Bleacher Bums Forum

General Category => Bleacher Bums Forum => Topic started by: Dave23 on May 09, 2013, 12:56:37 pm


Title: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on May 09, 2013, 12:56:37 pm
What's going on in the world today?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on May 09, 2013, 12:58:58 pm
Nothing
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 12, 2013, 10:17:07 am
Yeeeee HA!  The Cubs are going to win the WS this year!!!!

Hell has officially frozen over!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz2PLb2phcQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz2PLb2phcQ)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 15, 2013, 12:45:05 pm
Where's the spam I was supposed to remove?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ISF on May 15, 2013, 12:47:10 pm
Bears board. I think Dave may have to do it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 15, 2013, 12:49:38 pm
I removed some in a couple of our topics last night.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 17, 2013, 03:28:24 pm
I don't understand.  7 people were shot to death in Chicago this last weekend.  Impossible.  Guns are illegal in Chicago.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 28, 2013, 03:21:38 pm
That does it.  Boycott this state: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/28/world/europe/italy-politics-racism/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 18, 2013, 01:36:27 pm
Interesting interview by the Atlantic of David Boaz from the Cato Institute:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/americas-libertarian-moment/278785/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2013, 06:16:50 pm
That little traitor hiding in Russia has released the entire CIA budget, including the detailed listing of assets and programs and areas where our intelligence is lacking.

This is a perfect example of a situation where assassination would be not only justified, but desirable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2013, 07:38:12 pm
That little traitor hiding in Russia has released the entire CIA budget, including the detailed listing of assets and programs and areas where our intelligence is lacking.

This is a perfect example of a situation where assassination would be not only justified, but desirable.

You call his a traitor.

I call him one of the most important patriots of the last several decades.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2013, 07:39:36 pm
Where did you see that, Dave?  None of the major outlets are reporting it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2013, 07:48:19 pm
Oh, I see it now, but it's getting tertiary coverage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 29, 2013, 07:56:02 pm
"Patriot"? Patriots, ours or their's, usually stand for something. Stealing secrets in the name of freedom and then running away to hide in Russia, that bastion of "freedom"? 

"Patriot", nope.  How about "spineless hypocrite"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 29, 2013, 08:14:03 pm
Hmmm.  Secret papers are released and FDISK shows up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 29, 2013, 08:53:20 pm
1. I break into Curt's house and steal his laptop in the name of a "principle",
2. to keep Curt from posting nonsense on the Internet,
3. in the vain hope that millions of people will hail me as a hero when in reality only fringe elements will consider it patriotic,
4. sell the laptop to the highest bidder,
5. then instead of standing on my principles I run away,
6. And to top it all off, in the name of keeping nonsense off the Internet, I hide out in Jesbeard's house.




Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 29, 2013, 09:30:56 pm
That's an excellent plan FDISK.... I keep my shotgun right inside the front door.... even though you would never need to use it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 29, 2013, 11:20:27 pm
You feel that someone that turns over the detailed budget and budget justifications of the CIA to the enemy to be a patriot?  That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard you say.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on August 30, 2013, 12:40:13 am
That in itself speaks volumes...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 06:13:37 am
davep, I feel that someone who lets us, the American citizen and taxpayers, know what our government is doing to us and doing to others in our name and hiding from us, and does so at considerable personal risk to himself, and who does so with the intent of allowing us, the American citizens, to influence future conduct of our own government, is not only a patriot, but also a hero.

The CIA never should get a single dime without that spending aired in public.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 30, 2013, 07:35:03 am
Jes - do you believe that the Government should have military secrets?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 07:41:32 am
Damn few.

Of course time and manner and scope and targets of a military attack should be kept secret.... you know, the kind of thing Obama himself is strongly hinting at when he now speaks about Syria.

Nothing Snowden has released would come remotely close to qualifying.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 30, 2013, 12:42:37 pm
So you think that there should be SOME secrets.

Do you think that anyone with access to these secrets should be allowed to make any of them public if they don't agree that they should be secret?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 01:00:35 pm
If we are at war, which we are not, and if the secrets involve the time and manner and scope and targets of a military attack, I have no problem with classifying that information or criminally punishing someone who deliberately provided that information to the enemy for the purpose of allowing the enemy to use it against us in a pre-emptive or defensive manner.

None of that describes what Snowden did, though some of it does describe what Obama and Kerry are doing.

In a democratic society very little information about government actions, plans or expenditures, should be kept secret.

If you do not want a democratic society, then it is easy to justify keeping secret anything those running the show want to keep secret.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 30, 2013, 01:44:12 pm
The US wasn't at war when the Soviets stole the secrets for the H-bomb.

NATO wasn't at war when Philby exposed agents leading to scores of executions.

The US isn't at war with Iran, do you think our intelligence operatives and operations should be public knowledge?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 01:51:07 pm
The US isn't at war with Iran, do you think our intelligence operatives and operations should be public knowledge?

Operations, yes.  Operatives, perhaps.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 30, 2013, 02:14:47 pm
What is the value added in exposing secret operations?  What wrong are you righting?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 02:18:32 pm
FDISK, I don't quite understand the nature of a question asking about "the value added."

In a democratic nation, the idea is that the people govern and make decisions.  That can not happen in a meaningful manner if they are not at least allowed access to the information needed to make intelligent decisions.

This is a democratic republic, not a monarchy with a divine right of kings.

The idea was not that the President was our boss, but that we are the President's boss.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 30, 2013, 02:29:35 pm
Sounds great, you should make car commercials.

But you did touch on one important point, we aren't really a Democracy, are we?  We are federal republic.  Citizens don't make their own rules, they elect representatives to do it for them. Our duly elected representatives, our employees, made a decision a long time ago that it was in our best interest to have some secrets. Do you suggest that an individual is free to ignore the will of the many? To pick and choose which laws they will obey and to ignore the rest?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 02:45:18 pm
FDISK, you seem to be trying to argue over what is or is not legal.  I have never said that what Snowden did was legal.

The existence of a law does not mean the law is MORAL or that it should be observed.  You are old enough to remember the Freedom Riders of the early 1960's.  They were breaking the law.  The law was wrong.  They did exactly as you suggest no one should do -- pick and choose the laws which they will obey or ignore.  They were patriots and they were heroes.

So is Snowden.

I have not said he did not break the law.  HE has not said he did not break the law.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 30, 2013, 04:15:17 pm
Snowden didn't sit in the front of the bus. He is a thief and a profiteer who has put innocent people's lives at risk. He has harmed his country. I'm not arguing what he did was illegal. Everyone knows it was illegal. I'm arguing it was immoral.

Snowden feels it's wrong for a free nation to spy on their own people. So...as a remedy...he hides out in Russia...a place where they have never dreamed of spying on their own people.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 05:14:47 pm
Snowden feels it's wrong for a free nation to spy on their own people. So...as a remedy...he hides out in Russia...a place where they have never dreamed of spying on their own people.

You really think Snowden went to Russia as a remedy for this country spying on its own people?

Really?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 30, 2013, 09:09:42 pm
Sure, what choice did he have. It was there or Ecuador. Patriot/Hero/Martyrs must suffer a little. I'm sure the Russians can afford to pay a little better.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 10:19:10 pm
So you are backing away from your earlier suggestion that he is hiding in Russia as a "remedy" and are simply retreating to the land of smart-as$ed remarks.

Not surprising.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 30, 2013, 10:40:37 pm
The only thing I'll add to this discussion is that we're treading ground where a federal republic can begin to trip itself up: when it decides to take action upon the population without telling the population. When that happens we don't know what we're voting for. We cannot trust lawmakers because we don't know what they're doing behind closed doors. I understand that certain things need to be classified. I'm not so naïve as to suggest  there should be no government secrets. But there is a line that is crossed when certain basic liberties the general population believes it enjoys are infringed upon without their knowledge or consent. Many here are much more knowledgeable than me on this topic, but from what I've come to understand, not only has the NSA (along with other government agencies) collected data that most people would assume is off limits, some within the NSA have also taken it upon themselves to go above and beyond what is permitted to them by the FISA courts, etc. When secretive actions surpass their secretive systems of checks and balances, I think that is cause for concern. I am not justifying Snowden's actions, but in a topic so polarizing, it's easy to miss the other side of the argument.

