What do you mean "would be" There's plenty of evidence from people who know him best including the anonymous NYT author. He IS stupid and dangerous.
[spoiler]
Name Role at time Insult Occasion Rex Tillerson Secretary of State a fucking moron Pentagon meeting Gary Cohen Economic advisor dumb as shit Email circulating within the White House H R McMaster National security advisor a dope Private dinner Tom Barrack Friend and supporter not only crazy, […] stupid Conversation with friend Gary Cohen Economic advisor less a person than a collection of terrible traits Email circulating within the White House Gary Cohen Economic advisor an idiot surrounded by clowns Email circulating within the White House H R McMaster National security advisor “An idiot [with the intelligence of] a kindergartener” Private dinner John Kelly Chief of staff an idiot Conversation with Trump Sam Nunberg Adviser he’s an idiot Live TV Sam Nunberg Adviser this idiot Campaign conversation Steve Mnuchin Secretary of Treasury an idiot Unspecified Reince Preibus Chief of staff an idiot Unspecified
Nope. Female Bonobos will rub their genitals together, and from the sounds they make, they certainly sound like they are enjoying it! Male Bonobos do the same (rubbing genitals). I read "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl, which chronicles species that have what humans think of as "Gay Sex". Even Sheep do it. Farmers have apparently noted Rams (male sheep) who prefer other male sheep to Ewes.
Yeah, that's a good justification for mass muder. Disgusting.
Unless, of course - it isnt murder. Doesnt need justification that way. Side note - maybe dont accuse a fellow forumite of championing mass murder? Seems in bad taste at least. I wont speak to it being against forum rules or not, since I'm not an authority in them.
So Corey Booker has released several "committee confidential" emails that appear to be classified that way only as an excuse to hide stuff from Kavanaugh's past.
Bottom line: documents released show that Kavanaugh has been lying his ass off during these confirmation hearings.
He should be charged with perjury instead of rewarded with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court
As for me personally, if my mother wanted an abortion, I wouldn't vote to veto her decision. She owes me nothing; I owe her everything.
I'm going to have to call you out on this one @semiticgod. You seem to think you'd be thinking like you do today if you were offered that choice. As a baby I'm pretty sure you would have chosen life. It's a primal instinct to survive. I'm quite sure the suicide rate of babies is 0.
@LadyRhian In that case, your Bonobo example does nothing for your pro-abortion argument. Masturbation and homosexual coupling cannot result in giving birth. So its useless in an abortion discussion.
I also fail to see the correlation between not wanting to kill children and killing animals. Its a false equivalence. What exactly do you think is the result of a human-human pairing? I've seen a person give birth to a velociraptor. De-humanizing your victim is the only way you can justify murder to yourself.
@BallpointMan "I believe your question was already answered by this: "
See my response above.
"Unless, of course - it isnt murder. Doesnt need justification that way. Side note - maybe dont accuse a fellow forumite of championing mass murder? Seems in bad taste at least. I wont speak to it being against forum rules or not, since I'm not an authority in them."
So, what would you call the killing of large numbers of children?
@LadyRhian In that case, your Bonobo example does nothing for your pro-abortion argument. Masturbation and homosexual coupling cannot result in giving birth. So its useless in an abortion discussion.
I also fail to see the correlation between not wanting to kill children and killing animals. Its a false equivalence. What exactly do you think is the result of a human-human pairing? I've seen a person give birth to a velociraptor. De-humanizing your victim is the only way you can justify murder to yourself.
@LadyRhian will correct me if I'm wrong here, but the argument wasnt pro-abortion (which you've attempted to use as a label literally dozens of times in this thread and the last - is a completely disingenuous argument baiting tactic. No one is "pro-abortion") - it's citing that the animal kingdom seems to be capable of wanting sex without the expectation of breeding. Humans do too,
@BallpointMan "I believe your question was already answered by this: "
See my response above.
"Unless, of course - it isnt murder. Doesnt need justification that way. Side note - maybe dont accuse a fellow forumite of championing mass murder? Seems in bad taste at least. I wont speak to it being against forum rules or not, since I'm not an authority in them."
So, what would you call the killing of large numbers of children?
To start - I wouldnt call it the killing of a large number of children. So there's that. I also think you're attacking people who arent attacking you.
@BallpointMan@ThacoBell: I think the deal here is that while pro-life people view abortion as akin or identical to murder, pro-choice people don't. Thus, a pro-choice person doesn't support what they view as murder; they support what a pro-life person would view as murder.
Let's say I support Policy X because I think it improves GDP. Let's say Policy X actually decreases GDP--but I don't know that. I would be supporting a policy that's bad for GDP, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-GDP, because I believe I'm supporting a policy that increases it. My perception is wrong, but my motive is not evil.
I think it's important to bear in mind that just because you're motivated by A doesn't mean that people who disagree with you are against A--they're just in favor of B, and A is either not on their radar, or they don't view it as a factor.
Pro-life people aren't anti-choice; pro-choice people aren't anti-life (or pro-abortion).
@BallpointMan@ThacoBell: I think the deal here is that while pro-life people view abortion as akin or identical to murder, pro-choice people don't. Thus, a pro-choice person doesn't support what they view as murder; they support what a pro-life person would view as murder.
Let's say I support Policy X because I think it improves GDP. Let's say Policy X actually decreases GDP--but I don't know that. I would be supporting a policy that's bad for GDP, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-GDP, because I believe I'm supporting a policy that increases it. My perception is wrong, but my motive is not evil.
