Remember Kim Davis, the famous Kentucky hypocrite who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Four years ago, the Republican Governor of Kentucky said he "absolutely supported" her. Now that a Federal court has ruled that the state has to pay her victims' attorney fees, suddenly that support isn't so absolute.
Remember Kim Davis, the famous Kentucky hypocrite who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Four years ago, the Republican Governor of Kentucky said he "absolutely supported" her. Now that a Federal court has ruled that the state has to pay her victims' attorney fees, suddenly that support isn't so absolute.
In both cases, the citizens of Kentucky voted for revanchism, so they can damn well pay for it. I'm sure there will be some sort of right-wing crowd-funding mechanism for Davis even if she IS personally held responsible for the damages. I understand alot of those who sent in money to fund the wall recently got a refund. This is an adjacent toilet they can also throw their money into.
I actually heard the "conservatives view human nature as negative and liberals view human nature as positive" thing from my old high school teacher more than 10 years ago. It's not really an evolutionary thing. It makes sense if you actually apply it to issues that liberals and conservatives disagree about.
Immigration? Liberals assume we're getting motivated, smart people to contribute to the nation. Conservatives assume we're getting dangerous criminals who won't assimilate.
Government spending and taxation? Liberals assume the government will spend it on important public works. Conservatives assume the money will be wasted on boondoggles.
Welfare and public assistance programs? Liberals assume people will use them to get back on their feet and deal with money problems. Conservatives assume that it'll discourage people from providing for themselves and make them dependent on government assistance.
Not all political issues follow this pattern, but it sounds fairly accurate. You don't need to reduce these things to silly stereotypes to see that there's truth in it, and it doesn't really portray one perspective as better than another.
Clearly evolution has had an impact on the human race, but you don't have to rely on evolutionary forces to drive this sort of distinction. All you need to accept is a non-controversial assumption that people are different in lots of ways. If that's so then it follows that some of those differences are likely to result in the support of different political parties that more closely share a person's perspective.
Arguably a story about how God wanted Trump to be President belongs in the religious thread, but I'll leave it here. I wonder what will be next - if Trump is ever prosecuted for various crimes, will he use the 'fact' he was fulfilling God's purpose as a defense?
I think it's more that Trump's followers think that God wanted him to be President, not that he thinks that. But he might pick it up from his followers. I'm sure he could be easily convinced of it, because he already thinks he is the best.
I think it's more that Trump's followers think that God wanted him to be President, not that he thinks that. But he might pick it up from his followers. I'm sure he could be easily convinced of it, because he already thinks he is the best.
I don't think he believes in God (no, not because of his general immorality), because if he did his general narcissism would have had him loudly proclaiming himself as God's chosen long ago and use it as justification a lot more.
I've removed a few semantics-heavy posts from the thread. Quibbling over rhetoric is besides the purpose of this thread, and it tends to go around and around indefinitely.
This thread is not here for partisan invective or semantic quibbles, nor
is it here for forumites to "win" arguments or "defeat" an opposing
viewpoint. This thread is here to share information and discuss ideas.
Whenever possible, focus on the subject matter, and if your comment is
less about the subject and more about something else that's bothering
you, reconsider posting it.
The Brexit debate is still going nowhere fast as we rapidly close in on the March 29th leaving date. In a previous post reflecting on the massive defeat for May when she tried to get her deal through I said she had a choice of moving towards the hard-line Brexiteers or going for a softer Brexit with the support of most Labour MPs. Her decision was to go for the former.
The proposal now is to go back to the EU and ask to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement - in particular the 'backstop' part of that relating to the trading arrangements across the Irish border. That has the big advantage for the Conservative party that everyone was able to vote for it - as the vote was essentially against the backstop rather than being in favor of something specific, all strands of the party felt free to support the government even though their support meant different things.
That has avoided exacerbating the divisions in the Conservatives, but potentially at a cost for the country - the vote significantly increases the chances of a no-deal exit and that seems to me to be clearly the most likely outcome now. May has spent months now saying that there was no alternative to her deal and that the EU would not renegotiate. So, it is unlikely to say the least that she really believes the EU will agree to substantive changes. She may be hoping for that, but I'm pretty sure she's now expecting a no-deal exit.
