Revoking Transgender Civil Rights

[TS Evelyn Summers]

Usually, It Would Have Been Spoken About Already on This Forum.But It Hasnt..& I Am Very Curious To See Why No One Is Talking About This Subject Yet...This Forum Is Usually a Good Place To Know What The Populous Is Chattering About Around The Water Cooler.


So #45 Is Considering Some More World Domination....What Do You Peeps Think?? This Thing is Really Gaining Momentum!

Here is The Article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0cGOj5SCm0

[Ben in LA]

Many on this forum voted for trump.

[Tommy420]

Many on this forum voted for trump.

It wouldn’t surprise me if many on this forum would die a painful social death if their friends knew they were on this forum..

[Tommy420]

Ms Evelyn, I’ve been a member of these forums for many years and admittedly not much of an active one. One thing i noticed on my recent return is how much they have changed.

A few years ago it seemed as if they were a bit more social instead of the current “post pics on this fetish”.

Maybe I’m wrong but it’s just how I see it

[Wendy Summers]

While the website does tend to be more about pictures these days than the discussions we used to have on the website, the main forum never really went into political discussions. There's a whole subforum for it.

[giovanni_hotel]

Where are all my Trannies For Trump???lol

There's a discussion thread on HA somewhere and we had heated discussion about what a douchebag Trump was.

I don't know how anyone couldn't see this coming from a mile away.
Remember when Trump said on the campaign trail he would be a pro LGBTQ POTUS??

How could anyone believe that, knowing his record and who his VP was??

I'll never understand Americans who enjoy being conned by a sideshow pathological liar like Trump

[Tommy420]

I don’t think people are surprised or that it’s surprising that white America backs this guy, obviously no all white people nor only but a large enough section. I thought my state, NJ, was pretty progressive but FB pages and state forums have proven to me that as comfortable as you think things are bigoted peoples are abundant. As much as I support and care about the trans community they are the most underrepresented people. In general, unless you know someone in that community most see them and those of us who support them as something odd and humorous.

[filghy2]

Where are all my Trannies For Trump???lol

There's a discussion thread on HA somewhere and we had heated discussion about what a douchebag Trump was.

Yes, where is Nick Danger to explain to us how this is really just a small thing in the greater glory of Trumpdom? That guy burnt out as suddenly as he flared up.

I doubt that Trump cares about transsexuals either way. He will say or do whatever he thinks serves his interests at the time. As religious zealots are among his most loyal support base he will continue to pander to them.

Re lack of discussion here, I think a big part of the problem is that Trump's outrages are so continual that is has a numbing effect over time. Many people think "what's the point of even discussing this?", especially when the Trump fans/apologists here are either unable or unwilling to engage in sensible and honest discussion.

[natina]

Many on this forum voted for trump.

Cause they be a Dumb dumb like a chicken voting for the butcher or hen master.

[Stavros]

'Obama Made it, we destroy it'.

Every law, regulation and Executive Order with Obama's signature on it must be repealed.
Every international agreement with Obama's signature on it must be cancelled.
Every advance made when Obama was President must be reversed.
Every right extended to Americans when Obama was President must be taken away.
Every item on the record that proves the USA improved when Obama was President must become someone else's achievement.

Revenge and Spite are the motivations of the 45th Presidency by a man who could not accept the fact that a Black man entered the White House as President. Never Again. You were brought to America against your will, it is time for you go home. You don't belong here.

Transgendered, Non-Binary, Asexual, Polyamorous Americans -call yourselves whatever you like, you will no longer exist, you will be delared irrelevant and your existence expunged from the record.

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.

[Superrage]

This is just more fear mongering bullshit from the news. These are the same news organizations that told you it would be the end of the world of trump won. The world hasn't ended. I'd ignore this.

[KelliBlueEyes]

Usually, It Would Have Been Spoken About Already on This Forum.But It Hasnt..& I Am Very Curious To See Why No One Is Talking About This Subject Yet...This Forum Is Usually a Good Place To Know What The Populous Is Chattering About Around The Water Cooler.


So #45 Is Considering Some More World Domination....What Do You Peeps Think?? This Thing is Really Gaining Momentum!

Here is The Article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0cGOj5SCm0

Girl, on a board where over 80% of the forum topics include slurs against trans women you can’t expect any of the participants to give 2 shits about our rights.

Most of the guys here were hoping when SESTA/FOSTA was enacted we’d all be out working the streets.

So now most of them are probably hoping we’ll be shoved back into the closet like some dirty little secret.
I mean really, I think there’s a total of 3 guys who have ever posted here who have had face pics on their profile. Nearly all the posters here don’t want anyone to find out they are turned on by trans women, and they sure as hell don’t make any kind of decent trans ally.

But as long as there are “down low” guys we’ll continue to be OK financially.

[Stavros]

This is just more fear mongering bullshit from the news. These are the same news organizations that told you it would be the end of the world of trump won. The world hasn't ended. I'd ignore this.

It is real, and it is happening, and not just in the USA-

Viktor Orban (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/viktor-orb-n), who has rejected the EU’s vision of liberal democracy, issued a decree to revoke accreditation and funding for gender studies programmes at the two universities that provide them in the central European country earlier in October.
“The government’s standpoint is that people are born either male or female, and we do not consider it acceptable for us to talk about socially constructed genders rather than biological sexes,” a spokesman for the prime minister said.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-bans-gender-studies-programmes-viktor-orban-central-european-university-budapest-a8599796.html

[filghy2]

Many people think "what's the point of even discussing this?", especially when the Trump fans/apologists here are either unable or unwilling to engage in sensible and honest discussion.


This is just more fear mongering bullshit from the news. These are the same news organizations that told you it would be the end of the world of trump won. The world hasn't ended. I'd ignore this.

Nice of you to demonstrate my point so clearly.

[mildcigar_2001]

I doubt that PDT has an opinion either negative or positive about the Trans community..

However, I think Middle America has a problem when so-called Liberal positions that go against common sense (such as allowing Trans woman athletes to compete against genetic females).

Everyone (except Trans activists) knows that this is ridiculous and unfair. Trans athletes should recognize the patent unfairness of the situation and not aggitate for this particular "right.". There will be a backlash.

[lifeisfiction]

Girl, on a board where over 80% of the forum topics include slurs against trans women you can’t expect any of the participants to give 2 shits about our rights.

Most of the guys here were hoping when SESTA/FOSTA was enacted we’d all be out working the streets.

So now most of them are probably hoping we’ll be shoved back into the closet like some dirty little secret.
I mean really, I think there’s a total of 3 guys who have ever posted here who have had face pics on their profile. Nearly all the posters here don’t want anyone to find out they are turned on by trans women, and they sure as hell don’t make any kind of decent trans ally.

But as long as there are “down low” guys we’ll continue to be OK financially.

It's porn forum. I am not expecting a lot. However, if you want to something to be done encourage people to vote. Talking about what to do isn't going to fix anything. Asking people to vote and getting people out to vote can be more impactful. Honestly, the discussion on this forum is what one makes it. Nor is generalizations helpful either.

[filghy2]

However, I think Middle America has a problem when so-called Liberal positions that go against common sense (such as allowing Trans woman athletes to compete against genetic females).

I don't think that's what this issue is really about. It's primarily about whether transsexuals should be protected against discrimination based on their sexual orientation in employment, housing, education, health care, etc. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/22/18007978/trump-administration-lgbtq-transgender-discrimination-civil-rights

[MrFanti]

A transgender co-worker that I know is extremely concerned about loosing her job.....However, she's already been hired for over a year and performing excellently - but I understand her concern 100%...

[Ben in LA]

Re lack of discussion here, I think a big part of the problem is that Trump's outrages are so continual that is has a numbing effect over time. Many people think "what's the point of even discussing this?", especially when the Trump fans/apologists here are either unable or unwilling to engage in sensible and honest discussion.
This is the EXACT reason why I rarely post in the Political section anymore. On Twitter it’s a different situation.

[Ben in LA]

Girl, on a board where over 80% of the forum topics include slurs against trans women you can’t expect any of the participants to give 2 shits about our rights.

Most of the guys here were hoping when SESTA/FOSTA was enacted we’d all be out working the streets.

So now most of them are probably hoping we’ll be shoved back into the closet like some dirty little secret.
I mean really, I think there’s a total of 3 guys who have ever posted here who have had face pics on their profile. Nearly all the posters here don’t want anyone to find out they are turned on by trans women, and they sure as hell don’t make any kind of decent trans ally.

But as long as there are “down low” guys we’ll continue to be OK financially.
Glad I’m not in that group, because people that actually know me know how I feel about this potential legislation.

[filghy2]

This is the EXACT reason why I rarely post in the Political section anymore. On Twitter it’s a different situation.

How/why is it different? The impression I get from polls etc is that at least 80% of Republicans these days are full-on Trumpists who don't want to see or hear any evil about him, while most of the rest prefer to keep their heads down because they don't want to side with 'liberals'.

[Ben in LA]

How/why is it different? The impression I get from polls etc is that at least 80% of Republicans these days are full-on Trumpists who don't want to see or hear any evil about him, while most of the rest prefer to keep their heads down because they don't want to side with 'liberals'.
It’s because they’re full-on Trumpists that don’t want to listen to facts and there’s no point of me wasting my time arguing with them, even if my arguments are valid and based in reality.

[filghy2]

It’s because they’re full-on Trumpists that don’t want to listen to facts and there’s no point of me wasting my time arguing with them, even if my arguments are valid and based in reality.

I know. I was asking why you said it's a different situation on Twitter.

It would be nice to have intelligent conservatives who could actually debate issues based on evidence, through I doubt that these discussions ever really change anybody's mind. The best you can ever do is to draw information to the attention of people who may be open to receiving it. As the poster above said, the only solution is for people to get motivated and vote out those who support this kind of thing.

[Nick Danger]

Yes, where is Nick Danger to explain to us how this is really just a small thing in the greater glory of Trumpdom?

Careful what you wish for, Flighty.


Re lack of discussion here, I think a big part of the problem is that Trump's outrages are so continual that is has a numbing effect over time. Many people think "what's the point of even discussing this?", especially when the Trump fans/apologists here are either unable or unwilling to engage in sensible and honest discussion.

Define "outrages." Better yet, I'll define it for you. "Outrages" are what happens anytime liberals don't get exactly what they want. "Outrages" are also what happens anytime infants or chimpanzees don't get exactly what they want.

I'm perfectly willing to engage in sensible and honest discussion with liberals. The problem is, I've never encountered a liberal who had any better argument than "Here's how things OUGHT to be..."

Been working for the last couple of weeks with this young guy - son-of-a-friend kind of thing. Kid wants to learn about turbos. And this kid is a liberal, always spouting off about this right or that injustice, anti-gun rhetoric, the usual liberal nonsense; much to the amusement of me and the other older guys who pop in now and then. And you know what this kid's hobby is? Immortality. You heard me right. Immortality via prosthetics - kid wants to replace his body over time with robotic parts, including the organs. This young man doesn't even have a pot to piss in (lives with his parents, drives a car given to him by his father, only income is his allowance), but instead of thinking about getting his life together, he's thinking about becoming Iron Man.

This social anomaly is no surprise to me. In fact it wouldn't have surprised me if the kid was into voodoo or My Little Pony. There is no moral, religious, or practical point to which a liberal can aspire far out enough on the bizarro chart to surprise me. Because I think of liberals as children.

Liberals are children and their parents are the bespectacled, over-educated scions of uncommon sense and impractical application of power in Washington called the Democratic Party.

The economy is in great shape, and the USA looks to be on-course for indefinite prosperity under the Trump administration. It's too bad a man like Donald Trump was forced to rise to power on the backs of the religious right. But that's how it had to happen, and now you have a problem with transgender rights as Trump (necessarily) caters to his power base.

Any man in power is obligated. In retrospect, it seems obvious that Obama was obligated to the good old military-industrial complex, since he ended up not only reneging on his campaign promise to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but actually increasing our presence in both of those shitholes. Bush was obligated to Big Oil. Trump is obligated to the religious right and his own business interests, which rely on American preeminence to prosper. So Donald Trump's interests, and the interests of the average American citizen, happen to run parallel right now.

The liberal cacophony (one that has taken on the distinct flavor of good old-fashioned "playa-hating") is becoming background noise as continued success proves to be its own reward for President Donald Trump.

The pendulum always swings back the other way though. When transgenders do get their full rights (2024), it will be in a more prosperous and stable country.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Careful what you wish for, Flighty.



Define "outrages." Better yet, I'll define it for you. "Outrages" are what happens anytime liberals don't get exactly what they want. "Outrages" are also what happens anytime infants or chimpanzees don't get exactly what they want.

I'm perfectly willing to engage in sensible and honest discussion with liberals. The problem is, I've never encountered a liberal who had any better argument than "Here's how things OUGHT to be..."