I think it's important to bear in mind that just because you're motivated by A doesn't mean that people who disagree with you are against A--they're just in favor of B, and A is either not on their radar, or they don't view it as a factor.
Pro-life people aren't anti-choice; pro-choice people aren't anti-life (or pro-abortion).
Exactly why I still believe I'm pro-life even though I don't have a problem with the morning-after pill. There are plenty of pro-lifers that would call me pro-death and plenty of pro-choicers that would call me a Fascist for still being against most other abortions.
Considering how many people insist that abortion is not only necessary but GOOD, I would argue that pro-abortion is accurate.
@ThacoBell I gave you a 'like' and not an 'agree' only because I can't agree with that statement as written. I think you can be pro-choice but still hope people won't take the abortion option. It's like how in Christian theology God gives us free-choice but hopes we choose Him. Whether it's legal or not, some percentage of people will choose abortion anyway. My problem is having money that I involuntarily donate to the government being spent on medical treatments I think are morally wrong.
If all the pro-choicers chipped in to a non-profit fund to help pay for for those folks who can't afford it, I'd have less of an objection. I don't expect everybody to agree with my morals but I do expect them to be respected. My folks' give money to their church voluntarily. Why can't the pro-choicers do the same for their cause that they believe in so strongly?
That's never what the pro-lifers want though. They not only want my money to help pay for it, they also want me to shut up about it!
Considering how many people insist that abortion is not only necessary but GOOD, I would argue that pro-abortion is accurate.
Are there many people that argue abortion is good in itself? I rather doubt it and certainly no-one has said that on this forum.
The typical argument is pro-choice. As @semiticgod said above the fact that someone believes it's right that women should have control of their own bodies does not mean they are in favor of abortion - simply that they view that as less of an offense against human rights than requiring a woman to bear a child against her will. The reverse holds true as well of course - someone who believes abortion is wrong in all circumstances won't usually believe it's good to force women to bear a child against their will, just that requiring that is less of an offense against human rights than allowing an abortion.
The only other situation I can think of that you might be referring to would be people who believe over-population needs to be addressed. Even in the context of radical policies like those in China (until recently) though, abortion wouldn't be seen as good - just necessary.
For me, abortion isn't a good thing. Even if you don't treat them as equivalent to murder, abortions can be dangerous, heart-wrenching (even for pro-choice people!), and also expensive. They're merely a potential alternative to something that for some people would be even worse: an unwanted pregnancy. An 18-year commitment and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in various expenses is a massive burden to bear, and not everyone has the means to handle it, the ability to raise the child, or the opportunity to pursue their other dreams at the same time--one of the reasons I wouldn't impose that burden on my mother if she didn't want it.
Ideally, people would only get pregnant when they wanted to and when they had the resources and time to properly care for their child. That's what contraception and family planning are for, but those can fail even when people are otherwise acting responsibly. Abortion is the last resort when everything else fails. It should be available, and it should be rare.
If all the pro-choicers chipped in to a non-profit fund to help pay for for those folks who can't afford it, I'd have less of an objection. I don't expect everybody to agree with my morals but I do expect them to be respected. My folks' give money to their church voluntarily. Why can't the pro-choicers do the same for their cause that they believe in so strongly?
So if all the right-wing chickenhawks chip in they can have as many wars as they want? And I can get all the tax money I paid during the "war on terror" back?
If all the pro-choicers chipped in to a non-profit fund to help pay for for those folks who can't afford it, I'd have less of an objection. I don't expect everybody to agree with my morals but I do expect them to be respected. My folks' give money to their church voluntarily. Why can't the pro-choicers do the same for their cause that they believe in so strongly?
So if all the right-wing chickenhawks chip in they can have as many wars as they want? And I can get all the tax money I paid during the "war on terror" back?
Right-wing chickenhawks can start as many wars as they can get votes for, and the rest of us can pay for it as little as we can get votes for. Democracy is a game of compromise, and it's common for tax dollars to spent on things that not everyone agrees with--either because the majority does agree with it, or because it's part of a deal cut in Congress to balance competing interests.
The individual's role in the process is a vote, not a veto. I don't get everything I want out of the government, but that's because I'm not the only one who gets to decide. I'll certainly complain about it in an attempt to change minds in the hopes that it will change the policy, but it's not inherently illegitimate for a majority or a plurality to override the will of a minority.
If all the pro-choicers chipped in to a non-profit fund to help pay for for those folks who can't afford it, I'd have less of an objection. I don't expect everybody to agree with my morals but I do expect them to be respected. My folks' give money to their church voluntarily. Why can't the pro-choicers do the same for their cause that they believe in so strongly?
So if all the right-wing chickenhawks chip in they can have as many wars as they want? And I can get all the tax money I paid during the "war on terror" back?
You mean wars like World Wars 1&2, Korea, Vietnam, and the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran? Oh wait, those were started under the Democrats. Maybe my parents should get a refund on all the money spent on Vietnam with interest.
Speaking of the 'War on Terror'. Good thing Obama got us out of Afghanistan, eh? He really should get high grades for closing down Guantanamo. I'm sure glad he didn't do any bombing in Syria or drone bomb in Yemen or anything. I'll bet Obama spent a pretty penny (of ours, not his) on that war in his eight years.
Edit: I can't believe I almost forgot about bombing the Hell out of Libya and the rest of that fiasco...
Considering how many people insist that abortion is not only necessary but GOOD, I would argue that pro-abortion is accurate.
