choice and no one will force him to create any cake he doesn't want to create.
Well it isn't surprising to me that a liberal thinks unemployment is a reasonable alternative to pursuing your chosen profession, and not an infringement on your basic human rights. Or that another's desire for cake should take precedence over your ability to pursue your chosen profession which in no way infringes their ability to get cake.
Being forced to close up shop is just as unacceptable to me as being forced to produce cake, if that will make clear that I wholeheartedly dismiss this argument and why I continue to simply express it as being forced to produce cake. You are making a false distinction here.
"You don't have to murder your wife, you could just stop doing business here." That's how your argument sounds to me.
"You don't have to forsake your religion, you could just stop doing business here." There's no freedom of religion if this is the standard. Being forced to give up your livelihood for your religion is some 14th century bullshit.
To you the production of cake is no big deal, is what I'm saying. That argument, that cake is no big deal, has been dismissed by most of you as not a good reason to allow the discrimination. That I think it is minor is irrelevant.
Exactly. You also think it is minor, and that's irrelevant. That you don't realize the production of cake is a big fucking deal to this baker doesn't invalidate his religious objection to providing it. It isn't acceptable to say that he's shit out of luck and has to either provide the cake or close up shop. That isn't a real choice.
These guys get discriminated against for religious reasons. That's just how it goes. Fortunately, it's just fucking cake, and not something actually important.
-
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
In the Colorado case before the SC, the plaintiff is the bakery. They've lost, and lost, and lost again in the courts in Colorado. The Colorado SC declined to their appeal so they took it to the US SC.
-
Well it isn't surprising to me that a liberal thinks unemployment is a reasonable alternative to pursuing your chosen profession, and not an infringement on your basic human rights. Or that another's desire for cake should take precedence over your ability to pursue your chosen profession which in no way infringes their ability to get cake.
Being forced to close up shop is just as unacceptable to me as being forced to produce cake, if that will make clear that I wholeheartedly dismiss this argument and why I continue to simply express it as being forced to produce cake. You are making a false distinction here.
"You don't have to murder your wife, you could just stop doing business here." That's how your argument sounds to me.
"You don't have to forsake your religion, you could just stop doing business here." There's no freedom of religion if this is the standard. Being forced to give up your livelihood for your religion is some 14th century bullshit.
To you the production of cake is no big deal, is what I'm saying. That argument, that cake is no big deal, has been dismissed by most of you as not a good reason to allow the discrimination. That I think it is minor is irrelevant.
Exactly. You also think it is minor, and that's irrelevant. That you don't realize the production of cake is a big fucking deal to this baker doesn't invalidate his religious objection to providing it. It isn't acceptable to say that he's shit out of luck and has to either provide the cake or close up shop. That isn't a real choice.
These guys get discriminated against for religious reasons. That's just how it goes. Fortunately, it's just fucking cake, and not something actually important.
The baker does not have to choose unemployment. They do not have to choose to close up shop. They are completely free to continue to pursue their chosen profession.
They just aren't allowed to do so in direct contravention to the law. Sort of like a drug dealer would not be allowed to pursue their chosen profession in contravention of the law.
You keep claiming "it's just fucking cake" and therefore not important and therefore the baker should be allowed to discriminate. You keep forgetting to point out that it's not important to you. You believe people should have the right to discriminate against others if the product or service in question is unimportant to you. You do agree though that there is "a line somewhere".
That's your argument in a nutshell. People should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they like on whatever is unimportant to you.
-
I'm not making a legal argument here. I'm saying that this whole situation is absurd. It isn't a widespread long-term oppression that needs to be dealt with via Supreme Court rulings, and these guys are retarded for going there.
Homosexual couples just got the right to get married. That is a huge win, and overturns centuries of precedent. And you are correct, our constitution provides certain protections, specifically, in the first amendment, part of the bill of rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...
Note that nowhere in the constitution are homosexuals defined as a protected class. That definition exists in legislation and legal precedent, but it is not a constitutional protection.
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
Are you aware that the Constitution was drafted 82 years before the first known appearance of the word "homosexual" in print? I'm guessing not, because that's a patently absurd statement to make.
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican? I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.
Seems not. They're too busy arguing that discrimination is okay to regret anything.
-
"If someone has a religious objection to serving sandwiches to black people, or muslims, is that ok?" The Muslim one, it's interesting right. Because Muslims routinely refuse service to you and people like you, and that's OK, because of religion. In particular a devout Muslim will refuse service to homosexuals. The inherent contradiction in tolerance of Muslims is accepting that they will discriminate based on race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. It is required by their book.
The same reasons cited earlier in the thread for discrediting this baker's claim that it is a religious objection because it is decidedly not biblical (Jesus is all about spreading the cake not denying the cake) have to do with biblical references which don't really allow for violence or discrimination. The Quran has no similar prohibitions and requires violence and discrimination, to the extent that you should thank any Muslims you know for permitting you to live at the peril of their own soul.
Please read. You are promoting a dangerous misconception of the Quran and Islam.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788)
Go read the Quran, it's dangerous and there's no getting around it. That author is an idiot, apologizing for the root of an ideology that is pathologically violent. There is violence in the bible and the Quran. True. Anyone that equates the two has zero reading comprehension. There is a difference between mentioning violence and explaining when and where it happened, and directing violence, mandating it as a basic element of the faith. For defense only? Go read the book and then come tell me that author has any idea what they're talking about. Finish the whole thing. It isn't like the bible. Levitical law is included as a historical record of how shitty things could be, not as a roadmap for how to go today (Leviticus is the part you don't like what talks about homo's and womens needin' beatin's n whatnot). That shit in the Quran is talking about how to move forward as a faith, murdering infidels and enslaving their children to turn into soldiers for murdering more infidels.
The most horrifying read of my life.
-
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican? I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.
There were a few, yeah.
-
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
In the Colorado case before the SC, the plaintiff is the bakery. They've lost, and lost, and lost again in the courts in Colorado. The Colorado SC declined to their appeal so they took it to the US SC.
Right now he cannot bake cakes for anyone and had to reduce his staff, so I guess I can understand in a twisted way. It's a little absurd on both sides, the couple could have moved along and chosen another baker, there's no shortage of them. The owner could have sold him a cake to be a centerpiece of a ceremony, which yes, is certainly art, showing off his skills and potentially gaining a lot of new business in the market. It wasn't handled well on either side.
Personally the issue is black and white for me, I would have baked the cake, and made it the most beautiful cake they have seen to increase my sales amount the gay community. Sometimes though I like to entertain the gray areas, and I think it's important to do so, no matter the subject matter.
-
Fortunately, it's just fucking cake, and not something actually important.
Not something actually important...like sitting at the back of a bus vs sitting at the front of a bus? Or drinking out of a different water fountain? What's the problem, right? You will get to your destination just as fast as the people sitting at the front of the bus, and your water fountain has the same exact water that my water fountain has...what's the big deal?
-
OK. Open a slave trading business, abortion business, or nuclear power plant business and let me know how that works out. I suspect you'll have some government interference . . . because you can only operate a business with government permission. You're confusing the very relaxed set of laws to encourage small business that exist, with total anarchy. One of the few rules that you do have to follow to keep a business open is not to run your business in a way that discriminates against minorities.
Listen! Sir! I'm sure you aren't comparing my hypothetical cake business to slave trading or abortion? Can we simmer down please! Of course there are permits, but those permit you to do certain regulated activities, not business in general. The very idea that I need government permission to engage in economic activity is moronic. Of course I do not, this isn't Soviet Russia. It truly, fundamentally, just does not work that way here.
Hmmm . . .
Most small businesses need a combination of licenses and permits from both federal and state agencies.
https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state (https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state)
If you plan to open a bakery--either out of your home or in a storefront--you will need to apply for a bakery license with your state agency. This business license is required by your state’s Business Licenses, Permits & Tax authority, and is an absolute must if you want to sell baked goods in a physical bakery or restaurant, or over the Internet.
https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/ (https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/)
Moronic as you may feel the situation is, it would appear that most businesses require government permission to operate in the US. It truly, fundamentally seems to work that way. Given that you operate your business only at the pleasure of the government, it makes sense that there would be rules you need to abide by. Even for a humble bakery.
-
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
In the Colorado case before the SC, the plaintiff is the bakery. They've lost, and lost, and lost again in the courts in Colorado. The Colorado SC declined to their appeal so they took it to the US SC.
Right now he cannot bake cakes for anyone and had to reduce his staff, so I guess I can understand in a twisted way. It's a little absurd on both sides, the couple could have moved along and chosen another baker, there's no shortage of them. The owner could have sold him a cake to be a centerpiece of a ceremony, which yes, is certainly art, showing off his skills and potentially gaining a lot of new business in the market. It wasn't handled well on either side.
Personally the issue is black and white for me, I would have baked the cake, and made it the most beautiful cake they have seen to increase my sales amount the gay community. Sometimes though I like to entertain the gray areas, and I think it's important to do so, no matter the subject matter.
I can understand why he's taking it to the SC after losing so many times. Even though "it's just cake," he feels it's important enough to continue the multi-year saga of arguing with the Colorado government.
Of course, as it's been pointed out, it's just fucking cake. He could've baked a fucking cake and saved himself a lot of stress and effort and, probably, his business.
-
Are you aware that the Constitution was drafted 82 years before the first known appearance of the word "homosexual" in print? I'm guessing not, because that's a patently absurd statement to make.
What's that you say? Exactly what I was saying? That there isn't a constitutional protection for the thing you care about protecting, so maybe pull your head out of your ass when things finally start to break your way, and buy some cake elsewhere? Instead of picking a fight you might not win, a fight that might result in a federal definitional clarification that excludes your class? Hmm? Hmm? Particularly when we're talking about something like cake? Not jobs or access to benefits or anything important but fucking cake? Smug and dismissive as fuck didn't even bother to read.
Seems not. They're too busy arguing that discrimination is okay to regret anything.
That's....not what I said. Wow. Also, I didn't vote for Trump, but thanks for playing.
I'll say it now though, come to think of it: It's legal to discriminate. Explicitly legal. I can say, out loud, and break no laws "I won't date a white person." I can say, out loud, explicitly, "I won't live with a green person." There are actually many more legal ways to discriminate, on all sorts of grounds, than there are specific prohibitions against it.
In fact the prohibitions against it came about in response to specific, real, problems, caused by the discrimination. We identified them. As a group we came together and said "this is a problem and we should fix it."
We discriminate based on criminal history. We discriminate based on drug use, and we even require people to submit evidence against themselves to do so, as a condition of employment. Even for government jobs! Discrimination is fundamental and critical. And you know that.
So it isn't a casual conversation, this is serious shit and has serious ramifications.
But sure lets just go down that road because of cake. Lets do that, especially, while this particular group is in power, while these justices are specifically in session.
That's wise.
-
That's your argument in a nutshell. People should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they like on whatever is unimportant to you.
It really isn't, but reading is hard I know.
-
OK. Open a slave trading business, abortion business, or nuclear power plant business and let me know how that works out. I suspect you'll have some government interference . . . because you can only operate a business with government permission. You're confusing the very relaxed set of laws to encourage small business that exist, with total anarchy. One of the few rules that you do have to follow to keep a business open is not to run your business in a way that discriminates against minorities.
Listen! Sir! I'm sure you aren't comparing my hypothetical cake business to slave trading or abortion? Can we simmer down please! Of course there are permits, but those permit you to do certain regulated activities, not business in general. The very idea that I need government permission to engage in economic activity is moronic. Of course I do not, this isn't Soviet Russia. It truly, fundamentally, just does not work that way here.
Hmmm . . .
Most small businesses need a combination of licenses and permits from both federal and state agencies.
https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state (https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state)
If you plan to open a bakery--either out of your home or in a storefront--you will need to apply for a bakery license with your state agency. This business license is required by your state’s Business Licenses, Permits & Tax authority, and is an absolute must if you want to sell baked goods in a physical bakery or restaurant, or over the Internet.
https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/ (https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/)
Moronic as you may feel the situation is, it would appear that most businesses require government permission to operate in the US. It truly, fundamentally seems to work that way. Given that you operate your business only at the pleasure of the government, it makes sense that there would be rules you need to abide by. Even for a humble bakery.
I just sold my neighbor a pie. I have conducted business. I am now a baker. I broke no laws! You're wrong.
-
But sure lets just go down that road because of cake. Lets do that, especially, while this particular group is in power, while these justices are specifically in session.
That's wise.
The SC cake case started in 2012, 3 years before the SC ruled affirmatively for gay marriages. The California case will rely on the Colorado case but the plaintiffs were using California law to sue the baker.
-
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Are you also sure that is wrong to use violence to compel the preparation of sandwiches for black people at your lunch counter? Because we do that, too. There was a whole movement about it.
There sure as hell were a lot of people who felt it was right and proper and their "Good Christian Duty" to use force to stop black people from eating at a lunch counter reserved for whites only.
See for yourself. The footage here is from the period and is germaine to the lunch counter example. It *is* the lunch counter example. The voice-over is also part of the historical record, that of Trump campaign speeches. I grew up in the south - I recognized the code words in Trump's speeches. For those of you without the "benefit" of that background, I think the message will become quite clear as you watch and listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM)
May they rot in hell for their bigotted actions and attitudes.
I, for one, don't have a single issue with the use of force to stop those bigots. It's the only thing that will stop a lot of them. If we can reach their children before the attitude of their parents fossilizes their brains, they might be saved with education and love. Their parents? Short of a miracle, that won't happen.
-
OK. Open a slave trading business, abortion business, or nuclear power plant business and let me know how that works out. I suspect you'll have some government interference . . . because you can only operate a business with government permission. You're confusing the very relaxed set of laws to encourage small business that exist, with total anarchy. One of the few rules that you do have to follow to keep a business open is not to run your business in a way that discriminates against minorities.
Listen! Sir! I'm sure you aren't comparing my hypothetical cake business to slave trading or abortion? Can we simmer down please! Of course there are permits, but those permit you to do certain regulated activities, not business in general. The very idea that I need government permission to engage in economic activity is moronic. Of course I do not, this isn't Soviet Russia. It truly, fundamentally, just does not work that way here.
Hmmm . . .
Most small businesses need a combination of licenses and permits from both federal and state agencies.
https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state (https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state)
If you plan to open a bakery--either out of your home or in a storefront--you will need to apply for a bakery license with your state agency. This business license is required by your state’s Business Licenses, Permits & Tax authority, and is an absolute must if you want to sell baked goods in a physical bakery or restaurant, or over the Internet.
https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/ (https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/)
Moronic as you may feel the situation is, it would appear that most businesses require government permission to operate in the US. It truly, fundamentally seems to work that way. Given that you operate your business only at the pleasure of the government, it makes sense that there would be rules you need to abide by. Even for a humble bakery.
I just sold my neighbor a pie. I have conducted business. I am now a baker. I broke no laws! You're wrong.
From the second link that I posted:
If You’re Opening a Home-Based Bakery
If you plan to sell your tasty treats online or simply prepare them at home before delivering them, your home facilities will have to be inspected and approved prior to you starting your business. You will need to show that your kitchen is sanitary and free of hazards. Your Department of Health will inspect your kitchen before granting you the bakery license, and then you will have regular inspections each year to ensure the continued upkeep of your facility.
Even though you work out of your home, you are still operating a business, so you still have to follow the requirements that any bakery does, including getting your food permit. You can choose to work as a sole proprietor in your bakery, or add a level of personal protection by filing an LLC or incorporating it. If you decide to file as a separate business entity, you may have additional business licenses that you need to apply for.
So . . . uh, I dunno how to tell you this . . . but you're kinda obviously wrong, you did just break laws.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM)
That's a powerful montage.
-
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
In the Colorado case before the SC, the plaintiff is the bakery. They've lost, and lost, and lost again in the courts in Colorado. The Colorado SC declined to their appeal so they took it to the US SC.
Right now he cannot bake cakes for anyone and had to reduce his staff, so I guess I can understand in a twisted way. It's a little absurd on both sides, the couple could have moved along and chosen another baker, there's no shortage of them. The owner could have sold him a cake to be a centerpiece of a ceremony, which yes, is certainly art, showing off his skills and potentially gaining a lot of new business in the market. It wasn't handled well on either side.
Personally the issue is black and white for me, I would have baked the cake, and made it the most beautiful cake they have seen to increase my sales amount the gay community. Sometimes though I like to entertain the gray areas, and I think it's important to do so, no matter the subject matter.
Oh yea for sure. I'm definitely gettin' in on that rich gay guy flamboyant wedding cash. I'm making up special business cards for that shit, revamping the website. Gay Cakes R Us is my bakery name. His bad choice for sure. Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.
-
Are you aware that the Constitution was drafted 82 years before the first known appearance of the word "homosexual" in print? I'm guessing not, because that's a patently absurd statement to make.
What's that you say? Exactly what I was saying? That there isn't a constitutional protection for the thing you care about protecting, so maybe pull your head out of your ass when things finally start to break your way, and buy some cake elsewhere? Instead of picking a fight you might not win, a fight that might result in a federal definitional clarification that excludes your class? Hmm? Hmm? Particularly when we're talking about something like cake? Not jobs or access to benefits or anything important but fucking cake? Smug and dismissive as fuck didn't even bother to read.
The term did not exist at the time the document was written. Like taking a document from the 1920's and pointing out that Hawaii isn't a state.
-
OK. Open a slave trading business, abortion business, or nuclear power plant business and let me know how that works out. I suspect you'll have some government interference . . . because you can only operate a business with government permission. You're confusing the very relaxed set of laws to encourage small business that exist, with total anarchy. One of the few rules that you do have to follow to keep a business open is not to run your business in a way that discriminates against minorities.
Listen! Sir! I'm sure you aren't comparing my hypothetical cake business to slave trading or abortion? Can we simmer down please! Of course there are permits, but those permit you to do certain regulated activities, not business in general. The very idea that I need government permission to engage in economic activity is moronic. Of course I do not, this isn't Soviet Russia. It truly, fundamentally, just does not work that way here.
Hmmm . . .
Most small businesses need a combination of licenses and permits from both federal and state agencies.
https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state (https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch/apply-for-licenses-permits-federal-state)
If you plan to open a bakery--either out of your home or in a storefront--you will need to apply for a bakery license with your state agency. This business license is required by your state’s Business Licenses, Permits & Tax authority, and is an absolute must if you want to sell baked goods in a physical bakery or restaurant, or over the Internet.
https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/ (https://www.corpnet.com/business-licenses-health-bakery/)
Moronic as you may feel the situation is, it would appear that most businesses require government permission to operate in the US. It truly, fundamentally seems to work that way. Given that you operate your business only at the pleasure of the government, it makes sense that there would be rules you need to abide by. Even for a humble bakery.
I just sold my neighbor a pie. I have conducted business. I am now a baker. I broke no laws! You're wrong.
From the second link that I posted:
If You’re Opening a Home-Based Bakery
If you plan to sell your tasty treats online or simply prepare them at home before delivering them, your home facilities will have to be inspected and approved prior to you starting your business. You will need to show that your kitchen is sanitary and free of hazards. Your Department of Health will inspect your kitchen before granting you the bakery license, and then you will have regular inspections each year to ensure the continued upkeep of your facility.
Even though you work out of your home, you are still operating a business, so you still have to follow the requirements that any bakery does, including getting your food permit. You can choose to work as a sole proprietor in your bakery, or add a level of personal protection by filing an LLC or incorporating it. If you decide to file as a separate business entity, you may have additional business licenses that you need to apply for.
So . . . uh, I dunno how to tell you this . . . but you're kinda obviously wrong, you did just break laws.
Maybe in Canada. And Soviet Russia, but I don't live there. I live in America FUCK YEA.
-
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
In the Colorado case before the SC, the plaintiff is the bakery. They've lost, and lost, and lost again in the courts in Colorado. The Colorado SC declined to their appeal so they took it to the US SC.
Right now he cannot bake cakes for anyone and had to reduce his staff, so I guess I can understand in a twisted way. It's a little absurd on both sides, the couple could have moved along and chosen another baker, there's no shortage of them. The owner could have sold him a cake to be a centerpiece of a ceremony, which yes, is certainly art, showing off his skills and potentially gaining a lot of new business in the market. It wasn't handled well on either side.
Personally the issue is black and white for me, I would have baked the cake, and made it the most beautiful cake they have seen to increase my sales amount the gay community. Sometimes though I like to entertain the gray areas, and I think it's important to do so, no matter the subject matter.
Oh yea for sure. I'm definitely gettin' in on that rich gay guy flamboyant wedding cash. I'm making up special business cards for that shit, revamping the website. Gay Cakes R Us is my bakery name. His bad choice for sure. Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.
Seems it was clear to the Colorado court system, which I expect to be dramatically more familiar with Colorado laws than you are.
-
Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.
Fortunately, we've already proven you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to legality . . .
-
Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.
Fortunately, we've already proven you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to legality . . .
"Scream loudly and ignore the facts" comes to mind.
-
Are you aware that the Constitution was drafted 82 years before the first known appearance of the word "homosexual" in print? I'm guessing not, because that's a patently absurd statement to make.
What's that you say? Exactly what I was saying? That there isn't a constitutional protection for the thing you care about protecting, so maybe pull your head out of your ass when things finally start to break your way, and buy some cake elsewhere? Instead of picking a fight you might not win, a fight that might result in a federal definitional clarification that excludes your class? Hmm? Hmm? Particularly when we're talking about something like cake? Not jobs or access to benefits or anything important but fucking cake? Smug and dismissive as fuck didn't even bother to read.
The term did not exist at the time the document was written. Like taking a document from the 1920's and pointing out that Hawaii isn't a state.
*smashes head into table* Yes! Exactly! That's what I'm saying! The thing isn't in there! I'm not saying the framers intended to enshrine bigoted behavior as a right, I'm saying the freedom to practice religion IS in there and the prohibition on discrimination against homosexuals IS NOT. You're absolutely right about why it isn't, but that doesn't matter, the constitutionality of the protection is murky vs. the absolute first amendment protection for the baker.
In a clash between first amendment rights and ...unmentioned things... the track record isn't great for the unmentioned things. It was only after the establishment of specific protected classes in the CRA? it's late and I'm too lazy to look it up, but at some point the protected classes were defined, and that's what allows for discrimination related legal violations. The nature of the enforcement of those laws results in some de-facto protected classes in most areas. As in, some businesses, afraid of breaking a law, don't discriminate against, as an example, homosexuals, because they aren't sure if that's protected or not.
Right now homosexuals enjoy a de-facto status as protected, and there's startlingly little legal precedent on the subject. The wise baker behaves as though they are protected. The foolish homosexual argues they were discriminated against.
A foolish baker met two foolish homosexuals and lost. All homosexuals may lose.
Because of cake.
-
Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.
Fortunately, we've already proven you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to legality . . .
Yes Stv because I incorrectly assume I can conduct business in America following the American laws I clearly don't know anything. I should assume that the laws of Canada apply to me despite living, I don't know, four Canadas away from Canada.
-
Seems it was clear to the Colorado court system, which I expect to be dramatically more familiar with Colorado laws than you are.
I don't know about dramatically more, I like to think I have a certain flair.
-
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.
Are you also sure that is wrong to use violence to compel the preparation of sandwiches for black people at your lunch counter? Because we do that, too. There was a whole movement about it.
There sure as hell were a lot of people who felt it was right and proper and their "Good Christian Duty" to use force to stop black people from eating at a lunch counter reserved for whites only.
See for yourself. The footage here is from the period and is germaine to the lunch counter example. It *is* the lunch counter example. The voice-over is also part of the historical record, that of Trump campaign speeches. I grew up in the south - I recognized the code words in Trump's speeches. For those of you without the "benefit" of that background, I think the message will become quite clear as you watch and listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM)
May they rot in hell for their bigotted actions and attitudes.
I, for one, don't have a single issue with the use of force to stop those bigots. It's the only thing that will stop a lot of them. If we can reach their children before the attitude of their parents fossilizes their brains, they might be saved with education and love. Their parents? Short of a miracle, that won't happen.
I propose a program to give a massive dose of psychedelics to create ego loss. It'll cause them to question everything they know and feel more connected with their fellow human beings. Fuck man, the 60s had it!
-
Are you aware that the Constitution was drafted 82 years before the first known appearance of the word "homosexual" in print? I'm guessing not, because that's a patently absurd statement to make.
What's that you say? Exactly what I was saying? That there isn't a constitutional protection for the thing you care about protecting, so maybe pull your head out of your ass when things finally start to break your way, and buy some cake elsewhere? Instead of picking a fight you might not win, a fight that might result in a federal definitional clarification that excludes your class? Hmm? Hmm? Particularly when we're talking about something like cake? Not jobs or access to benefits or anything important but fucking cake? Smug and dismissive as fuck didn't even bother to read.
The term did not exist at the time the document was written. Like taking a document from the 1920's and pointing out that Hawaii isn't a state.
*smashes head into table* Yes! Exactly! That's what I'm saying! The thing isn't in there! I'm not saying the framers intended to enshrine bigoted behavior as a right, I'm saying the freedom to practice religion IS in there and the prohibition on discrimination against homosexuals IS NOT. You're absolutely right about why it isn't, but that doesn't matter, the constitutionality of the protection is murky vs. the absolute first amendment protection for the baker.
In a clash between first amendment rights and ...unmentioned things... the track record isn't great for the unmentioned things. It was only after the establishment of specific protected classes in the CRA? it's late and I'm too lazy to look it up, but at some point the protected classes were defined, and that's what allows for discrimination related legal violations. The nature of the enforcement of those laws results in some de-facto protected classes in most areas. As in, some businesses, afraid of breaking a law, don't discriminate against, as an example, homosexuals, because they aren't sure if that's protected or not.
Right now homosexuals enjoy a de-facto status as protected, and there's startlingly little legal precedent on the subject. The wise baker behaves as though they are protected. The foolish homosexual argues they were discriminated against.
A foolish baker met two foolish homosexuals and lost. All homosexuals may lose.
Because of cake.
Are you under the impression that this couple complained about a federal Constitutional violation and not a Colorado anti-discrimination law?
-
Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.
Fortunately, we've already proven you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to legality . . .
Yes Stv because I incorrectly assume I can conduct business in America following the American laws I clearly don't know anything. I should assume that the laws of Canada apply to me despite living, I don't know, four Canadas away from Canada.
Both links that I provided were US sources referring to US law and regulation.
I'm not saying the framers intended to enshrine bigoted behavior as a right, I'm saying the freedom to practice religion IS in there and the prohibition on discrimination against homosexuals IS NOT.
The founding fathers enshrined bigotry in the constitution when they agreed that black slaves deserved only three fifths the representation in congress. That's why the 13th amendment had to come about. Human rights have come a long way from the time that being gay was punishable by law, and owning a slave was legal.
-
It really isn't, but reading is hard I know.
hhhmmm lets see......
1: Cake is not important to you and you are arguing that people should have the right to discriminate against others because it is not important.
2: You agree there is a line "somewhere" past which it is wrong to discriminate.
3: It is reasonable to assume that where ever you believe that line should be, that point is important to you otherwise the line would not be there it would be somewhere else.
So how is it that you are not arguing that discrimination is ok if the product or service is not important to you but is not ok if the product or service is important to you?
Perhaps you could start by explaining where "the line is" past which it would be wrong to discriminate. Then try to convince us that the point you have chosen is unimportant to you.
-
Are you under the impression that this couple complained about a federal Constitutional violation and not a Colorado anti-discrimination law?
No, I am under the impression that this couple complained after being discriminated against while trying to buy cake. I have no information regarding if they understood that it could potentially end up before SCOTUS, potentially ending de-facto protected status for homosexual individuals, but I suspect they didn't think that far ahead, or if they did, took for granted the outcome, which isn't certain.
-
It really isn't, but reading is hard I know.
hhhmmm lets see......
1: Cake is not important to you and you are arguing that people should have the right to discriminate against others because it is not important.
2: You agree there is a line "somewhere" past which it is wrong to discriminate.
3: It is reasonable to assume that where ever you believe that line should be, that point is important to you otherwise the line would not be there it would be somewhere else.
So how is it that you are not arguing that discrimination is ok if the product or service is not important to you but is not ok if the product or service is important to you?
Perhaps you could start by explaining where "the line is" past which it would be wrong to discriminate. Then try to convince us that the point you have chosen is unimportant to you.
I really think you need to go back and read what I actually posted. These are not at all my arguments. These are not related to the assumptions upon which my arguments rest. I don't really know how to respond, you're accusing me of arguing that purple is best when I was talking about thumbs.
I'm not engaged in the argument you think I'm engaged in? You're arguing against an argument that isn't being presented here? There's a hypothetical stereotype you think applies to me, and you're wanting to have an argument with that person, but it isn't me, so I can't really help you.
Apologies friend.
-
Are you under the impression that this couple complained about a federal Constitutional violation and not a Colorado anti-discrimination law?
No, I am under the impression that this couple complained after being discriminated against while trying to buy cake. I have no information regarding if they understood that it could potentially end up before SCOTUS, potentially ending de-facto protected status for homosexual individuals, but I suspect they didn't think that far ahead, or if they did, took for granted the outcome, which isn't certain.
One could easily argue that the baker, by taking this to SCOTUS, is potentially affirming a protected status for homosexual individuals.
Personally, I hope that's what happens because I'm really tired of the abuses that people get away with in the name of religion.
-
It really isn't, but reading is hard I know.
hhhmmm lets see......
1: Cake is not important to you and you are arguing that people should have the right to discriminate against others because it is not important.
2: You agree there is a line "somewhere" past which it is wrong to discriminate.
3: It is reasonable to assume that where ever you believe that line should be, that point is important to you otherwise the line would not be there it would be somewhere else.
So how is it that you are not arguing that discrimination is ok if the product or service is not important to you but is not ok if the product or service is important to you?
Perhaps you could start by explaining where "the line is" past which it would be wrong to discriminate. Then try to convince us that the point you have chosen is unimportant to you.
Pretty much the gold standard among Trump-loving conservatives - if it doesn't affect me, it's ok. Screw anyone else.
To quote one Trumpite from my workplace, when we were discussing his video self-confession of serial sexual harassment to women, 'Why should I care? It's not like it's bad for the economy or something!"
It took every bit of self-control I had not to reach for the nearest blunt instrument and put it to use on him and those sitting at the table with him, grinning like he had just earned the Nobel-prize in witticisms.
-
Both links that I provided were US sources referring to US law and regulation.
And yet none of them referenced laws that apply to me, rather, they reference the types of things that one might need to deal with. Here's a place to start, if you don't see a requirement in there to get permission from the government to engage in business you can then start reviewing the various state constitutions.
http://constitutionus.com/
The founding fathers enshrined bigotry in the constitution when they agreed that black slaves deserved only three fifths the representation in congress. That's why the 13th amendment had to come about. Human rights have come a long way from the time that being gay was punishable by law, and owning a slave was legal.
Right but that particular brand isn't the issue we're dealing with here, try to keep up. If you'd like to point out where, either in the U.S. constitution or in U.S. Federal Law homosexuals are referenced as a protected class that would be relevant. To some discussion. I guess.
The right to freedom of religious expression and religious practice is explicitly referenced. There's no "case to be made" here, there's no reliance on it "being an old document." It's true that in the past racism was similarly defended, but that was a weak ass defense, even back then. The homosexual thing isn't as clear cut, unlike racism, it's clearly spelled out there in the bible. You have be a bit of a jackass to to apply those bits to your faith and come up with "I am proscribed from selling to homosexuals" but there it is, you are protected by the first amendment.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make GS, but my point wasn't that they shouldn't be protected, it's that blacks are protected explicitly, religions are protected explicitly, homosexuals are not explicitly protected, and that in the U.S. you don't forfeit your individual rights just because you engage in commerce.
You seem to believe that the government requiring a permit somehow strips a person of their rights, in a way that doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not from Canada, I don't know how it works there. Maybe you think rights come from the government, that they are derived from the government, I don't know. But one day you'll figure it out, keep reading.
-
One could easily argue that the baker, by taking this to SCOTUS, is potentially affirming a protected status for homosexual individuals.
Personally, I hope that's what happens because I'm really tired of the abuses that people get away with in the name of religion.
Yup, it could go either way, it likely will go one way or the other. I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to the freedom of religion. I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to gay rights either. One or the other is coming, yay?
I don't think anyone is better off with this being how it goes down.
Whatever special snowflake life you've led that makes you think withholding of cake equals abuse, I hope you're grateful for it every day.
But when they come for you, the discrimination police, because you didn't say your prayers to the right protected classes, because you didn't produce whatever the cake of the day is, because it shouldn't be possible to compel that cake, you'll see what we're talking about.
When it's something you care about. And not just religion.
-
One could easily argue that the baker, by taking this to SCOTUS, is potentially affirming a protected status for homosexual individuals.
Personally, I hope that's what happens because I'm really tired of the abuses that people get away with in the name of religion.
Yup, it could go either way, it likely will go one way or the other. I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to the freedom of religion. I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to gay rights either. One or the other is coming, yay?
I don't think anyone is better off with this being how it goes down.
Whatever special snowflake life you've led that makes you think withholding of cake equals abuse, I hope you're grateful for it every day.
But when they come for you, the discrimination police, because you didn't say your prayers to the right protected classes, because you didn't produce whatever the cake of the day is, because it shouldn't be possible to compel that cake, you'll see what we're talking about.
When it's something you care about. And not just religion.
As it seems your argument has devolved to the point where you have nothing left other than to call me a special snowflake, I suppose I should go find something more productive to do.
You seem like a very angry and bitter person. I hope your life improves.
-
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican? I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.
There were a few, yeah.
And Melania, by my guess. Assuming she did, of course.
-
I really think you need to go back and read what I actually posted. These are not at all my arguments. These are not related to the assumptions upon which my arguments rest. I don't really know how to respond, you're accusing me of arguing that purple is best when I was talking about thumbs.
I'm not engaged in the argument you think I'm engaged in? You're arguing against an argument that isn't being presented here? There's a hypothetical stereotype you think applies to me, and you're wanting to have an argument with that person, but it isn't me, so I can't really help you.
Apologies friend.
Well apologies if I've misunderstood.
Might I suggest that rather than repeating "it's fucking cake" and therefore not important and as such that discriminating about who to serve cake should be allowed because "it's fucking cake" and therefore not important whilst at the same time agreeing that discrimination should not be allowed on important things (where ever the line is drawn on what is or is not important enough to allow discrimination) you could perhaps try putting forward a coherent argument.
Because frankly that's all I see in your argument and I'm pretty sure that judging by many other respondents in this this recent part of the thread, I'm not alone in that view.
-
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican? I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.
I managed to skim through the first 10 pages (the trick is to ignore any post with a long quote) and there were was:
-one person who voted for Trump in the primary, and switched to Johnson for the general;
-a few people saying they knew someone that regretted their decision to vote Trump;
-a person that regretted their Bush vote; and
-a whole bunch that regretted the way their neighbors voted.
-
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy? That's fucking stupid.
In the Colorado case before the SC, the plaintiff is the bakery. They've lost, and lost, and lost again in the courts in Colorado. The Colorado SC declined to their appeal so they took it to the US SC.
Right now he cannot bake cakes for anyone and had to reduce his staff, so I guess I can understand in a twisted way. It's a little absurd on both sides, the couple could have moved along and chosen another baker, there's no shortage of them. The owner could have sold him a cake to be a centerpiece of a ceremony, which yes, is certainly art, showing off his skills and potentially gaining a lot of new business in the market. It wasn't handled well on either side.
Personally the issue is black and white for me, I would have baked the cake, and made it the most beautiful cake they have seen to increase my sales amount the gay community. Sometimes though I like to entertain the gray areas, and I think it's important to do so, no matter the subject matter.
The Couple did move along and choose another baker. They also reported him to the Colorado authorities, who are the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. The couple DID NOT sue him, the state--which we expect to guard our civil rights--did.
-
Both links that I provided were US sources referring to US law and regulation.
And yet none of them referenced laws that apply to me, rather, they reference the types of things that one might need to deal with. Here's a place to start, if you don't see a requirement in there to get permission from the government to engage in business you can then start reviewing the various state constitutions.
http://constitutionus.com/
You haven't told me which state you live in, but if you do so I can provide the exact set of laws and regulations the US government requires you to comply with to open a bakery. Every state requires licensing and regulation to run a bakery (even a home bakery). Despite your uninformed opinion, these laws would apply to you personally (as well as every other person in your state).
The founding fathers enshrined bigotry in the constitution when they agreed that black slaves deserved only three fifths the representation in congress. That's why the 13th amendment had to come about. Human rights have come a long way from the time that being gay was punishable by law, and owning a slave was legal.
Right but that particular brand isn't the issue we're dealing with here, try to keep up. If you'd like to point out where, either in the U.S. constitution or in U.S. Federal Law homosexuals are referenced as a protected class that would be relevant.
There are plenty of protected classes not referenced in the constitution. It was written in a time of discrimination, by men who openly discriminated. Women, for example are not guaranteed equal rights. Pointing to the constitution and saying that it doesn't explicitly define a particular protected class is therefore an uninformed argument.
What we were discussing was the case of two gay men who were protected under Colorado's senate bill 200 . . . which explicitly defines homosexuality as a protected class. Please try to keep up by educating yourself about the topic you're discussing.
The homosexual thing isn't as clear cut, unlike racism, it's clearly spelled out there in the bible.
No it isn't. It's not clearly spelled out in the bible at all (although various Christian sects have made that interpretation, it's simply that - a matter of interpretation). Please try to keep up . . . maybe by first reading the material you're blithely claiming knowledge of.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make GS, but my point wasn't that they shouldn't be protected, it's that blacks are protected explicitly, religions are protected explicitly, homosexuals are not explicitly protected, and that in the U.S. you don't forfeit your individual rights just because you engage in commerce.
Except that the gay couple was explicitly protected by senate bill 200 as previously mentioned. Please try to keep up.
Nobody forfeited any rights. Commerce occurs in the US at the behest of the government. If you engage in criminal behvaiour while engaging in commerce, you will face fines, penalties, or lose the ability to continue to engage in that commerce. Which is exactly what happened.
You seem to believe that the government requiring a permit somehow strips a person of their rights, in a way that doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not from Canada, I don't know how it works there. Maybe you think rights come from the government, that they are derived from the government, I don't know. But one day you'll figure it out, keep reading.
No, requiring a permit doesn't strip anyone of their rights. You're obviously having trouble keeping up with the conversation. No rights have been violated in the case under discussion (other than the rights of the gay couple, which were redressed by the courts). Can you point to any constitutional passage or federal/state law that guarantees a person who opens a business to be free from having to follow rule of law? Because that appears to be what you're arguing.
-
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican? I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.
Done in small doses reading this thread shouldn't cause any long term mental health consequences.
-
I'm not making a legal argument here. I'm saying that this whole situation is absurd. It isn't a widespread long-term oppression that needs to be dealt with via Supreme Court rulings, and these guys are retarded for going there.
Homosexual couples just got the right to get married. That is a huge win, and overturns centuries of precedent. And you are correct, our constitution provides certain protections, specifically, in the first amendment, part of the bill of rights:
Uh ...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...
Free exercise of religion doesn't extend to infringing on the rights of others. They should've added a clause about freedom from religion too.
If the couple came in and tried to do the nasty on his shop floor, then sure, refuse service, otherwise shut up and take my money.
-
We should remember that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in, say, Alabama. However, in the cake case, California state law does include sexual orientation as a protected class.
The current SC case (from Colorado) could decide it for the nation. The DOMA majority ruling indicates that sexual orientation is/will be a new protected class. However, the recent evangelical surge could make the on-the-fence justices regret the DOMA decision.
I'm surprised the CA judge bought the "artist" legal strategy. As mentioned, it could really open discrimination by other occupations like architects and interior designers and hairdressers, etc.
The flip-side is that Kennedy is okay with certain religious carve-outs. I don't think he'll go with this one, though.
I'm not particularly concerned either way. I think compelling a bakery to bake a wedding cake is pretty detestable and an overstepping of anti-discrimination legislation, but it's not like the Gay Stormtroopers are going to start jack-booting down Main Street. A narrow ruling that allows closely held companies with religious beliefs to not engage in speech they disagree with is likewise not the Theocratic Army of Darkness tank-rolling down PA Avenue.
-
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to. If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination. He's free to choose to do something else with his time. He's free to treat all customers as equal. If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble. But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
I'm going back to your original argument here Stv, since you seem convinced that we're arguing about something other than what we were arguing about.
Let me take a slightly different tack.
That statement, that a business operates by permission and at the whim of the government, is not true. Requiring a permit doesn't make it true. Passing a law that businesses are required doesn't make it true. And passing a law that violates the rights of the person engaged in business, doesn't in any way affect that person's ability to conduct business, in a just society. If the society chooses to pursue a course of action interfering with that business by enforcing the law and interfering with the individual's protected rights, that's a problem. Just like the separate but equal rulings and laws interfered with customer's rights, so to does the Colorado law interfere with the baker's rights.
