Trannies for Trump [Archive] - Page 2 - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

Stavros

06-03-2018, 08:07 AM

Yes, tariffs on our allies, because...wait for it...business.
I challenge any one of you auto-resisters and contrarians to give even one good reason we shouldn't tax the countries we protect, at great expense to ourselves, to the extent we deem fit. Just one.

To begin with, if you believe in free markets then you cannot also believe in tariffs, but if you don't believe in tariffs then you don't believe in taxation, full stop. George Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army because he knew that to sustain a standing army in the newly-created United States of America, it could only be paid for through taxation to which he was opposed in principle. It may even be the case that the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide the USA with an 'armed militia' if it decided to disband its standing army without compromising the defence and security of local communities, though it is clearly a contradiction to have both. The reality is that it is not possible to establish a modern state without taxation, so the questions then surround the level of and purposes of taxation.

Tariffs are a means of inserting the state between two parties to a deal, so unless States withdraw from the market they will always seek ways of reaping some benefit from their ability to trade with others. On this basis, the USA cannot 'tax its allies' but it can, as it has done in the past, 'share resources' with the long term benefit to the parties that this intends. The Marshall Plan is one example, the Lend-Lease arrangements with the UK another. In both cases, funds were released by the Americans to enable the reconstruction of a badly damaged Europe, and in all cases the USA, having benefited financially from the Second World War, also benefited in the long term as the USA has -far from taxing its allies- been on the receiving end of billions if not trillions of inward investment from Europe.

You may be proud of Exxon, but it was the Anglo-Dutch Company Shell that invested in the deep water exploration that has transformed the Gulf of Mexico petroleum industry since the 1980s; just as BP was the innovator of the Alaska industry, and it would be a brave man who tried to unravel all the other direct investments in the USA made by Europeans. Just as China's phenomenal growth since the bleak days of 1989 would not have been possible without American capital. There will always be winners and losers in capitalism, that is the nature of the beast. But with this latest 'tariff war' there is little but incoherence from a President who slaps tariffs on UK steel that are no threat at all to US security but comprise specialised products the USA cannot make, which if anything weakens US security. Just as the President makes the utterly ridiculous claim that Canada has made 'billions' from trade with the USA when it is the USA that has always been in surplus in that relationship.

Instead of 'taxing' its allies, the USA should be co-operating with us, just as, instead of taking rights away from Transgendered Americans, he should, as office of President obliges, be protecting them.

natina

06-03-2018, 08:13 AM

undoccumented
ms13 trannies for trump

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?106963-undocumented-MS13-transsexuals-for-trump

Nick Danger

06-03-2018, 03:09 PM

Ouch, you got me good,
1) What percentage of local patrons are white at your local Walmart?
2) Who was the intellectual superior, Trump or Obama?
3) Who are your top 3 favorite conservative spokespeople?

Valid questions, Buttslinger, nice.

1. I live in an almost all-white city called St. George UT where you might go a month without seeing a black person. It has been called a "Whitopia. I'll attach the video where I saw that. That's my choice but it's not because I'm racist, it's because I'm culturally white. I like rock music, golf, classic cars with the original rims, near-zero crime, and plenty of peace and quiet - the income level around here is more important than the racial mix. But one of my two transgender girlfriends was black, and I'm currently dating a Mexican GG. To answer your question, 0-2% - our Walmart is right off the interstate and 2 hours from Vegas (90 minutes if you ride with me).

2. Intellect is fluid. Obama is very well-rounded intellectually and would probably beat Trump at chess or Trivial Pursuit. Trump, on the other hand, is very sly and would probably come out on top in any negotiation between the two.

3. I love Rush Limbaugh because he's so over-the-top he makes me laugh. Milo Yiannopoulos is whip-smart and mean af. And I'd love to grudge-fuck Kellyanne Conway while she spins the news for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTf9Sdrq1zg

Nick Danger

06-03-2018, 04:09 PM

To begin with, if you believe in free markets then you cannot also believe in tariffs, but if you don't believe in tariffs then you don't believe in taxation, full stop. George Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army because he knew that to sustain a standing army in the newly-created United States of America, it could only be paid for through taxation to which he was opposed in principle. It may even be the case that the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide the USA with an 'armed militia' if it decided to disband its standing army without compromising the defence and security of local communities, though it is clearly a contradiction to have both. The reality is that it is not possible to establish a modern state without taxation, so the questions then surround the level of and purposes of taxation.

Tariffs are a means of inserting the state between two parties to a deal, so unless States withdraw from the market they will always seek ways of reaping some benefit from their ability to trade with others. On this basis, the USA cannot 'tax its allies' but it can, as it has done in the past, 'share resources' with the long term benefit to the parties that this intends. The Marshall Plan is one example, the Lend-Lease arrangements with the UK another. In both cases, funds were released by the Americans to enable the reconstruction of a badly damaged Europe, and in all cases the USA, having benefited financially from the Second World War, also benefited in the long term as the USA has -far from taxing its allies- been on the receiving end of billions if not trillions of inward investment from Europe.

You may be proud of Exxon, but it was the Anglo-Dutch Company Shell that invested in the deep water exploration that has transformed the Gulf of Mexico petroleum industry since the 1980s; just as BP was the innovator of the Alaska industry, and it would be a brave man who tried to unravel all the other direct investments in the USA made by Europeans. Just as China's phenomenal growth since the bleak days of 1989 would not have been possible without American capital. There will always be winners and losers in capitalism, that is the nature of the beast. But with this latest 'tariff war' there is little but incoherence from a President who slaps tariffs on UK steel that are no threat at all to US security but comprise specialised products the USA cannot make, which if anything weakens US security. Just as the President makes the utterly ridiculous claim that Canada has made 'billions' from trade with the USA when it is the USA that has always been in surplus in that relationship.

Instead of 'taxing' its allies, the USA should be co-operating with us, just as, instead of taking rights away from Transgendered Americans, he should, as office of President obliges, be protecting them.

I like you, Stavros, you're an intelligent guy - I daresay more intelligent than me. More knowledgeable fo' shizzle.

But you are an idealist.

The thing about the USA is, yeah, we're the richest country in the world. But because of our income inequality, there's a lot of complaining from the lower end and even the middle of the income spectrum. Totally valid complaining I would say.

It's not possible in the USA to just "get a job" and make a living anymore. You might be able to barely squeak by working at, say, Walmart or somesuch, but you couldn't buy a house, couldn't drive a nice car and afford the maintenance, wouldn't have much discretionary income, and so on. We've become a nation of roommates and basement dwellers.

Now, were I an ARCH-conservative like my father, I might take a hard line about that. "Get some job skills!" was one of my father's favorite quotes. "Equality of opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome!"

But I'm a pretty empathetic person who is able to put myself in the other guy's shoes. I get it - starting from nothing here is almost impossible, and not everyone receives the kind of fathering that leads to proper personal motivation. Sometimes, a job at Walmart is the best someone can hope for, and it's not as if they're going to be able to save money and advance their position.

This is a problem - a problem that leads to crime and mental illness - and that's why you're seeing "America First" as the new economic paradigm.

What we should be doing for other countries is no longer as important as what we now must do to stabilize our own problems.

Still, the USA is a fairly generous overlord. Most people don't have a clue how much we give away. When I was younger I worked as a deckhand for a tugboat company in New Orleans. The majority of my work was, surprisingly to me, for the U.S. Government - hauling giant barges of surplus food to poor Caribbean countries and just...giving it to them. Did you know that all the rice in Jamaica comes from the USA? At no charge? Bet you didn't.

In any case, Stavros, yeah, in an ideal world we should help our allies economically, and traditionally we have. But circumstances have changed.

Also, I never said I was a Libertarian.

buttslinger

06-03-2018, 07:36 PM

one last question, Nick, if Pence were put in as President ....would he be the same as Jeb Bush?

Nick Danger

06-03-2018, 08:50 PM

one last question, Nick, if Pence were put in as President ....would he be the same as Jeb Bush?

I honestly don't know much about Pence, Buttslinger. Trump is immortal anyway. From what I have seen of Pence, he'd probably be more of an off-camera Gerald Ford type of President, I don't think he's very comfortable behind the podium. Pence is a guy who's probably smart enough to listen to his advisors, and not much smarter than that.

What I do know about Jeb Bush, though, is that Donald Trump stripped him of his manhood in front of the entire country, and did us all a huge favor by doing so. What a pathetic milquetoast!

Hopefully we'll never find out what either would do with the highest office.

buttslinger

06-03-2018, 11:08 PM

Nick Danger

06-04-2018, 12:07 AM

OK Danger, ....I think it's probably a good thing neither you or I be President, the leader of the free world should meet certain criteria........which we don't need, and of which Trump meets NONE!!!
So you're telling me Trump is the guy you've wanted all along? And that's the way you all feel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwG5c9IsgbA

Not sure who "you all" are, I'm not a member of any group. But I wouldn't trade Trump for anyone, I honestly believe he is the right man for the job at the right time.

I knew I was going to vote for him from the moment he first threw his hat into the ring, but back then it wasn't because I thought he would be a great President. It was because, like, how could you NOT want to see what he'd do as President. My whole extended family lives in NYC and I grew up watching Donald Trump make a world-class spectacle of himself.

But now, I'm simply impressed as hell, the guy's a goddamn prodigy - a President who truly and actually doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks, with balls of pure adamantium.

Yeah, that's really how I feel, Buttslinger. I think forget Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump is our first cowboy President.

buttslinger

06-04-2018, 02:12 AM

..... forget Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump is our first cowboy President.

I guess it's going to boil down to Nancy Vs Donald to see who's got the biggest Dick on the Hill. Like the WWF.

BellaBellucci

06-04-2018, 02:52 AM

I have the Drumpfinator. 'Trannies for Drumpf' makes 'Drumpf' sound like a sex act.

~B

filghy2

06-04-2018, 03:25 AM

Nick Dangler's guide to the art of internet debating in 3 simple steps:

1. Decide on a fixed idea - eg Trump is a genius and everything he does will turn the USA into an incredible success. Choose a fixed idea that will outrage most people, not a sensible one they might agree with. It may be helpful to wrap your fixed idea in a grandiose but meaningless theory - eg economic success comes from leveraging military might.

2. Rationalise whatever happens as being consistent with your fixed idea. Rely on bald assertions with the occasional cherry-picked fact. Evidence should generally be avoided, however, as it tends not to support fixed ideas. Try to find rationalisations that will work in any situation - eg Trump is a master negotiator, so any apparent flip-flopping or crazyness is really a brilliant ploy to unnerve his opponents and intimidate them into submission.

3. When others counter your arguments, just ignore or pretend to misunderstand their points. If necessary, acknowledge a point to pretend you are reasonable, but then minimise it as something not very important. If desperate, claim you your could easily rebut your opponent's points but are not going to waste time on such a contemptible person.

Just follow these 3 steps and you too can be a debating legend in your own mind, never losing an argument and never having to admit your were wrong. Nick Dangler used to be a weedy nerd who was bullied by other kids. Now he's a liberal-vanquishing internet debating superhero.

Bonus tip: It is a good idea to insert a few smugly-superior put-downs into the debate. Another clever touch is to accuse your opponents of the very things you are doing - being closed-minded, ignoring evidence, being superior, resorting to insults.

Caution: On no account should you research issues by reading people who know what they are talking about . That will only raise complications and lead to doubts. The key to debating is to maintain absolute certainty in the fixed idea and discard any conflicting evidence.

Disclaimer: This approach is unlikely to change anybody's mind or help to establish the truth. If those things concern you then you miss the point of debating, which is to be an annoying bastard and convince yourself of your own superiority.

Nick Danger

06-04-2018, 03:46 AM

Fitzcarraldo

06-04-2018, 03:52 AM

Defeat is victory.

BellaBellucci

06-04-2018, 03:55 AM

Slavery is freedom.

~B

filghy2

06-04-2018, 04:13 AM

That sounds...a little butthurt, Flighty. I apologize if I hurt your butt.

Is that number 6 on your menu of smugly-superior put-downs? My only concern is that I wasted time debating you as if you were a serious person. Ridicule is the only sensible response to the seriously ridiculous.

javier81

06-04-2018, 05:13 AM

Nick Danger is being intellectually dishonest or he's genuinely dumb. In either case, he's not worth interacting with on any level.

filghy2

06-04-2018, 05:35 AM

The thing about the USA is, yeah, we're the richest country in the world. But because of our income inequality, there's a lot of complaining from the lower end and even the middle of the income spectrum. Totally valid complaining I would say.

The USA is not actually the richest country - there are quite a few richer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita But it is among the most unequal of the developed countries and getting more unequal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
This chart sums up the problem neatly. The top 1% have been gaining an increasing share at the expanse of the bottom half.

1078234

If you are so concerned about inequality, why do you enthusiastically support a party that is going all out to make it worse? How does giving tax cuts of which 83% will go to the top 1% reduce inequality? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center How does trying to take health insurance away from millions of low-income American's reduce inequality?

I know you will just provide one of your usual glibly-evasive responses. I'm only posting this because it might be of interest to others.

Nick Danger

06-04-2018, 06:08 AM

The USA is not the richest country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita But it is among the most unequal of the developed countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
This chart sums up the problem neatly. The top 1% have been gaining an increasing share at the expanse of the bottom half.

1078234

If you are so concerned about inequality, why do you enthusiastically support a party that is going all out to make it worse? How does giving tax cuts of which 83% will go to the top 1% reduce inequality? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center How does trying to take health insurance away from millions of low-income American's reduce inequality?

I know you will just provide one of your usual glibly-evasive responses. I'm only posting this because it might be of interest to others.

Who do you work for, Flighty? I don't give a damn who you work for, but I'm going to make the point that you work for rich people. Rich people who are constantly trying to become richer, because that's their game. So they're thinking, and researching, and investing millions and billions and ultimately trillions of dollars into advancing the goddamn human race.

And you hate them. That's just you being envious.

But if you'd take that extra mental leap that liberals never seem to be prepared to take, and accept that the leaders of the world and those at the forefront of our current exponential technology explosion, deserve all the advantages of wealth which they have earned legally under the capitalist system which has made us the strongest nation in planetary history, well then maybe we might have some common ground on which to debate ad nauseum. As it stands though, we simply have fundamentally different opinions on what it is that makes the world go round.

My dad had an anecdote about two high school brothers named Bob and Tom. Their father, a middle-class conservative, provided the boys with an incentive to work through the summer - whatever they could earn, he'd match it, and they'd put the total toward buying the boys their own cars for the following school year.

So Bob went out and got a job right away, worked full-time all summer, and ended up saving $5,000 by the end of the summer. Tom, on the other hand, went to the beach with his friends for the first several weeks of the summer. When he returned, he took a part-time job that left plenty of time for partying with his friends. He only saved $500 by the time of the reckoning with Dad.

So they both put their money on the table in front of their father, and the father, true to his word, matched Bob's $5,000 and said, "$10,000 will buy a beautiful car, son." Then he matched Tom's $500 and said nothing. Tom said, "But this isn't fair, Dad. Bob's gonna have an awesome car and I'm gonna have an ugly beater."

The father said, "You're right, Tom. Tell you what, boys, we'll split the difference. I'll give you both $5500 and you can both get decent cars." Then he re-distributed the money on the table evenly.

Tom smiled widely but Bob said, "That's not fair, Dad. I worked all summer for that money while Tom went to the beach and partied with his friends." The father immediately re-distributed the money back into the original piles, hugged Bob tightly, and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party, son."

Anyway, yeah, there's income inequality. And it's getting worse. Because that's how capitalism works.

Have a nice day, Flighty.

1078235

filghy2

06-04-2018, 08:39 AM

Rich people who are constantly trying to become richer, because that's their game. So they're thinking, and researching, and investing millions and billions and ultimately trillions of dollars into advancing the goddamn human race.

And you hate them. That's just you being envious.

Anyway, yeah, there's income inequality. And it's getting worse. Because that's how capitalism works.

Nice glib story, but bullshit as usual. I have a high enough income that I'm probably in the top 20%, so I'm not motivated by rich envy.

1. Most rich people don't make their money by coming up with new ideas that benefit the human race. They make their money from insider deals and calling on political favours, as Trump did in his real estate deals. Or they make money by taking advantage of gullible and poorly-informed people, which is largely the story of the finance sector where most of the super-rich are found.

2. The biggest determinant of a person's wealth is not their own efforts, but whether their parents were rich. Social mobility has been falling in the USA and it is now worse than most other countries on this measure.

1078258

3. Other countries also have capitalism that works pretty well, without the extent of increasing inequality seen in the USA.

4. Contrary to Republican mythology, there is little evidence that cutting taxes on the rich produces better economic outcomes. Bill Clinton had better economic outcomes than Reagan or George W Bush, despite increasing taxes on higher incomes.

filghy2

06-04-2018, 08:39 AM

Ignore this - duplicate post by accident

Gillian

06-04-2018, 08:43 AM

There's something rather sad about people flexing their intellect on a porn forum ... ;)

filghy2

06-04-2018, 09:54 AM

There's only so much time one can spend masturbating Gillian, and twice a day is usually enough for me. Anyway, I notice most of your posts are in the word association thread, so you're not much of a porn fiend either. We have a way to go before we match the 4563 pages in that thread, but I'm sure Nick Danger can get us there.

Stavros

06-04-2018, 11:02 AM

But you are an idealist.
The thing about the USA is, yeah, we're the richest country in the world. But because of our income inequality, there's a lot of complaining from the lower end and even the middle of the income spectrum. Totally valid complaining I would say.

I don't consider myself to be an idealist, maybe the problem is that it is your Constitution that established an ideal form of democratic government, but Americans find it hard to meet its demands. That all Americans are equal may appear to be a basic Constitutional right, but it is not always met in practice, and I don't even need to give examples to prove this. Crucially, and this is not idealism, it is clear to me that when the President, or Congress or State legislatures vote or campaign to take rights away from American citizens, they might find a legal way of doing it, but are in fact acting against the Constitution they have sworn to protect. If you think the President's voters don't care, then what will they do when their rights are at risk?

Taking away the rights Transgendered Americans have to serve their country may be legally Un-Constitutional, it is definitely immoral, as it makes a judgement that Transgendered Americans are -because of their gender- inferior to every other American. I suspect there are many Disabled Americans who feel left out, marginalized and mostly ignored. The key to this with regard to the thread would be to suggest that 'trannies' have voted for a man who thinks they are inferior and useless, not someone who values them, and is going to make their life better.

As for the by-now well rehearsed arguments about income decline in the middle and working class, it is more than disappointing that few people follow through the relationship between change in American capitalism and that decline, and link it to the tax cutting folly of the Reagan era combined with the liberalization of capital movements globally that enabled Americas investors to make more money re-locating productive jobs in Asia than paying for them in Arkansas. No politician these days would consider imposing on business and individuals the levels of taxes Eisenhower did, yet in them days the USA was prosperous -and for many social groups less divided than the America that has developed since technology began shaving jobs out of reach, a process that began in the 1960s. The headline for Corporate taxes is high, the reality that with tax breaks and clever accounting most major corporations pay barely 10%.

That is the reality, to suggest justice as fairness in the distribution of wealth and opportunity is idealism ignores the history of the US when it was closer to reality, however imperfect its operation, discriminating of people due to their 'race' or gender. You have been let down by a generation of politicians and businessmen who put themselves before their country. And if you look at the billionaires and Wall St financiers that were once the designated components of 'the swamp', there are more of them before, and they are draining the wealth of the nation for their own benefit. It is only a matter of time before the President's voters realise they have been screwed. But I don't know how long that time is.

Nick Danger

06-05-2018, 02:59 AM

I don't consider myself to be an idealist, maybe the problem is that it is your Constitution that established an ideal form of democratic government, but Americans find it hard to meet its demands. That all Americans are equal may appear to be a basic Constitutional right, but it is not always met in practice, and I don't even need to give examples to prove this. Crucially, and this is not idealism, it is clear to me that when the President, or Congress or State legislatures vote or campaign to take rights away from American citizens, they might find a legal way of doing it, but are in fact acting against the Constitution they have sworn to protect. If you think the President's voters don't care, then what will they do when their rights are at risk?

Taking away the rights Transgendered Americans have to serve their country may be legally Un-Constitutional, it is definitely immoral, as it makes a judgement that Transgendered Americans are -because of their gender- inferior to every other American. I suspect there are many Disabled Americans who feel left out, marginalized and mostly ignored. The key to this with regard to the thread would be to suggest that 'trannies' have voted for a man who thinks they are inferior and useless, not someone who values them, and is going to make their life better.