@ThacoBell I gave you a 'like' and not an 'agree' only because I can't agree with that statement as written. I think you can be pro-choice but still hope people won't take the abortion option. It's like how in Christian theology God gives us free-choice but hopes we choose Him. Whether it's legal or not, some percentage of people will choose abortion anyway. My problem is having money that I involuntarily donate to the government being spent on medical treatments I think are morally wrong.
If all the pro-choicers chipped in to a non-profit fund to help pay for for those folks who can't afford it, I'd have less of an objection. I don't expect everybody to agree with my morals but I do expect them to be respected. My folks' give money to their church voluntarily. Why can't the pro-choicers do the same for their cause that they believe in so strongly?
That's never what the pro-lifers want though. They not only want my money to help pay for it, they also want me to shut up about it!
The Hyde Amendment already restricts the use of federal funds for abortion to only in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. No federal funding to Planned Parenthood goes towards abortion. And, they do raise money from private contributions ($392 million in FY2014). So, you're complaining about what? That things are exactly as you want them?
Are you complaining because federal funds might be used for an abortion when a woman's life is in danger due to an ectopic pregnancy, when the fetus has already died in utero and continuing the pregnancy endangers the mother's health, or when she's been raped?
the Difference between WW1 - Vietnam war is that Americans didn’t start it like they started the Second Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan. In both Korea and Vietnam, the US was defending an ally during a civil war in the hope to prevent the spread of communism.
Ken Burns has an excellent documentary on Vietnam War and how presidents didn’t want to end it because they’d “lose face.” They knee since the beginning (Truman) that they were backing the losing side. It is the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan. America leaves, everything done up to that point disappears as those that they are fighting move in and take over.
The difference is the Second Iraq war was started on false pretences that the majority of the world saw by the USA. Even the war in Afghanistan could have been said was rushed and just an easy target to attack due to 9/11.
You mean wars like World Wars 1&2, Korea, Vietnam, and the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran? Oh wait, those were started under the Democrats. Maybe my parents should get a refund on all the money spent on Vietnam with interest.
Speaking of the 'War on Terror'. Good thing Obama got us out of Afghanistan, eh? He really should get high grades for closing down Guantanamo. I'm sure glad he didn't do any bombing in Syria or drone bomb in Yemen or anything. I'll bet Obama spent a pretty penny (of ours, not his) on that war in his eight years.
Edit: I can't believe I almost forgot about bombing the Hell out of Libya and the rest of that fiasco...
Interesting. You have to go back over 50 years to find a war that a Democrat "started". I wonder how far back I'd have to go to find one that a Republican started...
Oh - and to correct you on history: Democrats didnt start World War 1 (Sinking of the Luisitania and the Zimmerman telegram are the pivotal events to get USA into WW1). Democrats didnt start WW 2 (America became involved after we were attacked. You know - Pearl Harbor). Democrats didnt start the Korean war (North Korea attacked South Korea, and we helped our ally). The closest you can get is the War in Vietnam, and even that's not apples to apples with how say, the war in Iraq began.
Unsurprisingly- there's a hell of a difference in starting a war to defend an ally, or because you were attacked than attacking them outright. You'll find that the first War with Iraq was more broadly supported because we were defending Kuwait than the second war.
@BallpointMan@ThacoBell: I think the deal here is that while pro-life people view abortion as akin or identical to murder, pro-choice people don't. Thus, a pro-choice person doesn't support what they view as murder; they support what a pro-life person would view as murder.
I think it's important to bear in mind that just because you're motivated by A doesn't mean that people who disagree with you are against A--they're just in favor of B, and A is either not on their radar, or they don't view it as a factor.
Pro-life people aren't anti-choice; pro-choice people aren't anti-life (or pro-abortion).
I agree with all this. I'm just trying to be careful not to attack the other side as if it is without merit.
I'm not convinced the people of Iraq would agree with you about the 2nd Iraq War. Earlier in this thread I mentioned about the Iraqi intern (and now pHD holder in chemistry) and his experiences. I won't rehash it but I can add another thought from him as his internship ended last month. He is now deciding whether he wants to take a job in Kalamazoo or go back to Baghdad and work for an Iraqi university. I asked him if he'd feel safe back home and he replied "Of course!" without hesitation. He told me that other than around the Syrian border Iraq hasn't been this safe in decades. He even said when he goes back to visit later this month he was going to drive to Jordan for vacation. Things are not always as they are portrayed by the press...
@Balrog99: It's not just that intern. Polls have apparently found that the Iraqi people on the whole felt that the war was worth it to get rid of Saddam. It was only the long occupation that they objected to--the Iraqis on the whole wanted us to remove Saddam and then vamoose. I'm not convinced, though, that the war was in America's best interests, so I'm still opposed to the war overall.
I've been thinking about John McCain and why he was respected by people on both sides of the aisle. I didn't say this in my brief announcement about his passing away, but I'll do it now. For me personally, I respected him for his support of campaign finance reform, one of the few truly accurate indicators of a politician who genuinely wants to improve politics and not just perpetuate their own power.
More broadly, I think the reason liberals liked him was because he rejected the bitter partisanship that so many other people embraced. We liked him because he did not view us as evil crazy stupid people who needed to be destroyed--he viewed us as honest competitors who were wrong about important issues. A bit like Obama or Clinton in that regard.
I think that's the kind of attitude we need in this country.
You mean wars like World Wars 1&2, Korea, Vietnam, and the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran? Oh wait, those were started under the Democrats. Maybe my parents should get a refund on all the money spent on Vietnam with interest.