If what you were saying were true, then the government would be free to disband any business for any reason. That's what whim would mean. That's what "needing government permission" would mean.
Name for me please the U.S. businesses that have been disbanded by the government on a whim.
Your argument that a person can be forced to close their doors for exercising a constitutionally protected right demonstrates a failure to understand the foundation of the U.S. legal system. "Discrimination" that businesses are prohibited from engaging in requires an explicit definition, and in this case there's a disconnect between the federal law and the state law. And when that happens, the federally protected rights win, which is what happened with separate but equal, and when separate but equal was overturned.
I do apologize for responding in kind to your rhetoric. I try to ignore it, I engaged your bad attitude, sank to your level, and that was wrong of me. I am sorry, I will try to do better in the future. There have, as is typical when arguing with liberals, been quite a few accusations thrown my way by you and others. You keep responding to arguments that I am not making, assuming I'm coming from a place of homophobia or, somehow, racism, which is bizarre given the context. I've even been accused of being anti-cake, just because I mentioned I personally prefer brownies. Which would be like accusing me of being anti-blonde just because I prefer bald.
And you accuse me of being ignorant of the laws required to operate a business despite me actually operating two businesses in the U.S. The repeated assertion on your part that I need government permission to do so, is again, absurd. I have no piece of paper from the government authorizing me to do business, as none is required for the specific businesses I engage in. There is no law that makes those businesses legal, as none is required. This is a free society, there has to be specific legislation restricting or regulating a specific activity in order for even a permit to be required. And the government has to issue the permit, it isn't at the whim of anything.
If they fail to issue me a permit because I spoke out against the government, they've violated my freedom of speech. If they likewise fail to issue a permit because I attend church, they've violated my freedom of religion, which is the same amendment as the freedom of speech. If they close my business because I practice my religion, that's a violation. And in order for us to get behind deciding that it isn't a violation, we have to discredit that religious belief, which isn't as trivial as has been represented by you and others in this argument.
Good Christians shouldn't discriminate. True. Nowhere in the faith is that a part of it. But good Christians shouldn't encourage sinful behavior. That's crystal clear. And in this specific context, we're talking about cake. Not dinner. Not the meal. Cake. Cake is the dessert at the end of the meal. Cake is the reward, it's the part of the celebration. A wedding cake is celebration. And good Christians, while acknowledging we are all sinful and we all live in sin and we all need salvation and deserve compassion as we move towards a better understanding of what it is to walk with God, also do not celebrate sin. A wedding cake for a homosexual couple is clearly a conflict for a religious baker. You have to be so profoundly lacking in empathy and compassion to fail to understand that. And I don't believe you to be that bad of a person. I think you want to win an argument on the internet, or you think it's just cake and so doesn't matter. And in this instance maybe you're right. I don't know the baker, maybe he's never been to church and is just a bigot. But somewhere out there is a deeply devout religious person working in the wedding industry. And depending on how this shakes out, they're going to have their first amendment rights to freedom of worship stripped away, or homosexuals everywhere are going to lose their protections.
And I think that's a really shitty way for this have gone, and I don't think we should be celebrating either way.
You "know" who I am and can see through the "code," but your prejudgments, which is my broader point overall when I've engaged on this thread, are immaterial to attempting an actual conversation. And charging off ignorant, pursuing a course of action, and allowing a course of action to proceed, when the outcome is uncertain and in all cases bad, is why good people abandon progressivism.
Victory was achieved, and you still think there's something to win. And the victory lap can get you slapped down hard. And even if it doesn't, all you've done is cement into legal precedent an assault on religious freedom, because religious conflict is always a good idea?
But no, nobody is going to regret voting for Trump, because this is what it is to engage with liberals, you don't agree with them 100% on everything: ignorant, racist, homophobic.
Trump's just an idiot, ya'all are somethin' else.
-
We should remember that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in, say, Alabama. However, in the cake case, California state law does include sexual orientation as a protected class.
The current SC case (from Colorado) could decide it for the nation. The DOMA majority ruling indicates that sexual orientation is/will be a new protected class. However, the recent evangelical surge could make the on-the-fence justices regret the DOMA decision.
I'm surprised the CA judge bought the "artist" legal strategy. As mentioned, it could really open discrimination by other occupations like architects and interior designers and hairdressers, etc.
The flip-side is that Kennedy is okay with certain religious carve-outs. I don't think he'll go with this one, though.
I'm not particularly concerned either way. I think compelling a bakery to bake a wedding cake is pretty detestable and an overstepping of anti-discrimination legislation, but it's not like the Gay Stormtroopers are going to start jack-booting down Main Street. A narrow ruling that allows closely held companies with religious beliefs to not engage in speech they disagree with is likewise not the Theocratic Army of Darkness tank-rolling down PA Avenue.
^^^^Wish I had your brevity sir.
-
Good Christians shouldn't discriminate. True.
But good Christians shouldn't encourage sinful behavior.
Man, must tough to be a "good Christian" these days with so much cognitive dissonance. Who wants cake?
-
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to. If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination. He's free to choose to do something else with his time. He's free to treat all customers as equal. If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble. But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
Good Christians shouldn't discriminate. True. Nowhere in the faith is that a part of it. But good Christians shouldn't encourage sinful behavior. That's crystal clear. And in this specific context, we're talking about cake. Not dinner. Not the meal. Cake. Cake is the dessert at the end of the meal. Cake is the reward, it's the part of the celebration. A wedding cake is celebration. And good Christians, while acknowledging we are all sinful and we all live in sin and we all need salvation and deserve compassion as we move towards a better understanding of what it is to walk with God, also do not celebrate sin. A wedding cake for a homosexual couple is clearly a conflict for a religious baker. You have to be so profoundly lacking in empathy and compassion to fail to understand that. And I don't believe you to be that bad of a person. I think you want to win an argument on the internet, or you think it's just cake and so doesn't matter. And in this instance maybe you're right. I don't know the baker, maybe he's never been to church and is just a bigot. But somewhere out there is a deeply devout religious person working in the wedding industry. And depending on how this shakes out, they're going to have their first amendment rights to freedom of worship stripped away, or homosexuals everywhere are going to lose their protections.
No, it's not. That may be your interpretation but if we're talking about the bible it is far from clear.
That cake doesn't matter has off and on been your primary argument. Other times your argument is that he shouldn't have to make the cake because it infringes upon his religious freedom. Which one is it? Because if it is the first, then there is a line at which a business should be compelled to go against their religion and that line is somewhere between cake and sandwiches. In fact, you have already agreed to this. If it is the second then a business can refuse service of anything that goes against their religion including lunch, dinner and cake.
^^^^Wish I had your brevity sir.
Don't we all.
-
If what you were saying were true, then the government would be free to disband any business for any reason.
Setting aside your other arguments for a moment, I just wanted point out that the government can and routinely does disband businesses for "arbitrary" reasons. If by "arbitrary" you mean that they are breaking a law.
Crack dealers operate an illegal business. They do not require permission from the government to operate, but as soon as they break the law the government can shut them down. If you call yourself a crack business but manage to avoid breaking any laws, you're in the clear.
The baker broke the law. Government was kind enough to NOT shut him down, but I think that absolutely would have been an acceptable response to his illegal activity.
-
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to. If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination. He's free to choose to do something else with his time. He's free to treat all customers as equal. If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble. But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.
He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.
That statement, that a business operates by permission and at the whim of the government, is not true. Requiring a permit doesn't make it true. Passing a law that businesses are required doesn't make it true. And passing a law that violates the rights of the person engaged in business, doesn't in any way affect that person's ability to conduct business, in a just society. If the society chooses to pursue a course of action interfering with that business by enforcing the law and interfering with the individual's protected rights, that's a problem.
If you attempt to operate an illegal home bakery (as you've mentioned an interest in), without food inspections or a license you will eventually be caught, fined, and shut down. Please, don't take my word for it . . . feel free to operate your illegal bakery and find out what happens. This occurs because your business exists at the whim of the government.
It's not unjust to shut down a place serving food that refuses to allow inspections from the health and safety office because this serves the public good. Just as it's not unjust to shut down a place that refuses to follow state discrimination laws.
If what you were saying were true, then the government would be free to disband any business for any reason. That's what whim would mean. That's what "needing government permission" would mean.
In practice, no. The government doesn't operate exempt from the law, they exist to make and enforce the law. However in theory if a law was popular enough to pass and be enacted to disband all home small bakeries . . . then yep . . . the government would disband all of these businesses. Because you need government permission to do things.
Name for me please the U.S. businesses that have been disbanded by the government on a whim.
As mentioned, the government doesn't do things on a whim. They enact law. So . . . bootleggers during prohibition., crack cocaine distributors, restaurants that have failed to meet health and safety code, construction companies that fail to comply with health and safety regulations, industrial plants that fail to comply with EPA regulation, unlicensed doctors, etc. They all get shut down when the government (through the laws enacted) wills it.
-
I'm not making a legal argument here. I'm saying that this whole situation is absurd. It isn't a widespread long-term oppression that needs to be dealt with via Supreme Court rulings, and these guys are retarded for going there.
Homosexual couples just got the right to get married. That is a huge win, and overturns centuries of precedent. And you are correct, our constitution provides certain protections, specifically, in the first amendment, part of the bill of rights:
Uh ...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...
Free exercise of religion doesn't extend to infringing on the rights of others. They should've added a clause about freedom from religion too.
If the couple came in and tried to do the nasty on his shop floor, then sure, refuse service, otherwise shut up and take my money.
you don't have a right to have other people bake you a cake. The question is not whether the Colorado law infringes on free exercise, it clearly does. The question is whether the infringement is justifiable. And that will be decided by something analogous to Smith or whatever The controlling case law is.
-
you don't have a right to have other people bake you a cake.
No one is claiming a right to cake.
The state is claiming that a business does NOT have the right to refuse service to someone based on a religious objection to the kind of person it is. A person can do that, a business cannot. The law already says so. The business broke the law, and it sounds like every lower court reminded them of that.
I could see them maybe having a case of they argued a religious objection to doing something objectionable, but in this case the baker literally refused them outright based solely on sexual orientation. It didn't matter to him if the cake was going to say "marriage is between a man and a woman", he wasn't going to bake them any cake at all just because they were gay. That's illegal discrimination.
-
Still waiting for TheOldestYoungMan to define where "the line" is past which he agrees a business should not be allowed to discriminate based on their own personal religious beliefs and why he thinks the line should be at that point.
So far we've got it narrowed down to sitting at a lunch counter and having an actual meal but not including the desert portion.
-
The freedom to believe whatever religious creed one wants should be absolute. But there can be no absolute right to take action in furtherance of that belief. There are restrictions on what any of us can do in order to protect the rights of others. In the case of religious belief, the right of religious freedom has to include the corollory that each of us is free from the religious beliefs of others, which means free from actions based on religious beliefs that infringe our rights.
The baker cannot refuse to make the cake not just because he would be discriminating against his gay customers, contrary to their rights to equal treatment in receiving economic services, but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
-
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
-
It is an interesting subject, in that it pits freedom from discrimination, against, freedom to practice one's religion (or freedom not to practice religion). They are both rights in the US. The US government has a line to tread, to balance those rights. We have a pretty open, liberal country. We tried once to ban alcohol, that amendment got rescinded. Stores, websites, etc sell pornography, and Hollywood produces some really violent movies. Stores sell wedding cakes to people who had sex before marriage, and people on their 2nd or third marriages, or those who committed infidelity (see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives). And I don't know what Jesus would say about the pro-gun culture we have.
-
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.
There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.
Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.
-
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.
There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.
Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.
I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument. Maybe you can answer my questions from before?
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
-
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.
There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.
Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.
Which is exactly what Colorado has done in this case, yes?
-
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).
This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with. You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake. You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.
-
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination? Really? What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?
Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm? If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else. Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
-
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard. There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
-
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard. There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
Yeah, gays face a lot of discrimination throughout the world and I just read that Bermuda recently outlawed gay marriage after it had been legal for a while. Things are going backward for gay rights right now and in a lot of places it's still a death sentence to be homosexual. I was horrified by the ISIS videos where they were hurling gays to their deaths off the top of buildings.
-
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.
There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.
Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.
I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument. Maybe you can answer my questions from before?
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
It depends on who you are talking to and what the specific issue is. People don't really think out the specifics of these situations until actual scenarios come up. In general, few conservatives are going to agree that you should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex, race, or any of the traditional protected classes. Even at the time of the Civil Rights Act, the VAST majority of Republicans voted for the bill....Goldwater may have carried the GOP primary, but his support was damned weak and he ended up getting blown out practically everywhere.
Your hardcore Ron Swansons won't agree with that, because they are even further afield than Goldwater.
I'd say most of the people who think this out wouldn't think the Civil Rights Act is constitutionally unsound (except maybe Clarence Thomas), but that it opens up constitutionally murky waters. At the state level, I think most conservatives would be on board with banning discrimination of the traditional protected classes, because there is no question states have the ability to regulate such things. Again, your Ron Swanson types will disagree, but they are a substantial minority.
Your median conservative position would probably be like Indiana's religious freedom law or the recent Hobby Lobby case or the Amerindian peyote laws, which is that a US law cannot impose an undue burden on someone's religious practices, even if it is facially neutral and even if you are engaged in commerce. Blah blah strict scrutiny, etc.
Basically people just have a knee-jerk reaction that someone shouldn't be compelled to serve a gay wedding. I don't know the breakdown of the people who think companies should be allowed to fire gay workers, but it didn't raise the firestorm in the conservative press like the gay wedding cake did, so I assume they feel much, much less strongly about that.
This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination? Really? What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?
Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm? If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else. Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.
As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard. There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
Come on. Who is really saying we should be killing gay people? Westboro? Those guys should've given a short rope from a tall tree and left to swing until the sun went down.
Gays face some additional discrimination. The discrimination they face is NOTHING like blacks faced anywhere in the US in the 1960s, and especially nothing like the Jim Crow system. It was rightly considered one of the greatest moral failings about the US, and people really wanted it to be corrected. LGBTs aren't even the group with the most hate crimes against them today: Jews are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States
-
This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination? Really? What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?
Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm? If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else. Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.
As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.
You are trying to change your argument. You quite clearly based your earlier argument that Blacks deserve protection against discrimination whereas gays don't on 1) the size of the minority and 2) the level of discrimination. Here's your quote -
. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
You are now making the argument that "anti-discrimination laws are overly broad". You appear to have abandoned the proposition that whether a minority deserves protection depends in principle on the size of that minority. (This is good: would Blacks have not deserved protection if they were only 1% of the population?) You also appear to have abandoned to a certain extent the notion that protection depends on the scale of the harm done, as you seem to be saying that protection does not differ depending on whether the harm is assault or murder. Your remaining argument appears to be not one of principle (whether protecting against discrimination is a good thing or not) but that the backlash against providing that protection may mean that the harm caused is greater than the benefit.
Really? You think that the chance of toddler tantrums by straight white people mean that non-white, non-straight people should not have the protection of the law against discrimination? That's your argument? Nothing to do with principle? Nothing to do with what's right? Just: the straight white people are going to unlawfully resist democratic laws enacted to protect historically and currrently oppressed people so lets not bother enacting those laws?
-
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.
There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.
Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.
I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument. Maybe you can answer my questions from before?
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
It depends on who you are talking to and what the specific issue is. People don't really think out the specifics of these situations until actual scenarios come up. In general, few conservatives are going to agree that you should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex, race, or any of the traditional protected classes. Even at the time of the Civil Rights Act, the VAST majority of Republicans voted for the bill....Goldwater may have carried the GOP primary, but his support was damned weak and he ended up getting blown out practically everywhere.
Your hardcore Ron Swansons won't agree with that, because they are even further afield than Goldwater.
I'd say most of the people who think this out wouldn't think the Civil Rights Act is constitutionally unsound (except maybe Clarence Thomas), but that it opens up constitutionally murky waters. At the state level, I think most conservatives would be on board with banning discrimination of the traditional protected classes, because there is no question states have the ability to regulate such things. Again, your Ron Swanson types will disagree, but they are a substantial minority.
Your median conservative position would probably be like Indiana's religious freedom law or the recent Hobby Lobby case or the Amerindian peyote laws, which is that a US law cannot impose an undue burden on someone's religious practices, even if it is facially neutral and even if you are engaged in commerce. Blah blah strict scrutiny, etc.
Basically people just have a knee-jerk reaction that someone shouldn't be compelled to serve a gay wedding. I don't know the breakdown of the people who think companies should be allowed to fire gay workers, but it didn't raise the firestorm in the conservative press like the gay wedding cake did, so I assume they feel much, much less strongly about that.
This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination? Really? What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?
Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm? If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else. Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.
As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard. There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
Come on. Who is really saying we should be killing gay people? Westboro? Those guys should've given a short rope from a tall tree and left to swing until the sun went down.
Gays face some additional discrimination. The discrimination they face is NOTHING like blacks faced anywhere in the US in the 1960s, and especially nothing like the Jim Crow system. It was rightly considered one of the greatest moral failings about the US, and people really wanted it to be corrected. LGBTs aren't even the group with the most hate crimes against them today: Jews are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States
Well, that didn't clear it up much but thank you for trying! It just seems like a terribly inconsistent thought pattern to me. If I'm going to consider it okay to compel a baker to make a Christian wedding cake through the use of force then I'm not sure why I would consider it wrong to compel a baker to make a gay wedding cake through the use of force.
-
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.
It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.
There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.
Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.
I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument. Maybe you can answer my questions from before?
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
It depends on who you are talking to and what the specific issue is. People don't really think out the specifics of these situations until actual scenarios come up. In general, few conservatives are going to agree that you should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex, race, or any of the traditional protected classes. Even at the time of the Civil Rights Act, the VAST majority of Republicans voted for the bill....Goldwater may have carried the GOP primary, but his support was damned weak and he ended up getting blown out practically everywhere.
Your hardcore Ron Swansons won't agree with that, because they are even further afield than Goldwater.
I'd say most of the people who think this out wouldn't think the Civil Rights Act is constitutionally unsound (except maybe Clarence Thomas), but that it opens up constitutionally murky waters. At the state level, I think most conservatives would be on board with banning discrimination of the traditional protected classes, because there is no question states have the ability to regulate such things. Again, your Ron Swanson types will disagree, but they are a substantial minority.
Your median conservative position would probably be like Indiana's religious freedom law or the recent Hobby Lobby case or the Amerindian peyote laws, which is that a US law cannot impose an undue burden on someone's religious practices, even if it is facially neutral and even if you are engaged in commerce. Blah blah strict scrutiny, etc.
Basically people just have a knee-jerk reaction that someone shouldn't be compelled to serve a gay wedding. I don't know the breakdown of the people who think companies should be allowed to fire gay workers, but it didn't raise the firestorm in the conservative press like the gay wedding cake did, so I assume they feel much, much less strongly about that.
This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination? Really? What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?
Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm? If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else. Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.
As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard. There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
Come on. Who is really saying we should be killing gay people? Westboro? Those guys should've given a short rope from a tall tree and left to swing until the sun went down.
Gays face some additional discrimination. The discrimination they face is NOTHING like blacks faced anywhere in the US in the 1960s, and especially nothing like the Jim Crow system. It was rightly considered one of the greatest moral failings about the US, and people really wanted it to be corrected. LGBTs aren't even the group with the most hate crimes against them today: Jews are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States
So, this dude’s totally okay, right? I mean, it’s just food. They can obviously just go somewhere else.
http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/
-
So, this dude’s totally okay, right? I mean, it’s just food. They can obviously just go somewhere else.
http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/
Appears that was four years ago. Any updates?
-
So, this dude’s totally okay, right? I mean, it’s just food. They can obviously just go somewhere else.
http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/
Appears that was four years ago. Any updates?
My question was about whether this is okay. Because the arguments presented above by a few people suggest that it is.
-
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican? I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.
There were a few, yeah.
Here was my response, click the blue link just above
And a very relevant post elsewhere:
As a progressive I HATE it when my own peers just throw the racist accusation out there during debates and arguments with people who disagree with them. It is usually just a sly, incredibly unfair assault on the person’s character masquerading as progressive enlightenment. A way to show off the progressive’s moral and intellectual superiority while also appearing oh so openminded. The accused cannot defend themselves in anyway without digging themselves deeper into the racist hole/argument. Not only is this a cop out in my opinion on the part of the progressive who is using a firebomb to shut down conversation, but if it is thrown by another white person, it is also a pathetic admission of how little that person understands racism and how it works (because they too are also racist to some extent). It's the pot calling the kettle black and then smugly patting themselves on the back about it. Not cool and totally not productive at all.
Thank you! :)
I am not at all surprised at the strength of his vote. Many middle class people are very angry about what has happened to them over the last 10 years. The "last chance for America" pitch hits home. And Hilary is widely hated. I was surprised at all the people I know that don't really care about character, they just want things "fixed." They are voting for Trump, no matter what.
What really did happen to them over the last 10 years? I have been extremely isolated from "real world" because I moved to Northern VA and Washington DC 15 years ago, and have had very little domestic travel in that time. I haven't witnessed first hand any of the hardships that I read about in the news. In 2008, there were still lines around the block waiting to get the latest iPhone and to get seated at restaurants and steak houses. Today, there are lines of people every night waiting to get into the hottest $250/plate restaurants. Every. Night.
I've been witnessing vast amounts of wealth, massive spending, and rampant consumerism. I know that I've isolated myself and I'm on a somewhat low-news diet, so can someone please tell me briefly, what is really happening out there to the average American who is doing the right things (not overspending, etc). Is it my location alone that has allowed me to get through these tough times? Or is it that I see a downturn and change my spending accordingly? Even the people who claim to be affected, their gripes tend to be along the lines of "we're not gaining on our neighbors" rather than experiencing true hardship. They still have cable, coffee, iphones, cars, etc. But they may lose their houses because they won't compromise on the daily things.
When you are removed from someone else's reality, you just lose perspective, and I think that has happened to me.
Getting back to the original topic by BlueHouse- in my area of Texas I have two very distinct views.
Some background: My mom has a Master's in Accounting, my Dad has a Bachelor's in mathmatics. My brother has his Master's and I am working on mine. Everybody has Bachelor's degrees. Because of this, I get to see into the world of the salary class. My parents probably pull in 150-190k combined. The recession definitely slowed things down for them (dad is in furniture business, mom is CPA for a medium privately-held corp) but things picked back up by 2010 or so- simply not to the extent of 2000-2008. I also work in manufacturing for a metal building company. I would say 75% of the people I work with are HS diploma holding, the other 25% are bachelor’s or beyond, about 55% white and 40% Hispanic. This has given me a view into the wage class (that I am a part of) on a scale that I was not raised in and did not understand. So there is where I am coming from.
------------
The lump summary of the ‘mindset’ is that international trade has DESTROYED wage class jobs. INCLUDING AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURING AND RAW MATERIALS. See this link for the rise in imported goods of all types: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?end=2015&locations=US&start=1980 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?end=2015&locations=US&start=1980).
Now compare this with the percentages that industry (IE the creation of things which is predominately higher paying wage class jobs) has shrunk. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?locations=US&view=chart (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?locations=US&view=chart)
In other words, things were not going well for a while (1980 onward) but when 2008 hit, it was the stark event that overstressed the system. The recession shut shit down. A lot of it permanently. So often I hear on this forum that it is because of “AI” or “automation of existing jobs” but I call bullshit. There is no automation (yet) of welding together a column, putting up a building, cutting down a tree or the complete assembling of most products. Lets be brutally honest here- what is being blamed on automation is actually the result of taking jobs that paid well in the US and moving them overseas where companies can pay half (or less) per 'widget'. There is no “efficiency” or “automation” in that.
Now this is possible because the US has shitty trade deals (Yes, they are in fact shitty) that were made so that the US could get its latest iCrap at a lower price. Leftists are now concerned with a “Trade War” and “Nationalism” hurting the economy… Anybody notice how the USA stocks fared against the foreign markets? They were hurt (not really slammed) and we had semi-large gains. With the financial savvy on this forum, that ought to explain to you that The Donald’s protectionist policies are actually going to be GREAT for American businesses and companies that no longer have to compete with illegal foreign activities (see: Chinese steel manufacturing subsidies).
Take a look at Reebok, who is a solely domestic company. They are EXCITED for their business opportunities since they now have access to a market that won’t have to compete with non-free trade foreign goods.
As an example: China’s focus is on keeping people employed. They, as a society, have lowered their standard of living in order to subsidize higher employment than the market requires (Steel example here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steelmakers-seek-antidumping-action-against-china-other-countries-1433353218 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steelmakers-seek-antidumping-action-against-china-other-countries-1433353218), the steelmakers won this suit a few months ago and the US is now holding higher tariffs against Chinese steel). As such, the goals of Chinese goods is not aligned with Reebok and they share the same market with differing goals (Reebok’s being profit/chinese being societal employment satisfaction). This is one small example but it is exemplified on a much larger scale across those three sectors: Agricultural, Manufacturing and Raw Goods.
Those three sectors represented 43.9% of the GPD in 1981 but 19% of the GDP in 2011. HOW CAN THE LEFT (and the right for that matter) NOT UNDERSTAND HOW BIG A DEAL THAT ACTUALLY IS??? (Source with real numbers and not a lame article: http://www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm (http://www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm))
Yes, their jobs are gone or leaving… But instead of being replaced with automation, which would result in a neutral effect because it would mean fewer jobs with higher pay, they were outsourced and now automation looms on the horizon- without having the jobs be in the original communities. As such, the “deplorables” see the left bragging about unemployment being at 5% and they scoff- because they know that number doesn’t reflect the timeouts and the people who gave up trying (See the level of labor force / population compared to the unemployment). They see the GDP of their communities shrinking to nothing while being outsourced or sent overseas. They see all the attention (and state-level spending) being directed at a few population centers in the state and not evenly.
That is what “really did happen to them over the last 10 30 years?” and they are PISSED OFF about it.
In my opinion, albeit not that valuable, the best thing the left and the whole nation can do now is (1) get these jobs back by forcing companies to employ in our market in order to sell to our market before automation fully kicks in, (2) quit calling half the country “Deplorables” and “racists” and “bigots”, (3) Quit forcing ideals on people (dare I bring up the bakery incident?), And (4) please START LISTENING to those other side. They are willing to listen to you (except for the 0.1% that is the noisiest) but after being neglected for so long they need to see that you are willing to reach out and listen to them.
TlDr: Outsourcing and job loss is real. Neither side of the political establishment was willing to address it. Now we have Trump.
Edits: fixed a misdirected source link.
The discussion has moved WAY past that though. Been useless for 16-odd pages now.
-
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).
This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with. You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake. You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.
You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-
-
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).
This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with. You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake. You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.
You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-
Yeah. And you can deny people the basic ability to purchase your products in the name of your religion and believe that doing so actually makes you a good Christian, ignoring the fact that Jesus consorted with all sorts and extended fellowship to criminals and adulterers, with no strings attached.
-
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).
This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with. You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake. You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.
You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-
Yeah. And you can deny people the basic ability to purchase your products in the name of your religion and believe that doing so actually makes you a good Christian, ignoring the fact that Jesus consorted with all sorts and extended fellowship to criminals and adulterers, with no strings attached.
And prostitutes!
-
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).
This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with. You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake. You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.
You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-
Yeah. And you can deny people the basic ability to purchase your products in the name of your religion and believe that doing so actually makes you a good Christian, ignoring the fact that Jesus consorted with all sorts and extended fellowship to criminals and adulterers, with no strings attached.
And prostitutes!
Yes, somehow it's completely acceptable for them to beat their wives and defile their way through the Ten Commandments but a woman doing what she wants with her own body, or a loving gay couple sealing their union, well let's all just have a big meltdown.
-
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).
This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with. You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake. You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.
You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-
Yeah. And you can deny people the basic ability to purchase your products in the name of your religion and believe that doing so actually makes you a good Christian, ignoring the fact that Jesus consorted with all sorts and extended fellowship to criminals and adulterers, with no strings attached.
And prostitutes!
Yes, somehow it's completely acceptable for them to beat their wives and defile their way through the Ten Commandments but a woman doing what she wants with her own body, or a loving gay couple sealing their union, well let's all just have a big meltdown.
What's very strange is that there isn't anything in the bible the explicitly condemns being gay either . . . while stuff like the 10 commandments is spelled out quite clearly. So, it's not even a tenant of the religion to be hateful to gay people, just something that many Christians feel happy to do.
-
I can actually think of several verses in both the old and new testaments that are anti-homosexuality. I disagree with them, but they’re definitely there.
-
I can actually think of several verses in both the old and new testaments that are anti-homosexuality. I disagree with them, but they’re definitely there.
I've never understood why anyone would point to the bible as justification for anything. The bible is pro-slavery and anti-democracy. The bible forbids trimming your beard and eating shellfish. The bible says that if your daughter refuses to marry her rapist, you should stone her to death (not him, her). The bible is a seriously fucked up place to look for your moral compass.
And I don't even mean that as a criticism! It was written in a different time, by people for whom these rules seemed normal and acceptable. We hadn't yet invented bread that rises, and people think it has something relevant to say about the civil rights movement?
But societies progress over time. We figure stuff out, we change our ways and most people accept that we have changed them for the better. It just seems silly to latch on to particular anachronism while ignoring all of the others. You have to look at the totality, in context. In that light, it's an interesting piece of history but not exactly a useful reference text.
-
I can actually think of several verses in both the old and new testaments that are anti-homosexuality. I disagree with them, but they’re definitely there.
I've never understood why anyone would point to the bible as justification for anything. The bible is pro-slavery and anti-democracy. The bible forbids trimming your beard and eating shellfish. The bible says that if your daughter refuses to marry her rapist, you should stone her to death (not him, her). The bible is a seriously fucked up place to look for your moral compass.
And I don't even mean that as a criticism! It was written in a different time, by people for whom these rules seemed normal and acceptable. We hadn't yet invented bread that rises, and people think it has something relevant to say about the civil rights movement?
But societies progress over time. We figure stuff out, we change our ways and most people accept that we have changed them for the better. It just seems silly to latch on to particular anachronism while ignoring all of the others. You have to look at the totality, in context. In that light, it's an interesting piece of history but not exactly a useful reference text.
Agreed.
-
We hadn't yet invented bread that rises, and people think it has something relevant to say about the civil rights movement?
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but a central theme of the Exodus story is not having enough time to wait for the bread to rise.
-
We hadn't yet invented bread that rises, and people think it has something relevant to say about the civil rights movement?
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but a central theme of the Exodus story is not having enough time to wait for the bread to rise.
yes supposedly leavened bread was invented in Egypt, 200 bc.
-
So, this dude’s totally okay, right? I mean, it’s just food. They can obviously just go somewhere else.
http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/
He's getting plenty of attention on the web. Apparently some folks are taunting him by listing his restaurant as a gay bar. Others are just leaving bad reviews. Karma if nothing else.
-
We hadn't yet invented bread that rises, and people think it has something relevant to say about the civil rights movement?
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but a central theme of the Exodus story is not having enough time to wait for the bread to rise.
yes supposedly leavened bread was invented in Egypt, 200 bc.
Bad news: the bible was already old hat in 200 bc. Especially the sections relevant to this discussion.
-
We hadn't yet invented bread that rises, and people think it has something relevant to say about the civil rights movement?
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but a central theme of the Exodus story is not having enough time to wait for the bread to rise.
yes supposedly leavened bread was invented in Egypt, 200 bc.
Bad news: the bible was already old hat in 200 bc. Especially the sections relevant to this discussion.
So now that this is a discussion of when leavened bread was invented, according to Wikipedia by 200 bc, breads had already expanded to cakes and pastries and commercial yeast was being produced. The oldest known sourdough dates from 3700 bc Switzerland.
-
I skimmed the above, and don't beleive I've seen the following point made clearly.
Here's where it comes down for me, on the whole gay cake thing. I imagine the reaction by some people will be outrage, as they seem to be unable to grasp nuance of thought and can only process position statements of 140 characters or less... but none the less.
-If you're selling tires, computer mice, or pens, refusing to serve someone because they are gay is immoral and wrong, and rightly illegal.
-Refusing to sell a cake off the shelf, or that says something like "congratulations" to someone who is gay, is immoral and wrong, and rightly illegal.
-Reusing to sell a cake, quoting leviticus, doxxing the gay couple, is immoral and wrong, and rightly resulted in that Oregon bakery getting fined to death.
Where is gets fuzzy for me when you ask for a custom commissioned piece of (cake) art, that is specifically designed to celebrate a gay wedding. If you're a (cake) artist, why shouldn't you have a right to say no if it's against what you believe, as misguided as that belief may be?
Artists, I believe, can and do refuse commissions all the time. There's a difference between refusing to sell a tire/sandwhich/computer mouse to a gay person, and refusing a commission for a 4ft tall double-penis cake with a "Anyone who touches this cake supports gay marraige!" sign sculpted into the fondant.
Suppose I wanted a swastika cake, or wanted a gay baker to make a cake that says "Trump is the best, and anyone who touches this cake endorses him 100%!" You might respond that "gay people are a protected class, trump supporters aren't." Well, now we're talking about what is legal and illegal, not what is necessarily right and wrong. There's plenty of room to have this discussion about that without calling those you disagree with hateful.
I think you'd have to be an idiot to refuse making a cake for gay couples, both for the loss of business and the social blowback. Regardless of my support for gay marriage, I don't like the idea that its OK to compel artists to do things they don't agree with, with the force of law. I hope you can see how that precedent may be a bad one to set, when an artist is forced to make something for a cause the left doesn't agree with.
-
So now that this is a discussion of when leavened bread was invented, according to Wikipedia by 200 bc, breads had already expanded to cakes and pastries and commercial yeast was being produced. The oldest known sourdough dates from 3700 bc Switzerland.
Well this TOTALLY clears it up for me, thanks. It's absolutely fine to discriminate against gay people because cake rises, and the bible clearly backs me up on this issue. Wikipedia verifies what we all know in our hearts.
-
So now that this is a discussion of when leavened bread was invented, according to Wikipedia by 200 bc, breads had already expanded to cakes and pastries and commercial yeast was being produced. The oldest known sourdough dates from 3700 bc Switzerland.
Well this TOTALLY clears it up for me, thanks. It's absolutely fine to discriminate against gay people because cake rises, and the bible clearly backs me up on this issue. Wikipedia verifies what we all know in our hearts.
(thick southern accent) The cake rises to Je-sus.
-
Regardless of my support for gay marriage, I don't like the idea that its OK to compel artists to do things they don't agree with
The artist wasn't asked to do something he disagreed with. He wasn't asked to make a penis cake. He refused to make any cake, of any kind, because the customer was gay. That's why the "artist" defense isn't going to hold up, IMO.
And as a secondary point, separate from that, an artist has a right to refuse a commission in many cases where a business does not have the right to refuse a sale. A business is not a person. A business that is open to the public is not legally permitted to be racist, or sexist, or ageist, in the same way that an ordinary private citizen bigot is permitted to be racist or sexist or ageist.
Can you image a McDonald's cashier refusing to take your order because you were black, or were wearing a yarmulke, or were in a wheelchair? That's basically what happened in this case, and I think the state was right to drop the hammer.
-
I skimmed the above, and don't beleive I've seen the following point made clearly.
Here's where it comes down for me, on the whole gay cake thing. I imagine the reaction by some people will be outrage, as they seem to be unable to grasp nuance of thought and can only process position statements of 140 characters or less... but none the less.
-If you're selling tires, computer mice, or pens, refusing to serve someone because they are gay is immoral and wrong, and rightly illegal.
-Refusing to sell a cake off the shelf, or that says something like "congratulations" to someone who is gay, is immoral and wrong, and rightly illegal.
-Reusing to sell a cake, quoting leviticus, doxxing the gay couple, is immoral and wrong, and rightly resulted in that Oregon bakery getting fined to death.
Where is gets fuzzy for me when you ask for a custom commissioned piece of (cake) art, that is specifically designed to celebrate a gay wedding. If you're a (cake) artist, why shouldn't you have a right to say no if it's against what you believe, as misguided as that belief may be?
Artists, I believe, can and do refuse commissions all the time. There's a difference between refusing to sell a tire/sandwhich/computer mouse to a gay person, and refusing a commission for a 4ft tall double-penis cake with a "Anyone who touches this cake supports gay marraige!" sign sculpted into the fondant.
Suppose I wanted a swastika cake, or wanted a gay baker to make a cake that says "Trump is the best, and anyone who touches this cake endorses him 100%!" You might respond that "gay people are a protected class, trump supporters aren't." Well, now we're talking about what is legal and illegal, not what is necessarily right and wrong. There's plenty of room to have this discussion about that without calling those you disagree with hateful.
I think you'd have to be an idiot to refuse making a cake for gay couples, both for the loss of business and the social blowback. Regardless of my support for gay marriage, I don't like the idea that its OK to compel artists to do things they don't agree with, with the force of law. I hope you can see how that precedent may be a bad one to set, when an artist is forced to make something for a cause the left doesn't agree with.
And I agree with you. If someone is an artist, they can refuse to do commissioned work, or "art". It will be up to the courts to determine at what point say putting someone's names on a cake constitutes art or not. I also wonder, what would happen if the gay couple orders a fancy but traditional wedding cake, and is refused because it is a) an obvious wedding cake and b) for a gay couple. For example the baker has made many cakes with white chocolate foudant covered with cascades of tiny roses made of icing for other customers, Has no problem with that kind of cake or that kind of decoration. BUT- he doesn't want to make THAT kind of cake, for a gay couple. Would that also go under the being able to refused commissioned work?
From what I read for the Masterpiece cake shop, they never got to the point of discussing what was going to go onto the cake, the actual "craft" part. Once he found out it was for a gay wedding, that's when the refusal happened.
Bottom line. Now that we have things like civil rights acts, and women being able to work and all, the wedge issues that the Republican party are getting more silly. I mean that's why I moved away from the Church. You have church goers who find it perfectly OK or even preferable to elect someone like Roy Moore, a self-declared Christian who has done despicable things, using their position of power to abuse minors, as well as the rule of law, over a person with morals and ethics like Doug Jones. Or the evangelicals who elected Trump. I can understand some libertarian white male LOVING Trump because he's all about money and power and grabbing as much as you can, while having no protections for people who are vulnerable. But I don't understand why evangelicals are lining up behind Trump when he is in opposition of Christian values, I mean he literally exemplifies it, in how he lives his life, and what things come out of his mouth. and yet he's their leader.
-
Regardless of my support for gay marriage, I don't like the idea that its OK to compel artists to do things they don't agree with
The artist wasn't asked to do something he disagreed with. He wasn't asked to make a penis cake. He refused to make any cake, of any kind, because the customer was gay. That's why the "artist" defense isn't going to hold up, IMO.
And as a secondary point, separate from that, an artist has a right to refuse a commission in many cases where a business does not have the right to refuse a sale. A business is not a person. A business that is open to the public is not legally permitted to be racist, or sexist, or ageist, in the same way that an ordinary private citizen bigot is permitted to be racist or sexist or ageist.
Can you image a McDonald's cashier refusing to take your order because you were black, or were wearing a yarmulke, or were in a wheelchair? That's basically what happened in this case, and I think the state was right to drop the hammer.
I think he was talking in general, not on whatever specific case you guys have been talking about. The original cake story I heard was about personalizing a cake, or at least that's how it was portrayed to me.
He also said:
-Refusing to sell a cake off the shelf, or that says something like "congratulations" to someone who is gay, is immoral and wrong, and rightly illegal.
Anyway, thanks for the back and forth on this topic, I have learned a lot :)
-
I skimmed the above, and don't beleive I've seen the following point made clearly.
Here's where it comes down for me, on the whole gay cake thing. I imagine the reaction by some people will be outrage, as they seem to be unable to grasp nuance of thought and can only process position statements of 140 characters or less... but none the less.
-If you're selling tires, computer mice, or pens, refusing to serve someone because they are gay is immoral and wrong, and rightly illegal.
-Refusing to sell a cake off the shelf, or that says something like "congratulations" to someone who is gay, is immoral and wrong, and rightly illegal.
-Reusing to sell a cake, quoting leviticus, doxxing the gay couple, is immoral and wrong, and rightly resulted in that Oregon bakery getting fined to death.
Where is gets fuzzy for me when you ask for a custom commissioned piece of (cake) art, that is specifically designed to celebrate a gay wedding. If you're a (cake) artist, why shouldn't you have a right to say no if it's against what you believe, as misguided as that belief may be?
Artists, I believe, can and do refuse commissions all the time. There's a difference between refusing to sell a tire/sandwhich/computer mouse to a gay person, and refusing a commission for a 4ft tall double-penis cake with a "Anyone who touches this cake supports gay marraige!" sign sculpted into the fondant.
Suppose I wanted a swastika cake, or wanted a gay baker to make a cake that says "Trump is the best, and anyone who touches this cake endorses him 100%!" You might respond that "gay people are a protected class, trump supporters aren't." Well, now we're talking about what is legal and illegal, not what is necessarily right and wrong. There's plenty of room to have this discussion about that without calling those you disagree with hateful.