I think Snowden has crossed the line, especially with some of his more recent leaks. If he had left it to simply showing the American population that they're surveilled quite a bit in ways that might surprise them, in ways that seem to bypass basic protections afforded by the Constitution, I think I'd be closer to jes' side of the argument. What continues to leak out though is increasingly damaging, and it's incredibly unfortunate that Snowden has decided to take it this far.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 30, 2013, 11:11:08 pm
tico, one of the problems of "simply showing the American population that they're surveilled quite a bit in ways that might surprise them," is that the government continued to lie and deny, and no pressure would have developed to do anything at all.  The thing that is incredibly unfortunate is that so many secrets exist in the first place and that the government was doing so much $hit it was lying to us about, and would STILL be lying to us about if not for Snowden.

In 1775, the terrorists were the Founding Fathers.

The real concern of the federal government is not so much foreign invasion, or even another idiot underwear bomber.

The real concern is that enough people become sick of what the federal government is doing that they internally, domestically, organize another revolution and truly throw the bums out.... and Big Brother is determined not to allow that possibility.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2013, 10:41:00 am
If we are at war, which we are not, and if the secrets involve the time and manner and scope and targets of a military attack, I have no problem with classifying that information or criminally punishing someone who deliberately provided that information to the enemy for the purpose of allowing the enemy to use it against us in a pre-emptive or defensive manner.

None of that describes what Snowden did, though some of it does describe what Obama and Kerry are doing.

In a democratic society very little information about government actions, plans or expenditures, should be kept secret.

If you do not want a democratic society, then it is easy to justify keeping secret anything those running the show want to keep secret.

So if we are NOT at war, there should be no Security Secrets?

By the way, you didn't answer my questions.  Since you agree that there should be SOME security secrets, do by believe that anyone with knowledge of them should have the legal right to publish them if he doesn't agree with keeping them secret?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2013, 10:48:36 am
If we are at war, which we are not, and if the secrets involve the time and manner and scope and targets of a military attack, I have no problem with classifying that information or criminally punishing someone who deliberately provided that information to the enemy for the purpose of allowing the enemy to use it against us in a pre-emptive or defensive manner.

None of that describes what Snowden did, though some of it does describe what Obama and Kerry are doing.

In a democratic society very little information about government actions, plans or expenditures, should be kept secret.

If you do not want a democratic society, then it is easy to justify keeping secret anything those running the show want to keep secret.

In the past, you have condescendingly reminding me that we do NOT live in a democracy - we live in a representative republic.  In a representative republic, we elect representatives who decide for us, among other things, what things are Governmental Secrets and what things should be made public.

Do you think Julius Rosenberg was justified in passing our atomic secrets to Russia, at a time when we were not at war with Russia?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2013, 12:20:07 pm
So if we are NOT at war, there should be no Security Secrets?

I can't think of any, but the question is not really relevant to the question at hand.  The question in classifying any document should not be determined based on whether there might be some situation in which a democratic government should keep something should be secret from the people who vote into and out of office those running the government, but instead whether the specific document at issue should be secret.

What we have seen time after time is that information is classified far, far to aggressively than can possibly be rationally defended.... and yet which you appear willing to defend.

By the way, you didn't answer my questions. 

If I didn't, perhaps you didn't ask them well, or they appeared too foolish to bother with, or I missed them, but arguing over whether you did or didn't ask them is counter-productive, so....

Since you agree that there should be SOME security secrets, do by believe that anyone with knowledge of them should have the legal right to publish them if he doesn't agree with keeping them secret?

Just so we keep the conversation clear, could you read that question aloud to yourself and then perhaps re-write it?  I think there may be a typo or some other error in it, and I don't want to assume what you meant, but instead to respond to a clear question.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2013, 12:34:05 pm
In the past, you have condescendingly reminding me that we do NOT live in a democracy - we live in a representative republic.  In a representative republic, we elect representatives who decide for us, among other things, what things are Governmental Secrets and what things should be made public.

There is a world of difference between accepting the concept of a representative republic making laws on general matters and deferring to those who are elected to determine what information the public will or will not have available in determining whether to leave them in office.

Do you think Julius Rosenberg was justified in passing our atomic secrets to Russia, at a time when we were not at war with Russia?

I never really thought about it before yesterday, but the question, as you have posed it, is whether he "was justified."  Without knowing everything that he knew, I won't try to second guess his justifications.  Clearly it was illegal.  It is not at all so clear as to whether the world was better or worse off as a result of his actions.  (Which amounted to sharing scientific information.... think about that for a moment.  What the nation had criminalized was the sharing of scientific information.)  The nation at the time had a number of folks with the mindset of Patton, Nixon or Joe McCarthy, and if not for Rosenberg allowing the Soviet Union to develop comparable weaponry, it is not at all hard to see the United States in the 1950's to have openly used nuclear weapons in "diplomacy" around the world, and to have vaporized at least a few more cities the way it did Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to coerce nations into compliance.

I think you may be intending to ask whether it SHOULD have been illegal for Rosenberg to have given that information to the Soviet Union.  To that I would answer no.  It should not have been.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2013, 02:55:06 pm
And that explains why libertarians so seldom (fortunately) achieve national office.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2013, 04:38:34 pm
davep, had it not been for Rosenberg, the Soviet Union still would have been able to develop nuclear weapons, and presumably would have done so... unless good war hawks like yourself had nuked them first, totally destroying their capability of doing so.  You might want to live in a world in which the United States completely dominated the globe and from time to time nuked those who offended us.  I wouldn't, and I am happy that I don't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2013, 08:54:54 pm
It is easy to win an argument (at least in your own mind) when you ascribe actions and wishes to the other side.

When have I ever said that we should nuke someone that is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapons.  Even you must realizing that giving away our secrets is not quite identical to nuking other nations when we are not at war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2013, 11:42:12 pm
It is easy to win an argument (at least in your own mind) when you ascribe actions and wishes to the other side.

When have I ever said that we should nuke someone that is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapons.  Even you must realizing that giving away our secrets is not quite identical to nuking other nations when we are not at war.

Talk about projection.

When did I say you felt "we should nuke someone that is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapons"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2013, 10:20:41 am
unless good war hawks like yourself had nuked them first, totally destroying their capability of doing so

If I have to read you posts, the least you could do is read them yourself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2013, 10:31:35 am
Reading comprehension, davep, reading comprehension.

You are a war hawk.  And those who would urge pre-emptive nuclear strikes would be war hawks.  That is not to say that YOU feel "we should nuke someone that is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapons."

X is a number.  Two numbers added together equal 8.... that is not to say that X is either of the numbers which total 8 when added together.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2013, 04:46:19 pm
If you are going to make a meaningless statement like that, Jes, you have to try to add at least a little meaning to it by defining what a "War Hawk" is, and explain why you feel I fit into your definition.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 01, 2013, 04:53:50 pm
Short lob.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2013, 09:00:14 pm
If you are going to make a meaningless statement like that, Jes, you have to try to add at least a little meaning to it by defining what a "War Hawk" is, and explain why you feel I fit into your definition.

If it is meaningless, why bother adding any meaning?

You have for several years now made clear that you have very few reservations about the use of force (i.e. war) in order to further American interests, and that you have relatively little concern about blowback from that use of force.  I consider that a war hawk, which is the way the term has been used for more than 200 years now in American history, dating back to as least the War of 1812.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2013, 09:52:27 pm
You have obviously misread my posts for the past several years.  I have never advocated the use of force to advance American Interests.

I HAVE advocated the use of force for those who threaten America and their allies.  That is quite a different thing.