Speaking of the 'War on Terror'. Good thing Obama got us out of Afghanistan, eh? He really should get high grades for closing down Guantanamo. I'm sure glad he didn't do any bombing in Syria or drone bomb in Yemen or anything. I'll bet Obama spent a pretty penny (of ours, not his) on that war in his eight years.
Edit: I can't believe I almost forgot about bombing the Hell out of Libya and the rest of that fiasco...
Interesting. You have to go back over 50 years to find a war that a Democrat "started". I wonder how far back I'd have to go to find one that a Republican started...
Oh - and to correct you on history: Democrats didnt start World War 1 (Sinking of the Luisitania and the Zimmerman telegram are the pivotal events to get USA into WW1). Democrats didnt start WW 2 (America became involved after we were attacked. You know - Pearl Harbor). Democrats didnt start the Korean war (North Korea attacked South Korea, and we helped our ally). The closest you can get is the War in Vietnam, and even that's not apples to apples with how say, the war in Iraq began.
Unsurprisingly- there's a hell of a difference in starting a war to defend an ally, or because you were attacked than attacking them outright. You'll find that the first War with Iraq was more broadly supported because we were defending Kuwait than the second war.
@BallpointMan@ThacoBell: I think the deal here is that while pro-life people view abortion as akin or identical to murder, pro-choice people don't. Thus, a pro-choice person doesn't support what they view as murder; they support what a pro-life person would view as murder.
I think it's important to bear in mind that just because you're motivated by A doesn't mean that people who disagree with you are against A--they're just in favor of B, and A is either not on their radar, or they don't view it as a factor.
Pro-life people aren't anti-choice; pro-choice people aren't anti-life (or pro-abortion).
I agree with all this. I'm just trying to be careful not to attack the other side as if it is without merit.
The Republicans back during the world wars were totally isolationist though. Ludicrous as it is to believe that now, it's true. They even believed that Wilson and Roosevelt provoked Germany into attacking us. That is not without a grain of truth either. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have gotten involved in any of those wars. I'm just saying that calling conservatives 'Hawks' is not necessarily true.
@Balrog99: Bear in mind that the Republican and Democratic parties were very different before the 1960s. For one thing, the Republican party was liberal on social issues and the Democratic party was conservative on social issues. The first half of the twentieth century was a very different political environment, back when isolationism--not just skepticism about foreign entanglements, but absolute opposition to them in all their forms--was very mainstream across America in general.
I generally don't make judgments about the nature of political parties because it runs the risk of stereotyping, but when I do, I think only the past 30-40 years or so are very relevant. The Republican party today for one is very different from what it was just 10 years ago, at the tail end of the Bush years. The Tea Party movement is less than a decade old, and the Trump era is only 2 or 3 years in.
I'm not even 30, and when I was a kid, Clinton still meant Bill Clinton instead of Hillary Clinton.
@Balrog99: Bear in mind that the Republican and Democratic parties were very different before the 1960s. For one thing, the Republican party was liberal on social issues and the Democratic party was conservative on social issues. The first half of the twentieth century was a very different political environment, back when isolationism--not just skepticism about foreign entanglements, but absolute opposition to them in all their forms--was very mainstream across America in general.
I generally don't make judgments about the nature of political parties because it runs the risk of stereotyping, but when I do, I think only the past 30-40 years or so are very relevant. The Republican party today for one is very different from what it was just 10 years ago, at the tail end of the Bush years. The Tea Party movement is less than a decade old, and the Trump era is only 2 or 3 years in.
I'm not even 30, and when I was a kid, Clinton still meant Bill Clinton instead of Hillary Clinton.
That may be true but I'm more apt to use liberal and conservative than use the party names. The way of thinking hasn't changed much over the years, but the parties certainly have. Conservatives believe in limiting central government powers(for the most part), while liberals believe in using a stronger central government in order to advance society as a whole. I believe extreme liberals are hopelessly naive about human nature and extreme conservatives are equally naive about how great things were in 'The Good Old Days'. I'm stuck in the middle somewhere...
The reasoning for the party's platform fluctuations is to get votes. It's interesting to me however, that no matter who is in power, things never seem to change much. It's all talk and little action imo.
The parties basically completely flipped on social issues after the Civil Rights Act. Even people who disingenuously like to call the Democrats the "party of slavery and the KKK" know this is the case, but they find it's a nice, quick talking point. The fact is that nearly 100% of the Southern Dixiecrats fled to the Republican Party under Nixon. And they did so because it was Nixon's SPECIFIC strategy to court them, and the Republican Party has been running a version of this strategy ever since. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of recent political history knows this to be the case. The modern Republican Party (again, exemplified by Nixon's Southern Strategy) not only welcomed in the old racist Democratic politicians of the Southern states, they actively courted them. From there you get Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi talking about "state's rights" in the town where Civil Rights workers were murdered and dumped in a swamp. You get Lee Atwater running George H.W. Bush's campaign, and you get Karl Rove getting sonny boy re-elected by putting a gay marriage ban on the ballot in Ohio.