Been working for the last couple of weeks with this young guy - son-of-a-friend kind of thing. Kid wants to learn about turbos. And this kid is a liberal, always spouting off about this right or that injustice, anti-gun rhetoric, the usual liberal nonsense; much to the amusement of me and the other older guys who pop in now and then. And you know what this kid's hobby is? Immortality. You heard me right. Immortality via prosthetics - kid wants to replace his body over time with robotic parts, including the organs. This young man doesn't even have a pot to piss in (lives with his parents, drives a car given to him by his father, only income is his allowance), but instead of thinking about getting his life together, he's thinking about becoming Iron Man.

This social anomaly is no surprise to me. In fact it wouldn't have surprised me if the kid was into voodoo or My Little Pony. There is no moral, religious, or practical point to which a liberal can aspire far out enough on the bizarro chart to surprise me. Because I think of liberals as children.

Liberals are children and their parents are the bespectacled, over-educated scions of uncommon sense and impractical application of power in Washington called the Democratic Party.

The economy is in great shape, and the USA looks to be on-course for indefinite prosperity under the Trump administration. It's too bad a man like Donald Trump was forced to rise to power on the backs of the religious right. But that's how it had to happen, and now you have a problem with transgender rights as Trump (necessarily) caters to his power base.

Any man in power is obligated. In retrospect, it seems obvious that Obama was obligated to the good old military-industrial complex, since he ended up not only reneging on his campaign promise to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but actually increasing our presence in both of those shitholes. Bush was obligated to Big Oil. Trump is obligated to the religious right and his own business interests, which rely on American preeminence to prosper. So Donald Trump's interests, and the interests of the average American citizen, happen to run parallel right now.

The liberal cacophony (one that has taken on the distinct flavor of good old-fashioned "playa-hating") is becoming background noise as continued success proves to be its own reward for President Donald Trump.

The pendulum always swings back the other way though. When transgenders do get their full rights (2024), it will be in a more prosperous and stable country.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U3V00h8tnk

[filghy2]

Careful what you wish for, Flighty.

I must admit your reappearance took me by surprise Nick, though everything you've said here is entirely predictable. I thought you might have found a new career that was keeping you too busy to post here - a writer of tall stories, perhaps.

I'm not going to get sucked into playing a pointless game of whack-a-mole with you, particularly as the only thing you have to say on the topic of this thread is that the rights of transsexuals are a necessary sacrifice to 'Make America Great Again'.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Duh-doy:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/i-was-wrong-about-trump-caitlyn-jenner-says-op-ed-n924531

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1858515]

I'm perfectly willing to engage in sensible and honest discussion with liberals. The problem is, I've never encountered a liberal who had any better argument than "Here's how things OUGHT to be..."
--Nick, Welcome back.
I don't know anything about turbos, so I assume your teaching skills will help your young friend learn a skill.
The question is basic: what are Rights? The US with its Constitution is based fundamentally on Rights. But if Rights are extended to a group of Americans -in this case, that minority who are Transgendered or define themselves other than as either Male or Female- but these Rights are then taken away, were they actually Rights in the Constitutional or legal sense? And if the extension of Rights is an advance, can we agree that taking them away is a reversal? And, if it is easy to select Transgendered Americans for punishment -given that their opponents believe they are undermining American society- why not take rights away from other Americans? Crucially, do Rights have any meaning if they can be given one year, taken away the next?
It presents itself as Un-American to those who see Rights as the foundation of the USA.

The economy is in great shape, and the USA looks to be on-course for indefinite prosperity under the Trump administration.
--Nick, just because it looks good and feels good doesn't mean that it is. Think of yourself at a party where everyone is getting drunk, careless of the hangover to follow.
The 45th President is presiding over the economic growth that has been taking place since his predecessor and his team stabilized the US economy after the Republican Crash of 2008, though he is too vain and selfish a person to honour that legacy. His own policies now threaten that legacy and the growth you crow about.

One could cite the turbulence on the Stock Market caused by the rolling impact of Tariffs, a foolish move that has already forced the 45th President to turn away from liberalism and conservatism and do what socialists are claimed to do -give away other people's money to lost causes -such as the $12 Billion instant subsidy to Soy Bean farmers who lost contracts with China -a direct result of his stupid policy-on top of the $25 Billion annual subsidy to farmers who can't make a profit on the open market.

One could cite the Pork Barrel politics of the Swamp that 45 was supposed to drain that 'earmarks' tax payer dollars to the tune of billions and billions of dollars to keep their Districts and their State in work -call it 'Swamp Sociaism' why don't you?- thus:

The $593 million earmark for the continued upgrade of the M1 Abrams tank is an increase of 1,383 percent over the $40 million earmarked in FY 2016
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/18/pork-barrel-spending-explodes-under-republicans-column/792588002/
see also
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/congress-opened-the-floodgates-on-pork-barrel-spending-in-2018

If you aren't bothered by Republican Socialism, you could ponder the longer term problem that under the 45th President the US economy is over-heating and may be headed for a recession, as if the President cared!

Trump’s fiscal policy is moving from loose to reckless: plans for tax cut 2.0 are solidifying, even though the first round of cuts is likely to produce unsustainable deficits. Little thought is being given to the consequences other than the effect on the November elections.
and
The second cloud is excessive debt.....So far, consumers seem able to carry the debt they have taken on. Credit card delinquencies remain low at 2.4 percent. But savings rates are also low: 40 percent of adults say they would not be able to pay all their bills if faced with a $400 emergency, and auto loan delinquencies continue to mount, unusual in an economy as healthy as ours.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/is-trumps-economy-overheating

Face the stunning fact: the 45th President is an incompetent fool, leading a country mired in Trillions and Trillions of dollars of debt, encouraging even more debt, racking up the debt in the same way that he ran his casinos into the ground by borrowing today on the premise you pay it back tomorow beause if you own a casino you can't lose, because the house always wins. Ponder that extraordinary fact: the owner of a casino who loses. The USA has a casino economy, great when you are winning, but what happens in three or four years time when the Tariffs bite, and the lenders want their money back?

Any man in power is obligated. In retrospect, it seems obvious that Obama was obligated to the good old military-industrial complex, since he ended up not only reneging on his campaign promise to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but actually increasing our presence in both of those shitholes... So Donald Trump's interests, and the interests of the average American citizen, happen to run parallel right now.
--This is a distortion of the facts.
At their height there were over 170,000 US service personnel in Iraq, and it was the deal GW Bush struk with the Government of Iraq in 2008 which agreed the withdrawal of US forces by 2011 that Obama was obliged to honour -and he did, even though his critics then claimed it was his fault that the withdrawals agreed and acted on by GW Bush allegedly created the vacuum filled by ISIS! For the record when Obama left office, there were approx 8,992 troops in Iraq so that he presided over a net decrease, not increase in Iraq. In Afghanistan at its height there were over 100,000 service personnel in the country. By the time Obama left office there were just over 8,000 -he wanted it reduced to 5,500 -again, a net decrease, not an increase.

It is the 45th President who is increasing troops in Afghanistan, with the rider that the US public not be told how many because this transparency also tells 'the enemy'! The number of troops in Afghanistan has risen to 14,000 at least, with the additional fact that it is under the 45th President that US forces are now in operation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, the Yemen, Niger and probably Mali too. Obama has been critizied for his 'strategic caution' -has the reckless 45th President achieved any of the USA's military objectives in the countries listed above?

https://abcnews.go.com/International/thousands-us-military-service-members-iraq-syria-believed/story?id=51411555
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/459850716/fact-check-did-obama-withdraw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow?t=1540705847640

Underneath that canopy of feel good emotion, the USA is sitting on a swamp of debt. The President is leading the USA to the cliff edge, more concerned with attacking the media than focusing on the real issues. A man who has spent the last two years heaping insult and abuse on Americans, who relentlessly attacks the media for not worshipping him, has openly called on his supporters to be violent, to purchase more guns and to use them -yet denies any responsibility for those acts of violence he has openly called for.

He has blood on his hands. The blood of dead Americans. Lock him up!

The 45th President of the USA is without doubt unfit for public office: a liar,a racist, a crook and a traitor. He is a threat to international stablity, and a menace to freedom itself. The sooner he is thrown out of office, the better. Do it now.

[natina]

Look whose speaking up
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?107643-IT-s-a-Miracle-I-am-astonished-stoked-finally

[Nick Danger]

Stavros, are you familiar with the concept of "Optimized Self-Interest?" Optimized Self-Interest means that every participant in a statistical model is putting forth maximum effort to advance his own position. The fact that Optimized Self-Interest exists in only a small percentage of people is the reason statistics and projections are mostly pointless. It's why the USA has so many technical jobs with no one to fill them. It's why gas prices can never be predicted with any real accuracy. It's why the better team doesn't always win in sports. It's why Hillary lost the election when she was expected to win in a landslide. It's why I prefer girls with dicks even though I have no clue why. The truth is, you can never tell what people are going to do.


The USA has a casino economy, great when you are winning, but what happens in three or four years time when the Tariffs bite, and the lenders want their money back?

I'm not sure what you mean by "casino economy." I mean yes, we have a lot of debt. We also have a lot of assets.

The banks to whom the USA owes money always get paid. That's how we are able to maintain trillions of dollars in debt - because everyone knows they will get paid. This national debt that people get so twisty about is no different than an average person using an American Express card. It's not a problem as long as you pay it off. I myself have a ridiculously high credit limit, but the reason my credit limit is so high is because I can be trusted to pay it off. I could go out right now and get myself in a lot of trouble with credit cards. But I don't; that's why I'm entrusted to have that option.

People throw numbers around as if they can actually wrap their head around the numbers. "TRILLIONS" of dollars in debt!! Okay, well, that sounds like a lot until you consider that there are hundreds of millions of people here - the richest people in the world - working in hundreds of multi-billion-dollar industries, generating TRILLIONS of dollars ANNUALLY. Yes, we have a national American Express card. And we're using it. So what?

You probably are wondering why I brought up Optimized Self-Interest. It's because that has taken on a new meaning in the political sphere. Democrats are voting for Trump, because they have enough information, here in the Information Age, to understand that whatever their "special" interest might be, it all relies on the underlying economy. Liberal mouthpieces can go on and on about how they created a strong economy and now the conservatives are taking credit, but it's no more true now than it has been every other time they've said it - during every Republican administration in history. The American economy is fast and loose, week-to-week, day-to-day. During a Democratic regime it clenches up like a virgin asshole, during a Republican regime, it shits gold. Nothing Obama did is relevant to the current state of the economy. Obama is now a public speaker. And a damn good one at that.

We are currently riding on pure economic optimism. Which is just fine considering that in a fiat economy, all the money is imaginary anyway. Economic optimism has a real dollar value now.

I've been to four different cities since Trump took command. St. George, Las Vegas, Nashville, and NYC. Every single one of them is prospering like never before, new construction is everywhere, prices are stable, unemployment is practically non-existent.

Whatever shenanigans Trump is up to, it's working. Period. Results count. Results are all that count. Deep inside, even the most tattooed, nipple-pierced, tree-hugging victim-lover knows this. And that's why you better be ready for 4 more years of Trumpism before your outrage over special interests is addressed.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1858576]
The banks to whom the USA owes money always get paid. That's how we are able to maintain trillions of dollars in debt - because everyone knows they will get paid. This national debt that people get so twisty about is no different than an average person using an American Express card. It's not a problem as long as you pay it off. I myself have a ridiculously high credit limit, but the reason my credit limit is so high is because I can be trusted to pay it off. I could go out right now and get myself in a lot of trouble with credit cards. But I don't; that's why I'm entrusted to have that option.

--Or, to put it another way: if banks fail, the losers -their customers- will bail them out, and give the bankers even more money than they had before. You might want to ask how it was that the Crash of 2008 even happened, and why it is that in the same period since 1850 there have been hundreds of bank failures in the US but none in Canada, but I guess you regard a banking failure is little different from a weather forecast that claims the day will be warm and sunny that turns cold, with rain. Most of all, it is your indifference to the incompetence of US banks that stands out.

People throw numbers around as if they can actually wrap their head around the numbers. "TRILLIONS" of dollars in debt!! Okay, well, that sounds like a lot until you consider that there are hundreds of millions of people here - the richest people in the world - working in hundreds of multi-billion-dollar industries, generating TRILLIONS of dollars ANNUALLY. Yes, we have a national American Express card. And we're using it. So what?

--So what, indeed. When the next crash along because of your addiction to debt, and you lose your house, your car and your cocker spaniel, will you shrug your shoulders and say, so what?