But although you defended the use of the term War Hawk, you failed to define it.  Exactly what is a War Hawk.  If it is merely someone that advocates the use of force to advance American Interests, then I clearly am not one, since there are a great many American Interests that I would NOT use force to advance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2013, 10:48:41 pm
davep, whether you are or are not a war hawk, I did define it.  I referenced you, and then wrote, "I consider that a war hawk."  In other words, "that is my definition of a war hawk."

Do you need it set out for you as Webster's would?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war%20hawk
Definition of WAR HAWK
: a person who clamors for war; especially : a jingoistic American favoring war with Britain around 1812


I also referenced history, and even a specific period in history (the War of 1812.... you and Curt probably remember it).

At that time two of the more the prominent war hawks were  Henry Clay and John Calhoun.  The term has been around a long time.  Even has a wikipedia entry for it.

But a war hawk need not call for using military force to advance any and all American interests, and nothing in the definition I offered would suggest that.

Now, to try to clarify whether you are or are not, what military involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual involvement have you opposed?  When have you supported remaining long than we did and when have you supported leaving before we did?

You have made clear many times that you oppose any meaningful reduction in U.S. military bases overseas or the number of troops overseas and that you believe we need to be pretty much everywhere we are, and perhaps more.   You ridiculed Ron Paul for calling for major cuts in military spending and reducing overseas bases.  You seem to like the idea of the U.S. using force to get its way around the world, and were very upset by my suggestion that perhaps the world was made a better place by U.S. rivals having nuclear weapons to counter-balance the nuclear weapons of the only nation in the world to use them in combat.  You have before ridiculed the idea that U.S. involvement in the middle east might well result in more blowback harm to the U.S. than any benefit our level of involvement there might bring.

To me those are all rather hawkish attitudes.

Have I misread your positions?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 02, 2013, 02:43:28 pm
So your entire definition of War Hawks "have relatively little concern about blowback from that use of force."?  Then I am certainly not a War Hawk, since I have considerable concern from blowback from the use of force.  For this reason, for instance, I would not advocate a nuclear strike against a country that has the ability to strike us back with nuclear weapons.

Do you have a definition that would include ME in it, since you feel I am one?  Or are you merely trying to use an ad Hominem attack to support a weak or non-existant argument?

As far as your above statements are concerned, most are totally false.

I do not oppose any meaningful reduction in US military bases overseas or the number of troops overseas.  For instance, I think we should close down most or all bases in Europe and South  Korea.  That sounds meaningful to me.

I do not believe that we need to be pretty much everywhere we are.  As I said, we do not need to be in Europe, South Korea and several areas, and I think we can close at least half the bases in the United States.

I do NOT like the idea of the US using force to get it's way around the world, except those who are trying to do us physical harm, or support those that are trying to do us physical harm, or harbor within their borders those who are trying to do us physical harm.

I certainly do not believe that the world would be a better place by having countries that wish to harm us have nuclear weapons.  There aren't too many people insane enough to believe that.

I remember ridiculing the idea that U.S. involvement in the middle east might well result in more blowback harm to the U.S. than any benefit our level of involvement there might bring.  However, I do believe that there is no alternative than to risk it.

They may well be hawkish attitudes, but only one applies to me, and that only partially.

And yes, you have misread my positions, as you consistantly misread the opinions of almost every poster on the board.

Nor do you use consistancy when you do so.  Comparing the freedom riders of the 60s, who deliberately broke what they believed to be unjust laws and were willing to face the consequences of their acts, with a coward that releases military secrets and then flees to foreign countries to escape the consequences of his acts, buying sanctuary by giving away further secrets that do devastating harm to the us, goes beyond the bounds of logic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2013, 03:26:37 pm
So your entire definition of War Hawks "have relatively little concern about blowback from that use of force."?  Then I am certainly not a War Hawk, since I have considerable concern from blowback from the use of force.  For this reason, for instance, I would not advocate a nuclear strike against a country that has the ability to strike us back with nuclear weapons.

Do you have a definition that would include ME in it, since you feel I am one?

Yes, war hawk.

And I see your comments about your concern about blow back... and I have also read your posts here for quite some time.

Or are you merely trying to use an ad Hominem attack to support a weak or non-existant argument?

Support for what purpose?

We are not engaged in a debate with anyone keeping score, and it is not as if I am going to change your opinion or my opinion by pointing out that you are a war hawk.


I do not oppose any meaningful reduction in US military bases overseas or the number of troops overseas.  For instance, I think we should close down most or all bases in Europe and South  Korea.  That sounds meaningful to me.

I'm sure it does sound meaningful.... to you.



I do not believe that we need to be pretty much everywhere we are.  As I said, we do not need to be in Europe, South Korea and several areas, and I think we can close at least half the bases in the United States.

No, actually you said MOST or all, not all.  So is it ALL bases in Europe, and South Korea.... or MOST?  And what "several areas" are you talking about?

Much depends on perspective, and from my perspective, your positions as expressed here for years have been quite hawkisk.

I do NOT like the idea of the US using force to get it's way around the world, except those who are trying to do us physical harm, or support those that are trying to do us physical harm, or harbor within their borders those who are trying to do us physical harm.


Nice abstractions, but considering your prior posts I somehow think that when push came to shove you would come down on the side of hawkish positions.... that was why I asked a couple of questions to try to address where you actually stood, though you ignored the questions.

I will offer them again: what military involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual involvement have you opposed?  When have you supported remaining longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we did?


Quote
I certainly do not believe that the world would be a better place by having countries that wish to harm us have nuclear weapons.  There aren't too many people insane enough to believe that.

Great straw man argument, but it indicates that either YOU are now advancing a position to help in an argument when there is not debate judge and your comment certainly is not going to influence either you or me.... or you are misreading someone else's opinion.  It is not that the world would be a better place by having countries that wish to harm us have nuclear weapons.  It is instead that the world is a better place when no single nation, even one like the United States which likes to consider itself as saintly, having weaponry which would allow it to dominate the globe and run roughshod over everyone else.


Quote
I remember ridiculing the idea that U.S. involvement in the middle east might well result in more blowback harm to the U.S. than any benefit our level of involvement there might bring.  However, I do believe that there is no alternative than to risk it.

Hawks routinely talk about their concerns (John McCain is a great example), but also routinely ultimately conclude that there is no other alternative.

Quote
And yes, you have misread my positions, as you consistantly misread the opinions of almost every poster on the board.

So far you haven't offered any examples in this discussion of my misreading of your position, but simply have disagreed with my characterization of your position.

Quote
Comparing the freedom riders of the 60s, who deliberately broke what they believed to be unjust laws and were willing to face the consequences of their acts, with a coward that releases military secrets and then flees to foreign countries to escape the consequences of his acts, buying sanctuary by giving away further secrets that do devastating harm to the us, goes beyond the bounds of logic.

Apples and oranges.  The freedom riders HAD to allow themselves to be arrested, or beaten or jailed to make their point.  That was not needed for what Snowden did, and had he allowed himself to have been jailed, he would also have eliminated his opportunity to respond to the next government lie in response to his disclosures or to disclose anything else.


Quote
.... a coward that releases military secrets and then flees to foreign countries to escape the consequences of his acts, buying sanctuary by giving away further secrets that do devastating harm to the us, goes beyond the bounds of logic.

What harm to us as a nation?  The harm to us was in the form of the spying on us.   As to him "buying sanctuary by giving away further secrets," that's a nice leap of logic, but on not supported by evidence.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 02, 2013, 05:38:30 pm
You keep mentioning that I have made many posts that prove your point, but you have failed to point to a single one.

But you are right.  We are certainly not engaged in a meaningful debate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2013, 06:47:23 pm
Talk about mis-reading... nowhere did I write were were not engaged in meaningful debate.  I said there was no one SCORING a debate, and pointed out that neither of us would likely be swayed by ad hominems (your wording was "trying to use an ad Hominem attack to support a weak or non-existant argument").  That is not at all the same as saying the debate (or discussion) was not meaningful.