I think you'd have to be an idiot to refuse making a cake for gay couples, both for the loss of business and the social blowback. Regardless of my support for gay marriage, I don't like the idea that its OK to compel artists to do things they don't agree with, with the force of law. I hope you can see how that precedent may be a bad one to set, when an artist is forced to make something for a cause the left doesn't agree with.
And I agree with you. If someone is an artist, they can refuse to do commissioned work, or "art". It will be up to the courts to determine at what point say putting someone's names on a cake constitutes art or not. I also wonder, what would happen if the gay couple orders a fancy but traditional wedding cake, and is refused because it is a) an obvious wedding cake and b) for a gay couple. For example the baker has made many cakes with white chocolate foudant covered with cascades of tiny roses made of icing for other customers, Has no problem with that kind of cake or that kind of decoration. BUT- he doesn't want to make THAT kind of cake, for a gay couple. Would that also go under the being able to refused commissioned work?
The test is something along the lines of this: If one person came into the bakery and ordered that cake, and it could plausibly be used in a non-gay wedding, then refusing to make it is wrong. Names are excluded - the way people use names, marrying a "Harold and Taylor" could go either way. This would differentiate between the penis cake and the custom cascading roses cake.
From what I read for the Masterpiece cake shop, they never got to the point of discussing what was going to go onto the cake, the actual "craft" part. Once he found out it was for a gay wedding, that's when the refusal happened.
In this case, the baker was in the wrong.
Bottom line. Now that we have things like civil rights acts, and women being able to work and all, the wedge issues that the Republican party are getting more silly. I mean that's why I moved away from the Church. You have church goers who find it perfectly OK or even preferable to elect someone like Roy Moore, a self-declared Christian who has done despicable things, using their position of power to abuse minors, as well as the rule of law, over a person with morals and ethics like Doug Jones. Or the evangelicals who elected Trump. I can understand some libertarian white male LOVING Trump because he's all about money and power and grabbing as much as you can, while having no protections for people who are vulnerable. But I don't understand why evangelicals are lining up behind Trump when he is in opposition of Christian values, I mean he literally exemplifies it, in how he lives his life, and what things come out of his mouth. and yet he's their leader.
[/quote]
I am similarly confused about all the memes that show trump with some line about "Support this godly man against the forces of evil... 1 like = 1 prayer, 1 share=100 prayers!!!1!!" Trump is a lot of things, Godly is not one of them.
As for implying that republicans are against civil rights and women working... really? Go look who voted for and against civil rights, for oen thing. We might be against some heavy handed proposals to make different groups look more equal without actually improving thier lot, but I'd say that's better than the soft racism of low expectations.
-
"Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Masterpiece on July 19, 2012, expecting to buy a wedding cake to celebrate their upcoming marriage. Phillips advised them that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins immediately left without discussing any details of their cake. The entire incident was about 20 seconds long.
The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who said he doesn’t make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado law did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time. Despite obtaining a free wedding cake with a rainbow design from another bakery, Craig and Mullins filed a charge of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating based on sexual orientation."
"Interestingly, while the Masterpiece case was ongoing, the Colorado Commission found that three secular bakeries did not discriminate based on “creed” when they refused a Christian customer’s request for custom cakes that criticized same-sex marriages on religious grounds. The Commission reasoned that, like Phillips, (1) the bakeries declined the requests because they objected to the particular message of the cake, and (2) the bakeries were willing to create other items for Christians."
-
Odd that the commission reasoned that Phillips declined the request by the gay couple for a wedding cake because of the particular message of the cake . . . when he didn't discuss the message of the cake with them, but simply saw they were gay and said 'no'.
-
What's very strange is that there isn't anything in the bible the explicitly condemns being gay either . . . while stuff like the 10 commandments is spelled out quite clearly. So, it's not even a tenant of the religion to be hateful to gay people, just something that many Christians feel happy to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
To quote the late great Reverand James Lovejoy "Have you actually read this thing? Technically we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make GS, but if you really think the bible is silent on the subject of same sex relations then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I own four different versions of the damned thing (haha, see what I did there?) it is obviously proscribed behavior. Now, what takes a bit of deeper reading, and what some modern Christians struggle with, is the WWJD part of it. I think its clear Jesus would have sold them the cake. Except it would've tasted woody because Jesus was a carpenter not a baker. Wedding cabinetry is what you want from big J.
And let me fix your assertion:
What's very strange is that there isn't anything in the bible the explicitly condemns being gay either . . . while stuff like the 10 commandments is spelled out quite clearly. [ed. struck as false] So, it's not even a tenant of the religion to be hateful to gay [modifier included to be prejudicial] people, just something that many some misguided Christians feel happy to do.
Again, standard disclaimer: I don't believe, as a Christian, that I am called upon to in any way behave any differently towards any other human, regardless of the facts of how they live their life. I am to always assume everyone I deal with is "undercover Jesus" waiting to catch me treating someone badly. It's fundamental to me to the extent that I don't believe it's right to not hire someone because of felony status, and I abhor all legalized discrimination based on past activities such as drug use, legal violations, etc. Faith to me, means trusting others to do the right thing, and dealing with the consequences if they let me down.
But that's my religion and it works for me. It isn't for me to impose that on anyone else. If someone else believes their religion keeps them from doing a thing, that's really between them and their god. I can believe they are misguided. I can buy cake elsewhere, because to me it is just cake, but clearly to them it is something more significant. I believe a legal protection should extend once, to us, it becomes more than just cake, such as it did with the lunch counters.
If your beliefs prevented you from servicing Christians, I am required by my Christianity to accept that. And I believe your right to refuse me service based on that belief is constitutionally protected at this point. I don't believe the government has the right to refuse me service because of my faith, and interfering with my ability to engage in commerce because of that belief feels like what happened to this guy.
And that you don't hold the same belief as him has got to carry at least as much weight as my argument that to me, it's just cake. Which is to say none at all. Because in these cases we shouldn't look to the preferences of the people who think it's just cake, we should look to the preferences of the people for whom it is more than just cake.
-
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).
This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with. You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake. You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.
You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-
Yeah. And you can deny people the basic ability to purchase your products in the name of your religion and believe that doing so actually makes you a good Christian, ignoring the fact that Jesus consorted with all sorts and extended fellowship to criminals and adulterers, with no strings attached.
And prostitutes!
At my bakery all prostitutes eat free cake. *nods*
-
Really? You think that the chance of toddler tantrums by straight white people mean that non-white, non-straight people should not have the protection of the law against discrimination? That's your argument? Nothing to do with principle? Nothing to do with what's right? Just: the straight white people are going to unlawfully resist democratic laws enacted to protect historically and currrently oppressed people so lets not bother enacting those laws?
If you break that one down by racial divides you don't have the coalition you think you do.
https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/files/race_and_marriage_equality.pdf
But go ahead and blame it all on whitey.
On another note, when I read his argument, I figured someone would zero in on that regrettable piece of rhetoric. You can strike it from his point entirely and respond to that, which is what I believe is closer to his intended articulation, or keep going with your assumption that he's a white racist, up to you.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
I didn't read that inclusion of the numbers as central to his argument, rather put there for emphasis. As in, if we're going to enact sweeping federal legislation with broad powers and murderously harsh penalties it should be because there's an actual problem that calls for it and has no other resolution in sight. Gay rights and the situation in general for homosexuals has been improving steadily in the U.S., and now, as then, the real successes have been not in adding legislation establishing the protected class, but stripping the legislation that enshrined certain biases and excluded, either explicitly or accidentally, homosexuals and homosexual couples.
The civil rights era in U.S. History, which many of you in this thread have gotten completely wrong, was an era where these forms of discrimination were explicitly legal and in some cases required. The government was building facilities with separate drinking fountains. It was the law itself that was the problem. That's a fundamental difference to the baker case, where the problem is an individual asshole.
And so we have this legislation on our books that has a historical context, and the goal as a country should be to move towards a world where it isn't necessary. I don't think we're there yet but we're getting closer.
Someone mentioned a swastika cake, and that is an interesting example. In Germany you couldn't create a Swastika cake. They have specific laws about shit like that because it was a problem for them, and their national shame calls on all of them to accept a restriction on their right of free expression. We don't have a similar prohibition because, quite frankly, it's helpful when people raise that flag so you know they don't matter and can be safely ignored (or in the case of liberals, claim they're valid representations of the right and attempt to conflate the two).
So too in this country, our legacy of racial relations calls upon many of us to accept restrictions on our rights to discriminate, because we took it too far for too long, and refused to change by any other means.
There's a constitutional basis for the enforcement of things in the civil rights act as well, it's the 14th amendment, which is specific:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And so a law that says same-sex marriage or relations between same-sex couples at the state level is unconstitional, and we see those victories happening again and again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
But a law that provides special protections to same-sex couples...that isn't as clear cut.
-
So too in this country, our legacy of racial relations calls upon many of us to accept restrictions on our rights to discriminate, because we took it too far for too long, and refused to change by any other means.
There's a constitutional basis for the enforcement of things in the civil rights act as well, it's the 14th amendment, which is specific:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And so a law that says same-sex marriage or relations between same-sex couples at the state level is unconstitional, and we see those victories happening again and again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
But a law that provides special protections to same-sex couples...that isn't as clear cut.
I'm not entirely clear on your argument here, I think your second-to-last sentence is maybe missing a word.
To my mind, this is entirely an equal protection and regulation of commerce issue. Citizens of a state have every right to transact business within the state. Given the Obergefell ruling, how is this different than a business refusing to serve customers based on heterosexual marital status?
Also, sexual orientation needs to be an explicitly protected class.
-
As for implying that republicans are against civil rights and women working... really? Go look who voted for and against civil rights, for oen thing. We might be against some heavy handed proposals to make different groups look more equal without actually improving their lot, but I'd say that's better than the soft racism of low expectations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Democrats-used-to-be-the-conservative-party-and-Republicans-used-to-be-the-progressive-party-Is-the-whole-truth-more-complex-than-two-parties-switching-their-main-ideologies
-
Really? You think that the chance of toddler tantrums by straight white people mean that non-white, non-straight people should not have the protection of the law against discrimination? That's your argument? Nothing to do with principle? Nothing to do with what's right? Just: the straight white people are going to unlawfully resist democratic laws enacted to protect historically and currrently oppressed people so lets not bother enacting those laws?
If you break that one down by racial divides you don't have the coalition you think you do.
https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/files/race_and_marriage_equality.pdf
But go ahead and blame it all on whitey.
On another note, when I read his argument, I figured someone would zero in on that regrettable piece of rhetoric. You can strike it from his point entirely and respond to that, which is what I believe is closer to his intended articulation, or keep going with your assumption that he's a white racist, up to you.
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
I didn't read that inclusion of the numbers as central to his argument, rather put there for emphasis. As in, if we're going to enact sweeping federal legislation with broad powers and murderously harsh penalties it should be because there's an actual problem that calls for it and has no other resolution in sight. Gay rights and the situation in general for homosexuals has been improving steadily in the U.S., and now, as then, the real successes have been not in adding legislation establishing the protected class, but stripping the legislation that enshrined certain biases and excluded, either explicitly or accidentally, homosexuals and homosexual couples.
The civil rights era in U.S. History, which many of you in this thread have gotten completely wrong, was an era where these forms of discrimination were explicitly legal and in some cases required. The government was building facilities with separate drinking fountains. It was the law itself that was the problem. That's a fundamental difference to the baker case, where the problem is an individual asshole.
And so we have this legislation on our books that has a historical context, and the goal as a country should be to move towards a world where it isn't necessary. I don't think we're there yet but we're getting closer.
Someone mentioned a swastika cake, and that is an interesting example. In Germany you couldn't create a Swastika cake. They have specific laws about shit like that because it was a problem for them, and their national shame calls on all of them to accept a restriction on their right of free expression. We don't have a similar prohibition because, quite frankly, it's helpful when people raise that flag so you know they don't matter and can be safely ignored (or in the case of liberals, claim they're valid representations of the right and attempt to conflate the two).
So too in this country, our legacy of racial relations calls upon many of us to accept restrictions on our rights to discriminate, because we took it too far for too long, and refused to change by any other means.
There's a constitutional basis for the enforcement of things in the civil rights act as well, it's the 14th amendment, which is specific:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And so a law that says same-sex marriage or relations between same-sex couples at the state level is unconstitional, and we see those victories happening again and again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
But a law that provides special protections to same-sex couples...that isn't as clear cut.
It's not entirely true that the civil rights movement addressed only government wrongs (laws requiring who could sit where) and not private behavior. The civil rights movement also addressed unfair racial discrimination in private housing transactions:
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/housing-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html
These were a big deal, because many private individuals did not want to sell their homes to minorities and many private landlords did not want to rent to minorities. They perpetuated in this behavior in the absence of laws requiring it. Eventually, the Supreme Court infringed on Mayer's right to refuse sell to his home to anyone his racist heart told him was unworthy.
Frankly, as tired as some of our libertarian commenters are of what they think of as trivial complaints about cake, I am equally tired of moralizing bakers, not to mention pharmacists and nurses who don't want to fulfill critical components of their jobs. How about all of these religious dissenters explain how they voted for thrice-married two Corinthians adulterer Donald Trump and then they can tell me how moral they are? When we are done, they are free to run off to the mall to try to pick up teenage girls until the security guards kick them out.
-
Frankly, as tired as some of our libertarian commenters are of what they think of as trivial complaints about cake, I am equally tired of moralizing bakers, not to mention pharmacists and nurses who don't want to fulfill critical components of their jobs. How about all of these religious dissenters explain how they voted for thrice-married two Corinthians adulterer Donald Trump and then they can tell me how moral they are? When we are done, they are free to run off to the mall to try to pick up teenage girls until the security guards kick them out.
Well, alot of them didn't. Many of the rest advised in advanced against nominating HRC. Dealing with it after the fact as though there was a viable option that go-round is disingenuous. There was no moral option, so you go with the group that isn't calling you a pedophile.
-
How about all of these religious dissenters explain how they voted for thrice-married two Corinthians adulterer Donald Trump and then they can tell me how moral they are?
Well I'm not religious, but I can provide some insight. No one is one-dimensional. So just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they also aren't an American, or a mother, or any number of things pulling them in different directions. Trump, while he said many contradictory things, said he was going to defend religious freedoms. As far as I know, Hillary did not, or at least she was viewed as weaker on that stance. So the question is would you vote for someone who is a sinner, but will promote the same ideas you have, or a different kind of sinner who won't?
-
Well I'm not religious, but I can provide some insight. No one is one-dimensional. So just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they also aren't an American, or a mother, or any number of things pulling them in different directions. Trump, while he said many contradictory things, said he was going to defend religious freedoms discrimination. As far as I know, Hillary did not, or at least she was viewed as weaker on that stance. So the question is would you vote for someone who is a sinner, but will promote the same ideas you have, or a different kind of sinner who won't?
FTFY
-
Well I'm not religious, but I can provide some insight. No one is one-dimensional. So just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they also aren't an American, or a mother, or any number of things pulling them in different directions. Trump, while he said many contradictory things, said he was going to defend religious freedoms discrimination. As far as I know, Hillary did not, or at least she was viewed as weaker on that stance. So the question is would you vote for someone who is a sinner, but will promote the same ideas you have, or a different kind of sinner who won't?
FTFY
As much fun as it'd be to not stick my wang in this particular hornet's nest, it is pretty hard to argue that 75% of the country's population (Christians) are somehow being limited on their "religious freedom." The New Testament was definitely written in the mindset of Christians being the persecuted minority, which was the reality of its day, but that hasn't been true in western civilization since around the time of Constantine.
Any blather I heard relation to Trump and religion was along the lines of "he's going to bring God back to America." As if he somehow left.
Apart from Bill Maher types, there isn't much direct mockery of Christians, certainly not compared to other types of discrimination in this country. Though I suppose somewhat ironically it's easier to convince a larger group that they're under attack by the man.
-
https://www.theonion.com/nation-s-oppressed-christians-huddle-underground-to-lig-1819578481 (https://www.theonion.com/nation-s-oppressed-christians-huddle-underground-to-lig-1819578481)
-
Well I'm not religious, but I can provide some insight. No one is one-dimensional. So just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they also aren't an American, or a mother, or any number of things pulling them in different directions. Trump, while he said many contradictory things, said he was going to defend religious freedoms discrimination. As far as I know, Hillary did not, or at least she was viewed as weaker on that stance. So the question is would you vote for someone who is a sinner, but will promote the same ideas you have, or a different kind of sinner who won't?
FTFY
I know Trump has said a lot of things, but can you show me where he has said he's going to defend discrimination? I'm looking for something more than a "he said X, but really means Y" since I have trouble following some of those.
-
Frankly, as tired as some of our libertarian commenters are of what they think of as trivial complaints about cake, I am equally tired of moralizing bakers, not to mention pharmacists and nurses who don't want to fulfill critical components of their jobs. How about all of these religious dissenters explain how they voted for thrice-married two Corinthians adulterer Donald Trump and then they can tell me how moral they are? When we are done, they are free to run off to the mall to try to pick up teenage girls until the security guards kick them out.
Well, alot of them didn't. Many of the rest advised in advanced against nominating HRC. Dealing with it after the fact as though there was a viable option that go-round is disingenuous. There was no moral option, so you go with the group that isn't calling you a pedophile.
Dude-that's unfair. We didn't even know their standards were so low as to ignore pedophilia until AFTER they voted for Trump. You can't blame liberal "neener, neener, pedophile" shaming for Trump winning. Meanwhile, I don't think that the kind of people who voted for Roy Moore are the types who, if we just coddled their gentle snowflake nature about a little more about their support for a pedophile, would have voted for Doug Jones. Conversely, I ain't sucking up to Roy Moore voters and their ilk (and let's not forget the entire Republican establishment who threw up their hands and pretended that they had no other option but to support him). The GOP can have them. What does work, though (and that's why conservatives keep bitching about it), is pointing out to moderates the hypocrisy of the GOP and how low their standards are. It actually worked in Alabama-lots of nice Republicans didn't want to bring shame on themselves and their state. So keep bringing up Roy Moore. And Rob Porter and Stormy Daniels. Keep asking your friends why they used to fleck spit at you shouting about Bill Clinton's sex life, but why they don't care that Trump paid off a porn star. And don't let them turn it around. We aren't the ones who shut down the wheels of governance because the president got a blow job. They are the ones who told us it was impeachment worthy. Let them explain themselves.
-
Any blather I heard relation to Trump and religion was along the lines of "he's going to bring God back to America." As if he somehow left.
Nah, what I think they mean is they will bring back rules and laws that put dissenters back under the thumb of the Christian right. No more gay rights, weaken a dozen other protections for everyone else, and actively promote the Christian agenda. It would strengthen the cultural right to be homophobic and xenophobic again.
The first step towards moving the clock back to the 50s and early 60s where their were straight, Christian whites and everyone else - and everyone else needed to be managed.
Nope, thanks.
-
Keep asking your friends why they used to fleck spit at you shouting about Bill Clinton's sex life, but why they don't care that Trump paid off a porn star. And don't let them turn it around. We aren't the ones who shut down the wheels of governance because the president got a blow job. They are the ones who told us it was impeachment worthy. Let them explain themselves.
Don't forget that while Gingrich was moralizing about Clinton's affair - Gingrich was guilty of the same, likely at the same time...
The corporate and political hypocrisy in this country is mind boggling. This is America - insert long list of platitudes about American exceptionalism, patriotism, God, history, struggle, etc.
Its all bullshit especially when politicians and preachers lecture us about it.
-
I know Trump has said a lot of things, but can you show me where he has said he's going to defend discrimination? I'm looking for something more than a "he said X, but really means Y" since I have trouble following some of those.
No, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Because "religious freedom" in the context of American Christianity is a dog whistle for "right to discriminate." Christianity in America is not, and has never been, under attack in any meaningful way.
The idea that what consenting adults do in their own private space somehow affects a third party's religious life (or secular life, for that matter) is patently absurd. Any argument to the contrary betrays an authoritarian impulse that goes against many of the founding principles of the United States. People fought and died to expand those rights and principles to all people. The desire by a vocal subset of the population to regress is offensive in the extreme.
Basically, if you can't be nice to someone, just shut your face.
-
Less than 10 years ago, I was still a registered Republican. It makes me ill to think I was part of that group.
I kept trying to tell myself, "Well, they are for fiscal responsibility, and balancing budgets, and trimming fat, and encouraging people to be responsible and self-sufficient citizens who contribute positively to society."
But I hated the religious crap. I hated how they treated gay people. I hated their views about women. But I tried to justify my concerns with the stuff above.
And then I just couldn't do it anymore.
I attended a local GOP event around 2009ish. Obama had recently won and the GOPers were pissed off! I sat there dumb-founded at the racist comments. And this was an official meeting! Party leaders and such were there. This was not some loosely organized private citizen event.
I felt like a horrible person just by sitting there.
Sometimes I think back and regret not standing up and leaving, calling them a bunch of racist, theocratic SOBs, but I guess I was curious about how bad things would get, so I stayed. In a way, maybe it was a good thing that I stayed. It made my decision more clear every minute I listened. I vowed to myself that I would leave the party (which I did within days).
I did not swing to Democrat. I went independent, but I pretty much always vote for Dems now, as there is rarely a viable third option. And then I read today about Sean Hannity tweeting that President Obama's portrait was "too sexy" and I think to myself...the Republicans are freaking INSANE!!!
INSANE!! I don't know what else to say about them. It's like they aren't attached to reality. Trump pushes evangelical bullshit while knowing (he HAD to know!) that his lawyer paid $130K to some porn star he banged?? I will add "EVIL af" to INSANE!!
Let me calm down.
Okay I am good.
-
I know Trump has said a lot of things, but can you show me where he has said he's going to defend discrimination? I'm looking for something more than a "he said X, but really means Y" since I have trouble following some of those.
No, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Because "religious freedom" in the context of American Christianity is a dog whistle for "right to discriminate." Christianity in America is not, and has never been, under attack in any meaningful way.
The idea that what consenting adults do in their own private space somehow affects a third party's religious life (or secular life, for that matter) is patently absurd. Any argument to the contrary betrays an authoritarian impulse that goes against many of the founding principles of the United States. People fought and died to expand those rights and principles to all people. The desire by a vocal subset of the population to regress is offensive in the extreme.
Basically, if you can't be nice to someone, just shut your face.
Well I disagree, I don't think "religious freedom" = "right to discriminate." I do think there are places where they overlap, and that requires careful consideration, but there's overlap in a lot of ideas.
So you don't have a quote? It seems you're trying to put words into Trump's mouth that fit your opinion of him.
-
Well I disagree, I don't think "religious freedom" = "right to discriminate." I do think there are places where they overlap, and that requires careful consideration, but there's overlap in a lot of ideas.
So you don't have a quote? It seems you're trying to put words into Trump's mouth that fit your opinion of him.
You're right, the freedom of religion doesn't equal the right to discriminate.
You The point
The whole purpose of a dog whistle is that you can't quote someone explicitly advocating a ridiculous position. It's encoded in words that are literally defensible (as you so ably demonstrate), but carry subtext that everyone can understand.
-
Well I disagree, I don't think "religious freedom" = "right to discriminate." I do think there are places where they overlap, and that requires careful consideration, but there's overlap in a lot of ideas.
So you don't have a quote? It seems you're trying to put words into Trump's mouth that fit your opinion of him.
You're right, the freedom of religion doesn't equal the right to discriminate.
You The point
The whole purpose of a dog whistle is that you can't quote someone explicitly advocating a ridiculous position. It's encoded in words that are literally defensible (as you so ably demonstrate), but carry subtext that everyone can understand.
I thought the travel ban was pretty much an explicit statement of religious discrimination against Muslims.
-
Well I disagree, I don't think "religious freedom" = "right to discriminate." I do think there are places where they overlap, and that requires careful consideration, but there's overlap in a lot of ideas.
So you don't have a quote? It seems you're trying to put words into Trump's mouth that fit your opinion of him.
You're right, the freedom of religion doesn't equal the right to discriminate.
You The point
The whole purpose of a dog whistle is that you can't quote someone explicitly advocating a ridiculous position. It's encoded in words that are literally defensible (as you so ably demonstrate), but carry subtext that everyone can understand.
I thought the travel ban was pretty much an explicit statement of religious discrimination against Muslims.
Or the Obama "birther movement," calling black athletes SOBs, the numerous discriminatory based lawsuits he settled, "shithole countries," defending white nationalist as "some very fine people" etc. etc. Hell picking Pence as his VP.
-
Again, standard disclaimer: I don't believe, as a Christian, that I am called upon to in any way behave any differently towards any other human, regardless of the facts of how they live their life. I am to always assume everyone I deal with is "undercover Jesus" waiting to catch me treating someone badly. It's fundamental to me to the extent that I don't believe it's right to not hire someone because of felony status, and I abhor all legalized discrimination based on past activities such as drug use, legal violations, etc. Faith to me, means trusting others to do the right thing, and dealing with the consequences if they let me down.
But that's my religion and it works for me. It isn't for me to impose that on anyone else. If someone else believes their religion keeps them from doing a thing, that's really between them and their god. I can believe they are misguided. I can buy cake elsewhere, because to me it is just cake, but clearly to them it is something more significant. I believe a legal protection should extend once, to us, it becomes more than just cake, such as it did with the lunch counters.
If your beliefs prevented you from servicing Christians, I am required by my Christianity to accept that. And I believe your right to refuse me service based on that belief is constitutionally protected at this point. I don't believe the government has the right to refuse me service because of my faith, and interfering with my ability to engage in commerce because of that belief feels like what happened to this guy.
And that you don't hold the same belief as him has got to carry at least as much weight as my argument that to me, it's just cake. Which is to say none at all. Because in these cases we shouldn't look to the preferences of the people who think it's just cake, we should look to the preferences of the people for whom it is more than just cake.
I didn't read that inclusion of the numbers as central to his argument, rather put there for emphasis. As in, if we're going to enact sweeping federal legislation with broad powers and murderously harsh penalties it should be because there's an actual problem that calls for it and has no other resolution in sight. Gay rights and the situation in general for homosexuals has been improving steadily in the U.S., and now, as then, the real successes have been not in adding legislation establishing the protected class, but stripping the legislation that enshrined certain biases and excluded, either explicitly or accidentally, homosexuals and homosexual couples.
The civil rights era in U.S. History, which many of you in this thread have gotten completely wrong, was an era where these forms of discrimination were explicitly legal and in some cases required. The government was building facilities with separate drinking fountains. It was the law itself that was the problem. That's a fundamental difference to the baker case, where the problem is an individual asshole.
And so we have this legislation on our books that has a historical context, and the goal as a country should be to move towards a world where it isn't necessary. I don't think we're there yet but we're getting closer.
Someone mentioned a swastika cake, and that is an interesting example. In Germany you couldn't create a Swastika cake. They have specific laws about shit like that because it was a problem for them, and their national shame calls on all of them to accept a restriction on their right of free expression. We don't have a similar prohibition because, quite frankly, it's helpful when people raise that flag so you know they don't matter and can be safely ignored (or in the case of liberals, claim they're valid representations of the right and attempt to conflate the two).
So too in this country, our legacy of racial relations calls upon many of us to accept restrictions on our rights to discriminate, because we took it too far for too long, and refused to change by any other means.
There's a constitutional basis for the enforcement of things in the civil rights act as well, it's the 14th amendment, which is specific:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And so a law that says same-sex marriage or relations between same-sex couples at the state level is unconstitional, and we see those victories happening again and again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
But a law that provides special protections to same-sex couples...that isn't as clear cut.
Thank you for the excellent explanation of your position. I can't say that I 100% agree with it, but I do feel like I understand it much better now. My main disagreement would be that I feel that our legacy of relations with the LGBT community may call upon many of us to accept restrictions on our rights to discriminate similarly to how you feel our legacy of race relations does the same. In my view, maybe we should have some national shame with regards to how we have treated the LGBT community in the past and accept some restrictions on our rights to free expression based on that. I agree that we shouldn't be forcing anyone to create a cake with a message on it that they disagree with, but in this particular case it seems pretty clear that the baker denied service to the gay couple solely based on the fact that they were gay and not based on the design of the cake at all. Personally, I think that requiring that kind of clarity is a good enough limitation on the restriction of our right to discriminate and if it wasn't so clear I might very well come down on the side of the baker.
-
I know Trump has said a lot of things, but can you show me where he has said he's going to defend discrimination? I'm looking for something more than a "he said X, but really means Y" since I have trouble following some of those.
No, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Because "religious freedom" in the context of American Christianity is a dog whistle for "right to discriminate." Christianity in America is not, and has never been, under attack in any meaningful way.
The idea that what consenting adults do in their own private space somehow affects a third party's religious life (or secular life, for that matter) is patently absurd. Any argument to the contrary betrays an authoritarian impulse that goes against many of the founding principles of the United States. People fought and died to expand those rights and principles to all people. The desire by a vocal subset of the population to regress is offensive in the extreme.
Basically, if you can't be nice to someone, just shut your face.
Well I disagree, I don't think "religious freedom" = "right to discriminate." I do think there are places where they overlap, and that requires careful consideration, but there's overlap in a lot of ideas.
So you don't have a quote? It seems you're trying to put words into Trump's mouth that fit your opinion of him.
What religious freedom is he referring to when he says he will defend them?
My best understanding:
1) Christian freedoms
2) The freedom to not have to hear about or deal with other religions in the media
3) The freedom to discriminate against others based on your religion
4) The freedom to impose Christian beliefs and messages on others
Things like removing the pledge of allegiance from schools are in no way meant to be an attack on Christianity. School is a public place and some students are not Christian. Saying one nation under God is, in a sense, an attack on their religious freedom, removing it is not an attack on anything. But that's not how people who grew up with Christianity see it. When something has become so ingrained in your view of "normal" I can understand that it's difficult to see the other side (took me a while in terms of religion, I'm sure I still have a long ways to go in other areas) but anyone coming from an alien world with no prior concept of religion would clearly see that it is the Christians in American who are limiting the religious freedoms of others.
(This is not a criticism of all Christians, I'm using the term in context of the argument made by those who feel they are being persecuted.)
-
The whole purpose of a dog whistle is that you can't quote someone explicitly advocating a ridiculous position. It's encoded in words that are literally defensible (as you so ably demonstrate), but carry subtext that everyone can understand.
I guess not everyone. I've always had problems with underlying assumptions. I remember when someone explained to me that "welfare queens" generally referred to black women.
Is there a study that shows that most people understand this subtext?
-
The whole purpose of a dog whistle is that you can't quote someone explicitly advocating a ridiculous position. It's encoded in words that are literally defensible (as you so ably demonstrate), but carry subtext that everyone can understand.
I guess not everyone. I've always had problems with underlying assumptions. I remember when someone explained to me that "welfare queens" generally referred to black women.
Is there a study that shows that most people understand this subtext?
People hear what they want to hear. That cuts both ways.
-
I know Trump has said a lot of things, but can you show me where he has said he's going to defend discrimination? I'm looking for something more than a "he said X, but really means Y" since I have trouble following some of those.
No, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Because "religious freedom" in the context of American Christianity is a dog whistle for "right to discriminate." Christianity in America is not, and has never been, under attack in any meaningful way.
The idea that what consenting adults do in their own private space somehow affects a third party's religious life (or secular life, for that matter) is patently absurd. Any argument to the contrary betrays an authoritarian impulse that goes against many of the founding principles of the United States. People fought and died to expand those rights and principles to all people. The desire by a vocal subset of the population to regress is offensive in the extreme.
Basically, if you can't be nice to someone, just shut your face.
Well I disagree, I don't think "religious freedom" = "right to discriminate." I do think there are places where they overlap, and that requires careful consideration, but there's overlap in a lot of ideas.
So you don't have a quote? It seems you're trying to put words into Trump's mouth that fit your opinion of him.
I agree that "religious freedom" != "right to discriminate. However, if my understanding of the term "religious freedom" includes the right to discriminate based on my religion and I say that I will defend "religious freedom" then I am in fact stating that I will defend the right to discriminate based on my religion. I don't know what Trump's understanding of the term "religious freedom" entails, but I would think that we could get some insight into that question by looking at the related ideas that he does or does not support.
-
The whole purpose of a dog whistle is that you can't quote someone explicitly advocating a ridiculous position. It's encoded in words that are literally defensible (as you so ably demonstrate), but carry subtext that everyone can understand.
I guess not everyone. I've always had problems with underlying assumptions. I remember when someone explained to me that "welfare queens" generally referred to black women.
Is there a study that shows that most people understand this subtext?
The term originated with a real person, Linda Taylor, who was a black woman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen)
the phrase "welfare queen" has remained a stigmatizing label and is most often directed toward black, single mothers
-
The whole purpose of a dog whistle is that you can't quote someone explicitly advocating a ridiculous position. It's encoded in words that are literally defensible (as you so ably demonstrate), but carry subtext that everyone can understand.
I guess not everyone. I've always had problems with underlying assumptions. I remember when someone explained to me that "welfare queens" generally referred to black women.
Is there a study that shows that most people understand this subtext?
It's not a study, but a good explainer nevertheless: https://www.splcenter.org/20160211/religious-liberty-and-anti-lgbt-right
-
Still waiting for a convincing argument on why trying to stop people (e.g. like the baker, Hobby Lobby, etc.) from forcing religious beliefs onto others who don't share those beliefs somehow represents oppression and/or government overreach.
-
Still waiting for a convincing argument on why trying to stop people from forcing religious beliefs onto others who don't share those beliefs (e.g. like the Baker, Hobby Lobby, etc.) somehow represents oppression and/or government overreach.
I think the problem with looking for a convincing argument on that is that most people either don't see it that way or aren't capable of a convincing argument in your view - or agrees with you :)
For example, a lot of people will say that Hobby Lobby isn't forcing their beliefs on employees, they just aren't accommodating yours to their own detriment (higher insurance costs or whatever). There's an ignorant sort of person that will also go the "just don't work there" route with the argument.
Or they look at the belief as a moral absolute. Pro-life people see abortion as the same thing as killing toddler. If you don't see it the same way then you aren't going to find the argument convincing. After all, how do you argue that killing is bad other than it just is?
-
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
Can't speak for the original poster, but that more or less sums it up for me (not the part about relative size of black vs gay populations; thats irrelevant. But inability to purchase a wedding cake from a specific baker is clearly not on par with Jim Crow. Please note I make no assertions as to whether racism is worse than homophobia in 2018, or in 1968. Just that gay people today in the US are obviously not treated as badly as black people were 50 years ago).
As for denying service on the basis of other characteristics - it's fairly routine to do this on the basis of age and sex - think seniors-only housing or nightclub bouncers only letting in ladies. Admittedly analogous examples with race or religion are harder to come by.
As for whether it's ok - I think anyone denying service to a gay couple is a horrible person doing a horrible thing, and if they were nearby, I would boycott them and encourage all my neighbors to do the same. But just because something is not ok does not mean it should be illegal.
-
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
Can't speak for the original poster, but that more or less sums it up for me (not the part about relative size of black vs gay populations; thats irrelevant. But inability to purchase a wedding cake from a specific baker is clearly not on par with Jim Crow. Please note I make no assertions as to whether racism is worse than homophobia in 2018, or in 1968. Just that gay people today in the US are obviously not treated as badly as black people were 50 years ago).
As for denying service on the basis of other characteristics - it's fairly routine to do this on the basis of age and sex - think seniors-only housing or nightclub bouncers only letting in ladies. Admittedly analogous examples with race or religion are harder to come by.
As for whether it's ok - I think anyone denying service to a gay couple is a horrible person doing a horrible thing, and if they were nearby, I would boycott them and encourage all my neighbors to do the same. But just because something is not ok does not mean it should be illegal.
What if a business refused to serve white people? Should that be legal?
-
Still waiting for a convincing argument on why trying to stop people from forcing religious beliefs onto others who don't share those beliefs (e.g. like the Baker, Hobby Lobby, etc.) somehow represents oppression and/or government overreach.
I think the problem with looking for a convincing argument on that is that most people either don't see it that way or aren't capable of a convincing argument in your view - or agrees with you :)
For example, a lot of people will say that Hobby Lobby isn't forcing their beliefs on employees, they just aren't accommodating yours to their own detriment (higher insurance costs or whatever). There's an ignorant sort of person that will also go the "just don't work there" route with the argument.
Or they look at the belief as a moral absolute. Pro-life people see abortion as the same thing as killing toddler. If you don't see it the same way then you aren't going to find the argument convincing. After all, how do you argue that killing is bad other than it just is?
Yes I am aware people equivocate, which is an objective reason to call their "arguments" unconvincing. Let's make it even easier and ignore Hobby Lobby for a moment and stick to the baker, since he seems to be the hot issue in this thread. That is nowhere close to the abortion debate, after all.
He could have done what he always did, making no changes to his life whatsoever, but instead went out of his way to impact the lives of other people because he wanted to force his worldview onto them in some small fashion. The egregiousness of the actual offense is immaterial. He was infringing on other people's rights definitively. As has been pointed out ad naseum, no one was infringing on his at all, especially since he had entered a contract with the state when he opened his business in the first place.
Now returning to Hobby Lobby, that reasoning is objectively bad from its supporters because, among other flaws, it follows the slippery slope fallacy. If I am to accept that it's imposing my views on Hobby Lobby to require them to cover specific contraceptives due to the (extremely high, I'm sure) cost, it is logical to extend that argument that I shouldn't require them to provide any health coverage whatsoever because health coverage has costs involved. Also, from their own press release, Hobby Lobby contended that "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." (source - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/24/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/?utm_term=.0561914f1f84)
You might say then that we're back at the abortion argument except a) life beginning literally at conception is an especially extreme end of the debate and b) by its own admission, Hobby Lobby was making a decision based on religious, not scientific or business reasoning, meaning it was arguing for a right to force its religious views on its employees. Not to mention the whole "are corporations people?" question.
But now I have picked a specific example and opened myself up to the cherry picking contrarians. I know I won't make any headway here, it's just a perpetual frustration. Gay people getting married is forcing their views on god fearing Americans because... reasons, but refusing to bake them a cake is just exercising a fundamental right to freedom of association, bla bla bla.
PS - Insert obligatory heavy sigh as I point out I lean far more libertarian than liberal.
-
Can't speak for the original poster, but that more or less sums it up for me (not the part about relative size of black vs gay populations; thats irrelevant. But inability to purchase a wedding cake from a specific baker is clearly not on par with Jim Crow. Please note I make no assertions as to whether racism is worse than homophobia in 2018, or in 1968. Just that gay people today in the US are obviously not treated as badly as black people were 50 years ago).
As for denying service on the basis of other characteristics - it's fairly routine to do this on the basis of age and sex - think seniors-only housing or nightclub bouncers only letting in ladies. Admittedly analogous examples with race or religion are harder to come by.
As for whether it's ok - I think anyone denying service to a gay couple is a horrible person doing a horrible thing, and if they were nearby, I would boycott them and encourage all my neighbors to do the same. But just because something is not ok does not mean it should be illegal.
What if a business refused to serve white people? Should that be legal?
If we're still talking about baking wedding cakes- then yes, of course. Not morally ok either, but legal, yes.
Would I be upset? Sure. But then I also wasn't thrilled when i found out that the apartment building I really wanted to live in wouldn't let me rent since I'm under 55. Doesn't mean that should be illegal.
-
Can't speak for the original poster, but that more or less sums it up for me (not the part about relative size of black vs gay populations; thats irrelevant. But inability to purchase a wedding cake from a specific baker is clearly not on par with Jim Crow. Please note I make no assertions as to whether racism is worse than homophobia in 2018, or in 1968. Just that gay people today in the US are obviously not treated as badly as black people were 50 years ago).
As for denying service on the basis of other characteristics - it's fairly routine to do this on the basis of age and sex - think seniors-only housing or nightclub bouncers only letting in ladies. Admittedly analogous examples with race or religion are harder to come by.
As for whether it's ok - I think anyone denying service to a gay couple is a horrible person doing a horrible thing, and if they were nearby, I would boycott them and encourage all my neighbors to do the same. But just because something is not ok does not mean it should be illegal.
What if a business refused to serve white people? Should that be legal?
If we're still talking about baking wedding cakes- then yes, of course. Not morally ok either, but legal, yes.
Would I be upset? Sure. But then I also wasn't thrilled when i found out that the apartment building I really wanted to live in wouldn't let me rent since I'm under 55. Doesn't mean that should be illegal.
Age is only a protected class when you're old. Young people can just get off the lawn.
-
I know Trump has said a lot of things, but can you show me where he has said he's going to defend discrimination? I'm looking for something more than a "he said X, but really means Y" since I have trouble following some of those.
No, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Because "religious freedom" in the context of American Christianity is a dog whistle for "right to discriminate." Christianity in America is not, and has never been, under attack in any meaningful way.