Liberal mouthpieces can go on and on about how they created a strong economy and now the conservatives are taking credit, but it's no more true now than it has been every other time they've said it - during every Republican administration in history. The American economy is fast and loose, week-to-week, day-to-day. During a Democratic regime it clenches up like a virgin asshole, during a Republican regime, it shits gold. Nothing Obama did is relevant to the current state of the economy. Obama is now a public speaker. And a damn good one at that.
--Like your silly claim that Obama increased the USA's military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, which I demonstrated to be garbage, you ignore the fact that when Ronald Reagan left office the USA had the highest deficit in its history; that when Bill Clinton left office, the USA had cleared its debt and there was a budget surplus. This was followed by another Republican Presidency that transformed the surplus into a deficit of such gigantic proportions it hangs over your head like a safe held from the ceiling by an ever fraying wire. Dick Cheney said 'deficits don't matter', yet Paul Ryan was so concerned he created a 'debt clock' to monitor the debt when Obama was President as if it were his fault -and quietly removed the same 'debt clock' when his successor came into office in case it embarrassed both of them. I daresay that in general the two parties have a mixed record -Eisenhower was probably the meanest President in recent times, -in fact the last real example of a fiscal conservative- but at a time when the US economy was in far better shape than it is now.

We are currently riding on pure economic optimism. Which is just fine considering that in a fiat economy, all the money is imaginary anyway. Economic optimism has a real dollar value now.
--This statement contradicts the statements that preceded it.

Whatever shenanigans Trump is up to, it's working. Period. Results count. Results are all that count. Deep inside, even the most tattooed, nipple-pierced, tree-hugging victim-lover knows this. And that's why you better be ready for 4 more years of Trumpism before your outrage over special interests is addressed.
--We have been here before, the sun is shining, the kids are on the beach, your job is secure, you have a lovely wife and Rover is snoozing on the porch. What could possibly go wrong? Nothing, until it goes wrong. And all those analysts and economists warning you that there is a cliff edge ahead, who listens to them these days anyway?

As for those irritating Transgendered Americans, do you not think they deserve to know why the rights they had have been taken away? You are keen to defend the administration of the 45th President, yet appear to disregard the rights of your equals as if they were not rights at all, but some sort of political popcorn that daddy takes away because they have had enough.

The secret was there the moment the 45th President put a portrait of the 7th President in a prominent place in the Oval Office, his way of pissing on all those Americas he resents for treating him like a third-rate tv host and failed businessman. He even made sure that when Chiefs of the Navajo Nation were 'honoured' in the White House he made them stand under the portrait of a man so assiduous in his slaughter of First Nations he became known as 'the Indian Killer'. The 45th President using the 7th to piss in the face of people so much better than him.

When Democrats were targeted this month by a fanatical supporter who posted pipe bombs intended to inkure or kill, the 45th President had an opportunity to show empathy with the potential victims, to rise above party politics to defend the rights of his equals -he did no such thing, but laughed along with his supporters when at a rally they barked at a victim of terrorism, 'Lock Her Up!' to underline the gulf between decency and shame that this President has done so much to widen.

It is a shame you don't show more empathy with those Americans who have been told they will no longer exist, because they ask you to call them Michelle rather than Michael, because in what may be desperate moments, they seek love rather than hate. Is it really too much to ask that your fellow Americans enjoy the same rights that you do? That you agree to endorse the view that every American is equal, one in relation to the other? I don't think so.

[Nick Danger]

It is a shame you don't show more empathy with those Americans who have been told they will no longer exist, because they ask you to call them Michelle rather than Michael

Hyperbole, Stavros. No one is X'ing anyone out of existence. The transgender in your example will always exist. But if certain people have their way, for the time being she will have to exist legally as "Michael" based on her birth gender. This will have no effect whatsoever on her activities that don't involve banking, insurance, or going to jail.

This problem is the fault of liberals. It's certainly possible that by now we could be having a legitimate national conversation about introducing additional gender-identifiers for transgenders, if liberals hadn't already scared the hell out of everyone by insisting there are...IIRC, 63 is the largest number of possible genders I have heard put out there seriously by liberals. Unfortunately for these self-appointed gender police, for 7,000 years of recorded history up to the current date, there have only ever been two genders. That simple and undeniable fact won't stop liberals from blustering their half-considered dogma at anyone who accidentally comes within earshot.

To top it all off, the LGBT community had the audacity to confront the entire country with a list of entirely new, stupid-sounding pronouns and then DEMAND that we use them.

Not sure who's in charge of LGBT PR, but whoever it is is a mouth-breathing idiot.

The proletariat's response to all this has basically been, first, laughter, and then, a solid decision to ignore these political midgets.

Now me, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am pro-rights. For everyone, but particularly for transgenders because I love them. IMO, we need 7 gender identifiers: Male, Female, MtF post-op and pre-op, FtM post-op and pre-op, and "Other." That covers all the bases, no hurt feelings, everyone gets to exist.

With a little bit of perspective and a slightly more conservative approach to getting what they want, the liberals COULD have been well on top of the gender issue by now. Instead they have been arrogant, made fools of themselves, and made a mockery of our political system. People notice that kind of shit. Trump is more backlash to that arrogance than anything else.


When the next crash along because of your addiction to debt, and you lose your house, your car and your cocker spaniel, will you shrug your shoulders and say, so what?

Probably will, Stavros. Unlike many people, I am a responsible citizen, and a responsible consumer. I've lived through LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump. I keep my shit wired tight. I have money saved and invested. I own things, including my own business. I protect myself from economic downturns. My view of this current bull economy is, it's a time to expand my interests, diversify, advance my position. If a crash happens, I'm ready. The 2008 crash wasn't even a blip on my personal radar, it was somebody else's problem. I came out of it better than I went in. All it really meant to me was, bad time to sell my house, which is not something I was looking to do anyway.

I wasn't born in this position. I attained it via hard work and smart choices. If other people are set up for a big fall, well, I feel bad for them. Truly I do. But I can't live their lives for them, I can only live my own.


Like your silly claim that Obama increased the USA's military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan

It's not a silly claim, Stavros, it happens to be a fact that before he finally did reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan to a token amount, he INCREASED the number of American troops in Afghanistan from 30,000 to over 100,000.

Here's a handy article for you, complete with a giant penis-shaped graph which shows us getting a real hard-on over there between 2009 and 2012:

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama

And here's another handy article showing the increase in Iraq:

http://time.com/4298318/iraq-us-troops-barack-obama-mosul-isis/

I guess this could all be fake news though, Stavros. You tell me.


That you agree to endorse the view that every American is equal, one in relation to the other?

Every American is not equal, Stavros. Some are better than others. Stronger. Smarter. Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome. Every American has equality of opportunity. Every American, regardless of race, religion, economic level, or gender, can choose to study hard, work hard, follow the law, pick a smart career path, live responsibly, and prosper. But not every American chooses to do that. So not every American gets to live the American Dream.

Those people who have made poor choices get angry. Life is hard when you're irresponsible. Then you have what we have now - the modern Democratic Party, the biggest group of victims in American history.

[natina]

Intersexed is a 3rd gender.

Man goes to hospital, discovers he's a woman When Steve Crecelius got an ultrasound at a Denver hospital (what was he being treated for?) he got some surprising results: It turned out that he is intersex, or possessing both gender's anatomical sex traits. Crecelius, who now goes by Stevie and identifies as a woman, says he wants to share his story in hopes of inspiring other intersex people to be comfortable with their gender identity (is Crecelius married?).
.

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/E9/41D992A0C1368472D0B7B0B6C1ADFF.jpg


http://specials.msn.com/a-list/health/stevie-crecelius-woman-popular-pages

[filghy2]

Hyperbole, Stavros.

This problem is the fault of liberals. It's certainly possible that by now we could be having a legitimate national conversation about introducing additional gender-identifiers for transgenders, if liberals hadn't already scared the hell out of everyone by insisting there are...IIRC, 63 is the largest number of possible genders I have heard put out there seriously by liberals. Unfortunately for these self-appointed gender police, for 7,000 years of recorded history up to the current date, there have only ever been two genders. That simple and undeniable fact won't stop liberals from blustering their half-considered dogma at anyone who accidentally comes within earshot.


Hyperbole, Nick. Nice demonstration of the art of reductio ad absurdum, but where are any of these things in the legal/regulatory measures that the Trump administration is reversing? I'm sure if you'd been alive 60 years ago you would have claimed that racial violence in the south was the fault of liberals pushing for equality and ignoring thousands of years of history in which lesser races had been subjugated.

Rather than hijacking this thread, how about you and Stavros start up you own - The Bullshit Artist vs The Professor or something like that?

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1858654]
This problem is the fault of liberals. It's certainly possible that by now we could be having a legitimate national conversation about introducing additional gender-identifiers for transgenders, if liberals hadn't already scared the hell out of everyone by insisting there are...IIRC, 63 is the largest number of possible genders I have heard put out there seriously by liberals. Unfortunately for these self-appointed gender police, for 7,000 years of recorded history up to the current date, there have only ever been two genders. That simple and undeniable fact won't stop liberals from blustering their half-considered dogma at anyone who accidentally comes within earshot.
To top it all off, the LGBT community had the audacity to confront the entire country with a list of entirely new, stupid-sounding pronouns and then DEMAND that we use them.

--Why is the fault of Liberals and not the fault of Conservatives who refuse to see what is right in front of them?
Are you serious when you claim Americans are scared by the reality that some of their equals don't want to be identified as being only Male or Female? Scared? Be scared of nuclear war, but don't be scared of a small minority of Americans who have the right to self-identify, and if not scared, be worried that the Federal and State authorities insist on telling you who you are, regardless of the reality.

-Recorded history alone reveals that there has not always been a fixed attachment to two binary genders: Plato in The Symposium refers to the Greek belief that originally there was only one gender before that was separated into two; the Berdache of North America, the Mahu of Hawaii, the Xanith and Mukhannath of Arabia, the 'Eunuchs' of China and others in India and Africa all testify to the awareness in societies across the world and time that we are not and never ever been locked into either Male or Female identities and behaviour

-Fundamental to this is not the outrage at 'Liberals' or the 'Democrats'. Think about it: the Democratic Party is the party of America that looks like America where the Republican Party merely looks like a segment of America. This has not always worked well for the party -it cost them in the period between 1968-1992 but has been their primary constituency since then, and bear in mind Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote in 2016 and that in a sense, the Democratic Party is 'the natural party of government' because it has a broader representation of the American people than the GOP.

-Fundamental to this, then, is the real fear: the fear by the White, Christian Nationalists that they are losing control of 'their country' to an assortment of rainbow people -many of whom, but not all- don't believe in their God, have no emotional attachment to Jamestown or Fort Sumter, but do to Gettysberg and Selma. The fight against Transgender Rights is not just about Rights, it is about identity and the belief that 'it has all gone wrong since the 1960s' but wrapped up in that is not just the issue of identity rights, but the broader fear that has simmered since 1865, that Black people are demanding to be equal -why do you think that in the Carolinas, Alabama and Tennessee and now as far north as Ohio, it is Black Americans who are being thrown off the electoral register and denied the Right to vote? Transgendered Americans are a small minority of the overall population, but have become the easy target extreme conservatives are using to roll back 50 years of Civil Rights that made the USA a better place for all.

It's not a silly claim, Stavros, it happens to be a fact that before he finally did reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan to a token amount, he INCREASED the number of American troops in Afghanistan from 30,000 to over 100,000.
--My point was that by the end of his two terms, Obama had reduced the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, as your links prove.

Spare a thought for those young Transgendered Americans who don't have a bank account, who dropped out of High School and may only have basic reading and writing skills, who are not living life as the average Americans and may be emotionally confused and prone to addiction and suicide. So small a segment of the population who can be helped through empathy, through low-cost social programmes, who can be admitted into society through the simple act of acceptance -legal and moral-, and the confirmation that they are not freaks or a threat to 'the American way'. If you are sympathetic, don't just dismiss this present war as a 'blip' that will be corrected in 2020, some of those young Americans might not live that long.

They deserve to be identified as Americans with equal Rights, taking away those Rights is Wrong.

[filghy2]

Fundamental to this is not the outrage at 'Liberals' or the 'Democrats'. Think about it: the Democratic Party is the party of America that looks like America where the Republican Party merely looks like a segment of America. This has not always worked well for the party -it cost them in the period between 1968-1992 but has been their primary constituency since then, and bear in mind Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote in 2016 and that in a sense, the Democratic Party is 'the natural party of government' because it has a broader representation of the American people than the GOP.


In fact, Republicans have received a majority of votes at only one Presidential election since 1988. So it is arguable that if the USA had a fair electoral system none of this would be happening, and nor would we have to put up with Nick Danger's relentlessly smug crowing.

By the way Professor, you missed the Fa'afafine of Samoa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine

[Ben in LA]

How/why is it different? The impression I get from polls etc is that at least 80% of Republicans these days are full-on Trumpists who don't want to see or hear any evil about him, while most of the rest prefer to keep their heads down because they don't want to side with 'liberals'.
I should've said I'm different on Twitter, compared to my other social media appearances. I positively give zero fucks over there. I've currently restricted for 12 hours from posting/liking/retweeting and such for that attitude. I'm more restrained elsewhere, including here.