That result is of course what the 70 or so hard-line Conservatives have been playing for and they've nearly got it in their grasp. The reality of Parliamentary mechanics is that it's now unlikely there will be a further chance for MPs to instruct the government to take a different approach to Brexit. That's despite the fact that it's clear that the majority of MPs do not want a no-deal (in fact they voted for a motion saying that this week, but that motion was not binding on the government).
If May now denies any further opportunity to debate alternatives, the only possibilities I can think of that don't lead to a no-deal exit are: 1) The Speaker of the Commons overturns protocol to allow rebel MPs to raise a motion without government support. He did something along those lines not long ago, so it's by no means impossible he would try that - but it would almost certainly lead to a motion of no confidence in him and his position is not strong. 2) There's a successful motion of no confidence in the government leading to an election and the EU agree to extend the deadline for Brexit for that to take place. That EU agreement is by no means certain, as it would cause major technical issues (such as the requirement for the UK to elect new European MPs in this summer's elections), but they might go for it. The government survived a recent motion of no confidence, but that could change. In particular, if MPs conclude (as I do) that May is effectively now facilitating a no deal Brexit, it would only require a few Conservative MPs to decide that would be worse than a split in the party to allow a no confidence motion to succeed. 3) The EU change their minds and give in over the backstop issue. This seems highly unlikely to me. Their position has been clear and consistent for a long time and retreating from that would have consequences not just for the current negotiation, but future negotiations as well (detracting from their carefully built image of tough negotiators). They will also still be mindful of the impact of Brexit on the remaining 27 countries. If exit is seen as a good option then there will be significant pressure in some other countries (such as Italy) to go down the same route.
Yesterday Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and offered nearly a perfect encapsulation of the #1 prevailing theory in right-wing politics today, which is that as few people should be able to vote as possible.
McConnell openly MOCKED the idea of having Election Day be a national holiday. He did this in numerous ways, each as disgusting as the other. First, he claimed it was "another day off for federal workers". Let's examine this first. While federal workers would certainly be given this day off, the idea is to have all other businesses do the same, akin the oh, you know, Christmas. But more importantly, he is implying that federal workers don't DESERVE another day off, even after his DIRECT ACTION just put them all in financial limbo for over a month.
Secondly, he said it would "benefit Democrats". Again, the line being pressed here is that all federal workers are Democrats, and that in and of itself is a reason to not give them extra time to vote.
But lastly, is the overall message here. McConnell is saying out loud that making it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote would hurt his party. And that is because HR 1 seeks to do nothing more than make it easier for people to freely exercise their constitutional right to choose their leaders. And that Republican success is no longer predicated on the popularity of policies, but on rigging the board and rules so they can keep squeaking out victories.
Yesterday Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and offered nearly a perfect encapsulation of the #1 prevailing theory in right-wing politics today, which is that as few people should be able to vote as possible.
McConnell openly MOCKED the idea of having Election Day be a national holiday. He did this in numerous ways, each as disgusting as the other. First, he claimed it was "another day off for federal workers". Let's examine this first. While federal workers would certainly be given this day off, the idea is to have all other businesses do the same, akin the oh, you know, Christmas. But more importantly, he is implying that federal workers don't DESERVE another day off, even after his DIRECT ACTION just put them all in financial limbo for over a month.
Secondly, he said it would "benefit Democrats". Again, the line being pressed here is that all federal workers are Democrats, and that in and of itself is a reason to not give them extra time to vote.
But lastly, is the overall message here. McConnell is saying out loud that making it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote would hurt his party. And that is because HR 1 seeks to do nothing more than make it easier for people to freely exercise their constitutional right to choose their leaders. And that Republican success is no longer predicated on the popularity of policies, but on rigging the board and rules so they can keep squeaking out victories.
They already give the day off for all union people here in Michigan (UAW and teachers in particular). The voting statistics didn't change much. Apparently a lot of those folks have been taking that Monday off and enjoying a 4-day weekend. Can't say as I blame them really. I don't think people on this thread understand how many rank and file Americans don't give a flying shit about politics. There is nothing you can do, barring fines or penalties, that will get these people to the voting booths. I'm not even sure I want people that apathetic voting anyway. Coin-flip? Cool sounding name? D or R by their name?
