I don't think the GOP overtly seeks the annihilation of LGBT, to be frank thats exaggeration, you may refer to i suppose hardcore christian evangelists, but thats perfectly mirrored in the hardcore Islamists that mostly are Democrats.
The GOP has consistently attempted to legislate against LGBT people to deny access to the public sphere. Religious Right members have repeatedly called for everything up to and including the execution of LGBT people, and unlike Muslims (that's the actual word, not "Islamist") who may or may not be homophobic themselves, wield considerable power in the GOP. Saying that they're perfectly mirrored is exaggeration at best. Muslims aren't driving legislation in the Democratic party.
Another form of attempted annihilation is reparative therapy, which the right wing tends to support:
And the Islamic 'left' that are nominally democrat behave the same way, then the Democrat party pursues the annihilation of the LBGT just as much as the GOP, per your argument.
No you haven't, you tacidly admit their the same but you justify your difference of standard to political parties to whom wields power.
The Christian right doesn't wield much power in the GOP, they merely pander to that vote, little different to Muslims not wielding much power in the DNC but they pander to that vote too.
If what you said held any truth, then Thiel would have been booed off stage during the GOP convention instead of being cheered for.
No you haven't, you tacidly admit their the same but you justify your difference of standard to political parties to whom wields power.
The Christian right doesn't wield much power in the GOP, they merely pander to that vote, little different to Muslims not wielding much power in the DNC but they pander to that vote too.
If what you said held any truth, then Thiel would have been booed off stage during the GOP convention instead of being cheered for.
Methinks you've been taken by stereotypes.
The Vice President of the United States proposed funding gay conversion therapy in Indiana. Make sure to report this as spam.
No you haven't, you tacidly admit their the same but you justify your difference of standard to political parties to whom wields power.
The Christian right doesn't wield much power in the GOP, they merely pander to that vote, little different to Muslims not wielding much power in the DNC but they pander to that vote too.
If what you said held any truth, then Thiel would have been booed off stage during the GOP convention instead of being cheered for.
Methinks you've been taken by stereotypes.
I didn't tacitly admit they're the same. I said it doesn't matter because Muslims don't wield the same amount of influence as religious conservatives. I refuted your claim by pointing out Muslims don't have that kind of influence.
No, they don't just pander to that vote. They actively argue in favor of religious right positions. If Democrats were pandering to the supposed homophobic Muslim majority then they'd be supporting the GOP's anti-LGBT legislation, I think, and they don't.
Oh, right! So you found a gay guy Republicans don't hate. Here's another: Milo. That's not a refutation, though. I mean LGBT working against their own interests is nothing new (Ernst Rohm, for example), and the far right accepting them for as long as they're useful is also nothing new.
This is a drop in the bucket compared to the constant attempts to legislate against LGBT people by the GOP.
I didn't tacitly admit they're the same. I said it doesn't matter because Muslims don't wield the same amount of influence as religious conservatives. I refuted your claim by pointing out Muslims don't have that kind of influence.
No, they don't just pander to that vote. They actively argue in favor of religious right positions. If Democrats were pandering to the supposed homophobic Muslim majority then they'd be supporting the GOP's anti-LGBT legislation, I think, and they don't.
Oh, right! So you found a gay guy Republicans don't hate. Here's another: Milo. That's not a refutation, though. I mean LGBT working against their own interests is nothing new (Ernst Rohm, for example), and the far right accepting them for as long as they're useful is also nothing new.
This is a drop in the bucket compared to the constant attempts to legislate against LGBT people by the GOP.
I would appreciate it if we could stick to reality-based arguments here.
Also, I'm not a Democrat.
Really? as i take it theres no public support or stance of Republicans to 'annihilate gays' as you genuinely believe, but you believe it all the same, you seem hop between conflating 'religious right', 'GOP' and 'Republican party' so the sins of the religious right are shared unanimously for the party entire, enough that you consider the party calling for your extermination.
Yet the same phenomenon exists in the DNC, they also pander to the Islamic vote and Islam and Muslim's don't have a great track record with gays, especially outside the West.
Both Hillary and Obama explicitly have said to be against gay marriage in the past too.