As for the by-now well rehearsed arguments about income decline in the middle and working class, it is more than disappointing that few people follow through the relationship between change in American capitalism and that decline, and link it to the tax cutting folly of the Reagan era combined with the liberalization of capital movements globally that enabled Americas investors to make more money re-locating productive jobs in Asia than paying for them in Arkansas. No politician these days would consider imposing on business and individuals the levels of taxes Eisenhower did, yet in them days the USA was prosperous -and for many social groups less divided than the America that has developed since technology began shaving jobs out of reach, a process that began in the 1960s. The headline for Corporate taxes is high, the reality that with tax breaks and clever accounting most major corporations pay barely 10%.

That is the reality, to suggest justice as fairness in the distribution of wealth and opportunity is idealism ignores the history of the US when it was closer to reality, however imperfect its operation, discriminating of people due to their 'race' or gender. You have been let down by a generation of politicians and businessmen who put themselves before their country. And if you look at the billionaires and Wall St financiers that were once the designated components of 'the swamp', there are more of them before, and they are draining the wealth of the nation for their own benefit. It is only a matter of time before the President's voters realise they have been screwed. But I don't know how long that time is.

It's always about self-interest, Stavros. That's why every now and then - as in the most recent election - the outcome shocks the pollsters and pundits.

If I were transgender I might not vote for Trump. I might say to myself it is against my best interests to do so. Then again, I might say, "Well, I don't want to join the Army, and I really don't care much where I can or can't piss in North Carolina, so maybe I'll go ahead and vote based on my overall beliefs rather than just transgender issues."

I don't always vote in my own best interest. Sometimes I feel a conservative administration would be the best choice but the conservative candidates are just too shaky for me to consider - that's what happened to me in '08 and '12, but thank God Obama wasn't Bernie or Hillary is all I can say.

But most people do, always, vote in their own best interests. That's how we find out what's what in this country, what's really most important to the most people.

Right now it's not transgender rights. Transgenders are still at the mercy of the Baby Boomer voting bloc, and they don't get it.

As for equality, we do have equality here, Stavros. Anyone with the proper motivation, intelligence, personal charisma, and other qualities that may be required can become anything they want in this country. All they have to do is choose the right path, work hard, and keep their nose clean.

Take any 18-year-old kid in this country who's just graduated high school with a clean criminal record, and he's in a position to do this: Go to college, complete with room and board, all paid for by government-backed loans. Doesn't need any help from his parents, the loans are available, and they're payable after graduation. This same kid can excel in college, graduate, and if he's been smart enough to study something that's in demand, he can write his own ticket. ANY kid can do this. Any kid of any color, religion, or gender, even transgender, can do this - if they've stayed on track up to that point.

You just can't create any more equality of opportunity than that, Stavros.

What people do with the the opportunities are up to them.

filghy2

06-05-2018, 04:08 AM

I'm certainly not trying to educate any liberals, only the fence-sitters.

How is that converting of the unconverted going? I haven't seen any fence-sitters coming down from their fences. Even your faithful sidekick grew tired of thumbing up all of your posts.

yodajazz

06-05-2018, 05:40 AM

It's always about self-interest, Stavros. That's why every now and then - as in the most recent election - the outcome shocks the pollsters and pundits.

If I were transgender I might not vote for Trump. I might say to myself it is against my best interests to do so. Then again, I might say, "Well, I don't want to join the Army, and I really don't care much where I can or can't piss in North Carolina, so maybe I'll go ahead and vote based on my overall beliefs rather than just transgender issues."

I don't always vote in my own best interest. Sometimes I feel a conservative administration would be the best choice but the conservative candidates are just too shaky for me to consider - that's what happened to me in '08 and '12, but thank God Obama wasn't Bernie or Hillary is all I can say.

But most people do, always, vote in their own best interests...

As for equality, we do have equality here, Stavros. Anyone with the proper motivation, intelligence, personal charisma, and other qualities that may be required can become anything they want in this count....

Take any 18-year-old kid in this country who's just graduated high school with a clean criminal record, and he's in a position to do this: Go to college, complete with room and board, all paid for by government-backed loans. Doesn't need any help from his parents, the loans are available, and they're payable after graduation. This same kid can excel in college, graduate, and if he's been smart enough to study something that's in demand, he can write his own ticket. ANY kid can do this. Any kid of any color, religion, or gender, even transgender, can do this - if they've stayed on track up to that point.

You just can't create any more equality of opportunity than that, Stavros.

What people do with the the opportunities are up to them.

We do not have equality in this country. In the 1930's, the federal govt created a program, The FHA to increase home ownership, with lower income loans, and guarantees for payment, by the govt. Blacks were specifically excluded, for many years. But what home ownership did, was provide people with property, that they could pass on to the next generation. Their homes were in areas, from which blacks were excluded. And the value of there properties, increased at a greater rate, than a black person, who was able to buy a home in a black area. Education: When it was legal to have separate schools, it was discovered that white scholar got more money per-capita, than black schools. And this was not just the deep south, this was true in places like New York City. Skilled labor unions, excluded Black, as well certain colleges. Saying that that they can no longer discriminate, does not necessarily make everything fair. Because most still have a preferential system in place, where those who came in under that system can recommend others who then get special consideration. Studies have shown that even in elementary schools, black boys tend to get harsher disciplines, than others, which tends to put on a different education track, at times, and they are more likely to be medicated.

Now I am not saying that people are not responsible for their own behaviors. It is true that any person could succeed, with talent. But I am saying that people are not always treated equally. We can't just assume that a poor person, is poor, because they didn't try hard enough, like some people say. A poor parent, may have to work longer to provide for their family, and have less quality time with their children, to pass on healthy values, etc.

One more thing, I want to mention is your view of college. You are entirely ignoring the college debt issue. Over the years, the government has back off cupporting college loans, leaving students to rack up personal debt. I see this generationm as practically being indentured servants. And now we have had these, for-profit schools, who often had students, rack up large debts, where as their diplomas were of much less value, on the market, as they promised, in advertisements. Trump University was among those, that have closed down in recent years. I'll leave you with a real life example. I got a four year degree that took me five years to get. I graduated with about 10 in debt. My daughter to college for only one year, and racked up 30k, and my degree was from a more reputable school. Her's went out of business, and she still owes the debt.

Stavros

06-05-2018, 10:30 AM

It's always about self-interest, Stavros. That's why every now and then - as in the most recent election - the outcome shocks the pollsters and pundits.
If I were transgender I might not vote for Trump. I might say to myself it is against my best interests to do so. Then again, I might say, "Well, I don't want to join the Army, and I really don't care much where I can or can't piss in North Carolina, so maybe I'll go ahead and vote based on my overall beliefs rather than just transgender issues."
Right now it's not transgender rights. Transgenders are still at the mercy of the Baby Boomer voting bloc, and they don't get it.
As for equality, we do have equality here, Stavros. Anyone with the proper motivation, intelligence, personal charisma, and other qualities that may be required can become anything they want in this country. All they have to do is choose the right path, work hard, and keep their nose clean.

Yodajazz has dealt effectively with the fantasy that any American can simply take out a loan, go to college, get a degree and pay off their loan with a handsomely paid job.

People do not just vote in their self-interest, they vote and indeed, have voted for collective interest. Here, and now, the interests of one collective's interests not only threatens the Constitutional guarantee to separate the State and Religion, it targets -specifically- LGBTQPIA/B individuals.

I refer to Project Blitz which has already succeeded in forcing individual States to make official that State's fidelity to Christianity and 'Christian values', part of the campaign launched by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation [CPCF] which has seen 75 Bills in 20 States since 2017 introduced to bring Christianity as they define it into the public sphere. In five States the use of the slogan 'In God we Trust' can be carved onto public buildings and printed on State government buildings, but this is one of the core targets for the CPCF as listed in their 'playbook'-

...the Project Blitz playbook (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwfCh32HsC3UYmV0NUp5cXZjT28/view) sees those largely symbolic bills as just the first stage on the way to more hardline laws. They are presented as measures to preserve religious liberty, but are intended to give businesses, pastors and childcare providers the right to discriminate against LGBT people in line with their “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

And this:
Category three bills will have the greatest impact but will be “the most hotly contested” the playbook says – they include resolutions in favour of “biblical values concerning marriage and sexuality”, such as “establishing public policy favoring adoption by intact heterosexual, marriage-based families” and “establishing public policy favoring intimate sexual relations only between married, heterosexual couples”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/project-blitz-the-legislative-assault-by-christian-nationalists-to-reshape-america

As clear an example of one collective imposing its 'values' through legislation on the rest of the USA, and as clear an example as you can find that the intention is to not just take away rights from Americans, but to target Americans in order to discriminate against them.

I guess the question is, who cares? But the ease with which a relatively small group of people is targeted begs the question: who's next?

Stavros

06-05-2018, 10:32 AM

I got a four year degree that took me five years to get. I graduated with about 10 in debt. My daughter to college for only one year, and racked up 30k, and my degree was from a more reputable school. Her's went out of business, and she still owes the debt.

$30,000 in one year? Mate, that's insane. And should be illegal.

Nick Danger

06-06-2018, 01:53 AM

Yodajazz has dealt effectively with the fantasy that any American can simply take out a loan, go to college, get a degree and pay off their loan with a handsomely paid job.

People do not just vote in their self-interest, they vote and indeed, have voted for collective interest. Here, and now, the interests of one collective's interests not only threatens the Constitutional guarantee to separate the State and Religion, it targets -specifically- LGBTQPIA/B individuals.

I refer to Project Blitz which has already succeeded in forcing individual States to make official that State's fidelity to Christianity and 'Christian values', part of the campaign launched by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation [CPCF] which has seen 75 Bills in 20 States since 2017 introduced to bring Christianity as they define it into the public sphere. In five States the use of the slogan 'In God we Trust' can be carved onto public buildings and printed on State government buildings, but this is one of the core targets for the CPCF as listed in their 'playbook'-

...the Project Blitz playbook (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwfCh32HsC3UYmV0NUp5cXZjT28/view) sees those largely symbolic bills as just the first stage on the way to more hardline laws. They are presented as measures to preserve religious liberty, but are intended to give businesses, pastors and childcare providers the right to discriminate against LGBT people in line with their “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

And this:
Category three bills will have the greatest impact but will be “the most hotly contested” the playbook says – they include resolutions in favour of “biblical values concerning marriage and sexuality”, such as “establishing public policy favoring adoption by intact heterosexual, marriage-based families” and “establishing public policy favoring intimate sexual relations only between married, heterosexual couples”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/project-blitz-the-legislative-assault-by-christian-nationalists-to-reshape-america

As clear an example of one collective imposing its 'values' through legislation on the rest of the USA, and as clear an example as you can find that the intention is to not just take away rights from Americans, but to target Americans in order to discriminate against them.

I guess the question is, who cares? But the ease with which a relatively small group of people is targeted begs the question: who's next?

Your threshold for evidence is pretty low if you consider one guy who took 5 years to get a 4-year degree and can't seem to get a handle on 10k in student loan debt to "effectively" prove that capitalism is broken. I'm not sure what Yodajazz's problem is but I can guarantee you he's got more than one.

Regarding "Project Blitz" or whatever hell it is - I personally have never heard of it - I guess I can understand why a non-American might read about that and think it's a lot bigger deal than it actually is. Religion no longer sells in America. I mean yes, there is that huge Baby Boomer portion of the population, and a lot of them are Christians. But young people these days are pretty much taking a pass, and as go the young people, so goes the country.

Point being, as I'm sure any American would tell you, I wouldn't worry too much about "Project Blitz." It's pretty much under the radar here and no one REALLY cares how mixed up religion and politics gets on a local level, that's just different communities doing their own thing. I live in the middle of a bunch of Mormons. They're pretty serious about their religion. Around here, the police department is subsidized by the LDS Church. So don't tell me about oppressive religion. However, just as in practically every situation in the USA in which one's behavior might be called into question, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. I get pulled over by these cops around here on occasion, they know I'm from out of town and am not a Mormon. And by now, they also know that I have a valid driver's license, insurance, up-to-date registration, no drugs in the car, and I don't drink and drive. These days they usually wave and smile when they pass me.

But even aside from this, there are hundreds of communities in the USA that have laws and standards that might be shocking to some people. We've got Quakers and Mennonites, hippie communes, cult compounds, cities owned by one man who makes all the laws, some places have laws against alcohol on Sundays or alcohol sales past a certain time, other places don't, some places marijuana is legal now, most places it isn't. And the list goes on and on and on of different communities collectively imposing their values on people who want to live there.

To return to my own situation, you think I'd be so well-accepted around here if I wasn't a successful white male? Of course I wouldn't, I'd have been run out of town on a rail a long time ago if I was some drug-dealing creep or homeless bum. If I were a woman I'd be shunned, Mormons have no tolerance for single women until they become married women and start cranking out little Mormons.

Point being, as intolerant as Mormons are - and they are the most intolerant religion I've seen, they aren't even allowed coffee and they call those who fall away from the religion "apostates" - they are tolerant of me. Why? Because of choices I make every day - to pay my bills, to act respectfully, to obey the law, to work hard, to be nice to people, not to be a drunkard, not to wear offensive clothing, to shop locally, to tip well, and so on. I make the choice to behave within the parameters my community considers "civilized." Anyone can make that choice. It's the ones who don't who have problems, Stavros - the exceptions, not the rule. The rebels and the malcontents, the lazy and the dishonest; those people are always going to have problems in the USA, unless they get their shit together.

And hey, we've got our share of stupid people too, that's for damn sure. And I feel kinda bad for them, but what are you gonna do for people who just can't follow the program? I guess we have jobs out there that stupid people can do too. They don't pay very well, but it's probably for the best if our stupidest people don't have the resources to reproduce anyway.

filghy2

06-06-2018, 03:36 AM

And hey, we've got our share of stupid people too, that's for damn sure. And I feel kinda bad for them, but what are you gonna do for people who just can't follow the program? I guess we have jobs out there that stupid people can do too. They don't pay very well, but it's probably for the best if our stupidest people don't have the resources to reproduce anyway.

Be careful what you wish for. Stupid people are your hero's primary support base.

Again, your argument ignores the key point. The American way of capitalism is only one possible model, and a pretty extreme one at that. There are plenty of other countries that manage to achieve high living standards without the extent of inequality seen in the US, and with less of the other social problems (such as gun violence).

Stavros

06-06-2018, 10:15 AM

Regarding "Project Blitz" or whatever hell it is - I personally have never heard of it - I guess I can understand why a non-American might read about that and think it's a lot bigger deal than it actually is. Religion no longer sells in America. I mean yes, there is that huge Baby Boomer portion of the population, and a lot of them are Christians. But young people these days are pretty much taking a pass, and as go the young people, so goes the country.

I accept that the US is a diverse place and that what happens in one state might not happen in another. The Federal government may have withdrawn its support for the Paris Climate Change agreement, it remains the basis on which many individual states combat emissions and promote green energy solutions. Just as some states have legalized Marijuana at the same time that the Attorney General advocates increasing, rather than decreasing imprisonment for drug-related crimes.

The signal point is not that Religion is in decline in the US, but that what 'Project Blitz' does is to put into law expressions of religious fidelity in public life, disregarding the Constitutional provision to separate religion from politics. This is not some obscure group of fanatics but actual policy in States across the Union, and it not only directly affects LGBTQIAPN/B Americans, the use of State law to limit access to Abortion is directly affecting women. It may be easy for you dismiss the importance of people who are a minority in the country, you can't say that of women, and, crucially, the policy on Abortion is not determined by medical tests or any scientific test, but has its origin in the application of Religion as the force shaping public policy. It is real, it is happening and like Voter Suppression it really does make a difference. Across the USA the number of people denied the vote because they are Black or have a prison record is numbered in the millions, not the thousands.

Even if you accept your hysterical President is a 'here today, gone tomorrow' politician, he is but one part of a 'Conservative', more precisely Religious movement that pre-dated him, and will outlast him, but uses him to energize people who do share their values, even if they are all over 50 years old. Far from offering a leadership for all Americans, this one is partisan, though he has no real interest in Religion (he doesn't even know the words to God Bless America), but uses the Evangelicals for his own purposes.

Yes, the 'Parkland' Generation when they are adult voters may repeal the 2nd Amendment, and undo the Religious laws of today, but in the meantime LGBTQIAPN/B Americas are losing their Rights, and for them that matters now, today, and it is no consolation to be told it will work out fine -in 20 years time. Politics doesn't stand still, but you can if you want to, while those determined to do so, re-invent the USA as the place they want to live in, with no regard for your Constitutional rights.

yodajazz

06-07-2018, 02:57 AM

Your threshold for evidence is pretty low if you consider one guy who took 5 years to get a 4-year degree and can't seem to get a handle on 10k in student loan debt to "effectively" prove that capitalism is broken. I'm not sure what Yodajazz's problem is but I can guarantee you he's got more than one.

The rebels and the malcontents, the lazy and the dishonest; those people are always going to have problems in the USA, unless they get their shit together.

And hey, we've got our share of stupid people too, that's for damn sure. And I feel kinda bad for them, but what are you gonna do for people who just can't follow the program? I guess we have jobs out there that stupid people can do too. They don't pay very well, but it's probably for the best if our stupidest people don't have the resources to reproduce anyway.

I was simply trying to show in a personal example, of how people are are affected, by certain issues. I assume that you might be aware of what some call, "the student debt crisis". Here is one such article: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/02/27/student-loan-debt-crisis But also personal stories, multiplied do become national issues, sometimes. In fact my daughter, testified about her college loan experience, before a congressional committee, in Washington.

Once again let me state, that i believe that anyone, not matter what the circumstances can rise to success. But there are many people, whos chances of success a much more limited due to circumstances, of birth. Consider a 22 year old, shot dead in Walmart, because he was carrying an air rifle, that he had picked up off the shelf of the store. Someone in the store was scared and called the police, who shot him. And he had two young children, who may grow up with influence from his legacy. As a person, who has deeply contemplated spiritual issues, I think the world would be a better place, if people like you, consider yourself as blessed, rather than look at others, who are less successful, as somehow, deficient. For nearly every great successful person, there is someone, more talented, who is not as successful.

BostonBad

06-07-2018, 03:07 PM

People shouldn't get big loans for college that the marketplace cannot support. The government should not fund it either because it raises the cost of all degrees.

People here are mad at Trump but why don't more people vocalize their anger with these college professors that make $300,000 per year? They're fatcats just like 99% of the politicians!!!

trish

06-07-2018, 04:05 PM

“By rank, the average was $98,974 for professors, $69,911 for associate professors, $58,662 for assistant professors, $42,609 for instructors, and $48,289 for lecturers. Faculty in 4-year institutions earn higher salaries, on average, than do those in 2-year schools.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States

“The average annual salary for head coaches at major colleges (not including four schools that moved up to the Football Bowl Subdivision this season) is $1.64 million, up nearly 12% over last season — and more than 70% since 2006, when USA TODAY Sports began tracking coaches' compensation.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/11/19/college-football-coaches-contracts-analysis-pay-increase/1715435/

BostonBad

06-07-2018, 04:31 PM

trish

06-07-2018, 06:08 PM

I compliment you on your cherry picking skills. The averages include salaries of professor at first, second and third tier institutions. Duties and expectations are of course higher at higher ranking universities. Also the averages no doubt include professors of all ranks (assistant, associate and full). And of course stars, Fields Medalists and Nobel Laureates are able to demand higher salaries (although nothing even comparble to what star coaches make). The following is a list of employee positions and their salaries for F17 at Michigan State University. You will notice that professors are not anywhere close to the main cost of running a university even if you restrict your attention to personnel and salaries only.

https://msu.edu/state-transparency-reporting/assets/documents/Sec245FY17SalaryList.pdf

Stavros

06-07-2018, 06:20 PM

Sounds like that Wiki page was written by the professors!
Why not look up the state professors and their salaries? It's public record. I did near my house and tenured professors make 200-250k per year. The Wiki page likely has skewed data including tons of part-time professors.

Are you confusing Professors with Chancellors?
The median annual Chancellor salary is $268,110, as of May 30, 2018, with a range usually between $217,948-$323,539, however this can vary widely depending on a variety of factors. Our team of Certified Compensation Professionals has analyzed survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at companies of all sizes and industries to present this range of annual salaries for people with the job title Chancellor in the United States.
https://www1.salary.com/Chancellor-Salaries.html

Probably best move to the UK...
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/times-higher-education-v-c-pay-survey-2018#survey-answer

broncofan

06-07-2018, 06:28 PM

People here are mad at Trump but why don't more people vocalize their anger with these college professors that make $300,000 per year? They're fatcats just like 99% of the politicians!!!
Let me rephrase this: People are mad at the billionaire who ran a fraudulent university so why don't they vocalize their anger at hard-working educators who get paid a salary commensurate with their worth? People are mad at our billionaire President who stripped rights from the lgbt community but why don't they vocalize their anger at hard-working educators who make six figures a year? Nobel Prize winners are the real enemy of the working class not the guy who pisses in a golden toilet bowl.