[Nick Danger]

Rather than hijacking this thread, how about you and Stavros start up you own - The Bullshit Artist vs The Professor or something like that?

Is that what it's called when someone interrupts your liberal circle-jerk with an actual counter-argument? "Hijacking the thread?" "Relentlessly smug crowing?"

That's why I'm here in your usually comfy butt-patting echo chamber, Flighty - I'm the guy who cares enough to pull you back across the rainbow.


Spare a thought for those young Transgendered Americans who don't have a bank account, who dropped out of High School and may only have basic reading and writing skills, who are not living life as the average Americans and may be emotionally confused and prone to addiction and suicide. So small a segment of the population who can be helped through empathy, through low-cost social programmes, who can be admitted into society through the simple act of acceptance -legal and moral-, and the confirmation that they are not freaks or a threat to 'the American way'. If you are sympathetic, don't just dismiss this present war as a 'blip' that will be corrected in 2020, some of those young Americans might not live that long.

They deserve to be identified as Americans with equal Rights, taking away those Rights is Wrong.

I'm sorry, Stavros, but I just don't feel sorry for people who make poor choices, reap the consequences, then spend the rest of their lives bitching about it.

I won't belabor the point, but there are simply no excuses in the USA. Every resource you need is handed to you - we educate you, teach you right from wrong, and allow you to choose the position that suits you best in our massive juggernaut of an economy.

There's absolutely nothing stopping a transgender from leading a perfectly normal life here...IF that's what they want. But very often it seems that isn't what they want. They want a life on the edge, they want to party while they're young, do all the drugs then drink their breakfast, live in nightclubs and bars, crash on couches, sell sex to survive. Okay, that's an option. But meantime, for every young trans person preparing themselves for disappointment, there are a dozen other young Americans preparing themselves for the real world. And those people who are putting in the work are going to out-live you. And I don't mean they're going to live longer than you, though they probably will. I mean they are going to out-perform you in every area of life, and you'll end up a middle-aged loser facing a long, dark journey to the bitter end.

And I could say that's sad. It actually is sad. But there are 10 million sad stories in the naked city and I don't have time for the ones that end with everything actually being your own damn fault.

[peejaye]

Nick; You can't educate Pork ! :banghead
Liberals here in the UK do more harm than good, they really are the lowest, most pointless, form of society. If I said on here what I'd like to do with them all, he would get his friend the moderator to ban me again!

[Murmdrum]

In fact, Republicans have received a majority of votes at only one Presidential election since 1988. So it is arguable that if the USA had a fair electoral system none of this would be happening, and nor would we have to put up with Nick Danger's relentlessly smug crowing.

By the way Professor, you missed the Fa'afafine of Samoa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine

so suddenly the electoral college is unfair after a couple of hundred plus years?

[bimale69]

I should've said I'm different on Twitter, compared to my other social media appearances. I positively give zero fucks over there. I've currently restricted for 12 hours from posting/liking/retweeting and such for that attitude. I'm more restrained elsewhere, including here.

Welcome to the club.... I wound up in Twitter jail because I told Ann Coulter what I thought about her racism and her ties with Nazi scum like Gavin Mcinnes.... and that was after I told Trump to go **** himself countless times.

It’s still beyond me how people in the lgbt community or any minority in this country could support an avowed bigot like trump, that they could deny his bigotry even though there is evidence right out of the horse’s mouth of his admitted admiration of fascist leaders like Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, etc. even his declaration that the white supremacists at Charlottesville were “very fine people”. As far as I’m concerned anyone who salutes or carries the flag of a past or present enemy regime is guilty of sedition at the very least....and a batrayal of all those who died fighting to save Europe from the grip of a psychotic despot in WW2.

[trish]

so suddenly the electoral college is unfair after a couple of hundred plus years?
Certainly from the very start the Electoral College was counter to the notion of one-person-one-vote. Nevertheless the founders thought the Electoral College would act as a safeguard against the general rabble who might easily be duped into voting for a demagogue. This is also why each State gets two Senators regardless of the size of their population.

So are these institutions, which were undemocratic from the get go, any more undemocratic now? I would argue that the answer is yes, given how modern demographics are much more skewed today. Rural areas cover 97% of the U.S. by land but less than 20% by population. Along with the take over of family farms by large corporations and the movement of jobs to the cities, rural America is clearing out. Yet taxes are paid by citizens - not land masses. Urban citizens are vastly underrepresented in our capitol and in the power of their vote: the very issue that inspired the birth of this nation to begin with.

[giovanni_hotel]

so suddenly the electoral college is unfair after a couple of hundred plus years?

The electoral college was established to give slave states greater representation in Congress.

The electoral college is a non issue when it matches the popular vote.

When the popular vote and electoral college don't match, there's a problem.

Gore lost to Dubya in 2000 and still won the popular vote by over 500K.

That's not a democracy. The electoral college needs to be abolished, and Congress needs to pass a national holiday to vote during midterm and presidential elections to encourage more people to turn out.

There's truth in the belief that the GOP wins elections when fewer people vote.

No democracy in the world has an 'electoral college'. Think about that.

Our system is rigged for minority rule.

[Nick Danger]

When the popular vote and electoral college don't match, there's a problem.

Three things: First of all, the electoral college is not tilted in the favor of the Republican Party. Everyone knows the rules, we've been playing by the same ones for a long, long time. Hillary won the popular vote because Hillary campaigned for the popular vote. Trump won the electoral vote because his people are about 10 times smarter than Hillary's people, just as in general, Republicans are about 10 times smarter than Democrats.

Secondly, if Hillary had won in the same manner, you would not be complaining about the electoral college. I'd be complaining about the electoral college. And you'd be trying to convince me that it's a valid elective format for a democracy.

Finally, the Electoral College does have an up-side. Were it not for the electoral college, candidates would only campaign in large cities, it would make no mathematical sense for them to go elsewhere. Of course, here in the Information Age, everyone is everywhere at once, so that one up-side seems to have gone away, making the EC pretty hard to defend. If it makes you feel any better, polls taken every year since 1967 have shown that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of abolishing it. The reason it will never be abolished? Because it preserves the two-party system and makes it virtually impossible for a 3rd-party candidate to become President. Therefore it will always be in the best interests of both the Democrats and the Republicans to keep the system in place.

[filghy2]

Three things: First of all, the electoral college is not tilted in the favor of the Republican Party.

The reason it will never be abolished? Because it preserves the two-party system and makes it virtually impossible for a 3rd-party candidate to become President. Therefore it will always be in the best interests of both the Democrats and the Republicans to keep the system in place.

That doesn't make sense. How do you suppose a third-party candidate could win under a simple majority system? Even Teddy Roosevelt only came in a distant second in 1912, and he was a popular former president.

The electoral college is clearly weighted in favour of the Republicans because it over-weights the less populous states, which are predominantly red states.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The electoral college is clearly weighted in favour of the Republicans because it over-weights the less populous states, which are predominantly red states.

They may be now, but they haven't always been, and they won't always be.

The electoral college is just another of our checks and balances, all of which are good things.

Keep in mind that Donald Trump wants to get rid of the electoral college, even though he lost the popular vote.

Switching to popular vote means majority rule on everything. If we had a history of majority rule, we'd still have slavery, no suffrage for women, and no marriage equality.

Would you like to get rid of the Senate, also? It weights small states the same as big states: two senators per state.

You may think you want the largest, most-populous states calling all the shots, but you really don't.

[filghy2]

Switching to popular vote means majority rule on everything. If we had a history of majority rule, we'd still have slavery, no suffrage for women, and no marriage equality.

Would you like to get rid of the Senate, also? It weights small states the same as big states: two senators per state.

How do you reach that conclusion? Lincoln won the popular vote in 1860 and 1864, so the outcome would on slavery have been the same. As there would have been more Democrat presidents in recent times marriage equality may well have happened earlier.

I've not proposing to get rid of the other checks and balances. I just don't see how the electoral college works as a check in any effective sense these days.

[filghy2]

That's not a democracy. The electoral college needs to be abolished, and Congress needs to pass a national holiday to vote during midterm and presidential elections to encourage more people to turn out.


Also, a proper independent electoral commission. It's an absolute travesty that the political party in control in each state gets to run elections, determine the voting rules and set the electoral boundaries.

[Fitzcarraldo]

How do you reach that conclusion? Lincoln won the popular vote in 1860 and 1864, so the outcome would on slavery have been the same. As there would have been more Democrat presidents in recent times marriage equality may well have happened earlier.

I've not proposing to get rid of the other checks and balances. I just don't see how the electoral college works as a check in any effective sense these days.

Have you seen the movie Lincoln (which really should have been titled 13th Amendment)?

[broncofan]

The greatest checks on majority rule are the bill of rights, the amendment process, and our Judiciary. The electoral college effectively means that the President is elected by states rather than the public broadly. It is not a check on majority rule since there are rarely "faithless electors" and I'm not sure we would want there to be since they would simply be supplanting their judgement for that of the citizens of each state. And there would be no criteria for them to refuse to cast their vote for the politician chosen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[broncofan]

The greatest checks on majority rule are the bill of rights, the amendment process, and our Judiciary. The electoral college effectively means that the President is elected by states rather than the public broadly. It is not a check on majority rule since there are rarely "faithless electors" and I'm not sure we would want there to be since they would simply be supplanting their judgement for that of the citizens of each state. And there would be no criteria for them to refuse to cast their vote for the politician chosen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Of course, amendments are passed by their own political process but once they are they can't be overridden by laws at the state or federal level but can only be repealed by subsequent amendments.

As a protection against the tyranny of the majority the electoral college accomplishes nothing, mostly because electors simply cast their vote in line with the popular vote of each state and when they don't might just as likely act out of vanity rather than a civic duty that has been prescribed for them.

[broncofan]

And I understand there is the argument that it somehow increases fairness by giving greater power to rural states but it just takes power away from voters and doesn't weight each vote equally. Doesn't the head of the executive branch of our federal government represent all U.S. citizens? Why shouldn't their votes all count equally?

[filghy2]

Liberals here in the UK do more harm than good, they really are the lowest, most pointless, form of society. If I said on here what I'd like to do with them all, he would get his friend the moderator to ban me again!

Aren't you a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and the UK Labour Party? In the USA that would make you a liberal.

I see that your existence on this forum is now virtually limited to insincere brown-nosing of people you professed to have nothing in common with just a few months ago. Such are the sour grapes of letting personal grudges consume you. Enjoy!

[rabbitfufu]

transsexuals, crossdressers and etc. have better rights today than ever and it will continue as we become more liberal as a world. Women can wear dresses above the ankle, Black people can vote. We as a society are changing,though some people want equality NOW. It does not work that what. First comes acceptance in which the transsexual community is heading in. BE patient. When I grew up and was caught crossdressing by my father, I had the backside of my body beat to a pulp. My father told me next time I was caught I would be taken to the police station and registered as a sex offender and for the rest of my life any time I moved I would be needing to register again with them or go to prison. This was in the mid sixty's. So please folks ,Be patient and do this slowly do not rush society, as history shows you will succeed.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1858750]

I'm sorry, Stavros, but I just don't feel sorry for people who make poor choices, reap the consequences, then spend the rest of their lives bitching about it.

-Again, you avoid addressing the key point that was raised by the OP: Rights. The Obama Presidency extended Rights to Americans that are being taken away, for no other reason than that they do not identify as being either Male or Female where the Administration we believe will make it illegal to be identify as anything other than Male and Female -it has nothing to do with the choices Transgended Americans make, be it to smoke a joint, get drunk, hang around town at all hours of the day and night or go to college and get a degree, teach and write books: it about the Right to define onerself as an American the way you want other Americans to respect. Is it so much to ask? How much does it cost compared to all other social policies, if it cost anything at all?
But it is not just about Rights, it is also Freedom, because that is what Rights confer, so this is an administration planning to take away a citizen's freedom, and the only reason for it is due to the resentment that Republicans have that a Black man entered the White House as President and they intend to reverse everything he did, so that 'It will be as if the Obama Presidency never happened', a sort of policy genocide.

[Stavros]

In fact, Republicans have received a majority of votes at only one Presidential election since 1988. So it is arguable that if the USA had a fair electoral system none of this would be happening, and nor would we have to put up with Nick Danger's relentlessly smug crowing.


With regard to fairness, rather than cite the Electoral College, it is the growth of a tactic in States where they purge voter rolls, and change their electoral law to make it harder or even impossible for citizens to register to vote. The example of Lakota voters in North Dakota where they could swing the result is relevant here, not least the petty rules that say you must sign forms in Blue ink as Black and Green are not acceptable. Millions of Americans are now denied the basic right to vote, and that is simply not fair.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/29/north-dakota-id-law-native-americans-vote-senate-race

[filghy2]

It's not an either/or question. All of these things (including gerrymandering of House districts) distort democracy away from the wishes of the majority. And in the future we may well see outright manipulation of votes, given Republicans have refused to do much about vulnerability of systems to hacking. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45680490
Instead we had a commission into Trump's bogus claims about illegal votes, which predictably came up with nothing.