Both have the same problem, but you don't acknowledge it.
I would appreciate it if we could stick to reality-based arguments here.
Don't make my job as a moderator harder than it already is, @BelleSorciere.
I find it stunning that someone has turned the entire thread into a referendum on the motives and ethics of the people who have actually been participating in it but her comment is the red flag today.
I find it stunning that someone has turned the entire thread into a referendum on the motives and ethics of the people who have actually been participating in it but her comment is the red flag today.
The fact that in the not too distant past you've turned the same thread into a referendum against Trump voters is amusing if it wasn't so ironic too.
The proper honest reply is to admit it is a conflict of interest but its allowed anyway because we all want to have fun and have a casual atmosphere, not to try and say it isn't.
In the real world, this is a strong rule for virtually any cases where your in a position to put down rulings and judgements (ie judges, cops etc).
This is how we handle it: if a moderator is personally involved in an argument, that moderator does not handle the situation. Another moderator handles it instead. So if I'm arguing with somebody in the thread and one of our posts gets reported, I don't vote on the matter in the moderating team's private deliberations, and if a warning is issued, a separate moderator issues the warning, not me. It's like when a new forumite recently reported @JuliusBorisov for disrespectful behavior. When we reviewed the complaint, JB did not participate in the review.
I'm pretty sure you issued me a warning in this thread, so appears to be untrue.
I've actually missed @vanatos . This thread has gotten much more lively. It gets the heart pumping now. Health benefit!
It was truly amazing to see nothing has changed in a year. I half-expected there to be an actual trumpocalypse that i missed for people to still be this obsessed against him.
The 4% impossible Economic growth is surely gonna be mostly un-mentioned since that doesn't fit the 'narrative'.
I would appreciate it if we could stick to reality-based arguments here.
Don't make my job as a moderator harder than it already is, @BelleSorciere.
I find it stunning that someone has turned the entire thread into a referendum on the motives and ethics of the people who have actually been participating in it but her comment is the red flag today.
I don't think that semiticgod's lone concern--in this thread, at this moment--is BelleSorciere, and I doubt you do, either.
I find it stunning that someone has turned the entire thread into a referendum on the motives and ethics of the people who have actually been participating in it but her comment is the red flag today.
The fact that in the not too distant past you've turned the same thread into a referendum against Trump voters is amusing if it wasn't so ironic too.
"Trump voters" is not the name of a person posting in this thread. It is a politcal science demographic group. And you PERSONALLY and deliberatey smeared me as a spammer to place that idea in everyone's head in a cowardly attempt to neutralize my opinion before jumping back into the fray. And I'll never forget it.
The proper honest reply is to admit it is a conflict of interest but its allowed anyway because we all want to have fun and have a casual atmosphere, not to try and say it isn't.
In the real world, this is a strong rule for virtually any cases where your in a position to put down rulings and judgements (ie judges, cops etc).
This is how we handle it: if a moderator is personally involved in an argument, that moderator does not handle the situation. Another moderator handles it instead. So if I'm arguing with somebody in the thread and one of our posts gets reported, I don't vote on the matter in the moderating team's private deliberations, and if a warning is issued, a separate moderator issues the warning, not me. It's like when a new forumite recently reported @JuliusBorisov for disrespectful behavior. When we reviewed the complaint, JB did not participate in the review.
I'm pretty sure you issued me a warning in this thread, so appears to be untrue.
Really? My mistake, then; I should have left it to another moderator.
Yet the same phenomenon exists in the DNC, they also pander to the Islamic vote and Islam and Muslim's don't have a great track record with gays, especially outside the West.
Muslims constitute less than 1% of the population of the United States as of 2016; therefore, I highly doubt anyone is pandering for their votes.
Anyway....the House passed the tax reform bill and now the Senate is already debating it even though they are likely to pass it as early as tonight. Even if they don't pass their version until tomorrow it probably won't be in conference to reconcile any House/Senate differences long before going to Trump's desk. The most likely scenario is that he will sign it by the end of this week.
If only 'Trump voters' was actually used honestly to analyze a political demographic group rather then sidelining and ostracizing voting preference, and heaping loads of insults on them.