Of course it might be more meaningful if you would at least attempt to respond to the rather simple questions I posed, intended to flesh out just how hawkish you might be... since my reading of your posts leads me to conclude that you are, and your claim is that you are not.
 
So, for the third time now: what military involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual involvement have you opposed?  When have you supported remaining longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we did?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2013, 07:03:11 pm
You keep mentioning that I have made many posts that prove your point, but you have failed to point to a single one.

Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2011, 01:49:25 pm »
"t also doesn't mean you get to violate international law... nor does being a liberal, since Obama was the one doing the violating here."

If a foreign country protects a terrorist that has wreaked destruction in America, I could care less about criminal international law.  When Tunisia gave safe harbor to pirates, Jefferson went in after them.  It was the right thing to do.  When Cambodia gave safe harbor to the Viet Cong, we went after them.  It was the right thing to do. When Pakistan gives safe harbor to the Taliban, we go after them.  It is the right thing to do.


Do you want more?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 02, 2013, 07:53:47 pm
As I said above

I do NOT like the idea of the US using force to get it's way around the world, except those who are trying to do us physical harm, or support those that are trying to do us physical harm, or harbor within their borders those who are trying to do us physical harm.

Cambodia was giving safe harbor to the Viet Cong, who were trying to do us harm.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2013, 08:18:56 pm
No, davep, the Viet Cong were trying to conquer South Vietnam.  They were not trying to do us harm.  Had we not been there helping South Vietnam, they wouldn't have cared about us at all.  We were there trying to kill them.  They fought back.  This is a lot like much of the blowback we suffer from our activities in the middle east....

And for a fourth time: what military involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual involvement have you opposed?  When have you supported remaining longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we did?

Oh, and since we are close to your comment about my misreading of your posts, I had to laugh a few minutes ago when I ran across one of your earlier claims that I had "misread" what you had written.

Quote
Quote from: davep on May 24, 2011, 01:38:43 pm
Jes - you are once again resorting to the extreme.  I never said that there were ZERO small farmers.


Dave, here is what you wrote: But my point was that without the subsidies, the small farmers would no longer exist.

True enough that you did not say there would be "ZERO small farmers."  You just said "small farmers would no longer exist."  Excuse me if I took those to mean the same thing.


Quote from: davep on May 24, 2011, 01:38:43 pm
And I never said that a politician has to be pro-ethanol subsidy in order to win in Iowa.  Merely that announcing that you are anti-ethanol subsidy will lose more votes than it wins in Iowa.


What you wrote was Some people are indeed willing to vote for the national interests over their own narrow interests.  Unfortunately, not enough to actually win an election over those that DO vote in their own narrow interest.

Again, excuse me if I see those posts as in conflict.  You apparently are able to reconcile them.  I bow to your clearly superior command of the language, because I can't.


That is pretty common for the exchanges when you contend I "misread" what you wrote, though the problem more often appears to be that I simply read the words in context and apply standard meanings to them, even if sometimes you fail to write what you actually meant... those two examples immediately above might help to illustrate my point.  (You will find the original here: http://bbf.createaforum.com/archives/politics-religion-etc-etc/210/ )
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 02, 2013, 08:20:34 pm
 ::)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 02, 2013, 09:28:30 pm
No, davep, the Viet Cong were trying to conquer South Vietnam.  They were not trying to do us harm.  Had we not been there helping South Vietnam, they wouldn't have cared about us at all.  We were there trying to kill them.  They fought back.  This is a lot like much of the blowback we suffer from our activities in the middle east....

And for a fourth time: what military involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual involvement have you opposed?  When have you supported remaining longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we did?

Oh, and since we are close to your comment about my misreading of your posts, I had to laugh a few minutes ago when I ran across one of your earlier claims that I had "misread" what you had written.

That is pretty common for the exchanges when you contend I "misread" what you wrote, though the problem more often appears to be that I simply read the words in context and apply standard meanings to them, even if sometimes you fail to write what you actually meant... those two examples immediately above might help to illustrate my point.  (You will find the original here: http://bbf.createaforum.com/archives/politics-religion-etc-etc/210/ )
 

Don't be an idiot.  The Viet Cong were trying to harm our troops.  We sent them there, and they are us.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2013, 09:50:52 pm
davep, we sent our troops to their home.  Not surprisingly, they did not welcome us.  Had they landed in the U.S. and begun shooting at us, I would agree with your position.  They did not.

We can not put our troops all over the world and then act surprised when locals who do not want them there shoot at them.  The Viet Cong did not give a damn about our troops, other than the degree to which they interfered with what they were trying to do in their own homeland.

But the real thrust of my last post was to ask you the question which was set off in boldface to make it easier for you to see.  It was the fourth time I asked it in an effort to try to determine how much or how little of a war hawk you might be.  For the fourth time you have chosen not to answer.

It would appear that you don't really want to discuss whether you actually are a war hawk, but simply want to assert you are not and let it go at that.

That being the case I am left with my impression, and feel quite comfortable I have been right from the start, and you have yours, but there appears to be little more to discuss on the issue.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 03, 2013, 10:07:30 am
If you were to keep your posts to a reasonable length, you would get more answers for those towards the bottom.

what military involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual involvement have you opposed?  When have you supported remaining longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we did?

I was strongly against fighting in Viet Nam, but once there, felt that we should have put the necessary assets into it to end it and go home.  I was never in favor of just giving up without winning, once entered.

I thought that going into Greneda was silly.

I was too young to have a view on Korea, but if I had, I would again have been against it, but once there,

would have fought to win.

I was against going into Lybia, and am against going into Syria.

I would have gone into Iraq, and would have remained as an occupying force for approximately the same length of time as in Germany and Japan, building democracy from the bottom up as we did there.

The same applies to Afghanistan.

I have been against almost all limited actions.  We should not put soldiers in harm way unless we plan to put enough resources to win.

I would not use nuclear weapons against a country that had no nuclear weapons.  But I would certainly use all other force to prevent an avowed enemy like Iran to get them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 03, 2013, 01:20:02 pm
If you were to keep your posts to a reasonable length, you would get more answers for those towards the bottom.

Bold face at the conclusion of a post is not enough?  And 7 lines exceeds a reasonable length?


I was strongly against fighting in Viet Nam, but once there, felt that we should have put the necessary assets into it to end it and go home.  I was never in favor of just giving up without winning, once entered.

Hawkish.

I thought that going into Greneda was silly.

One of the few uses of force I would agree with -- very limited in scope, for the purpose of protecting American life, short in duration, little risk of collateral damage or actual collateral damage, easily justifiable on what amounted to self-defense grounds.

I was against going into Lybia, and am against going into Syria.

.... because?

I have been against almost all limited actions.  We should not put soldiers in harm way unless we plan to put enough resources to win.

Again, a rather hawkish attitude, much like McCain, not a real opposition to using force, but instead an inclination to use a very heavy hand when using force, an inclination to use more force, not less.


I would not use nuclear weapons against a country that had no nuclear weapons.  But I would certainly use all other force to prevent an avowed enemy like Iran to get them.

Is my memory wrong, or have I mis-read your prior posts, or have you not in the past strongly supported Truman's decision to use nuclear weapons to vaporize a couple of hundred thousand civilians in a "country that had no nuclear weapons"?


But I would certainly use all other force to prevent an avowed enemy like Iran to get them.

You seem to miss the irony in Iran being an avowed enemy as a result of our involvement in removing the pre-Shaw government, installing the Shaw, and then propping up the Shaw and his oppressive regime.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 11, 2013, 11:05:11 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slkg_wnHFS8
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 11, 2013, 04:41:04 pm
Has the Nobel Committee ever asked for a return of the Peace Prize?  Just wondering.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on September 12, 2013, 12:03:18 am
What did he win it for?... Oh yeah, absolutely nothing. Shouldn't be too hard to take it back, then.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 12, 2013, 11:21:49 am
They should have just given it to George W Bush for stopping being US president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2013, 11:38:25 am
They should have just given it to George W Bush for stopping being US president.

