The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Glenstache on January 31, 2017, 05:19:57 PM
-
So, we are heading up on 2 months post election night, and almost 2 weeks post-inauguration. How do people feel about their votes now, and why? I am most interested in the reasons why people are happy or not happy with how they voted in hindsight.
To get the ball rolling: I voted for Clinton and I would again, especially given the shitshow that has unfolded after Jan 20th.
-
Where's the option for "I wouldn't change my vote, but I'm deeply unsettled by the events of the past week and a half"
-
Where's the option for "I wouldn't change my vote, but I'm deeply unsettled by the events of the past week and a half"
Honestly, I thought about that, but the context of whom a person voted for changes the flavor of that so much that I didn't.
-
I'm Clinton and happy. My H is third party and unhappy. Our state was swing, he was convinced it would go C, and it went T. He regrets not voting C. He is definitely in the entitled white privilege voting third party category.
-
I find trump utterly contemptible for numerous reasons and can imagine no circumstances under which I ever would have voted for him unless maybe he was running against bannon. I see no danger of me changing my mind now that he is actually president. In fact I have participated in the only protests I ever have been a part of. Almost made it 40 years without doing that.
-
Well let me get attacked now.
I voted for Trump and I am fairly happy with how things are going so far. My only surprise is the reaction of my fellow citizens to things like immigration control etc.
I think if I were a terrorist in Syria or Iraq and my ultimate fantasy were to kill some Americans and be a martyr. How funny must I see it that Americans are protesting against each other to try and let me in to kill them.
To me the reactions in general seem silly. I hated many of Obama's decisions however I respected they were the will of the American people. I never once said I know I'm going to go stop rush hour traffic of everyday people to protest how angry I am about decision A.
What did I do? I said this is a directions I am not comfortable participating in; I need to prepare myself to cut ties and minimize my assistance in what I don't believe in. I raised my son making sure he would never join the military as I saw its decline and use a social experiment. I bought property overseas and started making investments overseas to cut down on tax revenue that could be used for policies I didn't support. I applied for and obtained a second citizenship.
I made an effort to prepare to leave a system I didn't support. I didn't cry because an individual that held views I believe to be hostile to the American way of life was elected by our legal political system. While working for this system I followed all lawful orders I was given even those I firmly disagreed with them. I got a vote and I voted. Things didn't turn out my way; I dealt with it without harassing others, burning down my town, or attacking people who didn't agree with me.
-
Well let me get attacked now.
I voted for Trump
Well, I won't attack you, but I will say I do disagree with how you see things. The idea of the ban (and it is a ban, as Trump himself called it that) is a bad idea and put America in danger. There has been not one person from those countries that have attacked us, but Saudi Arabia, which is where the 9/11 hijackers came from are not on that list. But Trump has businesses there. What would happen if another 9/11 event happened and the folks who carry it out came from SA? Would it be okay because has businesses there and well, y'know, they aren't all like that over there?
As far as protesting goes, I can only give you my personal view. To me it's not that the R's won. I have a big old R stamped on my voter card and you would think I'd be happy. I'm not at all happy. It's the guy who won that's the issue for me. He said terrible things about women and minorities, mocked a disabled person and acts like a jilted 13 year-old on Twitter. He has not the first idea how Gov't works and he has a Nazi as his right-hand man. Could you imagine the backlash Obama would have gotten if he went on a 'Thank You' tour and tweeted how mean the press or SNL was to him? For all of Obama's faults he was an eloquent speaker and and adult, traits the man in the WH does not have. He has no business being there and if protesting peacefully and writing my Congress/Senator critters to let them know I am not happy with what happening is a good way to get my point across then I will do it.
-
Well let me get attacked now.
I voted for Trump and I am fairly happy with how things are going so far. My only surprise is the reaction of my fellow citizens to things like immigration control etc.
I think if I were a terrorist in Syria or Iraq and my ultimate fantasy were to kill some Americans and be a martyr. How funny must I see it that Americans are protesting against each other to try and let me in to kill them.
To me the reactions in general seem silly. I hated many of Obama's decisions however I respected they were the will of the American people. I never once said I know I'm going to go stop rush hour traffic of everyday people to protest how angry I am about decision A.
What did I do? I said this is a directions I am not comfortable participating in; I need to prepare myself to cut ties and minimize my assistance in what I don't believe in. I raised my son making sure he would never join the military as I saw its decline and use a social experiment. I bought property overseas and started making investments overseas to cut down on tax revenue that could be used for policies I didn't support. I applied for and obtained a second citizenship.
I made an effort to prepare to leave a system I didn't support. I didn't cry because an individual that held views I believe to be hostile to the American way of life was elected by our legal political system. While working for this system I followed all lawful orders I was given even those I firmly disagreed with them. I got a vote and I voted. Things didn't turn out my way; I dealt with it without harassing others, burning down my town, or attacking people who didn't agree with me.
I am not going to attack you're vote but will point out your straw-man fallacy. Do you know how long it takes currently for a Syrian refugee to enter the US? I'll tell you, nearly 2 years. If you want to understand why, here is a description of the vetting process:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/)
Saying "we" want to let terrorist into the US is point black insulting and demeaning. The current vetting process is actually why the government had difficulty raising the cap on immigrants allowed into the US. Its worked very well. How many Syrians have infiltrated the US and killed a bunch of Americans? The answer is 0. Homegrown (ie. domestic) terrorist are far more likely.
Banning a large group of folks trying to escape torture, rape and murder, including women and children does nothing to make America safer, despite what you may think. Heck what happened in Canada a couple days ago? You are condemning innocent people to die all in the name of "border security."
I'm not saying folks there aren't hell bent on killing us. Heck we are killing them everyday from the skies. But that's why we have an extensive vetting process. No one is just let in. And no one is advocating this.
Here are some more stats to show your fears are largely unfounded
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/)
-
Well let me get attacked now.
I voted for Trump and I am fairly happy with how things are going so far. My only surprise is the reaction of my fellow citizens to things like immigration control etc.
I think if I were a terrorist in Syria or Iraq and my ultimate fantasy were to kill some Americans and be a martyr. How funny must I see it that Americans are protesting against each other to try and let me in to kill them.
To me the reactions in general seem silly. I hated many of Obama's decisions however I respected they were the will of the American people. I never once said I know I'm going to go stop rush hour traffic of everyday people to protest how angry I am about decision A.
What did I do? I said this is a directions I am not comfortable participating in; I need to prepare myself to cut ties and minimize my assistance in what I don't believe in. I raised my son making sure he would never join the military as I saw its decline and use a social experiment. I bought property overseas and started making investments overseas to cut down on tax revenue that could be used for policies I didn't support. I applied for and obtained a second citizenship.
I made an effort to prepare to leave a system I didn't support. I didn't cry because an individual that held views I believe to be hostile to the American way of life was elected by our legal political system. While working for this system I followed all lawful orders I was given even those I firmly disagreed with them. I got a vote and I voted. Things didn't turn out my way; I dealt with it without harassing others, burning down my town, or attacking people who didn't agree with me.
Thank you for your post. You seem to be a person that believes in following the rules, but then is prepared to work to change them. What should happen to people who refuse to follow a legal court order? At a time when common ground will be most important, do you share the concern of others when people ignored the order to immediately suspend the deportation process while it clearly continued? What about AG Yates; same fate or different?
-
To me the reactions in general seem silly. I hated many of Obama's decisions however I respected they were the will of the American people. I never once said I know I'm going to go stop rush hour traffic of everyday people to protest how angry I am about decision A.
What did I do? I said this is a directions I am not comfortable participating in; I need to prepare myself to cut ties and minimize my assistance in what I don't believe in. I raised my son making sure he would never join the military as I saw its decline and use a social experiment. I bought property overseas and started making investments overseas to cut down on tax revenue that could be used for policies I didn't support. I applied for and obtained a second citizenship.
It sounds like you weren't invested in America enough to change it and were willing to give up on it. I am willing to do something that has proven to work (non-violent protest) in order to change the country to something I feel proud to be a part of. I know that is inflammatory, but I don't know how else to interpret this.
-
I agree with both of you actually in almost everything you are saying I just don't see the solution the same. I am aware of how long and arduous the vetting process is I helped two Iraqi interpreters go through the process to get to the U.S. The "ban" is for a short time to make sure the process is working and to see if we can make improvements to the process. It is the same thing Obama did for almost six months after two Iraqis who went through vetting were caught plotting an attack. I don't think Obama was wrong for that nor do I think Trump is wrong.
Your right Syria and many other countries are very dangerous and innocent people are dying there everyday. However, I don't see the solution as allowing all a mass migration of refuges to come to the U.S. I don't see why we have any obligation to help them at all. Unless Every American is safe, feed, housed, and has health care provided we shouldn't be helping others. I remember a time when I was in South Korea when my son came down with swine flu, I worked at the hospital and we didn't have any Tamiflu. In fact there was no Tamiflu on the economy either. Just a few weeks before that they shipped 500,000 doses to North Korea.
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/asia/seasonal-flu-2009-2014-including-h1n1-pandemic-2009-ab/north-korea/76852-north-korea-agrees-to-accept-medicine-from-south-korea-to-fight-swine-flu-outbreak
American tax dollars should help Americans first and only if we have extra should we be helping others. Since we are 20 trillion dollars in debt and have homeless veterans we obviously have no extra.
-
I agree with both of you actually in almost everything you are saying I just don't see the solution the same. I am aware of how long and arduous the vetting process is I helped two Iraqi interpreters go through the process to get to the U.S. The "ban" is for a short time to make sure the process is working and to see if we can make improvements to the process. It is the same thing Obama did for almost six months after two Iraqis who went through vetting were caught plotting an attack. I don't think Obama was wrong for that nor do I think Trump is wrong.
Your right Syria and many other countries are very dangerous and innocent people are dying there everyday. However, I don't see the solution as allowing all a mass migration of refuges to come to the U.S. I don't see why we have any obligation to help them at all. Unless Every American is safe, feed, housed, and has health care provided we shouldn't be helping others. I remember a time when I was in South Korea when my son came down with swine flu, I worked at the hospital and we didn't have any Tamiflu. In fact there was no Tamiflu on the economy either. Just a few weeks before that they shipped 500,000 doses to North Korea.
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/asia/seasonal-flu-2009-2014-including-h1n1-pandemic-2009-ab/north-korea/76852-north-korea-agrees-to-accept-medicine-from-south-korea-to-fight-swine-flu-outbreak
American tax dollars should help Americans first and only if we have extra should we be helping others. Since we are 20 trillion dollars in debt and have homeless veterans we obviously have no extra.
First, Obama never banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months. They changed the vetting process (after consulting with State, the military, Homesland security etc...) and instituted tougher procedures. During those 6 months, the number of refugees decreased but never stopped, there was never a ban.
Second, flag on the play for Strawman argument about South Korea. This is not South Korea, there Tamiflu procedures have no bearing on the discussion.
Third, there have always been homeless vets (and non vets), there will always be homeless vets (and non vets). The fact is there are a number of very effective programs to help them, and perhaps you should look to the party that likes to cut funding for those programs and all programs that help the disadvantaged. Staking out you position is akin to me saying that we should not offer any tax cuts until we no longer have a national debt, or dince you are concerned about not having extra money...we should raise taxes until there are no homeless vets.
-
I polled 3rd party and happy about it, but I almost feel like this needs another qualifier: I live in a state that was so far Clinton it didn't matter what I did. If I lived in a contested state I would have voted Clinton, no doubt.
-
Very interesting poll results. I frankly didn't expect that.
-
Well let me get attacked now.
I voted for Trump and I am fairly happy with how things are going so far. My only surprise is the reaction of my fellow citizens to things like immigration control etc.
I think if I were a terrorist in Syria or Iraq and my ultimate fantasy were to kill some Americans and be a martyr. How funny must I see it that Americans are protesting against each other to try and let me in to kill them.
To me the reactions in general seem silly. I hated many of Obama's decisions however I respected they were the will of the American people. I never once said I know I'm going to go stop rush hour traffic of everyday people to protest how angry I am about decision A.
What did I do? I said this is a directions I am not comfortable participating in; I need to prepare myself to cut ties and minimize my assistance in what I don't believe in. I raised my son making sure he would never join the military as I saw its decline and use a social experiment. I bought property overseas and started making investments overseas to cut down on tax revenue that could be used for policies I didn't support. I applied for and obtained a second citizenship.
I made an effort to prepare to leave a system I didn't support. I didn't cry because an individual that held views I believe to be hostile to the American way of life was elected by our legal political system. While working for this system I followed all lawful orders I was given even those I firmly disagreed with them. I got a vote and I voted. Things didn't turn out my way; I dealt with it without harassing others, burning down my town, or attacking people who didn't agree with me.
Thank you for your post. You seem to be a person that believes in following the rules, but then is prepared to work to change them. What should happen to people who refuse to follow a legal court order? At a time when common ground will be most important, do you share the concern of others when people ignored the order to immediately suspend the deportation process while it clearly continued? What about AG Yates; same fate or different?
Failing to follow a legal court order in my opinion is a crime. Again even though they may haven't agreed if they accepted it to be legal they had to do it. But if they thought it wasn't a lawful order they had an obligation to say so to their superiors and seek a legal opinion. As soon as they were told by competent legal authority that is was legal they had an obligation to execute the order. In the case of AG Yates she was a public servant so she had the option to say I don't feel comfortable following this order and I therefore resign effective immediately. The part where she really messed up and could easily be prosecuted is when she committed sedition by encouraging others to not follow a lawful order.
-
I agree with both of you actually in almost everything you are saying I just don't see the solution the same. I am aware of how long and arduous the vetting process is I helped two Iraqi interpreters go through the process to get to the U.S. The "ban" is for a short time to make sure the process is working and to see if we can make improvements to the process. It is the same thing Obama did for almost six months after two Iraqis who went through vetting were caught plotting an attack. I don't think Obama was wrong for that nor do I think Trump is wrong.
Your right Syria and many other countries are very dangerous and innocent people are dying there everyday. However, I don't see the solution as allowing all a mass migration of refuges to come to the U.S. I don't see why we have any obligation to help them at all. Unless Every American is safe, feed, housed, and has health care provided we shouldn't be helping others. I remember a time when I was in South Korea when my son came down with swine flu, I worked at the hospital and we didn't have any Tamiflu. In fact there was no Tamiflu on the economy either. Just a few weeks before that they shipped 500,000 doses to North Korea.
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/asia/seasonal-flu-2009-2014-including-h1n1-pandemic-2009-ab/north-korea/76852-north-korea-agrees-to-accept-medicine-from-south-korea-to-fight-swine-flu-outbreak
American tax dollars should help Americans first and only if we have extra should we be helping others. Since we are 20 trillion dollars in debt and have homeless veterans we obviously have no extra.
First, Obama never banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months. They changed the vetting process (after consulting with State, the military, Homesland security etc...) and instituted tougher procedures. During those 6 months, the number of refugees decreased but never stopped, there was never a ban.
Second, flag on the play for Strawman argument about South Korea. This is not South Korea, there Tamiflu procedures have no bearing on the discussion.