Of course its a shame that the Democrat candidate and figurehead called them as half deplorables, probably poisoned the well too much.
Of course perhaps its an understandable understanding, after all Van Jones remarked with surprise at a Trump voting family 'Wow you know everyone thinks you guys are racist' only to find out their not.
The 4% impossible Economic growth is surely gonna be mostly un-mentioned since that doesn't fit the 'narrative'.
A year ago I promised to do a review of all numeric indicators on January 20, and I still plan on doing it. I predicted that most figures wouldn't be too different from the tail end of the Obama years, since we haven't had a whole bunch of major policy changes until this incoming tax bill.
Currently it looks like it'll be around 2.5% for 2017.
Indeed. What happens after the tax bill goes into effect will be much more telling. The economy under GWB did well for the first year also, as GWB came into office with a strong economy, but typical Republican legislation wrecked it over time.
This is clearly another attempt of the right to take away freedom of speech by preventing people with different ideas from them being able to talk openly without being censored. Oh wait...
Net neutrality is actually needed, it has been a problem before here's examples.
2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.
2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition
It's better to have the government say everyone gets the same access (net neutrality) than to let corporations decide what they want us to see. Because they don't have our interests at heart. More competition is the answer you say? Sure buy many places only have one or two choices and local regulations prevent more competition. Also the Koch brothers backed lobby is against further competition.
President Trump also signed a bill in April repealing internet privacy rules in order to allow ISPs to sell your search history and private data without your consent.
The repeal of net neutrality and the repeal of internet privacy protections are a coordinated effort to turn over the internet to big business and fundamentally reshape the internet in their favor. If this were Obama the right would be up in arms and calling it the "War on the Internet". But it's not Obama it's Trump so it seems they support losing their freedoms. That doesn't make sense to me.
The 4% impossible Economic growth is surely gonna be mostly un-mentioned since that doesn't fit the 'narrative'.
A year ago I promised to do a review of all numeric indicators on January 20, and I still plan on doing it. I predicted that most figures wouldn't be too different from the tail end of the Obama years, since we haven't had a whole bunch of major policy changes until this incoming tax bill.
Currently it looks like it'll be around 2.5% for 2017.
Which is politically remarkable since Obama claimed it was impossible, as did so many economists, now its revised to forecasted 4% by the Federal Reserve.
4% is basically economic golden age, so if Trump achieves this he will have alot to brag about.
I find it disheartening how much credit and blame for the economy gets thrown at the feet of presidents. It's probably one of the areas where they have the least influence, especially when you compare it to a president's influence on foreign policy or judicial appointments.
3% for individual quarters; not necessarily the whole year.
Personally, I don't see what exactly Trump has done to impact the economy. We haven't seen any major stimulus bills, infrastructure plans, or any kind of restructuring to the economy. All we've seen is vague promises of growth and the weakening of environmental regulations.
3% for individual quarters; not necessarily the whole year.
Personally, I don't see what exactly Trump has done to impact the economy. We haven't seen any major stimulus bills, infrastructure plans, or any kind of restructuring to the economy. All we've seen is vague promises of growth and the weakening of environmental regulations.
Relaxing of choking legislation on businesses and optimism will do that.
People forget that a large proportion of what drives the economy is peoples outlook of the future.
A large portion of business investment doesn't happen after favorable conditions occur, but predicting it will occur and being there early.
Choking legislation on businesses...like safety regulations, environmental protection, etc. Stuff that was present for a good reason, and its removal is not something to cheer for.
Choking legislation on businesses...like safety regulations, environmental protection, etc. Stuff that was present for a good reason, and its removal is not something to cheer for.
I always thought it was kind of remarkable that optimism could have an impact on economic growth, and pessimism can introduce instability. But it makes sense. Economists prefer to work with models that assume strictly rational decisionmaking, but human beings are emotional critters, and people will make more or less investments depending on how they feel at the moment. A bit like how judges will give slightly different sentences before and after lunchtime. The funny thing is that directly after the election's results came in, there was a slight stock market crash. Nothing had changed about the economy; things just felt uncertain and prices fluctuated alongside people's feelings.