As for @semiticgod commenting on how the Republican Party has changed in the last 10 years, I would respectfully completely disagree. They have been on a trajectory to Trump for well over 30 years, but you can absolutely draw a line directly from Bush 10 years ago. Conservatives in this country supported him right up until the point the economy started falling apart at the seams. Iraq didn't do it, Katrina didn't do it. The Tea Party was a combination of trying to erase responsibility for Bush (first and foremost it was a rebranding effort) and a guttural reaction to an African-American President. You'll notice that this supposedly "fiscal conservative" movement no longer gives two shits about the deficit. From there you McCain somehow being convinced to put Sarah Palin on the ticket for VP, who was in every single way just a proto-type for Trump. You can't separate Trump from the Tea Party. Trump is President because he watched the Tea Party and conservative media for the 8 years of the Obama Administration, waltzed in and stopped with the dog whistles, and just started saying what all these people wanted to hear out loud. It's not an ACCIDENT the first act of his campaign was calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers. It was by DESIGN. That was my first clue he would get the nomination in a radicalized party. The second was when he started taking Jeb Bush head on. Because conservative voters (in my opinion) craved nothing more than some sort of do-over or absolution of Bush, and Trump offered it during the primary.
As for the Iraq War, let's get real. Nearly 5000 of our troops died, but the resulting deaths of Iraqis either by direct or indirect result of the war is at a MINIMUM in the hundreds of thousands and possibly nearing a million. Those people can't tell us what they think of how great the "liberation" was. Not to mention the entire basis of the war to begin with was perhaps the biggest crock of bullshit ever sold to the American People outside of Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin (I'd rate them as equals). To this day, we haven't found a single goddamn weapon of mass destruction anywhere. Nor any links to 9/11. I was alive from 2003-2006. And no one is ever going to tell me I wasn't being sold a bill of goods everyday during that time period. I don't just believe it, I know it for a fact. Time has erased how bad it was, not reality.
The parties basically completely flipped on social issues after the Civil Rights Act. Even people who disingenuously like to call the Democrats the "party of slavery and the KKK" know this is the case, but they find it's a nice, quick talking point. The fact is that nearly 100% of the Southern Dixiecrats fled to the Republican Party under Nixon. And they did so because it was Nixon's SPECIFIC strategy to court them, and the Republican Party has been running a version of this strategy ever since. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of recent political history knows this to be the case. The modern Republican Party (again, exemplified by Nixon's Southern Strategy) not only welcomed in the old racist Democratic politicians of the Southern states, they actively courted them. From there you get Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi talking about "state's rights" in the town where Civil Rights workers were murdered and dumped in a swamp. You get Lee Atwater running George H.W. Bush's campaign, and you get Karl Rove getting sonny boy re-elected by putting a gay marriage ban on the ballot in Ohio.
As for @semiticgod commenting on how the Republican Party has changed in the last 10 years, I would respectfully completely disagree. They have been on a trajectory to Trump for well over 30 years, but you can absolutely draw a line directly from Bush 10 years ago. Conservatives in this country supported him right up until the point the economy started falling apart at the seams. Iraq didn't do it, Katrina didn't do it. The Tea Party was a combination of trying to erase responsibility for Bush (first and foremost it was a rebranding effort) and a guttural reaction to an African-American President. You'll notice that this supposedly "fiscal conservative" movement no longer gives two shits about the deficit. From there you McCain somehow being convinced to put Sarah Palin on the ticket for VP, who was in every single way just a proto-type for Trump. You can't separate Trump from the Tea Party. Trump is President because he watched the Tea Party and conservative media for the 8 years of the Obama Administration, waltzed in and stopped with the dog whistles, and just started saying what all these people wanted to hear out loud. It's not an ACCIDENT the first act of his campaign was calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers. It was by DESIGN. That was my first clue he would get the nomination in a radicalized party. The second was when he started taking Jeb Bush head on. Because conservative voters (in my opinion) craved nothing more than some sort of do-over or absolution of Bush, and Trump offered it during the primary.
As for the Iraq War, let's get real. Nearly 5000 of our troops died, but the resulting deaths of Iraqis either by direct or indirect result of the war is at a MINIMUM in the hundreds of thousands and possibly nearing a million. Those people can't tell us what they think of how great the "liberation" was. Not to mention the entire basis of the war to begin with was perhaps the biggest crock of bullshit ever sold to the American People outside of Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin (I'd rate them as equals). To this day, we haven't found a single goddamn weapon of mass destruction anywhere. Nor any links to 9/11. I was alive from 2003-2006. And no one is ever going to tell me I wasn't being sold a bill of goods everyday during that time period. I don't just believe it, I know it for a fact. Time has erased how bad it was, not reality.
'Remember the Maine' was another load of bullshit sold to Americans in the not-so distant past. The truth is, people have been sold bills of goods for as long as there's been governments. That's why I'm a conservative.
There are far more ways of looking at things than two. That's why I hate political parties. There is no practical way of keeping like-minded people from banding together, however, but there certainly should be more than two parties. If there was a viable fiscally conservative party for me to choose, I would. Stealing other people's money to distribute it in ways I don't agree with is not my idea of a viable alternative. If the Democrats came up with a way for the disadvantaged to 'earn' the aid given to them I'd be intrigued enough to give it a try.
As an interesting aside, Governer Snyder here in Michigan is proposing to remove the check box for criminal history from state government job applications (and is encouraging private companies to follow suit). I truly like the idea of giving folks a second chance so you'll be shocked to know that I'm actually for this change. Michigan is dominated by conservatives (edit: should have said Republicans, not conservatives - have to watch how I word these things) at the state and local level for the most part though, so I'm not sure he's going to able to pull this off.