Third, there have always been homeless vets (and non vets), there will always be homeless vets (and non vets). The fact is there are a number of very effective programs to help them, and perhaps you should look to the party that likes to cut funding for those programs and all programs that help the disadvantaged. Staking out you position is akin to me saying that we should not offer any tax cuts until we no longer have a national debt, or dince you are concerned about not having extra money...we should raise taxes until there are no homeless vets.
We gave the Tamiflu to South Korea so they could give it to North Korea so it does have some validity.
As far as taxes I believe we should have a flat VAT tax of about 10% that goes directly to paying down the debt along with a law making it illegal to run a deficit unless we are in a state of national emergency confirmed by a 2/3rd vote of the house and senate.
-
I didn't vote in your election, but I'd like to see the results of your poll. Can you add a didn't/couldn't vote option?
-
Trump and very happy about it. 4th Estate hysterics. Identity politics backfiring. Swamp being drained. Haven't been this entertained in years, and he's just warming up the 'You're Fired!' gun.
-
I voted for Clinton. I was never happy about it, but I don't regret it either.
-
I voted Clinton, and I'm happy about it.
That being said, I wasn't thrilled with Clinton. I did not like her, and I did not trust her. I loved Bernie. He was my guy. In my 25 years as an adult, I had NEVER given money to ANY political campaign. I donated to Bernie's campaign numerous times (small amounts).
That being said (again!), when it came down to Trump versus Clinton, I didn't feel I had a choice. She was at least an adult and very knowledgeable about a wide variety of issues.
I truly think Trump is mentally unstable, or at the very least, does not have the temperment to be president. He doesn't have restraint or diplomacy or any nuance at all. I disagree with Pence on ALMOST EVERYTHING but I would still sleep far better with Pence driving the car.
I did not protest yet (although many of my friends did!) I am waiting for his inevitable moves against the LGBT community and his moves in favor of Christians being able to discriminate against others. Oh I'll be out there protesting then, either with my body or my $ or both. The ACLU is going to have a banner fund-raising year.
-
Just a reminder that what some people like to dismiss as "identity politics ", others call "civil rights".
-
3rd party (Johnson) and I'm happy about it. The two party system we have is incredibly flawed in my opinion. Also, these parties are corrupt.
My state is almost completely blue, so voting Republican or Democrat does not matter. However, if a 3rd party receives 5% of the popular vote, they are eligible for general election funding. I think this goes a lot further than voting in a state where my vote is negligible.
If I lived in a swing state however, I'd feel very conflicted. I'm not sure what my vote would've been.
-
I voted Clinton, and I'm happy about it.
That being said, I wasn't thrilled with Clinton. I did not like her, and I did not trust her. I loved Bernie. He was my guy. In my 25 years as an adult, I had NEVER given money to ANY political campaign. I donated to Bernie's campaign numerous times (small amounts).
That being said (again!), when it came down to Trump versus Clinton, I didn't feel I had a choice. She was at least an adult and very knowledgeable about a wide variety of issues.
I truly think Trump is mentally unstable, or at the very least, does not have the temperment to be president. He doesn't have restraint or diplomacy or any nuance at all. I disagree with Pence on ALMOST EVERYTHING but I would still sleep far better with Pence driving the car.
I did not protest yet (although many of my friends did!) I am waiting for his inevitable moves against the LGBT community and his moves in favor of Christians being able to discriminate against others. Oh I'll be out there protesting then, either with my body or my $ or both. The ACLU is going to have a banner fund-raising year.
They collected 6 times as much money online this past weekend than the entirety of last year. Over 350,000 were from folks who never donated to them before. Pretty friggin awesome. Trump is certainly bringing folks together. Just not in the way he intended.
-
Voted for Clinton, glad I didn't vote for Trump because then I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror in the AM. I am also glad that I can look my kids in the eye every day. I'm not really sure how any parent could tell their kids "Don't bully other kids!" and then vote for a vicious, cruel bully of a man, no matter what his politics are.
-
Well let me get attacked now.
I voted for Trump and I am fairly happy with how things are going so far. My only surprise is the reaction of my fellow citizens to things like immigration control etc.
I think if I were a terrorist in Syria or Iraq and my ultimate fantasy were to kill some Americans and be a martyr. How funny must I see it that Americans are protesting against each other to try and let me in to kill them.
To me the reactions in general seem silly. I hated many of Obama's decisions however I respected they were the will of the American people. I never once said I know I'm going to go stop rush hour traffic of everyday people to protest how angry I am about decision A.
What did I do? I said this is a directions I am not comfortable participating in; I need to prepare myself to cut ties and minimize my assistance in what I don't believe in. I raised my son making sure he would never join the military as I saw its decline and use a social experiment. I bought property overseas and started making investments overseas to cut down on tax revenue that could be used for policies I didn't support. I applied for and obtained a second citizenship.
I made an effort to prepare to leave a system I didn't support. I didn't cry because an individual that held views I believe to be hostile to the American way of life was elected by our legal political system. While working for this system I followed all lawful orders I was given even those I firmly disagreed with them. I got a vote and I voted. Things didn't turn out my way; I dealt with it without harassing others, burning down my town, or attacking people who didn't agree with me.
Thank you for your post. You seem to be a person that believes in following the rules, but then is prepared to work to change them. What should happen to people who refuse to follow a legal court order? At a time when common ground will be most important, do you share the concern of others when people ignored the order to immediately suspend the deportation process while it clearly continued? What about AG Yates; same fate or different?
Failing to follow a legal court order in my opinion is a crime. Again even though they may haven't agreed if they accepted it to be legal they had to do it. But if they thought it wasn't a lawful order they had an obligation to say so to their superiors and seek a legal opinion. As soon as they were told by competent legal authority that is was legal they had an obligation to execute the order. In the case of AG Yates she was a public servant so she had the option to say I don't feel comfortable following this order and I therefore resign effective immediately. The part where she really messed up and could easily be prosecuted is when she committed sedition by encouraging others to not follow a lawful order.
No, her responsibility as AG is to say no to president if his order is illegal. You do not have to resign to say no. Also, the court had already stayed the EO because of the potential illegalness of it so to say it was a legal order is not true.
-
I'm not really sure how any parent could tell their kids "Don't bully other kids!" and then vote for a vicious, cruel bully of a man, no matter what his politics are.
Frankly, I'm seeing a ton of bullying done by the opposition to Trump these days too. Shouting people down, boycotts and protests over everything (boycott LL Bean because 1 of the 50 family members contributed to Trump??), etc etc etc. There's become a "socially acceptable" stance on Trump and his politics and if you cross it, prepare to be bullied and shamed.
I voted 3rd party and I'm happy with that. I still think out of any random 100 people, Trump was the 2nd least worthy of being President and Hillary is the least.
-
I voted Clinton, and I'm happy about it.
That being said, I wasn't thrilled with Clinton. I did not like her, and I did not trust her. I loved Bernie. He was my guy. In my 25 years as an adult, I had NEVER given money to ANY political campaign. I donated to Bernie's campaign numerous times (small amounts).
That being said (again!), when it came down to Trump versus Clinton, I didn't feel I had a choice. She was at least an adult and very knowledgeable about a wide variety of issues.
I truly think Trump is mentally unstable, or at the very least, does not have the temperment to be president. He doesn't have restraint or diplomacy or any nuance at all. I disagree with Pence on ALMOST EVERYTHING but I would still sleep far better with Pence driving the car.
I did not protest yet (although many of my friends did!) I am waiting for his inevitable moves against the LGBT community and his moves in favor of Christians being able to discriminate against others. Oh I'll be out there protesting then, either with my body or my $ or both. The ACLU is going to have a banner fund-raising year.
I have identical views. I settled for Clinton, even though I loved Bernie's ideology and energy! I do believe, like Bernie that very few people have too much money & power in government which has led to a rapid decline in the middle class. The gap is getting wider and wider, while we fight about hot button issues like abortion, transgender rights, immigration, the war against Christmas, taking away guns, climate change and LGBTQ rights. I hate that the GOP constantly uses these issues to stir emotions to receive votes based on fear. And Fox sensationalizes or just makes up almost anything they want. We are busy fighting over these issues where very little compromise can exist anyway. Yes I have views on all those issues and they are really important topics, but while we are busy looking at the fireworks over the White House congress is using this time to introduce all kinds of bills that most American's don't agree with:
H.R. 193 American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017: Withdraws the US from the United Nations.
H.R. 586 Sanctity of Human Life Act: each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.
H.R. 621: The Secretary of the Interior to sell Federal Lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.
H.R. 7: No taxpayer funding for abortion and insurance companies who do business with the federal government cannot fund abortions (which is just about every insurance company that exists).
H.R. 2802: Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman and sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. (There goes protections for the LGBTQ community. Lets people and businesses discriminate or not serve due to sexual orientation)
On top of these bills they are introducing lots of bills that dismantle environmental protections, one even dissolving law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Looks like the EPA is getting dismantled also in a new bill to be introduced soon.
I'm just so sad thinking about the world that the current congress is carving out for our country right now. I feel for Federal workers whom have spent their careers dedicated to the service of others. I feel for our environment. I remember what it was like growing up in Southern California before any smog regulations. It wasn't that different from China cities during the summer. I remember burning eyes and lungs. I feel for our LGBTQ community.
-
I'm not really sure how any parent could tell their kids "Don't bully other kids!" and then vote for a vicious, cruel bully of a man, no matter what his politics are.
Frankly, I'm seeing a ton of bullying done by the opposition to Trump these days too. Shouting people down, boycotts and protests over everything (boycott LL Bean because 1 of the 50 family members contributed to Trump??), etc etc etc. There's become a "socially acceptable" stance on Trump and his politics and if you cross it, prepare to be bullied and shamed.
I voted 3rd party and I'm happy with that. I still think out of any random 100 people, Trump was the 2nd least worthy of being President and Hillary is the least.
Good lord, is anyone else a freaking SICK of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy as I am?
-
I'm not really sure how any parent could tell their kids "Don't bully other kids!" and then vote for a vicious, cruel bully of a man, no matter what his politics are.
Frankly, I'm seeing a ton of bullying done by the opposition to Trump these days too. Shouting people down, boycotts and protests over everything (boycott LL Bean because 1 of the 50 family members contributed to Trump??), etc etc etc. There's become a "socially acceptable" stance on Trump and his politics and if you cross it, prepare to be bullied and shamed.
I voted 3rd party and I'm happy with that. I still think out of any random 100 people, Trump was the 2nd least worthy of being President and Hillary is the least.
Good lord, is anyone else a freaking SICK of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy as I am?
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
-
I voted Clinton, and I'm happy about it.
That being said, I wasn't thrilled with Clinton. I did not like her, and I did not trust her. I loved Bernie. He was my guy. In my 25 years as an adult, I had NEVER given money to ANY political campaign. I donated to Bernie's campaign numerous times (small amounts).
That being said (again!), when it came down to Trump versus Clinton, I didn't feel I had a choice. She was at least an adult and very knowledgeable about a wide variety of issues.
I truly think Trump is mentally unstable, or at the very least, does not have the temperment to be president. He doesn't have restraint or diplomacy or any nuance at all. I disagree with Pence on ALMOST EVERYTHING but I would still sleep far better with Pence driving the car.
I did not protest yet (although many of my friends did!) I am waiting for his inevitable moves against the LGBT community and his moves in favor of Christians being able to discriminate against others. Oh I'll be out there protesting then, either with my body or my $ or both. The ACLU is going to have a banner fund-raising year.
I have identical views. I settled for Clinton, even though I loved Bernie's ideology and energy! I do believe, like Bernie that very few people have too much money & power in government which has led to a rapid decline in the middle class. The gap is getting wider and wider, while we fight about hot button issues like abortion, transgender rights, immigration, the war against Christmas, taking away guns, climate change and LGBTQ rights. I hate that the GOP constantly uses these issues to stir emotions to receive votes based on fear. And Fox sensationalizes or just makes up almost anything they want. We are busy fighting over these issues where very little compromise can exist anyway. Yes I have views on all those issues and they are really important topics, but while we are busy looking at the fireworks over the White House congress is using this time to introduce all kinds of bills that most American's don't agree with:
H.R. 193 American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017: Withdraws the US from the United Nations.
H.R. 586 Sanctity of Human Life Act: each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.
H.R. 621: The Secretary of the Interior to sell Federal Lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.
H.R. 7: No taxpayer funding for abortion and insurance companies who do business with the federal government cannot fund abortions (which is just about every insurance company that exists).
H.R. 2802: Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman and sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. (There goes protections for the LGBTQ community. Lets people and businesses discriminate or not serve due to sexual orientation)
On top of these bills they are introducing lots of bills that dismantle environmental protections, one even dissolving law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Looks like the EPA is getting dismantled also in a new bill to be introduced soon.
I'm just so sad thinking about the world that the current congress is carving out for our country right now. I feel for Federal workers whom have spent their careers dedicated to the service of others. I feel for our environment. I remember what it was like growing up in Southern California before any smog regulations. It wasn't that different from China cities during the summer. I remember burning eyes and lungs. I feel for our LGBTQ community.
Let's be friends!
-
3rd party (Johnson) and I'm happy about it. The two party system we have is incredibly flawed in my opinion. Also, these parties are corrupt.
My state is almost completely blue, so voting Republican or Democrat does not matter. However, if a 3rd party receives 5% of the popular vote, they are eligible for general election funding. I think this goes a lot further than voting in a state where my vote is negligible.
If I lived in a swing state however, I'd feel very conflicted. I'm not sure what my vote would've been.
I'm glad you at least voted..but I hope you do know that a 3rd party vote in our system is pretty much a 'non vote'. It's sad but true.
What really irritates me are the folks who didn't vote at all 'out of protest' of one thing or another. Especially the Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary. Frankly, you have to be a realist.
Then again, it really would have been interesting if Hillary could have put aside her differences with Bernie and picked him for Vice President. I feel she truly would have wrapped it up. In my opinion, her VP choice was absolutely terrible. It totally killed the energy of many on the democratic side.
-
3rd party (Johnson) and I'm happy about it. The two party system we have is incredibly flawed in my opinion. Also, these parties are corrupt.
My state is almost completely blue, so voting Republican or Democrat does not matter. However, if a 3rd party receives 5% of the popular vote, they are eligible for general election funding. I think this goes a lot further than voting in a state where my vote is negligible.
If I lived in a swing state however, I'd feel very conflicted. I'm not sure what my vote would've been.
I'm glad you at least voted..but I hope you do know that a 3rd party vote in our system is pretty much a 'non vote'. It's sad but true.
What really irritates me are the folks who didn't vote at all 'out of protest' of one thing or another. Especially the Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary. Frankly, you have to be a realist.
Then again, it really would have been interesting if Hillary could have put aside her differences with Bernie and picked him for Vice President. I feel she truly would have wrapped it up. In my opinion, her VP choice was absolutely terrible. It totally killed the energy of many on the democratic side.
Yes it was a freakin' terrible choice! Or "tarable" as Sir Charles Barkley would say. He added nothing! "Okay Hil, let's add a snarky middle-aged white guy career politician with no name recognition! That will really shore up our base!"
I agree that having Bernie on board as VP would have brought some energy over from his campaign, although some of his supporters would have objected to it. But her ego (i guess), or maybe his, wouldn't allow for it.