I'm glad for the optimism, but I don't see which regulations are so evil they needed to be removed. The first example that comes up is a rule that financial companies are required to act in the best interests of our clients, and not cheat them.
Comments
Another form of attempted annihilation is reparative therapy, which the right wing tends to support:
http://time.com/4410894/rnc-conversion-therapy/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-muslims-are-now-more-accepting-of-homosexuality-than-white-evangelicals_us_597f3d8de4b02a4ebb76ea3d
The Christian right doesn't wield much power in the GOP, they merely pander to that vote, little different to Muslims not wielding much power in the DNC but they pander to that vote too.
If what you said held any truth, then Thiel would have been booed off stage during the GOP convention instead of being cheered for.
Methinks you've been taken by stereotypes.
No, they don't just pander to that vote. They actively argue in favor of religious right positions. If Democrats were pandering to the supposed homophobic Muslim majority then they'd be supporting the GOP's anti-LGBT legislation, I think, and they don't.
Oh, right! So you found a gay guy Republicans don't hate. Here's another: Milo. That's not a refutation, though. I mean LGBT working against their own interests is nothing new (Ernst Rohm, for example), and the far right accepting them for as long as they're useful is also nothing new.
This is a drop in the bucket compared to the constant attempts to legislate against LGBT people by the GOP.
Also, I'm not a Democrat.
Yet the same phenomenon exists in the DNC, they also pander to the Islamic vote and Islam and Muslim's don't have a great track record with gays, especially outside the West.
Both Hillary and Obama explicitly have said to be against gay marriage in the past too.
Both have the same problem, but you don't acknowledge it. I'm not a Republican either.
I half-expected there to be an actual trumpocalypse that i missed for people to still be this obsessed against him.
The 4% impossible Economic growth is surely gonna be mostly un-mentioned since that doesn't fit the 'narrative'.
Anyway....the House passed the tax reform bill and now the Senate is already debating it even though they are likely to pass it as early as tonight. Even if they don't pass their version until tomorrow it probably won't be in conference to reconcile any House/Senate differences long before going to Trump's desk. The most likely scenario is that he will sign it by the end of this week.
Of course its a shame that the Democrat candidate and figurehead called them as half deplorables, probably poisoned the well too much.
Of course perhaps its an understandable understanding, after all Van Jones remarked with surprise at a Trump voting family 'Wow you know everyone thinks you guys are racist' only to find out their not.
Currently it looks like it'll be around 2.5% for 2017.
Net neutrality is actually needed, it has been a problem before here's examples.
2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.
2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition
It's better to have the government say everyone gets the same access (net neutrality) than to let corporations decide what they want us to see. Because they don't have our interests at heart. More competition is the answer you say? Sure buy many places only have one or two choices and local regulations prevent more competition. Also the Koch brothers backed lobby is against further competition.
https://www.wired.com/story/koch-brothers-are-cities-new-obstacle-to-building-broadband/
President Trump also signed a bill in April repealing internet privacy rules in order to allow ISPs to sell your search history and private data without your consent.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327107-trump-signs-internet-privacy-repeal?amp
The repeal of net neutrality and the repeal of internet privacy protections are a coordinated effort to turn over the internet to big business and fundamentally reshape the internet in their favor. If this were Obama the right would be up in arms and calling it the "War on the Internet". But it's not Obama it's Trump so it seems they support losing their freedoms. That doesn't make sense to me.
Which is politically remarkable since Obama claimed it was impossible, as did so many economists, now its revised to forecasted 4% by the Federal Reserve.
4% is basically economic golden age, so if Trump achieves this he will have alot to brag about.
Personally, I don't see what exactly Trump has done to impact the economy. We haven't seen any major stimulus bills, infrastructure plans, or any kind of restructuring to the economy. All we've seen is vague promises of growth and the weakening of environmental regulations.
People forget that a large proportion of what drives the economy is peoples outlook of the future.
A large portion of business investment doesn't happen after favorable conditions occur, but predicting it will occur and being there early.
I'm glad for the optimism, but I don't see which regulations are so evil they needed to be removed. The first example that comes up is a rule that financial companies are required to act in the best interests of our clients, and not cheat them.