Sorry, I believe anybody who really wants to vote will find a way to do it. If their vote is illegally discounted somehow or they're intimidated out of voting that's different. Those kinds of shenanigans need to be dealt with harshly with fines and prison time.
What do you see as the Labour party's role in all of this? I'll admit that I dont know much about politics in the UK, but it seems to me that Labour is essentially letting the conversation be shaped by the hard-line brexiteers, rather than trying to win over moderate remainers (Maybe it's unrealistic to expect any conservatives to break with their party over brexit in the long run?)
I guess their big move was the no confidence motion - which seemed like May was going to survive almost immediately, even when her Brexit deal was so soundly rejected.
Well, to be honest, we'd need some long-term data to really gauge the success/failure of the trade war. We're not likely to get that with the way our political system works in the US.
If we jusdge by the DOW (which seems to be Donald Trump's means of assessing it, It's stayed around 25,000 Since January of 2017. He's celebrated it hitting 25K each time, 3 times now.
If we jusdge by the DOW (which seems to be Donald Trump's means of assessing it, It's stayed around 25,000 Since January of 2017. He's celebrated it hitting 25K each time, 3 times now.
I said long-term. This is no way 'long-term' yet. I don't know if people even understand what long-term means anymore. It certainly means longer than one year, however...
Sorry. I'm in the middle of a bad cold, and my head is stuffed with cotton wool- or that's what it feels like, anyway. Long-term? Well, Obama set the Economy on an upward path after inheriting the Presidency in a recession. Trump inherited the upward-trending economy, and now, it seems to be going down. How long is "Long-term" in your eyes?
Sorry. I'm in the middle of a bad cold, and my head is stuffed with cotton wool- or that's what it feels like, anyway. Long-term? Well, Obama set the Economy on an upward path after inheriting the Presidency in a recession. Trump inherited the upward-trending economy, and now, it seems to be going down. How long is "Long-term" in your eyes?
Longer than any one party can keep power in this country, unfortunately. That's why we have the same arguments for decades. It almost seems by design if I'm in a conspiratorial frame of mind...
Just want to note that one of my posts that you removed specifically and intentionally included substantive discussion in hopes of moving the discussion in that direction (which @FinneousPJ unfortunately declined to do).
Man, the mods swing heavy bats around here...
I agree, oftentimes the Devil is in the details, so to speak. If we're not allowed free reign to debate then what's the point? I've gotten into some heated arguments in this thread. I'm still here and so are most of the people I was arguing with (minus @TStael, unfortunately). Please give us a little leeway, we're adults not children...
Edit: Insight into how other people think is never wasted. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant from that context.
In separate stories today (I will post them in my thread in a bit....) The Homelessness Rate is up slightly despite the rather good economy. And only 4% of businesses boosted hiring despite the tax cut which aided them.
In separate stories today (I will post them in my thread in a bit....) The Homelessness Rate is up slightly despite the rather good economy. And only 4% of businesses boosted hiring despite the tax cut which aided them.
Yeah, they seem to be buying back stocks instead of investing. Again, this could be because they don't think these cuts will be long-lasting (with good reasoning in my opinion). Long-term just isn't in the cards for this country. I thought Trump might be good aa far as testing out some conservative theories but he's too much of an asshole to have any long-term influence. C'est la vie. Maybe it's time to long-term test some Liberal theories but probably not...
"This historic legislation will be remembered as the key that opened the door for America to sell its products and services to the world's largest emerging marketplace," said Robert Burt, chairman of The Business Roundtable
"This historic legislation will be remembered as the key that opened the door for America to sell its products and services to the world's largest emerging marketplace," said Robert Burt, chairman of The Business Roundtable
Perfect example! I'm just not sure the current political climate allows for changes of this magnitude to last for long enough. Trump is trying to modify this agreement a bit, but it remains to be seen whether it lasts long enough to gauge the results. Opening China had awesome results up until present, but modifications might be necessary to protect our own interests...
Edit: Next, Cuba? Wouldn't it be nice if the Gem of the Caribbean was opened up like China was? Republicans will, of course, disagree with me because ex-Cubans keep the Republicans in a tenuous control of Florida but I say screw that. If conservative ideas hold water, we should be able to overcome that in the 'Long Run'. Seriously...