-
I have identical views. I settled for Clinton, even though I loved Bernie's ideology and energy! I do believe, like Bernie that very few people have too much money & power in government which has led to a rapid decline in the middle class. The gap is getting wider and wider, while we fight about hot button issues like abortion, transgender rights, immigration, the war against Christmas, taking away guns, climate change and LGBTQ rights. I hate that the GOP constantly uses these issues to stir emotions to receive votes based on fear. And Fox sensationalizes or just makes up almost anything they want. We are busy fighting over these issues where very little compromise can exist anyway. Yes I have views on all those issues and they are really important topics, but while we are busy looking at the fireworks over the White House congress is using this time to introduce all kinds of bills that most American's don't agree with:
H.R. 193 American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017: Withdraws the US from the United Nations.
H.R. 586 Sanctity of Human Life Act: each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.
H.R. 621: The Secretary of the Interior to sell Federal Lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.
H.R. 7: No taxpayer funding for abortion and insurance companies who do business with the federal government cannot fund abortions (which is just about every insurance company that exists).
H.R. 2802: Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman and sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. (There goes protections for the LGBTQ community. Lets people and businesses discriminate or not serve due to sexual orientation)
On top of these bills they are introducing lots of bills that dismantle environmental protections, one even dissolving law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Looks like the EPA is getting dismantled also in a new bill to be introduced soon.
I'm just so sad thinking about the world that the current congress is carving out for our country right now. I feel for Federal workers whom have spent their careers dedicated to the service of others. I feel for our environment. I remember what it was like growing up in Southern California before any smog regulations. It wasn't that different from China cities during the summer. I remember burning eyes and lungs. I feel for our LGBTQ community.
[/quote]
I read the bills the only one that is alarming to me is: H.R. 193 American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
I think it is a bluff for negotiating purposes as it is the only thing that makes sense.
The other ones are really common sense in my opinion. H.R. 621: The Secretary of the Interior to sell Federal Lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming
This bill actually says we should sell land that was identified to be sold in 1997 it goes on to say any land that is used by the public, wanted by Indian tribes, and a couple other things is exempt. What I really like is it says all proceeds will go directly to paying down the national debt.
-
As far as taxes I believe we should have a flat VAT tax of about 10% that goes directly to paying down the debt along with a law making it illegal to run a deficit unless we are in a state of national emergency confirmed by a 2/3rd vote of the house and senate.
Please correct me if I am wrong. You are saying to treat future spending and past debt as different actions.
As for debt, a flat tax that pays off the debt after some amount of time, say 20 years just to throw out a number. For future spending, essentially a balanced budget amendment with the payment of the past debt being handled by the flat tax that pays the debt.
Overall flat tax proposals for both combined show deficits beyond 10 years from now. The real rate would most likely need to be around 20%, with the poor paying 7-10 times more than they are now.
-
As far as taxes I believe we should have a flat VAT tax of about 10% that goes directly to paying down the debt along with a law making it illegal to run a deficit unless we are in a state of national emergency confirmed by a 2/3rd vote of the house and senate.
Please correct me if I am wrong. You are saying to treat future spending and past debt as different actions.
As for debt, a flat tax that pays off the debt after some amount of time, say 20 years just to throw out a number. For future spending, essentially a balanced budget amendment with the payment of the past debt being handled by the flat tax that pays the debt.
Overall flat tax proposals for both combined show deficits beyond 10 years from now. The real rate would most likely need to be around 20%, with the poor paying 7-10 times more than they are now.
Here in Germany they have normal income tax and then they have a 19% VAT tax as well.
What I like about the VAT tax is it taxes all money including dirty money. It also rewards saving and you can increase or decrease VAT on different items to reward or discourage certain behavior.
In the U.S. only honest people pay any meaningful tax. As an example let's say I am a local small town bookie, drug dealer, fence, escort service manager etc; I pay zero federal tax. In a flat tax situation anytime this dirty money is spent it is taxed.
When you are spending more than you make the first step is to stop doing that. Therefore the balanced budget amendment I recommend should be step one.
Step two is pay your debt down. That is where the VAT would come in it should be written in such a way that as soon as our debt is paid off the VAT will end.
I do think everyone should pay something with our current system 47% pay nothing or actually negative taxes (they get earned income credit).
If you spend a billion a year good for you Mr. Gates now pony up 100 million for the national debt. If you spend 10K then you pay 1K thanks for participating.
-
The other ones are really common sense in my opinion. H.R. 621: The Secretary of the Interior to sell Federal Lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming
This bill actually says we should sell land that was identified to be sold in 1997 it goes on to say any land that is used by the public, wanted by Indian tribes, and a couple other things is exempt. What I really like is it says all proceeds will go directly to paying down the national debt.
I just did a quick search on H.R. 621 and found this :
https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?273527-Selling-Public-LandHR-621-and-622-Do-We-All-Agree-that-Jason-Chaffetz-is-a-Coward
Some very interesting discussion from sportsmen (hunters) regarding this proposal. Lets just say they are not in favor of it. And these are some very, very conservative people. A lot of the discussion involves what 'use by the public' means and who gets to make that decision.
And here is an article that list some of the lands up for 'disposal' :
http://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/articles/public-land-for-sale-here-are-some-of-the-33-million-acres-being-eyed-for-disposal-w463372
Sure looks like they have a public use to me! This bill is a blatant land grab....
-
and you can increase or decrease VAT on different items to reward or discourage certain behavior.
Exactly a reason I DON'T like a VAT. I don't need the government "rewarding or discouraging" any more than they already do. We need less gov't meddling, not more.
-
I'm not really sure how any parent could tell their kids "Don't bully other kids!" and then vote for a vicious, cruel bully of a man, no matter what his politics are.
Frankly, I'm seeing a ton of bullying done by the opposition to Trump these days too. Shouting people down, boycotts and protests over everything (boycott LL Bean because 1 of the 50 family members contributed to Trump??), etc etc etc. There's become a "socially acceptable" stance on Trump and his politics and if you cross it, prepare to be bullied and shamed.
I voted 3rd party and I'm happy with that. I still think out of any random 100 people, Trump was the 2nd least worthy of being President and Hillary is the least.
Good lord, is anyone else a freaking SICK of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy as I am?
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Right.
Making fun of someone for how they are born (skin color, medical condition) is vastly different than criticizing the acting leader of a political party on the basis of his actions. As for his supporters, I agree that they face a great deal of social condemnation for choices they themselves made of their own free will. Perhaps (certainly) I could be a better person, but I just can't quite muster as much sympathy as I no doubt should.
-
As far as taxes I believe we should have a flat VAT tax of about 10% that goes directly to paying down the debt along with a law making it illegal to run a deficit unless we are in a state of national emergency confirmed by a 2/3rd vote of the house and senate.
Please correct me if I am wrong. You are saying to treat future spending and past debt as different actions.
As for debt, a flat tax that pays off the debt after some amount of time, say 20 years just to throw out a number. For future spending, essentially a balanced budget amendment with the payment of the past debt being handled by the flat tax that pays the debt.
Overall flat tax proposals for both combined show deficits beyond 10 years from now. The real rate would most likely need to be around 20%, with the poor paying 7-10 times more than they are now.
Here in Germany they have normal income tax and then they have a 19% VAT tax as well.
What I like about the VAT tax is it taxes all money including dirty money. It also rewards saving and you can increase or decrease VAT on different items to reward or discourage certain behavior.
In the U.S. only honest people pay any meaningful tax. As an example let's say I am a local small town bookie, drug dealer, fence, escort service manager etc; I pay zero federal tax. In a flat tax situation anytime this dirty money is spent it is taxed.
When you are spending more than you make the first step is to stop doing that. Therefore the balanced budget amendment I recommend should be step one.
Step two is pay your debt down. That is where the VAT would come in it should be written in such a way that as soon as our debt is paid off the VAT will end.
I do think everyone should pay something with our current system 47% pay nothing or actually negative taxes (they get earned income credit).
If you spend a billion a year good for you Mr. Gates now pony up 100 million for the national debt. If you spend 10K then you pay 1K thanks for participating.
I see. I have heard of a VAT. I think I understand that better now. Won't this system encourage bartering again to avoid the tax. I want the craigslist ads all to myself :)
I understand the idea of spending less than you collect. There has not been a single proposal on either side that proposes to do that in the next 10 years. The most resent proposals never have a plan to get there at all.
The more things change....
-
I didn't vote in your election, but I'd like to see the results of your poll. Can you add a didn't/couldn't vote option?
Currently the results stand as:
6 (5.9%) Trump and happy
77 (76.2%) Clinton and happy
16 (15.8%) 3rd party and happy
2 (2%) 3rd party and unhappy
All other options are 0
I find myself wondering about the swing state vs non swing state status of the 3rd party votes in particular. I voted Clinton and am very happy with the decision, but could have voted 3rd party with no risk of affecting the election results.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
-
and you can increase or decrease VAT on different items to reward or discourage certain behavior.
Exactly a reason I DON'T like a VAT. I don't need the government "rewarding or discouraging" any more than they already do. We need less gov't meddling, not more.
I agree with you on that what I was pointing out is that a VAT makes it very easy to reward or punish certain behavior if you want to. I am only in favor of a VAT for a limited time to pay down the debt and nothing else.
-
3rd party (Johnson) and I'm happy about it. The two party system we have is incredibly flawed in my opinion. Also, these parties are corrupt.
My state is almost completely blue, so voting Republican or Democrat does not matter. However, if a 3rd party receives 5% of the popular vote, they are eligible for general election funding. I think this goes a lot further than voting in a state where my vote is negligible.
If I lived in a swing state however, I'd feel very conflicted. I'm not sure what my vote would've been.
I'm glad you at least voted..but I hope you do know that a 3rd party vote in our system is pretty much a 'non vote'. It's sad but true.
What really irritates me are the folks who didn't vote at all 'out of protest' of one thing or another. Especially the Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary. Frankly, you have to be a realist.
Then again, it really would have been interesting if Hillary could have put aside her differences with Bernie and picked him for Vice President. I feel she truly would have wrapped it up. In my opinion, her VP choice was absolutely terrible. It totally killed the energy of many on the democratic side.
Yes it was a freakin' terrible choice! Or "tarable" as Sir Charles Barkley would say. He added nothing! "Okay Hil, let's add a snarky middle-aged white guy career politician with no name recognition! That will really shore up our base!"
I agree that having Bernie on board as VP would have brought some energy over from his campaign, although some of his supporters would have objected to it. But her ego (i guess), or maybe his, wouldn't allow for it.
They were trying to get an equivalent to Biden for Clinton. Part of why Obama won was that Biden could call Ryan on his lies in a way Obama could not.
-
I didn't vote in your election, but I'd like to see the results of your poll. Can you add a didn't/couldn't vote option?
Currently the results stand as:
6 (5.9%) Trump and happy
77 (76.2%) Clinton and happy
16 (15.8%) 3rd party and happy
2 (2%) 3rd party and unhappy
All other options are 0
I find myself wondering about the swing state vs non swing state status of the 3rd party votes in particular. I voted Clinton and am very happy with the decision, but could have voted 3rd party with no risk of affecting the election results.
I wondered about that also. How many 3rd party voters in swing states like NC, PA, etc regret their votes? I don't think I would regret it if I voted 3rd party and lived in a safe blue state.
-
I didn't vote in your election, but I'd like to see the results of your poll. Can you add a didn't/couldn't vote option?
Currently the results stand as:
6 (5.9%) Trump and happy
77 (76.2%) Clinton and happy
16 (15.8%) 3rd party and happy
2 (2%) 3rd party and unhappy
All other options are 0
I find myself wondering about the swing state vs non swing state status of the 3rd party votes in particular. I voted Clinton and am very happy with the decision, but could have voted 3rd party with no risk of affecting the election results.
Thank you!
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
-
I voted 3rd party in a swing state and am happy with my vote.
I'm an anti war libertarian leaning person, so that totally ruled out Clinton for me. I did not want to vote for Trump.
I wanted one of the 3rd party candidates to reach 5%. I lean libertarian and also thought they had a greater chance to hit 5%, so voted for Johnson. Surprisingly I was impressed with Stein's anti war talk and almost voted for her.
I have mentioned my vote to others and some say they wish they would have done what I did to get one of the 3rd parties to 5%, and they regret their vote. I was sure this was a perfect election for a 3rd party to get to 5%, and the pre election polling showed it was possible, but alas most people voted out of fear. I also know many left the presidential pick blank and I wish they would have voted 3rd party instead.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
-
Add another one to "Voted for Clinton and happy about it". Didn't really want to vote for her but felt I had no other choice given the options. Being a registered Republican and after watching the primary I knew I could not in good conscience vote for Trump. I could have (and probably should have) voted third party as my state is a solid red state with no hope of changing but after the start of the general election I was turned off by all the campaigning so did not really even research any of the third party candidates.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
Again, no. First the CEO is the face of the company so he was not acting only as a private citizen and two, you can chose not to fund/support anything you want. If my money is going to someone, I get to chose if I spend it that way. That is not bullying. Mozilla had/has a company culture, his leadership shown by his donation would have effected that culture. People supported that company partly based on the culture therefore they explain they would not if the culture changed. The board of Mozilla decided him being CEO was not worth the lack of support they would get by agreeing with the culture change (and losing employees). That again, is not bullying. Removing support or funds is not bullying because you are not entitled to either.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
Again, no. First the CEO is the face of the company so he was not acting only as a private citizen
He made the donation before he was CEO.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
Again, no. First the CEO is the face of the company so he was not acting only as a private citizen
He made the donation before he was CEO.
Great job deleting the rest of my comment. So I will say again, Mozilla had/has a company culture, his leadership shown by his donation would have effected that culture. People supported that company partly based on the culture therefore they explain they would not if the culture changed. The board of Mozilla decided him being CEO was not worth the lack of support they would get by agreeing with the culture change (and losing employees). That again, is not bullying. Removing support or funds is not bullying because you are not entitled to either.
-
3rd party (Johnson) and I'm happy about it. The two party system we have is incredibly flawed in my opinion. Also, these parties are corrupt.
My state is almost completely blue, so voting Republican or Democrat does not matter. However, if a 3rd party receives 5% of the popular vote, they are eligible for general election funding. I think this goes a lot further than voting in a state where my vote is negligible.
If I lived in a swing state however, I'd feel very conflicted. I'm not sure what my vote would've been.
I'm glad you at least voted..but I hope you do know that a 3rd party vote in our system is pretty much a 'non vote'. It's sad but true.
What really irritates me are the folks who didn't vote at all 'out of protest' of one thing or another. Especially the Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary. Frankly, you have to be a realist.
Then again, it really would have been interesting if Hillary could have put aside her differences with Bernie and picked him for Vice President. I feel she truly would have wrapped it up. In my opinion, her VP choice was absolutely terrible. It totally killed the energy of many on the democratic side.
Why I voted 3rd party...in making some sort of progress away from the two party system. It 100% makes sense seeing I'm in a blue state (i.e. 1% of the total vote came through and it was given to Hillary). The vote in my state mattered a whole lot less than the potential benefit the country could've gotten with a 3rd party achieving general election funding (general election funding is very significant btw). So to me it made a hell of a lot more sense to vote 3rd party than have my vote go to waste in a state landslide.