Look at the Obama presidency... there is a strong argument to be made that the Bush presidency never did stop.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 12, 2013, 11:40:45 am
They should have just given it to George W Bush for stopping being US president.
That would have been equally ridiculous.

Who was the last American to really deserve one?  Dennis Rodman?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on September 12, 2013, 12:03:57 pm
That would have been equally ridiculous.

Who was the last American to really deserve one?  Dennis Rodman?

This lady who won in 1997 helped lead an effort to ban and clear up land mines.  That sounds pretty deserving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Williams)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 12, 2013, 01:10:00 pm
What, JR, are you suggesting that Al Gore was undeserving?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on September 12, 2013, 11:21:04 pm
They should have just given it to George W Bush for stopping being US president.

Sorry, but there's not as big a difference between Bush and Obama as you'd like to pretend. All the major stuff that Obama campaigned against Bush on... can you tell me what's changed?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 13, 2013, 10:13:39 am
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.  Roosevelt was antiwar.  Nixon campaigned on ending the war. 

Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 13, 2013, 11:30:37 am
I just think that's how much the Nobel committee and the international community hated George Bush.  If we hadn't just had eight years of George Bush, there's no way Obama wins the Nobel.  I don't agree with it; I'm just calling it how I see it.

Along those lines, Obama has been very different in my mind.  George Bush and friends manufactured a war against Iraq where there shouldn't have been one.  Again, the vast public sentiment against strikes in Syria is largely because of the war weariness stemming from Iraq.  Obama didn't cowboy up and attack Syria.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2013, 01:41:21 pm
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.  Roosevelt was antiwar.  Nixon campaigned on ending the war. 

Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.
Bull.

Wilson and FDR both WANTED to enter into the war, and Nixon could have ended it at virtually any time on virtually the same terms he DID end it on, which is to say the U.S. simply cutting and running.

None of those three in any way support your contention that, "Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things."

What in the world was accomplished by Nixon remaining in Vietnam as long as he did, other than killing another 35-40K U.S. troops, probably more than another quarter million Southeast Asians, helping Pol Pot come to power and ****ing billions down a rathole?

Staying did not help the South Vietnamese, and the videos of our final evacuation show that we were literally turning and running.

FDR was in no way antiwar, though the nation was, and Wilson merely mouthed promises of staying out of war in order to get re-elected.

It was not that "responsibility" changed their views.  It was simply that they lied to the voters to get re-elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on September 13, 2013, 05:05:16 pm
I just think that's how much the Nobel committee and the international community hated George Bush.  If we hadn't just had eight years of George Bush, there's no way Obama wins the Nobel.  I don't agree with it; I'm just calling it how I see it.

Along those lines, Obama has been very different in my mind.  George Bush and friends manufactured a war against Iraq where there shouldn't have been one.  Again, the vast public sentiment against strikes in Syria is largely because of the war weariness stemming from Iraq.  Obama didn't cowboy up and attack Syria.

I'd suggest you either haven't been following the Syrian narrative very closely or your blinders are on waaaaaaay too tight here.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 13, 2013, 07:27:03 pm
Blinders?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on September 13, 2013, 08:45:26 pm
Obama has tried his darndest to "cowboy up" and attack Syria, after painting himself into a corner with his shortsighted "red line" chest beating. He has since rather absurdly tried to walk back those comments after finding himself completely alone and unable to lead anyone over to his side of the line. For all his intentions of attacking Syria, he has even less constitutional grounds to authorize force than Bush did in Iraq. As a result, he has requested the permission of Congress to attack Syria and there is a vote pending on the floor in which he will come up short. 

While Obama has been pressuring members of Congress to vote in his favor, his own Secretary of State torpedoes the plan with an ad lib, screw-the-playbook compromise proposal that Russia has immediately seized upon and is in the process if forcing down the Administration's throat. Putin is bullying the US to do his bidding via the UN, and Obama is about to be strung up by the "red line" of his own creation while showing himself to be incapable of leading members of his own party and staff, let alone the international community, who are instead rallying around the great peacemaker Vladimir Putin.

It's amateur hour in the foreign policy comedy club. But you go ahead and blame Bush.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 13, 2013, 09:03:21 pm
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1240403_657225910955706_1268426740_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 13, 2013, 09:08:34 pm
Nothing I said is countered by what you just said unless you are equating Iraq and Syria, which is just nutty.  I didn't say anything about Obama doing well on foreign policy or Syria.  If anything, Obama backed himself into a corner on attacking Syria with the whole red line comment.  I do maintain that pre-Iraq, public opinion on a limited strike against a hated dictator who had used chemical weapons against his own people wouldn't have been anything like what it is today.

It sounds to me like you're miffed that I dissed George Bush.  Yes, I do blame Bush for the disaster that was Iraq and for generally being a crappy president.

Having said that, I'll get the hell out of this topic. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on September 13, 2013, 10:39:23 pm
What was the US response when Saddam gassed the Kurds? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2013, 12:14:58 am
I see no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war when they were first elected.  Can you cite any?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2013, 10:05:15 am
What was the US response when Saddam gassed the Kurds? 

Relative silence.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2013, 03:24:58 pm
I see no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war when they were first elected.  Can you cite any?

I see no relevance to the issue you raise, that being what their views were in November of 1912 and November of 1932, respectively.

The issue was whether the circumstances and realities they learned of after their last election before they pushed for war became some new "responsibility (causing them to) take a more realistic view of things" and to support entry into war when before that election (of 1916 for Wilson and of 1940 for FDR) they had been "antiwar."

Both them campaigned with promises to keep the U.S. out of war, while planning to do the exact opposite, just as Nixon campaigned on a promise of having a plan to end the war in Vietnam (he never called in a "secret plan".... he just refused to ever explain what the plan was), when in fact his plan was to continue the war and escalate it.

Less than a year before Pearl Harbor FDR asked his advisers to tell him what would need to be done to force Japan into a position in which it would initiate war with the U.S. and provide a justification for the U.S. to enter the war... and then he did exactly what they advised.

The idea that those three were pacifists and were only forced to change course by the realities of the world is a bit bizarre.  The justifications commonly cited for Wilson in April of 1917 calling for the U.S. to enter WWII are the following:

1) Sinking of the Lusitania;
2) Germany's attempts to get Mexico to join the Axis;
3) Germany's announced plans to use submarines to sink any vessels supplying the Allies;
4) That Germany had spies in the U.S. spying on what we were doing.

To deal with those, in order:
1) A German sub sunk the Lusitania sunk in May of  1915, so that was certainly well known before the 1916 election.  The Lusitania was also carrying war munitions to England and it was at the time within what was the declared "zone of war."
2) Germany's efforts to get Mexico to join the Axis powers -- the fact that one nation in a war should try to get other nations to join it should come as no surprise to anyone.  In all likelihood both the Axis powers and the Allies at different times before then had tried to get the U.S. to join them in the war.  In fact the way the U.S. learned of Germany's effort to recruit Mexico was itself in an effort by England to get the U.S. to join the Allies.  Granted this issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the cable exchange the English intercepted between Germany and Mexico included the Germans trying to persuade Mexico to invade the U.S. if the U.S. joined the Allies, there was a massive IF in there, and if Mexico had joined the Axis and the U.S. did join the Allies, a state of would would have automatically existed between them the two nations.... AND Mexico clearly rejected the proposal (a proposal which itself made clear the desire of keeping the U.S. neutral in the war).
3) Germany's intention of sinking ships supplying the nations it was at war with is pretty routine in war.  I believe the United States did the same when it blockaded naval ports serving the Confederacy in the Civil War.
4) Spies.... the presence of spies as a basis for going to war?  Really?

None of those constitute real changes of anything meaningful after the 1916 election.