The parties basically completely flipped on social issues after the Civil Rights Act. Even people who disingenuously like to call the Democrats the "party of slavery and the KKK" know this is the case, but they find it's a nice, quick talking point. The fact is that nearly 100% of the Southern Dixiecrats fled to the Republican Party under Nixon. And they did so because it was Nixon's SPECIFIC strategy to court them, and the Republican Party has been running a version of this strategy ever since. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of recent political history knows this to be the case. The modern Republican Party (again, exemplified by Nixon's Southern Strategy) not only welcomed in the old racist Democratic politicians of the Southern states, they actively courted them. From there you get Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi talking about "state's rights" in the town where Civil Rights workers were murdered and dumped in a swamp. You get Lee Atwater running George H.W. Bush's campaign, and you get Karl Rove getting sonny boy re-elected by putting a gay marriage ban on the ballot in Ohio.
As for @semiticgod commenting on how the Republican Party has changed in the last 10 years, I would respectfully completely disagree. They have been on a trajectory to Trump for well over 30 years, but you can absolutely draw a line directly from Bush 10 years ago. Conservatives in this country supported him right up until the point the economy started falling apart at the seams. Iraq didn't do it, Katrina didn't do it. The Tea Party was a combination of trying to erase responsibility for Bush (first and foremost it was a rebranding effort) and a guttural reaction to an African-American President. You'll notice that this supposedly "fiscal conservative" movement no longer gives two shits about the deficit. From there you McCain somehow being convinced to put Sarah Palin on the ticket for VP, who was in every single way just a proto-type for Trump. You can't separate Trump from the Tea Party. Trump is President because he watched the Tea Party and conservative media for the 8 years of the Obama Administration, waltzed in and stopped with the dog whistles, and just started saying what all these people wanted to hear out loud. It's not an ACCIDENT the first act of his campaign was calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers. It was by DESIGN. That was my first clue he would get the nomination in a radicalized party. The second was when he started taking Jeb Bush head on. Because conservative voters (in my opinion) craved nothing more than some sort of do-over or absolution of Bush, and Trump offered it during the primary.
As for the Iraq War, let's get real. Nearly 5000 of our troops died, but the resulting deaths of Iraqis either by direct or indirect result of the war is at a MINIMUM in the hundreds of thousands and possibly nearing a million. Those people can't tell us what they think of how great the "liberation" was. Not to mention the entire basis of the war to begin with was perhaps the biggest crock of bullshit ever sold to the American People outside of Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin (I'd rate them as equals). To this day, we haven't found a single goddamn weapon of mass destruction anywhere. Nor any links to 9/11. I was alive from 2003-2006. And no one is ever going to tell me I wasn't being sold a bill of goods everyday during that time period. I don't just believe it, I know it for a fact. Time has erased how bad it was, not reality.
'Remember the Maine' was another load of bullshit sold to Americans in the not-so distant past. The truth is, people have been sold bills of goods for as long as there's been governments. That's why I'm a conservative.
There are far more ways of looking at things than two. That's why I hate political parties. There is no practical way of keeping like-minded people from banding together, however, but there certainly should be more than two parties. If there was a viable fiscally conservative party for me to choose, I would. Stealing other people's money to distribute it in ways I don't agree with is not my idea of a viable alternative. If the Democrats came up with a way for the disadvantaged to 'earn' the aid given to them I'd be intrigued enough to give it a try.
As an interesting aside, Governer Snyder here in Michigan is proposing to remove the check box for criminal history from state government job applications (and is encouraging private companies to follow suit). I truly like the idea of giving folks a second chance so you'll be shocked to know that I'm actually for this change. Michigan is dominated by conservatives (edit: should have said Republicans, not conservatives - have to watch how I word these things) at the state and local level for the most part though, so I'm not sure he's going to able to pull this off.
If Trump wanted to rant about "fake news", he should have been born in the late 1800s when William Randolph Hurst was basically shaping public opinion with his newspaper empire and yellow journalism. Interestingly enough, the only piece of popular culture (being film, music, TV) I have ever heard Trump express any admiration for is "Citizen Kane" (he did some commentary on one of the DVD releases), which is, of course, based on Hearst. Of course, Trump's big takeaway from the story of Charles Foster Kane is that he thought he needed a different wife. Imagine watching that movie and coming to that conclusion.
I'm frankly shocked Snyder is suggesting that, as the typical state-level Republican position in recent years has been drug tests as a prerequisite for any welfare benefits. But of course it makes sense to do this. We make it nearly impossible for ex-cons to do anything with these job application requirements, which only makes it more likely they will commit another crime and get sent back to prison. And nearly every job application asks about criminal history, no matter what the work entails. Having a legitimate criminal record in this country is like walking around with a giant scarlet letter on your forehead as far as job prospects go. Society makes it almost impossible to reintegrate in a legitimate way. I have worked with many ex-cons in the past 5 years and I feel bad for all of them. They are forced to work through temp agencies in many cases because companies can't fully hire them on for insurance reasons. GOING to prisons is punishment, yes. But once they are there, the focus should be on rehabilitation and education and training for how to function within the bounds of the law in society. Otherwise we are simply operating a revolving door that funnels money to the industries that benefit from keeping them locked up. Of course, that is how many people want it.
I got a legitimate question for you @Balrog99 (and anyone else who wants to answer). Percentage wise, how would you like your tax money distributed then?
I got a legitimate question for you @Balrog99 (and anyone else who wants to answer). Percentage wise, how would you like your tax money distributed then?
I'm not going to speak for him, but the typical #1 answer is national defense. Which is fine, as far as that goes. Except we already spend more than $40 billion dollars more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the United Kingdom and Japan COMBINED. So in the event that every single one of those disparate nations teamed up to take us on, we'd still have them licked.
I got a legitimate question for you @Balrog99 (and anyone else who wants to answer). Percentage wise, how would you like your tax money distributed then?