-
Then again, it really would have been interesting if Hillary could have put aside her differences with Bernie and picked him for Vice President. I feel she truly would have wrapped it up. In my opinion, her VP choice was absolutely terrible. It totally killed the energy of many on the democratic side.
I agree that having Bernie on board as VP would have brought some energy over from his campaign, although some of his supporters would have objected to it. But her ego (i guess), or maybe his, wouldn't allow for it.
Farmecologist and Nick_Miller I'd have to heavily disagree with you on both of your points.
Hillary would've had this election in the bag had she chosen Bernie Sanders as her running mate. It wasn't because of an ego problem, nor failing to appeal to Bernie supporters. It was because the DNC was pitted against Bernie from the very beginning. The SECOND he got even close in the primaries, he was shut down. In other words, the DNC wasn't representing the American people's Democratic Party and is corrupt.
It was also because Hillary's corporate interests would not allow Bernie anywhere close to VP. He actually sticks to his guns his ideologies were not gonna fly by the corporate establishment.
-
The problem with that poll is that the only group who could possibly have regret right now are Trump voters. There is no reason to regret a vote for anyone else except maybe 3rd party if you think voting for Clinton would have ousted Trump. So unsurprisingly the only regret votes are 3rd party.
Expressing regret for a Trump vote would mean that they now feel they should have voted for someone else, which can loosely get translated to feeling we would be better off with Clinton.
That is a sentiment I would expect most Trump voters to never agree with, even if he fails to bring jobs back. If you stood behind Trump you were probably at least behind one of the following ideas, pro deregulation, anti-trade(trying to get manufacture jobs back), anti-immigrant(think certain immigrants are security risks or hurting jobs), or anti-abortion. Clinton was pretty much certain to tread on some or all of those convictions. And Trump has made some progress on all those fronts.
As someone center left I disagree with all of his recent mandates to varying degrees, even though many of them are fluff or only harmful because of the unprofessional manner in which they were rushed into law.
-
Then again, it really would have been interesting if Hillary could have put aside her differences with Bernie and picked him for Vice President. I feel she truly would have wrapped it up. In my opinion, her VP choice was absolutely terrible. It totally killed the energy of many on the democratic side.
I agree that having Bernie on board as VP would have brought some energy over from his campaign, although some of his supporters would have objected to it. But her ego (i guess), or maybe his, wouldn't allow for it.
Farmecologist and Nick_Miller I'd have to heavily disagree with you on both of your points.
Hillary would've had this election in the bag had she chosen Bernie Sanders as her running mate. It wasn't because of an ego problem, nor failing to appeal to Bernie supporters. It was because the DNC was pitted against Bernie from the very beginning. The SECOND he got even close in the primaries, he was shut down. In other words, the DNC wasn't representing the American people's Democratic Party and is corrupt.
It was also because Hillary's corporate interests would not allow Bernie anywhere close to VP. He actually sticks to his guns his ideologies were not gonna fly by the corporate establishment.
I think I am in violent agreement with you (?). Maybe you misread my comment...or I wasn't clear. I totally agree that Hillary would have had the election in the bag if she would have picked Bernie. I was just wondering why it didn't happen. I've read many theories ( including yours )...but no definitive answer yet.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
Again, no. First the CEO is the face of the company so he was not acting only as a private citizen
He made the donation before he was CEO.
Great job deleting the rest of my comment.
I deleted the rest of your comment because I don't feel like arguing with you. I was just correcting a fact.
I did it again. I don't feel like arguing the point. But the "my way or the highway" sentiment of liberals right now IS part of the sentiment that got Trump elected. Bicker over whether or not it's bullying or not, I think liberals are now in the practice of shouting down and demonizing all dissent or disagreement in such a scorched earth way that I don't think does them any favors.
Headed home soon, feel free to argue more but I'm not engaging.
-
Trump and very happy about it. 4th Estate hysterics. Identity politics backfiring. Swamp being drained.
As a Trump supporter, what do you think of his cabinet/agency picks?
Beyond Mathis/Kelly/Shulkin...eh, I personally don't think it's a stellar slate.
-
The problem with that poll is that the only group who could possibly have regret right now are Trump voters. There is no reason to regret a vote for anyone else except maybe 3rd party if you think voting for Clinton would have ousted Trump. So unsurprisingly the only regret votes are 3rd party.
Expressing regret for a Trump vote would mean that they now feel they should have voted for someone else, which can loosely get translated to feeling we would be better off with Clinton.
That is a sentiment I would expect most Trump voters to never agree with, even if he fails to bring jobs back. If you stood behind Trump you were probably at least behind one of the following ideas, pro deregulation, anti-trade(trying to get manufacture jobs back), anti-immigrant(think certain immigrants are security risks or hurting jobs), or anti-abortion. Clinton was pretty much certain to tread on some or all of those convictions. And Trump has made some progress on all those fronts.
As someone center left I disagree with all of his recent mandates to varying degrees, even though many of them are fluff or only harmful because of the unprofessional manner in which they were rushed into law.
http://www.areyousorryyet.com
Voted Clinton. Deep red state, so I knew it didn't matter, but felt the need to do it anyway, and sadly being proven right now.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
Again, no. First the CEO is the face of the company so he was not acting only as a private citizen
He made the donation before he was CEO.
Great job deleting the rest of my comment. So I will say again, Mozilla had/has a company culture, his leadership shown by his donation would have effected that culture. People supported that company partly based on the culture therefore they explain they would not if the culture changed. The board of Mozilla decided him being CEO was not worth the lack of support they would get by agreeing with the culture change (and losing employees). That again, is not bullying. Removing support or funds is not bullying because you are not entitled to either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
-
Very interesting poll results. I frankly didn't expect that.
Wow. Same reaction from me. But the results explain many, many, many recent posts here.
-
For comparison, the final tally on the " who would you vote for" poll was:
Whom do you plan to vote for in November?
Hillary Clinton 115 (51.3%)
Donald Trump 20 (8.9%)
Gary Johnson 75 (33.5%)
Jill Stein 9 (4%)
Plan to abstain in November 5 (2.2%)
These do not partition the same as the results in the current poll FWIW.
-
Then again, it really would have been interesting if Hillary could have put aside her differences with Bernie and picked him for Vice President. I feel she truly would have wrapped it up. In my opinion, her VP choice was absolutely terrible. It totally killed the energy of many on the democratic side.
I agree that having Bernie on board as VP would have brought some energy over from his campaign, although some of his supporters would have objected to it. But her ego (i guess), or maybe his, wouldn't allow for it.
Farmecologist and Nick_Miller I'd have to heavily disagree with you on both of your points.
Hillary would've had this election in the bag had she chosen Bernie Sanders as her running mate. It wasn't because of an ego problem, nor failing to appeal to Bernie supporters. It was because the DNC was pitted against Bernie from the very beginning. The SECOND he got even close in the primaries, he was shut down. In other words, the DNC wasn't representing the American people's Democratic Party and is corrupt.
It was also because Hillary's corporate interests would not allow Bernie anywhere close to VP. He actually sticks to his guns his ideologies were not gonna fly by the corporate establishment.
I think I am in violent agreement with you (?). Maybe you misread my comment...or I wasn't clear. I totally agree that Hillary would have had the election in the bag if she would have picked Bernie. I was just wondering why it didn't happen. I've read many theories ( including yours )...but no definitive answer yet.
Ohh, my bad! Think I was just getting a bit heated about the corruption that went on, and for that matter, still goes on. My mistake!
-
Other: I penciled in Harambe for POTUS
-
I did it again. I don't feel like arguing the point. But the "my way or the highway" sentiment of liberals right now IS part of the sentiment that got Trump elected. Bicker over whether or not it's bullying or not, I think liberals are now in the practice of shouting down and demonizing all dissent or disagreement in such a scorched earth way that I don't think does them any favors.
Trump got elected because people hate Hillary. Full Stop. Even (some) Democrats hated Hillary, which was evidenced by the voter turnout. If you think it's because of some cultural shift, or political tactics, or any other reason, you're reading way too much into it.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
Again, no. First the CEO is the face of the company so he was not acting only as a private citizen
He made the donation before he was CEO.
Great job deleting the rest of my comment.
I deleted the rest of your comment because I don't feel like arguing with you. I was just correcting a fact.
I did it again. I don't feel like arguing the point. But the "my way or the highway" sentiment of liberals right now IS part of the sentiment that got Trump elected. Bicker over whether or not it's bullying or not, I think liberals are now in the practice of shouting down and demonizing all dissent or disagreement in such a scorched earth way that I don't think does them any favors.
Headed home soon, feel free to argue more but I'm not engaging.
In Chicago perhaps the "my way or the highway" is the sentiment of liberals. In NC where I live the "my way or the highway" is the sentiment of conservatives. I am an Independent and pretty middle of the road, probably would be a blue dog Democrat or moderate Republican if any still existed. But, most liberals I've encountered want to engage with me and have a discussion. Not so conservatives, the hateful name calling and telling me I'm stupid is rampant, even from family members. I disliked Hillary, but Trump is scary and couldn't tell the truth if his life depended upon it, I didn't even have to think twice about my vote.
-
Trump got elected because people hate Hillary. Full Stop. Even (some) Democrats hated Hillary, which was evidenced by the voter turnout. If you think it's because of some cultural shift, or political tactics, or any other reason, you're reading way too much into it.
As a republican, I hated that my party's candidate was Donald Trump. Hated it. But come hell or high water, I could never, ever vote for Hillary. In my mind, there was no good option to select. Hell, I would have voted for Obama for a third term if I could have...and I'm no fan of Obama.
I honestly believe that if either party had picked ANYBODY else to run, that person would have won in a landslide. Of course I could be wrong.
-
I'm not really sure how any parent could tell their kids "Don't bully other kids!" and then vote for a vicious, cruel bully of a man, no matter what his politics are.
Frankly, I'm seeing a ton of bullying done by the opposition to Trump these days too. Shouting people down, boycotts and protests over everything (boycott LL Bean because 1 of the 50 family members contributed to Trump??), etc etc etc. There's become a "socially acceptable" stance on Trump and his politics and if you cross it, prepare to be bullied and shamed.
I voted 3rd party and I'm happy with that. I still think out of any random 100 people, Trump was the 2nd least worthy of being President and Hillary is the least.
Good lord, is anyone else a freaking SICK of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy as I am?
It's pretty much the only argument they have. Also fairly sure most of them have no idea what it means and/or are clamping down on some epic levels of cognitive dissonance.
-
I would have voted for Obama if a third term had been allowed, and he is on record saying he would have run. That said, I confidently voted for Hillary. I so wanted for my daughters to experience a smart, capable woman in the Oval Office, especially one who had been a well respected Senator and hard working Secretary of State. And yes, I thought her VP pick, while "safe", was curious at best and quite likely cost votes. (even though she won the popular vote!)
Like so many, I've been appalled and in shock since November. The only thing to hope for is that things won't be as terribly shitty as we suspect they will be.
-
Well let me get attacked now.
I voted for Trump and I am fairly happy with how things are going so far. My only surprise is the reaction of my fellow citizens to things like immigration control etc.
I think if I were a terrorist in Syria or Iraq and my ultimate fantasy were to kill some Americans and be a martyr. How funny must I see it that Americans are protesting against each other to try and let me in to kill them.
To me the reactions in general seem silly. I hated many of Obama's decisions however I respected they were the will of the American people. I never once said I know I'm going to go stop rush hour traffic of everyday people to protest how angry I am about decision A.
What did I do? I said this is a directions I am not comfortable participating in; I need to prepare myself to cut ties and minimize my assistance in what I don't believe in. I raised my son making sure he would never join the military as I saw its decline and use a social experiment. I bought property overseas and started making investments overseas to cut down on tax revenue that could be used for policies I didn't support. I applied for and obtained a second citizenship.
I made an effort to prepare to leave a system I didn't support. I didn't cry because an individual that held views I believe to be hostile to the American way of life was elected by our legal political system. While working for this system I followed all lawful orders I was given even those I firmly disagreed with them. I got a vote and I voted. Things didn't turn out my way; I dealt with it without harassing others, burning down my town, or attacking people who didn't agree with me.
Thank you for your post. You seem to be a person that believes in following the rules, but then is prepared to work to change them. What should happen to people who refuse to follow a legal court order? At a time when common ground will be most important, do you share the concern of others when people ignored the order to immediately suspend the deportation process while it clearly continued? What about AG Yates; same fate or different?
Failing to follow a legal court order in my opinion is a crime. Again even though they may haven't agreed if they accepted it to be legal they had to do it. But if they thought it wasn't a lawful order they had an obligation to say so to their superiors and seek a legal opinion. As soon as they were told by competent legal authority that is was legal they had an obligation to execute the order. In the case of AG Yates she was a public servant so she had the option to say I don't feel comfortable following this order and I therefore resign effective immediately. The part where she really messed up and could easily be prosecuted is when she committed sedition by encouraging others to not follow a lawful order.
No, her responsibility as AG is to say no to president if his order is illegal. You do not have to resign to say no. Also, the court had already stayed the EO because of the potential illegalness of it so to say it was a legal order is not true.
To reinforce this view, here is when (Attorney General-designate) Sessions questioned Yates during her 2015 confirmation hearings for deputy AG:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/watch-sally-yates-answer-the-question-that-got-her-fired-by-president-trump/?utm_term=.c194db0d212e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/watch-sally-yates-answer-the-question-that-got-her-fired-by-president-trump/?utm_term=.c194db0d212e)
I wonder if Sessions will say no...
-
Regarding the election, there were only two serious candidates: Hillary and McMullin (I was feeling conservative that day so I went with Evan but Hillary was my second choice).
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
[/quote]
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
-
Yep. Hell I fail to see how boycotting a business and protesting qualifies as bullying.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the definition of the word. A bully is someone who, oh, I don't know, makes fun of someone for his disability, or laughs at someone for crying. You know "punching down".
Boycotting a business isn't bullying, it's using your buying power to attempt to send a message and influence a business. Hell, it's the most capitalist, red blooded American method of protest I can think of. Same with standard non-violent protest. My god, conservatives seem to have the most fragile feelings, don't they? For people who wanted a world with no political correctness, they can sure dish it out but can't take any criticism at all.
When it gets to "fall in line with our political beliefs or we will organize and do everything we can to destroy your business" yes, I believe that's bullying. See the Netscape CEO for instance. Guy gives some moderately trivial amount of money to a "no gay marriage" PAC once and the liberals band together to force him from his job. Sorry, I think that's bullying. You can disagree all you want.
So you fund discrimination and are surprised people don't want to give you money....
That is not bullying. People are not required to give other money, time etc. Having consequences for your actions is not bullying.
They're bullying a public company for the actions of an employee who was acting as a private citizen. This isn't Chick Fil A which was, as a company, politically active. I also don't think that taking a man's livelihood away for political disagreement is a productive sort of political discourse. I believe that thinking it is is how we got Trump.
Sorry I am not buying it. By your logic continuing to fund said person's "livelihood" could be interpreted as supporting their actions and motivations. I don't go to SeaWorld or the Circus because of their unethical treatment of animals. Is that bullying? Is bullying only relegated to political motivations? How about not eating at Jimmy John's anymore because the piece of shit owner enjoys shooting endangered species? Is that bullying?