Stavros

06-07-2018, 07:24 PM

Let me rephrase this: People are mad at the billionaire who ran a fraudulent university so why don't they vocalize their anger at hard-working educators who get paid a salary commensurate with their worth? People are mad at our billionaire President who stripped rights from the lgbt community but why don't they vocalize their anger at hard-working educators who make six figures a year? Nobel Prize winners are the real enemy of the working class not the guy who pisses in a golden toilet bowl.

The tragedy for your country, Broncofan, is that your President has no interest in education. On his website during the Presidential campaign there were 'Positions' (rather than policies) on taxes, immigration, and so forth -not a word on education. This indifference to education may be based on the decline of enrollment in university -particularly by lower income groups- as an expensive option with no job guarantees, as well as the malign view that universities are waste of time anyway, which links to the broader issue of the rejection of science as a means of determining the truth of anything. Add in those supporters of the President's party who assume universities and colleges to be liberal or left-wing factories and you end up digging the grave of your economy as if the promise 'jobs will return' is all that matters:
If more than a third of the country, and six in 10 Republicans, think that institutions of higher education are harming the country, it’s hard to imagine that won’t eventually result in larger drops in enrollment. And since, whatever Trump says, those manufacturing and mining jobs almost certainly aren’t coming back to their old levels, that could create a drag on the nation’s economy in the future.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/why-do-republicans-suddenly-hate-colleges-so-much/533130/

Aside from the cost, what incentive is there for a Transgendered teenage from a dysfunctional home to get off the streets and off the dope, and turn their lives around if the basic means -an affordable education- is no longer an option? Together with the latest proposals from the Housing Department to triple the rents on public housing beyond what people can pay, and you wonder if this President is conducting a nationwide vendetta against the Americans who didn't vote for him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/25/hud-secretary-ben-carson-to-propose-raising-rent-for-low-income-americans-receiving-federal-housing-subsidies/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dbe6e9a65e1a

Nick Danger

06-08-2018, 03:44 AM

The signal point is not that Religion is in decline in the US, but that what 'Project Blitz' does is to put into law expressions of religious fidelity in public life, disregarding the Constitutional provision to separate religion from politics. This is not some obscure group of fanatics but actual policy in States across the Union, and it not only directly affects LGBTQIAPN/B Americans, the use of State law to limit access to Abortion is directly affecting women. It may be easy for you dismiss the importance of people who are a minority in the country, you can't say that of women, and, crucially, the policy on Abortion is not determined by medical tests or any scientific test, but has its origin in the application of Religion as the force shaping public policy. It is real, it is happening and like Voter Suppression it really does make a difference. Across the USA the number of people denied the vote because they are Black or have a prison record is numbered in the millions, not the thousands.

Even if you accept your hysterical President is a 'here today, gone tomorrow' politician, he is but one part of a 'Conservative', more precisely Religious movement that pre-dated him, and will outlast him, but uses him to energize people who do share their values, even if they are all over 50 years old. Far from offering a leadership for all Americans, this one is partisan, though he has no real interest in Religion (he doesn't even know the words to God Bless America), but uses the Evangelicals for his own purposes.

What I tried to explain to you earlier is that this kind of religion stuff doesn't matter. These sorts of things go on all the time in this country - the, uh, "Crusade For Christ," "Judgment is nigh! Woe be unto you." It goes on and on. They're just preaching to the converted. These rallies happen in churches, sometimes sports arenas or the like, all the time. Seriously, I'm sure there's a "Rescue Our Children From Satan" Revival or a "Jesus Is The Real MVP" Rally happening within 50 miles of me right now. And that's not just because I live out in God's country.

Still, there's your biggest voting bloc in the country right there. So what are you gonna do, Stavros? What can you even say? You can't even say you're right about transgender rights, because the Baby Boomers say you're wrong, and there's so fucking many of them, they can never be outvoted while the majority of them are still alive. Sometimes the Baby Boomer vote is split, and that makes for interesting elections. But that hasn't happened here, all the Baby Boomers voted for Trump, and most of them will do it again. Then they'll die.

Trump went straight to the single most abundant generation in U.S. history, identified all their biggest problems and concerns, offered them solutions, and is actually making every effort to keep all his campaign promises. The Baby Boomers are Trump's people now.

The current Democratic platform doesn't appeal to Baby Boomers at all. They don't like what they see on television. Baby boomers (for the most part, obviously there are exceptions) think abortion is a black-and-white issue, many of them vote strictly on their abortion beliefs. They feel it would be a sin to vote someone into office who clearly wants to kill babies, so there's a tidy little straight Republican ticket right there. They don't understand transgenders, they don't understand "pansexual," and they really don't want to understand about any kind of alternative sexuality at all, sex is no longer the #1 thing in their lives. They just don't get/care about any of that stuff. And they don't want to, because furthermore, most of them grew up in households where sex wasn't discussed, period.

So that's your enemy, Stavros. What can you do about an enemy like that? I'll tell you what. Nothing. As I've said before, I absolutely encourage you to keep trying. It can't hurt. But you're not going to get what you want in the mid-terms, and you're not going to get what you want in 2020. 2024. You'll see.

Nick Danger

06-08-2018, 04:21 AM

I was simply trying to show in a personal example, of how people are are affected, by certain issues. I assume that you might be aware of what some call, "the student debt crisis". Here is one such article: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/02/27/student-loan-debt-crisis But also personal stories, multiplied do become national issues, sometimes. In fact my daughter, testified about her college loan experience, before a congressional committee, in Washington.

Once again let me state, that i believe that anyone, not matter what the circumstances can rise to success. But there are many people, whos chances of success a much more limited due to circumstances, of birth. Consider a 22 year old, shot dead in Walmart, because he was carrying an air rifle, that he had picked up off the shelf of the store. Someone in the store was scared and called the police, who shot him. And he had two young children, who may grow up with influence from his legacy. As a person, who has deeply contemplated spiritual issues, I think the world would be a better place, if people like you, consider yourself as blessed, rather than look at others, who are less successful, as somehow, deficient. For nearly every great successful person, there is someone, more talented, who is not as successful.

I'm aware of the problem with student loans, I've dealt with them personally, Yoda. Sometimes people rack up an abundance of student loan debt, then take a job at a bookstore. That's about what it boils down to in a nutshell for every defaulted student loan story. That's not excelling in your field, that's for certain.

A lot of people get off track, and I was one of them, if I was ever even on-track in the first place. I've always worked but never in my field of collegiate study. And I've bumped around from job to job quite a bit in my younger years. I've been garnished for my student loans - 15% of my pre-tax income IIRC. And the only way to get out from under it was to...get a new job.

I'm not sure what to tell you beyond that, though. At a certain point in life, I realized that if I wanted the things my father had, I was going to have to figure out a way to make some money. And I did, at great personal sacrifice of working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for years. Now it's not so bad.

I do consider myself blessed, and I really don't judge others, Yoda. That's for others to decide about themselves. I will point out if there's a flaw in your argument, though. The flaw in Stavros' argument was that he was taking your experience as typical. I don't think it is, and I think you would probably acknowledge yourself if you cared to that your experience was atypical. There was a flaw in your plan or a fly in the ointment, otherwise you would have been able to easily contend with $10k of student loans. If you are paying on time, the payments can be very flexible. The loans can always be consolidated for lower payments. I mean, you can stay on top of them unless something goes really wrong in your life. I know, because I stayed on top of mine for a while too.

Anyway pal, I'm not trying to tell you what's what, you know what's going on in your life. I'm merely trying to point out that most people are able to repay their student loans without problems. So obviously you had some. Good luck to you.

giovanni_hotel

06-08-2018, 07:10 AM

filghy2

06-08-2018, 11:32 AM

All the baby boomers didn't vote for Trump, unless you believe all baby boomers are White.

Trump tapped that ugly vein of latent racism in the American body politic, it had nothing at all with appealing to baby boomer 'values'.

Probably just over half of the baby boomers voted for Trump - he got 52% of both the 45-64 and 65+ age groups. Romney got 51% of 45-64 and 56% of 65+, so it was not the key to the result. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

The key group that went for Trump in a big way were whites without college education.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

BostonBad

06-08-2018, 02:33 PM

Nick Danger

06-08-2018, 02:44 PM

Probably just over half of the baby boomers voted for Trump - he got 52% of both the 45-64 and 65+ age groups. Romney got 51% of 45-64 and 56% of 65+, so it was not the key to the result. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

The key group that went for Trump in a big way were whites without college education.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Gee, that's odd, Flighty. The statistics I'm looking at say that 62% of whites 45-64 voted Trump, and 58% of whites 65 and older - i.e. 43% of all voters - voted for Trump.

I guess people can make statistics say whatever they want.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

BostonBad

06-08-2018, 02:50 PM

The definition of whites vary. Some non whites self-identify as white. Other times the government has historically included Arabs and Hispanics as white.

Perhaps it's to not shock white voters with rapidly declining demographics.

Stavros

06-08-2018, 03:08 PM

What I tried to explain to you earlier is that this kind of religion stuff doesn't matter.

Nick this is the kind of indifference that enables changes to the law to pass without protest.

The key point about Project Blitz is that it reveals a co-ordinated campaign across States to use State law to make the changes to the law that the Federal Government will not, or cannot. It probably means nothing to you if 'In God We Trust' is plastered on every public building and police car, but don't Atheist Americans, or Americans who value the Constitutional separation of religion and politics have rights their legislature should respect when they oppose a slogan that to them may have no meaning?

The realty is that laws are being passed, and will be proposed that claim to protect 'religious freedom' which in their application allow bigots to discriminate against Transgendered Americans. You can dismiss the Evangelicals, the End-of-Times, the weirdos and nutjobs as merely just that, but you are now seeing what happens when they form a coalition with Republicans and even Democrats terrified of losing the 'religious' vote if they campaign against 'Religious Freedom'.

But if freedom is to be narrowly defined as religious, what freedom is there for people without religion, and why should members of a Church have rights other Americans do not?

As for baby-boomers, who are the parents of Transgendered Americans under the age of 35? Are you suggesting that the parents of our friends have no interest in their own children? Yes, they may constitute a minority of Americas overall, but they still rank as Americans, and have rights too. Even the right to vote for a Republican Party and a President who loathes and detests them and wants to take away the rights they do have. This is the dilemma posed by the title of the thread.

giovanni_hotel

06-08-2018, 03:45 PM

How about the Cubans that locked down Florida for Trump? About 40% of Hispanic males voted for him nationwide.

Some people are tired of high taxes and want more economic liberty.

People that own property, work and pay more than nominal taxes elected Trump. Those who want to be, or who are the recipients of the taxpayer's money i.e. ebt, ssdi, section 8 voted for the Bern or Hillary.

Fuck off.

It's not just the poor who sit in opposition to the 1%.

Republican economic policies are crushing the middle class too. Who do you think is paying for all the corporate welfare in this country, like the recent 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut??

Hard working Americans who pay their taxes but are far from being millionaires are being pissed on by people like Trump on the daily.

filghy2

06-09-2018, 03:36 AM

Gee, that's odd, Flighty. The statistics I'm looking at say that 62% of whites 45-64 voted Trump, and 58% of whites 65 and older - i.e. 43% of all voters - voted for Trump.

I guess people can make statistics say whatever they want.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Only if you are prepared to cherry-pick them. Those figures appear to come from exactly the same source, given my 52% figure is shown at the top of your link. Your figures are for whites only, which is exactly the point that giovanni_hotel made.

Let me spell it out for you. Older people are more conservative than younger people - that is true, but it has always been true, even when Democrats were winning. I doesn't explain why Trump won. He won primarily because he tapped into the insecurities of less-educated white people by stoking racial fears and pretending that he had solutions to their economic concerns.

filghy2

06-09-2018, 03:44 AM

How about the Cubans that locked down Florida for Trump? About 40% of Hispanic males voted for him nationwide.

Some people are tired of high taxes and want more economic liberty.

People that own property, work and pay more than nominal taxes elected Trump. Those who want to be, or who are the recipients of the taxpayer's money i.e. ebt, ssdi, section 8 voted for the Bern or Hillary.

Another one who has trouble with facts. 32% of Latino males voted for Trump according to the link your fellow traveller helpfully provided. The same link shows that Trump had only a 1% majority among people earning $50k or more, which hardly supports your simplistic argument.

Nick Danger

06-09-2018, 06:24 PM

Nick this is the kind of indifference that enables changes to the law to pass without protest.

The key point about Project Blitz is that it reveals a co-ordinated campaign across States to use State law to make the changes to the law that the Federal Government will not, or cannot. It probably means nothing to you if 'In God We Trust' is plastered on every public building and police car, but don't Atheist Americans, or Americans who value the Constitutional separation of religion and politics have rights their legislature should respect when they oppose a slogan that to them may have no meaning?

The realty is that laws are being passed, and will be proposed that claim to protect 'religious freedom' which in their application allow bigots to discriminate against Transgendered Americans. You can dismiss the Evangelicals, the End-of-Times, the weirdos and nutjobs as merely just that, but you are now seeing what happens when they form a coalition with Republicans and even Democrats terrified of losing the 'religious' vote if they campaign against 'Religious Freedom'.

But if freedom is to be narrowly defined as religious, what freedom is there for people without religion, and why should members of a Church have rights other Americans do not?

As for baby-boomers, who are the parents of Transgendered Americans under the age of 35? Are you suggesting that the parents of our friends have no interest in their own children? Yes, they may constitute a minority of Americas overall, but they still rank as Americans, and have rights too. Even the right to vote for a Republican Party and a President who loathes and detests them and wants to take away the rights they do have. This is the dilemma posed by the title of the thread.

First of all, when you're talking about the Baby Boomer parents of transgenders, who are you talking about? I've heard the figure that .3% of the U.S. population is transgender. So giving the benefit of the doubt that each transgender person has two living parents, at most we're talking about .6% of Baby Boomers with transgender children. I doubt there's much sense of generation-wide responsibility there.

Secondly, the USA is a Christian nation, always has been. It's no big mystery. Whatever you might believe here, if it challenges Christian beliefs, it's going to be challenged politically. The day may come when U.S. politicians' symbiotic relationship with the Christian voting bloc is no longer de rigueur. But that day is not today. What you perceive as indifference on my part is actually your idealism meeting my pragmatism and not liking the smell.

All the baby boomers didn't vote for Trump, unless you believe all baby boomers are White.

Trump tapped that ugly vein of latent racism in the American body politic, it had nothing at all with appealing to baby boomer 'values'.

All revisionist history aside, when you hear someone refer to any generation born before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the "white" part is understood.

Let me spell it out for you.

Spelling isn't among your problems, Flighty. Less ambitious mathematical approaches to our disagreement here bear out exactly what I said - the Baby Boomers voted for Trump.

Stavros

06-10-2018, 12:09 AM

First of all, when you're talking about the Baby Boomer parents of transgenders, who are you talking about? I've heard the figure that .3% of the U.S. population is transgender. So giving the benefit of the doubt that each transgender person has two living parents, at most we're talking about .6% of Baby Boomers with transgender children. I doubt there's much sense of generation-wide responsibility there.
Secondly, the USA is a Christian nation, always has been. It's no big mystery. Whatever you might believe here, if it challenges Christian beliefs, it's going to be challenged politically. The day may come when U.S. politicians' symbiotic relationship with the Christian voting bloc is no longer de rigueur. But that day is not today. What you perceive as indifference on my part is actually your idealism meeting my pragmatism and not liking the smell.

Nick. again, I do understand your so-called pragmatism, but in return you could at least admit that what I am arguing is the polar opposite of Idealism because it is based firmly on reality.

The reality that more than 5 million Americans are denied the vote in those states where a citizen with a prison record cannot vote; millions are denied the vote because the State has in place a means of registering citizens that is designed to find reasons not to register them and guess what, most of those Americas are Black, or Latino, or have names like Kim or Mohammed.

In Wisconsin alone, citizens eligible to vote were denied the right for the most trivial of reasons, but now look at the figures: votes denied: 200,000; margin of victory for the President: 22,748.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

And what proportion of those Americans denied the vote are the same 'baby boomers' you claim are responsible for the outcome of the election?

As for Transgendered Americans who may have voted for HIM (as in, His Imperial Majesty] spare a thought for what might actually be the majority of Transgendered Americans who were also prevented from voting because of ID issues, thus:

In the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the Williams Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_Institute_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Gende r_Identity_Law_and_Public_Policy) estimated that by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_ID) at the polls, nine states may have disenfranchised over 25,000 transgender people in the November 2012 election,because poll workers are unlikely to have training on how to handle transgender people, and may erroneously suspect voter fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_fraud).

Transgender individuals may also be discouraged from voting under these photo identification circumstances because of prior experiences with presenting identification that does not accurately reflect their gender: 41% percent of transgender people reported being harassed in situations where they presented gender incongruent identification, while 15% reported being asked to leave the venue where the identification had been presented, and 3% reported being assaulted or attacked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_Uni ted_States) as a result of presenting their ID.Additionally, 22% percent reported being denied equal treatment or being verbally harassed by government officials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_State s

The reality is that the US while correctly implementing laws that prevent voter fraud, has -in many states- a suspiciously zealous attitude to voter registration that appears to discourage voting, rather than encourage it.

As for Christianity, even if the USA is de facto a Christian state because so many of its Federal and State legislators claim to be, the USA is for legal purposes an agnostic state. But if this means that a Christian has more rights than a Jew, a Muslim or anyone else, put it into law where everyone can see it, just as some States are, in effect, putting into law measures that target Transgendered Americas precisely and only because they are Transgendered.

This is realism, not idealism, and it is happening in a State near you. Now. And Tomorrow.

buttslinger

06-10-2018, 12:29 AM

Trump is a great American Hero ....but ONLY in the minds of his flock. Limbaugh and Fox News have been creating him for 20 years. The problem is, the Trump character wasn't created to run the Nation, he was created to mesmerize his audience. And make everyone else ill.

https://preview.ibb.co/dzMjdT/AAyr3u0.jpg (https://ibb.co/iOQAJT)
delete code school account (https://deleteacc.com/code-school)

filghy2

06-10-2018, 02:11 AM

All revisionist history aside, when you hear someone refer to any generation born before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the "white" part is understood.

Huh? So we should regard non-white people as non-persons until 1964? That might be true in your part of the world but don't assume it's true for the rest of us.

Nick Danger

06-10-2018, 03:28 AM

Nick. again, I do understand your so-called pragmatism, but in return you could at least admit that what I am arguing is the polar opposite of Idealism because it is based firmly on reality.

The reality that more than 5 million Americans are denied the vote in those states where a citizen with a prison record cannot vote; millions are denied the vote because the State has in place a means of registering citizens that is designed to find reasons not to register them and guess what, most of those Americas are Black, or Latino, or have names like Kim or Mohammed.

In Wisconsin alone, citizens eligible to vote were denied the right for the most trivial of reasons, but now look at the figures: votes denied: 200,000; margin of victory for the President: 22,748.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

And what proportion of those Americans denied the vote are the same 'baby boomers' you claim are responsible for the outcome of the election?

As for Transgendered Americans who may have voted for HIM (as in, His Imperial Majesty] spare a thought for what might actually be the majority of Transgendered Americans who were also prevented from voting because of ID issues, thus:

In the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the Williams Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_Institute_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Gende r_Identity_Law_and_Public_Policy) estimated that by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_ID) at the polls, nine states may have disenfranchised over 25,000 transgender people in the November 2012 election,because poll workers are unlikely to have training on how to handle transgender people, and may erroneously suspect voter fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_fraud).

Transgender individuals may also be discouraged from voting under these photo identification circumstances because of prior experiences with presenting identification that does not accurately reflect their gender: 41% percent of transgender people reported being harassed in situations where they presented gender incongruent identification, while 15% reported being asked to leave the venue where the identification had been presented, and 3% reported being assaulted or attacked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_Uni ted_States) as a result of presenting their ID.Additionally, 22% percent reported being denied equal treatment or being verbally harassed by government officials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_State s

The reality is that the US while correctly implementing laws that prevent voter fraud, has -in many states- a suspiciously zealous attitude to voter registration that appears to discourage voting, rather than encourage it.

As for Christianity, even if the USA is de facto a Christian state because so many of its Federal and State legislators claim to be, the USA is for legal purposes an agnostic state. But if this means that a Christian has more rights than a Jew, a Muslim or anyone else, put it into law where everyone can see it, just as some States are, in effect, putting into law measures that target Transgendered Americas precisely and only because they are Transgendered.

This is realism, not idealism, and it is happening in a State near you. Now. And Tomorrow.

You have certainly given a thorough and truthful description of the American system of democracy. But none of that matters. You, me, and everyone else in this thread sat in our living rooms and watched George W. Bush steal two elections back-to-back on national television.