If we jusdge by the DOW (which seems to be Donald Trump's means of assessing it, It's stayed around 25,000 Since January of 2017. He's celebrated it hitting 25K each time, 3 times now.
I said long-term. This is no way 'long-term' yet. I don't know if people even understand what long-term means anymore. It certainly means longer than one year, however...
I'd say "long-term" on something like this would be 4-5 years, maybe a decade.
Because come on, if you can't see the effects after TEN YEARS, when will you see the effects?
Also, find an economist in favor of trade wars. ANY economist. Last I heard, the ratio of actual economists favor/against trade barrier was something like 14 to 1.
If we jusdge by the DOW (which seems to be Donald Trump's means of assessing it, It's stayed around 25,000 Since January of 2017. He's celebrated it hitting 25K each time, 3 times now.
I said long-term. This is no way 'long-term' yet. I don't know if people even understand what long-term means anymore. It certainly means longer than one year, however...
I'd say "long-term" on something like this would be 4-5 years, maybe a decade.
Because come on, if you can't see the effects after TEN YEARS, when will you see the effects?
> > > > Careful, climate change ameliorization results might need far more than 10 years to see whether or not they've been effective. Long-term means just that, LONG term.
Our life-expectancy might not even be long enough to see results of some of our research. That's why education is important. We may not see faster than light travel, colonization of nearby planets/moons/star-systems, low-cost environmentally friendly energy sources, 'Beam me up Scotty' teleportation, etc... But our grandchildren or great-grandchildren might if we invest in the future.
Here's another intruiging though that troubles me; humans that seem to be quantum leaps above normal. The Einsteins, Curies, Pythagoras, Rembrants, Newtons, Galileos, etc... all seem to be rather random. No sons or daughters of them seem to be anywhere near as genius as they were. If by happenstance, rather than genetics, those types of individuals arise, how many of them are lost to the ages because of circumstance? If, for example, a genius of that magnitude was born in Africa or in a lower-caste of India, what would be their chance of ever being able to amount to anything? Even worse, what if that person were aborted in a Western nation? I'm only throwing this out there as food for thought. My mind works in very odd ways and I was just wondering if anybody else wondered the same things...
Comments
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis-legal-fees-gay-marriage-kentucky-governor_us_5c5225a5e4b0ca92c6dd07d8
In both cases, the citizens of Kentucky voted for revanchism, so they can damn well pay for it. I'm sure there will be some sort of right-wing crowd-funding mechanism for Davis even if she IS personally held responsible for the damages. I understand alot of those who sent in money to fund the wall recently got a refund. This is an adjacent toilet they can also throw their money into.
The proposal now is to go back to the EU and ask to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement - in particular the 'backstop' part of that relating to the trading arrangements across the Irish border. That has the big advantage for the Conservative party that everyone was able to vote for it - as the vote was essentially against the backstop rather than being in favor of something specific, all strands of the party felt free to support the government even though their support meant different things.
That has avoided exacerbating the divisions in the Conservatives, but potentially at a cost for the country - the vote significantly increases the chances of a no-deal exit and that seems to me to be clearly the most likely outcome now. May has spent months now saying that there was no alternative to her deal and that the EU would not renegotiate. So, it is unlikely to say the least that she really believes the EU will agree to substantive changes. She may be hoping for that, but I'm pretty sure she's now expecting a no-deal exit.
That result is of course what the 70 or so hard-line Conservatives have been playing for and they've nearly got it in their grasp. The reality of Parliamentary mechanics is that it's now unlikely there will be a further chance for MPs to instruct the government to take a different approach to Brexit. That's despite the fact that it's clear that the majority of MPs do not want a no-deal (in fact they voted for a motion saying that this week, but that motion was not binding on the government).
If May now denies any further opportunity to debate alternatives, the only possibilities I can think of that don't lead to a no-deal exit are:
1) The Speaker of the Commons overturns protocol to allow rebel MPs to raise a motion without government support. He did something along those lines not long ago, so it's by no means impossible he would try that - but it would almost certainly lead to a motion of no confidence in him and his position is not strong.