You are really reaching with this.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
[/quote]
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
PK - My comment was not a commentary on gay marriage. If I read the article correctly, the person in question made a small donation to a now unpopular cause 6 years before he was fired.
Going after someone for that (if that's all there is to the story), is a complete over reaction at the least especially given the time lapse on the action.
People should be free to have unpopular views in their private lives.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
[/quote]
Uh I'd argue that religious groups are 10 times more manipulative and destructive than "Hollywood." Maybe 20 times. Wait...100 times.
Hollywood doesn't get to play the trump card of "Our beliefs are the only path to salvation!" Hollywood can only nudge social attitudes through the prism of entertainment. You tell me which is more manipulative???
And I concur with the poster who said they experience plenty of "my way or the highway" from conservatives. And it makes sense. Many conservatives are primarily guided by religious beliefs, which many of them view as infallible. So it's hardly surprising they aren't the most flexible lot. Why be flexible or thoughtful or accomodating when you're already following what you believe is a guidebook to a perfect life? What could you possibly learn from a progressive person, or even a secular moderate?
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe the attitudes changed on gay marriage because Gen X and Millennials, all of whom are accepting of gay marriage, are becoming more influential. I didn't need Hollywood to change my mind, I just prefer not to have my friends and family discriminated against.
And liberal media, I'm so tired of hearing about the liberal media. If it is so liberal, why aren't more people squawking Bayda like they did Bengazi? This was on Reuters today and an American serviceman died because Trump wanted to be John Wayne. Screw that.
"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.
As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Uh I'd argue that religious groups are 10 times more manipulative and destructive than "Hollywood." Maybe 20 times. Wait...100 times.
Hollywood doesn't get to play the trump card of "Our beliefs are the only path to salvation!" Hollywood can only nudge social attitudes through the prism of entertainment. You tell me which is more manipulative???
And I concur with the poster who said they experience plenty of "my way or the highway" from conservatives. And it makes sense. Many conservatives are primarily guided by religious beliefs, which many of them view as infallible. So it's hardly surprising they aren't the most flexible lot. Why be flexible or thoughtful or accomodating when you're already following what you believe is a guidebook to a perfect life? What could you possibly learn from a progressive person, or even a secular moderate?
Nick, I think I love you. Thanks for saying this so succinctly. You should be a writer. I hear there is a step-by-step program for that.
*Also, I threw a quote tag in there just to get things lining up right. No idea if its in the right spot.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
who has preferential treatment before the law?
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
I absolutely didn't miss that part. I focused on your fallacies and doing my best to correct them. And AGAIN is isn't just the liberal media changing people's minds. Again I present exhibit "A," Donald Trump. Heck I could point to the 13% increase between 2008 and 2013 of global warming denialism. Meanwhile the case for global warming get's stronger every year.
I'm right there with you chastising the media. But don't pretend it's one sided.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
[/quote]
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
-
Uh I'd argue that religious groups are 10 times more manipulative and destructive than "Hollywood." Maybe 20 times. Wait...100 times.
You may be correct. I've never lived in a place where religious groups had any real influence outside of their little community. I can see how if you live in a place, say in the south or in Utah, where religion is more of an integral part of the overall community how they could have undue influence, but in New England and here in Chicagoland they only have influence if you want to be in the congregation that they influence.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
Yes please, gun control!! And offering refuge and asylum in the true nature of a universal marketplace!! Dude you are full of awesome ideas!
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe the attitudes changed on gay marriage because Gen X and Millennials, all of whom are accepting of gay marriage, are becoming more influential. I didn't need Hollywood to change my mind, I just prefer not to have my friends and family discriminated against.
And liberal media, I'm so tired of hearing about the liberal media. If it is so liberal, why aren't more people squawking Bayda like they did Bengazi? This was on Reuters today and an American serviceman died because Trump wanted to be John Wayne. Screw that.
"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.
As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."
Absolutely. That's a huge part of the attitude shift.
I read that story. Man sad to hear. Unfortunately I feel it's just the beginning of Trump sending people into harms way while blatantly ignoring intelligence. The guy left behind a wife and kids because of Trump's ego.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment. accommodation.
FTFY - I mean wheelchair bound war vets aren't the norm either. 30" doors and staircases should be the norm everywhere too, right?
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
[/quote]
So it's special treatment to give same sex couples seeking marriage extra leave time to travel to a place where same sex marriage is in fact legal? That makes zero sense. Of course heterosexual couples don't qualify, because heterosexual marriage is legal in EVERY state. And it's 7 days if you are stationed in the states. 10 days for International.
Special treatment to get around the inequality that still exist. That's a funny one.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
who has preferential treatment before the law?
Well to name a few: minorities, gays/lesbians, disabled, transgendered, and elderly. These classes are given preferential treatment before the law.
-
However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
Do you mean heterosexual married couples and tax law?
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
Yes please, gun control!! And offering refuge and asylum in the true nature of a universal marketplace!! Dude you are full of awesome ideas!
You think the 2016 election was bad for Democrats, go ahead and double down on gun control and see how 2018 works out for you.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
[/quote]
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
-
If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda?
I highly doubt that a Hollywood media blitz about the riveting issue of tax policy would find much traction. Or any of the topics you listed, frankly.
One large part of why you see so many LGBTQ characters on TV in the past 5-10 years is that 'gay drama' is extremely low hanging fruit for show writers who need to crank out scores of high drama material on short notice. Just have a character come out of the closet then, have another character 'reveal' themselves as a homophobe and BOOM!, milk the cycle of alienation and reconciliation for a few episodes.
Which is more likely? That the Hollywood-NWO combine is brainwashing the sheeple with a single minded campaign? Or that sleep deprived show writers are tripping over themselves to cash out a few quick scripts worth of topical drama? I suggest letting Occam's Razor guide you.
-
Well to name a few: minorities, gays/lesbians, disabled, transgendered, and elderly. These classes are given preferential treatment before the law.
Wow. I just can't even find a reply. Why do people choose to live wrapped in so much ire. This reads like an angry burrito. I suggest you make that your forum name going forward. "Angry Burrito" has a nice ring to it.
God Bless America. You guys need it.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
Yes please, gun control!! And offering refuge and asylum in the true nature of a universal marketplace!! Dude you are full of awesome ideas!
You think the 2016 election was bad for Democrats, go ahead and double down on gun control and see how 2018 works out for you.
Election worked out great for me. I'm super happy with Trudeau.
(Hint: When someone has a beaver wrapped in a maple leaf for their avatar, there's a good chance they didn't vote in your election)
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
[/quote]
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
-
If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda?
I highly doubt that a Hollywood media blitz about the riveting issue of tax policy would find much traction. Or any of the topics you listed, frankly.
One large part of why you see so many LGBTQ characters on TV in the past 5-10 years is that 'gay drama' is extremely low hanging fruit for show writers who need to crank out scores of high drama material on short notice. Just have a character come out of the closet then, have another character 'reveal' themselves as a homophobe and BOOM!, milk the cycle of alienation and reconciliation for a few episodes.
Which is more likely? That the Hollywood-NWO combine is brainwashing the sheeple with a single minded campaign? Or that sleep deprived show writers are tripping over themselves to cash out a few quick scripts worth of topical drama? I suggest letting Occam's Razor guide you.
I don't think anyone means Hollywood (and other liberal elites) pushing gay marriage via normalization on shows, they mean pushing it via public campaigns, boycotts, etc.
-
Guyssssssss. This has to be psyops. No one person can actually be that bad a quotes. He's trying to get into the part of your brain that needs order, and skullfuck you. Resist!
-
However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
Do you mean heterosexual married couples and tax law?
Yes all married couples get preferential treatment for tax purposes. Also people who choose to over populate the planet by creating countless progeny which they expect others to support.
Both are wrong.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
[/quote]
I agree but the right answer wasn't to give free leave to one group. The easy answer would have been all Soldiers are authorized 7 days free leave to get married in the U.S. and 10 if overseas.
That way it's fair for everyone.
-
Guyssssssss. This has to be psyops. No one person can actually be that bad a quotes. He's trying to get into the part of your brain that needs order, and skullfuck you. Resist!
Example above. Resist, comrades, resist.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
So the left is the way to go in all cases, and the right is wrong and evil? I mean the photo, of course. I just couldn't resist saying it that way :)
(http://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png?zoom=2&resize=730%2C547)
-
I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject.
You've repeatedly claimed that 'the media' has changed millions of peoples minds on issues. What evidence do you have that this was a greater influence than the many other contributing factors:
- the waning influence of religion in America
- the declassification of homosexuality as a mental health disease from the DSMIV
- the advocacy (and valid arguments) brought forth by gay rights groups
- etc.
democracy vs socialism
Are you aware that democracy and socialism are complementary and coexist in a numner of places in the world?
The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Who exactly is this shadowy figure you're claiming has control of 'the media', academia, and Hollywood?
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another.
I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
These statements don't seem to make sense when taken together. Giving heterosexual couples the right to marry (and all the associated benefits of that) without giving gay couples the same right is preferential treatment.
Either:
- You care about preferential treatment before the law, and therefore must support gay rights
- You do not care about preferential treatment before the law, and therefore don't care about gay rights
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
So the left is the way to go in all cases, and the right is wrong and evil? I mean the photo, of course. I just couldn't resist saying it that way :)
(http://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png?zoom=2&resize=730%2C547)
I always love when this picture is used as an example, given that it's a way for those three people to try to steal a product they haven't paid for and we're debating the most equitable way for them to steal it.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
I agree but the right answer wasn't to give free leave to one group. The easy answer would have been all Soldiers are authorized 7 days free leave to get married in the U.S. and 10 if overseas.
That way it's fair for everyone.
[/quote]
No it's not. The same sex couple has to utilize their time to travel, apply for a certificate, wait, get married, and travel back. The hetero couple only has to get married wherever they are. The hetero couple now gets special privilege of extra leave and can utilize the vast majority of it as they see fit while the same sex couple is still trying to get married.
How is this fair again? Go ahead, explain it. Feel free to explain how it's fair financially as well. This ought to be good.
-
I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject.
You've repeatedly claimed that 'the media' has changed millions of peoples minds on issues. What evidence do you have that this was a greater influence than the many other contributing factors:
- the waning influence of religion in America
- the declassification of homosexuality as a mental health disease from the DSMIV
- the advocacy (and valid arguments) brought forth by gay rights groups
- etc.
democracy vs socialism
Are you aware that democracy and socialism are complementary and coexist in a numner of places in the world?
The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Who exactly is this shadowy figure you're claiming has control of 'the media', academia, and Hollywood?
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another.
I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
These statements don't seem to make sense when taken together. Giving heterosexual couples the right to marry (and all the associated benefits of that) without giving gay couples the same right is preferential treatment.
Either:
- You care about preferential treatment before the law, and therefore must support gay rights
- You do not care about preferential treatment before the law, and therefore don't care about gay rights
I support gay marriage because it is equal. As far as gay rights, I support them having any right all other Americans have. However if in rights you mean special rights above and beyond what everyone else has, (example hate crime laws) then no.
-
I always love when this picture is used as an example, given that it's a way for those three people to try to steal a product they haven't paid for and we're debating the most equitable way for them to steal it.
Wow....just wow.
It never even occurred to me that they were "stealing" anything! How do you know this isn't a local game or a community event.
Your response says VOLUMES about your apparent biases.
-
However if in rights you mean special rights above and beyond what everyone else has, (example hate crime laws) then no.
What special rights are gay people demanding? Serious question.
-
I always love when this picture is used as an example, given that it's a way for those three people to try to steal a product they haven't paid for and we're debating the most equitable way for them to steal it.
Wow....just wow.
It never even occurred to me that they were "stealing" anything! How do you know this isn't a local game or a community event.
Your response says VOLUMES about your apparent biases.
To be fair . . . they do look like they could be Mexicans, and the President has already told us all what to think about those criminal rapists.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
I agree but the right answer wasn't to give free leave to one group. The easy answer would have been all Soldiers are authorized 7 days free leave to get married in the U.S. and 10 if overseas.
That way it's fair for everyone.
No it's not. The same sex couple has to utilize their time to travel, apply for a certificate, wait, get married, and travel back. The hetero couple only has to get married wherever they are. The hetero couple now gets special privilege of extra leave and can utilize the vast majority of it as they see fit while the same sex couple is still trying to get married.
How is this fair again? Go ahead, explain it. Feel free to explain how it's fair financially as well. This ought to be good.
[/quote]
Most Soldiers straight or gay don't get married on some military base 1000's of miles from home. They get married in their home towns so their families can attend without incurring a huge cost. What each Soldier wishes to do with the 10 days would be there business.
I always wondered what a CDR would do if a Soldier said I want my 10 days free leave I'm marrying a man; then he goes home and marries a women. Would the Command really want to push this? What would happen if the Soldier said, yeah when I got home I changed my mind and married a women instead. Would they then try to retroactively charge him leave? I think it is too slippery most CDRs' would probably look the other way.
-
I always love when this picture is used as an example, given that it's a way for those three people to try to steal a product they haven't paid for and we're debating the most equitable way for them to steal it.
Wow....just wow.
It never even occurred to me that they were "stealing" anything! How do you know this isn't a local game or a community event.
Your response says VOLUMES about your apparent biases.
To be fair . . . they do look like they could be Mexicans, and the President has already told us all what to think about those criminal rapists.
Well good thing there is a wall/fence there. ( ;
-
I always love when this picture is used as an example, given that it's a way for those three people to try to steal a product they haven't paid for and we're debating the most equitable way for them to steal it.
Wow....just wow.
It never even occurred to me that they were "stealing" anything! How do you know this isn't a local game or a community event.
Your response says VOLUMES about your apparent biases.
To be fair . . . they do look like they could be Mexicans, and the President has already told us all what to think about those criminal rapists.
Well good thing there is a wall/fence there. ( ;
I can guarantee you that the three guys behind the fence paid for it.
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
So the left is the way to go in all cases, and the right is wrong and evil? I mean the photo, of course. I just couldn't resist saying it that way :)
(http://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png?zoom=2&resize=730%2C547)
I always love when this picture is used as an example, given that it's a way for those three people to try to steal a product they haven't paid for and we're debating the most equitable way for them to steal it.
I was looking for the photo of restroom lines, men vs. women, at a football game, but I could not find it.
It could have been a very fair point regarding theft of the game. We are all good, however, since this is a picture of 2 public parks with no admission. In fact, there is an annual budget the park official has appropriated for crates, which are recycled from a nearby cannery. They get a great price, since the cannery would be paying to dispose of the crates anyway.
If this was somehow a private park, it still would not be theft, however, since the size of the fence would obviously not imply any visual rights need to be obtained due to the low height of the fence. The only argument could be the legal right to obstruct the view of short people, and that clearly isn't equal.
This was a great secondary exercise to our discussion regarding equality, after straying from a thread regarding how people voted and their comfort level with their vote so far.
Care to comment on the intent of my post, or the OP topic of the thread?
I'll just go ahead and say this was fun, until the thread was locked. Have a great day everyone. Talk to you soon on another thread.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
I agree but the right answer wasn't to give free leave to one group. The easy answer would have been all Soldiers are authorized 7 days free leave to get married in the U.S. and 10 if overseas.