The idea that what consenting adults do in their own private space somehow affects a third party's religious life (or secular life, for that matter) is patently absurd. Any argument to the contrary betrays an authoritarian impulse that goes against many of the founding principles of the United States. People fought and died to expand those rights and principles to all people. The desire by a vocal subset of the population to regress is offensive in the extreme.
Basically, if you can't be nice to someone, just shut your face.
Well I disagree, I don't think "religious freedom" = "right to discriminate." I do think there are places where they overlap, and that requires careful consideration, but there's overlap in a lot of ideas.
So you don't have a quote? It seems you're trying to put words into Trump's mouth that fit your opinion of him.
What religious freedom is he referring to when he says he will defend them?
My best understanding:
1) Christian freedoms
2) The freedom to not have to hear about or deal with other religions in the media
3) The freedom to discriminate against others based on your religion
4) The freedom to impose Christian beliefs and messages on others
Things like removing the pledge of allegiance from schools are in no way meant to be an attack on Christianity. School is a public place and some students are not Christian. Saying one nation under God is, in a sense, an attack on their religious freedom, removing it is not an attack on anything. But that's not how people who grew up with Christianity see it. When something has become so ingrained in your view of "normal" I can understand that it's difficult to see the other side (took me a while in terms of religion, I'm sure I still have a long ways to go in other areas) but anyone coming from an alien world with no prior concept of religion would clearly see that it is the Christians in American who are limiting the religious freedoms of others.
(This is not a criticism of all Christians, I'm using the term in context of the argument made by those who feel they are being persecuted.)
The current state of the Pledge of Allegiance is effectively an attack on anyone who doesn't believe in "God." The phrase "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.
-
The phrase "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.
By McCarthyists, if I remember my history correctly. So it's not only an attack on people who don't believe in god, it's also an attack on democracy itself. One of the great ironies of our age, that we literally used the Pledge of Allegiance to attack freedom.
"One nation with liberty and justice for all" was instead corrupted to sow divisions and suspicions between Americans, by a man on his own vitriolic crusade for personal power. Sound familiar?
Purely by coincidence (to tie this back to the thread topic) he was also a Republican.
-
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
Can't speak for the original poster, but that more or less sums it up for me (not the part about relative size of black vs gay populations; thats irrelevant. But inability to purchase a wedding cake from a specific baker is clearly not on par with Jim Crow. Please note I make no assertions as to whether racism is worse than homophobia in 2018, or in 1968. Just that gay people today in the US are obviously not treated as badly as black people were 50 years ago).
As for denying service on the basis of other characteristics - it's fairly routine to do this on the basis of age and sex - think seniors-only housing or nightclub bouncers only letting in ladies. Admittedly analogous examples with race or religion are harder to come by.
As for whether it's ok - I think anyone denying service to a gay couple is a horrible person doing a horrible thing, and if they were nearby, I would boycott them and encourage all my neighbors to do the same. But just because something is not ok does not mean it should be illegal.
What if a business refused to serve white people? Should that be legal?
I mean, this does happen. Think black frats at colleges. Or, once I walked into a salon and was told they only cut "black" hair. I didn't really take offense because I know that different hair types have different requirements. But the point stands, they definitely denied me service based on my race. I think it's kind of shitty since they still had scissors and would cut black hair after it had been relaxed, but it's not illegal.
-
So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position. Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion? How about because of their age? Or race/sex? How far does this freedom of association go? I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.
Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil. That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination. Am I understanding that correctly?
Can't speak for the original poster, but that more or less sums it up for me (not the part about relative size of black vs gay populations; thats irrelevant. But inability to purchase a wedding cake from a specific baker is clearly not on par with Jim Crow. Please note I make no assertions as to whether racism is worse than homophobia in 2018, or in 1968. Just that gay people today in the US are obviously not treated as badly as black people were 50 years ago).
As for denying service on the basis of other characteristics - it's fairly routine to do this on the basis of age and sex - think seniors-only housing or nightclub bouncers only letting in ladies. Admittedly analogous examples with race or religion are harder to come by.
As for whether it's ok - I think anyone denying service to a gay couple is a horrible person doing a horrible thing, and if they were nearby, I would boycott them and encourage all my neighbors to do the same. But just because something is not ok does not mean it should be illegal.
What if a business refused to serve white people? Should that be legal?
I mean, this does happen. Think black frats at colleges. Or, once I walked into a salon and was told they only cut "black" hair. I didn't really take offense because I know that different hair types have different requirements. But the point stands, they definitely denied me service based on my race. I think it's kind of shitty since they still had scissors and would cut black hair after it had been relaxed, but it's not illegal.
Fraternities are not businesses - sororities don't accept guys, fraternities don't accept women, etc.
-
Less than 10 years ago, I was still a registered Republican. It makes me ill to think I was part of that group.
I kept trying to tell myself, "Well, they are for fiscal responsibility, and balancing budgets, and trimming fat, and encouraging people to be responsible and self-sufficient citizens who contribute positively to society."
But I hated the religious crap. I hated how they treated gay people. I hated their views about women. But I tried to justify my concerns with the stuff above.
And then I just couldn't do it anymore.
I attended a local GOP event around 2009ish. Obama had recently won and the GOPers were pissed off! I sat there dumb-founded at the racist comments. And this was an official meeting! Party leaders and such were there. This was not some loosely organized private citizen event.
I felt like a horrible person just by sitting there.
Sometimes I think back and regret not standing up and leaving, calling them a bunch of racist, theocratic SOBs, but I guess I was curious about how bad things would get, so I stayed. In a way, maybe it was a good thing that I stayed. It made my decision more clear every minute I listened. I vowed to myself that I would leave the party (which I did within days).
I did not swing to Democrat. I went independent, but I pretty much always vote for Dems now, as there is rarely a viable third option. And then I read today about Sean Hannity tweeting that President Obama's portrait was "too sexy" and I think to myself...the Republicans are freaking INSANE!!!
INSANE!! I don't know what else to say about them. It's like they aren't attached to reality. Trump pushes evangelical bullshit while knowing (he HAD to know!) that his lawyer paid $130K to some porn star he banged?? I will add "EVIL af" to INSANE!!
Let me calm down.
Okay I am good.
This is pretty much how it went down for me as well, although I left the Republican party before Obama's election.
I find that I now disagree with almost every single policy the Republicans enact. They are not fiscally responsible at all . . . I don't know if they ever were, but that was my draw to the party in the first place. It certainly is now a myth. I've always been liberal on social issues, but I tried to see the conservative viewpoint since I had good friends who were socially conservative. The older I get, the more that viewpoint just looks like plain old fashioned bigotry.
-
*snip*
This is pretty much how it went down for me as well, although I left the Republican party before Obama's election.
I find that I now disagree with almost every single policy the Republicans enact. They are not fiscally responsible at all . . . I don't know if they ever were, but that was my draw to the party in the first place. It certainly is now a myth. I've always been liberal on social issues, but I tried to see the conservative viewpoint since I had good friends who were socially conservative. The older I get, the more that viewpoint just looks like plain old fashioned bigotry.
It seems to me that whoever is not in control is the fiscally responsible party.
-
I find that I now disagree with almost every single policy the Republicans enact. They are not fiscally responsible at all . . . I don't know if they ever were, but that was my draw to the party in the first place. It certainly is now a myth. I've always been liberal on social issues, but I tried to see the conservative viewpoint since I had good friends who were socially conservative. The older I get, the more that viewpoint just looks like plain old fashioned bigotry.
What the democratic party needs, IMO, is for people like you to speak up and get involved. They've spent too many years being reactionary against bad republican policies that I think they've forgotten how to build a willing coalition of centrists. There is certainly room for everyone, in a party willing to embrace good ideas from all sides instead of clinging to decades-old culture wars.
-
*snip*
This is pretty much how it went down for me as well, although I left the Republican party before Obama's election.
I find that I now disagree with almost every single policy the Republicans enact. They are not fiscally responsible at all . . . I don't know if they ever were, but that was my draw to the party in the first place. It certainly is now a myth. I've always been liberal on social issues, but I tried to see the conservative viewpoint since I had good friends who were socially conservative. The older I get, the more that viewpoint just looks like plain old fashioned bigotry.
It seems to me that whoever is not in control is the fiscally responsible party.
Thank you, yes!
-
*snip*
This is pretty much how it went down for me as well, although I left the Republican party before Obama's election.
I find that I now disagree with almost every single policy the Republicans enact. They are not fiscally responsible at all . . . I don't know if they ever were, but that was my draw to the party in the first place. It certainly is now a myth. I've always been liberal on social issues, but I tried to see the conservative viewpoint since I had good friends who were socially conservative. The older I get, the more that viewpoint just looks like plain old fashioned bigotry.
It seems to me that whoever is not in control is the fiscally responsible party.
Thank you, yes!
Point of differentiation. The current tax plan gives welfare to corporations and the rich, whereas in the past the focus has been on growing the middle class through investment in education, health services, veterans affairs, and infrastructure spending that actually built things. How you spend money matters.
-
An answer to the OPs question. If one doesn’t regret voting republican today then they’re either rich and selfish or an absolute idiot. 90% of people who voted Trump are just absolute idiots.
-
An answer to the OPs question. If one doesn’t regret voting republican today then they’re either rich and selfish or an absolute idiot. 90% of people who voted Trump are just absolute idiots.
You missed the group that claim to be "Christian", but display no real understanding of the teachings of Jesus.
-
*snip*
This is pretty much how it went down for me as well, although I left the Republican party before Obama's election.
I find that I now disagree with almost every single policy the Republicans enact. They are not fiscally responsible at all . . . I don't know if they ever were, but that was my draw to the party in the first place. It certainly is now a myth. I've always been liberal on social issues, but I tried to see the conservative viewpoint since I had good friends who were socially conservative. The older I get, the more that viewpoint just looks like plain old fashioned bigotry.
It seems to me that whoever is not in control is the fiscally responsible party.
Thank you, yes!
Point of differentiation. The current tax plan gives welfare to corporations and the rich, whereas in the past the focus has been on growing the middle class through investment in education, health services, veterans affairs, and infrastructure spending that actually built things. How you spend money matters.
+1
Although both parties spend well beyond their means, I'll give the Dems credit for at least directing funds to where it's needed most.
-
Although both parties spend well beyond their means, I'll give the Dems credit for at least directing funds to where it's needed most.
This is the central theme of the democratic party, and it frustrates me that they articulate it so poorly that republicans control the entire government.
Democrats want your government to help you. They want it to protect your freedoms and give you opportunities. They want better jobs and wages, better educations, affordable healthcare, a better environment, and a stronger economy that actually helps everyone, instead of the privileged few at the top of the pyramid. They have historically spent your tax dollars on trying to help you.
Republicans are the party of big business and the rich minority. They seemingly want to shit all over America so that the richest Americans can get even more money than they already have. They have spent your tax dollars on failed economic policies, undermining education, tearing apart our healthcare system, rolling back environmental protections, and making businesses more profitable at the expense of the workers. And yet we continue to vote for these self destructive policies, because so many of us have been riled up about abortion or guns or whatever. Republicans are appealing to our basest instincts in order to dismantle everything that is great about America, and we willingly help them do it. Because Jesus!
-
An answer to the OPs question. If one doesn’t regret voting republican today then they’re either rich and selfish or an absolute idiot. 90% of people who voted Trump are just absolute idiots.
I guess you got me pegged.
-
Although both parties spend well beyond their means, I'll give the Dems credit for at least directing funds to where it's needed most.
This is the central theme of the democratic party, and it frustrates me that they articulate it so poorly that republicans control the entire government.
Democrats want your government to help you. They want it to protect your freedoms and give you opportunities. They want better jobs and wages, better educations, affordable healthcare, a better environment, and a stronger economy that actually helps everyone, instead of the privileged few at the top of the pyramid. They have historically spent your tax dollars on trying to help you.
Many Democrats want your government to help you, and have been hijacked by politicians who want money and power. The want to abuse the power of government to restrict your freedoms and opportunities, as all authoritarians want to do. They use the message of better jobs and wages, better educations, affordable healthcare, a better environment, and a stronger economy, to lure otherwise good people into supporting their quest for power while providing none of those things. They regularly instigate class warfare tactics to further shift blame from their own failed policies and onto the faceless privileged few. They have historically spent your tax dollars bribing the laziest among us to vote for them, under cover of helping the less fortunate to trick the bleeding hearts into ignoring their authoritarianism.
What the democratic party needs, IMO, is for people like you to speak up and get involved. They've spent too many years being reactionary against bad republican policies that I think they've forgotten how to build a willing coalition of centrists. There is certainly room for everyone, in a party willing to embrace good ideas from all sides instead of clinging to decades-old culture wars.
Success! Welcome to the train of thought that will eventually lead you to realize "people like you" aren't welcome in the Democratic party by design, they were specifically kicked out, and that it is about 40 years past the time when we should have had four parties, the GOP and Democrats on the far end, and two centrist parties in control, one that wants to be fiscally responsible but do evil conservative type stuff like "not spend money we don't have" and one that wants to be fiscally responsible but do bleeding heart stuff like "feed the starving" or "pay people who don't feel like working." We can park the religious right off to the side out of the way, and the whacko-communist-libtards off to the left, and MAGA.
Right now, if "people like you" speak up, nope, that idea you just talked about? Code for racist homophobe, GTFO.
-
The democrats are somewhat right of center, and the republicans are a bit further right. Going to the middle between them would make another right wing party.
Americans would freak the fuck out if they found out how left some political parties in the rest of the world are.
-
I am socially progressive and consider myself fiscally conservative (moderate). One of the biggest differences I had with Obama is how much spending for defense he had, also the delayed closing of Guantanomo bay. So in some ways I feel neither party is good at reining in a huge chunk of spending (Defense) when we are far out of line with any other country on earth in the amount of money we spend, no matter how you slice it. And I would have totally been on board with universal coverage of healthcare, which in other countries has delivered better outcomes, with less cost per individual, than our current set-up. It would actually help with our deficit. So while I vote Democrat I don't see a party that exactly lines up with my views either.
I find whoever called the Democratic party "wacko communist lib-tards" laughable.
-
This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination? Really? What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?
Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm? If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else. Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.
As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.
You are trying to change your argument. You quite clearly based your earlier argument that Blacks deserve protection against discrimination whereas gays don't on 1) the size of the minority and 2) the level of discrimination. Here's your quote -
. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.
You are now making the argument that "anti-discrimination laws are overly broad". You appear to have abandoned the proposition that whether a minority deserves protection depends in principle on the size of that minority. (This is good: would Blacks have not deserved protection if they were only 1% of the population?) You also appear to have abandoned to a certain extent the notion that protection depends on the scale of the harm done, as you seem to be saying that protection does not differ depending on whether the harm is assault or murder. Your remaining argument appears to be not one of principle (whether protecting against discrimination is a good thing or not) but that the backlash against providing that protection may mean that the harm caused is greater than the benefit.
Really? You think that the chance of toddler tantrums by straight white people mean that non-white, non-straight people should not have the protection of the law against discrimination? That's your argument? Nothing to do with principle? Nothing to do with what's right? Just: the straight white people are going to unlawfully resist democratic laws enacted to protect historically and currrently oppressed people so lets not bother enacting those laws?
You're looking at it from the wrong POV. Federal government actions are inherently distasteful, but justifiable on a utilitarian basis. The existence of Jim Crow produces more negative utils than the discrimination that exists against homosexuals in 2017, which makes federal action against Jim Crow much more appealing than trying to stop discrimination against homosexuals.
Just take the US out of it and look at a hypothetical foreign policy scenario. The Tutsi minority in Rwanda has decided for some pay-back and has launched a genocidal campaign against the Hutu majority. Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Shi'a majority in Baghdad is waging an ethnic cleansing campaign to somewhat aggressively remove whatever small Yazdi community remains.
In Rwanda, the US is practically compelled to intervene. There are X million Hutus with nowhere to go, and they are going to die if no one does anything.
In Iraq, the Yazdi are less numerous than the Hutu (X thousand), and they aren't going to get killed: some will, but for the most part they will flee to the Kurdish zone. In that situation, the argument for intervention is a lot weaker.
The disagreement that most people would have on this thread is "federal action is inherently distasteful," and would instead look at federal action as something no different than drinking a bottle of water or looking at a cloud.
I find whoever called the Democratic party "wacko communist lib-tards" laughable.
If anyone has gone extreme over the last few cycles, it's been the GOP. Today's GOP is significantly further afield from what it was, even in 2004-2006.
Dems are pretty much the same but have been dragged to the Left a bit.
I expect the Dems to get dragged much further Left over the coming cycles, though.
-
+1 to the last 3 posts
I would say that the democratic party has been stretched lately. It's been dragged to the left socially, but pushed to the right fiscally.
-
Americans would freak the fuck out if they found out how left some political parties in the rest of the world are.
Universal health care AND a fraction of the gun violence???
-
Americans would freak the fuck out if they found out how left some political parties in the rest of the world are.
Universal health care AND a fraction of the gun violence???
Agreed, it's a socialist hell.
-
Dems are pretty much the same but have been dragged to the Left a bit.
I expect the Dems to get dragged much further Left over the coming cycles, though.
I think there's a ferocious debate about this topic right now, though it's mostly out of the public eye.
On the one hand you have people like Cheri Bustos, a Democrat from IL who won a landslide election in Trump country by appealing to the center. She argues that the Republican brand has been so toxic that Democrats can reclaim the national majority by avoiding wedge issues like abortion and focusing on things like jobs and the economy, which appeal to everyone. She's one of the people the Democratic Party put in charge of party strategy. She's adopted the old GOP strategy of "growing the tent" to make room for people who don't necessarily agree on every issue, but can at least agree the Democrats should be in charge and the Republicans shouldn't.
On the other hand you have people like Bernie Sanders, who isn't even a Democrat, who argues that voters aren't energized by middle-of-the-road safe policies. Obama won by starting a movement. Trump won by starting a movement. Ordinary safe boring politicians get ignored, so people like Sanders and party vice chair Keith Ellison have argued that the path to power for Democrats is to move left. They want bold policies designed to solve real problems, like universal healthcare. They make splashy speeches, and Bernie draws HUGE crowds by being outspokenly left of center.
The problem here is that the national party is basically trying to accommodate BOTH of these strategies, where they seem practical. Centrists can win in PA and aren't going to lose CA as a result. Bold socialist ideas were almost as popular in Trump country as were Trump's white persecution policies, and for similar reasons. But the result of this mixed message is that if you put 100 congressional Democrats in a room, they won't really agree on what it means to be a Democrat. If the politicians can't agree on what the party stands for, why would we expect voters to have any idea what the party stands for?
The Republicans, by contrast, had a consistent message. After they lost everything in 2008, they unified behind simple ideas like tax cuts for the rich and "repeal and replace" of Obamacare, and they basically ignored everything else. Even Republicans who didn't necessarily agree with those policies publicly parroted them for the cameras, and the appearance of unity was attractive to voters because it was simplistic. The central unifying vision of the party was to oppose everything Obama wanted (healthcare, stimulus, gay rights, national parks, equal pay for women, you name it) and it didn't matter if a particular Republican congressperson actually agreed with Obama, they publicly had to fall in lock step. That lock step led them to recapture every branch of government and gave them complete control over all aspects of America. They rule the world today.
Democrats lack that kind of discipline, nationally. They let individual elected officials represent their home districts, which of course cover a wide range of the spectrum, and the blue dog caucus and the hispanic caucus and progressive caucus are each allowed to promote their own ideas within the party. That's good small-r republican representation, which is great, but it doesn't win national elections.
-
Full text of the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado cake case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
Plenty of grist for mills of various opinions.
-
Full text of the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado cake case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
Plenty of grist for mills of various opinions.
Seems like the issue was that the commission who reviewed the complaint in Colorado was openly hostile to the religious dimension of the refusal of service...and treated the case differently because it was a religious objection.
Still, the delicate question of
when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an
otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined
in an adjudication in which religious hostility on
the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the
balance the State sought to reach.
That requirement,
however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do
so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution
requires
-
Thought I'd revive this thread and take the temperature of Trump supporters. I am curious as to the depth of support for Trump and how deep you are willing to go.
Since I first posted, we have....
*Michael Flynn (guilty)
*Paul Manafort (guilty)
*Richard Gates (guilty)
*George Papadopoulos (guilty)
*Alex van der Zwaan (guilty)
*Richard Pinedo (guilty)
*13 Russian Nationals (indicted)
*12 Russian Intelligent Officers (indicted)
*Michael Cohen (plea in the works/cooperating)
*David Pecker (granted immunity/cooperating)
*Allen Weisselberg (CEO Trump organization; granted immunity/cooperating)
I am curious as to whether anyone that voted for Trump regrets in now--now that we are a little deeper into the investigation? I'm actually curious and know it would take a lot to admit it, but....Alternatively, if you are still supporting Trump what are your reasons....
Looking forward to an illuminating conversation.
-
Where's Acroy at?
-
Another big change since you posted: Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring.
I expect we'll hear from plenty of Trump supporters who feel as though Trump sold them
1. Tax Cut and Jobs Act,
2. Conservative Supreme court Justices--and it's two now--and
3. Being able to say Hillary Clinton was never President.
These all materialized very quickly.
The bill for all of these things is letting Trump make the Office of Presidency, our US Foreign Policy, and the Federal administration--particularly DoJ--his personal plaything. It will take a while for many people who live outside of Puerto Rico to realize how expensive this actually is.
-
Don't meet the criteria as I voted Libertarian. However, I would consider voting Republican in 18 and 20. Reasons?
GDP rose 4.1% in the second quarter and is up more than 3% for the year.
The S&P 500 stock index is up ~25% since his election
Unemployment was down to 3.9% in July.
Black unemployment was down to 5.9% in May, and Hispanic unemployment was down to 4.6% in June, both their lowest numbers ever
Bloomberg writer Conor Sen says job growth has been greatest among "goods-producing workers and the least-educated workers." (Reducing inequality)
The number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits declined by 3.6 million since Trump was elected
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
-
Don't meet the criteria as I voted Libertarian. However, I would consider voting Republican in 18 and 20. Reasons?
GDP rose 4.1% in the second quarter and is up more than 3% for the year.
The S&P 500 stock index is up ~25% since his election
Unemployment was down to 3.9% in July.
Black unemployment was down to 5.9% in May, and Hispanic unemployment was down to 4.6% in June, both their lowest numbers ever
Bloomberg writer Conor Sen says job growth has been greatest among "goods-producing workers and the least-educated workers." (Reducing inequality)
The number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits declined by 3.6 million since Trump was elected
Which of Trump's policies and actions do you believe caused all of this to happen? My understanding is that many of the things you're referring to appear to be continuing a trend, not due to change of administration.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hHkDzkzuj2vZdwG0ZiFd4mqUySY=/0x0:1080x966/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1080x966):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12321711/Artboard_2_copy.jpg) (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/W83ILZBsnTBrjAhVPUu-_gYZF_E=/0x0:1080x980/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1080x980):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12321721/Artboard_2.jpg) (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Q1xte2syphXUR1Y4DYUZAuTq_9M=/0x0:2026x864/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:2026x864):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12320793/Screen_Shot_2018_08_20_at_11.44.07_AM.png)
Trump did this by increasing government spending and debt. I'm surprised that as a Libertarian you're OK with that.
-
Seems a good summary in Cohen and Manafort convictions won't make a dent with Trump's supporters (https://nypost.com/2018/08/22/why-trumps-supporters-wont-care-about-cohen-and-manaforts-convictions/).
E.g.,
Last week, a woman in her mid-40s who lives in a tidy suburban enclave just outside of Columbus, Ohio, summed up her continued support for President Donald Trump despite his morals, values and behavior not matching hers nor matching her expectations she had for any president of the United States.
...
Along comes Trump in 2016. She cannot abide anything he tweets, finds his speeches a stream of consciousness that is hard to unscramble and considers his morals in the gutter. She reluctantly voted for him and knows she will vote for him again, something she admits even surprises her.
See the rest of the article for details.
-
Seems a good summary in Cohen and Manafort convictions won't make a dent with Trump's supporters (https://nypost.com/2018/08/22/why-trumps-supporters-wont-care-about-cohen-and-manaforts-convictions/).
E.g.,
Last week, a woman in her mid-40s who lives in a tidy suburban enclave just outside of Columbus, Ohio, summed up her continued support for President Donald Trump despite his morals, values and behavior not matching hers nor matching her expectations she had for any president of the United States.
...
Along comes Trump in 2016. She cannot abide anything he tweets, finds his speeches a stream of consciousness that is hard to unscramble and considers his morals in the gutter. She reluctantly voted for him and knows she will vote for him again, something she admits even surprises her.
See the rest of the article for details.
I used to think the end of days stories about the Anti-Christ's ability to mind control millions of people to be pure superstition.
Now, I'm not so sure...
-
GDP rose 4.1% in the second quarter and is up more than 3% for the year.
Most reports I've read indicate the jump from 2% to 4.1% was due in large part to everyone buying cheap before the tariffs kicked in. We'll see what Q3 looks like. My guess is sub-3%.
-
Trump did this by increasing government spending and debt. I'm surprised that as a Libertarian you're OK with that.
Libertarians are just Republicans who have too much shame to identify as such, usually.
-
Trump did this by increasing government spending and debt. I'm surprised that as a Libertarian you're OK with that.
Libertarians are just Republicans who have too much shame to identify as such, usually.
We should try to stay away from blanket statements, particularly if the goal of this thread is to get sincere opinions from Trump voters (who I assume mostly identify as Republican or Libertarian).
I don't think this statement holds much truth anyway. There may be overlap from the small government aspect, but there are some major disparities between their platforms in the areas of criminalizing drugs, religion, abortion, etc.
-
Trump did this by increasing government spending and debt. I'm surprised that as a Libertarian you're OK with that.
Libertarians are just Republicans who have too much shame to identify as such, usually.
We should try to stay away from blanket statements, particularly if the goal of this thread is to get sincere opinions from Trump voters (who I assume mostly identify as Republican or Libertarian).
I don't think this statement holds much truth anyway. There may be overlap from the small government aspect, but there are some major disparities between their platforms in the areas of criminalizing drugs, religion, abortion, etc.
I'd argue that there's little to no real overlap. The Republican Party is big government (farmer bailouts, military spending, pro-imprisoning citizens, anti free trade, anti open borders), socially conservative (pro government control of marriage, pro-government control of abortion, pro Christianity), and historically runs a bigger deficit than the Democrats.
-
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
So you think the tariffs are worse than the human rights violations committed at the border? Wow!
-
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
I'm certainly hoping those tariff / trade negotiations get worked out with no long term damage or permanent passing on of costs to consumers (aka hidden tax). The other bad thing, which could have been worse, is his attempts to dismantle the ACA, which narrowly escaped a big blow. Thank you, John McCain (RIP).
One thing I support Trump on is border security and anti illegal immigration. All other recent presidents have been weak on the issue. A male illegal alien just killed a young female college student in Iowa and dumped her in a corn field. The fact that he is an illegal alien is being downplayed in the mainstream news media. It's very sad and shouldn't have happened.
-
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
I'm certainly hoping those tariff / trade negotiations get worked out with no long term damage or permanent passing on of costs to consumers (aka hidden tax). The other bad thing, which could have been worse, is his attempts to dismantle the ACA, which narrowly escaped a big blow. Thank you, John McCain (RIP).
One thing I support Trump on is border security and anti illegal immigration. All other recent presidents have been weak on the issue. A male illegal alien just killed a young female college student in Iowa and dumped her in a corn field. The fact that he is an illegal alien is being downplayed in the mainstream news media. It's very sad and shouldn't have happened.
And a born-American gunned down dozens in Los Vegas, another born-American gunned down a church full of people, another born-American gunned down a different church full of people, another born-American just killed his wife and two children and went on TV pretending he mourned their loss, another born-American ran his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters - killing one and wounding others, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
Those illegal aliens are far less likely to cause a problem than born-Americans. Hell, they don't even speed because they don't want to be picked up by the police.
-
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
I'm certainly hoping those tariff / trade negotiations get worked out with no long term damage or permanent passing on of costs to consumers (aka hidden tax). The other bad thing, which could have been worse, is his attempts to dismantle the ACA, which narrowly escaped a big blow. Thank you, John McCain (RIP).
One thing I support Trump on is border security and anti illegal immigration. All other recent presidents have been weak on the issue. A male illegal alien just killed a young female college student in Iowa and dumped her in a corn field. The fact that he is an illegal alien is being downplayed in the mainstream news media. It's very sad and shouldn't have happened.
That last sentence is very confusing to me. Is anybody arguing the murder is A-OK because he wasn't here legally? Killing people is bad whether someone is here legally or not and I'll be a monkey's uncle if someone is trying to protect him from his actions because he isn't an American citizen.
As for as the media: While I haven't seen any of that news footage myself, I would guess the media is simply not mentioning something that isn't worth mentioning rather than playing it down. So let's flip it around. Why should it be played up? I don't see how whether or not he was here legally has anything to do with it. Are illegal aliens more likely to commit murder? Even if they were, their numbers are small enough that you're still more likely to be harmed by someone born here.
-
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
I'm certainly hoping those tariff / trade negotiations get worked out with no long term damage or permanent passing on of costs to consumers (aka hidden tax). The other bad thing, which could have been worse, is his attempts to dismantle the ACA, which narrowly escaped a big blow. Thank you, John McCain (RIP).
One thing I support Trump on is border security and anti illegal immigration. All other recent presidents have been weak on the issue. A male illegal alien just killed a young female college student in Iowa and dumped her in a corn field. The fact that he is an illegal alien is being downplayed in the mainstream news media. It's very sad and shouldn't have happened.
And a born-American gunned down dozens in Los Vegas, another born-American gunned down a church full of people, another born-American gunned down a different church full of people, another born-American just killed his wife and two children and went on TV pretending he mourned their loss, another born-American ran his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters - killing one and wounding others, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
Those illegal aliens are far less likely to cause a problem than born-Americans. Hell, they don't even speed because they don't want to be picked up by the police.
Just how much effort do you think is reasonable to spend on "border security"? The US already spends billions on it each year, that doesn't seem like a "weak" stance to me.
While Mollie Tibbett's murder is very tragic, the fact is that a young woman in the US is far more likely to die at the hands of a boyfriend, husband, or relative. And I'm pretty sure the government spends more on border security than it does on trying to address that issue, either through better gun control or through things like making anger management classes more readily available or making it easier for people to get out of bad/violent domestic situations or on empowering and educating women so they are less likely to wind up dependent on someone who could kill them. If you really care about young women getting killed, THOSE are issues you should be concerned about as they have far more impact. Choosing to zero in on a fairly unusual killing (immigration status aside, it's VERY VERY RARE for someone to be murdered by a stranger) is not going to be an effective means of reducing violence. If you care about efficient allocation of tax dollars (and if you're on a frugality forum, I assume you do), more money on border security is not efficient. We've reached the point of diminishing returns.
-
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
I'm certainly hoping those tariff / trade negotiations get worked out with no long term damage or permanent passing on of costs to consumers (aka hidden tax). The other bad thing, which could have been worse, is his attempts to dismantle the ACA, which narrowly escaped a big blow. Thank you, John McCain (RIP).
One thing I support Trump on is border security and anti illegal immigration. All other recent presidents have been weak on the issue. A male illegal alien just killed a young female college student in Iowa and dumped her in a corn field. The fact that he is an illegal alien is being downplayed in the mainstream news media. It's very sad and shouldn't have happened.
What an absolutely horrible and immoral post. Using the absolutely terrible and senseless death of a person to first lie about media reporting, and then attempt to further an agenda for a border wall. Her name is Mollie by the way. And her family member has already called people like you out for using her death as a political tool. Shame on you
-
Don't meet the criteria as I voted Libertarian. However, I would consider voting Republican in 18 and 20. Reasons?
GDP rose 4.1% in the second quarter and is up more than 3% for the year.
The S&P 500 stock index is up ~25% since his election
Unemployment was down to 3.9% in July.
Black unemployment was down to 5.9% in May, and Hispanic unemployment was down to 4.6% in June, both their lowest numbers ever
Bloomberg writer Conor Sen says job growth has been greatest among "goods-producing workers and the least-educated workers." (Reducing inequality)
The number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits declined by 3.6 million since Trump was elected
Which of Trump's policies and actions do you believe caused all of this to happen? My understanding is that many of the things you're referring to appear to be continuing a trend, not due to change of administration.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hHkDzkzuj2vZdwG0ZiFd4mqUySY=/0x0:1080x966/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1080x966):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12321711/Artboard_2_copy.jpg) (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/W83ILZBsnTBrjAhVPUu-_gYZF_E=/0x0:1080x980/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1080x980):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12321721/Artboard_2.jpg) (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Q1xte2syphXUR1Y4DYUZAuTq_9M=/0x0:2026x864/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:2026x864):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12320793/Screen_Shot_2018_08_20_at_11.44.07_AM.png)
Trump did this by increasing government spending and debt. I'm surprised that as a Libertarian you're OK with that.
Which of the policies and actions led to these? Tax cuts and the reduction of federal regulations (promised 2 for 1 decrease but numbers are all over the place as to what has happened.) The other thing is expectations. Businesses expected a pro-business environment under Trump and planned accordingly. Now, federal revenue has increased even with the tax cut but unfortunately the budget has increased by an even higher percentage leading to a higher deficit.
Libertarian efforts at the federal level are a quixotic quest so I am trying more local efforts. Earlier this year, I made calls and attended a hearing on the state level trying to reduce dubious mandatory licensing requirements for workers. The state was able to pass a compromise bill where a committee will review 20% of job licenses each year for the next 5 years and hopefully eliminate some of the more idiotic ones. (and before someone takes an extreme view of this, I am not saying that doctors should not be licensed, rather interior decorators, hair braiders, flower arrangers, casket makers, etc)
-
Which reduction of regulations specifically do you credit with improving the economy? Or is your argument that any reduction of regulation improves the economy?
You believe that government interference by increasing tariffs is pro-business? That's a rather anti-Libertarian stance to take isn't it?
-
Which of the policies and actions led to these? Tax cuts and the reduction of federal regulations (promised 2 for 1 decrease but numbers are all over the place as to what has happened.) The other thing is expectations. Businesses expected a pro-business environment under Trump and planned accordingly. Now, federal revenue has increased even with the tax cut but unfortunately the budget has increased by an even higher percentage leading to a higher deficit.
Umm no not exactly. You missed this earlier posted by Fireball which is relevant:
Most reports I've read indicate the jump from 2% to 4.1% was due in large part to everyone buying cheap before the tariffs kicked in. We'll see what Q3 looks like. My guess is sub-3%.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/business/economy/economy-gdp-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/business/economy/economy-gdp-trump.html)
You are free to fact check if you don't like the source as again multiple sources citing economist all unanimously agree. While you may or may not like the imposed tariffs, you can thank them for the roughly 2% boost in GDP for this past quarter. Of course long term based on comprehensive evidence of past actions on tariffs, they will be an utter disaster for the economy.
Republicans passing a large corporate tax welfare plan while the economy is thriving is idiotic.
-
Which reduction of regulations specifically do you credit with improving the economy? Or is your argument that any reduction of regulation improves the economy?
You believe that government interference by increasing tariffs is pro-business? That's a rather anti-Libertarian stance to take isn't it?
As for as regulations, there are many that can be removed and help the economy. State level again, removing the requirement that a hair braider takes 500 hours of training. This would help people (mostly minority) to start their own business or side hustle legally which hopefully decrease inequality.
Or how about any of the 549 federal rules on egg production and research passed in the last 22 years? How many hours have egg producers spent ascertaining that they are in compliance on the average 25 new regulations per year on just their industry not to mention all other areas that they have such as HR, etc.
These regulations are an unseen action. How many barbers are not in business for themselves because of government regulations? Why have chains such as Great Clips, Wonder Cuts, Sportsclips etc. all taken off because bigger companies can afford to comply with onerous rules?
Also, from my first post "The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects."
-
(reminder: I am an economist and sympathetic to the idea that regulations weigh down businesses, particularly small ones)
The fact that you offer up barriers to entry in hair and dairy/egg production is kinda...random. Are you in one of these industries? Do you work for a group who lobbies for them? Do you have evidence that these particular regulations are much more onerous than--say--those that fall on coal power plants? Because my annual spend on eggs is probably in the neighborhood of about $100 for a family of four. My annual spend on hair (just for myself) styling is a very un-mustachian $150. Seeing these amounts cut in half by removing the regulations you cite will not rocket my family ahead financially.
And there's a converse of the regulation argument--one that really matters--which is that there are real problems being caused, sometimes to workers, sometimes to customers, and some times to third parties who do not benefit from unregulated transactions.
And while I appreciate the benefits businesses receive from the rollback to these regulations, I'm aware that some times the people who suffer from these rollbacks might not have the resources the businesses do to fight them in court of law or court of public opinion.
-
As far as getting back to original question, does anyone regret voting Republican, the guy I've been seeing (who I didn't realize was Republican because when I asked before dating whether he had voted for Trump said no (only because he didn't vote)). I said, what do you think of Trump now? And he said, well I think maybe he's made some mistakes, but I think he's smart, he's a smart businessman, he wouldn't be where he is now if he didn't know what he was doing, so I think he going to make good decisions. But when I mentioned what did he think about the fact he is now implicated in federal crimes, he got defensive and said, look I'm not political. And we had previously agreed not to talk about politics, so we changed the subject. Basically he seems totally comfortable having Trump as president, thinks he doing a good job, making good decisions (when I asked him for an example said he's going to "fix" the ACA, because it's too expensive).
One thing that I think is relevant to his thought process, is the same weekend we were talking about something unrelated (business stuff) and he explained that rules and regulations, are not absolute; t's really more about knowing the right person, and one person might tell you no, but if they know you know someone influential it will happen. Basically, only the dumb people follow the rules. Maybe he identifies with Trump?
Bottom line, I see someone who made up their mind about him (positively) on very little information (aka reputation as a successful businessman). Despite more and more "data" to look at, is not willing to examine that data or revisit their original opinion. Kind of like I made money on black, no matter how many times red comes up I'm going to keep it on black no matter what.
-
As far as getting back to original question, does anyone regret voting Republican, the guy I've been seeing (who I didn't realize was Republican because when I asked before dating whether he had voted for Trump said no (only because he didn't vote)). I said, what do you think of Trump now? And he said, well I think maybe he's made some mistakes, but I think he's smart, he's a smart businessman, he wouldn't be where he is now if he didn't know what he was doing, so I think he going to make good decisions. But when I mentioned what did he think about the fact he is now implicated in federal crimes, he got defensive and said, look I'm not political. And we had previously agreed not to talk about politics, so we changed the subject. Basically he seems totally comfortable having Trump as president, thinks he doing a good job, making good decisions (when I asked him for an example said he's going to "fix" the ACA, because it's too expensive).
One thing that I think is relevant to his thought process, is the same weekend we were talking about something unrelated (business stuff) and he explained that rules and regulations, are not absolute; t's really more about knowing the right person, and one person might tell you no, but if they know you know someone influential it will happen. Basically, only the dumb people follow the rules. Maybe he identifies with Trump?
Bottom line, I see someone who made up their mind about him (positively) on very little information (aka reputation as a successful businessman). Despite more and more "data" to look at, is not willing to examine that data or revisit their original opinion. Kind of like I made money on black, no matter how many times red comes up I'm going to keep it on black no matter what.
I'm going to go ahead and ask what everyone else wants to ask: are you going to keep seeing him? It's a subquestion to this thread (does anyone regret cutting off/not cutting off the Trump lovers in their lives).
-
The short answer is I'm not going to break up with him due to his Trump views (if I did break up it would be for other reasons!). I consider him a friend (and a lover). I don't see him as a boyfriend and a partner, we are just too different. There is part of the Venn diagram we overlap in enjoying each other's company and helping each other. Right now it's a net plus in my life so I'm not going to hyper analyze it. At the point either of us wanted to see other people we agree we would just be friends.
One thing is true, is that his views on Trump have made me question his judgement in general. I've seen other instances where he will have made up his mind in some way, and is not flexible or adaptable about looking at it from a different way.
-
The worst action taken by President Trump is increasing tariffs but even this action appears to have led China, Mexico, and EU back to the negotiating table. Will wait on the long-term effects.
I'm certainly hoping those tariff / trade negotiations get worked out with no long term damage or permanent passing on of costs to consumers (aka hidden tax). The other bad thing, which could have been worse, is his attempts to dismantle the ACA, which narrowly escaped a big blow. Thank you, John McCain (RIP).
One thing I support Trump on is border security and anti illegal immigration. All other recent presidents have been weak on the issue. A male illegal alien just killed a young female college student in Iowa and dumped her in a corn field. The fact that he is an illegal alien is being downplayed in the mainstream news media. It's very sad and shouldn't have happened.
That last sentence is very confusing to me. Is anybody arguing the murder is A-OK because he wasn't here legally? Killing people is bad whether someone is here legally or not and I'll be a monkey's uncle if someone is trying to protect him from his actions because he isn't an American citizen.