But stealing elections isn't what he'll be remembered for. Bush is a tough case because he actually was a pretty shitty President. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was a great President in the classic conservative self-serving style. But the public has a short memory, and the winners write the history. Bush will ultimately go down in history as a beloved, slightly oafish, war-hawk-by-necessity President with a heart of gold. As long as he doesn't give too many speeches between now and his death.

Lot of fishy things about this last election, from both sides of the fence. We may have just voted in our first President whose campaign was assisted by Russia no matter who we elected in 2016. Goes to show how far our open-corruption style of government has gone down the rabbit hole. Regarding voter ID's, I'm in favor of them. If you don't have your shit together enough to have a valid government-issued ID to show when you need one - in a country where you need just such an ID for any alcohol or tobacco purchase, any encounter with police, or any financial transaction - I'd just as soon you kept your political opinions to yourself anyway.

Huh? So we should regard non-white people as non-persons until 1964? That might be true in your part of the world but don't assume it's true for the rest of us.

No real desegregation occurred in this country until after the Civil Rights Act. I (laughingly) challenge you to find any 70-year-old black person who self-identifies as a "Baby Boomer." Black voters are black voters, they are reliably self-aware and are the cornerstone of the Democratic Party's base. Blacks and whites didn't start mixing on any substantial level until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began what would be a decades-long process of national desegregation that is still ongoing. You can't hide the ugly truth by internet virtue-signaling half a century later, Flighty.

filghy2

06-10-2018, 03:50 AM

Sometimes the Baby Boomer vote is split, and that makes for interesting elections. But that hasn't happened here, all the Baby Boomers voted for Trump, and most of them will do it again. Then they'll die.

Interestingly, Trump's primary support base has already been dying off at an increasing rate over the past 20 years. https://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2016/anne-case-angus-deaton White Americans without a college degree are about the only group in any developed country whose death rates are increasing rather than falling. How ironic that they support people who are trying to take their health insurance away. I guess they can take solace in their guns, religion and fantasies about returning to a mythical golden age of white America.

1079073

filghy2

06-10-2018, 04:19 AM

No real desegregation occurred in this country until after the Civil Rights Act. I (laughingly) challenge you to find any 70-year-old black person who self-identifies as a "Baby Boomer." Black voters are black voters, they are reliably self-aware and are the cornerstone of the Democratic Party's base. Blacks and whites didn't start mixing on any substantial level until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began what would be a decades-long process of national desegregation that is still ongoing. You can't hide the ugly truth by internet virtue-signaling half a century later, Flighty.

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
LEWIS CARROLL, Through the Looking-Glass

Funny, I don't see any mention of whiteness here or in any other definition I could find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

Nick Danger

06-10-2018, 04:38 AM

Interestingly, Trump's primary support base has already been dying off at an increasing rate over the past 20 years. https://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2016/anne-case-angus-deaton White Americans without a college degree are about the only group in any developed country whose death rates are increasing rather than falling. How ironic that they support people who are trying to take their health insurance away. I guess they can take solace in their guns, religion and fantasies about returning to a mythical golden age of white America.

Flighty, your fascination with uneducated white people surprises me. You're like the Jane Goodall of rednecks, living among them, studying them from a distance. You should film a documentary...oh, forgot, there's already a "People of Walmart."

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Trump definitely got the uneducated white vote, along with the somewhat-educated white vote, and the highly-educated white vote, and the educated-enough-to-have-people-committed-to-institutions white vote. White people in general liked what Trump had to say about immigration, and America First, and Make America Great Again - that's speaking white people talk, and Trump can do it.

But so what? If white-people-problem solvers get voted into office, that must mean there are more disgruntled white people around than anyone else. It's a classic appeal to populism, executed perfectly at the exact right moment in history by a natural politician named Donald J. Trump.

A good evening to you, Flighty.

filghy2

06-10-2018, 08:07 AM

Flighty, your fascination with uneducated white people surprises me. You're like the Jane Goodall of rednecks, living among them, studying them from a distance. You should film a documentary...oh, forgot, there's already a "People of Walmart."

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

I'm simply highlighting the same point that virtually every analysis of the 2016 election has highlighted. You should try reading some of them.

I'm not sure whether you don't understand basic logic or you are being disingenuous because you need to pretend to yourself that you never lose an argument. To explain the 2016 election you need to explain what changed between 2012 and 2016. Republican advantages that were similar to the previous elections cannot explain it. The biggest single thing that changed was the Republican margin among less educated white voters.

Also, you seem to be forgetting that Trump actually lost the popular vote decisively. He only won as a result of small margins in a few working class states that voted previously for Obama, again due to the shift among less educated whites.

Stavros

06-10-2018, 12:11 PM

You have certainly given a thorough and truthful description of the American system of democracy. But none of that matters.

If obtaining an ID is that simple, that basic, that common, why in reality is it such a hurdle for those Transgendered Americans who, even if they wanted to vote Republican, could not vote at all? My point was that when someone turns up at the office to register their vote it is their ID that is rejected, if they have any, and if they don't have any, it may be because they can't get one, because they can't afford the $10 it needs to get to the office, or when they arrive to Register as Michaela, the officer only sees Michael.

Real problems in the real world, maybe you should address them, instead of saying 'none of that matters'.

Nick Danger

06-10-2018, 02:49 PM

I'm simply highlighting the same point that virtually every analysis of the 2016 election has highlighted. You should try reading some of them.

I'm not sure whether you don't understand basic logic or you are being disingenuous because you need to pretend to yourself that you never lose an argument. To explain the 2016 election you need to explain what changed between 2012 and 2016. Republican advantages that were similar to the previous elections cannot explain it. The biggest single thing that changed was the Republican margin among less educated white voters.

Also, you seem to be forgetting that Trump actually lost the popular vote decisively. He only won as a result of small margins in a few working class states that voted previously for Obama, again due to the shift among less educated whites.

So what you're saying is that a lot of stupid people went from voting Democratic to voting Republican in the most recent election. No wonder the Democratic Party is in such shambles, they've lost their base.

If obtaining an ID is that simple, that basic, that common, why in reality is it such a hurdle for those Transgendered Americans who, even if they wanted to vote Republican, could not vote at all? My point was that when someone turns up at the office to register their vote it is their ID that is rejected, if they have any, and if they don't have any, it may be because they can't get one, because they can't afford the $10 it needs to get to the office, or when they arrive to Register as Michaela, the officer only sees Michael.

Real problems in the real world, maybe you should address them, instead of saying 'none of that matters'.

I'm sorry, Stavros, I just don't see this as being a problem. A legal citizen of this country has no problem obtaining an ID. Even if you've lost every piece of identifying paperwork you have, you can always obtain your birth certificate from the county clerk's office where you were born. You can use that to obtain a Social Security card, and you can use those two things to obtain a driver's license, or a state-issued ID if you can't drive. Pretty simple.

So simple, in fact, that one might say that anyone who doesn't have a legal, government-issued ID in this country is either an illegal alien, or extremely irresponsible. Either way, whether that person can vote or not is not important to me.

As for transgenders and their ID's, of course they can obtain one just like anyone else. It might have their BIRTH gender and their LEGAL NAME on it, but it will still be totally legit and enable them to vote.

If someone's "real problem of the real world" is that they don't have $10, they have a lot bigger problems than not being able to vote.

Stavros

06-10-2018, 03:32 PM

I'm sorry, Stavros, I just don't see this as being a problem. A legal citizen of this country has no problem obtaining an ID. Even if you've lost every piece of identifying paperwork you have, you can always obtain your birth certificate from the county clerk's office where you were born. You can use that to obtain a Social Security card, and you can use those two things to obtain a driver's license, or a state-issued ID if you can't drive. Pretty simple.

I sometimes wonder if you live in the US. Life may be easy for you, for others, dealing with State officials can be intimidating and traumatic. And yes, on any given day, $10 may be the difference between an ID card and a meal -what choice is that?

We manage to live without ID cards in the UK, why not scrap them in the US, and use a different mode of identification in elections, it is the 21st century, it can be done.

Do you really think it is 'pretty simple' when there is so much evidence that for many Americans the simple fact that they are poor, or blind, or forgetful, or Black means they have no ID, and can't vote? Here is the evidence with many examples:

“I hear from people nearly weekly who can’t get an ID either because of poverty, transportation issues or because of the government’s incompetence,” said Chad W. Dunn, a lawyer with Brazil & Dunn in Houston, who has specialized in voting rights work for 15 years.
“Sometimes government officials don’t know what the law requires,” Dunn said. “People take a day off work to go down to get the so-called free birth certificates. People who are poor, with no car and no Internet access, get up, take the bus, transfer a couple of times, stand in line for an hour and then are told they don’t have the right documents or it will cost them money they don’t have.”
“A lot of them just give up,” Dunn said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.121fc48db9f6

https://rewire.news/ablc/2014/10/16/well-actually-pretty-hard-people-get-photo-id-just-vote/

Nick Danger

06-10-2018, 04:51 PM

I sometimes wonder if you live in the US. Life may be easy for you, for others, dealing with State officials can be intimidating and traumatic. And yes, on any given day, $10 may be the difference between an ID card and a meal -what choice is that?

We manage to live without ID cards in the UK, why not scrap them in the US, and use a different mode of identification in elections, it is the 21st century, it can be done.

Do you really think it is 'pretty simple' when there is so much evidence that for many Americans the simple fact that they are poor, or blind, or forgetful, or Black means they have no ID, and can't vote? Here is the evidence with many examples:

“I hear from people nearly weekly who can’t get an ID either because of poverty, transportation issues or because of the government’s incompetence,” said Chad W. Dunn, a lawyer with Brazil & Dunn in Houston, who has specialized in voting rights work for 15 years.
“Sometimes government officials don’t know what the law requires,” Dunn said. “People take a day off work to go down to get the so-called free birth certificates. People who are poor, with no car and no Internet access, get up, take the bus, transfer a couple of times, stand in line for an hour and then are told they don’t have the right documents or it will cost them money they don’t have.”
“A lot of them just give up,” Dunn said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.121fc48db9f6

https://rewire.news/ablc/2014/10/16/well-actually-pretty-hard-people-get-photo-id-just-vote/

First of all I think I've made it known that I have not led an exemplary life. My youth was quite filled with various forms of irresponsible adventure.

Once, when I was working tugboats in the Gulf, we came back from a 3-week hitch and put our boat into dry-dock. I wasn't signed on for the next hitch, I was going to take a week off. But that night I wandered off into the French Quarter and really tied one on, had a blast I'm sure. At the end of the night I was pretty broke and quite wasted, so I decided to just go back to the boat and sleep in my cabin. It was right across the river and there was a bridge, so I stumbled back to my little quarters on the boat.

I slept long and hard, and when I woke up, much to my surprise, the boat was in motion. I had a vague memory of people beating on my cabin door in the night and me telling them to fuck off. I went flying out of that cabin, through the galley, nodded to a couple guys I knew on the way through, and came screaming out onto the deck, knowing that if we were already past the mouth of the river, I was fucked - I'd be out on the water for 3 weeks with no pay, working for food.

Well we weren't past the mouth of the river, but we were just about to the point where the "land" beside the river becomes nothing but marsh and reeds for miles and miles before the whole mess opens out into the Gulf. But there was still some solid land in sight, so without giving the matter much thought, I dived off the boat and swam to shore. Got a couple nice catcalls and waves from the crew, and was actually feeling pretty happy with myself until I realized I'd left my waterproof wallet in the cabin in my haste - the waterproof wallet that contained every document on this planet proving I exist, driver's license, Coast Guard license, birth certificate, fishing license, social security card - it was all in that wallet. I traveled light back then.

So I'm sitting there on the shore of the Mississippi River a good mile or so from civilization, no money, no way to identify myself, nothing but a pair of soaking wet shorts, a t-shirt, and the pair of flip-flops I now saw floating around within grabbing distance.

I did have one thing going for me - I had a paycheck coming the following day.

So here's what I did, Stavros. I bummed around the Quarter that night, saw a couple people I knew, let them buy a few beers, talked one of them into letting me crash on his couch. The next day I went and got that paycheck, and I took it to a pawn shop. Pawn shops in this country can be very flexible in the way they do business.

I explain my situation to the pawn shop guy, show him the check, and tell him I'd like to cash the check at his highest convenience rate, but that I need a little help getting my life back first. It was a substantial check, for the whole 3 weeks I'd just spent on the ocean, and it meant a couple hundred bucks to the guy, so he let me use his phone and his business address. I called the county clerk office where I was born and arranged to have my birth certificate FedEx'd to the pawn shop. Pawn shop guy held the check and advanced me a hundred bucks, so I went and got a happy meal, a bottle of whiskey, and a cheap motel room. Next day I got a phone call from pawn shop guy that my birth certificate was there. He said that was enough ID for him to complete the transaction, so we finished our business and I walked out of there with my birth certificate and a pocket full of cash.

Next stop, SSA office. I produce my birth certificate, explain that I have lost my wallet, and leave with a temporary social security card which will serve as a 2nd form of ID for the DMV.

Go to DMV, give them my out-of-state license information, produce birth certificate and temporary social security card, they say I gotta take a written test so I do and I pass it, leave DMV with birth certificate, social security card, and now driver's license.

Take all my new ID to the Coast Guard Licensing facility, tell them I lost my wallet, produce ID, obtain new Coast Guard license.

All this cost me around $40 (if you don't count the extravagant fee I paid to cash my check) and was done in two days. Starting from the shore of the Mississippi River.

And really, Stavros, if you expect me to feel so sorry for people who give up on getting an ID because they're poor or don't understand the process, I just don't. It ain't rocket science, but yes, it can be time-consuming. Every American has logged his or her hours in nightmarish DMV lines. It sucks and we all hate it, but it's how the shit gets done.

And for every complaint of poverty in this country, there's a remedy if the person is willing to ask for help. There are plenty of programs around, government and otherwise, whose first step in trying to help someone get back on their feet is to get them some form of ID so they can get on the government tit. Which, fine, I'm not opposed to programs like that, I don't mind paying for people to survive, if that's the extent of their goals. But that's a whole different topic.

Anyway, no Stavros, it's not hard, it's not expensive, it's just something you have to do as an American. You don't just "give up" on obtaining an ID, you get one. It's the first step to practically everything else you might want to do here.

giovanni_hotel

06-10-2018, 06:29 PM

First of all I think I've made it known that I have not led an exemplary life. My youth was quite filled with various forms of irresponsible adventure.

Once, when I was working tugboats in the Gulf, we came back from a 3-week hitch and put our boat into dry-dock. I wasn't signed on for the next hitch, I was going to take a week off. But that night I wandered off into the French Quarter and really tied one on, had a blast I'm sure. At the end of the night I was pretty broke and quite wasted, so I decided to just go back to the boat and sleep in my cabin. It was right across the river and there was a bridge, so I stumbled back to my little quarters on the boat.

I slept long and hard, and when I woke up, much to my surprise, the boat was in motion. I had a vague memory of people beating on my cabin door in the night and me telling them to fuck off. I went flying out of that cabin, through the galley, nodded to a couple guys I knew on the way through, and came screaming out onto the deck, knowing that if we were already past the mouth of the river, I was fucked - I'd be out on the water for 3 weeks with no pay, working for food.

Well we weren't past the mouth of the river, but we were just about to the point where the "land" beside the river becomes nothing but marsh and reeds for miles and miles before the whole mess opens out into the Gulf. But there was still some solid land in sight, so without giving the matter much thought, I dived off the boat and swam to shore. Got a couple nice catcalls and waves from the crew, and was actually feeling pretty happy with myself until I realized I'd left my waterproof wallet in the cabin in my haste - the waterproof wallet that contained every document on this planet proving I exist, driver's license, Coast Guard license, birth certificate, fishing license, social security card - it was all in that wallet. I traveled light back then.

So I'm sitting there on the shore of the Mississippi River a good mile or so from civilization, no money, no way to identify myself, nothing but a pair of soaking wet shorts, a t-shirt, and the pair of flip-flops I now saw floating around within grabbing distance.

I did have one thing going for me - I had a paycheck coming the following day.

So here's what I did, Stavros. I bummed around the Quarter that night, saw a couple people I knew, let them buy a few beers, talked one of them into letting me crash on his couch. The next day I went and got that paycheck, and I took it to a pawn shop. Pawn shops in this country can be very flexible in the way they do business.

I explain my situation to the pawn shop guy, show him the check, and tell him I'd like to cash the check at his highest convenience rate, but that I need a little help getting my life back first. It was a substantial check, for the whole 3 weeks I'd just spent on the ocean, and it meant a couple hundred bucks to the guy, so he let me use his phone and his business address. I called the county clerk office where I was born and arranged to have my birth certificate FedEx'd to the pawn shop. Pawn shop guy held the check and advanced me a hundred bucks, so I went and got a happy meal, a bottle of whiskey, and a cheap motel room. Next day I got a phone call from pawn shop guy that my birth certificate was there. He said that was enough ID for him to complete the transaction, so we finished our business and I walked out of there with my birth certificate and a pocket full of cash.

Next stop, SSA office. I produce my birth certificate, explain that I have lost my wallet, and leave with a temporary social security card which will serve as a 2nd form of ID for the DMV.

Go to DMV, give them my out-of-state license information, produce birth certificate and temporary social security card, they say I gotta take a written test so I do and I pass it, leave DMV with birth certificate, social security card, and now driver's license.

Take all my new ID to the Coast Guard Licensing facility, tell them I lost my wallet, produce ID, obtain new Coast Guard license.

All this cost me around $40 (if you don't count the extravagant fee I paid to cash my check) and was done in two days. Starting from the shore of the Mississippi River.

And really, Stavros, if you expect me to feel so sorry for people who give up on getting an ID because they're poor or don't understand the process, I just don't. It ain't rocket science, but yes, it can be time-consuming. Every American has logged his or her hours in nightmarish DMV lines. It sucks and we all hate it, but it's how the shit gets done.

And for every complaint of poverty in this country, there's a remedy if the person is willing to ask for help. There are plenty of programs around, government and otherwise, whose first step in trying to help someone get back on their feet is to get them some form of ID so they can get on the government tit. Which, fine, I'm not opposed to programs like that, I don't mind paying for people to survive, if that's the extent of their goals. But that's a whole different topic.

Anyway, no Stavros, it's not hard, it's not expensive, it's just something you have to do as an American. You don't just "give up" on obtaining an ID, you get one. It's the first step to practically everything else you might want to do here.
You don't understand the philosophy behind voter suppression and why the GOP has invested so heavily into it.

The point is to put up so many hurdles and barriers to voters, including reducing the number of DMVs in a given 100 mile radius to ONE and nearly inaccessible by public transportation. Or the number of polling centers for a community is reduced from 5-6 to 1- or 2.
BTW, how did you get to the DMV and Coast Guard Licensing facility in your story without a car? How did you pick up your check with no ID???

The GOP wins when fewer people vote, which is why you will NEVER see Republican leadership advocating for a national voter holiday where everyone has the day off during a general presidential election.

It's one thing to believe everyone should have a valid ID. But that shouldn't be an excuse to make it 10x harder for some communities to obtain said identification.

The biggest bullshit lie I'm sick of hearing from the GOP is that they need to discourage illegals from voting.

Illegals NEVER vote, just like they NEVER show up for jury duty or anything remotely 'legal'.

We had the lowest voter turnout for a presidential election in 2016, and Trump still had the nerve to say 3 million illegals voting is why HRC crushed him in the popular vote.

Nick Danger

06-10-2018, 07:36 PM

BTW, how did you get to the DMV and Coast Guard Licensing facility in your story without a car? How did you pick up your check with no ID???

The bus system in New Orleans is - or was in the 90's anyway - quite adequate. But I don't really recall whether I even had to take a bus, the Coast Guard building is right there at the crescent of the river like practically everything else in the boating industry. I think I did take a bus to the DMV. Also, I didn't need an ID to pick up my check, they knew me.

You don't understand the philosophy behind voter suppression and why the GOP has invested so heavily into it.

Of course I don't, I'm a conservative. Only the "woke" liberal mind can understand election strategy. This particular strategy is a bloody good one too, because even though it does bar certain types of people from voting (mostly criminals and layabouts), it also makes perfect sense that voters ought to identify themselves at the polls. Simple proof that you are who you say you are and you are qualified to vote is not too much to ask, in fact it's hardly anything at all.

I seriously - SERIOUSLY - doubt that any DMV locations have been hand-picked for the purpose of curtailing voter registration. DMV's have always been a nightmare, so for immigrants and other newcomers to the system, welcome to the USA, now take a fucking number.

Jeezus Christ, sometimes I think liberals really believe some of this horseshit.

filghy2

06-11-2018, 03:28 AM

I explain my situation to the pawn shop guy, show him the check, and tell him I'd like to cash the check at his highest convenience rate, but that I need a little help getting my life back first. It was a substantial check, for the whole 3 weeks I'd just spent on the ocean, and it meant a couple hundred bucks to the guy, so he let me use his phone and his business address. I called the county clerk office where I was born and arranged to have my birth certificate FedEx'd to the pawn shop. Pawn shop guy held the check and advanced me a hundred bucks, so I went and got a happy meal, a bottle of whiskey, and a cheap motel room. Next day I got a phone call from pawn shop guy that my birth certificate was there. He said that was enough ID for him to complete the transaction, so we finished our business and I walked out of there with my birth certificate and a pocket full of cash.