That way it's fair for everyone.
No it's not. The same sex couple has to utilize their time to travel, apply for a certificate, wait, get married, and travel back. The hetero couple only has to get married wherever they are. The hetero couple now gets special privilege of extra leave and can utilize the vast majority of it as they see fit while the same sex couple is still trying to get married.
How is this fair again? Go ahead, explain it. Feel free to explain how it's fair financially as well. This ought to be good.
Most Soldiers straight or gay don't get married on some military base 1000's of miles from home. They get married in their home towns so their families can attend without incurring a huge cost. What each Soldier wishes to do with the 10 days would be there business.
I always wondered what a CDR would do if a Soldier said I want my 10 days free leave I'm marrying a man; then he goes home and marries a women. Would the Command really want to push this? What would happen if the Soldier said, yeah when I got home I changed my mind and married a women instead. Would they then try to retroactively charge him leave? I think it is too slippery most CDRs' would probably look the other way.
[/quote]
Great, so the same sex couple now cannot go back home and get married because their state doesn't allow gay marriage. So they spend their time travelling to a state that does allow gay marriage, incur the waiting times, get married, and travel back. They don't even get to see their family because they don't have time. Now you have just given hetero couples even more special treatment.
You're sort of going the opposite way of your claim. Care to reverse course or shall we continue on?
-
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
If that were the case Trump wouldn't be President and you wouldn't have millions of folks still running around yelling "ahhh Benghazi" or "Lock her up!" It works both ways. Don't pretend the liberal media has mind control over everyone.
Nice made up stats too. More alternative facts?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)
If you want to blame someone (or credit them) I would suggest first looking at the church. Same sex marriage has become much more acceptable. And if you were trying to chastise liberal media perhaps picking something other than gay marriage (ie equality) would drive home the point. You just credited them with shifting people's attitudes to be more accepting of others. Equality, just some wild, crazy agenda I suppose. Oh the horror!
For the record, I hate the media. One of the reasons I got rid of cable.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another. What I worry about is the ability to so rapidly change the populations views on a subject. If the media and Hollywood can do that with gay marriage what may they decide is their next pet project? gun control, democracy vs socialism, hunting, self defense, taxation levels, granting citizenship to illegals what's next on the agenda? The sheep will follow whatever you put on the TV; the world is your oyster when you control the media, academia, and Hollywood.
Let me make it clear again I have zero issue with gay marriage. However I think it is unconstitutional to give any group preferential treatment before the law.
who has preferential treatment before the law?
Well to name a few: minorities, gays/lesbians, disabled, transgendered, and elderly. These classes are given preferential treatment before the law.
How do you think these groups receive preferential treatment before the law? Please give specific examples. I'm very confused by your statements. I think all laws protecting minority citizens are in place to level the playing field. An example is equal education for disabled students. If a school offers bus service, they must offer it to all students regardless of ability. In some instances that might mean a bus is provided with a wheelchair lift for students that must use wheelchairs. That way all students are transported to school equally. Equal treatment does not mean students or other minority citizens are given special rights, it means they are given what is needed to be equal as their peers.
-
There's no option for it but I couldn't vote as I'm just a permanent resident of the USA and not a citizen yet.
I have applied for naturalization since.
If I had been able to vote then I would have voted for Clinton as the lesser of two evils. She won all the Massachusetts electoral college votes so my lack of a vote didn't make or break anything, anyway. I was really hoping that Bernie Sanders would make it to the democratic nomination but US politics is far further to the right than I will likely ever be.
-
However if in rights you mean special rights above and beyond what everyone else has, (example hate crime laws) then no.
What special rights are gay people demanding? Serious question.
Let's say a couple of ignorant rednecks wait out side of a gay bar to gay bash. After beating up some poor half drunk gay guy they get caught; they are going to get hit with a hate crime almost for sure which carries a heavy minimum.
Now if we have the same exact story but it isn't a gay bar and the guy happens to not be gay. Then it's assault and battery
Why is this gay guy entitled to greater justice under the law?
-
Great, so the same sex couple now cannot go back home and get married because their state doesn't allow gay marriage. So they spend their time travelling to a state that does allow gay marriage, incur the waiting times, get married, and travel back. They don't even get to see their family because they don't have time. Now you have just given hetero couples even more special treatment.
You're sort of going the opposite way of your claim. Care to reverse course or shall we continue on?
I care to continue...
In the weeks before their wedding, the gay couple had to arrange a license, find a hall and caterer and find a way for what supportive friends they had to attend. Much of this was arranged through third parties, but the legal bits had to be done in person. None of that time could be covered by anyone.
The straight couple had the option for a simple civil ceremony close to base followed by an elaborate wedding with family and friends back home. Where the straight couple took an afternoon to make the legal arrangements, the gay couple had to take at least 2 days and hope there were no bureaucratic delays.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
I agree but the right answer wasn't to give free leave to one group. The easy answer would have been all Soldiers are authorized 7 days free leave to get married in the U.S. and 10 if overseas.
That way it's fair for everyone.
No it's not. The same sex couple has to utilize their time to travel, apply for a certificate, wait, get married, and travel back. The hetero couple only has to get married wherever they are. The hetero couple now gets special privilege of extra leave and can utilize the vast majority of it as they see fit while the same sex couple is still trying to get married.
How is this fair again? Go ahead, explain it. Feel free to explain how it's fair financially as well. This ought to be good.
Most Soldiers straight or gay don't get married on some military base 1000's of miles from home. They get married in their home towns so their families can attend without incurring a huge cost. What each Soldier wishes to do with the 10 days would be there business.
I always wondered what a CDR would do if a Soldier said I want my 10 days free leave I'm marrying a man; then he goes home and marries a women. Would the Command really want to push this? What would happen if the Soldier said, yeah when I got home I changed my mind and married a women instead. Would they then try to retroactively charge him leave? I think it is too slippery most CDRs' would probably look the other way.
Great, so the same sex couple now cannot go back home and get married because their state doesn't allow gay marriage. So they spend their time travelling to a state that does allow gay marriage, incur the waiting times, get married, and travel back. They don't even get to see their family because they don't have time. Now you have just given hetero couples even more special treatment.
You're sort of going the opposite way of your claim. Care to reverse course or shall we continue on?
[/quote]
It's equal leave not equal outcome. You are also making the assumption the same sex couple is in a state that doesn't allow for marriage.
-
However if in rights you mean special rights above and beyond what everyone else has, (example hate crime laws) then no.
What special rights are gay people demanding? Serious question.
Let's say a couple of ignorant rednecks wait out side of a gay bar to gay bash. After beating up some poor half drunk gay guy they get caught; they are going to get hit with a hate crime almost for sure which carries a heavy minimum.
Now if we have the same exact story but it isn't a gay bar and the guy happens to not be gay. Then it's assault and battery
Why is this gay guy entitled to greater justice under the law?
The gay person and straight person would receive equal protection against getting jumped. However, the crime perpetrated is actually different and the consequences should be different. It is a fundamentally different thing to be specifically targeted because of being of a specific creed, race, orientation, etc. In addition to the physical battery, it is an implicit denial of the concept of people being treated equally. Why should racist/biased assholes be normalized?
-
However if in rights you mean special rights above and beyond what everyone else has, (example hate crime laws) then no.
What special rights are gay people demanding? Serious question.
Let's say a couple of ignorant rednecks wait out side of a gay bar to gay bash. After beating up some poor half drunk gay guy they get caught; they are going to get hit with a hate crime almost for sure which carries a heavy minimum.
Now if we have the same exact story but it isn't a gay bar and the guy happens to not be gay. Then it's assault and battery
Why is this gay guy entitled to greater justice under the law?
That's not justice, that's protection. And fringe groups, minorities, etc. need that protection because of prejudices etc. against them. The gay is only protected by hate laws if he is beat up for being gay. If he's beat up because he skimped on paying his share of the tab, its simple assault/battery.
Incidentally, that same protection is afforded to you. If a Chinese street gang picks you off as a round-eye and puts some sick Ninja moves on you for being white - the same protection is afforded.
The charge is connected to the motive, not the crime.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
I agree but the right answer wasn't to give free leave to one group. The easy answer would have been all Soldiers are authorized 7 days free leave to get married in the U.S. and 10 if overseas.
That way it's fair for everyone.
No it's not. The same sex couple has to utilize their time to travel, apply for a certificate, wait, get married, and travel back. The hetero couple only has to get married wherever they are. The hetero couple now gets special privilege of extra leave and can utilize the vast majority of it as they see fit while the same sex couple is still trying to get married.
How is this fair again? Go ahead, explain it. Feel free to explain how it's fair financially as well. This ought to be good.
Most Soldiers straight or gay don't get married on some military base 1000's of miles from home. They get married in their home towns so their families can attend without incurring a huge cost. What each Soldier wishes to do with the 10 days would be there business.
I always wondered what a CDR would do if a Soldier said I want my 10 days free leave I'm marrying a man; then he goes home and marries a women. Would the Command really want to push this? What would happen if the Soldier said, yeah when I got home I changed my mind and married a women instead. Would they then try to retroactively charge him leave? I think it is too slippery most CDRs' would probably look the other way.
Great, so the same sex couple now cannot go back home and get married because their state doesn't allow gay marriage. So they spend their time travelling to a state that does allow gay marriage, incur the waiting times, get married, and travel back. They don't even get to see their family because they don't have time. Now you have just given hetero couples even more special treatment.
You're sort of going the opposite way of your claim. Care to reverse course or shall we continue on?
It's equal leave not equal outcome. You are also making the assumption the same sex couple is in a state that doesn't allow for marriage.
Here, Sunshine. I fixed the quotes for you. So all this raving can be properly attributed.
Here is a link to the memo (https://www.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/321863.pdf), promulgating the non-chargeable leave to same-sex couples getting hitched. It applies only to Soliders who's duty station is located more than 100 miles from a U.S. state that allows gay marriage. Thus BeginnerStache is correct.
Research, it works bitches.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
He got fired in 2014 for a donation made in 2008? That's insane if that's all he did (ie make a donation to a now unpopular cause). I think most rationale people would agree that views on gay marriage have evolved massively over the last 5 to 10 years.
This is one of the reasons why I choose to have a plan B of leaving. I would say that these views on gay marriage didn't evolve they were easily manipulated by media and Hollywood. All of a sudden out of no where on almost every show they started having quasi normal acting same sex couples and pretending like it was normal. On many shows the frequency of these couples made it appear as if 20-30% of couples were same sex.
In all honesty I don't care about gay marriage at all one way or another. I think gays should have the opportunity to be just as miserable as all us hetero married people. That being said how rapidly the media was able to shift the view of the entire nation from about 70% against to 70% for scared the crap out of me.
That shows how easy our society is to manipulate and sway from any of their view points. Because the media is dominated and controlled by the left they can at will push any wild agenda they want.
That is very scary to me.
Gay couples are completely normal and have been around since the dawn of time. I, personally, am astounded that it has taken us so long to realize this.
By normal I mean mathematically common, I am not making a positive or negative value judgment I am saying they are not the norm. Either are people who are seven foot tall; therefore I don't think we should mandate that all doorways be raised in height to eight feet. I don't think people over seven feet tall should be a protected class requiring special rules to protect their rights.
As an example because some states don't allow same sex marriage same sex couples are granted 10 days free leave to go get married in the Army. This is an entitlement not given to heterosexual couples. Again I am not into giving ANY group special treatment.
Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Same sex marriage is not legal in every state and certainly not legal in many countries. The "extra" leave is granted so couples can travel to where same sex marriage is legal. And it's 7 days within the continental US and 10 days if you are stationed Internationally.
That is correct; there is a name when you give one group a right that others don't have. It is called preferential treatment and I am against it at all times
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
I agree but the right answer wasn't to give free leave to one group. The easy answer would have been all Soldiers are authorized 7 days free leave to get married in the U.S. and 10 if overseas.
That way it's fair for everyone.
No it's not. The same sex couple has to utilize their time to travel, apply for a certificate, wait, get married, and travel back. The hetero couple only has to get married wherever they are. The hetero couple now gets special privilege of extra leave and can utilize the vast majority of it as they see fit while the same sex couple is still trying to get married.
How is this fair again? Go ahead, explain it. Feel free to explain how it's fair financially as well. This ought to be good.
Most Soldiers straight or gay don't get married on some military base 1000's of miles from home. They get married in their home towns so their families can attend without incurring a huge cost. What each Soldier wishes to do with the 10 days would be there business.
I always wondered what a CDR would do if a Soldier said I want my 10 days free leave I'm marrying a man; then he goes home and marries a women. Would the Command really want to push this? What would happen if the Soldier said, yeah when I got home I changed my mind and married a women instead. Would they then try to retroactively charge him leave? I think it is too slippery most CDRs' would probably look the other way.
Great, so the same sex couple now cannot go back home and get married because their state doesn't allow gay marriage. So they spend their time travelling to a state that does allow gay marriage, incur the waiting times, get married, and travel back. They don't even get to see their family because they don't have time. Now you have just given hetero couples even more special treatment.
You're sort of going the opposite way of your claim. Care to reverse course or shall we continue on?
It's equal leave not equal outcome. You are also making the assumption the same sex couple is in a state that doesn't allow for marriage.
[/quote]
A same sex couple stationed in a state that allows same sex marriage does not qualify for the leave. You should really get to know your own military laws as a vet. In fact leave is based on travel, time for paperwork, etc. Not everyone gets 7 or 10 days. So a hetero couple wanting to get married would essentially NEVER qualify for the leave.
Edit: Link above (thanks).
Miliitary Directive for Same sex Marriage: "Soldiers who are part of a same-sex couple and desire to get married will be granted administrative leave that allows them to travel to the "nearest state (or the District of Columbia) or jurisdiction that allows the couple to get married. Soldiers not stationed in a state or jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal, or who are more than 100 miles from such a state, are entitled to as much as two days of administrative leave for travel, if they live in the continental United States; or as much as five days of administrative leave for travel if they live outside the continental United States. Those Soldiers are also entitled to administrative leave for adherence to the "waiting period" required by those states in advance of a marriage."
And.......
"Soldiers stationed in states like California, Washington, Maryland, or New York are entitled to no administrative leave at all. Same-sex marriages are legal in those states. Soldiers assigned to locations that are less than 100 miles from such a jurisdiction will also not be entitled to the administrative leave."
-
I wonder what happens with couples who are part of a special religion/cult that requires their marriage be performed at a defined place - Mormons need to travel to a temple, for instance.
Do the American Forces allow an extended leave for that as well? Not poking the bear, but sincerely curious.
-
I wonder what happens with couples who are part of a special religion/cult that requires their marriage be performed at a defined place - Mormons need to travel to a temple, for instance.
Do the American Forces allow an extended leave for that as well? Not poking the bear, but sincerely curious.
That's a valid question. I'm not sure it would qualify under any sort of marriage leave since it is religious based. And Mormons are free to be married however they chose, including in a conventional ceremony at a church or in Vegas by Elvis.
-
I wonder what happens with couples who are part of a special religion/cult that requires their marriage be performed at a defined place - Mormons need to travel to a temple, for instance.