So with Nixon, FDR and Wilson, the best evidence of what they intended to do when the elections is not anything they said, but what they actually did right after they won the election before they took (or in Nixon's case continued) the U.S. to war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2013, 04:39:45 pm
You seem to be agreeing with my position.  You have given absolutely no evidence that when they campaigned in 1932 and 1916 that they were in favor of going to war for any of the reasons mentioned, or for any others.  But once they assumed the responsibility, their pacifism disappeared, just as has that of Obama, and every other President we have ever had.

Did they lie during their campaigns and hide their "real" intentions?  Probably.  But nothing you say gives any proof thereof.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2013, 05:28:00 pm
davep, what a person says, particularly what a politician running for office says, often discloses very little to nothing about their real intentions.  What they DO, however, generally discloses a great deal.  If you genuinely consider what I pointed out to constitute no proof, that discloses a good deal about you.

As to your comment that that "once they assumed the responsibility" of governing, "their pacifism disappeared" ignores (and I would guess deliberately) what I have now pointed out at least twice now.  Let me run it by you a third time so you can again pretend not to see it.

FDR's position when he ran in 1932 and Wilson's position in 1912 (when they ran for the presidency initially) is irrelevant to the discussion.  The relevant question is the position they ran on in the election immediately before they called for the nation to go to war.  In other words we are talking about the 1916 election for Wilson, when he ran on a campaign which centered on, "He kept us out of war," and the 1940 election for FDR, when he promised to keep the U.S. out of WW II.  At the time FDR was campaigning on that promise he was having his adviser prepare him a memo outlining what he would have to do to bait the Japanese into attacking the U.S. in order to provide justification for the U.S. to enter WW II.... and then he followed that advice.

With neither FDR nor Wilson can you contend that they lacked the responsibility of the presidency when they were running on the promise of staying out of war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 14, 2013, 08:34:10 pm
I agree that what they DO discloses their actual current intentions.

But what they DO does not reveal what their PAST intentions were.

Even you must realize that people sometimes change their minds when confronted with information and responsibility that they did not previously have.

Obama is certainly not a pacifist NOW.  Nor were Wilson and FDR when they entered into war.  That is not proof that they were lying when they previously said they were.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 14, 2013, 08:56:27 pm
You continue to ignore the fact that when he was campaigning in 1940, FDR directed his advisers to tell him what he needed to do to provoke Japan to initiate war, and then did exactly that.  And while it is entirely possible for someone to change his mind, I also ran through the reasons given for Wilson supposedly changed his... and for wach of them pointed out how the claim made no sense.  What is left when the reasons are dismissed as nonsense is that he lied.  I also notice that you don't even bother making any effort to defend Nixon or pretend that that sorry piece of sh!t was doing anything other than lying in the '68 campaign about having a plan to get the U.S. out of Vietnam.

You asked me for evidence that they were lying.... what evidence is there that any of them was being truthful?  They were pandering to voters they needed to win elections, and each very quickly acted in ways directly contrary to what they had told voters, voters they absolutely had to have in order to win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on September 14, 2013, 10:26:43 pm
"It sounds to me like you're miffed that I dissed George Bush."

I have no problem with the idea that you disapprove of Bush's presidency. I'm miffed by your connection of Bush to the current Syrian mess. Syria is one giant Obama screw up; bringing up Bush as a means of distracting from that fact is classic liberal knee-jerk nonsense. Thus the blinders comment. You asked me to flesh out that idea, so I did. You want to talk about the Iraq war, great. You want to talk about Syria, great. They're separate things, and I'm not the one who attempted to compare them. You did.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 16, 2013, 12:32:50 pm
You continue to ignore the fact that when he was campaigning in 1940, FDR directed his advisers to tell him what he needed to do to provoke Japan to initiate war, and then did exactly that.  And while it is entirely possible for someone to change his mind, I also ran through the reasons given for Wilson supposedly changed his... and for wach of them pointed out how the claim made no sense.  What is left when the reasons are dismissed as nonsense is that he lied.  I also notice that you don't even bother making any effort to defend Nixon or pretend that that sorry piece of sh!t was doing anything other than lying in the '68 campaign about having a plan to get the U.S. out of Vietnam.

You asked me for evidence that they were lying.... what evidence is there that any of them was being truthful?  They were pandering to voters they needed to win elections, and each very quickly acted in ways directly contrary to what they had told voters, voters they absolutely had to have in order to win.

You continue to ignore the fact that I have acknowledged that presidents can change their mind when situations change.  Is there any evidence that FDR was a hawk, to use your term, previous to his election in 1932?

You say that the reasons that Wilson gave made no sense, but that is your opinion only.  And like all presidents, he could easily have lied about the true reasons.  Once again, do you have any evidence that Wilson was a hawk before assuming the responsibilities of the presidency?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 16, 2013, 12:52:48 pm
FDR's position in 1932 is irrelevant.  War was not even an issue in the campaign.  His position in 1940 is the relevant one, and in 1940 he RAN on the promise of keeping the U.S. out of war, at the very time he was asking his advisers what he needed to do to provoke Japan to attacking first and giving him the justification for entering.

On Wilson, are you really going to suggest that the sinking of the Lusitania, in 1915, a year and a half before Wilson won re-election on the assurance of keeping the U.S. out of WW I, DID make sense as a reason to enter the war in April of 1917?  The others are similar -- the reasons make no sense.  But, again, even with Wilson, it is not a question of what his position was when initially ran in 1912 -- war was on no one's horizon at that time.  His campaign position in 1916 is relevant, and he ran as a peace candidate, and then promptly move to enter the war, citing reasons which simply make no sense.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 16, 2013, 02:44:40 pm
I have no idea what caused Wilson to enter the war.  But the decisions of a man who bears responsibility are often different than a man who can indulge his principles in a vacuum.  I have no reason to believe that Wilson lied when he said that he wanted to keep the country out of war, although I admit the possibility.

But possibility is not proof.

I have heard it said that Wilson believed that the only way to ensure world peace was to create a world government, and the only way to do that was to form a united nations, and the only practical way to do that would be to have a "War to End All Wars".

I think that is idiocy, but then, most pacifists are idiots.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 16, 2013, 06:32:01 pm
davep, let's try to quickly run through something.  Simple yes/no questions, though certainly you could explain why you answered that way if you would like.

Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW II?

Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?

And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW I?

Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 16, 2013, 07:32:09 pm
Jes - you need to read my posts.  I never said anything about FDR being a pacifist in 1940.  He did not seem to be by that time.  What I said was that he seemed to be a pacifist BEFORE he took office in 1933.  So your first two questions are meaningless to the discussion.

Similarly, your next two questions are meaningless to the discussion, since what I said was that Wilson seemed to be a pacifist before he entered office in 1913.

It would be helpful if you stuck to the original argument.

By the way, even if I believed both of them to be liars during their original campaign, that would not prove anything.  So I ask you again.  Do you have any evidence that either FDR or Wilson were NOT pacifists prior to taking office.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 16, 2013, 07:59:18 pm
Jes - you need to read my posts.  I never said anything about FDR being a pacifist in 1940.  He did not seem to be by that time.  What I said was that he seemed to be a pacifist BEFORE he took office in 1933.  So your first two questions are meaningless to the discussion.

Similarly, your next two questions are meaningless to the discussion, since what I said was that Wilson seemed to be a pacifist before he entered office in 1913.

It would be helpful if you stuck to the original argument.

By the way, even if I believed both of them to be liars during their original campaign, that would not prove anything.  So I ask you again.  Do you have any evidence that either FDR or Wilson were NOT pacifists prior to taking office.

davep, I have read your posts, and have repeatedly pointed out that your reference to the original campaigns is irrelevant.  In the original campaigns war was not even an issue, and that is why my first response addressed the campaigns which were relevant to your position -- 1916 and 1932.

This was your original post in the thread:
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.  Roosevelt was antiwar.  Nixon campaigned on ending the war. 

Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.

Wilson was not a pacifist in 1912, because the issue simply did not come up in 1912, and FDR was similarly not "antiwar" in 1932, because there was no war for him to oppose.  The pacifism and anti-war positions they took were in 1916 and 1940, respectively, when both of them were lying through their teeth to voters in order to remain in office.

So, to try to actually advance the discussion, let me ask again, simple yes/no questions, though certainly you could explain why you answered that way if you would like.

Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW II?

Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?

And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW I?

Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 16, 2013, 08:19:17 pm
My original statement was that "Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things."

Nothing you have said or posted refutes that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 16, 2013, 08:53:42 pm
davep, neither Wilson nor FDR were making ANY comments about war or peace before they first took office.  Their comments came in re-election campaigns, well after they had "the responsibility," and when they were simply lying.

Now, I have not been trying to "refute" what you have posted, but instead to have a discussion with you -- refuting what someone has written is not always required.  The questions I posed were intended to help clarify your position and to advance the discussion.

Once more,  simple yes/no questions, though certainly you could explain why you answered that way if you would like.

Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW II?

Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?

And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW I?

Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 20, 2013, 12:48:52 pm
I believe that Wilson and FDR lied, as all politicians do, when they campaigned.

It is my contention that they changed their minds when circumstances changes.  It is your contention that they always had those beliefs.  I see no evidence that you are right, and you advance no evidence to support your contention.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 20, 2013, 04:07:45 pm
I believe that Wilson and FDR lied, as all politicians do, when they campaigned.

It is my contention that they changed their minds when circumstances changes.  It is your contention that they always had those beliefs.  I see no evidence that you are right, and you advance no evidence to support your contention.

davep, I have really tried to have this exchange as an actual discussion, explaining my belief and trying to understand yours, and then discussing them, and that is one of the reasons I have at least three times now asked you the following (and I am asking them again now by repeating them):
simple yes/no questions, though certainly you could explain why you answered that way if you would like.

Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW II?

Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?

And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the U.S. out of WW I?

Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?


But, since you don't seem much interested in a real discussion, I will engage here in some of the typical political exchange, starting by asking you to point to where it is that I have ever (here or anywhere else, anytime ever) contended that FDR or Wilson held any particular belief regarding the use of military force when they initially ran for the presidency (I would have to have presented such a position for there to be any truth in your claim that it is my "contention that they always had those beliefs").

Despite your claim that it is my "contention that they always had those beliefs," if you had ever followed your own admonition for more careful reading of what is being responded to, you would have noticed that the only election positions I have addressed for either Wilson or FDR are the positions in the elections immediately before they asked Congress to declared war.   In Wilson's case that was less than six months earlier, and nothing had really changed.  In FDR's case it was 13 months later and the only thing to have changed was what he had deliberated taken steps to provoke.

You contend that is no evidence and, instead of contending that they MIGHT have changed their minds, and simply saying you are unwilling to go so far as to conclude they lied, you offer the conclusion that "they changed their minds when circumstances change[d]," but you offer no evidence to support that conclusion.  I understand that you reject the evidence I offered leading to my conclusion, but you have presented an alternate conclusion, have asserted it no less positively than I have mine, and do not even offer evidence to support it, distort my position to such a degree that it would seem you are doing so deliberately, and repeatedly refer to the evidence I present as "no evidence" instead of simply saying you are unpersuaded by it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 20, 2013, 11:35:26 pm
This is silly.  You refuse to stick to the original discussion, while accusing me of that.

It is my opinion that Wilson and FDR changed their minds when faced with a changing situation.  It is your opinion that they did not.  I do not submit evidence to support my position, other than to say that it seems more reasonable than the alternatives.  You do not submit evidence to support your position, other than to say that it is more reasonable to you than the alternatives.

There does't seem to be much to discuss, so you are probably right when you say that I am not much interested in your idea of a discussion.  If you refuse to respond to my posts, and instead ask questions that are irrelevant to the discussion, it is probably time to give it up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 21, 2013, 12:19:55 pm
This is silly.  You refuse to stick to the original discussion, while accusing me of that.

This is why things get tedious....

The following, from you, is the first post to reference Wilson or FDR:
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.  Roosevelt was antiwar.  Nixon campaigned on ending the war.  Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.
[/color]

No one previously had mentioned Wilson, FDR or Nixon.  Your post quoted no one, but did immediately follow a comment from Tico about how Obama's presidency in many regards was a continuation of the Bush presidency:
Sorry, but there's not as big a difference between Bush and Obama as you'd like to pretend. All the major stuff that Obama campaigned against Bush on... can you tell me what's changed?

Now, let's look again at what you wrote:
  Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.  Roosevelt was antiwar.  Nixon campaigned on ending the war.  Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.
[/color]

War was not an issue at all in the 1912 election, nor in the FDR elections of 1932 or 1936.  The only elections for either of them where they were "anti-war" or "pacifists" was the election immediately before they asked Congress to declare war.  THAT is what I have focused on in every post.  You now contend that I "refuse to stick to the original discussion."  Could you cut and paste any quote any language from me in this exchange where I have done that?   Now, while I did focus my initial comments entirely on the elections when each of the presidents you mentioned did campaign as anti-war (the elections of 1916, 1940 and 1968) and the year or in Nixon's case the years immediately after that election, YOU came back with your second comment in the exchange saying you saw "
no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war when they were first elected,
" and asking if I could cite any.  Knowing that you are prone to typos, but generally think straight, I continued to focus my response on the elections when FDR and Wilson actually took campaign positions on war and peace and not to the utterly irrelevant elections of 1912 and 1932, and I also made clear what I was doing and why.

While I would still like to see your reference to why I was straying off topic, the only way YOU were staying ON topic was if in your original post you actually were referencing the elections of 1912 and 1932.... in which case you were utterly wrong about Wilson running as a "pacifist" and FDR as "anti-war" and your entire comment was nonsense.

I will let you sort out which it was.  Forgive me for assuming you actually knew what you were talking about and were making sense but had made what amounted to a typo if in fact you did not know what you were talking about and were not making what amounted to a typo.


It is my opinion that Wilson and FDR changed their minds when faced with a changing situation.  It is your opinion that they did not.  I do not submit evidence to support my position, other than to say that it seems more reasonable than the alternatives.  You do not submit evidence to support your position, other than to say that it is more reasonable to you than the alternatives.

Excuse me, but I DID submit evidence that each changed their positions from the ones they campaigned on in the relevant elections, the elections less than a year before they asked Congress to declare war.  Their positions in 1912 and 1932 are both irrelevant and unknown, at neither time was war even an issue.


There does't seem to be much to discuss, so you are probably right when you say that I am not much interested in your idea of a discussion.  If you refuse to respond to my posts, and instead ask questions that are irrelevant to the discussion, it is probably time to give it up.

You want to discuss a change in their positions from 1912 and 1932?

REALLY?

Let's start by offering anything from 1912 or 1932 to establish their positions in those years.

I have responded to your original post in the only form in which it offered a modicum of sense, applying your contention to the elections of 1916 and 1940 when each did make their war and peace positions central to their campaigns.  Actually applying your contention to the years of 1912 and 1932 makes no sense whatsoever, though I will be very happy to look at anything you can find which suggests otherwise, that either of them actually ran as a "pacifist" or "anti-war" candidate in their initial campaigns as presidential candidates, the campaigns when they were elected to office.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: buff on December 30, 2013, 08:42:43 am
Im rebuilding so if anyone has interest in josh hamilton or jose bautista make me an offer
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 30, 2013, 09:15:51 am
I pray this will work out for you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 30, 2013, 09:23:22 am
Josh is going into politics and Jose is becoming a priest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 30, 2013, 10:26:10 am
Isn't Jose the current Pope?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 30, 2013, 12:10:19 pm
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis the current pope was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on April 05, 2014, 02:39:43 pm
I haven't done much digging into this, but I just read an article on Politico on Michael Lewis's new book "Flash Boys" about high frequency traders manipulating the stock market.  I wonder if that might bring some scrutiny to TD Ameritrade or not.  Some very quick web searches on Michael Lewis and Ameritrade bring up a couple of articles that doing a very quick scan of them don't seem to be too flattering to TD Ameritrade.