So you're telling us that the pawn shop guy advanced you (a complete stranger I assume) $100 even though you had no security and no ID, so he had no way to know it wasn't a stolen check. Even if your story is true, do you think this would have been possible if you weren't white and didn't have a big check?

You're also telling us that the county clerk's office was willing to send your birth certificate to a pawn shop office just on the basis of a phone call. Maybe you were born in a small place where everyone knows each other, but I doubt that would have worked in a big city. In any case, I'm pretty sure the requirements to get a birth certificate would have been tightened since then due to identity fraud.

Nick Danger

06-11-2018, 05:10 AM

So you're telling us that...

I'm telling you that it's easy to get an ID in this country unless you've got something to hide, Flighty.

I'm telling you that it's not the big problem you're trying to make it out to be. But hey, that's liberal politics - "If morons who aren't even resourceful enough to obtain a legal ID can't vote, there must be a systemic bias against morons."

Well guess what, Flighty. There is.

broncofan

06-11-2018, 05:26 AM

So you're telling us that the pawn shop guy advanced you (a complete stranger I assume) $100 even though you had no security and no ID, so he had no way to know it wasn't a stolen check. Even if your story is true, do you think this would have been possible if you weren't white and didn't have a big check?

You're also telling us that the county clerk's office was willing to send your birth certificate to a pawn shop office just on the basis of a phone call. Maybe you were born in a small place where everyone knows each other, but I doubt that would have worked in a big city. In any case, I'm pretty sure the requirements to get a birth certificate would have been tightened since then due to identity fraud.
https://www.wikihow.com/Obtain-a-Copy-of-Your-Birth-Certificate-in-California
I was born in California so I looked up the process because I remember it being much more involved the last time I got a certified copy of the birth certificate. According to this link, you fill out an application, find a notary public, send a check to the California health department, and wait fifteen days for processing. It's not the toughest process in the world, but it's the first step if you've lost your documents. I just got my social security card because I lost that a while ago and I used my birth certificate, but they did not give me a temporary. I waited about ten days for it to be mailed.

So assuming your driver's license requires these documents, you might be waiting about twenty five days before you can prove to your dmv both proof of identity and citizenship. Might there be ways to expedite this? Possibly, but you can imagine what it's like for someone who works six days a week to deal with government bureaucrats and to be sent home multiple times because the utility bill they're using for address in the state misspelled their name or something.

It is possible the process was easier back in the day, but it isn't quick I don't think.

broncofan

06-11-2018, 06:11 AM

filghy2

06-11-2018, 06:16 AM

We may have just voted in our first President whose campaign was assisted by Russia no matter who we elected in 2016.

I missed this before - hard to keep up with all of your nonsense claims.

First , why would the Russians want to help both sides? Isn't the whole point of meddling in an election to try to influence the outcome one way or the other?

Second, why would the Russians try to help the Democrats when Putin had clearly expressed antipathy toward Hillary Clinton on account of things she did when she was Secretary of State?

Third, you are ignoring two obvious facts, which have no equivalent on the other side. One is the unusual pattern of linkages between Trump and his associates and Russians. The other is the fact that Trump has conspicuously gone out of his way to avoid any criticism of Russia and to argue it's case (eg at the recent G7 meeting).

Gillian

06-11-2018, 09:29 AM

Stavros

06-11-2018, 10:30 AM

Anyway, no Stavros, it's not hard, it's not expensive, it's just something you have to do as an American. You don't just "give up" on obtaining an ID, you get one. It's the first step to practically everything else you might want to do here.

Ok, Nick, it is not hard -for you; it is not expensive -for you. But it might be for someone else who is not as resourceful as you, or as self-confident. For someone making the transition from Michael to Michaela (or Michaela to Michael) visiting any State or Federal office can be a traumatic experience, and if the clerk behind the desk has been instructed to create a 'hostile environment' in the office then it is easy to understand why so many people don't bother. As I suggested, scrap ID cards, and create another system, and no, I don't mean ID chips inserted into your arm.

Stavros

06-11-2018, 10:48 AM

Putting the merits and demerits of a Trump victory to one side for the moment, can we agree he's not exactly enhancing the international reputation of the US. The world's media are having a field day ... :D

The present administration doesn't care about its international reputation, you need only look at what Wilbur Ross and John Bolton say, which is that, basically, the USA is the most powerful country in the world and they can do anything and say anything they want because they are too big to fail, and what Canada or the UK or Germany says is literally worthless. And after the complaints and the indignation, we and everyone else insulted by their President will go crawling to the USA for their help, access to their markets -anything to compensate for our weakness, our incompetence. But on the other side of the argument, Theresa May, Angela Merket and Emmanuel Macron have, in effect, written off the next two years and are just waiting for the USA to change its President and act like a responsible adult again.

Nick Danger

06-11-2018, 02:19 PM

https://www.wikihow.com/Obtain-a-Copy-of-Your-Birth-Certificate-in-California
I was born in California so I looked up the process because I remember it being much more involved the last time I got a certified copy of the birth certificate. According to this link, you fill out an application, find a notary public, send a check to the California health department, and wait fifteen days for processing. It's not the toughest process in the world, but it's the first step if you've lost your documents. I just got my social security card because I lost that a while ago and I used my birth certificate, but they did not give me a temporary. I waited about ten days for it to be mailed.

So assuming your driver's license requires these documents, you might be waiting about twenty five days before you can prove to your dmv both proof of identity and citizenship. Might there be ways to expedite this? Possibly, but you can imagine what it's like for someone who works six days a week to deal with government bureaucrats and to be sent home multiple times because the utility bill they're using for address in the state misspelled their name or something.

It is possible the process was easier back in the day, but it isn't quick I don't think.

Ok, Nick, it is not hard -for you; it is not expensive -for you. But it might be for someone else who is not as resourceful as you, or as self-confident. For someone making the transition from Michael to Michaela (or Michaela to Michael) visiting any State or Federal office can be a traumatic experience, and if the clerk behind the desk has been instructed to create a 'hostile environment' in the office then it is easy to understand why so many people don't bother. As I suggested, scrap ID cards, and create another system, and no, I don't mean ID chips inserted into your arm.

I'm willing to accept that it's possibly more difficult to re-acquire your ID today than it was in the 90's. But I'm still not willing to accept that it's some Herculean trial. If you are who you say you are, if you don't have any criminal warrants, and if you're supposed to be in the USA, you can get an ID. If it ends up being a "traumatic experience," you can always go see the DMV psychiatrist afterwards.

I missed this before - hard to keep up with all of your nonsense claims.

First , why would the Russians want to help both sides? Isn't the whole point of meddling in an election to try to influence the outcome one way or the other?

Second, why would the Russians try to help the Democrats when Putin had clearly expressed antipathy toward Hillary Clinton on account of things she did when she was Secretary of State?

Third, you are ignoring two obvious facts, which have no equivalent on the other side. One is the unusual pattern of linkages between Trump and his associates and Russians. The other is the fact that Trump has conspicuously gone out of his way to avoid any criticism of Russia and to argue it's case (eg at the recent G7 meeting).

The suspicion of Hillary's Russian ties revolves around the dossier underwritten by the Democratic Party regarding Trump's activities in Russia, a dossier that found its way into the hands of the FBI.

The theory is that she couldn't have acquired the information without collusion. And no, not collusion with Vladimir Putin. Hillary's Russian ties are much more pedestrian, as befits her status as an ex-Secretary of State and failed Presidential candidate.

buttslinger

06-11-2018, 11:48 PM

Even if Nick started dressing like Prince and giving his employees free dental, that still leaves the matter of 60 million Americans who wholeheartedly believe in a Muslim Ban. I guess Obama's vision of clarity and peace didn't trickle down so good.
I really do think Mueller's vote is going to be the only one that really counts. On several counts. If the crime is Treason, would that be held in a Military Court? Hmmm.....

Fitzcarraldo

06-12-2018, 01:11 AM

If the crime is Treason, would that be held in a Military Court? Hmmm.....

Nope. Impeachment by the House, and conviction or acquittal by the Senate for whatever.

Nick Danger

06-12-2018, 02:32 AM

Even if Nick started dressing like Prince and giving his employees free dental...

That made me chuckle - reminded me of Charlie Murphy's "True Hollywood Story" about Prince. "I don't know what he was angry about. He knows where he got that shirt from, and it damn sure wasn't the men's department." Funny shit.

I don't have employees, Buttslinger. I do work with other people, but only on a project basis. I don't like the idea of paying someone by the hour to do my dirty work, I'd rather just do it myself than create a job that would barely support a shit-tier lifestyle.

No, Obama's ideas didn't trickle down, because they were great ideas for an entirely different planet than this one. Peace comes only at the end of war, and the end of war is a long, long time from now on Planet Earth.

Also, trust me, if Trump thinks he's going to be charged with treason, he'll fire Mueller first. Think about it, what's less trouble for him? A years-long legal battle on the international stage, or the temporary backlash of firing a special prosecutor? A no-brainer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff8LEx9Mw54

joeycup

06-12-2018, 03:40 AM

Fitzcarraldo

06-12-2018, 03:45 AM

A years-long legal battle on the international stage, or the temporary backlash of firing a special prosecutor? A no-brainer.

I suppose you could call immediate impeachment, certain conviction, and prompt removal from office "temporary."

filghy2

06-12-2018, 03:52 AM

The suspicion of Hillary's Russian ties revolves around the dossier underwritten by the Democratic Party regarding Trump's activities in Russia, a dossier that found its way into the hands of the FBI.

The theory is that she couldn't have acquired the information without collusion. And no, not collusion with Vladimir Putin. Hillary's Russian ties are much more pedestrian, as befits her status as an ex-Secretary of State and failed Presidential candidate.

Are you suggesting that these two things are equivalent?

1. Paying someone to obtain information from Russian sources (presumably something that US intelligence agencies do all the time).

2. Possibly conspiring with a foreign government to meddle in an election to your advantage, in return for policy changes favourable to that government. Not only that, but a foreign government that has been a long-time adversary of the US and western democracy with a recent history of invading other countries and murdering its opponents.

Nick Danger

06-12-2018, 04:26 AM

I suppose you could call immediate impeachment, certain conviction, and prompt removal from office "temporary."

Not sure you know how impeachment works, Fitz. Example, do you remember that Bill Clinton was impeached? For perjury and obstruction of justice? By the House, but then vindicated by the Senate. Same with Andrew Johnson. I.E., no President has ever been successfully impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. Nixon might have been the first. That's why he resigned.

On the other hand, every President ever has had a base of non-admirers optimistic about his inevitable impeachment and removal from office, despite the fact that it has never happened.

President Trump will not be impeached for treason. There will never be a presentable case for treason because the first thing the prosecution would have to prove would be that Russia is our enemy. Russia is technically not our enemy, they're just a big scary sovereign nation that yanks our chain now and then.

The full truth is that President Trump will not be impeached for anything unless the Democratic Party finds some traction in Congress (they won't). Republicans are not going to impeach a Republican President over matters of trivia. And yes, I'm saying that Russian meddling in American elections is a trivial matter. It's not as if they tampered with the ballot boxes. In the big picture, all they did was peddle some propaganda.

I can see you have high hopes, Fitz. I'm also aware that you don't listen to me, so I'm sure I'm not crushing your dreams when I tell you impeachment and removal from office will never happen.

1079394

Nick Danger

06-12-2018, 04:36 AM

Are you suggesting that these two things are equivalent?

1. Paying someone to obtain information from Russian sources (presumably something that US intelligence agencies do all the time).

2. Possibly conspiring with a foreign government to meddle in an election to your advantage, in return for policy changes favourable to that government. Not only that, but a foreign government that has been a long-time adversary of the US and western democracy with a recent history of invading other countries and murdering its opponents.

I don't recall saying or even implying anything about the relative merits of the two offenses. I only recall saying that both candidates were in cahoots with Russia.

filghy2

06-12-2018, 05:15 AM

I don't recall saying or even implying anything about the relative merits of the two offenses. I only recall saying that both candidates were in cahoots with Russia.

There you go again, Nicky No Facts. Obtaining information from some people in Russia - presumably people not doing so with the approval of the Russian government - does not constitute being in cahoots with Russia.

Nick Danger

06-12-2018, 05:49 AM

There you go again, Nicky No Facts. Obtaining information from some people in Russia - presumably people not doing so with the approval of the Russian government - does not constitute being in cahoots with Russia.

Flighty, you are determined to win an argument on the internet. You aren't going to win it against me (as you should have figured out many days ago), but still, I admire your determination.

What does constitute being in cahoots with Russia, Flighty? Sucking Putin's cock?

Also, no, Hillary is not suspected of "obtaining information from some people in Russia," she is suspected of obtaining classified information only the KGB would have, and it is furthermore suspected that there was no "ex-British secret agent" serving as go-between.

But alas it is only a suspicion, just like the suspicion that President Trump had a pee party in the Moscow Hilton. Suspicion can be damaging. Here we are in Richard Gere's twilight years, and I still think he probably likes gerbils up his ass. Also, did Rod Stewart really have his stomach pumped because he'd swallowed too much cum at a gay orgy? The world will never know.

Funny thing about suspicion though - for some people, it rolls off of them like water off a duck's back. Donald Trump is one of those people. Everyone knows he's into some shady shit, but the consensus is, whatever under-the-table dealings he might be involved in, he's doing it for America. Hillary, on the other hand, is a suspicion magnet of questionable patriotism. She lacks Trump's audacity and charisma. Many otherwise normal people want to (and did) see her fail very badly. People believe she is a murderous, lying, warmongering, globalist, elitist cunt at heart. I know of several Democrats who are repulsed by Hillary Clinton. And I don't know many Democrats.

Trump's supporters are just the opposite. We want him to win. We want him to show everyone what's what. We want a giant statue in Washington of a naked Donald Trump with a fully-erect penis.

I mean seriously, Flighty, can you imagine if Hillary had fucked a porn star then paid him off to keep his mouth shut? Hillary's supporters are just too fragile to handle something like that. But when it happened to Trump, we were all like, "Go Don!"

Point being, it's not just the crime, it's who commits it. Hillary's got nothing coming in the way of public forgiveness. Trump, on the other hand, can literally do no wrong.

Why do you think that is, Flighty? I'll tell you why it is, it's because Trump supporters care about what really matters, and Hillary supporters don't have a clue what matters.

filghy2

06-12-2018, 06:03 AM

Point being, it's not just the crime, it's who commits it. Hillary's got nothing coming in the way of public forgiveness. Trump, on the other hand, can literally do no wrong.

It's only taken 20 plus pages, but finally you've spoken a truth, at least for about 85% of your side.

filghy2

06-12-2018, 10:12 AM

You have certainly given a thorough and truthful description of the American system of democracy. But none of that matters. You, me, and everyone else in this thread sat in our living rooms and watched George W. Bush steal two elections back-to-back on national television.

Point being, it's not just the crime, it's who commits it. Hillary's got nothing coming in the way of public forgiveness. Trump, on the other hand, can literally do no wrong.

Why do you think that is, Flighty? I'll tell you why it is, it's because Trump supporters care about what really matters, and Hillary supporters don't have a clue what matters.

So, why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? Why not just establish a dictatorship so your hero can be leader for life and have his way in everything, just like the dictators he admires so much? Maybe Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping could then make a deal to divide up the rest of the world, like Hitler and Stalin did. Isn't that the logical implication of everything you've argued in this thread?

Fitzcarraldo

06-12-2018, 02:51 PM

Not sure you know how impeachment works, Fitz. Example, do you remember that Bill Clinton was impeached? For perjury and obstruction of justice? By the House, but then vindicated by the Senate. Same with Andrew Johnson. I.E., no President has ever been successfully impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. Nixon might have been the first. That's why he resigned.

On the other hand, every President ever has had a base of non-admirers optimistic about his inevitable impeachment and removal from office, despite the fact that it has never happened.

President Trump will not be impeached for treason. There will never be a presentable case for treason because the first thing the prosecution would have to prove would be that Russia is our enemy. Russia is technically not our enemy, they're just a big scary sovereign nation that yanks our chain now and then.

The full truth is that President Trump will not be impeached for anything unless the Democratic Party finds some traction in Congress (they won't). Republicans are not going to impeach a Republican President over matters of trivia. And yes, I'm saying that Russian meddling in American elections is a trivial matter. It's not as if they tampered with the ballot boxes. In the big picture, all they did was peddle some propaganda.

I can see you have high hopes, Fitz. I'm also aware that you don't listen to me, so I'm sure I'm not crushing your dreams when I tell you impeachment and removal from office will never happen.

1079394

I know how impeachment works.

MrFanti

06-12-2018, 03:06 PM

Interesting....here's one pro Trump one.
https://twitter.com/jasmine_jewels?lang=en

Stavros

06-12-2018, 04:14 PM

Interesting....here's one pro Trump one.
https://twitter.com/jasmine_jewels?lang=en

A roster of unintelligent tweets. For example, this:

Press says don't meet with Un because it legitimise him... Trump has got this!

-But the US recognizing North Korea as a separate state has been one of Kim's primary objectives because it has been denied by the US since 1953 and doing so makes it equal in status to South Korea -and anyway, only Congress can do this, and so far it hasn't been asked to do it, so technically, the US President has signed a piece of paper with the head of a state the US does not recognize exists.

As for this:

FBI Continues its stonewalling....time to dismantle FBI heads & create a real bureau using real Americans

One wonders how the Wondered Woman defines a 'real American' -could it be only the American who agrees with her?

giovanni_hotel

06-12-2018, 04:58 PM

I can' take anyone seriously who lacks the ability to look at Trump critically.

Ivanka and Jared have earned approximately $82 million while serving in Trump's administration. How is this even possible when their primary job now is serving the American people as a public servant??

filghy2

06-13-2018, 02:44 AM

Interesting....here's one pro Trump one.
https://twitter.com/jasmine_jewels?lang=en

I see she also thinks that skin cancer is not caused by too much sun exposure, which is actually good for you and helps prevent cancer. I think she's spent too much time in the sun without a hat.

But it's good to see you keeping up your perfect record of posting for only one side, Mr Independent.

Nick Danger

06-13-2018, 02:57 AM

So, why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? Why not just establish a dictatorship so your hero can be leader for life and have his way in everything, just like the dictators he admires so much? Maybe Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping could then make a deal to divide up the rest of the world, like Hitler and Stalin did. Isn't that the logical implication of everything you've argued in this thread?

I like you more and more, Flighty. Now you're getting to the heart of the matter.

I choose to answer your first question - why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? First, checks and balances. For all my talk about Trump being above the law, he actually isn't. If he did something truly dreadful, something absolutely unacceptable and unforgivable, like, I dunno, killing Barbra Streisand and skull-fucking her on Facebook Live, or sacrificing newborn babies to the Sun God on the White House lawn, he would be impeachable and removable. He'll never be able to pass a piece of legislation stating that all Americans must worship him as a god. He'll never be able to stack the Supreme Court with an invincible conservative majority...oops, sorry, maybe got that last one wrong. But in any case, democracy and the rule of law ensure that Trump has limitations. Good for you.

Second, term limits. You hate Trump. You would like to see him run out of office. That's not going to happen BUT...your life isn't over. Trump will not always be President in your lifetime. He's got you for 8 years. But no more. The ephemeral nature of the U.S. Presidency keeps hope alive for the masses, no matter which side you're on. Also, because every term comes to an end and new elections are always pending, no President can go too far without damaging either himself or his party in the next election.

Third, democracy empowers the people. Not to the extent they believe it does, but it does create the illusion of choice, even if that choice is only between two people. Frankly, most people aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote, but they can anyway, and that's what makes being American an empowering experience. No matter where you are on the economic (or intellectual) spectrum, you still get one vote, just like the gazillionaire uptown.

I can' take anyone seriously who lacks the ability to look at Trump critically.

Ivanka and Jared have earned approximately $82 million while serving in Trump's administration. How is this even possible when their primary job now is serving the American people as a public servant??

Well how 'bout this, Giovanni - I'm much more critical of Donald Trump than you'll ever be. I've been following his antics for decades, I know he's a near-pathological liar, a cheat, an egomaniac, a bully, and an insatiable pussy-hound. He's impulsive, it's an absolute miracle he hasn't been charged with a crime in his lifetime. And he's absolutely sociopathic when it comes to business, he once cheated a great uncle of mine out of tens of thousands of dollars on a plumbing contract - my uncle just couldn't afford to fight him in court, and my uncle was rich af. Trump is also mobbed up, you can't be in Manhattan real estate and not get a little mafia on you; also, to be totally forthcoming, if he did business with my great uncle, he's fucking mobbed up.