[broncofan]

Aren't you a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and the UK Labour Party? In the USA that would make you a liberal.

One might think. But the outcome might not be an accident either. We had someone on this forum who was on the fringes of the left a while ago who would post Russia Today articles before Trump supporters began trusting the outlet. He would frequently claim there was no difference in the political parties because he believed they were both beholden to establishment.

I've come across quite a few Corbyn supporters who were unsure of whether Hillary would be worse than Trump because she was the establishment candidate and Trump brought a fresh perspective. Also the reasoning went she is a warmonger and Trump promised to be an isolationist. They both believe their guy is sabotaged by the media and that there is some exculpatory version of events the media is not reporting, which is to say they think the media exists to shill for their guy. So they're bound by a core of resentment to objective truth. They're both also oddly unmoved by war crimes committed by Assad but probably for different reasons.

This is another subject, of course.

I agree with Stavros that voter suppression is a more fundamental issue to work out. Removing the electoral college would require a Constitutional amendment and as long as its existence is seen to favor one party, that party will be reluctant to remove it. It has a distorting effect, but voter suppression also does and can be fought in the interim in courts and through trying to pass legislation to expand the National Voting Registration Act.

This was the case that took place in June of this year. If Democrats are more successful in the mid-terms one option is to work on expanding the National Voting Registration act. Another is to work diligently to make sure it is not violated. Sadly, Gorsuch' vote made this a 5-4 decision. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf

[Nick Danger]

I'm sorry, Stavros, but I just don't feel sorry for people who make poor choices, reap the consequences, then spend the rest of their lives bitching about it.

-Again, you avoid addressing the key point that was raised by the OP: Rights. The Obama Presidency extended Rights to Americans that are being taken away, for no other reason than that they do not identify as being either Male or Female where the Administration we believe will make it illegal to be identify as anything other than Male and Female -it has nothing to do with the choices Transgended Americans make, be it to smoke a joint, get drunk, hang around town at all hours of the day and night or go to college and get a degree, teach and write books: it about the Right to define onerself as an American the way you want other Americans to respect. Is it so much to ask? How much does it cost compared to all other social policies, if it cost anything at all?
But it is not just about Rights, it is also Freedom, because that is what Rights confer, so this is an administration planning to take away a citizen's freedom, and the only reason for it is due to the resentment that Republicans have that a Black man entered the White House as President and they intend to reverse everything he did, so that 'It will be as if the Obama Presidency never happened', a sort of policy genocide.

I'm not avoiding any issues, Stavros. I've stated how I feel. I am pro-rights for everyone; black, brown, gay, female, transgender, young, old, EVERYONE. I firmly believe that all these groups of people should have the exact same rights I have, up to and including the right to say, "Hey Bob!" when they get pulled over by a local police officer and most likely not get searched or even get a ticket because Bob knows they're a productive and law-abiding citizen; the right to walk into any local business establishment and get preferential treatment because everyone there knows they're going to buy something if they've gone to the trouble of going shopping; the right to have their mail delivered to the little space between their storm door and front door on rainy days because they leave the postman a hundred-dollar bill in the mailbox every Christmas; the right to be greeted with a wave and smile by everyone on the street because they've gone to the trouble of presenting a non-offensive appearance and established a reputation for being friendly; the right to be left alone to live in peace. And every other right that I have and other people don't have because...

Well there's the rub right there - the "because." I have un-infringed rights because of one thing only: how I behave. My rights have nothing to do with my race, my gender, my religion, or any other factors that people frequently cite as the underlying reason for their problems. My rights all derive from the fact that I am a good citizen who makes an effort to be an approachable, contributing member of the community. Nothing more than that.

When you get these marginalized minorities complaining about their lack of rights, I can tell you within a few seconds why they are having problems. Every time. "Gee, could it be you didn't get that job because you have what appears to be a fishing lure hanging out your nose and a huge tattoo on your neck? Oh, it's because you're a woman? Okay." Or "Wow, you got arrested and all you did was explain to the police officer why he has no jurisdiction over you while you refused to identify yourself? Shocking." Or the real shocker, "Oh dear, I can't believe that police officer shot that two-time ex-felon when all he did was refused to comply with a legal order while reaching into his pants. Must have been because he was black."

Fact is, we all have the same exact legal rights. Even Frances the transgender has the same rights under her legal name of Frank. Obviously that's something that needs to change, but that's not changing right now, so let's focus on the fact that FRANK does indeed have all of his legal rights intact, no matter what contortions FRANCES must suffer.

But legal rights are not the end-all of how we get treated by our fellow man, and that includes how we are treated by the authorities. You want to walk around looking like a freak? You're gonna be treated like a freak. You want to cop an attitude? You're gonna get treated like a person with no respect for the law. Want to live beyond your means? You're going to get treated like the deadbeat you are. Want to run down the USA? You're gonna get treated like the enemy.

There's a reason it's called "society." It's a social gathering of people with a common purpose. You want to set yourself up outside that common purpose, you're going to be treated like an outsider. Your rights will be ignored in favor of teaching you a valuable lesson about how to be an asset to your fellow man instead of a liability.

Anyone complaining about his/her rights is a non-conformist. And you might say, "But I have the right to be a non-conformist." Of course you do. And the rest of society has the right to put pressure on you to conform. This is what liberals perceive as a violation of their civil rights. In fact, it is society doing you a big favor, giving you some solid information that you should take to heart. If you don't, that's okay too - America's been dealing out misery to non-conformists for centuries, and they can keep pounding on you until you're beat into the ground like a railroad spike with no harm done to the larger purpose.

So yeah, you know, civil rights. I enjoy mine. I enjoy them enough to make a few minor sacrifices in the area of conforming to society in order to fully enjoy them. If you don't make those same sacrifices, then you shouldn't be unduly surprised when your disrespect toward your fellow citizens is brought to your attention the hard way.

[lifeisfiction]

Wow, what a lot of assumptions.

[lifeisfiction]

I'm not avoiding any issues, Stavros. I've stated how I feel. I am pro-rights for everyone; black, brown, gay, female, transgender, young, old, EVERYONE. I firmly believe that all these groups of people should have the exact same rights I have, up to and including the right to say, "Hey Bob!" when they get pulled over by a local police officer and most likely not get searched or even get a ticket because Bob knows they're a productive and law-abiding citizen; the right to walk into any local business establishment and get preferential treatment because everyone there knows they're going to buy something if they've gone to the trouble of going shopping; the right to have their mail delivered to the little space between their storm door and front door on rainy days because they leave the postman a hundred-dollar bill in the mailbox every Christmas; the right to be greeted with a wave and smile by everyone on the street because they've gone to the trouble of presenting a non-offensive appearance and established a reputation for being friendly; the right to be left alone to live in peace. And every other right that I have and other people don't have because...

Well there's the rub right there - the "because." I have un-infringed rights because of one thing only: how I behave. My rights have nothing to do with my race, my gender, my religion, or any other factors that people frequently cite as the underlying reason for their problems. My rights all derive from the fact that I am a good citizen who makes an effort to be an approachable, contributing member of the community. Nothing more than that.

When you get these marginalized minorities complaining about their lack of rights, I can tell you within a few seconds why they are having problems. Every time. "Gee, could it be you didn't get that job because you have what appears to be a fishing lure hanging out your nose and a huge tattoo on your neck? Oh, it's because you're a woman? Okay." Or "Wow, you got arrested and all you did was explain to the police officer why he has no jurisdiction over you while you refused to identify yourself? Shocking." Or the real shocker, "Oh dear, I can't believe that police officer shot that two-time ex-felon when all he did was refused to comply with a legal order while reaching into his pants. Must have been because he was black."

Fact is, we all have the same exact legal rights. Even Frances the transgender has the same rights under her legal name of Frank. Obviously that's something that needs to change, but that's not changing right now, so let's focus on the fact that FRANK does indeed have all of his legal rights intact, no matter what contortions FRANCES must suffer.

But legal rights are not the end-all of how we get treated by our fellow man, and that includes how we are treated by the authorities. You want to walk around looking like a freak? You're gonna be treated like a freak. You want to cop an attitude? You're gonna get treated like a person with no respect for the law. Want to live beyond your means? You're going to get treated like the deadbeat you are. Want to run down the USA? You're gonna get treated like the enemy.

There's a reason it's called "society." It's a social gathering of people with a common purpose. You want to set yourself up outside that common purpose, you're going to be treated like an outsider. Your rights will be ignored in favor of teaching you a valuable lesson about how to be an asset to your fellow man instead of a liability.

Anyone complaining about his/her rights is a non-conformist. And you might say, "But I have the right to be a non-conformist." Of course you do. And the rest of society has the right to put pressure on you to conform. This is what liberals perceive as a violation of their civil rights. In fact, it is society doing you a big favor, giving you some solid information that you should take to heart. If you don't, that's okay too - America's been dealing out misery to non-conformists for centuries, and they can keep pounding on you until you're beat into the ground like a railroad spike with no harm done to the larger purpose.

So yeah, you know, civil rights. I enjoy mine. I enjoy them enough to make a few minor sacrifices in the area of conforming to society in order to fully enjoy them. If you don't make those same sacrifices, then you shouldn't be unduly surprised when your disrespect toward your fellow citizens is brought to your attention the hard way.

Rights shouldn't be determined whether you look like a saint or you look like a bum. Nor should dress, or demeanor should invalidate a person's rights. If the determination of rights is based on perception then we would have a lot more trouble. The problem is people are grasping with the expansion of rights. In this country at it's creation not everyone had equal rights. Over the course of it's history, rights have been increased since we understand people come from all sorts of backgrounds. It has not always been a smooth transition, but nonetheless were have slowly going in the right direction. The question you raise is what does society look like and it looks like us. All of it, not a certain sector not a certain group. Not a person wearing a suit, or dressed in tatter clothes, or simply physical features should be limiting. If you can accept that then you realize that this community is not limited to certain, race, gender, ethnic....etc. It wasn't too long ago the doctrine of separate, but equal was normal. The problem I have with your arguments hear is determination of who should have rights or whose rights should be respected. That's not how it works. Inalienable rights, should not and is not easily disregarded regardless of who the person is or how they act.

Well this will be a long discussion.

[dirtrail]

Lol the electoral college does not need to be abolished. Whoever said US is a “democracy “ it’s a Constitutional republic. It never was meant to be a mob rule democracy. 🙄🙄
The electoral college was established to give slave states greater representation in Congress.

The electoral college is a non issue when it matches the popular vote.

When the popular vote and electoral college don't match, there's a problem.

Gore lost to Dubya in 2000 and still won the popular vote by over 500K.

That's not a democracy. The electoral college needs to be abolished, and Congress needs to pass a national holiday to vote during midterm and presidential elections to encourage more people to turn out.

There's truth in the belief that the GOP wins elections when fewer people vote.

No democracy in the world has an 'electoral college'. Think about that.

Our system is rigged for minority rule.

[Nick Danger]

Well this will be a long discussion.

Doesn't have to be, unless you're trying to convince me of something. I'll tell you the same thing I've always told Stavros - you're an idealist. Everyone starts life as an idealist. But at a certain point, those of us who have been successful have transitioned to reality over idealism.


That's not how it works.

Wrong. That's exactly how it works. How it SHOULD work is that all your inalienable rights will always be respected, no matter what you do or how you look. But how it EXACTLY works is, your rights will be respected as long as you yourself are respectful of everyone else, including their dearly-held beliefs and deep-seeded fears. There's an old saying, "You have to give respect to get respect." No truer words were ever spoken.

We could go back and forth about how things should be as opposed to how things are, Life. The disparity exemplifies the overriding difference between conservatism and liberalism. Now that IS a long conversation.

[lifeisfiction]

Doesn't have to be, unless you're trying to convince me of something. I'll tell you the same thing I've always told Stavros - you're an idealist. Everyone starts life as an idealist. But at a certain point, those of us who have been successful have transitioned to reality over idealism.



Wrong. That's exactly how it works. How it SHOULD work is that all your inalienable rights will always be respected, no matter what you do or how you look. But how it EXACTLY works is, your rights will be respected as long as you yourself are respectful of everyone else, including their dearly-held beliefs and deep-seeded fears. There's an old saying, "You have to give respect to get respect." No truer words were ever spoken.

We could go back and forth about how things should be as opposed to how things are, Life. The disparity exemplifies the overriding difference between conservatism and liberalism. Now that IS a long conversation.