As for as the media: While I haven't seen any of that news footage myself, I would guess the media is simply not mentioning something that isn't worth mentioning rather than playing it down. So let's flip it around. Why should it be played up? I don't see how whether or not he was here legally has anything to do with it. Are illegal aliens more likely to commit murder? Even if they were, their numbers are small enough that you're still more likely to be harmed by someone born here.
Every article about the murder has mentioned his immigrant status here in Iowa. To the point where the family of the victim came out and said to stop using her death for political gains.
And, the facts actually show immigrants are less likely to commit crimes.
This was NOT about a immigrant, it was about male entitlement.
-
The short answer is I'm not going to break up with him due to his Trump views (if I did break up it would be for other reasons!). I consider him a friend (and a lover). I don't see him as a boyfriend and a partner, we are just too different. There is part of the Venn diagram we overlap in enjoying each other's company and helping each other. Right now it's a net plus in my life so I'm not going to hyper analyze it. At the point either of us wanted to see other people we agree we would just be friends.
One thing is true, is that his views on Trump have made me question his judgement in general. I've seen other instances where he will have made up his mind in some way, and is not flexible or adaptable about looking at it from a different way.
I know plenty of people who are ethical people, yet voted for Trump.
I know plenty of people who are ethical people, yet they voted for Sec. Clinton.
Keeping ethical people in your life matters. You can explore someone's attitudes towards the law, further. Cynicism about the laws of this country may well be what causes that person to excuse Trump, but you will have to decide whether the person is ethical in his private dealings, too, performing work and service to others in his personal life where Trump isn't relevant.
-
Talltexan, he's a interesting mix. He does have a businessman view of anything that helps business along is good, and rules are just suggestions. His personal politics are very much, everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps otherwise they are lazy, which yes is overly simplistic and judgemental. However in his actions he is more gentle. He's fixing up a rental house, so that it can be used for housing for women fleeing domestic abuse, even though he will make less money. He has donated time and energy helping me with my house, and to everyone he is the type of guy if cantelopes are on sale, will buy extras to give out to people. He works his workers hard, but at the same time will say let them live for free of charge in one of his houses, and drive them places if they need transportation. While he is more into cars than I would like, when he is doing house projects he is really good and handy at reusing materials and using what you have versus throwing things away or buying new. In that way he is more environmental than I am. One way we do diverge, is he is more religious. I know his preference is for me to learn more about his religion. But I am comfortable where I am at spiritually and have no desire to convert or participate actively in his religion, or really any religion other than the minimal I do now for what I was raised in.
-
I'm resurrecting this thread b/c of a phone convo this morning with my die-hard conservative father. It had been a few months since I talked to him, and BOY is he frothing to get to the polls. He has historically only voted occasionally for Democrats, usually centrist presidential candidates (e.g., he voted for Al Gore), but generally he votes GOP. He voted for Trump and all the GOP candidates in 2016, as per usual. His governor is a high-profile conservative for whom Dad previously voted twice.
But he is FROTHING to get to polls tomorrow, and told me he is going to vote-straight ticket Dem for the first time in his life, and plans to do so for every future state or national election until the GOP stops supporting Trump, and starts shifting their platform back to old school (ie somewhat sane) 80s style conservatism.
And he's in a swing state.
-
I'm resurrecting this thread b/c of a phone convo this morning with my die-hard conservative father. It had been a few months since I talked to him, and BOY is he frothing to get to the polls. He has historically only voted occasionally for Democrats, usually centrist presidential candidates (e.g., he voted for Al Gore), but generally he votes GOP. He voted for Trump and all the GOP candidates in 2016, as per usual. His governor is a high-profile conservative for whom Dad previously voted twice.
But he is FROTHING to get to polls tomorrow, and told me he is going to vote-straight ticket Dem for the first time in his life, and plans to do so for every future state or national election until the GOP stops supporting Trump, and starts shifting their platform back to old school (ie somewhat sane) 80s style conservatism.
And he's in a swing state.
As much as I would personally like to believe there are a lot more people like your dad, the polls don't bear that out. Trump consistently has a 89ish% approval rating within the Republican party. They love him and think that he's doing a great job.
People like your dad are the exception, not the rule, and he'd probably be called a "RINO" today.
-
My Dad, and my uncle are both voting Democrat this time around. But in general they do vote Democrat, but they did both vote for Reagan first term, and Bush Jr first term.
OTOH my Dad's cousin who used to be quite moderate, even intellectual, has gone full right wing, particularly talking about immigrants and Muslims ruining this country with an angry fevour that he never had before. My father can no longer talk to him due to his extreme intolerance to anyone who disagrees. It is -odd. Especially considering that they are both (him and his cousin) first generation immigrants.
-
I'm resurrecting this thread b/c of a phone convo this morning with my die-hard conservative father. It had been a few months since I talked to him, and BOY is he frothing to get to the polls. He has historically only voted occasionally for Democrats, usually centrist presidential candidates (e.g., he voted for Al Gore), but generally he votes GOP. He voted for Trump and all the GOP candidates in 2016, as per usual. His governor is a high-profile conservative for whom Dad previously voted twice.
But he is FROTHING to get to polls tomorrow, and told me he is going to vote-straight ticket Dem for the first time in his life, and plans to do so for every future state or national election until the GOP stops supporting Trump, and starts shifting their platform back to old school (ie somewhat sane) 80s style conservatism.
And he's in a swing state.
As much as I would personally like to believe there are a lot more people like your dad, the polls don't bear that out. Trump consistently has a 89ish% approval rating within the Republican party. They love him and think that he's doing a great job.
People like your dad are the exception, not the rule, and he'd probably be called a "RINO" today.
I agree polls show high Republican support for Trump. However, my father is not a member of the Republican party and has always identified as an independent. He'd be insulted if someone called him a Republican. What I'm hoping is that he isn't a huge exception among independent voters. I'm dying to see that governor booted from office in my home state, so hopefully more of the independents are aligning with my father, at least in this election.
-
One thing that is interesting, is the guy I've been seeing on and off, volunteered how he voted this election (early voted) and that he voted against all six amendments. He said he talked to friends and family how the laws would affect them, in how he decided to vote. The amendments put forth by the Republican-controlled Legislature on a slew of things, including stripping the (Democratic) governor of more powers, and restrictive voter ID laws.
https://www.wral.com/here-s-a-look-at-north-carolina-s-proposed-constitutional-amendments/17715772/
-
I'm resurrecting this thread b/c of a phone convo this morning with my die-hard conservative father. It had been a few months since I talked to him, and BOY is he frothing to get to the polls. He has historically only voted occasionally for Democrats, usually centrist presidential candidates (e.g., he voted for Al Gore), but generally he votes GOP. He voted for Trump and all the GOP candidates in 2016, as per usual. His governor is a high-profile conservative for whom Dad previously voted twice.
But he is FROTHING to get to polls tomorrow, and told me he is going to vote-straight ticket Dem for the first time in his life, and plans to do so for every future state or national election until the GOP stops supporting Trump, and starts shifting their platform back to old school (ie somewhat sane) 80s style conservatism.
And he's in a swing state.
@wenchsenior What changed his mind? Just curious to hear whatever you are willing to share.
-
I'm resurrecting this thread b/c of a phone convo this morning with my die-hard conservative father. It had been a few months since I talked to him, and BOY is he frothing to get to the polls. He has historically only voted occasionally for Democrats, usually centrist presidential candidates (e.g., he voted for Al Gore), but generally he votes GOP. He voted for Trump and all the GOP candidates in 2016, as per usual. His governor is a high-profile conservative for whom Dad previously voted twice.
But he is FROTHING to get to polls tomorrow, and told me he is going to vote-straight ticket Dem for the first time in his life, and plans to do so for every future state or national election until the GOP stops supporting Trump, and starts shifting their platform back to old school (ie somewhat sane) 80s style conservatism.
And he's in a swing state.
@wenchsenior What changed his mind? Just curious to hear whatever you are willing to share.
I don't know exactly. He hated Hillary Clinton for...reasons? He voted for Bill Clinton once, so I suspect there was sexism and Fox news involvement. Also, he's always subscribed to the (false, IMO) that a businessman would make a great president (probably b/c he was built and ran a business). Again, I think he bought into the narrative that Trump was a 'great businessman' and somehow missed the fact of his bankruptcies and the fact that American banks haven't lent to him in years b/c he was a shitty business risk. Again, I suspect Fox news involvement. I think he thought that Trump's crazy behavior was just for show during the campaign.
About three months after the election, he was already regretting his vote. And while he was originally a huge Paul Ryan supporter, since Ryan's gutless displays of the past couple years, now Ryan is on Dad's shit list too.
-
One thing that is interesting, is the guy I've been seeing on and off, volunteered how he voted this election (early voted) and that he voted against all six amendments. He said he talked to friends and family how the laws would affect them, in how he decided to vote. The amendments put forth by the Republican-controlled Legislature on a slew of things, including stripping the (Democratic) governor of more powers, and restrictive voter ID laws.
https://www.wral.com/here-s-a-look-at-north-carolina-s-proposed-constitutional-amendments/17715772/
So disappointing that four of those amendments passed, but at least the ones that took power away from the governor didn't pass. DH and I were talking about it this morning (he generally votes Republican, but didn't in 2016 and 2018) that if the cost of the four amendments that passed (crime victim protection, voter ID, lowering top income tax rate and hunting/fishing rights) were put on the ballot as well as a summary of the amendment they probably would not have passed. DH is in favor of voter id, but thinks you should be able to use a variety of ids - social security cards, student id, etc but I'm quite sure NC will make it as restrictive as they can get away with.
-
I'm resurrecting this thread b/c of a phone convo this morning with my die-hard conservative father. It had been a few months since I talked to him, and BOY is he frothing to get to the polls. He has historically only voted occasionally for Democrats, usually centrist presidential candidates (e.g., he voted for Al Gore), but generally he votes GOP. He voted for Trump and all the GOP candidates in 2016, as per usual. His governor is a high-profile conservative for whom Dad previously voted twice.
But he is FROTHING to get to polls tomorrow, and told me he is going to vote-straight ticket Dem for the first time in his life, and plans to do so for every future state or national election until the GOP stops supporting Trump, and starts shifting their platform back to old school (ie somewhat sane) 80s style conservatism.
And he's in a swing state.
This is so interesting to me. My swing-state living, GOP voting in-laws have gone all in for Trump -- like various Trump signs decorating the INSIDE of their house all in. My FIL is the most interesting because in the 2016 Republican primary, he originally liked Scott Walker. After he dropped out early on, FIL supported every other candidate along the way before FINALLY landing on Trump after it was obvious that he would be nominated. And he admits that Trump is not a traditional conservative, particularly on the economic issues that really animate him. My MIL is a religious social conservative and SUPER hated the Clintons. But both are really ALL IN for Trump.
I think they've both bought into the sense of white grievance, where white, religious conservatives are the REAL victims of . . . everything. They also think the world is a very dangerous place. I kid you not, I got an email this week that said, "Christmas is coming--what do the kids want? Also, a student was shot at your college yesterday. He's in the hospital, and they caught the shooter." That just seemed like such an odd thing to bring up in an email about Christmas gifts. But maybe not if you think the world is really dangerous and your coastal liberal kids don't seem to get it.
It's hard to watch, particularly for my husband, but we're not cutting them out of our lives. They love us and love our kids, and for now, that's enough. We don't talk about politics now. Back in Dubya years, my FIL used to debate all kinds of stuff with my husband and I and we all got a kick out of it. Not anymore. There's no common ground and it's way too easy to say things you can't take back.
-
I'm resurrecting this thread b/c of a phone convo this morning with my die-hard conservative father. It had been a few months since I talked to him, and BOY is he frothing to get to the polls. He has historically only voted occasionally for Democrats, usually centrist presidential candidates (e.g., he voted for Al Gore), but generally he votes GOP. He voted for Trump and all the GOP candidates in 2016, as per usual. His governor is a high-profile conservative for whom Dad previously voted twice.
But he is FROTHING to get to polls tomorrow, and told me he is going to vote-straight ticket Dem for the first time in his life, and plans to do so for every future state or national election until the GOP stops supporting Trump, and starts shifting their platform back to old school (ie somewhat sane) 80s style conservatism.
And he's in a swing state.
This is so interesting to me. My swing-state living, GOP voting in-laws have gone all in for Trump -- like various Trump signs decorating the INSIDE of their house all in. My FIL is the most interesting because in the 2016 Republican primary, he originally liked Scott Walker. After he dropped out early on, FIL supported every other candidate along the way before FINALLY landing on Trump after it was obvious that he would be nominated. And he admits that Trump is not a traditional conservative, particularly on the economic issues that really animate him. My MIL is a religious social conservative and SUPER hated the Clintons. But both are really ALL IN for Trump.
I think they've both bought into the sense of white grievance, where white, religious conservatives are the REAL victims of . . . everything. They also think the world is a very dangerous place. I kid you not, I got an email this week that said, "Christmas is coming--what do the kids want? Also, a student was shot at your college yesterday. He's in the hospital, and they caught the shooter." That just seemed like such an odd thing to bring up in an email about Christmas gifts. But maybe not if you think the world is really dangerous and your coastal liberal kids don't seem to get it.
It's hard to watch, particularly for my husband, but we're not cutting them out of our lives. They love us and love our kids, and for now, that's enough. We don't talk about politics now. Back in Dubya years, my FIL used to debate all kinds of stuff with my husband and I and we all got a kick out of it. Not anymore. There's no common ground and it's way too easy to say things you can't take back.
-
Despite my username, I never supported George W. Bush. Voted against him in a GOP primary, voted against him in two general elections. Some of Bush' policies and mismanagement were, frankly, catastrophic. While he was President, I was continually frustrated by people who seemed unable to notice this.
I think this summary here gets it right, although it does not mention hurrican Katrina: https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush/impact-and-legacy (https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush/impact-and-legacy)
But the contrast between his statement following Republicans' losing the House in 2006, and Trump's responses to the election this week is...large. I cannot help but think that Bush has a respect for reality, rule of law, and our liberal (small 'L') values that Trump doesn't have. And I do miss that.
It's easy to find a video of this statement by searching "bush statement following 2006 election pelosi" into google.
I also have this link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html)
-
Hell yes I regret it. I was a Republican into my 30s. I tell myself that the GOP wasn't so vile 10 years ago, but I am selling myself a fiction to make me feel better. I viewed them as the party helping small businesses, teaching personal responsibility, and being tough on rogue regimes.
I have friends who voted for Trump. Many of them said, "Nick, I hated Hillary so much and just couldn't vote for her. It's the Dems' fault for running her." To which I say, "So you voted for the person who we all knew was a lunatic based on his behavior in the GOP primaries?"
It makes me sick to my stomach that I ever supported the party of racists, ageists, misogynists, bigots, xenophobes, science deniers, anti-intellectuals, greedy fat cats, gun nuts, and religious whackos. (The problem is, even though there is a ton of overlap, when you add all those groups together, you get a pretty large group of people).
The Dems are FAR from perfect. Tons of corruption and lots of class warfare stuff. They are FAR from my ideal party, but it's not even a close call right now. The two parties are not equally objectionable.
-
I have historically voted all over the map. Heck I voted GOP, Democrat and Libertarian on our mid term tickets.
Call me crazy, I vote for the person that has the most viewpoints or behavior history I feel aligned with.
I generally despise the extreme whack jobs on both sides. What happened to middle of the road candidates? Why does one need to be be a nut job to win?
-
I generally despise the extreme whack jobs on both sides. What happened to middle of the road candidates? Why does one need to be be a nut job to win?
Appeal to the "base" of "your side" to get on the ticket, then run as "not the other side." Rinse, repeat. There are solutions to this, but they aren't in the interest of either two major parties, so they won't happen.
-
"nut jobs" win because we have a system of primaries for mostly safe seats. So the primary voters ("nut jobs") select an extreme candidate who is assured of beating a doofus because the other party knows they cannot win the seat, so deploys their best candidates elsewhere.
-
It makes me sick to my stomach that I ever supported the party of racists, ageists, misogynists, bigots, xenophobes, science deniers, anti-intellectuals, greedy fat cats, gun nuts, and religious whackos. (The problem is, even though there is a ton of overlap, when you add all those groups together, you get a pretty large group of people).
That description sounds like a southern Democrat to me.
-
It makes me sick to my stomach that I ever supported the party of racists, ageists, misogynists, bigots, xenophobes, science deniers, anti-intellectuals, greedy fat cats, gun nuts, and religious whackos. (The problem is, even though there is a ton of overlap, when you add all those groups together, you get a pretty large group of people).
That description sounds like a southern Democrat to me.
Pre-Nixon's Southern Strategy, sure.
-
No.
The only (candidate) vote I truly regret was for Obama's first term. Live and learn.
-
I am having trouble putting myself in a conservatives shoes. Give me a left wing ancillary to Trump. So that I could ponder about how I feel about them being president. And possibly voting for them over say Jeb Bush.
I would frankly be a bit surprised if anyone who voted for Trump on most of his main issues is all that regretful. I guess the trade war stuff may be having an adverse effect. But his general issues have been there since day one and voters clearly looked past those...
The only voters I could see leaving him are independents banking on trade changes improving their work outlook. If that doesn't really take off, then will they abandon Trump. Or give him another 4 years to deliver? Its hard to say.
Conservatives on regulations, anti abortion and immigration have a lot to celebrate under Trump I guess...
-
As far as getting back to original question, does anyone regret voting Republican, the guy I've been seeing (who I didn't realize was Republican because when I asked before dating whether he had voted for Trump said no (only because he didn't vote)). I said, what do you think of Trump now? And he said, well I think maybe he's made some mistakes, but I think he's smart, he's a smart businessman, he wouldn't be where he is now if he didn't know what he was doing, so I think he going to make good decisions. But when I mentioned what did he think about the fact he is now implicated in federal crimes, he got defensive and said, look I'm not political. And we had previously agreed not to talk about politics, so we changed the subject. Basically he seems totally comfortable having Trump as president, thinks he doing a good job, making good decisions (when I asked him for an example said he's going to "fix" the ACA, because it's too expensive).
One thing that I think is relevant to his thought process, is the same weekend we were talking about something unrelated (business stuff) and he explained that rules and regulations, are not absolute; t's really more about knowing the right person, and one person might tell you no, but if they know you know someone influential it will happen. Basically, only the dumb people follow the rules. Maybe he identifies with Trump?
Bottom line, I see someone who made up their mind about him (positively) on very little information (aka reputation as a successful businessman). Despite more and more "data" to look at, is not willing to examine that data or revisit their original opinion. Kind of like I made money on black, no matter how many times red comes up I'm going to keep it on black no matter what.
When I hear a person refer to Trump as a smart business man my regard for their judgment of character immediately goes in the shitter.
I have extended family with such opinions. I don't hate them. But I strongly question of the intelligence of anyone that doesn't realize Trump is a circus clown at best.
If a person is generally nice enough I can generally look past such opinions. I had a co-worker that fit that bill. I would struggle to date someone that deeply believed Trump was intelligent. I don't like being that divergent on core perceptions of reality with a person I am close to to. That goes for close friends or a spouse.
I could overlook it if the friend was not obnoxious about their opinion, but I feel like my partner and I should be cognitively aligned on major world views. It just makes big decisions easier if you are building a family.
-
It makes me sick to my stomach that I ever supported the party of racists, ageists, misogynists, bigots, xenophobes, science deniers, anti-intellectuals, greedy fat cats, gun nuts, and religious whackos. (The problem is, even though there is a ton of overlap, when you add all those groups together, you get a pretty large group of people).
That description sounds like a southern Democrat to me.
Pre-Nixon's Southern Strategy, sure.
That's sort of what I was thinking. Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
-
It makes me sick to my stomach that I ever supported the party of racists, ageists, misogynists, bigots, xenophobes, science deniers, anti-intellectuals, greedy fat cats, gun nuts, and religious whackos. (The problem is, even though there is a ton of overlap, when you add all those groups together, you get a pretty large group of people).
That description sounds like a southern Democrat to me.
Pre-Nixon's Southern Strategy, sure.
That's sort of what I was thinking. Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
The stupid GOP may have started quietly under GWB but really took off when McCain selected Palin. That's when it become acceptable, even desirable for the GOP politicians to be really ignorant of basic facts.
-
It makes me sick to my stomach that I ever supported the party of racists, ageists, misogynists, bigots, xenophobes, science deniers, anti-intellectuals, greedy fat cats, gun nuts, and religious whackos. (The problem is, even though there is a ton of overlap, when you add all those groups together, you get a pretty large group of people).
That description sounds like a southern Democrat to me.
Pre-Nixon's Southern Strategy, sure.
That's sort of what I was thinking. Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
Actually, the first openly evangelical Christian President was Jimmy Carter. Evangelicals abandoned him because he didn't seem interested in overturning Roe v. Wade.
This thread is getting at a very real "rotation" of social conservatives, and--yes--racists out of Democratic politics and into Republican politics. Modern Trump supporters are indeed reminding Democrats of their party's position on the wrong side of history from 1850-1965. While historically accurate, this is whataboutism, and the only proper response is:
so let me just confirm for the moment: you think racism is wrong? Wrong then and wrong now?
-
Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
OK warning...possibly very unusual view ahead....
This "racism" taunt directed at Republicans because of their take on immigration really, really bothers me. It's conflating two issues that aren't really related, and it speaks to either intellectual laziness or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in order to achieve the real objective of the opposing policy view. This is to suppress wages for the lower and middle classes by importing (or allowing in, in a totally uncontrolled manner) a large, permanent underclass. There's a word for a setup like that: feudalism. Historically it hasn't worked out well.
What's the problem with wanting to reform our immigration system to a points-based one like Canada and Australia have, while taking steps to control the borders? To be completely consistent, you would have to accuse those countries of racism too. I am perfectly happy for anyone of any race, religion, or nationality to come here, as long as they can be self-sufficient and a positive force. The proposed points system has NO tests for race, religion or nationality. And mandatory e-verify, which I greatly favor, doesn't care about race either. So maybe someone can explain to me exactly how this is racist?
-
Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
OK warning...possibly very unusual view ahead....
This "racism" taunt directed at Republicans because of their take on immigration really, really bothers me. It's conflating two issues that aren't really related, and it speaks to either intellectual laziness or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in order to achieve the real objective of the opposing policy view. This is to suppress wages for the lower and middle classes by importing (or allowing in, in a totally uncontrolled manner) a large, permanent underclass. There's a word for a setup like that: feudalism. Historically it hasn't worked out well.
What's the problem with wanting to reform our immigration system to a points-based one like Canada and Australia have, while taking steps to control the borders? To be completely consistent, you would have to accuse those countries of racism too. I am perfectly happy for anyone of any race, religion, or nationality to come here, as long as they can be self-sufficient and a positive force. The proposed points system has NO tests for race, religion or nationality. And mandatory e-verify, which I greatly favor, doesn't care about race either. So maybe someone can explain to me exactly how this is racist?
I'm pretty sure part of the "racism" comment means (at least in part) racism toward non-white people who are already American citizens, of which there is ample evidence all over the place: see the president's "Good people on both sides" and all. If you're not decrying the white supremacist movement, you're pretty much condoning it.
The asylum system is separate from the rest of the immigration issues, I believe. Are we really proposing to send people with legitimate fear for their lives right back to where they fled from? There seems to be a fair bit of racism inherent in this, as generally people are fleeing from the global south (i.e. it's people of color) rather than the global north. See "shithole countries."
-
Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
OK warning...possibly very unusual view ahead....
This "racism" taunt directed at Republicans because of their take on immigration really, really bothers me. It's conflating two issues that aren't really related, and it speaks to either intellectual laziness or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in order to achieve the real objective of the opposing policy view. This is to suppress wages for the lower and middle classes by importing (or allowing in, in a totally uncontrolled manner) a large, permanent underclass. There's a word for a setup like that: feudalism. Historically it hasn't worked out well.
What's the problem with wanting to reform our immigration system to a points-based one like Canada and Australia have, while taking steps to control the borders? To be completely consistent, you would have to accuse those countries of racism too. I am perfectly happy for anyone of any race, religion, or nationality to come here, as long as they can be self-sufficient and a positive force. The proposed points system has NO tests for race, religion or nationality. And mandatory e-verify, which I greatly favor, doesn't care about race either. So maybe someone can explain to me exactly how this is racist?
I have voted mostly Dem my whole adult life, and mostly agree with your view on immigration. I view the GOP as the more racist party because it appears to be the default home of more categories of bigoted voters of all types, including the racists. In some cases, the GOP (voters and politicians) demonstrate active racism in their preferred immigration policy as well, but not always (see Trump and co. as compared with e.g., Jeb Bush).
The modern GOP supports and welcomes bigoted voters more so than the modern DEM party. That's why I view them as more racist.
-
Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
OK warning...possibly very unusual view ahead....
This "racism" taunt directed at Republicans because of their take on immigration really, really bothers me. It's conflating two issues that aren't really related, and it speaks to either intellectual laziness or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in order to achieve the real objective of the opposing policy view. This is to suppress wages for the lower and middle classes by importing (or allowing in, in a totally uncontrolled manner) a large, permanent underclass. There's a word for a setup like that: feudalism. Historically it hasn't worked out well.
What's the problem with wanting to reform our immigration system to a points-based one like Canada and Australia have, while taking steps to control the borders? To be completely consistent, you would have to accuse those countries of racism too. I am perfectly happy for anyone of any race, religion, or nationality to come here, as long as they can be self-sufficient and a positive force. The proposed points system has NO tests for race, religion or nationality. And mandatory e-verify, which I greatly favor, doesn't care about race either. So maybe someone can explain to me exactly how this is racist?
That's quite a straw man, arguing against immigration reform when I didn't mention immigration at all in my post.
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
- Republican strategist Lee Atwater (1981 interview - https://youtu.be/AT2fsv7xt4E (https://youtu.be/AT2fsv7xt4E))
Using newly available data, we reexamine one of the largest partisan shifts in a modern democracy: Southern whites’ exodus from the Democratic Party. We show that defection among racially conservative whites explains the entire decline from 1958 to 1980. Racial attitudes also predict whites’ earlier partisan shifts. Relative to recent work, we find a much larger role for racial views and essentially no role for income growth or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats “lost” the South.
- https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20161413&&from=f (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20161413&&from=f)
The explicitly racist Republican strategy started with Nixon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)), and has continued in various ways ever since (suppression of black votes, gerrymandering based on race, racially charged arguments about Mexicans, kidnapping and separating children of refugees coming to the country, attempting to ban entry to the country based on religion of country of origin, support of racist police policy / jail sentencing/ drug policy / judge appointments (https://www.newsweek.com/republican-appointed-federal-judges-hand-longer-sentences-black-defendants-948138 (https://www.newsweek.com/republican-appointed-federal-judges-hand-longer-sentences-black-defendants-948138)), etc.
The modern Republican party is an openly safe haven for racism. It's why more than half of Trump voters believe that black people are less evolved (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-majority-of-trump-supporters-surveyed-described-black-people-as-less-evolved.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-majority-of-trump-supporters-surveyed-described-black-people-as-less-evolved.html)). It's why 59% of Republicans believe that black people just need to try harder to succeed (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/maf7idof71/econTabReport.pdf (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/maf7idof71/econTabReport.pdf)).
You've got a Republican president saying that Nazis are good guys, Mexicans are rapists. You have actual self described nazis winning Republican primaries (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html)). Republcan senators of 15 years openly supporting Nazis (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/steve-king-white-nationalist-neo-nazi-retweet_us_5b200eaee4b0adfb826e8e40 (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/steve-king-white-nationalist-neo-nazi-retweet_us_5b200eaee4b0adfb826e8e40)).
This goes on an on. If you don't believe that the Republican party is objectively racist you must have your head pretty far in the sand.
-
Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
OK warning...possibly very unusual view ahead....
This "racism" taunt directed at Republicans because of their take on immigration really, really bothers me. It's conflating two issues that aren't really related, and it speaks to either intellectual laziness or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in order to achieve the real objective of the opposing policy view. This is to suppress wages for the lower and middle classes by importing (or allowing in, in a totally uncontrolled manner) a large, permanent underclass. There's a word for a setup like that: feudalism. Historically it hasn't worked out well.
What's the problem with wanting to reform our immigration system to a points-based one like Canada and Australia have, while taking steps to control the borders? To be completely consistent, you would have to accuse those countries of racism too. I am perfectly happy for anyone of any race, religion, or nationality to come here, as long as they can be self-sufficient and a positive force. The proposed points system has NO tests for race, religion or nationality. And mandatory e-verify, which I greatly favor, doesn't care about race either. So maybe someone can explain to me exactly how this is racist?
I would not consider this opinion gospel, buy it should help explain the opposing view better than I can:
Adam Ruins Everything on immigration.
https://vimeo.com/182752065
Just like the war on drugs is a complete failure because it never successfully lowered the demand for drugs, the ONLY immigration plan that will successfully lower the demand will need to stop immigrants from wanting to come here. A wall just will not do that. I believe the new "catch and detain" policy about to be implemented will actually do the exact opposite. If you have a group that is in true fear for their life, then creating a complex where they are safe is exactly what they are looking for. Of course, if these "centers" have horrible conditions it would have the opposite effect.
The most recent "success" in curbing illegal immigration was the recession. People left in droves because they could not find work. Short of purposefully causing another one, a successful immigration policy MUST include the inability to find work. The most reasonable way to do this would be to target the EMPLOYER so the labor savings would no longer be worth the risk.
Anyone that targets any plan other than going after the employers, I question why. Usually the answer is to follow the money. Who will run the detention centers, for example? My guess would be prison companies, no?
-
Before the Republicans explicitly embraced racism, sexism, and bigotry as part of their strategy the argument can be made that the Democrats were worse. Anti-intellectualism and science denial is a newer addition to the Republican party that seems to have found it's hold over the past thirty years or so, starting around the GW Bush era.
Guns n'God have always been part of the Republican party as far back as I can remember.
OK warning...possibly very unusual view ahead....
This "racism" taunt directed at Republicans because of their take on immigration really, really bothers me. It's conflating two issues that aren't really related, and it speaks to either intellectual laziness or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in order to achieve the real objective of the opposing policy view. This is to suppress wages for the lower and middle classes by importing (or allowing in, in a totally uncontrolled manner) a large, permanent underclass. There's a word for a setup like that: feudalism. Historically it hasn't worked out well.
What's the problem with wanting to reform our immigration system to a points-based one like Canada and Australia have, while taking steps to control the borders? To be completely consistent, you would have to accuse those countries of racism too. I am perfectly happy for anyone of any race, religion, or nationality to come here, as long as they can be self-sufficient and a positive force. The proposed points system has NO tests for race, religion or nationality. And mandatory e-verify, which I greatly favor, doesn't care about race either. So maybe someone can explain to me exactly how this is racist?
I would not consider this opinion gospel, buy it should help explain the opposing view better than I can:
Adam Ruins Everything on immigration.
https://vimeo.com/182752065
Just like the war on drugs is a complete failure because it never successfully lowered the demand for drugs, the ONLY immigration plan that will successfully lower the demand will need to stop immigrants from wanting to come here. A wall just will not do that. I believe the new "catch and detain" policy about to be implemented will actually do the exact opposite. If you have a group that is in true fear for their life, then creating a complex where they are safe is exactly what they are looking for. Of course, if these "centers" have horrible conditions it would have the opposite effect.
The most recent "success" in curbing illegal immigration was the recession. People left in droves because they could not find work. Short of purposefully causing another one, a successful immigration policy MUST include the inability to find work. The most reasonable way to do this would be to target the EMPLOYER so the labor savings would no longer be worth the risk.
Anyone that targets any plan other than going after the employers, I question why. Usually the answer is to follow the money. Who will run the detention centers, for example? My guess would be prison companies, no?
You're absolutely correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/migrant-shelters-border-crossing.html
-
I would not be surprised if studies showed that Trump supporters are more dehumanizing of Hispanics, Muslims, and females as well, based on his (crowd pleasing) rhetoric.
-
I would not be surprised if studies showed that Trump supporters are more dehumanizing of Hispanics, Muslims, and females as well, based on his (crowd pleasing) rhetoric.
This. Good lord, how his rhetoric can actually produce CHEERS... It's revolting.
-
It's why more than half of Trump voters believe that black people are less evolved (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-majority-of-trump-supporters-surveyed-described-black-people-as-less-evolved.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-majority-of-trump-supporters-surveyed-described-black-people-as-less-evolved.html)).
And as of 2013, only 43% of Republicans believed in evolution...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/
"Evolution is just a theory, but if it's true I'm the most evolved"
*I realize the first study presented the question with the assumption that evolution is fact and therefore respondents were forced to choose as if that were the case. My post is purely for comedy, don't think too hard about it :)
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
LOL
Meanwhile, that's what the GOP says... and I guess that's all that matters, because their actions say otherwise.
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
Until some kind of natural disaster hits. Everyone seems to like government when they are rescuing you.
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
LOL
Meanwhile, that's what the GOP says... and I guess that's all that matters, because their actions say otherwise.
I agree. That's why I vote Libertarian.
-
The only Republican votes I've made:
- Arlen Spector as my Pennsylvania senator, RIP. (No regret)
- Local Republican opposing a literal slumlord who inherited her seat from her father two years ago. (No real regret, although the Republican woman seemed like an idiot and there was no chance she should win. I don't think I'd do it now because I can't stomach voting for anyone in the GOP until it goes through some fundamental reworking and stops being so disgusting.)
-
It's why more than half of Trump voters believe that black people are less evolved (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-majority-of-trump-supporters-surveyed-described-black-people-as-less-evolved.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-majority-of-trump-supporters-surveyed-described-black-people-as-less-evolved.html)).
I'd love to see the Venn diagram on the people who said this, and those who believe evolution doesn't exist, to see how big the overlap is...
-
Well, it's been a long three years...I thought I'd bring this back up to see if there are any people willing to say the "Regretted Voting Republican" since 2016....
-
I used to vote republican before they proved to be a party of obstructionists during the Obama years. Never again.
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
Until some kind of natural disaster hits. Everyone seems to like government when they are rescuing you.
This post is timely. Republicans/Libertarians were more than happy to roast Obama for big corporate bailouts in 09-10. Now, all I hear is "Why is that stupid Pelosi holding up the bailout bill? We don't have time for this crap."
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
Until some kind of natural disaster hits. Everyone seems to like government when they are rescuing you.
This post is timely. Republicans/Libertarians were more than happy to roast Obama for big corporate bailouts in 09-10. Now, all I hear is "Why is that stupid Pelosi holding up the bailout bill? We don't have time for this crap."
They hate socialism until...
-
I used to vote republican before they proved to be a party of obstructionists during the Obama years. Never again.
Yep, me too. Throw in also the sheer denial of science and poor grasp basic economics.
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
Until some kind of natural disaster hits. Everyone seems to like government when they are rescuing you.
Ysette, what a prescient quote ..!
-
I'll vote for a Democrat the day they say they want to make the government smaller and lower my taxes.
Until some kind of natural disaster hits. Everyone seems to like government when they are rescuing you.
Ysette, what a prescient quote ..!
And I jokingly called the top earlier as 13 March as that was my last day of work!
-
I maintain my Republican registration.
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
Unfortunately, it also means I'm often stuck choosing from a list of poor candidates during the primary. Basically, the only way to win a Republican primary at the moment is to cling more tightly to Trump than anyone else. It's horrifying what the party has become.
-
I maintain my Republican registration.
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
Unfortunately, it also means I'm often stuck choosing from a list of poor candidates during the primary. Basically, the only way to win a Republican primary at the moment is to cling more tightly to Trump than anyone else. It's horrifying what the party has become.
FYI NC has open primaries, so if you change your registration to unaffiliated you get to choose which primary to participate in each year. I have not experienced any voter suppression either; both parties try to persuade the independents. Voter suppression in NC is more focused around race anyway.
-
I maintain my Republican registration.
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
Unfortunately, it also means I'm often stuck choosing from a list of poor candidates during the primary. Basically, the only way to win a Republican primary at the moment is to cling more tightly to Trump than anyone else. It's horrifying what the party has become.
LMAO
-
I maintain my Republican registration.
...
It's horrifying what the party has become.
LMAO
I'm not registering republican, and I don't typically see eye to eye with talltexan. With that said, getting involved in the primaries is one way to help shepherd the party away from Trump. Especially if you show up to meet and greets early on and let them know what you care about. At least, it works on the democrat side.
-
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
You register your party registration at the DMV?!?!? If I mentioned my party affiliation at Service Ontario when I went to do an address change they would give me the side eye. As in, who is this weird person? Political affiliation has nothing to do with services, provincial (state for you) and federal. Any party registration I might have would be run by the party.
-
I agree that I should receive the same quality of public services no matter what political party or religion I belong to.
All I can report is what I experience. Perhaps there are some registered Democrats who live in southern states who are reading this and can describe what they experience at these places?
-
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
You register your party registration at the DMV?!?!? If I mentioned my party affiliation at Service Ontario when I went to do an address change they would give me the side eye. As in, who is this weird person? Political affiliation has nothing to do with services, provincial (state for you) and federal. Any party registration I might have would be run by the party.
The DMV is probably where most people register to vote, and they give you the option to register with a political party at that time. About two-thirds of Americans are registered with a political party, as opposed to about 2% of Canadians.
-
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
You register your party registration at the DMV?!?!? If I mentioned my party affiliation at Service Ontario when I went to do an address change they would give me the side eye. As in, who is this weird person? Political affiliation has nothing to do with services, provincial (state for you) and federal. Any party registration I might have would be run by the party.
The DMV is probably where most people register to vote, and they give you the option to register with a political party at that time. About two-thirds of Americans are registered with a political party, as opposed to about 2% of Canadians.
It depends on the state. No option is given to declare party affiliation when registering to vote in Michigan (which happens at municipal Clerk offices or via the Secretary of State’s office).
-
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
You register your party registration at the DMV?!?!? If I mentioned my party affiliation at Service Ontario when I went to do an address change they would give me the side eye. As in, who is this weird person? Political affiliation has nothing to do with services, provincial (state for you) and federal. Any party registration I might have would be run by the party.
The DMV is probably where most people register to vote, and they give you the option to register with a political party at that time. About two-thirds of Americans are registered with a political party, as opposed to about 2% of Canadians.
It depends on the state. No option is given to declare party affiliation when registering to vote in Michigan (which happens at municipal Clerk offices or via the Secretary of State’s office).
Yes, that's true, but Michigan mostly has open primaries, and for presidential primaries you simply declare which party's ballot you want when you show up to vote. Similar systems are in place with other states with open primaries. States with closed primaries generally require you to declare a party preference in advance (either when registering or later).
-
In NC, Local services just seem to work better for me. Everyone at the DMV is so helpful when I say I want to update my republican registration. I showed up to vote in the primary earlier this month, and they hadn't transferred my registration from my old precinct. Took care of it right away. No voter suppression possibility.
You register your party registration at the DMV?!?!? If I mentioned my party affiliation at Service Ontario when I went to do an address change they would give me the side eye. As in, who is this weird person? Political affiliation has nothing to do with services, provincial (state for you) and federal. Any party registration I might have would be run by the party.
The DMV is probably where most people register to vote, and they give you the option to register with a political party at that time. About two-thirds of Americans are registered with a political party, as opposed to about 2% of Canadians.
It depends on the state. No option is given to declare party affiliation when registering to vote in Michigan (which happens at municipal Clerk offices or via the Secretary of State’s office).
Yes, that's true, but Michigan mostly has open primaries, and for presidential primaries you simply declare which party's ballot you want when you show up to vote. Similar systems are in place with other states with open primaries. States with closed primaries generally require you to declare a party preference in advance (either when registering or later).
Yes, I’m aware. I was clarifying for other readers that voter registration is not uniform across the country.
-
I've lost friends or had my relationship changed with friends post 2016. I was a registered Republican from 1986 to 2016. My voting wasn't always along party lines, especially as I got older. In 2016 I registered as a Democrat. Not that I'm in love with the Democrats. I just got to a point I couldn't stomach the racism and outright nastiness being spewed by Republicans. Trump was the final straw. As far as friend relationships are concerned, a poor choice in 2016 could be understood. Everyone has been fooled by a conman once in life. If however in 2020 you still have the same mindset, we really can't have a friendship. It's sad the place we've come to be. The division is actually costing lives now.
-
This all seems very strange to me, but is it because of primaries? The point of a secret ballot is to be secret, but if you are in a state where you have to register your party affiliation, isn't most of the point of a secret ballot lost?
I've voted in every federal and provincial election since I was 18, and over those years I've voted for candidates from 4 different parties*. And except for that one year where I joined a provincial party to make sure my riding got a good candidate, I've never felt the need to publicly declare my voting preference.
*Never voted rhinoceros, although there were times I was tempted. ;-)
-
This all seems very strange to me, but is it because of primaries? The point of a secret ballot is to be secret, but if you are in a state where you have to register your party affiliation, isn't most of the point of a secret ballot lost?