Knowing all this about the man, what I have to say is...I want that guy as President of my fucking country.

But you know, man, I get what you're saying. After all, consider how "critically" the Democratic voting base looked at Hillary Clinton - a woman who is suspected of complicity in more than 30 murders, a one-term senator and one-term Secretary of State who spent most of her time as a diplomat advocating war in the Middle East. She's totally unqualified to be President of the United States, but the Democrats (you) put her out there anyway, because...honestly, I still don't understand that, was it because she's a woman and you were hoping for the novelty vote? Not sure.

Anyway, Giovanni, the problem is not that people are not critical of Donald Trump. We know exactly what he's about, he's lived his whole life on national television. The thing is, a lot of people happen to feel that some of his worst qualities are fantastic qualities for a President.

The problem is that liberals aren't critical enough of their own thinking. All liberals really care about is that everyone be nice, right? Let's make everyone equal, give handouts to the poor, regulate the English language so that no one can ever be offended (yeah that's not Orwellian at all), safe spaces at college, destroy the rape culture, participation trophies for the losers, 10,845 possible genders and damn science. After all, we're all one big happy family.

Except of course that's a giant load of horseshit.

America's got problems. Earth is a tough planet. We need problem solvers in power, not slack-jawed idealists.

Look in the mirror, Giovanni, and ask yourself how critical you've been of your own ideas. They all seem right and proper on the surface, right? And that's as deep as you've looked.

Far as Ivanka making $82 million or whatever, good for her. Proves that capitalism works, and it works even better when your father is the fucking President.

filghy2

06-13-2018, 07:28 AM

Well how 'bout this, Giovanni - I'm much more critical of Donald Trump than you'll ever be. I've been following his antics for decades, I know he's a near-pathological liar, a cheat, an egomaniac, a bully, and an insatiable pussy-hound. He's impulsive, it's an absolute miracle he hasn't been charged with a crime in his lifetime. And he's absolutely sociopathic when it comes to business. Knowing all this about the man, what I have to say is...I want that guy as President of my fucking country.

Your posts are quite entertaining in a surreal way, though disconnected from logic or reality. Most right-wingers on this forum are unimaginative dolts who can barely put two sentences together and scurry back into their holes after a couple of posts. I have learnt not to treat this as a serious debate, but rather as a game in which I prod you to see what fantastic arguments you'll come back with.

I think you might be almost as near-pathological as Trump. Your posts are like a case study in cognitive dissonance. One side of your brain sees Trump as he really is. The other side can only see Trump as heroic leader. So you have to go through all kinds of intellectual contortions to reconcile the two sides.

Does it not occur to you that a man who consistently cheated others in business would not hesitate to stiff his supporters if it suited him. I'm not just talking about future possibilities. What happened to the tax package that was not going to favour the rich or blow out the deficit? What happened to the promise to deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost than Obamacare? What happened to the massive infrastructure program? What happened to draining the swamp?

Also, do you really think an impulsive egomaniac who never studies issues and won't listen to advice is the best person to deal with any crisis that might come up, which is probably the most important function of the President?

And the best you can come up with on Hillary is a crackpot conspiracy theory and that she was hawkish? The Clinton's are one of the most investigated couples in US history. Ken Starr spend 3 years trying to find something. Don't you think that if she'd had 30 people murdered they might have found some evidence by now? And aren't you in favour of the US throwing it's military weight around? Isn't your guy doing his best to start another Middle Eastern war?

Here's another example of cognitive dissonance. You keep telling us how well capitalism works and how we don't understand it. When a man like Trump prospers despite consistently cheating his investors, suppliers and customers is that how capitalism is supposed to work? Do you think Ivanka would be making $82m if she wasn't DJT's daughter? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Contrary to your claim that liberals never examine their ideas, I have actually come full circle in my life so far. Like most people, I started out favouring the left in my youth. Then after studying lots of economics I moved towards the right after being convinced of the benefits of the free market and lower taxes. More recently, I've moved back towards the left as I looked at the evidence and concluded that unregulated capitalism did not actually deliver the benefits it was supposed to.

Stavros

06-13-2018, 08:35 AM

To return to the core issue of the thread: in 2016 I posted the news that a well-known performer and occasional contributor to this site -TS BabeWonder- was in the audience at the Democrat Convention and that Channel 4 News in the UK had filmed her responding to questions about the campaign -clearly an articulate Democrat, where Jasmine Jewels is clearly a Republican. If it is the case that people vote in their own interests, or what they think is best for the country, it raises the obvious question: how do you determine what is best?

Quite often it does not involve any analysis of policy, but is based on the impression made by a candidate and what he or she says, but it is difficult if not impossible to then explain how two people who I assume face a similar if not precisely the same issues with regard to prejudice against transexuals, can choose opposite sides in a political campaign where neither has the best option, but where, in terms of public policy, the Republicans are clearly hostile to most if not all of the issues related to being Transgendered in the USA. But then it is clearly not in the interests of the USA to vote for someone who believes in the same concept of self-reliance as the Chairman of the Workers Party of Korea, not least as both the USA and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for all their bombastic rhetoric, are dependent for their economic survival on international trade.

We have been going through a long period of selfishness in politics, perhaps the ultimate point has been reached with a President who is open about using his office to make money for himself and his family, and who made a point of eyeing the real estate potential of North Korea as if dollar signs were revolving in his eyes as he said it. Perhaps the truth is there are selfish reasons we don't know about that motivates Jasmine Jewels, who still lives in a free society where she can choose whom to vote for. I am just a bit nervous about someone who wants the FBI to be staffed by 'real Americans' as that phrase comes loaded with assumptions, most of which are offensive in the extreme.

BostonBad

06-13-2018, 01:57 PM

Selfish people elected Obama. They want to be greedy and generous with other people's shit.

The Don isn't perfect and needs to open his eyesand his mind.

I wish he could be put on a small island an acre in size for a month or two with 100 transwomwn like Yasmin and Nina Lawless. Crates of Viagra pills could be air dropped. After a month or two of that he would value the trans cause more.

Nick Danger

06-13-2018, 02:03 PM

Your posts are quite entertaining in a surreal way, though disconnected from logic or reality. Most right-wingers on this forum are unimaginative dolts who can barely put two sentences together and scurry back into their holes after a couple of posts. I have learnt not to treat this as a serious debate, but rather as a game in which I prod you to see what fantastic arguments you'll come back with.

I think you might be almost as near-pathological as Trump. Your posts are like a case study in cognitive dissonance. One side of your brain sees Trump as he really is. The other side can only see Trump as heroic leader. So you have to go through all kinds of intellectual contortions to reconcile the two sides.

Does it not occur to you that a man who consistently cheated others in business would not hesitate to stiff his supporters if it suited him. I'm not just talking about future possibilities. What happened to the tax package that was not going to favour the rich or blow out the deficit? What happened to the promise to deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost than Obamacare? What happened to the massive infrastructure program? What happened to draining the swamp?

Also, do you really think an impulsive egomaniac who never studies issues and won't listen to advice is the best person to deal with any crisis that might come up, which is probably the most important function of the President?

And the best you can come up with on Hillary is a crackpot conspiracy theory and that she was hawkish? The Clinton's are one of the most investigated couples in US history. Ken Starr spend 3 years trying to find something. Don't you think that if she'd had 30 people murdered they might have found some evidence by now? And aren't you in favour of the US throwing it's military weight around? Isn't your guy doing his best to start another Middle Eastern war?

Here's another example of cognitive dissonance. You keep telling us how well capitalism works and how we don't understand it. When a man like Trump prospers despite consistently cheating his investors, suppliers and customers is that how capitalism is supposed to work? Do you think Ivanka would be making $82m if she wasn't DJT's daughter? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Contrary to your claim that liberals never examine their ideas, I have actually come full circle in my life so far. Like most people, I started out favouring the left in my youth. Then after studying lots of economics I moved towards the right after being convinced of the benefits of the free market and lower taxes. More recently, I've moved back towards the left as I looked at the evidence and concluded that unregulated capitalism did not actually deliver the benefits it was supposed to.

Excellent post, Flighty. I have rarely wanted to reply to a post point-by-point more than I want to reply to this one. Unfortunately I have very little time on my hands this morning, I'm busy as hell today.

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Ty Cobb was reputedly on of the world's biggest assholes, of historical magnitude. He was racist, homophobic, sexist, violent, ill-tempered, misanthropic, greedy, impulsive, and mean as hell. He was also arguably the greatest baseball player of all time.

So in spite of his loathsome personality, if you were a Detroit Tigers fan, you wanted Cobb on that field. Not only that, but if there were two outs in the bottom of the 9th and you were down by one run, you wanted him in the batter's box. Any talk of a Ty Cobb trade deal would have you in front of the stadium with a protest sign.

In 1936 he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with the highest voting percentage of all time, a record which stood until 1992. Elected, you understand, by the people who knew him best.

Point being, sometimes a man fits a job perfectly. Sometimes his terrible qualities as a human being make him that much better at that job - Cobb's spikes-first slide was the most feared in baseball.

Much like Trump's sociopathic unpredictability and hardball negotiating savvy makes him the most feared President in history. And I want him on that field, because I'm a USA fan.

I'll leave it at that because I've got to hit the shower. I respect your opinions, Flighty, and you'll have your day when the Democrats return to power in 2024.

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

Stavros

06-13-2018, 04:35 PM

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Your post illustrates the problem at the heart of US politics: it is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the USA has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the States, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the Civil War, is the extent to which Race has shaped American politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in Congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the Republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: the GOP, the TEA party faction, and the Lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that America is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' White, Christian and Male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the Blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The US economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the US economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on US imports, the US imposes tariffs on Canadian goods too, but both trade in the US dollar to the benefit of the USA so to argue the US is being stiffed by Canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an Administration backed by Repubicans that is taking rights away from Americans, not extending them, from banning Transgendered Americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the Supreme Court to allow Ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from Americans.

The US is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a Republican or Confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of Americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive ransacks the wallets of Americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the White House.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

goatman

06-13-2018, 05:03 PM

your post illustrates the problem at the heart of us politics: It is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the usa has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the states, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the civil war, is the extent to which race has shaped american politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: The gop, the tea party faction, and the lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that america is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' white, christian and male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The us economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the us economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on us imports, the us imposes tariffs on canadian goods too, but both trade in the us dollar to the benefit of the usa so to argue the us is being stiffed by canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an administration backed by repubicans that is taking rights away from americans, not extending them, from banning transgendered americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the supreme court to allow ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from americans.

The us is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a republican or confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the chief executive ransacks the wallets of americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the white house.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

this.

giovanni_hotel

06-13-2018, 08:38 PM

Excellent post, Flighty. I have rarely wanted to reply to a post point-by-point more than I want to reply to this one. Unfortunately I have very little time on my hands this morning, I'm busy as hell today.

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Ty Cobb was reputedly on of the world's biggest assholes, of historical magnitude. He was racist, homophobic, sexist, violent, ill-tempered, misanthropic, greedy, impulsive, and mean as hell. He was also arguably the greatest baseball player of all time.

So in spite of his loathsome personality, if you were a Detroit Tigers fan, you wanted Cobb on that field. Not only that, but if there were two outs in the bottom of the 9th and you were down by one run, you wanted him in the batter's box. Any talk of a Ty Cobb trade deal would have you in front of the stadium with a protest sign.

In 1936 he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with the highest voting percentage of all time, a record which stood until 1992. Elected, you understand, by the people who knew him best.

Point being, sometimes a man fits a job perfectly. Sometimes his terrible qualities as a human being make him that much better at that job - Cobb's spikes-first slide was the most feared in baseball.

Much like Trump's sociopathic unpredictability and hardball negotiating savvy makes him the most feared President in history. And I want him on that field, because I'm a USA fan.

I'll leave it at that because I've got to hit the shower. I respect your opinions, Flighty, and you'll have your day when the Democrats return to power in 2024.

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

Ty Cobb was never considered a cheater, or someone who utilized and unfair advantage to rig the game's final results. He didn't gamble against his own team, or throw games to profit his benefactors.
Cobb played by the rules. He didn't invent his own because he felt he could get away with it.

No offense, but this is a stupid analogy.

giovanni_hotel

06-13-2018, 08:52 PM

And I wish people would stop listing his ability to 'negotiate' as one of Trump's attributes.

This is Trump's own creation myth that has no basis in reality.

A great deal maker doesn't file for bankruptcy SIX TIMES in the state of NY, until he reaches the point that no major bank in the city will do business with him.

Why is it that so many Trump supporters are willing to embrace the con job from Donald Trump??

In real life, most savvy people I know would see Trump coming from a mile away and avoid him at all costs because he's so full of shit.

I understand why a segment of the population would be drawn to the entertainment value of a character like Trump.

But for people who KNOW what Trump is, why the appeal?

Why would you want this guy to serve as your POTUS?? He doesn't understand how the government or Executive branch is supposed to work, doesn't care to learn and thinks he should have unlimited power.

It's the raw arrogance of Trump that disturbs me the most.
He literally believes he's the smartest man in any room and he doesn't give a fuck about procedures or protocols.

That might work when you run a family business, not so much when you're Commander in Chief of the USA.

goatman

06-13-2018, 10:28 PM

trish

06-13-2018, 11:12 PM

David Brooks offers a theory in his most recent piece https://nyti.ms/2Mdynkt

Nick Danger

06-14-2018, 02:21 AM

Your post illustrates the problem at the heart of US politics: it is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the USA has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the States, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the Civil War, is the extent to which Race has shaped American politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in Congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the Republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: the GOP, the TEA party faction, and the Lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that America is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' White, Christian and Male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the Blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The US economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the US economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on US imports, the US imposes tariffs on Canadian goods too, but both trade in the US dollar to the benefit of the USA so to argue the US is being stiffed by Canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an Administration backed by Repubicans that is taking rights away from Americans, not extending them, from banning Transgendered Americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the Supreme Court to allow Ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from Americans.

The US is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a Republican or Confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of Americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive ransacks the wallets of Americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the White House.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

You are my favorite idealist, Stavros. The fact that you don't see yourself that way is interesting.

Government has been "organized crime" throughout history. The essential deal between government and citizens has always been:

1. Government provides economic opportunity and protection.

2. Citizens pay a percentage of their earnings to the government.

Additional parallels between government and organized crime:

If you refuse to follow orders from the Mafia, they will shoot you. If you refuse to follow orders from the government, they will shoot you.

The Mafia tells its soldiers which drugs are legal and which are illegal. The government tells its citizens which drugs are legal and which are illegal.

The Mafia decides when to go to war, and against whom. The decision makers don't do the fighting. The government decides when to go to war, and against whom. The decision makers don't do the fighting.

Mafia power struggles usually come down to two contenders. The contender with the most support gets the top job. Government power struggles usually come down to two contenders. The contender with the most support gets the top job.

The head of the Mafia is called a don. The head of the government is also called Don.

I could go on but I'm sure you see my point. The only difference in government and organized crime is this: Government demands, and receives, legitimacy from its citizens. The Mafia demands only that you do what they say or get the hell out of their way. Still, defiance of either one concludes at the business end of a gun barrel.

I mentioned before, Stavros, that I find you very intelligent and knowledgeable. But I think that sometimes your idealism allows you to buy into a world-view that's just an illusion. We're all just players in someone else's game, grasping desperately for our little piece of happiness while the whole shithouse burns down around us. There's no security. You don't have a clue what your dollar will be worth 10 years from now, or your home, or your investments. We're exhausting the planet. We're overpopulating. We're killing each other and ourselves. It's a catastrophic progression to self-annihilation.

People live in a constant fog of disinformation and fear. You talk about polarization of our political parties, but have you ever considered the possibility that is completely intentional? "Divide and conquer?" Consider this: I believe that most Americans - probably a VAST majority of Americans - would prefer a government that is fiscally conservative, but morally liberal. Let everyone do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else, but take care of the people's business conservatively and let everyone pull his own weight to the extent possible.

And you'd think, knowing what Americans want, that one of the two major political parties would adopt that platform. Doesn't happen. Ever. You vote Republican, you're voting for conservative fiscal and moral policy. You vote Democrat, you're voting for liberal fiscal and moral policy. Because the goal of government is not to ever give the people what they actually want, the goal of government is to keep the people distracted with trivialities while those in power enrich themselves to the point of becoming too big to fail. To a great extent this has already happened in the USA.

So now what? Now, we - the proletariat - just do the best we can. I happen to believe Donald Trump is the best we can do right now. He understands that certain segments of the population have been pushed too far down by the elitist power grab of the modern era. He's appealed to those segments - primarily the white lower and middle classes - and if he wants a shining legacy, he's going to have to produce something for them. He does want a shining legacy, he is capable of producing results, and he will produce something.

To the extent greatness is still possible in this hot mess of a world, Trump has the potential for it. Not because he's a great person, but because he's obligated himself to do great things, and his ego won't accept failure.

Of course he's going to get rich(er) from being President. Open corruption is the flavor now. I challenge you to name a President who never used the office to his personal advantage, even if it was only to help his friends succeed, i.e., make money. You can't, because that's just not how it works. People like you and me, we're not playing by the same rules as our elite overlords. We're not even playing the same game.

The best we can do is make sure that ourselves and our loved ones, at least, get our piece of the pie, and try to get some happiness out of it during our lifetime.

Nick Danger

06-14-2018, 02:49 AM

Ty Cobb was never considered a cheater, or someone who utilized and unfair advantage to rig the game's final results. He didn't gamble against his own team, or throw games to profit his benefactors.
Cobb played by the rules. He didn't invent his own because he felt he could get away with it.

No offense, but this is a stupid analogy.

No offense, Giovanni, but you don't know jack-shit about Ty Cobb.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-05-21/sports/8902030567_1_betting-dutch-leonard-ty-cobb

And I wish people would stop listing his ability to 'negotiate' as one of Trump's attributes.

This is Trump's own creation myth that has no basis in reality.

A great deal maker doesn't file for bankruptcy SIX TIMES in the state of NY, until he reaches the point that no major bank in the city will do business with him.

I'd like to hear some attribution of this statement, Giovanni. I believe you'd have to be a great negotiator to make billions in real estate and development - a low-down, underhanded, lying, cheating negotiator who always comes out on top somehow. And bankruptcy is nothing more than just another business strategy in the current era. So instead of simply stating a non-fact, let's hear an actual argument for "Trump is not a great negotiator."

It's the raw arrogance of Trump that disturbs me the most.

OIC. His arrogance disturbs you. Well that's certainly a good reason to vote against him, so you should continue to do so.

But your complaints sound like those of a child, Giovanni, and I say that with all due respect, not to your ideas, but to your person. I think you're one of these "visceral" voters who will never give President Trump a chance even if he brings world peace and turns every American into a millionaire. He won't do that, but my point is, you've already made your decision, and your mind is now closed on the matter. You aren't willing to accept that what he just did in China and North Korea is pretty fucking amazing, even if he only did it so he could build condos there. You aren't willing to accept that enforcing already-existent immigration policy is a good idea for Americans, and only a bad idea for people who want to come here illegally and feed off our prosperity without contributing anything. You aren't willing to give credit for Trump's personal negotiations with mega-corporations resulting in more jobs in the USA and fewer overseas. You will never see the truth, because you decided what the truth was before you even finished the book.

I think you're only interested in running the man down because he rubs you the wrong way. That's not much of a political argument.

filghy2

06-14-2018, 03:52 AM

I could go on but I'm sure you see my point. The only difference in government and organized crime is this: Government demands, and receives, legitimacy from its citizens. The Mafia demands only that you do what they say or get the hell out of their way. Still, defiance of either one concludes at the business end of a gun barrel.

He understands that certain segments of the population have been pushed too far down by the elitist power grab of the modern era. He's appealed to those segments - primarily the white lower and middle classes - and if he wants a shining legacy, he's going to have to produce something for them. He does want a shining legacy, he is capable of producing results, and he will produce something.

The essential difference between constitutional government and the mafia is that government's powers are supposed to be used in accordance with the laws passed by the people's representatives rather than the whim of the leader. That has been the whole point of constitutional development since the Magna Carta. Trump clearly doesn't accept this, which makes him closer to a mafia don.

More examples of cognitive dissonance. You know that in business Trump was a con man who reneged on promises because he knew he could generally get away with it. Yet when it comes to politics he is somehow magically transformed into a man who will keep his promises. You tell us that he is fighting for the lower and middle classes against an 'elitist power grab' while ignoring the fact that most of his policies do the exact opposite. How are Trump and his cronies not elitists grabbing power?