It is not idealism or realism with regards to protecting and enforcing the rights of others. Rights on paper are only effective when we as society seek to enforce them. Saying "that's the way it is," is nothing more than an excuse to keep the prevailing system. The old saying Freedom isn't free, is true in that one must fight to remain free, not merely saying your free means you are free. We must as a society seek to ensure people have their rights. Who we are we expecting to enforce it? It's our responsibility and no one's else.

[giovanni_hotel]

Lol the electoral college does not need to be abolished. Whoever said US is a “democracy “ it’s a Constitutional republic. It never was meant to be a mob rule democracy. 

Have you ever voted before??

Every election in the USA is one person, one vote. Yes, we do elect representatives who go to Congress to advocate for our interests, but the principle is still the same.

So in fact, we were meant to be led by 'mob rule', i.e., democratic control.

Research the history of the electoral college. It was indeed intended to give slave states greater representation in Congress and has nothing at all to do with strengthening our democracy.

A state with 500 people should not be able to dictate policy to a state with 500K citizens.

That's just common sense.

Our entire political system is entirely upside down and ripe for an autocrat to take over.

Be careful of the totems you're hoisting, only the the super rich consider one person/one vote 'mob rule' and somehow un-democratic.

[smithken]

not to be rude but extra civil rights would you get? people are getting fired and banned for political views and religion and your shocked ?

[broncofan]

I think there is some confusion between processes that aren't democratic in order to further federalist principles and those that are not democratic to protect against "mob rule". I could be wrong, but I believe that we have a bicameral legislature in part as a concession to our federalist structure which divides power between states and the federal government. In the house citizens' votes matter and in the senate the states are represented. This bicameral structure is a bit of a compromise even though states are helping elect federal representatives for our legislature.

In general, when people talk about the design of anti-majoritarian institutions they tend to think of them as a bulwark against the "tyranny of the majority". The Judiciary does this because they can strike down laws that violate certain Constitutional principles no matter how popular they are and Judges are appointed rather than elected. The structure of the Senate does not really protect against a tyranny of the majority but does ensure that less populous states can have a bit more influence in our legislative process.

I think the electoral college does nothing to protect against a tyranny of the majority but does do something to re-distribute power from citizens in more populous states to those in less populous states. The action of a faithless elector could protect us against the will of the people but historically that has not been done, it is illegal in some states, and there are no standards for doing it (in my view Trump was a great test case; if not then when?).

It doesn't make great sense for a unitary executive for the federal government to be elected by anything other than the will of the citizens he or she represents. As Trish indicated on the previous page, who does the President represent?

[filghy2]

One might think. But the outcome might not be an accident either. We had someone on this forum who was on the fringes of the left a while ago who would post Russia Today articles before Trump supporters began trusting the outlet. He would frequently claim there was no difference in the political parties because he believed they were both beholden to establishment.

Yes, it's may be true that the political spectrum is more like a horseshoe, with the extremes being closer to each other than to the centre. Anti-immigrant and anti-globalist views have a long tradition on the left as well as the right. Still, it's odd to see a socialist cheering on people who are anti-government and anti-egalitarian.

[Nick Danger]

It is not idealism or realism with regards to protecting and enforcing the rights of others. Rights on paper are only effective when we as society seek to enforce them. Saying "that's the way it is," is nothing more than an excuse to keep the prevailing system. The old saying Freedom isn't free, is true in that one must fight to remain free, not merely saying your free means you are free. We must as a society seek to ensure people have their rights. Who we are we expecting to enforce it? It's our responsibility and no one's else.

Freedom = Money, Lifester, always has. Money makes you free. Free to travel, free to invent, free to seek romance, free to buy what you want and do as you will. It even, to some extent, makes you above the law - you can always take a chance on doing anything you're sure you can buy your way out of; which pretty much means any minor misdemeanor results in an hour in jail.

So young people should be securing funds. Period. If they can see the forest in front of them, all they have to do is stay on the path laid out clearly before them, stay clean, stay focused, take good counsel, and by the age of 30 you can quite easily be rich in this country, and free as a bird. But you have to earn it.

Plan B, of course, is to start doing whatever you want the second you leave your parents' house, party away your 20's, and find yourself deeply in debt and strangely lacking in job skills by age 30, weakly attaching yourself to any so-called "movement" that lets you blame your problems on circumstances beyond your control. The choice is yours, and everyone else's.

But make no mistake, the whiners and the malcontents, the poorly-adjusted and the neglected, the professional victims and the bleeding-heart pontificators, are all people who followed Plan B, AKA the Democratic Party.

[lifeisfiction]

Freedom = Money, Lifester, always has. Money makes you free. Free to travel, free to invent, free to seek romance, free to buy what you want and do as you will. It even, to some extent, makes you above the law - you can always take a chance on doing anything you're sure you can buy your way out of; which pretty much means any minor misdemeanor results in an hour in jail.

So young people should be securing funds. Period. If they can see the forest in front of them, all they have to do is stay on the path laid out clearly before them, stay clean, stay focused, take good counsel, and by the age of 30 you can quite easily be rich in this country, and free as a bird. But you have to earn it.

Plan B, of course, is to start doing whatever you want the second you leave your parents' house, party away your 20's, and find yourself deeply in debt and strangely lacking in job skills by age 30, weakly attaching yourself to any so-called "movement" that lets you blame your problems on circumstances beyond your control. The choice is yours, and everyone else's.

But make no mistake, the whiners and the malcontents, the poorly-adjusted and the neglected, the professional victims and the bleeding-heart pontificators, are all people who followed Plan B, AKA the Democratic Party.

Since there is no more response to my initial statements and this begs a different question I will briefly respond. This question you express money equals freedom is something I have had numerous discussions about with people all on the political spectrums. It tends to go mostly no where, but I will say this money while it appears to be freedom is not in of itself freedom. I use to argue with my father, what is better connections/power or wealth. I would state that wealth is important, but he kindly remind me that money can only go so far. Furthermore, it takes a few things for your wealth no matter how well planned to be eradicated or brought low. Political views are not be solely based on income. It always makes me laugh when people think Wall Street is mostly Republican, because there is a ton of very very powerful Democrats in Wall Street.

Again this really doesn't go to the issue of rights. This is more of side discussion and it does not address the main issue of rights. We are only strong when we protect the rights of the weak.

[filghy2]

Again this really doesn't go to the issue of rights. This is more of side discussion and it does not address the main issue of rights. We are only strong when we protect the rights of the weak.

I think you are missing the essence of the Nick Danger philosophy, Life.
1. The only thing that really matters is what serves your immediate self interest.
2. The only right that matters is the right to pursue your self interest by any means available.
3. Money matters most because it can buy everything else.
4. Those who succeed are superior and more deserving; those who do not are inferior and undeserving.
5. Anything else is a minor detail that can be rationalised away.

Did I miss anything Nick?

[filghy2]

Lol the electoral college does not need to be abolished. Whoever said US is a “democracy “ it’s a Constitutional republic. It never was meant to be a mob rule democracy.

How ironic that your mechanism to prevent mob rule has given us a president whose standard operating procedure is to whip up his mob with blatant lies. Who makes no secret of his admiration for dictators and clearly doesn't believe in any notion of checks and balances. Rather than a tyranny of the majority we may end up with a tyranny of the minority.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1858985]

I'm not avoiding any issues, Stavros. I've stated how I feel. I am pro-rights for everyone; black, brown, gay, female, transgender, young, old, EVERYONE.

-Nothing wrong with this statemet, so I assume means that you are opposed to the proposal that the right of Americans to self-identify other than as Male or Female is a right that must be maintained and not discarded? It doesn't mean the end of America, it costs almost nothing, it provides a degree of security for those who want it. It asks you to respect them, and for them to respect you, a win-win outcome for all.

My rights have nothing to do with my race, my gender, my religion, or any other factors that people frequently cite as the underlying reason for their problems. My rights all derive from the fact that I am a good citizen who makes an effort to be an approachable, contributing member of the community. Nothing more than that.
--And yet, historically, the USA has denied rights to people precisely because of their race, to the extent that they were not even considered citizens at one time, eg in the 19th century. It had and has nothing to do with behaviour, everything to do with prejudice and fear, two negatives that reinforce each other. We went through this in the UK when Jews and Roman Catholics did not have the same rights as everyone else, and I don't need to document the history in the USA, other than, yet again, to argue that for the Obama administration to recognize that gender is not made up of fixed categories, and to extend rights to people who do not consider themselves to be Male or Female was the right thing to do, that it has little or no impact on the security of the USA, and as for behaviour, you can't legislate for that in the sense that you can't force people to be good citizens, though you can punish them for not being good.

Or the real shocker, "Oh dear, I can't believe that police officer shot that two-time ex-felon when all he did was refused to comply with a legal order while reaching into his pants. Must have been because he was black."
-This is the real shocker, for someone claiming to be a realist -it is also offensive in the extreme when you know as well as I do how many Black men have been shot dead by law enforcement when there was no need for the cop to even pull out his gun. How many cases can you cite? A victim shot 16 times -16 times! The number shot who had no opportunity to 'reach into their pants', and so on. If there were not such a grim history of excessive police force being used against young black men, we would not be having this conversation, Black Lives Matter would not exist, and James Brown would have been a crooner not a soul singer with an edge.

You want to walk around looking like a freak? You're gonna be treated like a freak. You want to cop an attitude? You're gonna get treated like a person with no respect for the law. Want to live beyond your means? You're going to get treated like the deadbeat you are. Want to run down the USA? You're gonna get treated like the enemy.
--Nick, what is freedom? Surely one of the outstanding freedoms the USA has conferred on its citizens is the right to walk around looking like a freak -only the definition changes from San Franciso to rural Kansas, Alaska or Nebraska. As for 'running down' the USA -free speech allows you to do just that: but there were some people who did think Martin Luther King Jr was an enemy of the USA, and indeed, he was murdered by an American, where others believe he was an American hero who improved the quality of American democracy. Free speech is what it is, but gives you the right to engage when possible, rather than suppress.

-The President claims the media is 'the enemy of the people', why? Because it does not adore him, because it points out, on an almost daily basis that he is a liar, because his rhetoric is soaked in venom, hate and violence. The man is obsessed with himself and convinced he is the greatest and most popular President in the history of your country. And he wants the media to tell everyone that: to declare it 'the enemy of the people' is infantile on one level, but on another is a tactic borrowed from the playbook of every fascist and every dictator who reigned supreme over their country before seeing it collapse, because of them.

Anyone complaining about his/her rights is a non-conformist. And you might say, "But I have the right to be a non-conformist." Of course you do. And the rest of society has the right to put pressure on you to conform. This is what liberals perceive as a violation of their civil rights. In fact, it is society doing you a big favor, giving you some solid information that you should take to heart. If you don't, that's okay too - America's been dealing out misery to non-conformists for centuries, and they can keep pounding on you until you're beat into the ground like a railroad spike with no harm done to the larger purpose.

--This is the most astonishing thing you have written so far, Nick. The USA was created by non-conformists! The religious communities that emigrated from Britain, the Netherlands and Germany were all non-conformists who were escaping persecution because of that. So maybe the purest American is someone who does not conform, which rather suggests that Transgendered Americans and those who do not self-identify as Male or Female are not just non-conformists, but the purest or pure Americana. Bravo to them!

[filghy2]

There's a reason it's called "society." It's a social gathering of people with a common purpose. You want to set yourself up outside that common purpose, you're going to be treated like an outsider. Your rights will be ignored in favor of teaching you a valuable lesson about how to be an asset to your fellow man instead of a liability.

Cognitive dissonance again, Nick. Here you are telling us about the importance of respecting society's rules, yet you seem to have forgotten that you are supporting Donald Trump, the ultimate self-centred individual who cares nothing about society's standards of behaviour. What sort of society do you imagine we would have if everyone behaved like Trump? You can't have it both ways.

[peejaye]

Why oh why do you waste time on RUBBISH like this Nick? Check your PM box & hopefully we can suffocate these two fucking lunatics :praying:

America first, as it should be for all Americans.

[Nick Danger]

Why oh why do you waste time on RUBBISH like this Nick? Check your PM box & hopefully we can suffocate these two fucking lunatics :praying:

America first, as it should be for all Americans.

I don't think of this as a waste of time, PJ. This board is an echo chamber when it comes to politics. There are a few conservatives here but none who care to peel their eyes away from all the ass long enough to pose a counter-argument to...well, pretty much everyone else on the board. I can't even remember the last time someone replied to me in agreement, or if it's ever happened at all. No surprise.

My experience tells me, though, that sometimes people will go out of their way to read what I write, even if they don't agree with me, because I try to say things with a little flair and I'm no fool. And these are the people I want to talk to about the problems with liberalism. T-girls are my favorite girls. I'm hoping some of them will realize that there are more important things than which bathroom they use, or whether they're welcome to join the Army they never wanted to join in the first place. The prosperity of the USA affects everyone here much more than minor considerations about civil rights. My message is basically yes, Republicans are assholes. But they're professional assholes, and you need professional assholes in charge of your country whether you realize it or not. Apply some perspective to your vote.