I've voted in every federal and provincial election since I was 18, and over those years I've voted for candidates from 4 different parties*. And except for that one year where I joined a provincial party to make sure my riding got a good candidate, I've never felt the need to publicly declare my voting preference.
*Never voted rhinoceros, although there were times I was tempted. ;-)
Yeah, it's BS, but I think the point of registering party affiliation is that if you don't do that, you run the risk of voters from the other party voting en masse in the party's primary and skewing the results toward the least electable candidate.
So, people are trash, basically.
-
I did talk to several left-leaning voters who crossed party lines to vote for Trump in 2016. I heard from at least one Trump supporter who voted for Sanders this spring thinking he'd set up an easy matchup for Trump to win re-election. I really feel like the primary should be your chance to sincerely vote for the best candidate no matter how weird or extreme your views are.
-
This all seems very strange to me, but is it because of primaries? The point of a secret ballot is to be secret, but if you are in a state where you have to register your party affiliation, isn't most of the point of a secret ballot lost?
I've voted in every federal and provincial election since I was 18, and over those years I've voted for candidates from 4 different parties*. And except for that one year where I joined a provincial party to make sure my riding got a good candidate, I've never felt the need to publicly declare my voting preference.
*Never voted rhinoceros, although there were times I was tempted. ;-)
Basically, yes, it's because of primaries. I was trying to convert earlier just how many people vote in primaries in the US compared to Canada, but the same trend is true in other countries. The barrier to vote in a primary is very, very low in the US. In many states you only need to say which ballot you want - depending on the state, some time between registering and voting. California is unusual in that it has top-2 primaries regardless of party, so you can have a general election that has only two Democrats or only two Republicans.
The ballot in the general election is not different by party registration, or lack thereof.
-
This all seems very strange to me, but is it because of primaries? The point of a secret ballot is to be secret, but if you are in a state where you have to register your party affiliation, isn't most of the point of a secret ballot lost?
I've voted in every federal and provincial election since I was 18, and over those years I've voted for candidates from 4 different parties*. And except for that one year where I joined a provincial party to make sure my riding got a good candidate, I've never felt the need to publicly declare my voting preference.
*Never voted rhinoceros, although there were times I was tempted. ;-)
Basically, yes, it's because of primaries. I was trying to convert earlier just how many people vote in primaries in the US compared to Canada, but the same trend is true in other countries. The barrier to vote in a primary is very, very low in the US. In many states you only need to say which ballot you want - depending on the state, some time between registering and voting. California is unusual in that it has top-2 primaries regardless of party, so you can have a general election that has only two Democrats or only two Republicans.
The ballot in the general election is not different by party registration, or lack thereof.
It's the difference in government. Our Prime Minister is the head of the party that gets the most seats, so s/he has 2 elections to get through - winning the leadership of the party and then being elected in his/her riding. Which is not always guaranteed, leaders have lost their ridings. Your President has to be elected by the Electoral College which has ended up with masses of other elections.
-
Well, it's been a long three years...I thought I'd bring this back up to see if there are any people willing to say the "Regretted Voting Republican" since 2016....
I'm wondering how many people they know will have to die for them to finally regret it.
-
Well, it's been a long three years...I thought I'd bring this back up to see if there are any people willing to say the "Regretted Voting Republican" since 2016....
I'm wondering how many people they know will have to die for them to finally regret it.
They were voluntarily willing to sacrifice themselves for stonks - the Lt. Governor of Texas and Glenn Beck, just to name a couple off the top of my head.
So they probably see people dying, themselves included, as some weird act of patriotism.
-
Well, it's been a long three years...I thought I'd bring this back up to see if there are any people willing to say the "Regretted Voting Republican" since 2016....
I'm wondering how many people they know will have to die for them to finally regret it.
They were voluntarily willing to sacrifice themselves for stonks - the Lt. Governor of Texas and Glenn Beck, just to name a couple off the top of my head.
So they probably see people dying, themselves included, as some weird act of patriotism.
No, Dan, Glenn, Ron Johnson and the rest making these claims want others to die for the Dow. It's moer like an understanding that in our pay-to-play healthcare system that even if they were to get it and have a serious case, their status and money give them a good chance at better outcomes than it is any sense of patriotism.
-
Well, it's been a long three years...I thought I'd bring this back up to see if there are any people willing to say the "Regretted Voting Republican" since 2016....
I'm wondering how many people they know will have to die for them to finally regret it.
They were voluntarily willing to sacrifice themselves for stonks - the Lt. Governor of Texas and Glenn Beck, just to name a couple off the top of my head.
So they probably see people dying, themselves included, as some weird act of patriotism.
No, Dan, Glenn, Ron Johnson and the rest making these claims want others to die for the Dow. It's moer like an understanding that in our pay-to-play healthcare system that even if they were to get it and have a serious case, their status and money give them a good chance at better outcomes than it is any sense of patriotism.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that the Lt. Governor of Texas is certain that he would have access to a ventilator if it ever came to that. What really pissed me off was that they weren’t just saying that Grandma and Grandpa should be willing to die in their sleep. They were saying that they should die alone, in severe pain, without adequate medical treatment, suffocating without a ventilator, in order to support the stock market. Party of Life? Bull-fucking-shit. At this point I have zero respect for Party of Trumpers. The GOP has been destroyed, replaced with a brain-dead cult.
-
Well, it's been a long three years...I thought I'd bring this back up to see if there are any people willing to say the "Regretted Voting Republican" since 2016....
I'm wondering how many people they know will have to die for them to finally regret it.
They were voluntarily willing to sacrifice themselves for stonks - the Lt. Governor of Texas and Glenn Beck, just to name a couple off the top of my head.
So they probably see people dying, themselves included, as some weird act of patriotism.
No, Dan, Glenn, Ron Johnson and the rest making these claims want others to die for the Dow. It's moer like an understanding that in our pay-to-play healthcare system that even if they were to get it and have a serious case, their status and money give them a good chance at better outcomes than it is any sense of patriotism.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that the Lt. Governor of Texas is certain that he would have access to a ventilator if it ever came to that. What really pissed me off was that they weren’t just saying that Grandma and Grandpa should be willing to die in their sleep. They were saying that they should die alone, in severe pain, without adequate medical treatment, suffocating without a ventilator, in order to support the stock market. Party of Life? Bull-fucking-shit. At this point I have zero respect for Party of Trumpers. The GOP has been destroyed, replaced with a brain-dead cult.
In case anyone would like some full quotes in context, see those from Dan Patrick (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/dan-patrick-coronavirus-grandparents) and Ron Johnson (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/analysis/2020/03/18/coronavirus-sen-ron-johnson-says-keep-outbreak-perspective/5074145002/). Didn't find a full transcript for Glenn Beck (https://www.mediamatters.org/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-older-americans-should-return-work-even-if-we-all-get-sick-i-would) but that link does include a 1 minute video of Beck's comments on this issue.
-
I think their comments have more to do with the economy as a whole than the stock market. asking people to die to support the value of a corporation seems more outrageous than asking people to risk death to continue an economic system in which young people in their 20's can establish themselves with jobs. (which still seems outrageous in this case) It's a degree of outrage thing.
-
To answer the thread's question, "Yes I do."
-
Thank you, @Nick_Miller for owning this.
Thank you to everyone for the burdens you're taking on right now to help keep my loved one's out of harm's way.
-
To answer the OP's question, yes, I regret voting. Every time I think about what a fool I was to stand in line to vote for the "least worst" set of actors. I regret the lack of moral character I exhibited by not standing my ground and staying home. There's not a lot I can do about it at this point other than try to not do so in the future, and to warn others off.
Whether it was for the Republican Party corporatists or the Democratic Party corporatists is I think pretty much irrelevant. I voted for both at various times.
-
Now? After all this bullshit about sending in the U.S. Military against U.S. Citizens, the condemnation by Generals Mattis and Allen, the depravity of a religious church, the beating of peaceful protesters so the POTUS can have his photo op, the unreligious using religion for votes, and the complicity of the Republican party to not only go along with this bullshit, but give him all the power in the world...
Adam Schiff warned us what would happen during the impeachment hearings...Yet all but one of the Republicans made Trump King. Now he is acting like one.
Now, after all of this mess, after all of this carnage, after having our country on the verge of destroying our own constitution, do you not regret voting republican?
If you use the Ronald Reagan measurement as to "whether we are better off now than 4 years ago," my answer is no. This is a shit-show
-
I do think there's a tendency for each movement to think that the other side has somehow irreparably damaged itself. Democrats saw that Access: Hollywood tape in 2016 and thought, "Wow, this will turn a bunch of Republicans into Democrats." It didn't.
The worst case scenario for Republicans--no matter how badly things go for the next 150 days--is they'll be back in power after just a few years in the wilderness. And they'll have a bunch of judges to keep things stable in the mean time.
-
I do think there's a tendency for each movement to think that the other side has somehow irreparably damaged itself. Democrats saw that Access: Hollywood tape in 2016 and thought, "Wow, this will turn a bunch of Republicans into Democrats." It didn't.
The worst case scenario for Republicans--no matter how badly things go for the next 150 days--is they'll be back in power after just a few years in the wilderness. And they'll have a bunch of judges to keep things stable in the mean time.
I think that is my point: Trump has turned out to be as bad (worse) than even the Democrats thought. He is who we thought he was. Those who thought otherwise and voted for him and those who enable him, is there no regret to contributing to shit-show that has ensued?
-
It's actually mainstream Republicans who turned out worse than Democrats expected. They supported Trump's obvious unfitness hoping he would deliver them a tax cut, judges, and repeal of Obamacare.
But rather than acknowledge the bitter costs associated with Trump's lack of foreign policy and inability to police corruption among his own appointees, they celebrated the Democrats' complaints as proof that things were right, when what they really showed was that the conservative movement was morally and intellectually bankrupt, and was instead merely about maintaining power at all costs.
The few of us among the Republican party who openly admit what we see have been pushed to the margins as Trump has sought to maintain that power.
-
The few of us among the Republican party who openly admit what we see have been pushed to the margins as Trump has sought to maintain that power.
If it's any consolation. it happens elsewhere. In Canada several years ago the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party merged. The socially conservative (close to Republican conservative, which is incredibly right wing for Canada) but spendy side is in control (that would be Reform), the socially sort of progressive and relatively fiscal group (that would be PCP) is way outnumbered. I really feel for people who are socially progressive and fiscally conservative, there is no place for them. Right now I would say our most fiscally responsible party platform is the Green party. Ironic much?
-
To answer the OP's question, yes, I regret voting. Every time I think about what a fool I was to stand in line to vote for the "least worst" set of actors. I regret the lack of moral character I exhibited by not standing my ground and staying home. There's not a lot I can do about it at this point other than try to not do so in the future, and to warn others off.
Whether it was for the Republican Party corporatists or the Democratic Party corporatists is I think pretty much irrelevant. I voted for both at various times.
I wrote in a third party candidate last time. I didn't like the Green or Libertarian choices either (I just thought the whole lineup was uniquely awful) so I researched some obscure party, basically like socialist Christians, and just voted for them because I figured they didn't sound corrupt, like jerks, or ill-educated.
I'll vote for Biden next time though.
But I think a third party candidate is a great option, particularly for those of us who don't live in swing states. It says "I care enough to be here, but you need to do better."
-
The problem with voting for a third party candidate in absence of ranked choice voting is you are in effect voting for the greater evil by not voting for the lesser evil. It may make you feel better in the moment but it helps the worse guy win. For that reason I really really wish we had ranked choice voting at the state and national level.
-
It depends on where you live.
This country will dissolve into 50 political units before my state turns red. (Which I appreciate at the moment, though in normal times I would prefer to live somewhere more balanced.)
There is nothing I can possibly do within my state borders that will be significant enough to impact the ultimate outcome of Presidential election.
Analysis might be different in a very tight swing state.
-
This is who we have become under a republican president and the enablers that made him king...
https://twitter.com/nyccookies/status/1268640734254714883?s=20
I hope the tax breaks for the wealthy and the pro-life judges were worth it.
-
The narrative that anyone who votes Republican is automatically racist, xenophobic etc. is certainly pervasive, but it's also unbelievably insulting and frankly childish.
Over the past year, I have had a personal shift in my overarching mindset that has affected what I think and how I act, particularly when it comes to politics and general social issues. Last year, I may not have called a Trump supporter a racist to their face, but I was definitely thinking it. I was so quick to judge without considering what other reasons could exist for making someone want to align with him (even if they were not good reasons). I do not rush to judgment anymore.
I think this speaks to extreme polarity though. I have what I'd consider to be far-left friends who think anyone right of here is a racist, fascist, Nazi sympathizer. I also have friends who think anyone who didn't vote Trump are tree-hugging Lefty libtards. (Their words, not mine.)
The inability of people to empathize with or understand people from outside their particular section of the spectrum is an issue that I doubt will ever be fixed.
It is a human failing but it is particularly bad right now. It makes me so sad.
"Seek first to understand, and then to be understood." It sounds so easy but we are all collectively so bad at it.
-
Just remember, whoever votes for Trump in 2020 (giving some benefit of the doubt for those who voted for him in 2016 and may claim to "not know any better"), are perfectly ok with a sitting President gassing his own citizens for a photo-op.
-
This is who we have become under a republican president and the enablers that made him king...
https://twitter.com/nyccookies/status/1268640734254714883?s=20
I hope the tax breaks for the wealthy and the pro-life judges were worth it.
That guy is not American (either Australia / NZ / South Africa) and so he probably didn't vote in the last election (maybe he's naturalized) and that's in one of the most blue parts of the country so if he did it didn't impact the result.
This is the exact sort of painting everyone with the same brush thing others of us were talking about in this thread.
-
It's hard to deny that Trump doesn't "divide and conquer." General Mattis says as much in his scathing rebuke of Trump as a person and the damage he has done to our Country. He is the President of his base only. He doesn't even try to be the President of those who didn't vote for him...
So when you say this is "painting with a broad brush" Trump is the artist. It is his painting. Not mine.
And one last thing, just because someone has an accent means they "aren't American?" That may be the broadest brush stroke yet.
-
It's hard to deny that Trump doesn't "divide and conquer." General Mattis says as much in his scathing rebuke of Trump as a person and the damage he has done to our Country. He is the President of his base only. He doesn't even try to be the President of those who didn't vote for him...
So when you say this is "painting with a broad brush" Trump is the artist. It is his painting. Not mine.
I very much agree, actually. At this point, Trump deserves every bit of criticism anyone throws at him. He's had a million opportunities to try to improve things, and he takes the low road every chance he gets.
I just don't want us to get to the point where half the country hates the other half, or automatically assumes ill will, etc. I don't think most Trump voters assault children, for example. And I bet I could find examples of left wingers acting badly behaved on camera this week if I wanted to.
-
It's hard to deny that Trump doesn't "divide and conquer." General Mattis says as much in his scathing rebuke of Trump as a person and the damage he has done to our Country. He is the President of his base only. He doesn't even try to be the President of those who didn't vote for him...
So when you say this is "painting with a broad brush" Trump is the artist. It is his painting. Not mine.
I very much agree, actually. At this point, Trump deserves every bit of criticism anyone throws at him. He's had a million opportunities to try to improve things, and he takes the low road every chance he gets.
I just don't want us to get to the point where half the country hates the other half, or automatically assumes ill will, etc. I don't think most Trump voters assault children, for example. And I bet I could find examples of left wingers acting badly behaved on camera this week if I wanted to.
Are we talking . . . immigrant children being ripped away from their parents as young as two, and then not being able to be re-united because of sloppy record keeping? Maybe not (quite) assault, but a shocking number of people on the Republican side seemed A-OK with that.
I guess the difference that I see is that while both parties do bad stuff . . . recently Republicans (from elected officials to voters) seem to embrace the bad in a way that is unique. I'm sure you can find pictures if protesters smashing windows and setting things on fire, but I haven't seen too many Democratic leaders giving the thumbs up to those actions.
-
And one last thing, just because someone has an accent means they "aren't American?" That may be the broadest brush stroke yet.
Wait, someone actually said that?! Yeah, that is some serious bullshit. I’d like to introduce them to any one of many proud Americans in my family and friend circles who speak English with a non-American accent.
-
And one last thing, just because someone has an accent means they "aren't American?" That may be the broadest brush stroke yet.
Wait, someone actually said that?! Yeah, that is some serious bullshit. I’d like to introduce them to any one of many proud Americans in my family and friend circles who speak English with a non-American accent.
Go read the thread in context. These are all non-sequitur responses to a discussion about whether one douchebag in a random video is a representative sample of half of Americans.
Btw, you don't need to introduce me to anyone who speaks English with a non-American accent. I can just go talk to my parents. Who after forty years here, still talk about "the Americans this, the Americans that." Amusing, I'm frequently lumped in with the "Europeans" even though I was born here.
I feel like sometimes people just troll around the internet looking to take offense. Which, again, to return to my point, explains a lot about why this country is in the mess its currently in.
-
These are all non-sequitur responses to a discussion about whether one douchebag in a random video is a representative sample of half of Americans.
+1
Clearly, what it really unmasks is the way all hard core bicyclists behave. /s
-
To answer the OP's question, yes, I regret voting. Every time I think about what a fool I was to stand in line to vote for the "least worst" set of actors. I regret the lack of moral character I exhibited by not standing my ground and staying home. There's not a lot I can do about it at this point other than try to not do so in the future, and to warn others off.
Whether it was for the Republican Party corporatists or the Democratic Party corporatists is I think pretty much irrelevant. I voted for both at various times.
I wrote in a third party candidate last time. I didn't like the Green or Libertarian choices either (I just thought the whole lineup was uniquely awful) so I researched some obscure party, basically like socialist Christians, and just voted for them because I figured they didn't sound corrupt, like jerks, or ill-educated.
I'll vote for Biden next time though.
But I think a third party candidate is a great option, particularly for those of us who don't live in swing states. It says "I care enough to be here, but you need to do better."
Same (except I voted third party for President in 2016 and Republican for every other office). Registered Republican. Never voted for a democrat in my life. This is going to be my first time voting for not just one democrat but down the ballot. My wife too. The GOPs defense of the indefensible has lost my vote for the foreseeable future. We live in Florida so hopefully our votes send a message.
-
I live in NC, and my MiL took us out on the large lake near Charlotte. If you go simply by the flags on the boats there, Trump will probably win this election.
-
I live in NC, and my MiL took us out on the large lake near Charlotte. If you go simply by the flags on the boats there, Trump will probably win this election.
I can't display campaign materials because of my role in a nonpartisan political org, but I'd be afraid of retaliation if I were to display a Biden sign.
-
I live in NC, and my MiL took us out on the large lake near Charlotte. If you go simply by the flags on the boats there, Trump will probably win this election.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs it would be trump winning by a land slide in November.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs, Trump would get about 1% of the vote.
FileUnder: Useless Anecdotes
-
I live in NC, and my MiL took us out on the large lake near Charlotte. If you go simply by the flags on the boats there, Trump will probably win this election.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs it would be trump winning by a land slide in November.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs, Trump would get about 1% of the vote.
FileUnder: Useless Anecdotes
You must not win in real America. :P
-
I live in NC, and my MiL took us out on the large lake near Charlotte. If you go simply by the flags on the boats there, Trump will probably win this election.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs it would be trump winning by a land slide in November.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs, Trump would get about 1% of the vote.
FileUnder: Useless Anecdotes
And this is why democracies have secret ballots.
-
I didn't realize until this week that you can buy political face masks. I saw a woman wearing a "Trump 2020" mask.
Of course I'm thinking of getting a "Biden/Harris" mask, but not sure I want to put up with the comments I'd likely get when I run into Trumpists in my area (which is actually purple, very close to turning blue).
-
I didn't realize until this week that you can buy political face masks. I saw a woman wearing a "Trump 2020" mask.
Of course I'm thinking of getting a "Biden/Harris" mask, but not sure I want to put up with the comments I'd likely get when I run into Trumpists in my area (which is actually purple, very close to turning blue).
I thought Trump was against masks or at least didn’t support them? My head is spinning on the Trump mask.
-
I didn't realize until this week that you can buy political face masks. I saw a woman wearing a "Trump 2020" mask.
Of course I'm thinking of getting a "Biden/Harris" mask, but not sure I want to put up with the comments I'd likely get when I run into Trumpists in my area (which is actually purple, very close to turning blue).
I thought Trump was against masks or at least didn’t support them? My head is spinning on the Trump mask.
But we've always been at war with Eurasia. . .
-
I didn't realize until this week that you can buy political face masks. I saw a woman wearing a "Trump 2020" mask.
Of course I'm thinking of getting a "Biden/Harris" mask, but not sure I want to put up with the comments I'd likely get when I run into Trumpists in my area (which is actually purple, very close to turning blue).
I thought Trump was against masks or at least didn’t support them? My head is spinning on the Trump mask.
He was only off by 36 years. ;-/
But we've always been at war with Eurasia. . .
-
I live in NC, and my MiL took us out on the large lake near Charlotte. If you go simply by the flags on the boats there, Trump will probably win this election.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs it would be trump winning by a land slide in November.
I went for a walk around my city and if you went by the yard signs, Trump would get about 1% of the vote.
FileUnder: Useless Anecdotes
Sadly my neighborhood/street is loaded with Trump flags and signs. I'd love to put a Biden/Harris sign out but people can't seem to stay off other peoples property or keep their hands to themselves, so I won't.
-
Here in Charlotte we are entering the week of disruptions that were anticipated all along with the GOP convention. People are going nuts over the party's statement that they do not plan to adopt any kind of platform this year.
While I personally would like a statement of principles because I would like to live in a world in which people win power by stating their beliefs and following the constitution, I cannot help but see that--logically--this is going to be good for them, politically.
-
I have friends who have made it part of their daily routine to put out a Biden/Harris sign each morning and take it down each evening. One of my friends found a pile of Biden/Harris signs the evening before garbage day and took them home to pass them out to the neighbors whose signs had been stolen. Years ago, way back when Kerry was running, my sign was stolen. A friend told me to coat my new sign with a light layer of motor oil. I did and the sign remained, although twice there were hand prints where someone had started to take the sign!
-
Years ago, way back when Kerry was running, my sign was stolen. A friend told me to coat my new sign with a light layer of motor oil. I did and the sign remained, although twice there were hand prints where someone had started to take the sign!
This is a great idea. I don't have to do it now but I may eventually live in an angry pro-Trump neighborhood.
Castor oil would probably also work, eh?
-
Out of curiosity, what is the actual practical purpose of putting up political signs in such high profile races? Everyone already knows who they are going to vote for...putting a sign up isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I have been pondering this b/c a friend of mine REALLY wants us to put up a Biden sign (in a super Trump-y town). I don't really have a huge objection (though I'd worry about our car being vandalized if we left it parked out of the garage), but I also don't see the point.
At all.
-
Out of curiosity, what is the actual practical purpose of putting up political signs in such high profile races? Everyone already knows who they are going to vote for...putting a sign up isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I have been pondering this b/c a friend of mine REALLY wants us to put up a Biden sign (in a super Trump-y town). I don't really have a huge objection (though I'd worry about our car being vandalized if we left it parked out of the garage), but I also don't see the point.
At all.
I've often thought it was opposition voter brainwashing. That there is so much support for one candidate, there is no point bothering to get out and vote for the opponent. So opponents give up and don't vote, and the candidate with lots of signs does win.
It's more fun here. Last election, when I lived in farm country, there were red, blue, orange and green lawn signs. Colourful.
-
Out of curiosity, what is the actual practical purpose of putting up political signs in such high profile races? Everyone already knows who they are going to vote for...putting a sign up isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I have been pondering this b/c a friend of mine REALLY wants us to put up a Biden sign (in a super Trump-y town). I don't really have a huge objection (though I'd worry about our car being vandalized if we left it parked out of the garage), but I also don't see the point.
At all.
I've often thought it was opposition voter brainwashing. That there is so much support for one candidate, there is no point bothering to get out and vote for the opponent. So opponents give up and don't vote, and the candidate with lots of signs does win.
It's more fun here. Last election, when I lived in farm country, there were red, blue, orange and green lawn signs. Colourful.
Ah, yes. Good point.
-
Out of curiosity, what is the actual practical purpose of putting up political signs in such high profile races? Everyone already knows who they are going to vote for...putting a sign up isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I have been pondering this b/c a friend of mine REALLY wants us to put up a Biden sign (in a super Trump-y town). I don't really have a huge objection (though I'd worry about our car being vandalized if we left it parked out of the garage), but I also don't see the point.
At all.
I've often thought it was opposition voter brainwashing. That there is so much support for one candidate, there is no point bothering to get out and vote for the opponent. So opponents give up and don't vote, and the candidate with lots of signs does win.
It's more fun here. Last election, when I lived in farm country, there were red, blue, orange and green lawn signs. Colourful.
Ah, yes. Good point.
The yard sign thing came up here during the Cruz/Beto Senate Race. Beto had tons of signs and really energized voters in a way we hand't seen in a long time. Beto signs were everywhere, and Cruz supporters were mad because his campaign wasn't selling signs, because they didn't think there was a need as research showed yard signs had little impact on voting and was not a good use of funds. Eventually there was enough pressure from their constituency that they ended up printing and selling signs to 'compete'.
I don't think the sign issue had a real impact on the race, though it was incredible to see a statewide race be so close, esp given the trouncing of the last major 'competitive' race in the state (Wendy Davis taking on Gov Abbott).
Here's a whole article about the yard sign issue:
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/08/29/beto-orourke-ted-cruz-yard-signs/
-
We don't know how they voted last time, but a group of 27 republican former congressmen have come out to endorse Biden. I'm happy to continually hear about more people willing to cross party lines for this election.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/08/24/27-prominent-republicans-including-jeff-flake-announce-theyll-endorse-joe-biden/#5e6361ab6a9d
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
Every place is different. Our Conservative Party is very conservative socially, not so much financially.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
We have the same problem between Dem and Rep. The Republicans run on a fiscally conservative policy, everyone says that, not the racist shit, is the appeal, and they promptly run up the deficit. But no one cares, because the racist, classiest shit was the important thing all along
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
Compare the two parties' platforms for the last election. Labor was promising to spend big on:
- Free dental
- Free childcare
- Mandating wage rises for certain workers
- blah blah blah
And to pay for this Labor would have had to:
- Raise the top tax bracket
- Repudiate the stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts
This would have led to an earner on $200,000 a year being $11k a year worse off under Labor than Liberal. I'd say that's a big difference.
Even at state level, state Labor just hiked the stamp duty on vehicles above $150k from 5% to 9%
So it's not just about raw taxing and spending figures. It's also about how much of that taxing and spending goes straight to redistributive policies.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
Compare the two parties' platforms for the last election. Labor was promising to spend big on:
- Free dental
- Free childcare
- Mandating wage rises for certain workers
- blah blah blah
And to pay for this Labor would have had to:
- Raise the top tax bracket
- Repudiate the stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts
This would have led to an earner on $200,000 a year being $11k a year worse off under Labor than Liberal. I'd say that's a big difference.
Even at state level, state Labor just hiked the stamp duty on vehicles above $150k from 5% to 9%
So it's not just about raw taxing and spending figures. It's also about how much of that taxing and spending goes straight to redistributive policies.
In Australia, is $200,000 in the top 10%, 5%, or what?
Growing up in a province where a lot of people had terrible teeth, the free dental makes sense. People on tight budgets often put dental care way down on the list of priorities.
Quebec found its $5/day subsidized daycare ($7 now) was a moneymaker, as stay at home young mothers went back to work.
-
Out of curiosity, what is the actual practical purpose of putting up political signs in such high profile races? Everyone already knows who they are going to vote for...putting a sign up isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I have been pondering this b/c a friend of mine REALLY wants us to put up a Biden sign (in a super Trump-y town). I don't really have a huge objection (though I'd worry about our car being vandalized if we left it parked out of the garage), but I also don't see the point.
At all.
This is the first year I've ever had a yard sign, because I always felt the same thing. During the primary races, I had a Buttigieg sign. I had SO many people ask about it, and it gave me a chance to talk to them about why I liked the candidate. A number of former Republicans from my neighborhood actually changed party to come to the caucus and caucus for Pete.
I have a Biden yard sign now because a lot of people feel resigned that Trump just has an overwhelming presence, so there is no point in trying to defeat him. Showing that there are people with minority views does help empower the minority. I've noticed more "I believe in science" and "Black Lives Matter" signs pop up than Biden signs lately, but sadly, they seem to mean the same thing. But in a conservative city, it's good for the minority to show they are here too.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
Compare the two parties' platforms for the last election. Labor was promising to spend big on:
- Free dental
- Free childcare
- Mandating wage rises for certain workers
- blah blah blah
And to pay for this Labor would have had to:
- Raise the top tax bracket
- Repudiate the stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts
This would have led to an earner on $200,000 a year being $11k a year worse off under Labor than Liberal. I'd say that's a big difference.
Even at state level, state Labor just hiked the stamp duty on vehicles above $150k from 5% to 9%
So it's not just about raw taxing and spending figures. It's also about how much of that taxing and spending goes straight to redistributive policies.
That's one platform from one election.
Try looking at what each party has actually done while in power.
-
Out of curiosity, what is the actual practical purpose of putting up political signs in such high profile races? Everyone already knows who they are going to vote for...putting a sign up isn't going to change anyone's mind.
I have been pondering this b/c a friend of mine REALLY wants us to put up a Biden sign (in a super Trump-y town). I don't really have a huge objection (though I'd worry about our car being vandalized if we left it parked out of the garage), but I also don't see the point.
At all.
This is the first year I've ever had a yard sign, because I always felt the same thing. During the primary races, I had a Buttigieg sign. I had SO many people ask about it, and it gave me a chance to talk to them about why I liked the candidate. A number of former Republicans from my neighborhood actually changed party to come to the caucus and caucus for Pete.
I have a Biden yard sign now because a lot of people feel resigned that Trump just has an overwhelming presence, so there is no point in trying to defeat him. Showing that there are people with minority views does help empower the minority. I've noticed more "I believe in science" and "Black Lives Matter" signs pop up than Biden signs lately, but sadly, they seem to mean the same thing. But in a conservative city, it's good for the minority to show they are here too.
I’ve seen a lot of the “I believe in science” signs along with the Biden signs. It’s crazy and sad those signs are relegated to a political party. But that’s where we are in America
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
Compare the two parties' platforms for the last election. Labor was promising to spend big on:
- Free dental
- Free childcare
- Mandating wage rises for certain workers
- blah blah blah
And to pay for this Labor would have had to:
- Raise the top tax bracket
- Repudiate the stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts
This would have led to an earner on $200,000 a year being $11k a year worse off under Labor than Liberal. I'd say that's a big difference.
Even at state level, state Labor just hiked the stamp duty on vehicles above $150k from 5% to 9%
So it's not just about raw taxing and spending figures. It's also about how much of that taxing and spending goes straight to redistributive policies.
That's one platform from one election.
Try looking at what each party has actually done while in power.
Lol Bloop give it a rest. Labor raised your taxes by what? 1% in 2010 as a result of NDIS levy? That’s it. That was the only tax increase federally..
State taxes different story... they’ve got to raise the money somehow. Can’t have nurses and police not being paid. Nominate how your raise the money instead of carping how much of a burden life is on $200,000 a year buying cars only the 1% can ever afford.
Honestly comparing things that happen two elections away and say “see I’m $11,000 a year worse off” when the Liberals tax cuts haven’t even come into effect yet.
That’s ridiculous. Stopping a decision to proceed with tax cuts that haven’t happened yet is not a tax increase. Granted I’ll concede bracket creep however.
Scott and Josh have added more to the national debt in the past year than Labor did in 6. This idea that one side is good and one side is bad when it come to tax policy is utter tripe.
-
First time in my life I've ordered yard signs for a candidate. I'm one of those former Republicans who voted for Hillary (I'm more of a John Kasich kind of guy). The election of Trump caused me to switch my registration to the Democratic Party. I have also debated as to what the yard signs will do to help Biden get elected. I'm hopeful that someone in my high income neighborhood will see my sign, think I'm a reasonable person, and either engage with me regarding the election, or be persuaded in some way that it is ok to vote Blue. I doubt there is much effect on the hardcore from either side. I also want to show that I'm not afraid to have that conversation.
-
Marty, Labor also raised LCT from 25% to 33% and prolonged the deficit levy (and they would have prolonged it even further if they'd won last year). I don't have an issue with the NDIS levy because that's fairly applied to all incomes other than the poor.
State taxes I can think of a million ways to increase revenue, e.g., the first thing I'd do is apply land tax to PPOR. Easy, lucrative, fair, impossible to evade.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
Compare the two parties' platforms for the last election. Labor was promising to spend big on:
- Free dental
- Free childcare
- Mandating wage rises for certain workers
- blah blah blah
And to pay for this Labor would have had to:
- Raise the top tax bracket
- Repudiate the stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts
This would have led to an earner on $200,000 a year being $11k a year worse off under Labor than Liberal. I'd say that's a big difference.
Even at state level, state Labor just hiked the stamp duty on vehicles above $150k from 5% to 9%
So it's not just about raw taxing and spending figures. It's also about how much of that taxing and spending goes straight to redistributive policies.
In Australia, is $200,000 in the top 10%, 5%, or what?
Growing up in a province where a lot of people had terrible teeth, the free dental makes sense. People on tight budgets often put dental care way down on the list of priorities.
Quebec found its $5/day subsidized daycare ($7 now) was a moneymaker, as stay at home young mothers went back to work.
An inconvenient fact that many 'fiscal conservatives' often overlook is that many times increasing government spending has net savings for the whole country. It's important to make sure that when you're talking about 'fiscal conservatism' you're not really talking about 'puritanical nonsense that costs us all money'.
-
An inconvenient fact that many 'fiscal conservatives' often overlook is that many times increasing government spending has net savings for the whole country. It's important to make sure that when you're talking about 'fiscal conservatism' you're not really talking about 'puritanical nonsense that costs us all money'.
Yup, copying and pasting the UK NHS would be fiscally conservative. Cutting the size of the military in half would be fiscally conservative. Raising taxes to pay down the debt would be fiscally conservative. There aren't enough fiscal conservatives left to get a bill passed.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
Compare the two parties' platforms for the last election. Labor was promising to spend big on:
- Free dental
- Free childcare
- Mandating wage rises for certain workers
- blah blah blah
And to pay for this Labor would have had to:
- Raise the top tax bracket
- Repudiate the stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts
This would have led to an earner on $200,000 a year being $11k a year worse off under Labor than Liberal. I'd say that's a big difference.
Even at state level, state Labor just hiked the stamp duty on vehicles above $150k from 5% to 9%
So it's not just about raw taxing and spending figures. It's also about how much of that taxing and spending goes straight to redistributive policies.
In Australia, is $200,000 in the top 10%, 5%, or what?
Growing up in a province where a lot of people had terrible teeth, the free dental makes sense. People on tight budgets often put dental care way down on the list of priorities.
Quebec found its $5/day subsidized daycare ($7 now) was a moneymaker, as stay at home young mothers went back to work.
An inconvenient fact that many 'fiscal conservatives' often overlook is that many times increasing government spending has net savings for the whole country. It's important to make sure that when you're talking about 'fiscal conservatism' you're not really talking about 'puritanical nonsense that costs us all money'.
Instead, fiscal conservatives have been known to spend money to shore up their electoral prospects when nobody's looking. For example...
G8 FUNDING: In the lead up to the 2010 G8 meeting in Huntsville, senior cabinet minister Tony Clement personally directed a $50-million “legacy” fund, funneling millions in infrastructure to his Muskoka riding. Municipalities far from the actual summit site were given hundreds of thousands of dollars for sidewalk improvements, parks, and most infamously, a gazebo. A subsequent investigation by the auditor general showed funds were doled out with no bureaucratic oversight or paper trails. Clement was later promoted to president of the Treasury Board, the department that oversees government spending.
-
You guys are lucky in the US that you can vote Democrat and still have a fiscally conservative government.
Here in Australia if I want to vote for the socially progressive party I also have to accept a big hike in my taxes. Always.
That's pretty funny.
The myth that the Liberals are fiscally conservative is one of the best bits of political brainwashing ever. The Liberals outspend Labour just about every time they are in government.
Compare the two parties' platforms for the last election. Labor was promising to spend big on:
- Free dental
- Free childcare
- Mandating wage rises for certain workers
- blah blah blah
And to pay for this Labor would have had to:
- Raise the top tax bracket
- Repudiate the stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts
This would have led to an earner on $200,000 a year being $11k a year worse off under Labor than Liberal. I'd say that's a big difference.
Even at state level, state Labor just hiked the stamp duty on vehicles above $150k from 5% to 9%
So it's not just about raw taxing and spending figures. It's also about how much of that taxing and spending goes straight to redistributive policies.
In Australia, is $200,000 in the top 10%, 5%, or what?
Growing up in a province where a lot of people had terrible teeth, the free dental makes sense. People on tight budgets often put dental care way down on the list of priorities.
Quebec found its $5/day subsidized daycare ($7 now) was a moneymaker, as stay at home young mothers went back to work.
An inconvenient fact that many 'fiscal conservatives' often overlook is that many times increasing government spending has net savings for the whole country. It's important to make sure that when you're talking about 'fiscal conservatism' you're not really talking about 'puritanical nonsense that costs us all money'.
All politicians tend to lie and obfuscate.
I am not sure that the above, alone, is meaningful information. I am sure there are loads of instances of hypocrisy on the "liberal" side as well!!
The scarier thing is zombification of an ideology. Thankfully, you guys are much further away from US in how much the zombie followers the right-wing ideologies have created in the US. I will take a hypocritical right wing (like Canada/Australia) over a zombified right wing (like US) any day. Ditto for the "left" wing (curious thought: left can definitely be zombified, and worse than right. Can liberal's be zombified?).
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
Given everything that this administration has done (or failed to do) since the last election that has resulted in a massive loss of both lives and livelihoods, I find this response truly disgusting.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
Given everything that this administration has done (or failed to do) since the last election that has resulted in a massive loss of both lives and livelihoods, I find this response truly disgusting.
Human nature hasn't moved on from the Romans: bread and (deadly) circuses.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
Given everything that this administration has done (or failed to do) since the last election that has resulted in a massive loss of both lives and livelihoods, I find this response truly disgusting.
I believe the technical term is Schadenfreude. Typically you don't find too many adults boasting about practicing it.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
Given everything that this administration has done (or failed to do) since the last election that has resulted in a massive loss of both lives and livelihoods, I find this response truly disgusting.
I believe the technical term is Schadenfreude. Typically you don't find too many adults boasting about practicing it.
Except Trump supporters. They are more than happy to give into — and boast about — their third-grade playground bully selves leading their decision-making.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
The 10 year olds have found the forums.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
The 10 year olds have found the forums.
10 year olds know the difference between loose and lose, though.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
Counterpoint: it involves a world-view that incredibly little in the public sphere matters. Triggering and discrediting the media is ethical (and ethically elevated to a top priority) if you believe public investments and policies wouldn't have changed the state of play for COVID, wouldn't have improved the lives of undocumented immigrants, and won't have a meaningful impact on education or health.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
Counterpoint: it involves a world-view that incredibly little in the public sphere matters. Triggering and discrediting the media is ethical (and ethically elevated to a top priority) if you believe public investments and policies wouldn't have changed the state of play for COVID, wouldn't have improved the lives of undocumented immigrants, and won't have a meaningful impact on education or health.
Wouldn't you have to be pretty stupid to believe that though . . . given the evidence of wildly different results covid had around the world based on different public investments and policies?
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
Counterpoint: it involves a world-view that incredibly little in the public sphere matters. Triggering and discrediting the media is ethical (and ethically elevated to a top priority) if you believe public investments and policies wouldn't have changed the state of play for COVID, wouldn't have improved the lives of undocumented immigrants, and won't have a meaningful impact on education or health.
Wouldn't you have to be pretty stupid to believe that though . . . given the evidence of wildly different results covid had around the world based on different public investments and policies?
Aha! You can't trust the media reports on what's going on with covid around the world! Did Italy really have a massive outbreak? Were there refrigerated corpse trucks outside NYC hospitals? Were nursing home residents dying like flies in Washington state?
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
Counterpoint: it involves a world-view that incredibly little in the public sphere matters. Triggering and discrediting the media is ethical (and ethically elevated to a top priority) if you believe public investments and policies wouldn't have changed the state of play for COVID, wouldn't have improved the lives of undocumented immigrants, and won't have a meaningful impact on education or health.
Wouldn't you have to be pretty stupid to believe that though . . . given the evidence of wildly different results covid had around the world based on different public investments and policies?
Aha! You can't trust the media reports on what's going on with covid around the world! Did Italy really have a massive outbreak? Were there refrigerated corpse trucks outside NYC hospitals? Were nursing home residents dying like flies in Washington state?
I didn't take the stupidity far enough. My mistake. :P
A common problem with creating a system that's completely foolproof is that people constantly underestimate the ingenuity of utter fools.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
Counterpoint: it involves a world-view that incredibly little in the public sphere matters. Triggering and discrediting the media is ethical (and ethically elevated to a top priority) if you believe public investments and policies wouldn't have changed the state of play for COVID, wouldn't have improved the lives of undocumented immigrants, and won't have a meaningful impact on education or health.