I think Trump has basically two skills which have been effective for getting into power but have nothing to do with governing well. First, he understands that a lot of people can be conned for a long time if you are unscrupulous enough about lying and appealing to their prejudices. As long as your continually pick fights with various scapegoats they don't like, many people will not notice that you are really picking their pockets, particularly if they are being fed a steady diet of propaganda from Fox News etc.

Second, he understands that the rules of the game actually rely on a fair degree of voluntary compliance. He saw that if you are brazen enough you can get away with ignoring the rules in ways that were previously assumed to be impossible. I think that lesson might be the true legacy of Trump.

goatman

06-14-2018, 04:22 AM

This.

goatman

06-14-2018, 04:23 AM

the essential difference between constitutional government and the mafia is that government's powers are supposed to be used in accordance with the laws passed by the people's representatives rather than the whim of the leader. That has been the whole point of constitutional development since the magna carta. Trump clearly doesn't accept this, which makes him closer to a mafia don.

More examples of cognitive dissonance. You know that in business trump was a con man who reneged on promises because he knew he could generally get away with it. Yet when it comes to politics he is somehow magically transformed into a man who will keep his promises. You tell us that he is fighting for the lower and middle classes against an 'elitist power grab' while ignoring the fact that most of his policies do the exact opposite. How are trump and his cronies not elitists grabbing power?

I think trump has basically two skills which have been effective for getting into power but have nothing to do with governing well. First, he understands that a lot of people can be conned for a long time if you are unscrupulous enough about lying and appealing to their prejudices. As long as your continually pick fights with various scapegoats they don't like, many people will not notice that you are really picking their pockets, particularly if they are being fed a steady diet of propaganda from fox news etc.

Second, he understands that the rules of the game actually rely on a fair degree of voluntary compliance. He saw that if you are brazen enough you can get away with ignoring the rules in ways that were previously assumed to be impossible. I think that lesson might be the true legacy of trump.

this.

goatman

06-14-2018, 04:28 AM

No offense, Giovanni, but you don't know jack-shit about Ty Cobb.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-05-21/sports/8902030567_1_betting-dutch-leonard-ty-cobb

I'd like to hear some attribution of this statement, Giovanni. I believe you'd have to be a great negotiator to make billions in real estate and development - a low-down, underhanded, lying, cheating negotiator who always comes out on top somehow. And bankruptcy is nothing more than just another business strategy in the current era. So instead of simply stating a non-fact, let's hear an actual argument for "Trump is not a great negotiator."

OIC. His arrogance disturbs you. Well that's certainly a good reason to vote against him, so you should continue to do so.

But your complaints sound like those of a child, Giovanni, and I say that with all due respect, not to your ideas, but to your person. I think you're one of these "visceral" voters who will never give President Trump a chance even if he brings world peace and turns every American into a millionaire. He won't do that, but my point is, you've already made your decision, and your mind is now closed on the matter. You aren't willing to accept that what he just did in China and North Korea is pretty fucking amazing, even if he only did it so he could build condos there. You aren't willing to accept that enforcing already-existent immigration policy is a good idea for Americans, and only a bad idea for people who want to come here illegally and feed off our prosperity without contributing anything. You aren't willing to give credit for Trump's personal negotiations with mega-corporations resulting in more jobs in the USA and fewer overseas. You will never see the truth, because you decided what the truth was before you even finished the book.

I think you're only interested in running the man down because he rubs you the wrong way. That's not much of a political argument.

Walter Johnson could (And DID) eat Ty Cobb's lunch in front of him...(#whythereARENTanyHighSchoolsnamedafterTyCob btomyknowledge)

Nick Danger

06-14-2018, 04:37 AM

The essential difference between constitutional government and the mafia is that government's powers are supposed to be used in accordance with the laws passed by the people's representatives rather than the whim of the leader. That has been the whole point of constitutional development since the Magna Carta. Trump clearly doesn't accept this, which makes him closer to a mafia don.

More examples of cognitive dissonance. You know that in business Trump was a con man who reneged on promises because he knew he could generally get away with it. Yet when it comes to politics he is somehow magically transformed into a man who will keep his promises. You tell us that he is fighting for the lower and middle classes against an 'elitist power grab' while ignoring the fact that most of his policies do the exact opposite. How are Trump and his cronies not elitists grabbing power?

I think Trump has basically two skills which have been effective for getting into power but have nothing to do with governing well. First, he understands that a lot of people can be conned for a long time if you are unscrupulous enough about lying and appealing to their prejudices. As long as your continually pick fights with various scapegoats they don't like, many people will not notice that you are really picking their pockets, particularly if they are being fed a steady diet of propaganda from Fox News etc.

Second, he understands that the rules of the game actually rely on a fair degree of voluntary compliance. He saw that if you are brazen enough you can get away with ignoring the rules in ways that were previously assumed to be impossible. I think that lesson might be the true legacy of Trump.

IIRC "cognitive dissonance" means holding two conflicting ideas as true simultaneously, yes?

I see your point but I don't think you see mine. Do you follow baseball, Flighty? I do. And I'm a Yankees fan, which makes me a giant asshole anywhere but New York - but I came by it honestly, my great-grandfather was a Yankees fan, my grandfather was a Yankees fan, and when I was growing up, you were simply a Yankees fan in my household or most likely food and parental comfort would have been withheld.

There's something I've learned watching the Yankees my whole life, and that is this: A person of some ability, when elevated to a grand stage, is capable of improving greatly. I've watched the Yankees bring people on-board and I'm thinking, "Why him?" Then suddenly his batting average goes through the roof, or he starts hitting twice as many home runs, or his ERA drops a full point, or his RBI's go from "retarded" to "average intelligence" when compared against the IQ scale.

Why does that happen? Because there is no higher calling in baseball than playing for the New York Yankees, simple as that. That new guy on the roster knows that this is the apex of his existence on this planet. He digs deep, finds his center of maximum effort, starts doing all the right things, and suddenly a very average ballplayer becomes a superstar. It's happened more times than I can remember, and I asked if you follow baseball because if you do, then you understand the truth of what I'm telling you.

I don't see Trump's situation being much different from that. He's spent a lifetime polishing his skills, his persona, his sales pitch. He's acquired great wealth and great experience. And now he's been called up to the big show.

All the evidence so far indicates he's reacting to the pressure by performing beyond all expectations, and you, Flighty, can continue to ignore the fact that he's doing a great job - that's what I call "cognitive dissonance" - but so far he's kept or is trying to keep every promise he made during his campaign.

Far as the wretched masses of which you and I are members, we elected him, and now he owes us. Make no mistake, Trump wants to be remembered as a GREAT President, he is purely ego-driven, and at this point in life, that means legacy-driven. To be remembered as great, he's going to have to improve the lifestyles of the poor and un-notable who elected him. He is most certainly working on just that.

The American people have never been in a better position than having a President who cares about one thing above all else - what people think of him.

filghy2

06-14-2018, 05:04 AM

I'd like to hear some attribution of this statement, Giovanni. I believe you'd have to be a great negotiator to make billions in real estate and development - a low-down, underhanded, lying, cheating negotiator who always comes out on top somehow. And bankruptcy is nothing more than just another business strategy in the current era. So instead of simply stating a non-fact, let's hear an actual argument for "Trump is not a great negotiator."

This article debunks the claim that he was a great negotiator in business. http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/donald-trump-negotiating-the-art-of-the-deal/ It's been estimated that Trump's net worth is about half what it would have been if he'd simply put his money into a stock market index fund.

Let's consider his record as President:

Exhibit A: Repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump promised to negotiate a deal that would deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deal they tried to ram through Congress with Trump's support would have increased premiums and left 32 million people without insurance. Reports indicate that his own Congressional members were unimpressed with his negotiation efforts as he had done no preparation and basically had no idea what he was talking about.

Exhibit B: the North Korean 'deal'. Nothing has actually been agreed other than some vague objectives similar to those in previous agreements that failed to deliver those objectives. North Korea has not yet committed to anything concrete. Yet Trump has been signing Kim's praises and carrying on as if peace in our time has been achieved, North Korea's nukes have been disarmed and political prisoners released.

Nick Danger

06-14-2018, 05:35 AM

This article debunks the claim that he was a great negotiator in business. http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/donald-trump-negotiating-the-art-of-the-deal/ It's been estimated that Trump's net worth is about half what it would have been if he'd simply put his money into a stock market index fund.

Let's consider his record as President:

Exhibit A: Repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump promised to negotiate a deal that would deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deal they tried to ram through Congress with Trump's support would have increased premiums and left 32 million people without insurance. Reports indicate that his own Congressional members were unimpressed with his negotiation efforts as he had done no preparation and basically had no idea what he was talking about.

Exhibit B: the North Korean 'deal'. Nothing has actually been agreed other than some vague objectives similar to those in previous agreements that failed to deliver those objectives. North Korea has not yet committed to anything concrete. Yet Trump has been signing Kim's praises and carrying on as if peace in our time has been achieved, North Korea's nukes have been disarmed and political prisoners released.

So you don't consider the meeting between Trump and Kim Jong-un to be an achievement? You don't think a deal will follow? There's no country on the planet that needs a deal with the USA more than North Korea, and there's no country that the USA will profit more by developing than North Korea. It's a win-win and it's going to happen.

It puzzles me when I see Stavros putting so much emphasis on the fact that the USA doesn't recognize North Korea as a sovereign nation. Well, how's that been working out for all parties involved? It's time to change the relationship to everyone's mutual benefit.

Also, let's be very frank about Obamacare - it is socialism. Not only is the USA not a socialist country, we recognize socialism as a natural enemy of capitalism. Could be that's a false dichotomy and there's room for both, that's above my pay-grade. Me, I'm not a family man or a healthcare voter, so I could go either way on the Obamacare issue.

I'm definitely not a person with no sympathy for poor people. But there are two kinds of poor people, the working poor, and the lazy poor. One perspective that I tend to adhere to is, everyone in the USA already has medical coverage in the form of Medicaid, which is a sub-adequate program but DOES provide healthcare to people who are unable to obtain insurance. It's not as if people have to die in the streets, they can go to a hospital, they will be treated, and Medicaid will foot the bill - if they've bothered to sign up for it. Do poor people deserve the same healthcare as me, or you - people who have worked hard and smart to get what we have? Define "deserve."

Like any other area of the economy, healthcare constantly advances because there's big money to be made in healthcare. That's the magic of capitalism. Socialize it and maybe it stagnates.

Trump is still trying to repeal the ACA. As I said, he has either kept, or is TRYING to keep every promise he made during his campaign. I feel he will eventually succeed, but it was such a hot-button issue during the election that the Republicans simply didn't put enough time or thought into their replacement plan before they went full-steam after Obamacare. It was indeed, as you say, a very shitty plan.

filghy2

06-14-2018, 06:27 AM

So you don't consider the meeting between Trump and Kim Jong-un to be an achievement? You don't think a deal will follow? There's no country on the planet that needs a deal with the USA more than North Korea, and there's no country that the USA will profit more by developing than North Korea. It's a win-win and it's going to happen.

Also, let's be very frank about Obamacare - it is socialism. Not only is the USA not a socialist country, we recognize socialism as a natural enemy of capitalism. Could be that's a false dichotomy and there's room for both, that's above my pay-grade. Me, I'm not a family man or a healthcare voter, so I could go either way on the Obamacare issue.

At best, it's a first step, but all the hard steps are still to come. Maybe Kim does want to change, but his bottom line is going to be to survive as leader and not go the way of Saddam or Gaddafi. Having nukes is the best guarantee of his survival and he knows that it's the only reason he got this meeting.

How is Obamacare socialism when doctors and insurers are all still private? Every developed capitalist country has some system of universal health cover. I think it would actually be better to have a single payer system because most of the problems with Obamacare are actually the result of the complexities involved in trying to provide universal coverage through private insurers.

There is simple stat that shows that the US health system does not work well at all. The US spends twice much on health care as a share of GDP than any other developed country. Yet it's health outcomes (eg life expectancy) are actually worse than others. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives/2017/july/mirror-mirror/

Stavros

06-14-2018, 10:46 AM

You are my favorite idealist, Stavros. The fact that you don't see yourself that way is interesting.

Of course he's going to get rich(er) from being President. Open corruption is the flavor now. I challenge you to name a President who never used the office to his personal advantage, even if it was only to help his friends succeed, i.e., make money. You can't, because that's just not how it works.

It is possible to have ideals and be a realist: every time I cite very real policy decisions that are happening now and right under your nose, you either dismiss them or claim they are of little or marginal importance. But my point about the rights being taken away from Transgendered Americans, is that they are your rights too, just as the right to vote that is being taken away from voters in North Carolina or Ohio is also your voting right. It is frankly either bizarre or offensive that you seem so disinterested in the very rights that are the foundation on which the USA rests, and without which it would be 'just another' country, whereas Americans have built an exceptional country with all of its contradictions and successes. Voting rights are real, not an ideal. The decision to serve in the military is a real choice, not an ideal persuasion. Transgendered Americans are your equals, they cannot have rights taken away that you have and remain equal, by definition, this administration considers them to be Inferior citizens, but it begs the question: are they citizens? Just as Jasmine Jewels asks of some her fellow citizens: Are they real Americans? Without telling us what a 'real American' might be.

With regard to Presidents, the distinction is between making money after a President leaves office, or making money during it and from it. The only President I can think of who has made money from the office is currently sitting in it. Even Presidents who preceded the 50-year old rule on ethics did not profit from the Presidency -unless you cite who, how and when they did. I see no record of corruption in the Presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I and II, and Clinton. Ronald Reagan put all of his assets into a Blind Trust and had no idea how they were being managed. Obama did the same and published his tax returns, and the money he made was from two books published before he was elected President.

The reason why I discuss the technicality of North Korea and the USA is because it goes to the heart of the matter, which is not North Korea's nuclear status, but the status of the Korean Peninsula. Why was there such a savage war? Because the Worker's Party of Korea -then and now- laid claim to the whole of the peninsula as the legitimate government of the first unified Korea since the Japanese annexed the territory in 1910. The war was fought geographically between north and south, but in reality was fundamentally about the choice: capitalism or communism. If you trace the money spent in the Cold War, the two frontiers where the US spent most of its money were in Central Europe and East Asia, primarily Taiwan, Japan and Korea (South). And East Asia was critical because the USA faced off with China and Russia, North Korea being viewed then as a Chinese asset.

It was fundamental to US policy not to recognize North Korea as a separate state because the US and South Korea -and in fact, North Korea too- never accepted the legitimate separation of the peninsula, and the US always believed one Korea should be capitalist just as North Korea claimed the right to rule over the whole peninsula. Do the South Koreans want to sign a treaty that in practical terms confirms there are two Koreas and that unification is therefore impossible for a generation? What in fact would a peace treaty contain? Neither the US nor North Korea have said anything about it, in fact the document signed in Singapore, while it does merely mark the beginning of talks, says little that has not been agreed to before, so that while it was indeed remarkable for the Chairman of the Worker's Party to sit down with the President of the USA, only an idealist would welcome it as a major step forward. Realists search for, and hope for, the details.

Nick Danger

06-15-2018, 02:21 AM

It is possible to have ideals and be a realist: every time I cite very real policy decisions that are happening now and right under your nose, you either dismiss them or claim they are of little or marginal importance. But my point about the rights being taken away from Transgendered Americans, is that they are your rights too, just as the right to vote that is being taken away from voters in North Carolina or Ohio is also your voting right. It is frankly either bizarre or offensive that you seem so disinterested in the very rights that are the foundation on which the USA rests, and without which it would be 'just another' country, whereas Americans have built an exceptional country with all of its contradictions and successes. Voting rights are real, not an ideal. The decision to serve in the military is a real choice, not an ideal persuasion. Transgendered Americans are your equals, they cannot have rights taken away that you have and remain equal, by definition, this administration considers them to be Inferior citizens, but it begs the question: are they citizens? Just as Jasmine Jewels asks of some her fellow citizens: Are they real Americans? Without telling us what a 'real American' might be.

With regard to Presidents, the distinction is between making money after a President leaves office, or making money during it and from it. The only President I can think of who has made money from the office is currently sitting in it. Even Presidents who preceded the 50-year old rule on ethics did not profit from the Presidency -unless you cite who, how and when they did. I see no record of corruption in the Presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I and II, and Clinton. Ronald Reagan put all of his assets into a Blind Trust and had no idea how they were being managed. Obama did the same and published his tax returns, and the money he made was from two books published before he was elected President.

The reason why I discuss the technicality of North Korea and the USA is because it goes to the heart of the matter, which is not North Korea's nuclear status, but the status of the Korean Peninsula. Why was there such a savage war? Because the Worker's Party of Korea -then and now- laid claim to the whole of the peninsula as the legitimate government of the first unified Korea since the Japanese annexed the territory in 1910. The war was fought geographically between north and south, but in reality was fundamentally about the choice: capitalism or communism. If you trace the money spent in the Cold War, the two frontiers where the US spent most of its money were in Central Europe and East Asia, primarily Taiwan, Japan and Korea (South). And East Asia was critical because the USA faced off with China and Russia, North Korea being viewed then as a Chinese asset.

It was fundamental to US policy not to recognize North Korea as a separate state because the US and South Korea -and in fact, North Korea too- never accepted the legitimate separation of the peninsula, and the US always believed one Korea should be capitalist just as North Korea claimed the right to rule over the whole peninsula. Do the South Koreans want to sign a treaty that in practical terms confirms there are two Koreas and that unification is therefore impossible for a generation? What in fact would a peace treaty contain? Neither the US nor North Korea have said anything about it, in fact the document signed in Singapore, while it does merely mark the beginning of talks, says little that has not been agreed to before, so that while it was indeed remarkable for the Chairman of the Worker's Party to sit down with the President of the USA, only an idealist would welcome it as a major step forward. Realists search for, and hope for, the details.

First of all, Stavros, no, it's not my rights we're talking about here. I have more rights than anyone, I'm an educated white male homeowner with an attorney. Trample on my rights and I own all your stuff.

But I certainly hope I haven't given the impression that I'm against transgender rights. Of course I'm not. In fact, I think my beloved t-girls should have extra rights, like, I dunno, the right to unlimited free coffee. No taxes. Complimentary ski lessons. Three votes apiece and an ice cream sundae with every purchase.

But the hard truth is that transgender rights are OBJECTIVELY not a black-and-white issue. There are a lot of peripheral issues to consider. This is a relatively new problem. Twenty years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation, because transgenders were considered fringe members of society. Now they're out in the open, and some things need to be hashed out.

Like the thing with the bathrooms. Consider a young Christian mother who takes her 3-year-old daughter to the bathroom and then has to answer the question, "Mommy, why was that lady peeing standing up?" Maybe she suddenly has to give the birds-and-bees talk a decade before she intended to. Were her rights just violated? Maybe they were. And that's enough of a reason to take a hard look at the bathroom issue. IMO, better bathrooms with private stalls would be the perfect solution, but that's expensive af. There are a lot of goddamn public restrooms in this country.

Or the military thing. Might it be detrimental to a young genetic girl in boot camp if she has to wake up next to a girl who has morning wood every day? Might she be intimidated? It could; and she might. And that's enough of a reason to raise the question of transgenders in the military.

The backlash is mostly from Christian women (a very powerful voting bloc), and a lot of it is about children. Men, we could give a fuck. "That guy's got a pussy instead of a dick? Hope he can fucking keep up!"

But you see, Stavros, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Of course transgenders are people just like anyone else. But they're people who are presenting society with an entirely new set of problems, and they're just going to have to let the political process work it out. Eventually the transgender rights issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But not today, these things take time. It bothers me that you're so intelligent but you can't seem to understand something that simple.

Speaking of which, where are you from, Stavros? I'm guessing from the fact I've seen you use "Mate" before that it's Australia. But you're definitely not from here, or you'd know how executive appointments work. All those Presidents you mentioned spent the first several weeks of their administration sitting around deciding who is going to be Secretary of the Interior; who is going to be Secretary of State; who is going to be ambassador to Israel; who is going to be the White House Press Secretary? And on and on. How many people do you think the President of the United States appoints to high-ranking positions, Stavros? I seriously would like you to take a guess before you scan ahead for the answer........................................appr oximately 4,000.

All of these jobs are very lucrative for the people who get them so guess what? Now each of those people owes the President a favor. Favors equal money. Once a man is done with the Presidency, it's time to call in those favors. That's open corruption, and every single President you rattled off there is guilty as fuck.

Not to mention that there's so much maneuvering going on behind closed doors, there's no way you can say with any assurance whatsoever that none of those people are guilty of taking outright bribes while in office. I'll tell you one thing, some of the decisions they make certainly make it seem like they must have been given some reason besides common sense to make them. And the consensus opinion of us Americans is, yeah, most likely all of our high-ranking political leaders are corrupt. It's basically just understood. If you lived here, you'd know that. So whatever Trump is doing is nothing new. If it's legal, I'm sorry, but I don't have much of a problem with it, and most Americans without the visceral-anti-Trump gene would say the same. I never expected Trump to hang up his calculator when he took office.