I like Stavros and Flighty. They will NEVER admit that they are wrong about something, and I respect that, I really do. A man isn't a man if he doesn't hold firm on his beliefs. Hell, I drop logic bombs on them non-stop, but they're immune. In this very thread, I had to straighten out Stavros for calling me a liar about Obama increasing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Showed him the articles and everything. He weaseled out of the call-out by fudging the meaning of my original statement a bit, and yeah I could have called him out again. But I let it slide, because backing Stavros into a corner is not what I'm here for. I'm here because I believe very firmly that we need a big Republican win in the mid-terms. Then 4 more years of Trump. After that I'm content to let the Democrats take over for a term or two, give the non-self-reliant and sympathy-driven citizens what they want for a few years. The ebb and flow is important, you can't keep social progress on the back-burner for too long (nor can you shove it down people's throats too hastily).

Anyway, thanks for joining the conversation, PJ.

[peejaye]

Yes, Liberals always step back when reality kicks in, it wipes away the self righteousness & smugness they get from thinking they've put right all the Worlds wrongs. Let them have the last word though Nick or you'll be on here 3/4 times a day like those poor sods are.
Enjoy reading your posts, I can't say that very much in this section.

[dirtrail]

Lol you might want to turn off cnn and msnbc. Get out more often you’ll see the world isn’t as scary as you make it out to be.
How ironic that your mechanism to prevent mob rule has given us a president whose standard operating procedure is to whip up his mob with blatant lies. Who makes no secret of his admiration for dictators and clearly doesn't believe in any notion of checks and balances. Rather than a tyranny of the majority we may end up with a tyranny of the minority.

[Nick Danger]

I think you are missing the essence of the Nick Danger philosophy, Life.
1. The only thing that really matters is what serves your immediate self interest.
2. The only right that matters is the right to pursue your self interest by any means available.
3. Money matters most because it can buy everything else.
4. Those who succeed are superior and more deserving; those who do not are inferior and undeserving.
5. Anything else is a minor detail that can be rationalised away.

Did I miss anything Nick?

Flighty, if I made my own straw-man account I couldn't ask for any better set-up, so thanks in advance.

1. To the contrary, I recommend that one abstain from satisfying one's "immediate self interest" until one achieves financial independence, which is something every single American can and should achieve, barring a failure in motivation or a plastic-surgery disaster.

2. You say that like it's a bad thing, Flighty. The main problem in this country is people who don't pursue their self-interest and expect other people to pursue it for them.

3. By all means, present one counter-argument to "money matters most." Money has always mattered most. Everything has a dollar value, so dollars are the most important thing to have. Name one single thing you can do that you can't do better with more money. Tiptoe through the tulips? Maybe.

4. Success requires sacrifice, Flighty. So who's more deserving, the one who made the sacrifice, or the one who didn't?

5. Did I rationalize away some of your minor details? All apologies, of course.

You've missed a lot, Flighty.

[Nick Danger]

I'm not avoiding any issues, Stavros. I've stated how I feel. I am pro-rights for everyone; black, brown, gay, female, transgender, young, old, EVERYONE.

-Nothing wrong with this statemet, so I assume means that you are opposed to the proposal that the right of Americans to self-identify other than as Male or Female is a right that must be maintained and not discarded? It doesn't mean the end of America, it costs almost nothing, it provides a degree of security for those who want it. It asks you to respect them, and for them to respect you, a win-win outcome for all.

My rights have nothing to do with my race, my gender, my religion, or any other factors that people frequently cite as the underlying reason for their problems. My rights all derive from the fact that I am a good citizen who makes an effort to be an approachable, contributing member of the community. Nothing more than that.
--And yet, historically, the USA has denied rights to people precisely because of their race, to the extent that they were not even considered citizens at one time, eg in the 19th century. It had and has nothing to do with behaviour, everything to do with prejudice and fear, two negatives that reinforce each other. We went through this in the UK when Jews and Roman Catholics did not have the same rights as everyone else, and I don't need to document the history in the USA, other than, yet again, to argue that for the Obama administration to recognize that gender is not made up of fixed categories, and to extend rights to people who do not consider themselves to be Male or Female was the right thing to do, that it has little or no impact on the security of the USA, and as for behaviour, you can't legislate for that in the sense that you can't force people to be good citizens, though you can punish them for not being good.

Or the real shocker, "Oh dear, I can't believe that police officer shot that two-time ex-felon when all he did was refused to comply with a legal order while reaching into his pants. Must have been because he was black."
-This is the real shocker, for someone claiming to be a realist -it is also offensive in the extreme when you know as well as I do how many Black men have been shot dead by law enforcement when there was no need for the cop to even pull out his gun. How many cases can you cite? A victim shot 16 times -16 times! The number shot who had no opportunity to 'reach into their pants', and so on. If there were not such a grim history of excessive police force being used against young black men, we would not be having this conversation, Black Lives Matter would not exist, and James Brown would have been a crooner not a soul singer with an edge.

You want to walk around looking like a freak? You're gonna be treated like a freak. You want to cop an attitude? You're gonna get treated like a person with no respect for the law. Want to live beyond your means? You're going to get treated like the deadbeat you are. Want to run down the USA? You're gonna get treated like the enemy.
--Nick, what is freedom? Surely one of the outstanding freedoms the USA has conferred on its citizens is the right to walk around looking like a freak -only the definition changes from San Franciso to rural Kansas, Alaska or Nebraska. As for 'running down' the USA -free speech allows you to do just that: but there were some people who did think Martin Luther King Jr was an enemy of the USA, and indeed, he was murdered by an American, where others believe he was an American hero who improved the quality of American democracy. Free speech is what it is, but gives you the right to engage when possible, rather than suppress.

-The President claims the media is 'the enemy of the people', why? Because it does not adore him, because it points out, on an almost daily basis that he is a liar, because his rhetoric is soaked in venom, hate and violence. The man is obsessed with himself and convinced he is the greatest and most popular President in the history of your country. And he wants the media to tell everyone that: to declare it 'the enemy of the people' is infantile on one level, but on another is a tactic borrowed from the playbook of every fascist and every dictator who reigned supreme over their country before seeing it collapse, because of them.

Anyone complaining about his/her rights is a non-conformist. And you might say, "But I have the right to be a non-conformist." Of course you do. And the rest of society has the right to put pressure on you to conform. This is what liberals perceive as a violation of their civil rights. In fact, it is society doing you a big favor, giving you some solid information that you should take to heart. If you don't, that's okay too - America's been dealing out misery to non-conformists for centuries, and they can keep pounding on you until you're beat into the ground like a railroad spike with no harm done to the larger purpose.

--This is the most astonishing thing you have written so far, Nick. The USA was created by non-conformists! The religious communities that emigrated from Britain, the Netherlands and Germany were all non-conformists who were escaping persecution because of that. So maybe the purest American is someone who does not conform, which rather suggests that Transgendered Americans and those who do not self-identify as Male or Female are not just non-conformists, but the purest or pure Americana. Bravo to them!

Actually Stavros, the USA was created by fiercely independent conformists. Are you seriously going to try to convince me the PURITANS were NON-CONFORMISTS? Conformity was demanded by threat of being burned at the stake.

The Puritans aren't relevant much today. And there is a pure vision of America held by many people, Stavros. You can see that vision in our wealthier suburbs, where life is pie. That vision doesn't show who is living the American Dream - transgender, black, Hispanic, Jew, gentile, Japanese messy boy, whoever. It only shows how they're living. And it pre-supposes they must have been living quite responsibly up to that point to achieve such wealth.

I know it's hard to accept that there is no real oppression anymore, Stavros. A minor civil rights issue here, a minor civil rights issue there, transgenders having bathroom issues, movie stars claiming they weren't a slut they were raped, etc, etc. But it just doesn't seem that bad when you're watching videos of the Watts Riot, does it? The current agenda of nitpicky griping on the liberal hot-sheet leaves you guys with very little bite to your bark.

I can tell you what freedom is, Stavros. Freedom is something you, personally, earn. Strip away all the institutions around you and you have no rights whatsoever, not even the right to exist. The institutions empower you with rights, but they also demand you serve them in exchange. From the start you are a slave, and only you can earn your freedom. You do it by acquiring money. The institutions want you to be successful and achieve your freedom - at that point you become the purest form of consumer. So they make it easy for everyone to follow the easy steps to financial independence.

But that goes back to something I said to you a few posts ago about Optimized Self-Interest - not everyone has it. And those who don't have it hold the rest of us back. So there's always going to be pressure to improve on those who are not putting in the effort. The pressure is both social and institutional, and it will never go away, it's intrinsic to capitalism.

That pressure is your oppression, Stavros.

[Nick Danger]

Cognitive dissonance again, Nick. Here you are telling us about the importance of respecting society's rules, yet you seem to have forgotten that you are supporting Donald Trump, the ultimate self-centred individual who cares nothing about society's standards of behaviour. What sort of society do you imagine we would have if everyone behaved like Trump? You can't have it both ways.

You know when everyone behaved like Trump? The 1970's.

But I apologize, Flighty, I forgot that you're a Millennial. In the 70's, men used to pat women on the butt, leer at them as they sashayed down the hallway, call them "Honey," and quite often take No for Yes and Yes for Anal. People had a lot of sex. I mean, a LOT of sex. It was awful.

[filghy2]

Why oh why do you waste time on RUBBISH like this Nick? Check your PM box & hopefully we can suffocate these two fucking lunatics :praying:

Wtf? This is only a bunch of people who enjoy debating politics on the internet. Get a grip before you disappear down the rabbit hole completely.

For all that I disagree with him, Nick probably does have a core of decency and common sense. He has spotted you as a nutter and he's not going be your special friend and join your secret society.

If it's so tedious, why do you keep coming here to read these posts? Why not just ignore it like a normal person would do? But if get some kind of meaning out of cheering all of Nick's posts and thumbing down all of mine then feel free.

[filghy2]

Lol you might want to turn off cnn and msnbc. Get out more often you’ll see the world isn’t as scary as you make it out to be.

Sorry, but I can't take seriously a man who literally presents himself as a dick. Or who thinks that putting 'Lol' in front of everything is the last word in devastating comebacks.

[filghy2]

But that goes back to something I said to you a few posts ago about Optimized Self-Interest - not everyone has it. And those who don't have it hold the rest of us back. So there's always going to be pressure to improve on those who are not putting in the effort. The pressure is both social and institutional, and it will never go away, it's intrinsic to capitalism.

There is something completely missing from your worldview, Nick. That is that successful societies and economies depend on a substantial level of trust and goodwill. We need to trust that the people we deal with are not generally trying to deceive and cheat us. We need to trust that the authorities with power over us are constrained by laws that are generally applied predictably and impartially. We need to accept that we can't always get our way, there have to be compromises, and other people are not evil just because they have different views. Even Adam Smith recognised that capitalism wasn't just about self-interest. https://www.adamsmith.org/the-theory-of-moral-sentiments

Trumpism is the antithesis of this, as it would lead to a breakdown of trust and goodwill, with laws applied in a partisan fashion and a country divided into two warring tribes. If you think that you will be okay as long as you have lower taxes and less regulation then you are a fool.

This is not just naive liberal idealism. Economic studies show that countries perform poorly when they lack good institutions; ie accepted rules and conventions that are enforced impartially. They also perform poorly when the rich and powerful are allowed to grab whatever they can and inequality becomes too great. That is the main reason why most countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East are failures.

I actually agree with the idea that rights need to be balanced by responsibilities, and I think the earnest Professor goes too far in emphasising only the former. However, you have a curious blind spot where you say that ordinary schmucks must accept responsibilities while you admire rich and powerful people like Trump who prosper by ignoring any social responsibilities.

How about attempting a considered response, rather than just glib dismissals and silly claims that all problems are caused by liberals?

[Stavros]

Why oh why do you waste time on RUBBISH like this Nick? Check your PM box & hopefully we can suffocate these two fucking lunatics :praying:


Peejaye, you know from our exchanges in P&R on the EU that I am not a liberal, but that aside, I would rather you posted your opinion on the Original Post that Evelyn used to encourage debate on the issue: should the US government re-define gender to consist of only two categories: Male and Female. As someone with an active interest in people, many of whom do not subscribe to a binary definition of gender, but many who do, what is your position on this policy? Do you agree Rights should be taken away, or that US citizens who have been given the right to self-identify should retain this right?

[Stavros]

T-girls are my favorite girls. I'm hoping some of them will realize that there are more important things than which bathroom they use, or whether they're welcome to join the Army they never wanted to join in the first place. The prosperity of the USA affects everyone here much more than minor considerations about civil rights.