At the moment about 50% infrastructure. The grid, sewer systems, highways, bridges, dams, public buildings, schools, and the like are in dire need of modernization. I'd say about 10% on the military and intelligence. You probably wouldn't agree but military research also leads to useful technology that we use every day. 5% on non-military research projects. 10% on federal salaries (not sure if that could also cover pensions but maybe it could). 10% on federal agencies (FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc...). 10% on social programs, provided that the benefits can be proven. The final 5% for NASA and other far-reaching projects that would not be funded by for-profit companies due to uncertain monetary returns. This is obviously simplistic because I don't know everything the Fed's do. The infrastructure expenditure would also serve to employ a good many people (kind of like what happened during the Great Depression and following WW2).
It can't happen though because a large percentage of our tax dollars are used for paying our considerable debt. I might as well take another hit on my crack pipe...
Comments
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
src:
https://qz.com/1267508/all-the-people-close-to-donald-trump-who-called-him-an-idiot/
May 2, 2018 so there are surely more since then
Bottom line: documents released show that Kavanaugh has been lying his ass off during these confirmation hearings.
He should be charged with perjury instead of rewarded with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court
I also fail to see the correlation between not wanting to kill children and killing animals. Its a false equivalence. What exactly do you think is the result of a human-human pairing? I've seen a person give birth to a velociraptor. De-humanizing your victim is the only way you can justify murder to yourself.
@BallpointMan "I believe your question was already answered by this: "
See my response above.
"Unless, of course - it isnt murder. Doesnt need justification that way. Side note - maybe dont accuse a fellow forumite of championing mass murder? Seems in bad taste at least. I wont speak to it being against forum rules or not, since I'm not an authority in them."
So, what would you call the killing of large numbers of children?
Let's say I support Policy X because I think it improves GDP. Let's say Policy X actually decreases GDP--but I don't know that. I would be supporting a policy that's bad for GDP, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-GDP, because I believe I'm supporting a policy that increases it. My perception is wrong, but my motive is not evil.
I think it's important to bear in mind that just because you're motivated by A doesn't mean that people who disagree with you are against A--they're just in favor of B, and A is either not on their radar, or they don't view it as a factor.
Pro-life people aren't anti-choice; pro-choice people aren't anti-life (or pro-abortion).
I gave you a 'like' and not an 'agree' only because I can't agree with that statement as written. I think you can be pro-choice but still hope people won't take the abortion option. It's like how in Christian theology God gives us free-choice but hopes we choose Him. Whether it's legal or not, some percentage of people will choose abortion anyway. My problem is having money that I involuntarily donate to the government being spent on medical treatments I think are morally wrong.
If all the pro-choicers chipped in to a non-profit fund to help pay for for those folks who can't afford it, I'd have less of an objection. I don't expect everybody to agree with my morals but I do expect them to be respected. My folks' give money to their church voluntarily. Why can't the pro-choicers do the same for their cause that they believe in so strongly?
That's never what the pro-lifers want though. They not only want my money to help pay for it, they also want me to shut up about it!
The typical argument is pro-choice. As @semiticgod said above the fact that someone believes it's right that women should have control of their own bodies does not mean they are in favor of abortion - simply that they view that as less of an offense against human rights than requiring a woman to bear a child against her will. The reverse holds true as well of course - someone who believes abortion is wrong in all circumstances won't usually believe it's good to force women to bear a child against their will, just that requiring that is less of an offense against human rights than allowing an abortion.
The only other situation I can think of that you might be referring to would be people who believe over-population needs to be addressed. Even in the context of radical policies like those in China (until recently) though, abortion wouldn't be seen as good - just necessary.
Ideally, people would only get pregnant when they wanted to and when they had the resources and time to properly care for their child. That's what contraception and family planning are for, but those can fail even when people are otherwise acting responsibly. Abortion is the last resort when everything else fails. It should be available, and it should be rare.
The individual's role in the process is a vote, not a veto. I don't get everything I want out of the government, but that's because I'm not the only one who gets to decide. I'll certainly complain about it in an attempt to change minds in the hopes that it will change the policy, but it's not inherently illegitimate for a majority or a plurality to override the will of a minority.
Speaking of the 'War on Terror'. Good thing Obama got us out of Afghanistan, eh? He really should get high grades for closing down Guantanamo. I'm sure glad he didn't do any bombing in Syria or drone bomb in Yemen or anything. I'll bet Obama spent a pretty penny (of ours, not his) on that war in his eight years.
Edit: I can't believe I almost forgot about bombing the Hell out of Libya and the rest of that fiasco...
Are you complaining because federal funds might be used for an abortion when a woman's life is in danger due to an ectopic pregnancy, when the fetus has already died in utero and continuing the pregnancy endangers the mother's health, or when she's been raped?
Ken Burns has an excellent documentary on Vietnam War and how presidents didn’t want to end it because they’d “lose face.” They knee since the beginning (Truman) that they were backing the losing side. It is the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan. America leaves, everything done up to that point disappears as those that they are fighting move in and take over.
The difference is the Second Iraq war was started on false pretences that the majority of the world saw by the USA. Even the war in Afghanistan could have been said was rushed and just an easy target to attack due to 9/11.
Oh - and to correct you on history: Democrats didnt start World War 1 (Sinking of the Luisitania and the Zimmerman telegram are the pivotal events to get USA into WW1). Democrats didnt start WW 2 (America became involved after we were attacked. You know - Pearl Harbor). Democrats didnt start the Korean war (North Korea attacked South Korea, and we helped our ally). The closest you can get is the War in Vietnam, and even that's not apples to apples with how say, the war in Iraq began.