Wouldn't you have to be pretty stupid to believe that though . . . given the evidence of wildly different results covid had around the world based on different public investments and policies?
Aha! You can't trust the media reports on what's going on with covid around the world! Did Italy really have a massive outbreak? Were there refrigerated corpse trucks outside NYC hospitals? Were nursing home residents dying like flies in Washington state?
I didn't take the stupidity far enough. My mistake. :P
A common problem with creating a system that's completely foolproof is that people constantly underestimate the ingenuity of utter fools.
And the fools survive and the gene pool gets shallower. Used to be, stupid dug the well too close to the outhouse, the stupid genes got eliminated. Of course in cities stupidity affected a larger circle, so the not-stupid had to protect themselves.
Sorry, feeling awfully cynical today. As in, will American companies be allowed to keep the new vaccine contracts they signed with the Canadian government? After all the recent history of breaches of contract between American companies and Canadian purchasers forced by the American government? American compliance with the new NAFTA is a joke. Any American reputation for reliability with foreign purchasers is already shaky, right down there with the Chinese. And Americans will whinge when buyers start looking for more reliable suppliers. Hope Trump's supporters are happy when foreign exchange takes a nosedive. You Trumpies want to be isolationist, we'll help you.
To clarify, Canadians generally like individual Americans, and that hasn't changed. But individual Canadians have never trusted American governments not to throw their weight around, and Trump is surpassing our already cynical expectations.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
Counterpoint: it involves a world-view that incredibly little in the public sphere matters. Triggering and discrediting the media is ethical (and ethically elevated to a top priority) if you believe public investments and policies wouldn't have changed the state of play for COVID, wouldn't have improved the lives of undocumented immigrants, and won't have a meaningful impact on education or health.
Wouldn't you have to be pretty stupid to believe that though . . . given the evidence of wildly different results covid had around the world based on different public investments and policies?
Aha! You can't trust the media reports on what's going on with covid around the world! Did Italy really have a massive outbreak? Were there refrigerated corpse trucks outside NYC hospitals? Were nursing home residents dying like flies in Washington state?
I didn't take the stupidity far enough. My mistake. :P
A common problem with creating a system that's completely foolproof is that people constantly underestimate the ingenuity of utter fools.
And the fools survive and the gene pool gets shallower. Used to be, stupid dug the well too close to the outhouse, the stupid genes got eliminated. Of course in cities stupidity affected a larger circle, so the not-stupid had to protect themselves.
Sorry, feeling awfully cynical today. As in, will American companies be allowed to keep the new vaccine contracts they signed with the Canadian government? After all the recent history of breaches of contract between American companies and Canadian purchasers forced by the American government? American compliance with the new NAFTA is a joke. Any American reputation for reliability with foreign purchasers is already shaky, right down there with the Chinese. And Americans will whinge when buyers start looking for more reliable suppliers. Hope Trump's supporters are happy when foreign exchange takes a nosedive. You Trumpies want to be isolationist, we'll help you.
To clarify, Canadians generally like individual Americans, and that hasn't changed. But individual Canadians have never trusted American governments not to throw their weight around, and Trump is surpassing our already cynical expectations.
This is reminiscent of Iran in a “the government is kind of evil but the people themselves are nice” sort of way.
-
Regret? Lol no!
Watching the media loose their minds was worth it :)
"I triggered the media" is truly the dumbest response to this question.
Counterpoint: it involves a world-view that incredibly little in the public sphere matters. Triggering and discrediting the media is ethical (and ethically elevated to a top priority) if you believe public investments and policies wouldn't have changed the state of play for COVID, wouldn't have improved the lives of undocumented immigrants, and won't have a meaningful impact on education or health.
Wouldn't you have to be pretty stupid to believe that though . . . given the evidence of wildly different results covid had around the world based on different public investments and policies?
Aha! You can't trust the media reports on what's going on with covid around the world! Did Italy really have a massive outbreak? Were there refrigerated corpse trucks outside NYC hospitals? Were nursing home residents dying like flies in Washington state?
I didn't take the stupidity far enough. My mistake. :P
A common problem with creating a system that's completely foolproof is that people constantly underestimate the ingenuity of utter fools.
And the fools survive and the gene pool gets shallower. Used to be, stupid dug the well too close to the outhouse, the stupid genes got eliminated. Of course in cities stupidity affected a larger circle, so the not-stupid had to protect themselves.
Sorry, feeling awfully cynical today. As in, will American companies be allowed to keep the new vaccine contracts they signed with the Canadian government? After all the recent history of breaches of contract between American companies and Canadian purchasers forced by the American government? American compliance with the new NAFTA is a joke. Any American reputation for reliability with foreign purchasers is already shaky, right down there with the Chinese. And Americans will whinge when buyers start looking for more reliable suppliers. Hope Trump's supporters are happy when foreign exchange takes a nosedive. You Trumpies want to be isolationist, we'll help you.
To clarify, Canadians generally like individual Americans, and that hasn't changed. But individual Canadians have never trusted American governments not to throw their weight around, and Trump is surpassing our already cynical expectations.
This is reminiscent of Iran in a “the government is kind of evil but the people themselves are nice” sort of way.
Also, in the religious zealotry sort of way.
-
Zealotry makes sense. The US has always been a Christian nation.
You can never be elected president of the United States unless you openly profess your Christianity. Even if you are openly Christian with a long history of following the Christian faith, you can be politically attacked (and have political damage done) by people saying that you're secretly Muslim - we all learned this when Obama was president.
The idea that you can be president and not Christian is theoretically possible, but has never been borne out in reality.
-
Zealotry makes sense. The US has always been a Christian nation.
You can never be elected president of the United States unless you openly profess your Christianity. Even if you are openly Christian with a long history of following the Christian faith, you can be politically attacked (and have political damage done) by people saying that you're secretly Muslim - we all learned this when Obama was president.
The idea that you can be president and not Christian is theoretically possible, but has never been borne out in reality.
It has been a Protestant nation, not a Christian nation. People criticized JFK's nomination because he was Roman Catholic, so he would be controlled by the Pope.
-
Indeed the protestant-catholic rivalry throughout the first half of the twentieth century is under-appreciated today. The waves of Italian and Irish immigrants were subject to mistrust partly because of this divergence in faith. Were he elected, Biden would be only the second Roman Catholic to serve as President.
-
Indeed the protestant-catholic rivalry throughout the first half of the twentieth century is under-appreciated today. The waves of Italian and Irish immigrants were subject to mistrust partly because of this divergence in faith. Were he elected, Biden would be only the second Roman Catholic to serve as President.
Getting old is a pain, but it gives perspective. I remember the fuss and I was a kid. I wonder what today's 10 year olds will remember 50/60 years from now about this election round?
I also remember Trudeaumania. ;-) Charismatic politicians are rare in Canada.
-
The idea that you can be president and not Christian is theoretically possible, but has never been borne out in reality.
This is one of the things I hate about the US. It feels so backward.
-
Indeed the protestant-catholic rivalry throughout the first half of the twentieth century is under-appreciated today. The waves of Italian and Irish immigrants were subject to mistrust partly because of this divergence in faith. Were he elected, Biden would be only the second Roman Catholic to serve as President.
Agreed. While obviously not perfect, I recently watched The Tudors series from a few years ago and thought it did a great job of showcasing the conflict in a variety of ways.
One way it still shows is through the prominent and extensive network of private catholic schools across the US that persists even now. This network was built up as the universal public school system was established on protestant rhetoric and values, so Catholics built their own system as an alternative.
-
Was that Trudeau the younger or Trudeau the elder?
-
Zealotry makes sense. The US has always been a Christian nation.
You can never be elected president of the United States unless you openly profess your Christianity. Even if you are openly Christian with a long history of following the Christian faith, you can be politically attacked (and have political damage done) by people saying that you're secretly Muslim - we all learned this when Obama was president.
The idea that you can be president and not Christian is theoretically possible, but has never been borne out in reality.
It has been a Protestant nation, not a Christian nation. People criticized JFK's nomination because he was Roman Catholic, so he would be controlled by the Pope.
Specifically Protestant of the Prosperity Gospel variety (i.e., wealth and health are signs of God's favor).
-
Indeed the protestant-catholic rivalry throughout the first half of the twentieth century is under-appreciated today. The waves of Italian and Irish immigrants were subject to mistrust partly because of this divergence in faith. Were he elected, Biden would be only the second Roman Catholic to serve as President.
What we lack in executive representation, we more than make up for in judicial representation in the US. And for some reason we're everywhere in the intelligence community.
-
I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.
-
As the OP, please help me restore my faith in the American Experiment...
For those of you that took a leap of faith and voted republican in 2016, tell me that you regret voting this way. Tell me after 3+ years of a complete shit-show, that you wish you didn't....
Or, are we really this divided, that we can't see we have lost our way, that there is no hope for common ground...Over and over, in different social media platforms, I have asked whether people see the shit-show for what it is...a disaster. But over and over people defend the actions of the president and the republican enablers.
Personally, I am not disappointed in Trump--he is exactly who I thought he was (okay, maybe a little worse). What I am disappointed in, and afraid of, is that almost half of the country are still with him after this catastrophe...This makes no sense to me. More than the possibility of Trump being re-elected, the idea that half of the country would be fine with this is completely demoralizing.
So help me out...If you voted for Trump (and the republican enablers) tell me you regret it...Please.
-
I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.
What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.
-
I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.
What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.
This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.
-
I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.
What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.
This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.
If worst comes to worst, Presidents could just refuse to enforce what the Supreme Court says, because the Supreme Court doesn't have an army. It worked for Andrew Jackson after all.
-
I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.
What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.
This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.
If worst comes to worst, Presidents could just refuse to enforce what the Supreme Court says, because the Supreme Court doesn't have an army. It worked for Andrew Jackson after all.
Right. This has recently been done with the federal drug laws and marijuana.
-
I have to say, none of us probably expected Trump would get a third SCOTUS nomination when this thread was most active.
If you were a conservative before 2016, this certainly must be a nice benefit from the Trump years, even if they are about to draw to a close.
What's even more crazy is that it's not outside the realm of possibility that he gets another three if re-elected: Breyer is 82. Thomas is 72, but has been on the bench for almost three decades. Finally, there's 70 year old Alito or Sotomayer who is relatively young at 66, but is only two years away from the average life expectancy of a person with Type 1 diabetes.
This is a little OT, but I really wish that support would build for fixed terms (18 years?) for SCOTUS justices. It is ridiculous to have a gerontocracy playing such a major role in our lives. Along the same lines, I think that Presidents should really be people in their mid-to-late 50s. At that time you have experience, still decent physical stamina, and hopefully mental acuity.
If worst comes to worst, Presidents could just refuse to enforce what the Supreme Court says, because the Supreme Court doesn't have an army. It worked for Andrew Jackson after all.
I don't understand this comment. You mean that Presidents could just kick some of the longer-serving Justices off of the Court? I don't think that would work.
-
So help me out...If you voted for Trump (and the republican enablers) tell me you regret it...Please.
Can't do exactly that, but perhaps provide some reason to believe all is not lost.
Going back to the OP and that original list:
1. Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
2. The republican tax plan
3. Trump/Russia
4. Less consumer protection (deregulation)
5. Korea
6. General lack of decorum
7. Environmental issues/climate change issues
8. Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions
9. Women's rights/issues
1. Hasn't happened (yet). It might, but it might also be Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt spread by political opponents.
2. One can debate the long term effects on national debt. As someone who works a lot with the Tax-Aide and VITA programs, changes to returns were generally favorable for the "low to moderate" income folks served by those programs (100% favorable for the ones I saw).
3. At one time there may have been legitimate concern that Trump would acquiesce to Putin expanding on the Crimean takeover. Didn't happen.
4. Methinks “Consumer Carnage” (https://www.citizen.org/news/enforcement-of-consumer-protection-laws-sinks-under-tough-on-crime-trump/) is a bit of a stretch to describe the drop from 133 to 84 described by that article. Small business owners I know, however, are very much in favor of reducing what they see as overly bureaucratic regulations.
5. Similar to Russia: much ado about nothing.
6. 100% agree with you on this. Just don't see it as "the" reason for a voting choice. In other words, perhaps many people are not voting "for Trump" as a person, but rather are voting based on some weighted average of how they feel about Democratic and Republican positions on the plethora of issues in the country today. Comments such as this post about disgusting beliefs (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg2706370/#msg2706370), that expose the poster's own character more than anything, make me that much less likely to vote Democratic.
7. Maybe I'm just a dumb hick from the sticks - or maybe not ;) - but the relative costs of the "cure" vs. the "disease" on this one remain highly debatable.
8. Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...? At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)
9. Similar to the ACA - fear, etc., but no actual problems. At least, that's what DW tells me.
In short, yes I agree that Trump says stupid things. Thought he might change after winning the election, but his "my inauguration crowd was the biggest..." killed that notion quickly. But there are policies implemented by people under him that appear better than what Biden would support. To take one example, Dear Colleague: It’s over! Education Department rescinds controversial 2011 letter (https://www.thefire.org/dear-colleague-its-over-education-department-rescinds-controversial-2011-letter/). As parents with a daughter in college, and with a son in college, we think the current position preferable, and hope you don't find that a disastrous opinion.
If one considers that the press (both sides, of course) has a vested interest is building mountains out of molehills, and that the people with whom we work, play, volunteer, etc., can be good people whoever they may vote for, perhaps the future doesn't have to be as bleak as what Breitbart or MSNBC would have us believe if the "wrong" side wins. Hope this helps....
-
I don't understand this comment. You mean that Presidents could just kick some of the longer-serving Justices off of the Court? I don't think that would work.
They don't have to kick anyone out- just refuse to enforce court decisions. As for the Jackson reference, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia#Enforcement
-
8. Racial/religious (Muslim) tensions
8. Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...? At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)
Interesting.
As a Trump supporter, you believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama? I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.
-
...believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama? I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.
"Tensions" in general seem higher due to COVID - both from the disease itself and the isolation to combat it.
The degree of specifically "racial" tension is more difficult to distinguish amidst the general trend.
-
As the OP, please help me restore my faith in the American Experiment...
...
So help me out...If you voted for Trump (and the republican enablers) tell me you regret it...Please.
Does this make you feel better?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/27/all-the-republicans-who-have-endorsed-joe-biden-for-president/#4951ac207340
-
In short, yes I agree that Trump says stupid things.
Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."?
How is this not blatant support for eugenics? The rest of the speech is pretty horrific, as well.
Sept 18th, Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota
Complete recording & transcript:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-campaign-rally-speech-bemidji-minnesota-transcript-september-18
-
Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. [They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers.]"?
How is this not blatant support for eugenics?
I really have no idea where one could pull eugenics out of that....
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
None whatsoever, given the context.
-
I have a friend I occasionally talk politics with that basically responds to Trump criticisms in the same fashion MDM is. Every point is looked at as though it’s an isolated incident, and lots of benefit of the doubt is given, and:
- When Trump says something cruel: “ahh, yea. He’s mean. So what?”
- When Trump says something stupid: “yea, Trump says stupid shit. But he’s harmless.”
- When Trump tells you what corrupt action he’s planning: “ohh, come on, he’s joking!”
- When Trump actually succeeds in awful policy (e.g. Muslim ban, “Anarchist jurisdictions”, LGBT military bans, etc): “it’s no big deal, he’ll just get blocked!”
Conservatives like that he has largely been unable to do much of anything (kind of a central tenet of Conservatism) and has gotten their big things done: judges in seats, taxes cut, regulations cut, antagonists heading up govt agencies (EPA, FDA, CDC, USPS, Dept. of Education, etc.) That the US has had one of the worst covid responses, despite being the most prosperous nation in history doesn’t matter. That the president is very publicly stating he does not agree to a peaceful transfer of power doesn’t matter. His history of tax fraud doesn’t matter. His awful statements about prisoners of war and military personnel don’t matter. His horrible personal behavior (cheating on his wife with a porn star as his child is being born, grab ‘em by the pussy, making fun of disabled reporters, etc.) doesn’t matter. Tear gassing peaceful US citizens so that he could get a photo op holding a religious text he’s never read in front of a religious building he’s never entered doesn’t matter. That 500 former military leaders have publicly endorsed his opponent doesn’t matter. That our international approval (and all the soft power that comes along with that) has been irreparably damaged doesn’t matter. That he doesn’t believe in climate change, and put a climate denier at the head of the EPA doesn’t matter. Conservatives like their marginally lower tax rates, and are deeply, DEEPLY terrified that the US is teetering on the edge of communism, and may soon look like Venezuela if Comrade Joe Biden is permitted to become president.
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
None whatsoever, given the context.
This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/
Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.
“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
None whatsoever, given the context.
This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/
Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.
“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”
So all those "miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers" bred eugenically to produce today's Minnesotans?
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
None whatsoever, given the context.
This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/
Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.
“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”
So all those "miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers" bred eugenically to produce today's Minnesotans?
Obviously.
Minnesota has the BEST miners, BEST lumberjacks, BEST fishermen, BEST farmers, BEST shipbuilders and BEST shopkeepers. Everyone is saying so. Oh, they're all white? Gee, hadn't noticed.
-
...believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama? I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.
"Tensions" in general seem higher due to COVID - both from the disease itself and the isolation to combat it.
The degree of specifically "racial" tension is more difficult to distinguish amidst the general trend.
When people hold multiple month long protests of policing and racial inequality in streets across the country . . . you detect no racial tension? That's interesting. Can you describe what actions would need to happen then, before you considered racial tension in the country to be elevated? What scenario are you using as a gauge to determine racial tensions?
-
8. Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...? At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)
The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
None whatsoever, given the context.
This Frontline documentary about the 2016 election states that Trump supports eugenics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/
Trump’s father instilled in him the idea that their family’s success was genetic, according to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.
“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” D’Antonio says in the documentary. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”
So all those "miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers" bred eugenically to produce today's Minnesotans?
Maybe that's where the disconnect is. You added the content:
"They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers."
I can get behind those qualities: grit, talent, compassion, neighborly values, etc.
However, none of those things are genetically predisposed. So what was the point of saying "A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different?" other than to support the thought that some people are innately genetically superior to others?
-
Given the travel conditions for poor immigrants back then, there probably are some genetic differences between those who left and those who arrived. Things like the ability to survive dysentery and cholera. I strongly doubt that is what Trump had in mind, though.
-
8. Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...? At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)
The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?
No, just saying that Trump's nomination of ACB shows no anti-Catholic bias.
What Democrats in general or individual Democrats think would be a separate discussion.
-
...believe that racial tensions in the US are the same under Trump as under Obama? I'd say that they seem at least a modicum worse to me.
"Tensions" in general seem higher due to COVID - both from the disease itself and the isolation to combat it.
The degree of specifically "racial" tension is more difficult to distinguish amidst the general trend.
When people hold multiple month long protests of policing and racial inequality in streets across the country . . . you detect no racial tension? That's interesting. Can you describe what actions would need to happen then, before you considered racial tension in the country to be elevated? What scenario are you using as a gauge to determine racial tensions?
The RIP Ruth (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/rip-ruth/) thread had a tangent regarding the conflation of racism and police brutality - see that instead of rehashing here.
-
Maybe that's where the disconnect is. You added the content:
"They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers."
I can get behind those qualities: grit, talent, compassion, neighborly values, etc.
However, none of those things are genetically predisposed. So what was the point of saying "A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different?" other than to support the thought that some people are innately genetically superior to others?
It's a stump speech, in which a presidential candidate sprinkles a few state-specific comments. Note that it's usually best if the candidate remembers the correct state name. ;)
One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. Seems quite a stretch to go from that to eugenics, but maybe your dog-whistle hearing is genetically superior. :)
-
8. Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...? At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)
The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?
No, just saying that Trump's nomination of ACB shows no anti-Catholic bias.
What Democrats in general or individual Democrats think would be a separate discussion.
Ah. Logical. It also shows that Trump has no anti-New Orleanian bias by exactly the same logic. So glad we got both of those cleared up then.
-
8. Other than the Muslim-ban-that-wasn't, ...? At least Trump isn't showing anti-Catholic bias. ;)
The Democrats have chosen a devout Catholic to represent their party in the highest office of the land, and you're trying to get us to believe they have an anti-Catholic bais?
No, just saying that Trump's nomination of ACB shows no anti-Catholic bias.
What Democrats in general or individual Democrats think would be a separate discussion.
Ah. Logical. It also shows that Trump has no anti-New Orleanian bias by exactly the same logic. So glad we got both of those cleared up then.
Also shows that Trump has no anti-white people bias. Another burning question that has been in much doubt.
:P
-
Ah. Logical. It also shows that Trump has no anti-New Orleanian bias by exactly the same logic. So glad we got both of those cleared up then.
Also shows that Trump has no anti-white people bias. Another burning question that has been in much doubt.
Quite the pro-diversity candidate, that Trump. ;)
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
None whatsoever, given the context.
Good point.
Let's see his speech included a snide comment about refugees in the state. Followed by a nasty and baseless comment about Ilhan Omar (a Somali refugee who serves Minnesota in Congress) claiming she once married her brother. Trump then addressed the racial unrest in Minneapolis claiming Minneapolis would be gone if the National Guard hadn't stepped in. Then he moved on to gleefully boast about how an NBC correspondent of color, Ali Veshi, got injured with a non-lethal round.
With the racist warm-up complete, Trump then moves on to eugenics, which of course has been scientifically discredited. Seems context is pretty clear. I realize it doesn't matter. If you support trump then you are ok with all this and it's no big deal.
-
Genetics and racehorse theory doesn't raise any red flags?
None whatsoever, given the context.
Good point.
Let's see his speech included a snide comment about refugees in the state. Followed by a nasty and baseless comment about Ilhan Omar (a Somali refugee who serves Minnesota in Congress) claiming she once married her brother. Trump then addressed the racial unrest in Minneapolis claiming Minneapolis would be gone if the National Guard hadn't stepped in. Then he moved on to gleefully boast about how an NBC correspondent of color, Ali Veshi, got injured with a non-lethal round.
With the racist warm-up complete, Trump then moves on to eugenics, which of course has been scientifically discredited. Seems context is pretty clear. I realize it doesn't matter. If you support trump then you are ok with all this and it's no big deal.
Would it have been OK if Velshi were white?
-
Maybe that's where the disconnect is. You added the content:
"They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers."
I can get behind those qualities: grit, talent, compassion, neighborly values, etc.
However, none of those things are genetically predisposed. So what was the point of saying "A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different?" other than to support the thought that some people are innately genetically superior to others?
It's a stump speech, in which a presidential candidate sprinkles a few state-specific comments. Note that it's usually best if the candidate remembers the correct state name. ;)
One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. Seems quite a stretch to go from that to eugenics, but maybe your dog-whistle hearing is genetically superior. :)
I'm still confused. What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?
-
It's a stump speech, in which a presidential candidate sprinkles a few state-specific comments. Note that it's usually best if the candidate remembers the correct state name. ;)
One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. Seems quite a stretch to go from that to eugenics, but maybe your dog-whistle hearing is genetically superior. :)
I'm still confused. What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?
OK, let's expand the context a bit (and repeating the good link you posted: Donald Trump Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota Transcript September 18 - Rev (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-campaign-rally-speech-bemidji-minnesota-transcript-september-18)):
From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Rochester to Duluth, and from Minneapolis, thank God we still have Minneapolis, to right here, right here with all of you great people, this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong. You have good genes. You know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
Donald Trump: (01:56:11)
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers. But they all had one thing in common. They loved their families, they loved their countries, and they loved their God. Proud citizens like you helped build this country. And together we are taking back our country. We are returning power to you, the American people. With your help, your devotion and your drive, we are going to keep on working, we’re going to keep on fighting, and we are going to keep on winning, winning, winning.
I'll repeat: One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. The key phrase being "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." Again, it's a stump speech so it wouldn't be surprising if he said the same thing in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.
By no stretch of my imagination can I interpret that as him saying "you Minnesotans bred yourselves like racehorses into a Master Race." Is that what you imagine?
-
OK, let's expand the context a bit (and repeating the good link you posted: Donald Trump Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota Transcript September 18 - Rev (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-campaign-rally-speech-bemidji-minnesota-transcript-september-18)):
From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Rochester to Duluth, and from Minneapolis, thank God we still have Minneapolis, to right here, right here with all of you great people, this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong. You have good genes. You know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
Donald Trump: (01:56:11)
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers. But they all had one thing in common. They loved their families, they loved their countries, and they loved their God. Proud citizens like you helped build this country. And together we are taking back our country. We are returning power to you, the American people. With your help, your devotion and your drive, we are going to keep on working, we’re going to keep on fighting, and we are going to keep on winning, winning, winning.
I'll repeat: One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. The key phrase being "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." Again, it's a stump speech so it wouldn't be surprising if he said the same thing in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.
By no stretch of my imagination can I interpret that as him saying "you Minnesotans bred yourselves like racehorses into a Master Race." Is that what you imagine?
Seriously?
Your expanded context specifically includes the part where he is telling the audience they have good genes and that a lot of it is about having good genes and race horse theory.
Why bring that up at all if not to suggest by omission that those who have not achieved the same success (however defined), don't have good genes.
I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
-
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
-
I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.
-
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.
-
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.
Coming from one of those eugenically advanced Minnesotans.... :)
-
I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.
There's disagreeing with what seems clear to someone else and then there's simply denying what has been said.......in the very quote you yourself posted.
But I suppose, you are a Trump supporter, so denying something has been said, even in the face of a recording of what was actually said, should come as no surprise.
-
I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
Thanks for the support. I feel like I'm in some alternate reality.
-
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.
Coming from one of those eugenically advanced Minnesotans.... :)
“Minnesotan” is not a genetic reality. Regardless of what Trump the eugenicist thinks.
But hey, I’m flattered that you pay such close attention to me to know where I live.
-
I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.
There's disagreeing with what seems clear to someone else and then there's simply denying what has been said.......in the very quote you yourself posted.
But I suppose, you are a Trump supporter, so denying something has been said, even in the face of a recording of what was actually said, should come as no surprise.
The original question for this tangent was How is this not blatant support for eugenics? (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/does-anyone-regret-voting-republican/msg2707362/#msg2707362)
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
Although, I'm assuming that eugenics implies some sort of selective breeding (and thus not anything Minnesota enforced). Are you implying something else with the word "eugenics"?
-
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Watching MDM debate on the forums always reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a pigeon.
Coming from one of those eugenically advanced Minnesotans.... :)
“Minnesotan” is not a genetic reality. Regardless of what Trump the eugenicist thinks.
But hey, I’m flattered that you pay such close attention to me to know where I live.
Just happened to notice that at one point because we have many relatives in Minnesota. :)
And it's good to see that Minnesota hasn't practiced eugenics. Those relatives are a good bunch, however, so it must have been luck of the draw instead of forced breeding.
-
I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
Thanks for the support. I feel like I'm in some alternate reality.
I know the feeling.
-
I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
It’s really a shame mental gymnastics isn’t an Olympic category....
Some people can't imagine that anyone could disagree with what seems so clear to them, and will ascribe obtuseness or mental gymnastics to differing opinions.
There's disagreeing with what seems clear to someone else and then there's simply denying what has been said.......in the very quote you yourself posted.
But I suppose, you are a Trump supporter, so denying something has been said, even in the face of a recording of what was actually said, should come as no surprise.
The original question for this tangent was How is this not blatant support for eugenics? (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/does-anyone-regret-voting-republican/msg2707362/#msg2707362)
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
Although, I'm assuming that eugenics implies some sort of selective breeding (and thus not anything Minnesota enforced). Are you implying something else with the word "eugenics"?
Interesting.
The original question was if "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." was blatant support for eugenics.
You quickly started referencing other snipped sections and then started leaving out the sections on genetics. Quite the redirection.
So again:
What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?
-
Gee if Minnesotans are so wonderful for braving the wilderness and the winters, he must REALLY love Canadians. Mon pays c'est l'hiver and all that. /s
-
Interesting.
The original question was if "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." was blatant support for eugenics.
You quickly started referencing other snipped sections and then started leaving out the sections on genetics. Quite the redirection.
So again:
What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?
Yes, very interesting.
I suppose if you ignore the part about genes and racehorse theory, you know, just completely fail to acknowledge that part of the speech even exists, then there's nothing it at all about genes and racehorse theory and thus no implied support for eugenics.
-
Interesting.
The original question was if "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." was blatant support for eugenics.
You quickly started referencing other snipped sections and then started leaving out the sections on genetics. Quite the redirection.
Yes, and the original answer included that quote, but also what came after it:
Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. [They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.
...
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers.]"?
How is this not blatant support for eugenics?
I really have no idea where one could pull eugenics out of that....
A later post also included everything above, plus what came before it. Hard to see how that is "redirection" - in what way do you see redirection?
So again:
What is your interpretation of Trump's purpose in mentioning genetics and Racehorse theory?
So again:
It's a stump speech, in which a presidential candidate sprinkles a few state-specific comments. Note that it's usually best if the candidate remembers the correct state name. ;)
One might read into it that he's saying "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance. Seems quite a stretch to go from that to eugenics, but maybe your dog-whistle hearing is genetically superior. :)
In other words, there wasn't much "purpose" beyond the usual Republican appeal to self-sufficiency, etc. It seems to bother you a lot, though, and if you think Trump is secretly plotting a eugenic campaign across America, that "racehorse theory" is a coded message for the troops to assemble, and this election is the last chance to stop it, well, I can understand why you would be upset. As already mentioned, alternate realities....
If the words "racehorse theory" are in fact something that bother many people, then Trump wasn't smart to say them. Had you not mentioned the background, I doubt many would have noticed. Even the transcription that accompanies the audio says "resource theory" instead of "racehorse theory" but I think "racehorse" is what he said.
-
A later post also included everything above, plus what came before it. Hard to see how that is "redirection" - in what way do you see redirection?
Why say this? other than to redirect:
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
We all know that's not the quote the OP was referring to.
-
A later post also included everything above, plus what came before it. Hard to see how that is "redirection" - in what way do you see redirection?
Let's take one post at a time, shall we?
-
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
We all know that's not the quote the OP was referring to.
And if you think a single mention of the phrase "racehorse theory" - in the given context - is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
-
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
We all know that's not the quote the OP was referring to.
And if you think a single mention of the phrase "racehorse theory" - in the given context - is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
I don't think that. In fact I haven't weighed in on the topic at hand.
I was just asking why you used that quote when we all know that's not the quote being referenced?
-
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
We all know that's not the quote the OP was referring to.
And if you think a single mention of the phrase "racehorse theory" - in the given context - is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
I don't think that. In fact I haven't weighed in on the topic at hand.
I was just asking why you used that quote when we all know that's not the quote being referenced?
Because I think that is the part that best summarizes what Trump was saying in this part of the speech: "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance.
How would you summarize this part of the speech?
-
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
We all know that's not the quote the OP was referring to.
And if you think a single mention of the phrase "racehorse theory" - in the given context - is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
I don't think that. In fact I haven't weighed in on the topic at hand.
I was just asking why you used that quote when we all know that's not the quote being referenced?
Because I think that is the part that best summarizes what Trump was saying in this part of the speech: "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance.
--edited for redirection attempt--
But that's not the part the OP referenced, right?
-
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
We all know that's not the quote the OP was referring to.
And if you think a single mention of the phrase "racehorse theory" - in the given context - is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
I don't think that. In fact I haven't weighed in on the topic at hand.
I was just asking why you used that quote when we all know that's not the quote being referenced?
Because I think that is the part that best summarizes what Trump was saying in this part of the speech: "your ancestors didn't need government help so neither do you" - a typical Republican stance.
How would you summarize this part of the speech?
But that's not the part the OP referenced, right?
Your turn to answer first.
-
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
We all know that's not the quote the OP was referring to.
And if you think a single mention of the phrase "racehorse theory" - in the given context - is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
I had to look up "racehorse theory" and google came up with this article from 2016 -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-superior-genes-pbs-documentary-eugenics-a7338821.html
Seems pretty clear to me. Not just a single mention, not a mistake, not something that can be explained away.
-
Your turn to answer first.
No thanks, the question is clearly an attempt to redirect and change the subject. I'm not interested in that.
Ok, I should let this end because it's probably annoying anyone with an interest in an productive discussion, but I think it was pretty obvious to everyone else here that you used an innocuous quote and feigned confusion to make it look like OP was outraged by something innocent all the while knowing that the source of their claim was a different quote.
I just wanted to see how far you would go to deny it.
One more time in case you forgot what you said:
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
-
Your turn to answer first.
No thanks, the question is clearly an attempt to redirect and change the subject. I'm not interested in that.
Ok, I should let this end because it's probably annoying anyone with an interest in an productive discussion, but I think it was pretty obvious to everyone else here that you used an innocuous quote and feigned confusion to make it look like OP was outraged by something innocent all the while knowing that the source of their claim was a different quote.
I just wanted to see how far you would go to deny it.
One more time in case you forgot what you said:
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
Yup, that's part of what I said in a post that also included the racehorse phrase. Given that, as far as I know, Trump hasn't instituted any eugenics program for the USA, I couldn't care less if he thinks he has good genes - even really good genes, you know, the best genes. So yes, unless someone can explain it better, being outraged over the totality of the section or even the two words alone seems quite the overreaction.
-
Your turn to answer first.
No thanks, the question is clearly an attempt to redirect and change the subject. I'm not interested in that.
Ok, I should let this end because it's probably annoying anyone with an interest in an productive discussion, but I think it was pretty obvious to everyone else here that you used an innocuous quote and feigned confusion to make it look like OP was outraged by something innocent all the while knowing that the source of their claim was a different quote.
I just wanted to see how far you would go to deny it.
One more time in case you forgot what you said:
If you think "this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong." is "blatant support for eugenics" then we are far apart on basic assumptions.
Yup, that's part of what I said in a post that also included the racehorse phrase. Given that, as far as I know, Trump hasn't instituted any eugenics program for the USA, I couldn't care less if he thinks he has good genes - even really good genes, you know, the best genes. So yes, unless someone can explain it better, being outraged over the totality of the section or even the two words alone seems quite the overreaction.
Well, the history of breeding humans in states like Minnesota is one thing and the history of breeding humans below the Mason Dixon is another, and I don't think you can talk about one approvingly without bringing with it the spectre of the other.
-
Cool, so you're going with @the_gastropod 's category of "yea, Trump says stupid shit. But he’s harmless.”
Sounds good, carry on.
-
Cool, so you're going with @the_gastropod 's category of "yea, Trump says stupid shit. But he’s harmless.”
Sounds good, carry on.
Trump is a special type of straight talker that doesn't mean what he says.
-
straight talker = truth teller
doesn't mean what he says = liar
-
straight talker = truth teller
doesn't mean what he says = liar
Right, that's the joke.
-
straight talker = truth teller
doesn't mean what he says = liar
Right, that's the joke.
Sorry. It's increasingly hard in this day and age to tell sarcastic Trump denouncers apart from erstwhile Trump supporters.
:P
-
Indeed it's incredible his powers. Trump is different than a liar, he somehow distorts reality itself.
It's that he uses language not to convey facts at all, but to establish order, narrative, hierarchy.
-
Here's yet another example of Republican voter suppression looks like, folks:
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has ordered the removal of mail-in ballot drop-off locations across the state, limiting to just one drop-off point per county.
---
In Travis County, which holds the state’s capital of Austin, officials had opened four satellite locations for voters to hand-deliver their mail-in ballots. The county of 1.2 million people includes more than 800,000 registered voters, all within a county that’s more than 1,000 square miles.
Harris County, one of the largest counties in the US, has 12 satellite offices, covering the greater Houston area. The county covers more than 1,700 square miles, with more than 2.4 million registered voters.
(Source: The Independent: Texas governor to close mail-in ballot drop-off boxes, limiting one per county (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/texas-mail-ballot-drop-vote-2020-election-b744020.html))
-
Here's yet another example of Republican voter suppression looks like, folks:
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has ordered the removal of mail-in ballot drop-off locations across the state, limiting to just one drop-off point per county.
---
In Travis County, which holds the state’s capital of Austin, officials had opened four satellite locations for voters to hand-deliver their mail-in ballots. The county of 1.2 million people includes more than 800,000 registered voters, all within a county that’s more than 1,000 square miles.
Harris County, one of the largest counties in the US, has 12 satellite offices, covering the greater Houston area. The county covers more than 1,700 square miles, with more than 2.4 million registered voters.
(Source: The Independent: Texas governor to close mail-in ballot drop-off boxes, limiting one per county (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/texas-mail-ballot-drop-vote-2020-election-b744020.html))
Yeah, sounds typical. This state is such a joke in so many ways.
-
Here's yet another example of Republican voter suppression looks like, folks:
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has ordered the removal of mail-in ballot drop-off locations across the state, limiting to just one drop-off point per county.
---
In Travis County, which holds the state’s capital of Austin, officials had opened four satellite locations for voters to hand-deliver their mail-in ballots. The county of 1.2 million people includes more than 800,000 registered voters, all within a county that’s more than 1,000 square miles.
Harris County, one of the largest counties in the US, has 12 satellite offices, covering the greater Houston area. The county covers more than 1,700 square miles, with more than 2.4 million registered voters.
(Source: The Independent: Texas governor to close mail-in ballot drop-off boxes, limiting one per county (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/texas-mail-ballot-drop-vote-2020-election-b744020.html))
They are almost caricatures of themselves, in their hatred of democracy.
-
Here's yet another example of Republican voter suppression looks like, folks:
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has ordered the removal of mail-in ballot drop-off locations across the state, limiting to just one drop-off point per county.
---
In Travis County, which holds the state’s capital of Austin, officials had opened four satellite locations for voters to hand-deliver their mail-in ballots. The county of 1.2 million people includes more than 800,000 registered voters, all within a county that’s more than 1,000 square miles.
Harris County, one of the largest counties in the US, has 12 satellite offices, covering the greater Houston area. The county covers more than 1,700 square miles, with more than 2.4 million registered voters.
(Source: The Independent: Texas governor to close mail-in ballot drop-off boxes, limiting one per county (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/texas-mail-ballot-drop-vote-2020-election-b744020.html))
They are almost caricatures of themselves, in their hatred of democracy.
Everything's bigger in Texas. Including hatred of democracy?
-
I have family in Texas (son's biological family lives there). Not a single one of them is a Trump supporter. Even the one who loves and collects guns. Our neighbors moved to Texas last year and same thing. Texas is indeed seeing a shift. Voter suppression may help them in the election, but it isn't helping their cause.
-
Republicans have such a lock on Texas that you really have to understand wings of the party to understand Texas politics. Abbott is considered a pro-business moderate. He's constantly in peril from a challenge from the Evangelicals and the ultra-conservatives. It's more likely that someone like the Lt. Gov ("I'd sacrifice myself so my grandchildren can have a strong economy") would unseat him than that a Democrat ever would.
This ballot box thing is a dirty, anti-democratic scandal, but the outraged democrats just cannot muster enough clout there to really respond.
-
Indeed Gov. Abbott just proudly tweeted that a conservative group called him the "Most Conservative Governor". No fears from centrist voters there.
-
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
-
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-white-house-spying/amp
-
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-white-house-spying/amp
Wow. The degree of infiltration made by the Trump bullshit is alarming, both in its reach and its extreme nuttiness.
-
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
Nope, I have no regrets. In addition to the article that Ozzie and Harriet posted, this seems like yet another attempt by Trump etc al. to distract from the ongoing criminal investigations into both his alleged tax and accounting fraud and his role in the attempted overthrow of the US govt. on Jan. 6, 2021 after tying up courts across the country with his entirely unfounded claims of election fraud.
I note that Trump is calling for execution here (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-russia-clinton-durham-scandal-b2014393.html%3famp). He is also the source of the "worse than Watergate" quote. I remain grateful that I knew 6 years ago never to cast a ballot for Trump. I will never again vote Republican as long as it remains the party of Trump.
-
I spoke with many committed Republicans late in the day on Jan. 6 and on Jan. 7, 2021, and all of them regretted their Trump 2020 votes. Several said that they regretting their 2016 votes.
-
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?
Interested to hear your take on honesty regarding this matter.
-
I spoke with many committed Republicans late in the day on Jan. 6 and on Jan. 7, 2021, and all of them regretted their Trump 2020 votes. Several said that they regretting their 2016 votes.
they are all back on the train now BECAUSE HILLARY SPYZ!!!111!!!1!
-
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
-
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
Have you read the court filings? Can you cite where they say Hillary Clinton spied on Trump?
I think the suggestion was that your claims are baseless, not the special council's. It's no one's responsibility to research and refute your accusations until you've provided evidence to back them.
-
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
What about the special counsel's filings are worrying? Be specific, please, and quote from the filings.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
This is what happens when one sees conservative outrage youtube/bitchute/parler videos and memes all the time.
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
-
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vanity-fair/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-enquirer/
Baseless false equivalencies hurt everyone.