Do the American Forces allow an extended leave for that as well? Not poking the bear, but sincerely curious.
Officially there's no specific 'marriage leave'. Service members just take regular leave, which counts against their 30 days. That being had, if on of my sailors was getting married, I'd cobble together as much liberty and permissive leave as I possibly could. It's at the CO's discretion. And since we know CO's drool, XO's rule, it's really at the XO's level.
-
Really don't understand what is hard to get about the policy. You normally never get free leave because you can always go down to the courthouse on lunch break and get married. For this narrow group of people, that was not an option, they could not legally get married at the local courthouse (in some places). To make it equitable, they are given the time to travel to a place where they can get married at the local courthouse.
It is no different IMO than being allowed a little more time to run your PRT test when at elevation. You are not getting special treatment, just taking into account the facts of the situation may have as effect.
-
I was really hoping that Bernie Sanders would make it to the democratic nomination but US politics is far further to the right than I will likely ever be.
+1
Really don't understand what is hard to get about the policy. You normally never get free leave because you can always go down to the courthouse on lunch break and get married. For this narrow group of people, that was not an option, they could not legally get married at the local courthouse (in some places). To make it equitable, they are given the time to travel to a place where they can get married at the local courthouse.
It is no different IMO than being allowed a little more time to run your PRT test when at elevation. You are not getting special treatment, just taking into account the facts of the situation may have as effect.
Some people will just never truly get this idea.
-
I wonder what happens with couples who are part of a special religion/cult that requires their marriage be performed at a defined place - Mormons need to travel to a temple, for instance.
Do the American Forces allow an extended leave for that as well? Not poking the bear, but sincerely curious.
That's a valid question. I'm not sure it would qualify under any sort of marriage leave since it is religious based. And Mormons are free to be married however they chose, including in a conventional ceremony at a church or in Vegas by Elvis.
True - I was talking about the actual sealing ceremony. Some will reject a civil ceremony preferring the sealing.
-
Really don't understand what is hard to get about the policy. You normally never get free leave because you can always go down to the courthouse on lunch break and get married. For this narrow group of people, that was not an option, they could not legally get married at the local courthouse (in some places). To make it equitable, they are given the time to travel to a place where they can get married at the local courthouse.
It is no different IMO than being allowed a little more time to run your PRT test when at elevation. You are not getting special treatment, just taking into account the facts of the situation may have as effect.
I agree. The issue is not with the military, it is with states that won't perform gay marriage. Since the military can not change those laws, they are ensuring their employees fair opportunity to marry. (Fair, not equal).
-
I'm confused. Is this lengthy debate about military leave re states that don't allow gay marriage - is this a debate about how things used to be? The military memo Sailor Sam linked above is from 2013. In 2015 the SC legalized gay marriage in the Obergefell case.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/269770341/Supreme-Court-Decision-Making-Gay-Marriage-is-Legal-in-All-50-States (https://www.scribd.com/doc/269770341/Supreme-Court-Decision-Making-Gay-Marriage-is-Legal-in-All-50-States)
I kinda don't get it unless the point was to have a philosophical debate, not a debate about the current facts on the ground. (?)
-
We're debating over how things used to be.
Though, as far as I know the 2013 memo is still in place, and just doesn't apply to states any longer. Much like the guidance that requires Sailors to report losing their paybook within 24 hours. No more paybooks; regulation still in place.
I suppose someone could have pointed out Obergefell functionally negated the memo, but eh, I'm not sure the original protester would have cared.
-
I voted for Clinton, but I'm not exactly happy with how things turned out! I suppose your poll meant that I voted for Clinton and would do the same today.
I would. And my vote would be as irrelevant today as it was in November, because I live in a majority-Republican state. Despite the fact that people in this state claimed to like Trump because he was going to change things and drain the swamp, our two Senators have been serving in Congress since 1980 and 1996. They are happily rubber-stamping everything he wants to do, as they have done with every other Republican president since they started getting the chance to do so.
I'm not sure I understand the concept of voting for a "change" president and yet being fine with the same "swamp" representatives decade after decade. If Trump keeps one promise, I hope it's that he manages to get some term limits into Congress - but I doubt it'll happen.
I'm currently taking a break from Facebook. I've found a lot of what is happening to be depressing. As an immigrant, the most recent events hit me emotionally on a personal level. Happily, the permanent resident issue has been re-thought, and judicial stays issued against deportations, but I was disheartened by how many people thought it was ok to a) violate the rights of legal permanent residents, and b) deport people without due process.
I saw a lot of comments about how immigrants are low quality people, "steal" jobs, don't belong in the USA, etc. More than one person told me, "Well, we don't mean your kind of immigrant." (by which I suppose they mean the white kind?)
When I became a permanent resident and then a citizen, I had to pass a health screening, prove that my residency was legitimate, prove my marriage was real, take a civics exam, pass a background check, do several interviews, present my tax returns, and more than once answer questions about whether I've ever been a Nazi or drink excessively, list every instance I'd ever entered and left the USA, who I've been married to, what schools I attended or jobs I've had, whether I've engaged in voting fraud, failed to pay child support, etc etc etc.
In the list of "bad" questions that can result in a citizenship application being denied is "Have you ever been excluded from the United States?" Kinda sucks for all those people that they now have to answer "Yes" because of a thoughtless executive order. Oh well, not our problem, right?
I am forced to wonder what it is that some of these non-immigrants have done lately to show that they're an asset to this country.
I saw someone assert that the Constitution only applies to citizens. I just went to bed in the middle of the afternoon after that. That question was covered in my citizenship process, too.
-
I voted Clinton, and I'm happy about it.
That being said, I wasn't thrilled with Clinton. I did not like her, and I did not trust her. I loved Bernie. He was my guy. In my 25 years as an adult, I had NEVER given money to ANY political campaign. I donated to Bernie's campaign numerous times (small amounts).
That being said (again!), when it came down to Trump versus Clinton, I didn't feel I had a choice. She was at least an adult and very knowledgeable about a wide variety of issues.
I truly think Trump is mentally unstable, or at the very least, does not have the temperment to be president. He doesn't have restraint or diplomacy or any nuance at all. I disagree with Pence on ALMOST EVERYTHING but I would still sleep far better with Pence driving the car.
I did not protest yet (although many of my friends did!) I am waiting for his inevitable moves against the LGBT community and his moves in favor of Christians being able to discriminate against others. Oh I'll be out there protesting then, either with my body or my $ or both. The ACLU is going to have a banner fund-raising year.
I have identical views. I settled for Clinton, even though I loved Bernie's ideology and energy! I do believe, like Bernie that very few people have too much money & power in government which has led to a rapid decline in the middle class. The gap is getting wider and wider, while we fight about hot button issues like abortion, transgender rights, immigration, the war against Christmas, taking away guns, climate change and LGBTQ rights. I hate that the GOP constantly uses these issues to stir emotions to receive votes based on fear. And Fox sensationalizes or just makes up almost anything they want. We are busy fighting over these issues where very little compromise can exist anyway. Yes I have views on all those issues and they are really important topics, but while we are busy looking at the fireworks over the White House congress is using this time to introduce all kinds of bills that most American's don't agree with:
H.R. 193 American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017: Withdraws the US from the United Nations.
H.R. 586 Sanctity of Human Life Act: each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.
H.R. 621: The Secretary of the Interior to sell Federal Lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.
H.R. 7: No taxpayer funding for abortion and insurance companies who do business with the federal government cannot fund abortions (which is just about every insurance company that exists).
H.R. 2802: Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman and sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. (There goes protections for the LGBTQ community. Lets people and businesses discriminate or not serve due to sexual orientation)
On top of these bills they are introducing lots of bills that dismantle environmental protections, one even dissolving law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Looks like the EPA is getting dismantled also in a new bill to be introduced soon.
I'm just so sad thinking about the world that the current congress is carving out for our country right now. I feel for Federal workers whom have spent their careers dedicated to the service of others. I feel for our environment. I remember what it was like growing up in Southern California before any smog regulations. It wasn't that different from China cities during the summer. I remember burning eyes and lungs. I feel for our LGBTQ community.
^^^This so much! I voted Clinton and preferred her over Bernie Sanders but not thrilled with either. Even Joking Joe Biden would have been a better choice IMHO. If he had run would we still have Trump? Im not sure but lots of people did not like Clinton .
I am a big fan of Biden. I think he would have won and it would not have been close.
-
^^^This so much! I voted Clinton and preferred her over Bernie Sanders but not thrilled with either. Even Joking Joe Biden would have been a better choice IMHO. If he had run would we still have Trump? Im not sure but lots of people did not like Clinton .
I am a big fan of Biden. I think he would have won and it would not have been close.
I think Biden's goofy, but he would have beat Trump.
-
^^^This so much! I voted Clinton and preferred her over Bernie Sanders but not thrilled with either. Even Joking Joe Biden would have been a better choice IMHO. If he had run would we still have Trump? Im not sure but lots of people did not like Clinton .
I am a big fan of Biden. I think he would have won and it would not have been close.
I think Biden's goofy, but he would have beat Trump.
[/quote]
I never said he wasn't goofy. I'm goofy. That's one of the things I like about him.
-
I would've happily voted for Uncle Joe. Don't agree with him on much, but I believe he's a good guy.
-
What is with the bad quotes in this thread!!!
-
Thanks Biden!
-
What is with the bad quotes in this thread!!!
It's Obama's fault!
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
-
Joe Biden's a good guy and respected around the globe.
Anyone else think "SuperMex" is one big homophobe?
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
-
I don't give a care about gay marriage one way or another.
I support gay marriage because it is equal.
At least I'm beginning to see why you were such a fan of Trump.
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
He has floated a 2020 run and is staying active. He has said the death of his son was too recent for him to focus on the race, and he knew based on how the primaries were going that if he got on a debate state and someone started baiting him with "you are running because of your son" or "you shouldn't run because you should be mourning your son.", he would likely walk across the stage and beat the ever loving **** out of them. Which would be awesome TV, but probably not good for election chances.
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
He has floated a 2020 run and is staying active. He has said the death of his son was too recent for him to focus on the race, and he knew based on how the primaries were going that if he got on a debate state and someone started baiting him with "you are running because of your son" or "you shouldn't run because you should be mourning your son.", he would likely walk across the stage and beat the ever loving **** out of them. Which would be awesome TV, but probably not good for election chances.
Eh, I think I'd donate some money to his legal fees if he did that. And I'd still vote for him. I like Biden because he calls the GOP out on their lying. And I do think he would have won because of that. Clinton could not do the same because everyone would have called her a bitch for it.
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
He has floated a 2020 run and is staying active. He has said the death of his son was too recent for him to focus on the race, and he knew based on how the primaries were going that if he got on a debate state and someone started baiting him with "you are running because of your son" or "you shouldn't run because you should be mourning your son.", he would likely walk across the stage and beat the ever loving **** out of them. Which would be awesome TV, but probably not good for election chances.
Eh, I think I'd donate some money to his legal fees if he did that. And I'd still vote for him. I like Biden because he calls the GOP out on their lying. And I do think he would have won because of that. Clinton could not do the same because everyone would have called her a bitch for it.
Pretty sure either Biden or Sanders would have won, but he had legit concerns at the time. I expect Biden, Booker and or Franken to run in 2020.
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
He has floated a 2020 run and is staying active. He has said the death of his son was too recent for him to focus on the race, and he knew based on how the primaries were going that if he got on a debate state and someone started baiting him with "you are running because of your son" or "you shouldn't run because you should be mourning your son.", he would likely walk across the stage and beat the ever loving **** out of them. Which would be awesome TV, but probably not good for election chances.
If he did that he'd probably win unanimously.
-
I would've happily voted for Uncle Joe. Don't agree with him on much, but I believe he's a good guy.
Yeah, I wish he would have run in retrospect. I do worry about his age for 2020.
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
He has floated a 2020 run and is staying active. He has said the death of his son was too recent for him to focus on the race, and he knew based on how the primaries were going that if he got on a debate state and someone started baiting him with "you are running because of your son" or "you shouldn't run because you should be mourning your son.", he would likely walk across the stage and beat the ever loving **** out of them. Which would be awesome TV, but probably not good for election chances.
I guess time will tell. I am not sure I can vote for a 78 year old. I still very much like and respect him, but being 82, or 86 and being prez? I just don't know.
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
He has floated a 2020 run and is staying active. He has said the death of his son was too recent for him to focus on the race, and he knew based on how the primaries were going that if he got on a debate state and someone started baiting him with "you are running because of your son" or "you shouldn't run because you should be mourning your son.", he would likely walk across the stage and beat the ever loving **** out of them. Which would be awesome TV, but probably not good for election chances.
I guess time will tell. I am not sure I can vote for a 78 year old. I still very much like and respect him, but being 82, or 86 and being prez? I just don't know.
against Trump or Pence? Absolutely. Just need to pick a good VP.
-
Yeah, I could get behind something like Biden/Booker or Biden/Gillibrand.
-
Yeah, I could get behind something like Biden/Booker or Biden/Gillibrand.
I am really into Franken right now. He has been smart, worked very hard for his constituents and isn't afraid to go toe to toe with the Republicans. All great VP characteristics.
-
Yeah, I could get behind something like Biden/Booker or Biden/Gillibrand.
I am really into Franken right now. He has been smart, worked very hard for his constituents and isn't afraid to go toe to toe with the Republicans. All great VP characteristics.
And he's good enough, and smart enough, and - gosh darnit- people like him.
(but yes, he has proven himself a worthy advocate)
-
Yeah, I could get behind something like Biden/Booker or Biden/Gillibrand.
I am really into Franken right now. He has been smart, worked very hard for his constituents and isn't afraid to go toe to toe with the Republicans. All great VP characteristics.
I think Franken would make an awesome VP, maybe not with Biden though. I would have voted for Biden enthusiastically last year. But in order to win in 2020 I think we need a young charismatic front runner in the likes of JFK, Bill Clinton or Obama. Someone to fire up the independents.
-
OK so I'm going to place the blame for a Trump win squarely on Joe Biden's shoulders for refusing to run. Bad Joe bad!
I bet he would have ran if he could. Losing a wife and daughter, followed by a son some decades later. Wow. I can understand why he didn't have it in him to run. I would not wish that agony on my worst enemy.
I can imagine that being VP was enough of a taste of the crap a president has to deal with on a daily basis that he may have been turned off of the job.
He has floated a 2020 run and is staying active. He has said the death of his son was too recent for him to focus on the race, and he knew based on how the primaries were going that if he got on a debate state and someone started baiting him with "you are running because of your son" or "you shouldn't run because you should be mourning your son.", he would likely walk across the stage and beat the ever loving **** out of them. Which would be awesome TV, but probably not good for election chances.
I guess time will tell. I am not sure I can vote for a 78 year old. I still very much like and respect him, but being 82, or 86 and being prez? I just don't know.
against Trump or Pence? Absolutely. Just need to pick a good VP.
My comment was specifically with regard to Biden. He would be 78 in 2020. Anyone in their 70's is getting up there for the roll of president of the free world, and would factor into my decision. This past election, Trump and Clinton were a wash (69 and 70). Not a litmus test for me, just a factor.