Unsurprisingly- there's a hell of a difference in starting a war to defend an ally, or because you were attacked than attacking them outright. You'll find that the first War with Iraq was more broadly supported because we were defending Kuwait than the second war. I agree with all this. I'm just trying to be careful not to attack the other side as if it is without merit.
I've been thinking about John McCain and why he was respected by people on both sides of the aisle. I didn't say this in my brief announcement about his passing away, but I'll do it now. For me personally, I respected him for his support of campaign finance reform, one of the few truly accurate indicators of a politician who genuinely wants to improve politics and not just perpetuate their own power.
More broadly, I think the reason liberals liked him was because he rejected the bitter partisanship that so many other people embraced. We liked him because he did not view us as evil crazy stupid people who needed to be destroyed--he viewed us as honest competitors who were wrong about important issues. A bit like Obama or Clinton in that regard.
I think that's the kind of attitude we need in this country.
I generally don't make judgments about the nature of political parties because it runs the risk of stereotyping, but when I do, I think only the past 30-40 years or so are very relevant. The Republican party today for one is very different from what it was just 10 years ago, at the tail end of the Bush years. The Tea Party movement is less than a decade old, and the Trump era is only 2 or 3 years in.
I'm not even 30, and when I was a kid, Clinton still meant Bill Clinton instead of Hillary Clinton.
The reasoning for the party's platform fluctuations is to get votes. It's interesting to me however, that no matter who is in power, things never seem to change much. It's all talk and little action imo.
As for @semiticgod commenting on how the Republican Party has changed in the last 10 years, I would respectfully completely disagree. They have been on a trajectory to Trump for well over 30 years, but you can absolutely draw a line directly from Bush 10 years ago. Conservatives in this country supported him right up until the point the economy started falling apart at the seams. Iraq didn't do it, Katrina didn't do it. The Tea Party was a combination of trying to erase responsibility for Bush (first and foremost it was a rebranding effort) and a guttural reaction to an African-American President. You'll notice that this supposedly "fiscal conservative" movement no longer gives two shits about the deficit. From there you McCain somehow being convinced to put Sarah Palin on the ticket for VP, who was in every single way just a proto-type for Trump. You can't separate Trump from the Tea Party. Trump is President because he watched the Tea Party and conservative media for the 8 years of the Obama Administration, waltzed in and stopped with the dog whistles, and just started saying what all these people wanted to hear out loud. It's not an ACCIDENT the first act of his campaign was calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers. It was by DESIGN. That was my first clue he would get the nomination in a radicalized party. The second was when he started taking Jeb Bush head on. Because conservative voters (in my opinion) craved nothing more than some sort of do-over or absolution of Bush, and Trump offered it during the primary.
As for the Iraq War, let's get real. Nearly 5000 of our troops died, but the resulting deaths of Iraqis either by direct or indirect result of the war is at a MINIMUM in the hundreds of thousands and possibly nearing a million. Those people can't tell us what they think of how great the "liberation" was. Not to mention the entire basis of the war to begin with was perhaps the biggest crock of bullshit ever sold to the American People outside of Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin (I'd rate them as equals). To this day, we haven't found a single goddamn weapon of mass destruction anywhere. Nor any links to 9/11. I was alive from 2003-2006. And no one is ever going to tell me I wasn't being sold a bill of goods everyday during that time period. I don't just believe it, I know it for a fact. Time has erased how bad it was, not reality.
There are far more ways of looking at things than two. That's why I hate political parties. There is no practical way of keeping like-minded people from banding together, however, but there certainly should be more than two parties. If there was a viable fiscally conservative party for me to choose, I would. Stealing other people's money to distribute it in ways I don't agree with is not my idea of a viable alternative. If the Democrats came up with a way for the disadvantaged to 'earn' the aid given to them I'd be intrigued enough to give it a try.
As an interesting aside, Governer Snyder here in Michigan is proposing to remove the check box for criminal history from state government job applications (and is encouraging private companies to follow suit). I truly like the idea of giving folks a second chance so you'll be shocked to know that I'm actually for this change. Michigan is dominated by conservatives (edit: should have said Republicans, not conservatives - have to watch how I word these things) at the state and local level for the most part though, so I'm not sure he's going to able to pull this off.
I'm frankly shocked Snyder is suggesting that, as the typical state-level Republican position in recent years has been drug tests as a prerequisite for any welfare benefits. But of course it makes sense to do this. We make it nearly impossible for ex-cons to do anything with these job application requirements, which only makes it more likely they will commit another crime and get sent back to prison. And nearly every job application asks about criminal history, no matter what the work entails. Having a legitimate criminal record in this country is like walking around with a giant scarlet letter on your forehead as far as job prospects go. Society makes it almost impossible to reintegrate in a legitimate way. I have worked with many ex-cons in the past 5 years and I feel bad for all of them. They are forced to work through temp agencies in many cases because companies can't fully hire them on for insurance reasons. GOING to prisons is punishment, yes. But once they are there, the focus should be on rehabilitation and education and training for how to function within the bounds of the law in society. Otherwise we are simply operating a revolving door that funnels money to the industries that benefit from keeping them locked up. Of course, that is how many people want it.
Percentage wise, how would you like your tax money distributed then?
It can't happen though because a large percentage of our tax dollars are used for paying our considerable debt. I might as well take another hit on my crack pipe...