As for North Korea, it seems to me that South Korea stands to benefit quite a lot from a peaceful transition into recognizing North Korea and doing business with them. Whatever reason there may have been to blacklist North Korea, things have changed in the last 70 years. Obviously North Korea is going to continue to occupy that part of the peninsula, they're going to continue to be a communist nation, there's no open warfare happening that might push them off the peninsula or overthrown their government. So time to move on. The people who made all these decisions are...long dead. Donald Trump knows an opportunity when he sees one.

filghy2

06-15-2018, 02:22 AM

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

Actually, it's a combination of gangster capitalism, personality cult and white christian nationalism. It's the other two things that make the gangster capitalism possible.

Nick Danger

06-15-2018, 02:42 AM

There is simple stat that shows that the US health system does not work well at all. The US spends twice much on health care as a share of GDP than any other developed country. Yet it's health outcomes (eg life expectancy) are actually worse than others. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives/2017/july/mirror-mirror/

I'm going to have to disagree with your reasoning there, Flighty. What I said was, capitalism leads to advances in healthcare, whereas if healthcare is socialized, these advances could stagnate. Or something like that.

I was able to find some graphy things from like a decade or so ago. The numbers haven't changed much in the last 10 years, and I know you like graphy things, so here goes:

Exhibit A: a graphy thing showing that the USA publishes more biomedical research than any other country in the world - in fact we publish 40% of ALL the biomedical research in the world -

1080004

Exhibit B: another graphy thing showing that we not only publish more biomedical research, by far, than any other country, but that additionally, our research is cited more often, proportionally, than any other country's, meaning it is higher-quality and more sought-after research than the other guys...again, by far -

1080005

Now I never said our healthcare system was the finest in the world. Fact is, it's pretty damn good if you're rich, pretty damn mediocre if you're middle class, and pretty damn shitty if you're poor.

But because of the magic of capitalism, we are the driving force behind advancing healthcare on this planet. And that fact is something to consider when you're deciding whether or not to change the way we do things here.

Just saying.

filghy2

06-15-2018, 04:04 AM

Exhibit A: a graphy thing showing that the USA publishes more biomedical research than any other country in the world - in fact we publish 40% of ALL the biomedical research in the world.

That's a completely different issue. How exactly does the government helping people to get health insurance lead to less medical research? Does it occur to you that the benefits of research depend on how many people can afford to pay for the treatments?

You also seem to have missed something in your googling. The US research lead has been slipping since well before Obamacare, partly because your friends in Congress have been cutting federal research funding. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/13/376801357/u-s-funding-of-health-research-stalls-as-other-nations-rev-up

Nick Danger

06-15-2018, 05:38 AM

That's a completely different issue. How exactly does the government helping people to get health insurance lead to less medical research? Does it occur to you that the benefits of research depend on how many people can afford to pay for the treatments?

You also seem to have missed something in your googling. The US research lead has been slipping since well before Obamacare, partly because your friends in Congress have been cutting federal research funding. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/13/376801357/u-s-funding-of-health-research-stalls-as-other-nations-rev-up

You're missing the point, Flighty. I'm not trying to insult you, I know you know some stuff. But do you fully understand how a ginormous health insurance company like Blue Cross/Blue Shield does business? By insuring so many people, they get a substantial discount when they pay YOUR bill. You racked up a $20,000 hospital bill after an accident. You're covered by BC/BS. So great, you're in the clear. But BC/BS is most definitely NOT going to be paying that hospital $20,000. Every kind of treatment is different, and actual representative-to-representative negotiations happen on extremely large bills. But on average, figure Blue Cross is getting about a 30% discount on people's medical bills across-the-board.

But fine, healthcare is overpriced, fair enough, everybody still made some money.

But what about Medicaid? There's a very good reason a person on Medicaid has to go to the shittiest hospital in town - Medicaid gets more like a 90% discount when they pay a provider, because they are a government program. The provider is lucky to break even, and that's why so many providers refuse to accept Medicaid patients. There's always a hospital around that will, but usually it is a government-subsidized hospital with poor people lined up around the block to get treated by doctors in the middle of 18-hour shifts.

Now, all cards on the table, I have not read the Affordable Care Act. I don't know what it provides, I don't know what it mandates, I don't know a damn thing about it. I have private health insurance even though I haven't been to a doctor in decades. I voted for Obama, he seemed to think the ACA was a good idea, I like the guy and I'm pretty sure he's smarter than me, so I wasn't one of those people hollering "Socialism" and trying to get it stopped.

But I do know this - as soon as the government starts mandating insurance coverage for poor people, the discounts get heavy. This means less money going INTO the healthcare economy, and therefore less research being done.

Why do you think Big Pharma et al are working so hard looking for cures for this and that cancer, AIDS, the common cold, you name it? Because if they find it, it's huge money. And I'm not saying Obamacare means they can't still make big money off that kind of research. But less money. Because the honey-pot is smaller.

You take a country like Canada, with its socialized medicine, and what are they doing to cure cancer? Not jack-shit, because they don't have the money in the healthcare economy to pursue that kind of research in earnest. Google "Canadian Medical Breakthroughs" and the first thing that comes up is an article called "Eight Medical Breakthroughs Canadians Should Be Proud Of." Eight. And one of those is fucking childproof bottles. As always, they are riding on the coattails of big brother USA, and meanwhile strutting around like the cock of the walk because their citizens don't have to pay to go to the doctor.

It ain't brain surgery, Flighty, except sometimes of course. It's just simple math. Private, capitalist healthcare is the key to advancing medicine. We're bearing the burden for the smiling socialized-medicine countries of the world. If you have a 3-digit IQ, and I know you do, you certainly don't have to use much of it to figure whose back the rest of the world is riding on.

filghy2

06-15-2018, 07:41 AM

It ain't brain surgery, Flighty, except sometimes of course. It's just simple math. Private, capitalist healthcare is the key to advancing medicine. We're bearing the burden for the smiling socialized-medicine countries of the world. If you have a 3-digit IQ, and I know you do, you certainly don't have to use much of it to figure whose back the rest of the world is riding on.

Okay, let's do some simple math. You are arguing that it is worth paying more for health care because it funds more medical research. The US spends 16.6% of its GDP on health care. Canada spends 9.9% of GDP, which is about average for the other developed countries. The difference amounts to about $4,000 extra per year for every American, or about $320,000 over their lifetime.

Do you think the average American is likely to get $320,000 worth of benefits from additional medical research? As I said, they can only get these benefits if they can afford the new treatments and without Obamacare there would be 32 million more people without insurance.

filghy2

06-15-2018, 08:13 AM

Some other people have been doing simple math as well. Basically, even the entire US spending on biomedical research is only a tiny fraction of its additional medical costs, so it's a very inefficient way to subsidise research.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-06/the-world-doesn-t-mooch-off-u-s-health-care-research
https://medium.com/@david.eil/does-america-have-to-overpay-for-health-care-to-drive-innovation-8b974922d8c

Stavros

06-15-2018, 10:13 AM

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1841921]
First of all, Stavros, no, it's not my rights we're talking about here. I have more rights than anyone, I'm an educated white male homeowner with an attorney. Trample on my rights and I own all your stuff.
But I certainly hope I haven't given the impression that I'm against transgender rights. Of course I'm not. In fact, I think my beloved t-girls should have extra rights, like, I dunno, the right to unlimited free coffee. No taxes. Complimentary ski lessons. Three votes apiece and an ice cream sundae with every purchase.
--I accept you don't like the man, what I am taking issue with is the way you give the President and his party an approving pass for policies that take away rights, and do it citing the Bible as justification appearing to elevate it over and above the Constitution they have sworn to defend. It may be that in 2018 the reality is that the USA has a Christian government, even if the definition of 'Christian' is contested.

The key here is you are confusing rights with benefits. The Constitution gives every American an equal right to be a citizen, if some benefit more from others owing to their wealth or the colour of their skin which also enables them to drink more coffee, that is a different issue.

But the hard truth is that transgender rights are OBJECTIVELY not a black-and-white issue.
Like the thing with the bathrooms. Consider a young Christian mother who takes her 3-year-old daughter to the bathroom and then has to answer the question, "Mommy, why was that lady peeing standing up?"
Or the military thing. Might it be detrimental to a young genetic girl in boot camp if she has to wake up next to a girl who has morning wood every day? Might she be intimidated? It could; and she might. And that's enough of a reason to raise the question of transgenders in the military.
--Transgendered Americans have been around for as long as there has been an America, and before it too if you accept they existed among the First Nations. What has changed is the law that in the past discriminated against people of varying sexual orientation and their rights to be married, for example. You are now living in a period of history when rights are being taken away from Transgendered Americans because some religious nutcases consider them to be Inferior, even a 'threat' to their idea of the 'American Family'.
As for Bathrooms, have you not noticed there are no urinals in a women's bathroom? And here in the UK I can take you to coffee shops all over my town where there is just the one bathroom, for men, women, children, the Transgendered -whoever. Maybe the US needs to re-think this issue instead of turning it into a political football without a referee or a score

But you see, Stavros, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Of course transgenders are people just like anyone else. But they're people who are presenting society with an entirely new set of problems, and they're just going to have to let the political process work it out. Eventually the transgender rights issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But not today, these things take time. It bothers me that you're so intelligent but you can't seem to understand something that simple.
--What I can't understand is why something that has been dealt with successfully is suddenly a problem -the military found a way to incorporate Transgendered service personnel years ago, and it was working, and it did not cost a lot of money -the sudden discovery that is is a 'complex issue' is simply rubbish, what you are seeing is simple: prejudice, and the discrimination against Transgendered Americans that is central to the Republican cause, for those Republicans who believe the Bible is more important than the Constitution and for that reason would also like to ban Gay men and women from all public service -military, schools, medicine, public libraries- if they thought they could get away with it. There is a lot of hate out there, and right now it is beaming its anti-American message direct from the White House.

As for North Korea, it seems to me that South Korea stands to benefit quite a lot from a peaceful transition into recognizing North Korea and doing business with them. Donald Trump knows an opportunity when he sees one.
--The only opportunity your President sees in Korea is an opportunity to build one of his hideous buildings complete with Furnishings by Saddam. If North Korea benefits from a massive injection of 'development aid' which is what Kim is desperate for, who is going to pay for this? The US taxpayer? And where will the money go, after Kim and his mates have taken their cut?

filghy2

06-15-2018, 10:57 AM

Trump just turned 72. He also eats poorly, never exercises and has a type A personality. We can always hope.

Nick Danger

06-15-2018, 12:31 PM

Basically, even the entire US spending on

urinals in a women's bathroom

is only a tiny fraction of

its anti-American message direct from the White House.

Guys, I feel I have said all I intended to say on Donald Trump and transgender rights about a hundred posts ago. But as is the case in any internet argument, neither side is going to change its mind or anyone else's, because only I know the real truth, and only you know the real truth.

There are some valid reasons transgenders are slightly restricted in their activities in this country, and they relate primarily to the millennia-old religion via which the USA was founded, built, and still functions politically to a great extent. Some people do hate transgenders. Then again, some people hate blacks, some people hate the President, and some people hate all of mankind. The media never stops feeding the hate machine.

In any case I am closing my argument here, because I feel I am repeating myself, and maybe some other people who aren't directly involved in our conversation would like to have their own conversation here but are blocked from doing so by our enormous walls of text. So I'll just say, I have taken a few salient points from what you guys have said and internalized them. I hope you have done the same with some of mine.

1080097

dc_guy_75

06-15-2018, 02:58 PM

Trump just turned 72. He also eats poorly, never exercises and has a type A personality. We can always hope.

If Trump died in office, there would be massive celebrations in every American city (and much of the world), except Russia.

It would likely be the biggest party since the end of WWII.

We can only hope.

luvblack77

06-15-2018, 09:32 PM

Yeah Right! I am sure Fox News and Trump himself would claim that by 1945 many Jews in Germany were warming up to Hitler, and that they were sorry the Nazis lost the war.

Stavros

06-15-2018, 10:50 PM

Nick as is the case with the President's supporters doesn't have the mileage to carry on. In any case, the main question is actually simple to ask, if hard to answer. Do 'trannies' vote for the President they think will benefit them the most, or vote for the President they think will benefit the USA the most? If it is a matter of personal freedom, civic rights and employment potential, the sitting President is a threat to all three. It is too early to say if the USA will be better economically in 2020 and that within that improvement lies the improvement to the transgendered life. On balance, I would suggest that Christian bigots and the desperate need to trash Obama's legacy is bad for Transgendered Americans, but in the end, it is up to them to speak up to let us know the truth, if the truth can be firmly established.

filghy2

06-17-2018, 02:42 AM

There also were 'Jews for Hitler', apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

Yeah Right! I am sure Fox News and Trump himself would claim that by 1945 many Jews in Germany were warming up to Hitler, and that they were sorry the Nazis lost the war.

Now that the thread has come full circle it's probably a good point to bring it to a close, at least until we have something new to discuss concerning Trump and transsexuals.

natina

04-17-2023, 09:37 AM

Trump on " the Tranny cult " solution

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?112544-Trump-s-war-on-the-quot-Tranny-Cult-quot-promises

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/23/donald-trump-trans-2024/

https://transequality.org/the-discrimination-administration

Moister

04-17-2023, 11:38 AM

Also, let's be very frank about Obamacare - it is socialism. Not only is the USA not a socialist country, we recognize socialism as a natural enemy of capitalism. Could be that's a false dichotomy and there's room for both, that's above my pay-grade. Me, I'm not a family man or a healthcare voter, so I could go either way on the Obamacare issue.

Even if it was Socialism, so the fuck what? It's insanity that a person's healthcare is tied to employment. Worse, if capitalism cannot support the healthcare of the people in the country, then capitalism is a failure. People over money.

PEPE3Z

04-17-2023, 01:48 PM

Fitzcarraldo

04-17-2023, 02:26 PM

Yeah right, on the other side, North Korea, Cuba or Angola are The Paradise. Go there.

Believe it or not, socialism, communism, and fascism are all different things. Better forfeit your Social Security just to be safe, though.

Stavros

04-17-2023, 05:32 PM

Even if it was Socialism, so the fuck what? It's insanity that a person's healthcare is tied to employment. Worse, if capitalism cannot support the healthcare of the people in the country, then capitalism is a failure. People over money.

Americans need to decide if they want health care to be a public service available to all, or a commercial enterprise available to those with insurance and/or the money to pay for it. Most civilized countries consider it a public service funded by insurance, taxation or a mix of the two.

Moister

04-18-2023, 12:41 AM

Yeah right, on the other side, North Korea, Cuba or Angola are The Paradise. Go there.

You don't know the difference between Communism and Socialism.

Never go to England, Germany, France, Sweden, Japan, Israel, or any of the other countries that don't fit your agenda

fishindave

04-18-2023, 02:39 AM

comparing trump to hitler should get you permabanned for being a fucking idiot

No, it should give him a lifetime free membership to any site of his choosing for being so wise.

filghy2

04-18-2023, 02:56 AM

Yeah right, on the other side, North Korea, Cuba or Angola are The Paradise. Go there.

It seems to have escaped you attention that most civilised countries have had government-funded health cover for many decades without turning into North Korea, Cuba or Angola. Perhaps you should get out of the right-wing bubble and check out the real world.

Moister

04-18-2023, 04:25 AM

It seems to have escaped you attention that most civilised countries have had government-funded health cover for many decades without turning into North Korea, Cuba or Angola. Perhaps you should get out of the right-wing bubble and check out the real world.
:claps:claps:claps:claps

giovanni_hotel

04-18-2023, 04:28 AM

Yeah right, on the other side, North Korea, Cuba or Angola are The Paradise. Go there.

Nah, I'll just move to Europe.

Petitetrapp

05-25-2023, 12:36 AM

Universal healthcare? Does that include open borders as well or?

Discodavis

10-29-2024, 05:51 PM

Using this tread to share pictures and videos of right-wing transwomen I come across:

Sophia Hutchins

14716771471678

Discodavis

10-29-2024, 06:59 PM

Kendall Penny

14716791471680

Discodavis

10-29-2024, 08:19 PM

Blaire White

1471688

Stavros

10-29-2024, 10:21 PM

Using this tread to share pictures and videos of right-wing transwomen I come across:

Sophia Hutchins

14716771471678

Look closer, and tell me who does she look like? Yep, you guessed it. But does he know this version of Ivana Marie is not the one he lusts after?

Discodavis

10-30-2024, 12:41 AM

If I was Trump and won next month's election, I would offer Sophia an internship at the White House.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjOO64aA6RM

filghy2

10-30-2024, 01:04 AM

Look closer, and tell me who does she look like? Yep, you guessed it. But does he know this version of Ivana Marie is not the one he lusts after?

His fixation with Arnold Palmer's penis size might be telling us something.

filghy2

10-30-2024, 01:46 AM

If I was Trump and won next month's election, I would offer Sophia an internship at the White House.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjOO64aA6RM

How many times has Cailyn Jenner changed her position on Trump?

Discodavis

10-30-2024, 05:28 AM

How many times has Cailyn Jenner changed her position on Trump?

I have no idea. I'm only sharing pictures of Hutchins because she's gorgeous. I only follow European politics where I live. I have no interest in America's tribal political divide and how they make politics about keeping the other side out rather than the best person for the job. I hope one day Americans learn it doesn't have to be Democrats versus Republicans all the time.

broncofan

10-30-2024, 04:22 PM

I have no idea. I'm only sharing pictures of Hutchins because she's gorgeous. I only follow European politics where I live. I have no interest in America's tribal political divide and how they make politics about keeping the other side out rather than the best person for the job. I hope one day Americans learn it doesn't have to be Democrats versus Republicans all the time.
You don't care about American politics and just hope political tribalism disappears? What made you interested in the topic of transsexuals with Make American Great Again hats? That seems like a very specific kink.

That's also kind of a superficial take on our political system. Third party candidates in most elections don't have a viable chance of winning and there are significant differences between the policies of Democrats and Republicans. A lot of people vote not based on party loyalty but because of those differences.

filghy2

10-31-2024, 12:19 AM

You don't care about American politics and just hope political tribalism disappears? What made you interested in the topic of transsexuals with Make American Great Again hats? That seems like a very specific kink.

He's evidently a Blaire White fan

I would bend her over. If I was to have a relationship with a transwoman, she would have to be right-wing like Blaire for us to be compatible.

Luke Warm

11-05-2024, 12:09 PM

I have no interest in America's tribal political divide and how they make politics about keeping the other side out rather than the best person for the job.

Best person for the job? Trump is one of the least qualified and most incompetent presidents in American history. His main qualifications getting elected were that he is a celebrity, and a good talker. In interviews it's pretty obvious that he has absolutely no idea WTF he's talking about when it comes to policy, even after being president for 4 years. He is a joke. However, as PT Barnum once said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. MAGA marks still can't get enough. I guess it's hard to walk away when you've invested so much in all that merch... you're invested in Trump, literally and emotionally.

Paladin

11-09-2024, 08:54 PM

Believe it or not, socialism, communism, and fascism are all different things. Better forfeit your Social Security just to be safe, though.

And NONE of them are good for the ordinary citizen.

Stavros

11-20-2024, 12:19 PM

"House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) summoned reporters on Tuesday afternoon just to make sure they’re clear that he’s against transgender rights.Earlier on in the day Johnson had ducked a question at a press conference about whether Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, a Delaware Democrat who will be the first transgender member of Congress, is a man or a woman.
Johnson apparently got enough backlash from right-wingers that his office assembled reporters so he could make another statement.
“I want to make a statement and be very clear,” Johnson said during his brief second press gaggle in the Capitol. “I was asked a question and I rejected the premise because the answer is so obvious. For anybody who doesn’t know my well-established record on this issue let me be unequivocally clear: A man is a man and a woman is a woman, and a man cannot become a woman.”
Anti-trans sentiment is running high among Republicans on Capitol Hill thanks in part to Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign, which spent millions on TV ads accusing Vice President Kamala Harris of being for “they/them.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Tuesday even reportedly said in a closed-door meeting (https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/19/congress/mtg-threatens-to-fight-transgender-woman-00190344) she would “fight” any trans woman who tried to use the women’s restroom near the House floor, in what was likely a reference to McBride.
“I shouldn’t have to, but, you know, it’s pretty aggressive for biological men to be invading our spaces for women,” Greene told reporters after the meeting."
Mike Johnson Calls Extra Press Conference Just To Make Anti-Trans Statement (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mike-johnson-calls-extra-press-003928062.html)

A world in which a person is defined by Mike Johnson, or Marjorie Taylor Greene. What sort of world is that? As for individual liberty, does that still figure in the discourse of American politics?

KnightHawk 2.0

11-21-2024, 12:43 AM