I think we the people dropped the ball a little bit with Reagan and we got lucky. In hindsight, his mental state certainly was in question toward the end of his second term. He could have made some disastrous decisions. Reagan was a few days from 70 when he first became president. Trump is right there. For a second term for Trump, age would definitely be a factor for me. Could you imagine the second term of Reagan combined with Trump of today?
While I disagree with much of what Trump says, I completely discount anyone's claims regarding his mental state today. I do not see that as a fair criticism of his policies or actions, and does nothing to try to get the public to change their mind about him. I hope I can always say that for his entire presidency.
-
I don't feel like arguing the point. But the "my way or the highway" sentiment of liberals right now IS part of the sentiment that got Trump elected. Bicker over whether or not it's bullying or not, I think liberals are now in the practice of shouting down and demonizing all dissent or disagreement in such a scorched earth way that I don't think does them any favors.
Headed home soon, feel free to argue more but I'm not engaging.
Maybe this is regional but aren't both parties guilty of "my way or the highway"? Whoever is in power sets the rules just as Trump is reversing everything Obama accomplished - no matter what the liberals think.
I'm in a very red state (in more ways than one). Maybe the perception is different in a liberal state?
-
I don't feel like arguing the point. But the "my way or the highway" sentiment of liberals right now IS part of the sentiment that got Trump elected. Bicker over whether or not it's bullying or not, I think liberals are now in the practice of shouting down and demonizing all dissent or disagreement in such a scorched earth way that I don't think does them any favors.
Headed home soon, feel free to argue more but I'm not engaging.
Maybe this is regional but aren't both parties guilty of "my way or the highway"? Whoever is in power sets the rules just as Trump is reversing everything Obama accomplished - no matter what the liberals think.
I'm in a very red state (in more ways than one). Maybe the perception is different in a liberal state?
I'm from the same state as Chris22.
My view: Nationally, both Democrats and Republicans have had a "my way or the highway" mentality. Dems force a horrible healthcare bill down the throats of everyone, they can't even get a single republican vote. Repubs refuse to vote on Supreme Court. Its been going both ways. Now we're getting it again, but the Repubs have all the power.
On the state level, I'm so pissed off at the Democrats (actually, just THE Democrat) that I will likely "blindly" vote a straight republican ticket in every local and state election until THE Democrat is gone. The Republicans here have tried to compromise with the Democrats; the Democrats have been unwilling to compromise and it is going to ruin our state. It is hard to not let that leak into a national viewpoint for me.
-
I don't feel like arguing the point. But the "my way or the highway" sentiment of liberals right now IS part of the sentiment that got Trump elected. Bicker over whether or not it's bullying or not, I think liberals are now in the practice of shouting down and demonizing all dissent or disagreement in such a scorched earth way that I don't think does them any favors.
Headed home soon, feel free to argue more but I'm not engaging.
Maybe this is regional but aren't both parties guilty of "my way or the highway"? Whoever is in power sets the rules just as Trump is reversing everything Obama accomplished - no matter what the liberals think.
I'm in a very red state (in more ways than one). Maybe the perception is different in a liberal state?
I'm from the same state as Chris22.
My view: Nationally, both Democrats and Republicans have had a "my way or the highway" mentality. Dems force a horrible healthcare bill down the throats of everyone, they can't even get a single republican vote. Repubs refuse to vote on Supreme Court. Its been going both ways. Now we're getting it again, but the Repubs have all the power.
Lets take a stroll down memory lane shall we:
Prior to submission:
1.The first summit about the need for national health care was held at the White House in early 2009.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/jan-june09/healthcare_03-05.html Citizens from several walks of life came together including health care workers, law makers, lobbyists, physicians and many more groups!
2.Between March/2009 and May/2009 there were no less than 17 different meetings between members of Congress discussing how the Affordable Care Act should look. (http://www.finance.senate.gov/issue/?id=32be19bd-491e-4192-812f-f65215c1ba65 )
3.During the summer of 2009 a bi-partisan committee made up of three Democrats and three Republicans met 31 times for a period of over 60 hours to develop what would ultimately become the Affordable Care Act. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html)
In committee:
1.In July, 2009 The Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed The Affordable Health Choices Act. This bill contained more than 160 amendments all added by the Republican members of the committee and all were approved. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html) In fact, this bill remained in committee for over a month. The 160 amendments to the bill will live in infamy as a bill that was “marked up” or changed by amendments as one of the largest changes in history.
2.Between July and December 2009 the bill was referred to several committees and a great deal of negotiation and compromise between the two parties continued during these meetings.
3.Each committee makes a decision about whether to table the bill, which means the bill is basically dead, or they can pass the bill, or they can hold hearings and further discuss the bill. The bill which would ultimately become the Affordable Care Act was passed by all the committees that reviewed it in the House and the Senate and sent to the full House and Senate for a vote.
There was significant negotiation on the ACA with republican ideas being incorporated into the bill. The fact that none voted for final passage was a political stunt. There was never any my way or highway.
Point of Order. Obama came into the presidency hoping to bridge the divide and work with the Republicans. What was McConnell's first statement? "Our primary goal is to make him a one-term president" and for 8 years took every legally allowed step to obstruct and REFUSE to work with the Ds.
-
Yep me too. Which is why gay marriage bans still in place in some states is utterly ridiculous. And same sex couples having to travel to get married proves preferential treatment for hetero couples still exist. Of course if they refused them extra time to travel it just reinforces the preference towards heterosexual couples.
Keep in mind that some of the same states that ban same-sex marriage were also the last states to ban interracial marriage. And going forward focusing so much ire on gay marriage will seem just as stupid as racism does today.
What absolutely blows my mind is the religious element in all these types of topics. Jesus was the original hippie. The guy loved everyone and accepted everyone. I can't help but think Jesus would have had an attitude of "live and let live". Love each other no matter what kind of wrapper we are born with (gender, ethnicity) - and take care of each other.
-
Who exactly is this shadowy figure you're claiming has control of 'the media', academia, and Hollywood?
Mr. or Ms. Enlightenment...
Education is important.
-
I don't feel like arguing the point. But the "my way or the highway" sentiment of liberals right now IS part of the sentiment that got Trump elected. Bicker over whether or not it's bullying or not, I think liberals are now in the practice of shouting down and demonizing all dissent or disagreement in such a scorched earth way that I don't think does them any favors.
Headed home soon, feel free to argue more but I'm not engaging.
Maybe this is regional but aren't both parties guilty of "my way or the highway"? Whoever is in power sets the rules just as Trump is reversing everything Obama accomplished - no matter what the liberals think.
I'm in a very red state (in more ways than one). Maybe the perception is different in a liberal state?
I'm from the same state as Chris22.
My view: Nationally, both Democrats and Republicans have had a "my way or the highway" mentality. Dems force a horrible healthcare bill down the throats of everyone, they can't even get a single republican vote. Repubs refuse to vote on Supreme Court. Its been going both ways. Now we're getting it again, but the Repubs have all the power.
There was significant negotiation on the ACA with republican ideas being incorporated into the bill. The fact that none voted for final passage was a political stunt. There was never any my way or highway.
Point of Order. Obama came into the presidency hoping to bridge the divide and work with the Republicans. What was McConnell's first statement? "Our primary goal is to make him a one-term president" and for 8 years took every legally allowed step to obstruct and REFUSE to work with the Ds.
Your opinion. I think it was not a political stunt--I think it was voting no on a very bad act--unless, of course, it was designed to break the system, in which case it was great.
I do agree with your McConnell statement though. He needs to leave, now more than ever.
-
Your opinion. I think it was not a political stunt--I think it was voting no on a very bad act--unless, of course, it was designed to break the system, in which case it was great.
I do agree with your McConnell statement though. He needs to leave, now more than ever.
How is a highly detailed list of resources proving a massive bipartisan effort an "opinion"? o.O
Now claiming it is a "very bad act" that "was designed to break the system" on the other hand...
-
Your opinion. I think it was not a political stunt--I think it was voting no on a very bad act--unless, of course, it was designed to break the system, in which case it was great.
I do agree with your McConnell statement though. He needs to leave, now more than ever.
How is a highly detailed list of resources proving a massive bipartisan effort an "opinion"? o.O
I think that no republicans voting for it described as a political stunt was an opinion. I've proposed things at work, worked hard on them, offered my suggestions, and then "voted" against them even though they were my idea because they weren't right. Just because there was bipartisan effort doesn't mean it was good or fair.
I think it was a horrible act and wrote to my representatives (Dem and Rep) to vote against it. It had some excellent parts to it, for sure, but overall it was horrible in my opinion (although very good for me--but I didn't need any help). And I am not, nor was I then, against universal healthcare. I was just against ACA.
-
Your opinion. I think it was not a political stunt--I think it was voting no on a very bad act--unless, of course, it was designed to break the system, in which case it was great.
I do agree with your McConnell statement though. He needs to leave, now more than ever.
How is a highly detailed list of resources proving a massive bipartisan effort an "opinion"? o.O
I think that no republicans voting for it described as a political stunt was an opinion. I've proposed things at work, worked hard on them, offered my suggestions, and then "voted" against them even though they were my idea because they weren't right. Just because there was bipartisan effort doesn't mean it was good or fair.
I think it was a horrible act and wrote to my representatives (Dem and Rep) to vote against it. It had some excellent parts to it, for sure, but overall it was horrible in my opinion (although very good for me--but I didn't need any help). And I am not, nor was I then, against universal healthcare. I was just against ACA.
Right? If my input were asked about the ACA (as a theoretical congressperson) I probably would have had all sorts of ideas. I might have even had one good enough to amend the bill. Doesn't mean that the bill was good over all, or that 150 of the other amendments made by other persons were actually making the bill better, in my hypothetical eyes.
-
Perhaps you two are correct, but all I see in your posts is speculation, not actual proof of anything. Also, we know the ACA is a GOP originated idea in the first place, which immediately makes your conclusions suspect, absent any additional data points.
-
Perhaps you two are correct, but all I see in your posts is speculation, not actual proof of anything. Also, we know the ACA is a GOP originated idea in the first place, which immediately makes your conclusions suspect, absent any additional data points.
And that is why I said things like "I think" and "my opinion".
We can't get data points unless all the congressmen who voted against it stated that it was a political stunt, and not because it was a bad act. I'm sure there was at least one (and probably a lot more) that liked it but voted against it because of politicking, but out of 218 Republicans in Congress at the time, 217 voted against it and 1 abstained from voting. I draw my own conclusions, and you must do the same--I really don't care if they're different as long as they're informed, but we won't have any real data points for such a subjective conversation.
-
Perhaps you two are correct, but all I see in your posts is speculation, not actual proof of anything. Also, we know the ACA is a GOP originated idea in the first place, which immediately makes your conclusions suspect, absent any additional data points.
And that is why I said things like "I think" and "my opinion".
We can't get data points unless all the congressmen who voted against it stated that it was a political stunt, and not because it was a bad act. I'm sure there was at least one (and probably a lot more) that liked it but voted against it because of politicking, but out of 218 Republicans in Congress at the time, 217 voted against it and 1 abstained from voting. I draw my own conclusions, and you must do the same--I really don't care if they're different as long as they're informed, but we won't have any real data points for such a subjective conversation.
Would you consider multiple GOP leadership comments about how government insurance would cause them to lose elections to be evidence that their votes against it were political in nature not against the idea itself?
-
Perhaps you two are correct, but all I see in your posts is speculation, not actual proof of anything. Also, we know the ACA is a GOP originated idea in the first place, which immediately makes your conclusions suspect, absent any additional data points.
And that is why I said things like "I think" and "my opinion".
We can't get data points unless all the congressmen who voted against it stated that it was a political stunt, and not because it was a bad act. I'm sure there was at least one (and probably a lot more) that liked it but voted against it because of politicking, but out of 218 Republicans in Congress at the time, 217 voted against it and 1 abstained from voting. I draw my own conclusions, and you must do the same--I really don't care if they're different as long as they're informed, but we won't have any real data points for such a subjective conversation.
Would you consider multiple GOP leadership comments about how government insurance would cause them to lose elections to be evidence that their votes against it were political in nature not against the idea itself?
Would they lose elections because its a bad idea and their constituents don't vote for people who support bad ideas?
-
Perhaps you two are correct, but all I see in your posts is speculation, not actual proof of anything. Also, we know the ACA is a GOP originated idea in the first place, which immediately makes your conclusions suspect, absent any additional data points.
And that is why I said things like "I think" and "my opinion".
We can't get data points unless all the congressmen who voted against it stated that it was a political stunt, and not because it was a bad act. I'm sure there was at least one (and probably a lot more) that liked it but voted against it because of politicking, but out of 218 Republicans in Congress at the time, 217 voted against it and 1 abstained from voting. I draw my own conclusions, and you must do the same--I really don't care if they're different as long as they're informed, but we won't have any real data points for such a subjective conversation.
Would you consider multiple GOP leadership comments about how government insurance would cause them to lose elections to be evidence that their votes against it were political in nature not against the idea itself?
Would they lose elections because its a bad idea and their constituents don't vote for people who support bad ideas?
It's pretty evident that good ideas are not important to the electorate. See [[Election of Donald Trump]].
-
Perhaps you two are correct, but all I see in your posts is speculation, not actual proof of anything. Also, we know the ACA is a GOP originated idea in the first place, which immediately makes your conclusions suspect, absent any additional data points.
And that is why I said things like "I think" and "my opinion".
We can't get data points unless all the congressmen who voted against it stated that it was a political stunt, and not because it was a bad act. I'm sure there was at least one (and probably a lot more) that liked it but voted against it because of politicking, but out of 218 Republicans in Congress at the time, 217 voted against it and 1 abstained from voting. I draw my own conclusions, and you must do the same--I really don't care if they're different as long as they're informed, but we won't have any real data points for such a subjective conversation.
Would you consider multiple GOP leadership comments about how government insurance would cause them to lose elections to be evidence that their votes against it were political in nature not against the idea itself?
Would they lose elections because its a bad idea and their constituents don't vote for people who support bad ideas?
It's pretty evident that good ideas are not important to the electorate. See [[Election of Donald Trump]].
Well then we must content ourselves when our representatives support good ideas and oppose bad ones, even if they only do so for political reasons.
-
Perhaps you two are correct, but all I see in your posts is speculation, not actual proof of anything. Also, we know the ACA is a GOP originated idea in the first place, which immediately makes your conclusions suspect, absent any additional data points.
And that is why I said things like "I think" and "my opinion".
We can't get data points unless all the congressmen who voted against it stated that it was a political stunt, and not because it was a bad act. I'm sure there was at least one (and probably a lot more) that liked it but voted against it because of politicking, but out of 218 Republicans in Congress at the time, 217 voted against it and 1 abstained from voting. I draw my own conclusions, and you must do the same--I really don't care if they're different as long as they're informed, but we won't have any real data points for such a subjective conversation.
Would you consider multiple GOP leadership comments about how government insurance would cause them to lose elections to be evidence that their votes against it were political in nature not against the idea itself?
Would they lose elections because its a bad idea and their constituents don't vote for people who support bad ideas?
It's pretty evident that good ideas are not important to the electorate. See [[Election of Donald Trump]].
Well then we must content ourselves when our representatives support good ideas and oppose bad ones, even if they only do so for political reasons.
See: [[confirmation of Betsy DeVos]]