2) There's a successful motion of no confidence in the government leading to an election and the EU agree to extend the deadline for Brexit for that to take place. That EU agreement is by no means certain, as it would cause major technical issues (such as the requirement for the UK to elect new European MPs in this summer's elections), but they might go for it. The government survived a recent motion of no confidence, but that could change. In particular, if MPs conclude (as I do) that May is effectively now facilitating a no deal Brexit, it would only require a few Conservative MPs to decide that would be worse than a split in the party to allow a no confidence motion to succeed.
3) The EU change their minds and give in over the backstop issue. This seems highly unlikely to me. Their position has been clear and consistent for a long time and retreating from that would have consequences not just for the current negotiation, but future negotiations as well (detracting from their carefully built image of tough negotiators). They will also still be mindful of the impact of Brexit on the remaining 27 countries. If exit is seen as a good option then there will be significant pressure in some other countries (such as Italy) to go down the same route.
Highlight: Trump celebrated the Dow Jones breaking 25,000 last year in January, this year in January and once in July.
The economy has been flat for the year and Trump is clueless about it.
McConnell openly MOCKED the idea of having Election Day be a national holiday. He did this in numerous ways, each as disgusting as the other. First, he claimed it was "another day off for federal workers". Let's examine this first. While federal workers would certainly be given this day off, the idea is to have all other businesses do the same, akin the oh, you know, Christmas. But more importantly, he is implying that federal workers don't DESERVE another day off, even after his DIRECT ACTION just put them all in financial limbo for over a month.
Secondly, he said it would "benefit Democrats". Again, the line being pressed here is that all federal workers are Democrats, and that in and of itself is a reason to not give them extra time to vote.
But lastly, is the overall message here. McConnell is saying out loud that making it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote would hurt his party. And that is because HR 1 seeks to do nothing more than make it easier for people to freely exercise their constitutional right to choose their leaders. And that Republican success is no longer predicated on the popularity of policies, but on rigging the board and rules so they can keep squeaking out victories.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
Sorry, I believe anybody who really wants to vote will find a way to do it. If their vote is illegally discounted somehow or they're intimidated out of voting that's different. Those kinds of shenanigans need to be dealt with harshly with fines and prison time.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/30/1830967/-Harley-Davidson-says-Trump-s-trade-war-wiped-away-all-of-their-profits-this-year?detail=emaildkre
So his Trade War is helping. I am reminded of Charlie Sheen "WINNING!"
What do you see as the Labour party's role in all of this? I'll admit that I dont know much about politics in the UK, but it seems to me that Labour is essentially letting the conversation be shaped by the hard-line brexiteers, rather than trying to win over moderate remainers (Maybe it's unrealistic to expect any conservatives to break with their party over brexit in the long run?)
I guess their big move was the no confidence motion - which seemed like May was going to survive almost immediately, even when her Brexit deal was so soundly rejected.
Edit: Insight into how other people think is never wasted. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant from that context.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-inks-china-trade-bill/
"This historic legislation will be remembered as the key that opened the door for America to sell its products and services to the world's largest emerging marketplace," said Robert Burt, chairman of The Business Roundtable
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/30/1830945/-House-Democrats-tackle-gender-pay-gap-with-new-bill-When-women-succeed-America-succeeds?detail=emaildkre
It also increases the time employees have to come forward to sue over unfair pay anf hiring practices. As a woman, I'd like to see it pass.
Edit: Next, Cuba? Wouldn't it be nice if the Gem of the Caribbean was opened up like China was? Republicans will, of course, disagree with me because ex-Cubans keep the Republicans in a tenuous control of Florida but I say screw that. If conservative ideas hold water, we should be able to overcome that in the 'Long Run'. Seriously...
I'd say "long-term" on something like this would be 4-5 years, maybe a decade.
>
>
>
>
Careful, climate change ameliorization results might need far more than 10 years to see whether or not they've been effective. Long-term means just that, LONG term.
Our life-expectancy might not even be long enough to see results of some of our research. That's why education is important. We may not see faster than light travel, colonization of nearby planets/moons/star-systems, low-cost environmentally friendly energy sources, 'Beam me up Scotty' teleportation, etc... But our grandchildren or great-grandchildren might if we invest in the future.