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
-
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
No, I didn't say that the special counsel's court filings are baseless.
The claims that you made however ("Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President"), are baseless, partisan lies. If you can provide quotes from the court filings that prove your statement, I'll be happy to withdraw my comment and apologize though.
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
If only Biden had started building new semiconductor plants in 2017.
-
@retiringearly
Have you read the court filings? Can you cite where they say Hillary Clinton spied on Trump?
What about the special counsel's filings are worrying? Be specific, please, and quote from the filings.
The claims that you made however ("Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President"), are baseless, partisan lies. If you can provide quotes from the court filings that prove your statement, I'll be happy to withdraw my comment and apologize though.
?????
-
I'm not sure what 'gas at multi-decade highs' means, but if you mean that gas is higher in price now than it has been in decades I believe you are mistaken. I remember paying over $4/gal for gas in 2008, and oil spent some time at $140/barrel. This chart shows that gas was higher in '08 and '11 through '14 than it is now.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
Border patrol made more arrests at the border in the last fiscal than in any other recorded year. So if 'most arrests ever' = 'completely open southern border,' I agree.
https://www.axios.com/border-patrol-migrant-arrest-biden-dhs-927fff54-7dfe-48d5-b14f-6dee57f17ec8.html
I'm not convinced Trump would have done much about Russia invading Ukraine. Didn't he want to remove sanctions on Russia for its actions in Crimea?
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
If only Biden had started building new semiconductor plants in 2017.
What do semiconductor plants have to do with the price of gasoline? And natural gas? And inflation overall? And our southern border being overrun by illegal immigants? Please be specific. Thanks!
-
Inflation at a 40 year high
True, but how does a president control/impact inflation?
gasoline at multi-decade highs
Poster above already debunked
natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically
Gonna need a source
violent crime up dramatically in major cities
Gonna need a source
a completely open southern border
Gonna need a source
Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Scary for sure, but I find it hard to believe Trump would be more effective in this situation.
-
I'm not sure what 'gas at multi-decade highs' means, but if you mean that gas is higher in price now than it has been in decades I believe you are mistaken. I remember paying over $4/gal for gas in 2008, and oil spent some time at $140/barrel. This chart shows that gas was higher in '08 and '11 through '14 than it is now.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
Border patrol made more arrests at the border in the last fiscal than in any other recorded year. So if 'most arrests ever' = 'completely open southern border,' I agree.
https://www.axios.com/border-patrol-migrant-arrest-biden-dhs-927fff54-7dfe-48d5-b14f-6dee57f17ec8.html
I'm not convinced Trump would have done much about Russia invading Ukraine. Didn't he want to remove sanctions on Russia for its actions in Crimea?
Further, inflation, petrol, and NG are at highs in the UK and Germany (and Canada!) too. Is Biden responsible for that?
(As an aside, petrol and NG are traded on world exchanges.)
Violent crime started increasing in 2020. This begs the question: Why didn't the former President do something about it then?
The problem with being in a (conservative) echo chamber is that it always looks grim. Every story is about Biden or the libs or trans people doing something bad for the country. The news stories are half-baked and come straight from the headlines -- no nuance is possible in this universe. Obama Biden is coming for your guns, Bible, and dog. When it doesn't happen, the pearl clutching will be forgotten and they'll move on to the next lib (but Soros will always be renting space in their heads).
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
If only Biden had started building new semiconductor plants in 2017.
What do semiconductor plants have to do with the price of gasoline? And natural gas? And inflation overall? And our southern border being overrun by illegal immigants? Please be specific. Thanks!
I was too obscure.
Biden can't command TSMC to build semiconductor plants.
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
He can't insta-lower inflation in England, Canada, Germany, or in the US. It's also extremely unlikely that he caused worldwide inflation in the first place.
We are seeing increased violent crime, and it's a problem, but the former President didn't use his magic wand in 2020 to fix it either.
The border is not "completely open."
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
If only Biden had started building new semiconductor plants in 2017.
What do semiconductor plants have to do with the price of gasoline? And natural gas? And inflation overall? And our southern border being overrun by illegal immigants? Please be specific. Thanks!
I was too obscure.
Biden can't command TSMC to build semiconductor plants.
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
He can't insta-lower inflation in England, Canada, Germany, or in the US. It's also extremely unlikely that he caused worldwide inflation in the first place.
We are seeing increased violent crime, and it's a problem, but the former President didn't use his magic wand in 2020 to fix it either.
The border is not "completely open."
You seem to have forgotten that Biden signed orders on his first day in office to kill oil & natural gas pipeline deals. The USA was the largest oil producer in the world under Trump. Sorry, that is a fact. Sleepy Joe decided that was a bad thing. And we are all paying the price for it. The USA was THE largest provider of oil in the world under Trump.
The southern border is open. And the best part? When the illegal aliens cross the border the Federal government pays to fly them to other states. Oh yes, that is happening. (I hope I didn't offend you by using the legally correct term "illegal aliens").
And it is very interesting that violent crime is running rampant in cities that are under the control of woke district attorneys. Take a look at LA, San Francisco, Chicago. New York, et al. Why do you think that is?
-
And it is very interesting that violent crime is running rampant in cities that are under the control of woke district attorneys.
What does 'woke district attorney' mean?
-
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
No, but he can fly to COP26 to beg for more oil:
“If you look up cognitive dissonance in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of Joe Biden at COP26 in Glasgow saying, ‘Oh, by the way, OPEC, we want more oil to bring prices down,’ while pledging to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the long run, - Marketplace: Oil supply may finally catch up with demand. But what about emissions? (https://www.marketplace.org/2021/12/14/oil-supply-may-finally-catch-up-with-demand-but-what-about-emissions/)
Find me a Republican than wants an honest to god carbon tax and I'll vote for them.
-
You seem to have forgotten that Biden signed orders on his first day in office to kill oil & natural gas pipeline deals. The USA was the largest oil producer in the world under Trump. Sorry, that is a fact. Sleepy Joe decided that was a bad thing. And we are all paying the price for it. The USA was THE largest provider of oil in the world under Trump.
The US is still the world's top oil producer, per https://www.investopedia.com/investing/worlds-top-oil-producers/.
Keystone would have come online in 2023 so it wouldn't have changed oil prices in 2021 or 2022. The L3RP pipeline started flowing in September and it meets all of Alberta's current needs. TMPL also should come online before 2023, providing room for growth.
The southern border is open.
Wait...do you mean "open" meaning the bridges/border crossings are open? Well, yes. They still check documents on the bridges though.
And it is very interesting that violent crime is running rampant in cities that are under the control of woke district attorneys. Take a look at LA, San Francisco, Chicago. New York, et al. Why do you think that is?
The same reason it went up in Birmingham, Spokane, Warren, and Jackson. Hell, the Jackson DA was appointed by the MS Governor who's as woke as a hibernating bear.
To put it another way, it's obviously more complicated than "democrats like crime" or whatever fantasy you're being fed but I'm glad we've moved on from "It's Biden's fault!"
Here are some theories about the increase in violent crime.
https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-06/4-theories-about-why-homicides-are-spiking-in-us-cities
-
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
No, but he can fly to COP26 to beg for more oil:
“If you look up cognitive dissonance in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of Joe Biden at COP26 in Glasgow saying, ‘Oh, by the way, OPEC, we want more oil to bring prices down,’ while pledging to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the long run, - Marketplace: Oil supply may finally catch up with demand. But what about emissions? (https://www.marketplace.org/2021/12/14/oil-supply-may-finally-catch-up-with-demand-but-what-about-emissions/)
Find me a Republican than wants an honest to god carbon tax and I'll vote for them.
Biden is nothing more than a corporatist who has always voted in the middle of the Democratic party. We knew that when he was running.
-
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
No, but he can fly to COP26 to beg for more oil:
“If you look up cognitive dissonance in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of Joe Biden at COP26 in Glasgow saying, ‘Oh, by the way, OPEC, we want more oil to bring prices down,’ while pledging to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the long run, - Marketplace: Oil supply may finally catch up with demand. But what about emissions? (https://www.marketplace.org/2021/12/14/oil-supply-may-finally-catch-up-with-demand-but-what-about-emissions/)
Find me a Republican than wants an honest to god carbon tax and I'll vote for them.
Biden is nothing more than a corporatist who has always voted in the middle of the Democratic party. We knew that when he was running.
Exactly. Like… we know???
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
If only Biden had started building new semiconductor plants in 2017.
What do semiconductor plants have to do with the price of gasoline? And natural gas? And inflation overall? And our southern border being overrun by illegal immigants? Please be specific. Thanks!
I was too obscure.
Biden can't command TSMC to build semiconductor plants.
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
He can't insta-lower inflation in England, Canada, Germany, or in the US. It's also extremely unlikely that he caused worldwide inflation in the first place.
We are seeing increased violent crime, and it's a problem, but the former President didn't use his magic wand in 2020 to fix it either.
The border is not "completely open."
You seem to have forgotten that Biden signed orders on his first day in office to kill oil & natural gas pipeline deals. The USA was the largest oil producer in the world under Trump. Sorry, that is a fact. Sleepy Joe decided that was a bad thing. And we are all paying the price for it. The USA was THE largest provider of oil in the world under Trump.
The southern border is open. And the best part? When the illegal aliens cross the border the Federal government pays to fly them to other states. Oh yes, that is happening. (I hope I didn't offend you by using the legally correct term "illegal aliens").
And it is very interesting that violent crime is running rampant in cities that are under the control of woke district attorneys. Take a look at LA, San Francisco, Chicago. New York, et al. Why do you think that is?
Could you please make an effort to organize your grievances in a coherent way and, particularly, one thing at a time.
I get it that you are upset, but the best way to deal with that is to step back and to get organized somewhat. Sometimes that helps in getting one´s bearings without even resorting to internet counseling. Throwing shit at the fan just is not the best strategy if one wants to get better - and that is a proven fact.
Of course, I´m giving you the benefit of doubt, because you might just want to waste everybody´s time here.
If that is the case, you should probably just move on and regurgitate your unoriginal boilerplate material somewhere else.
-
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
No, but he can fly to COP26 to beg for more oil:
“If you look up cognitive dissonance in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of Joe Biden at COP26 in Glasgow saying, ‘Oh, by the way, OPEC, we want more oil to bring prices down,’ while pledging to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the long run, - Marketplace: Oil supply may finally catch up with demand. But what about emissions? (https://www.marketplace.org/2021/12/14/oil-supply-may-finally-catch-up-with-demand-but-what-about-emissions/)
Find me a Republican than wants an honest to god carbon tax and I'll vote for them.
Biden is nothing more than a corporatist who has always voted in the middle of the Democratic party. We knew that when he was running.
Perhaps I knew that he was "a corporatist who has always voted in the middle of the Democratic party." But he ran on a platform of rejoining the Paris Agreement, singed an executive order about it on his very first day in office (https://www.npr.org/sections/inauguration-day-live-updates/2021/01/20/958923821/biden-moves-to-have-u-s-rejoin-climate-accord), and then proceeded to get nothing done towards those goals. Less than one year later he's begging foreign leaders for more oil and releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. Call me gullible, but this isn't what I had in mind when I voted for him. It doesn't paint the party in a good light.
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
If only Biden had started building new semiconductor plants in 2017.
What do semiconductor plants have to do with the price of gasoline? And natural gas? And inflation overall? And our southern border being overrun by illegal immigants? Please be specific. Thanks!
I was too obscure.
Biden can't command TSMC to build semiconductor plants.
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
He can't insta-lower inflation in England, Canada, Germany, or in the US. It's also extremely unlikely that he caused worldwide inflation in the first place.
We are seeing increased violent crime, and it's a problem, but the former President didn't use his magic wand in 2020 to fix it either.
The border is not "completely open."
You seem to have forgotten that Biden signed orders on his first day in office to kill oil & natural gas pipeline deals. The USA was the largest oil producer in the world under Trump. Sorry, that is a fact. Sleepy Joe decided that was a bad thing. And we are all paying the price for it. The USA was THE largest provider of oil in the world under Trump.
The southern border is open. And the best part? When the illegal aliens cross the border the Federal government pays to fly them to other states. Oh yes, that is happening. (I hope I didn't offend you by using the legally correct term "illegal aliens").
And it is very interesting that violent crime is running rampant in cities that are under the control of woke district attorneys. Take a look at LA, San Francisco, Chicago. New York, et al. Why do you think that is?
Could you please make an effort to organize your grievances in a coherent way and, particularly, one thing at a time.
I get it that you are upset, but the best way to deal with that is to step back and to get organized somewhat. Sometimes that helps in getting one´s bearings without even resorting to internet counseling. Throwing shit at the fan just is not the best strategy if one wants to get better - and that is a proven fact.
Of course, I´m giving you the benefit of doubt, because you might just want to waste everybody´s time here.
If that is the case, you should probably just move on and regurgitate your unoriginal boilerplate material somewhere else.
I did. You are playing the Democrat's playbook of accusing the other side of what you are guilty.
-
@retiringearly
Have you read the court filings? Can you cite where they say Hillary Clinton spied on Trump?
What about the special counsel's filings are worrying? Be specific, please, and quote from the filings.
The claims that you made however ("Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President"), are baseless, partisan lies. If you can provide quotes from the court filings that prove your statement, I'll be happy to withdraw my comment and apologize though.
?????
-
Tell me more about why America is worse off with Biden. Anyone.
Inflation at a 40 year high, gasoline at multi-decade highs, natural gas (heating bills) up dramatically, violent crime up dramatically in major cities, a completely open southern border, Russia preparing to invade Ukraine.
Have you not noticed any of that? Seriously?
Did I answer your question?
If only Biden had started building new semiconductor plants in 2017.
What do semiconductor plants have to do with the price of gasoline? And natural gas? And inflation overall? And our southern border being overrun by illegal immigants? Please be specific. Thanks!
I was too obscure.
Biden can't command TSMC to build semiconductor plants.
As he's not a Saudi Crown Prince, he doesn't have that much affect on gas or NG prices on the world market.
He can't insta-lower inflation in England, Canada, Germany, or in the US. It's also extremely unlikely that he caused worldwide inflation in the first place.
We are seeing increased violent crime, and it's a problem, but the former President didn't use his magic wand in 2020 to fix it either.
The border is not "completely open."
You seem to have forgotten that Biden signed orders on his first day in office to kill oil & natural gas pipeline deals. The USA was the largest oil producer in the world under Trump. Sorry, that is a fact. Sleepy Joe decided that was a bad thing. And we are all paying the price for it. The USA was THE largest provider of oil in the world under Trump.
The southern border is open. And the best part? When the illegal aliens cross the border the Federal government pays to fly them to other states. Oh yes, that is happening. (I hope I didn't offend you by using the legally correct term "illegal aliens").
And it is very interesting that violent crime is running rampant in cities that are under the control of woke district attorneys. Take a look at LA, San Francisco, Chicago. New York, et al. Why do you think that is?
Could you please make an effort to organize your grievances in a coherent way and, particularly, one thing at a time.
I get it that you are upset, but the best way to deal with that is to step back and to get organized somewhat. Sometimes that helps in getting one´s bearings without even resorting to internet counseling. Throwing shit at the fan just is not the best strategy if one wants to get better - and that is a proven fact.
Of course, I´m giving you the benefit of doubt, because you might just want to waste everybody´s time here.
If that is the case, you should probably just move on and regurgitate your unoriginal boilerplate material somewhere else.
I did. You are playing the Democrat's playbook of accusing the other side of what you are guilty.
So you are accusing me to waste your time?
-
I did. You are playing the Democrat's playbook of accusing the other side of what you are guilty.
You are exactly right, but at least it removes the suspense. From my simple minded seat, I just imagine some posters almost foaming at the mouth attacking the keyboard.
I don’t regret any votes. I wish some more local folks would act a bit differently, but so it goes with politicians.
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895156_1894977_1895081,00.html
https://apnews.com/article/cd977f7ff301993f7976974ba07c5495
https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/bidens-obsessive-lies-small-and-large-are-big-trouble-for-america/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/bidens-big-elections-lie/
https://nypost.com/2021/12/28/voters-see-through-bidens-lies-and-other-commentary/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/07/03/curley-joe-biden-insulting-americans-with-low-quality-lies/
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2021/09/30/president-bidens-promises-turning-into-lies/5918848001/
https://www.nvdaily.com/nvdaily/commentary-joe-biden-is-lying-to-us/article_5d9a614b-18a9-5574-8bf0-c937a2a8c8b0.html
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/572189-why-isnt-it-a-lie-when-joe-biden-says-something-false-or-dishonest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=L-khU2gYKxo
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bidens-loads-of-little-lies-are-finally-catching-up-with-him
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-defeat-lies-presidency-crisis-1627349
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/16/12-times-joe-biden-completely-made-up-stories-lied-or-said-something-crazy/
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/joe-bidens-big-lie/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/joe-biden-and-the-lie/
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
Instead of just posting links without offering any explanation, do you want to offer some thoughts about one first?
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895156_1894977_1895081,00.html
https://apnews.com/article/cd977f7ff301993f7976974ba07c5495
https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/bidens-obsessive-lies-small-and-large-are-big-trouble-for-america/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/bidens-big-elections-lie/
https://nypost.com/2021/12/28/voters-see-through-bidens-lies-and-other-commentary/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/07/03/curley-joe-biden-insulting-americans-with-low-quality-lies/
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2021/09/30/president-bidens-promises-turning-into-lies/5918848001/
https://www.nvdaily.com/nvdaily/commentary-joe-biden-is-lying-to-us/article_5d9a614b-18a9-5574-8bf0-c937a2a8c8b0.html
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/572189-why-isnt-it-a-lie-when-joe-biden-says-something-false-or-dishonest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=L-khU2gYKxo
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bidens-loads-of-little-lies-are-finally-catching-up-with-him
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-defeat-lies-presidency-crisis-1627349
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/16/12-times-joe-biden-completely-made-up-stories-lied-or-said-something-crazy/
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/joe-bidens-big-lie/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/joe-biden-and-the-lie/
Is that supposed to be a reading assignment or what?
-
Is that supposed to be a reading assignment or what?
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vanity-fair/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-enquirer/
Baseless false equivalencies hurt everyone.
Yeah, those come up from time to time.
-
Is that supposed to be a reading assignment or what?
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vanity-fair/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-enquirer/
Baseless false equivalencies hurt everyone.
Yeah, those come up from time to time.
One post was 15 non-sequitur links better suited to an echo forum; the other was 2 links relating to the replied-to post.
-
Is that supposed to be a reading assignment or what?
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vanity-fair/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-enquirer/
Baseless false equivalencies hurt everyone.
Yeah, those come up from time to time.
One post was 15 non-sequitur links better suited to an echo forum; the other was 2 links related to the thread.
Retiringearly posted the 15 non-sequitur links after he was caught spreading partisan lies with no basis in reality:
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
Given how poorly the direct lies worked in discussion, retiringearly seems to have switched instead to an obfuscation tactic.
-
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
Yes, the special counsel's (Durham) claims are baseless.
Go read the Empty Wheel blog if you'd like to actually learn something.
-
Is that supposed to be a reading assignment or what?
“Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?“
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
By the way, citing Vanity Fair is about as ridiculous as citing The National Enquirer.
No, I don’t regret voting Republican. And seeing how much worse off the US is under Biden I would like to think any rational person would regret voting for him.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vanity-fair/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-enquirer/
Baseless false equivalencies hurt everyone.
Yeah, those come up from time to time.
One post was 15 non-sequitur links better suited to an echo forum; the other was 2 links related to the thread.
Retiringearly posted the 15 non-sequitur links after he was caught spreading partisan lies with no basis in reality:
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
Given how poorly the direct lies worked in discussion, retiringearly seems to have switched instead to an obfuscation tactic.
It's the link list version of a Gish gallop.
-
Is Joe Biden....senile?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/senile-old-joe-biden-makes-name-lake-yesterdays-speach-no-oswego-lake-new-york/
-
Is Joe Biden....senile?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/senile-old-joe-biden-makes-name-lake-yesterdays-speach-no-oswego-lake-new-york/
Um, no.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjAgqOiv4r2AhVHlmoFHRrqDEsQFnoECCEQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOswego%2C_New_York&usg=AOvVaw2IhTAZX1fcFldODj8CuO5-
Meanwhile…
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/trump-vigor/615973/
-
He seems to not know many facts. Is he in fact...senile? Do you regret voting for him? He comes off like a buffoon.
https://youtu.be/ryQPhKxJudo
-
Surely, your attention span can watch 4:59 of Joe Biden's lies:
https://youtu.be/mCJMF7mflGE
-
He seems to not know many facts. Is he in fact...senile? Do you regret voting for him? He comes off like a buffoon.
https://youtu.be/ryQPhKxJudo
If you were not concerned with Trump’s mental state — and I am guessing you weren’t — then this is laughable.
-
Lies, plagiarism in law school. Oh, whatever, what difference does it make now???
(Sorry, I quoted Hillary without giving her credit there).
-
Lies, plagiarism in law school. Oh, whatever, what difference does it make now???
(Sorry, I quoted Hillary without giving her credit there).
Yeah. Still not concerned with Trump, I see.
-
By the way, how does he have more hair on his head in 2022 than he had in 1985?
Is it a miracle???
-
By the way, how does he have more hair on his head in 2022 than he had in 1985?
Is it a miracle???
Are…
Are you really talking about Biden’s hair?
When Trump…
I mean… Trump’s…
*laughs in Trump’s cotton candy piss hair*
-
By the way, how does he have more hair on his head in 2022 than he had in 1985?
Is it a miracle???
Are…
Are you really talking about Biden’s hair?
When Trump…
I mean… Trump’s…
*laughs in Trump’s cotton candy piss hair*
Well, one of the two has hair that he was born with (it is a weird hairdo, but it is hair). The other paid a doctor to replant hair on his head. And you are laughing at the natural hair? Hmmm.
-
Lies, plagiarism in law school. Oh, whatever, what difference does it make now???
(Sorry, I quoted Hillary without giving her credit there).
Yeah. Still not concerned with Trump, I see.
Why would I, or anyone be concerned with Trump? He is no longer POTUS. Lying Joe Biden is. Why aren;t you concerned with Lyin' Biden?
Are you still ridin' with Lyin' Joe Biden?
-
By the way, how does he have more hair on his head in 2022 than he had in 1985?
Is it a miracle???
Are…
Are you really talking about Biden’s hair?
When Trump…
I mean… Trump’s…
*laughs in Trump’s cotton candy piss hair*
Well, one of the two has hair that he was born with (it is a weird hairdo, but it is hair). The other paid a doctor to replant hair on his head. And you are laughing at the natural hair? Hmmm.
https://www.treatmentroomslondon.com/celebrity-hair-transplant/what-type-of-hair-transplant-has-donald-trump-had/
Also, though, as far as I can tell, someone’s amount of hair does not determine someone’s fitness for office.
A bald president or a president with a toupee could in theory be very competent.
So, why are you so fixated on something so shallow? It seems odd. Especially because Trump was so fixated on his own hair, to the exclusion of actual governance.
-
By the way, how does he have more hair on his head in 2022 than he had in 1985?
Is it a miracle???
Are…
Are you really talking about Biden’s hair?
When Trump…
I mean… Trump’s…
*laughs in Trump’s cotton candy piss hair*
Well, one of the two has hair that he was born with (it is a weird hairdo, but it is hair). The other paid a doctor to replant hair on his head. And you are laughing at the natural hair? Hmmm.
https://www.treatmentroomslondon.com/celebrity-hair-transplant/what-type-of-hair-transplant-has-donald-trump-had/
Also, though, as far as I can tell, someone’s amount of hair does not determine someone’s fitness for office.
A bald president or a president with a toupee could in theory be very competent.
So, why are you so fixated on something so shallow? It seems odd. Especially because Trump was so fixated on his own hair, to the exclusion of actual governance.
Nah, there is no fixation here but a weird attempt to keep a conversation going while spamming the place with searchable terms.
-
Nah, there is no fixation here but a weird attempt to keep a conversation going while spamming the place with searchable terms.
That's a good point. I'd suggest ignoring the troll but if their posts are meant to attract more trolls...
-
By the way, how does he have more hair on his head in 2022 than he had in 1985?
Is it a miracle???
Are…
Are you really talking about Biden’s hair?
When Trump…
I mean… Trump’s…
*laughs in Trump’s cotton candy piss hair*
Well, one of the two has hair that he was born with (it is a weird hairdo, but it is hair). The other paid a doctor to replant hair on his head. And you are laughing at the natural hair? Hmmm.
https://www.treatmentroomslondon.com/celebrity-hair-transplant/what-type-of-hair-transplant-has-donald-trump-had/
Also, though, as far as I can tell, someone’s amount of hair does not determine someone’s fitness for office.
A bald president or a president with a toupee could in theory be very competent.
So, why are you so fixated on something so shallow? It seems odd. Especially because Trump was so fixated on his own hair, to the exclusion of actual governance.
Nah, there is no fixation here but a weird attempt to keep a conversation going while spamming the place with searchable terms.
True. I don’t know why I try to engage honestly.
-
Nah, there is no fixation here but a weird attempt to keep a conversation going while spamming the place with searchable terms.
That's a good point. I'd suggest ignoring the troll but if their posts are meant to attract more trolls...
But can you practice what you preach? I scrolled back to see who first pounced on this retiringearly most recent posting blast, and there you were, just a couple posts down. Then after a bunch of posts you then call 'troll'. Retiringearly isn’t new, hasn’t changed.
And of course, obviously, there are others who can’t possibly resist…and would also be worthy of being called a troll.
-
Nah, there is no fixation here but a weird attempt to keep a conversation going while spamming the place with searchable terms.
That's a good point. I'd suggest ignoring the troll but if their posts are meant to attract more trolls...
But can you practice what you preach? I scrolled back to see who first pounced on this retiringearly most recent posting blast, and there you were, just a couple posts down. Then after a bunch of posts you then call 'troll'. Retiringearly isn’t new, hasn’t changed.
I apologize about not recognizing Retiringearly but I can't keep every poster in my head. Thanks for reminding me to keep my forum poster spreadsheet updated!
-
Can I just ask, before the subject gets lost:
1. Do you now agree that there are no facts supporting the allegation that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President?
2. Will you now look more critically at information from the sources that provided you with that allegation?
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895156_1894977_1895081,00.html
https://apnews.com/article/cd977f7ff301993f7976974ba07c5495
https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/bidens-obsessive-lies-small-and-large-are-big-trouble-for-america/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/bidens-big-elections-lie/
https://nypost.com/2021/12/28/voters-see-through-bidens-lies-and-other-commentary/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/07/03/curley-joe-biden-insulting-americans-with-low-quality-lies/
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2021/09/30/president-bidens-promises-turning-into-lies/5918848001/
https://www.nvdaily.com/nvdaily/commentary-joe-biden-is-lying-to-us/article_5d9a614b-18a9-5574-8bf0-c937a2a8c8b0.html
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/572189-why-isnt-it-a-lie-when-joe-biden-says-something-false-or-dishonest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=L-khU2gYKxo
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bidens-loads-of-little-lies-are-finally-catching-up-with-him
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-defeat-lies-presidency-crisis-1627349
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/16/12-times-joe-biden-completely-made-up-stories-lied-or-said-something-crazy/
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/joe-bidens-big-lie/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/joe-biden-and-the-lie/
I don't know why you post this on this extreme leftist site. They are just going to attack you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
[snip]
I don't know why you post this on this extreme leftist site. They are just going to attack you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
"Extreme leftist"? This paean to the benefits of investing in private enterprise and the 4% rule? Do please explain how in any universe that is "extreme leftist".
Socially somewhat liberal? Mostly yes, I grant you. But these days that's hardly leftist, it's just the modern version of good manners not to diss individuals because of their race, sex or sexuality.
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895156_1894977_1895081,00.html
https://apnews.com/article/cd977f7ff301993f7976974ba07c5495
https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/bidens-obsessive-lies-small-and-large-are-big-trouble-for-america/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/bidens-big-elections-lie/
https://nypost.com/2021/12/28/voters-see-through-bidens-lies-and-other-commentary/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/07/03/curley-joe-biden-insulting-americans-with-low-quality-lies/
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2021/09/30/president-bidens-promises-turning-into-lies/5918848001/
https://www.nvdaily.com/nvdaily/commentary-joe-biden-is-lying-to-us/article_5d9a614b-18a9-5574-8bf0-c937a2a8c8b0.html
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/572189-why-isnt-it-a-lie-when-joe-biden-says-something-false-or-dishonest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=L-khU2gYKxo
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bidens-loads-of-little-lies-are-finally-catching-up-with-him
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-defeat-lies-presidency-crisis-1627349
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/16/12-times-joe-biden-completely-made-up-stories-lied-or-said-something-crazy/
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/joe-bidens-big-lie/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/joe-biden-and-the-lie/
I don't know why you post this on this extreme leftist site. They are just going to attack you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph-CA_tu5KA
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
[snip]
I don't know why you post this on this extreme leftist site. They are just going to attack you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
"Extreme leftist"? This paean to the benefits of investing in private enterprise and the 4% rule? Do please explain how in any universe that is "extreme leftist".
Socially somewhat liberal? Mostly yes, I grant you. But these days that's hardly leftist, it's just the modern version of good manners not to diss individuals because of their race, sex or sexuality.
I mean, when people use terms like “leftist”, “communist”, or “socialist” and make it clear they have basically no idea what those terms mean, at least they are doing you a favor by signaling that you shouldn’t bother to pay attention to them…
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
[snip]
I don't know why you post this on this extreme leftist site. They are just going to attack you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
"Extreme leftist"? This paean to the benefits of investing in private enterprise and the 4% rule? Do please explain how in any universe that is "extreme leftist".
Socially somewhat liberal? Mostly yes, I grant you. But these days that's hardly leftist, it's just the modern version of good manners not to diss individuals because of their race, sex or sexuality.
I mean, when people use terms like “leftist”, “communist”, or “socialist” and make it clear they have basically no idea what those terms mean, at least they are doing you a favor by signaling that you shouldn’t bother to pay attention to them…
I thought possibly also an attempt by Nate79 to bury the questions I asked of @retiringearly. But they are still there, waiting for an answer.
-
I regret after being a lifelong Republican, having to vote for Democrats, because my party went to shit.
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
[snip]
I don't know why you post this on this extreme leftist site. They are just going to attack you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
"Extreme leftist"? This paean to the benefits of investing in private enterprise and the 4% rule? Do please explain how in any universe that is "extreme leftist".
Socially somewhat liberal? Mostly yes, I grant you. But these days that's hardly leftist, it's just the modern version of good manners not to diss individuals because of their race, sex or sexuality.
I mean, when people use terms like “leftist”, “communist”, or “socialist” and make it clear they have basically no idea what those terms mean, at least they are doing you a favor by signaling that you shouldn’t bother to pay attention to them…
I thought possibly also an attempt by Nate79 to bury the questions I asked of @retiringearly. But they are still there, waiting for an answer.
And there they will sit, probably indefinitely.
-
It is wonderful having a POTUS that is a chronic liar. Does Joe even KNOW when he is lying at this point?
[snip]
I don't know why you post this on this extreme leftist site. They are just going to attack you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
"Extreme leftist"? This paean to the benefits of investing in private enterprise and the 4% rule? Do please explain how in any universe that is "extreme leftist".
Socially somewhat liberal? Mostly yes, I grant you. But these days that's hardly leftist, it's just the modern version of good manners not to diss individuals because of their race, sex or sexuality.
I mean, when people use terms like “leftist”, “communist”, or “socialist” and make it clear they have basically no idea what those terms mean, at least they are doing you a favor by signaling that you shouldn’t bother to pay attention to them…
I thought possibly also an attempt by Nate79 to bury the questions I asked of @retiringearly. But they are still there, waiting for an answer.
And there they will sit, probably indefinitely.
No need for answers, we already know how most would respond to answers, definitely.
-
@JoePublic3.14 @Nate79
retiringearly revived this thread with a rather serious accusation. They were asked calmly and politely by several posters if they could provide any sort of evidence for that claim.
They have not, and refused to acknowledge every single one of those requests even though they were clearly still active in the thread. I even sent them requests to respond by PM.
You really want to defend that?
If so, do you have any evidence to back up the initial claim?
In case you missed it:
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
Is anyone honest enough to admit that retiringearly is posting inflammatory lies with no basis?
Personally I think if someone makes a claim like this and refuses to back it up, no one should bother responding to them until they can provide some evidence or admit they were wrong. If they don't care about evidence or reality, what good can come from debating with them?
-
I'm so happy I don't follow politics anymore. In fact I hardly watch the news these days. It's so much more relaxing to go out back on a sunny day and dig in the garden and play with the dog. Between politics, covid and talks of war.. I get really tired of it and rather not worry. I still vote for my party, when it comes time, but I don't follow it anymore. They want you glued to the TV set or news websites/apps.. in constant fear.
-
I'm so happy I don't follow politics anymore. In fact I hardly watch the news these days. It's so much more relaxing to go out back on a sunny day and dig in the garden and play with the dog. Between politics, covid and talks of war.. I get really tired of it and rather not worry. I still vote for my party, when it comes time, but I don't follow it anymore. They want you glued to the TV set or news websites/apps.. in constant fear.
If you don’t follow your party, how do you know whether you should vote for it when it comes time?
-
I'm so happy I don't follow politics anymore. In fact I hardly watch the news these days. It's so much more relaxing to go out back on a sunny day and dig in the garden and play with the dog. Between politics, covid and talks of war.. I get really tired of it and rather not worry. I still vote for my party, when it comes time, but I don't follow it anymore. They want you glued to the TV set or news websites/apps.. in constant fear.
If you don’t follow your party, how do you know whether you should vote for it when it comes time?
If I watch the news once per year, I'd easily figure that out. They are so different now it's easy for me to choose. No thanks to watching depressing news everyday. But whatever floats your boat.
-
I'm so happy I don't follow politics anymore. In fact I hardly watch the news these days. It's so much more relaxing to go out back on a sunny day and dig in the garden and play with the dog. Between politics, covid and talks of war.. I get really tired of it and rather not worry. I still vote for my party, when it comes time, but I don't follow it anymore. They want you glued to the TV set or news websites/apps.. in constant fear.
If you don’t follow your party, how do you know whether you should vote for it when it comes time?
They are so different now it's easy for me to choose.
You say you ignore the news except for once per year. What news story that occurred during 2021 led you to believe this?
-
I'm not JenniferW, but I'm pretty much in the same boat. Here's my political shortlist of things I care about:
* Medicare for All or an equivalent universal healthcare program
* gay marriage
* abortion rights
* trans rights
* climate change
* police reform
* Eliminating tax preparation
I have been a voter for 10 years. In those ten years, there has not been a single Republican candidate at the national level who has supported any of the issues I care about. In fact they work actively against them.
On the other side, Democrats support
* gay marriage
* abortion rights
* trans rights
And as far as I can tell no one except a few outliers who caucus with the Democrats actually care about Medicare for All, climate change, and police reform. Basically no one cares about climate change or tax preparation in a serious way.
So based on that, my political energy is best spent as follows:
* ignoring all daily petty squabbling between parties
* researching the differences between Democrats available on the ballet and choosing the candidates that seem like they can make headway on the things I care about.
* donating money to lobby for M4A and other causes I care about.
It's not that I think Democrats aren't worth investigating. I do investigate who I am voting for. It's just not worth my time to investigate every last belief of Republicans if I disagree with their primary positions. I have paid attention for the last 10 years, I know what they stand for. This whole idea that if you don't give Republican's 50% of your energy on every issue you're intellectually dishonest is bunk to me.
If the candidate is okay being a part of a party that thinks my gay grandmas shouldn't be married, they're not worth my time. (The official Republican Party platform STILL lists repealing gay marriage as a goal, in case people pretend the Republicans are past that.)
-
Is Joe Biden....senile?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/senile-old-joe-biden-makes-name-lake-yesterdays-speach-no-oswego-lake-new-york/
No respected news outlet has a headline like "senile old Joe Biden".... Get real. Upgrade your information sources.
-
Excellent points CodingHare. I completely agree and for most of the same reasons.
-
I disagree with their primary positions
Good position, good argument.
I can still vividly remember someone asking our civics teacher back in 1984 'who are voting for?' His response was 'I will read up and see who best supports education, and that is who I will vote for'.
About the same but from a pro angle.
-
CodingHare, that's a good summary of voting at the partisan level.
I strongly encourage people to read up on candidates for local political office and any local and state proposals on your ballots. These are often nonpartisan and quite probably have a larger effect on your day-to-day lives than the partisan politicians in DC.
For example, your municipal clerk handles all election matters. Electing someone who believes in the "Big Lie" could have a significant negative impact on how elections are handled in your community. Similarly, electing someone with a history of accounting fraud as the city treasurer would be a bad idea.
Regarding ballot proposals, we passed some big statewide ones in Michigan in 2018, and now we have state constitutional amendments to prohibit partisan redistricting (the independent citizens council is finalizing the new maps now) and expand voter access, including all-reason absentee voting (a godsend in 2020).
-
CodingHare, that's a good summary of voting at the partisan level.
I strongly encourage people to read up on candidates for local political office and any local and state proposals on your ballots. These are often nonpartisan and quite probably have a larger effect on your day-to-day lives than the partisan politicians in DC.
For example, your municipal clerk handles all election matters. Electing someone who believes in the "Big Lie" could have a significant negative impact on how elections are handled in your community. Similarly, electing someone with a history of accounting fraud as the city treasurer would be a bad idea.
Regarding ballot proposals, we passed some big statewide ones in Michigan in 2018, and now we have state constitutional amendments to prohibit partisan redistricting (the independent citizens council is finalizing the new maps now) and expand voter access, including all-reason absentee voting (a godsend in 2020).
Indeed. Another example is your district attorney. So much of the chaos we've been seeing in our cities lately is directly attributable to the philosophies of these DAs and prosecutors who're letting crime run rampant.
To the question original posed by this thread - I regret voting for Trump, the first time. I thought he would loose, and I wanted to erode any mandate Clinton felt she might have. the second time... I was voting against Biden. I wasn't too heartbroke when he won, because I figured he would be a lame duck. It was clear not even the democrats really wanted him... and I assumed republicans would keep the senate, moderating any of his more horrible policies positions long enough for two reasonable candidates to emerge for '24. I also assumed this moderation would damp out the support for Trump making room for a good candidate.
Locally, I stand by my former statement as well. Republicans all the way. the political monoculture in Oregon is a disaster and needs a good brake check.
-
Thank you for your candor, @ncornilsen , am I correct to infer that you did not vote in the 2016 Presidential primary?
-
I voted for Kasich in the 2016 primary, but oregon holds its primary pretty late, so I think Trump had it locked by then.
-
Huh. I voted for Kasich in 2016 as well. I used to think that made me one of the few people who was happy with my decision back then. He really came through for me in 2020.
The GOP is a festering sore on the body of America. Trump is evidence enough of this. I sincerely believe he will be protected from any consequences of his anti-American, criminal behavior until he meets God Almighty. In the meantime, we have to listen to him praising Putin as 'savvy.'
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/22/1082478790/trump-praises-putin-as-savvy-amid-new-escalations-on-russia-ukraine-border
-
Did this age well?
https://youtu.be/LwSZwS60Bkg (ftp://youtu.be/LwSZwS60Bkg)
(Sorry, I have no idea how to embed a video here.)
-
Putin (and China) must be shaking in their boots!
https://youtu.be/H6uingtAWbk (ftp://youtu.be/H6uingtAWbk)
-
Did this age well?
https://youtu.be/LwSZwS60Bkg (ftp://youtu.be/LwSZwS60Bkg)
(Sorry, I have no idea how to embed a video here.)
Every word he said about Putin and Russia influencing the election was shown to be true.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ICA-declass-16MAR21.pdf (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ICA-declass-16MAR21.pdf)
Key Judgment 2: We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US. Unlike in 2016, we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure. We have high confidence in our assessment; Russian state and proxy actors who all serve the Kremlin's interests worked to affect US public perceptions in a consistent manner. A key element of Moscow's strategy this election cycle was its use of proxies linked to Russian intelligence to push influence narratives— including misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden — US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration.
So yeah, the thrust of his message (concern about Russian based election interference) seems to have aged pretty well.
Given that Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President, does anyone regret voting Democrat?
Serious question. What she did was worse than Watergate.
I am interested to see if anybody is honest enough to admit it.
Given that your claims are baseless and founded in partisan lies pushed by the Republican party to keep their supporters ignorant and angry, do you regret voting Republican?
Interested to hear your take on honesty regarding this matter.
You are saying the special counsel’s court filings are baseless? Seriously?
No, I didn't say that the special counsel's court filings are baseless.
The claims that you made however ("Hillary Clinton spied on a sitting US President"), are baseless, partisan lies. If you can provide quotes from the court filings that prove your statement, I'll be happy to withdraw my comment and apologize though.
Still wondering if you'll be honest enough to admit that you were found spreading partisan lies above.