I like Stavros and Flighty. They will NEVER admit that they are wrong about something, and I respect that, I really do. In this very thread, I had to straighten out Stavros for calling me a liar about Obama increasing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Showed him the articles and everything. He weaseled out of the call-out by fudging the meaning of my original statement a bit, and yeah I could have called him out again.

a) there are more important things than which bathroom they use, or whether they're welcome to join the Army they never wanted to join in the first place
-Bathroom issues can cause a lot of anxiety for all sorts of people, I personally avoid public rest-rooms as often as I can for reasons I won't go into, but you cannot assume that Transgendered people are self-confident when many in the early stages of transitioning are permanently anxious, about the way they look, the way they walk and talk and these are real issues that can determine if they even leave their house or apartment. You also must accept that on the other side of the argument there are people who are so hostile to anyone that doesn't look like them, that they will not just object to them using rest-rooms but even react violently. And yet in the UK there are plenty of coffee shops that offer their customers only one rest-room all and anyone can use, so what is the problem?

As for the military, I don't think it is for you to decide if people do or don't want to serve their country. I assume a lot of people after 9/11 decided to 'do something' that had never occurred to them before, and that joining the military was one of them.

b) If you have the patience or are truly bored, you can trawl through my posts and find the occasions when I have admitted that I was wrong, because it happens.
You made the claim that Obama increased the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, but neglected to put it in the context it deserved and that is where you went wrong: Obama intended to reduce the presence in Iraq as per the agreement Bush made with al-Maliki in 2008 and because he wanted to do so as part of his own policy -and yes, during his tenure there was spike in the presence of service personnel: but, and this is the key point I was making: by the end of his tenure Obama did preside over a net decrease in the military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan: not spin, not fake news, but facts. If I did not refer to the spike during the Obama Presidency it was because it was not the relevant point of my argument.

My analysis of a country I don't live in will always miss some of the details, but I don't consider civil rights to be a minor issue anywhere, least of a country that went through so much mental and physical agony from Selma to Washington to extend to all Americans in law a moral right they have had since 1776.

You cannot say that the early settlers were Conformists when you know full well it was because they refused to conform that led them to leave Europe. And while I do not doubt that within Christian communities families were expected to conform to community values -as I assume continues to be the case with the Amish and Mennonite communities today- the Non-Conformist ethos that was brought to America has in fact been a signal feature of the political culture of the USA that informed the Men who wrote your Constitution that -in spite of their personal religious convictions- made explicit the need to separate the State from Religion, something which, until the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution, would have been unthinkable across Europe, and which remained a part of European identity for a long time after 1776 and which, for example, remains true today in the UK where the Head of State -Queen Elizabeth II- is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The endless torture over taxation is perhaps the most obvious example of an issue that dates back to the Non-Conformists who arrived in the Americas to build a life on different principles from what they had experienced in Europe. It remains the dream of those Libertarians and Sociaists who want to abolish the State, though one believes in the fantasy of free markets, while the other dreams of a society without money where people share what they make and need.
The First Amendment is another example that has given Americans the Free Speech denied to billions in other countires -and guess who wants to change it?

Today's Non-Conformists are the true inheritors of the original mission: and they are Transgendered, or refuse to conform the jaded and faded notion that a person can only be Male and Female, two categories which, far from being fixed, are in fact irrelevant.

What does it matter to you if the Desk Clerk in the Marriott is non-binary? Are you threatened with disease or death if the waitress or your dentist is a Transgendered Lesbian?

Is the 'Fed' taking dollars out of your earnings to pay someone to be polyamorous or intersexed? If not, then why should people who identify themselves this way or anyway be denied the rights you have?

[filghy2]

I think we have a new contender for the over the top purple prose award, though my money is still on this early classic from Nick Danger:
"But as time goes on and the country continues to prosper under President Trump's leadership - as your insults and piebald interpretations of complex issues begin to ring more and more hollow until they're just a willowy echo in the distance like the cry of the flightless cormorant - I certainly hope you will pay attention to what you are learning, which will be that pragmatism always triumphs over idealism.

[peejaye]

Wtf? This is only a bunch of people who enjoy debating politics on the internet. Get a grip before you disappear down the rabbit hole completely.

For all that I disagree with him, Nick probably does have a core of decency and common sense. He has spotted you as a nutter and he's not going be your special friend and join your secret society.

If it's so tedious, why do you keep coming here to read these posts? Why not just ignore it like a normal person would do? But if get some kind of meaning out of cheering all of Nick's posts and thumbing down all of mine then feel free.

You've just demonstrated why a single figure amount of people visit this section regularly with your usual charm & panache.
60+K postings in this section as against a million & a half postings relating to transgirls!
There must be loads of Liberal "do-gooding" websites you can ponce about on, why don't you go & ply your trade on them with other like minded individuals? You may find more than one person who shares your interests there unlike on this site?

[filghy2]

You've just demonstrated why a single figure amount of people visit this section regularly with your usual charm & panache.
60+K postings in this section as against a million & a half postings relating to transgirls!
There must be loads of Liberal "do-gooding" websites you can ponce about on, why don't you go & ply your trade on them with other like minded individuals? You may find more than one person who shares your interests there unlike on this site?

Is this an example of charm and panache?

Why oh why do you waste time on RUBBISH like this Nick? Check your PM box & hopefully we can suffocate these two fucking lunatics :praying:
Or maybe the sort of thing that got you banned a few months ago?
"Fuck me, for a moment I actually thought this cunt had posted something on here relating to trans-girls.....just the usual though!"

Eight thumbs down in the past couple of days. You have been a busy boy. Careful you don't get a blister.

It's funny that a few months ago you were accusing Stavros and me of being 'far right'. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?94577-The-Curious-Case-of-Alexander-Litvinenko/page9
You also said you didn't like Trump and weren't interested in US politics. Ain't politics confusing.

[Nick Danger]

How about attempting a considered response, rather than just glib dismissals and silly claims that all problems are caused by liberals?

Okay, Flighty, you've endured my walls of texts long enough to get my full world-view in as small a nutshell as I can squeeze it.

Foremost I believe in personal responsibility. I've been on both ends of the personal responsibility spectrum. As a young buck I had no view of the future, so I understand why people fall off the path. There are a million ways off the path but very few back on. I get it, because I've been there. I was able to turn it around when I finally grew up.

But as life goes on and you make the sacrifices required to live responsibly and be self-reliant, you begin to take a different view of the people around you who don't live likewise. It's almost impossible, unless you are extremely charitable in your world view, not to begin to see the struggling masses around you as people who just...don't...get it. Because once you do it yourself - figure out a way to make money, put in the work, secure your future - you realize how fucking easy it was all along. And you have very little pity for those who can't match at least YOUR paltry efforts.

So what you perceive from me as condescension sometimes is condescension, Flighty. I don't have much patience for the other side of the argument, because I've lived both sides. Maybe you remember the story I told you a while back about waking up out of a drunken stupor, jumping half-cocked off a tugboat right before it headed out to sea and swimming to shore, leaving my wallet and most of my stuff behind. You don't find yourself in that position if you're living responsibly, so that version of me is kinda how I picture most liberals. And I want to grab them by the ears and get nose-to-nose with them and say, calmly but firmly, "Wrong. You are doing it...wrong." At that point I would probably release the ears but I just might give them a slight tug as I do so to drive home the point.

Pretty much all my political views stem from the fact that I have very little sympathy for people. I know what it takes to be a bum, and I know what it takes to win the rat race. It's always a question of motivation. If you're not motivated to improve your own situation, why should I feel sorry for you? The tools are all right there at your disposal.

That's why I place a high value on winning, Flighty. You have to be motivated to win. Like it or not, the truth is that everyone plays by the exact same rules, rich or poor. The caveat is, the rich get to MAKE the rules, and of course they make rules that give them tremendous advantages over the poor. So as a poor disadvantaged person, what to do? The only thing you can do - get rich.

You get rich in this country by staying on course for all the educational opportunities that WILL be made available to you, making smart choices about following the law, choosing your optimum career path, and living responsibly, i.e., saving money. That's not a lot to remember. If you're a worker, a few years of that will put you in a position to invest. Invest smartly, and then, check you out.

Republicans are greedy sons of bitches, Flighty. They don't care about the environment. They don't care about transgender rights. They don't care about minorities or gun violence. They only care about making money.

So the way things have worked out in the modern political era, the back and forth between Democrats and Republicans has proven to be the perfect paradigm for world domination. Democrats have adopted all the social issues on behalf of the huddled masses. Meanwhile the Republicans take care of business.

Right now, behind Obama, we need 8 years of Republicanism. To balance the books, get our dick out there a little more in world affairs, rustle some jimmies. Then, when we're firmly back at the head of the pack, we can let the Democrats have a few years to tickle the other side of the pickle for a while.

And that's my full world view, Flighty. The balance is the thing. It's not time for transgender rights at the moment. Soon enough it will be.

[Nick Danger]

a)What does it matter to you if the Desk Clerk in the Marriott is non-binary? Are you threatened with disease or death if the waitress or your dentist is a Transgendered Lesbian?

Is the 'Fed' taking dollars out of your earnings to pay someone to be polyamorous or intersexed? If not, then why should people who identify themselves this way or anyway be denied the rights you have?

Stavros I thot ye knew me. When have I ever given the impression that I am personally intolerant of people because of race, gender, or religion? Never, and I'm not.

All I've ever done is try to explain to you why you are not going to get what you want from this current administration, while simultaneously trying to explain to you why this administration is good for America nonetheless.

I think it would be just great if Trump suddenly called a press conference, stepped in front of the camera all teary-eyed and regretful, and announced a comprehensive human rights initiative. It's not going to happen, but if it did I'd be all like aw yeah you go Don!

It's basically like you're at a French restaurant trying to order baked ziti, Stavros. Republicans don't make baked ziti. They don't even have the ingredients.

[filghy2]

Okay, Flighty, you've endured my walls of texts long enough to get my full world-view in as small a nutshell as I can squeeze it.

Republicans are greedy sons of bitches, Flighty. They don't care about the environment. They don't care about transgender rights. They don't care about minorities or gun violence. They only care about making money.

Well I've certainly seen enough to not be surprised that you've once again dodged my question and changed the subject to your favourite theme. Have you ever considered going into politics? You have the politician's glib way.

Sorry, but the Republican party that cared only about money was the old Republican party. Today's Republican party is mainly about hatred, resentment and fear of 'the other'. That is the basis of Trump's support and the thing that he constantly and unscrupulously focuses on. I accept that you are not like this yourself, but you cannot be blind to it.

Balance the books? How do you balance the books by increasing borrowing at a time when the economy is doing well? If you are a successful businessman who has survived numerous recessions then you must know that is the opposite of a prudent strategy. Any fool can get up a temporary boom by maxing out the credit card to splurge on tax cuts, but it will have to be repaid with interest in future. It's fool's gold Nick.

This is all a bit off topic, but I doubt we're going to achieve much by continuing to go over that same ground. I'm sure the good Stavros will give it another try though.

[Stavros]

Stavros I thot ye knew me. When have I ever given the impression that I am personally intolerant of people because of race, gender, or religion? Never, and I'm not.
All I've ever done is try to explain to you why you are not going to get what you want from this current administration, while simultaneously trying to explain to you why this administration is good for America nonetheless.


Nick, I understand your sympathies but for that reason cannot understand why you support an administration that is not just determined to make life harder for people you say you sympathise with, but intends to make it impossible for them to exist as they wish to, by denying them the right to identify their gender preference on official documents.

Transgender Rights are Constitutional Rights, and Human Rights. How can it be good for America to take away the rights of Americans? And violate the 14th Amendment without the authority of Congress?

How can it be good for America that your President is back in court being accused of another criminal con-trick?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/29/trump-accused-in-lawsuit-of-conning-thousands-of-americans.html

How can it be good for America that your President encourages hate and violence against Jews, claiming of George Soros-

"I shouldn't be surprised", Trump said when asked if he thought George Soros was funding the migrant caravan.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-george-soros-conspiracy_us_5bda370ee4b0da7bfc16e63a?guce_referr er_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=55qr0dnwPjWbDDEAII4CLw&guccounter=2

How can it be good for America that its President by conducting a campaign of resentment against a man who is richer and more sucessful than him, who used his billions to create the Central European University that is staffed by experienced scholars and teachers and awards valuable degrees compared to a 'university' that 'took the money and ran away' leaving 'students' with nothing but their embarrassment at being conned--by vilifying him in public encourages the loathing of Jews at the same time that they were being murdered en masse in Pittsburgh?

Because the language the President uses matters, because it emboldens his supprters to use violence that is illegal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/24/conspiracy-theories-about-soros-arent-just-false-theyre-anti-semitic/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5786345c4832

The President is not good for America - he is a iar, a racist, a crook and a despicable traitor.

At this moment of prosperity in the US economy, this President is the greatest threat to its endurance, for he is the enemy of the American people, and an enemy of freedom.