It might not lead to much, but the Ricketts family might have some more issues to deal with besides Wrigley expansion and the rooftop owners.

http://www.ibtimes.com/michael-lewis-flash-boys-exposes-shady-world-dark-pools-some-funds-have-already-pulled-out-1564881

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/31/speed-reading-michael-lewis-s-flash-boys.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on April 07, 2014, 06:25:28 pm
It might not lead to much, but the Ricketts family might have some more issues to deal with besides Wrigley expansion and the rooftop owners.

http://www.ibtimes.com/michael-lewis-flash-boys-exposes-shady-world-dark-pools-some-funds-have-already-pulled-out-1564881

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/31/speed-reading-michael-lewis-s-flash-boys.html

And that is just one of the reasons owners hire General Managers... another being that the folks hired as GM's generally know a heck of a lot more about baseball and running a franchise than the owners who hire them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on April 11, 2014, 01:56:43 pm
I must be reading it wrong.  What does dark pool trading have to do with the Ricketts family.  Was it mentioned in either article?  I probably missed it, but I am not going to read it twice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on April 11, 2014, 02:28:33 pm
The Ricketts haven't been running the day to day operations of TD Ameritrade since 1999, well before the high frequency stuff started.  They've been on the board, but I doubt the board would have been getting briefed on something like this.  The only way it would hurt the Ricketts family is if the stocked dropped.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 04, 2014, 08:47:35 pm
The Cubs have the State of Nebraska behind them now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/pete-ricketts-nebraska-gubernatorial-race_n_5917218.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 04, 2014, 09:03:27 pm
FWIW, Pete Ricketts will be the next governor of Nebraska.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 04, 2014, 10:42:04 pm
Ricketts was the next governor when the primary was over.  Agent Cooper, wherever he went, his buddies mom lost the her Senate seat as well.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 10:22:27 am
Sullivan declared the winner in Alaska.  Louisiana is the last one standing until January 6.  Democrats have already withdrawn the money allocated for the runoff, realizing it is a lost cause.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 12, 2014, 03:01:07 pm
Which one was Sullivan?  R or D?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 12, 2014, 03:03:26 pm
Take a wild guess.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 03:10:05 pm
He is the 53rd Republican Senator.  On January 6, there will be 54.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 12, 2014, 04:36:51 pm
You mean December 6?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 05:17:06 pm
Yes.  Georgia would have been January 6, if they had one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 12, 2014, 05:28:31 pm
Manchin from WV will be number 55 from the looks of things.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 06:12:14 pm
The rumors are that he is in negotiations with McConnell right now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 12, 2014, 06:32:58 pm
Interesting
  He must believe that the republicans will hold the Senate a long time.   If not he'll be shunned.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 06:34:00 pm
Is his first name Strom?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2014, 06:35:37 pm
I have been wondering whether there might be a couple of Democrats who cross the aisle.  Manchin would certainly be a logical first one to do so.  Not sure who else might even consider following.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 06:38:32 pm
Harry Reid will come over if they promise to make him the majority leader.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2014, 07:33:35 pm
Harry Reid will come over if they promise to make him the majority leader.

If Reid were the 60th vote, I would hope McConnell had the sense to step down and encourage the Republican caucus to vote for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 12, 2014, 07:36:51 pm
You don't need 60 votes to get nothing done.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2014, 09:26:10 pm
If Reid were the 60th vote, I would hope McConnell had the sense to step down and encourage the Republican caucus to vote for him.

So you think that if he switches parties, he would switch actions?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 13, 2014, 04:40:08 am
I think Harry Reid should switch careers.  Maybe get into the dam building business.  He's pretty adept at holding things up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2014, 05:31:02 am
So you think that if he switches parties, he would switch actions?

Reid has not been single-handedly forcing his will upon either the Senate or the nation.  His actions are generally reflected the will of his caucus, and if it did not, his caucus would replace him.  The same would be true if he were leading the Republican caucus.

I am not for a moment suggesting this would happen, but merely pointing out that it could, and that if Reid truly simply craves power, as many of his critics contend, it actually would work, and he would just as eagerly carry out the bidding of his new caucus as he has done with his current caucus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2014, 10:00:54 am
Harry Reid COULD switch parties and actually act like a conservative.

Or, Harry Reid COULD retain power by convincing Cruz, Paul, Rubio and half a dozen others to become Democrats.

Baez COULD hit .400 with 65 home runs next year.

Lots of things COULD happen.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2014, 05:25:14 pm
Harry Reid will come over if they promise to make him the majority leader.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2014, 07:29:58 pm
Sorry.  I thought you understood the concept of sarcasm.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 14, 2014, 03:37:47 am
I do.  I also did at the time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 14, 2014, 06:52:08 am
That answer proves your point.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 24, 2014, 08:46:07 pm
If you act crazy and then act like youre gonna pull a gun on a cop youre gonna get killed regardless of color.

Period end of story.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 24, 2014, 09:56:53 pm
Corey is growing up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 20, 2014, 01:33:43 pm
When I saw the first trailers for "The Interview" I thought it was in bad taste.  Too often we make bad taste a freedom of speech issue.  That said, we should drop a million dvd's of it on North Korea.

Actually, I think Sony hacked themselves so they wouldn't have to release it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 20, 2014, 01:37:55 pm
It looked to be a mediocre movie with mediocre revenue.  BUT now...it will be a monster hit when it is finally released.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on December 20, 2014, 01:49:01 pm
When I saw the first trailers for "The Interview" I thought it was in bad taste.  Too often we make bad taste a freedom of speech issue.  That said, we should drop a million dvd's of it on North Korea.

Actually, I think Sony hacked themselves so they wouldn't have to release it.

Yes... because DVD players are ubiquitous in north korea...

They should release the movie at all movie theaters... will end up being the largest gross for a movie in a weekend... I think Americans would show up in force just on principle.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 20, 2014, 01:53:23 pm
Yes... because DVD players are ubiquitous in north korea...

They should release the movie at all movie theaters... will end up being the largest gross for a movie in a weekend... I think Americans would show up in force just on principle.
Okay, drop DVD players too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 20, 2014, 01:57:35 pm
Releasing it currently in theaters doesn't seem to be an option for Sony.  Most theaters are refusing to show it.

The best thing they could do is release it on line for free.  That would punish North Korea, but might be extremely costly for Sony.  I have seen reports that if they do that, they will get no compensation from their insurance (assuming they have insurance for that sort of thing, which sounds reasonable).

Failing that, if they release it on DVD, they would probably still show a profit for it, or at least mitigate their losses.

By the way, Sony's only action right now is that they cancelled the December roll out at theaters.  They could still do any or all of the above.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 20, 2014, 02:06:53 pm
I think Sony will end up making money on the movie.  Kim Jong-un is temporary.

Someone told me that Geraldo was going to North Korea to interview Kim Jong-un. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 20, 2014, 02:17:50 pm
Releasing it currently in theaters doesn't seem to be an option for Sony.  Most theaters are refusing to show it.

The best thing they could do is release it on line for free.  That would punish North Korea, but might be extremely costly for Sony.  I have seen reports that if they do that, they will get no compensation from their insurance (assuming they have insurance for that sort of thing, which sounds reasonable).

Failing that, if they release it on DVD, they would probably still show a profit for it, or at least mitigate their losses.

By the way, Sony's only action right now is that they cancelled the December roll out at theaters.  They could still do any or all of the above.
Other experts are saying that Sony is worried about what else got stolen and will be released if they proceed to distribute.

BTW: I thought several celebrities were right to point out that even if North Korea did the hacking, it was the American media that published the embarrassing private emails.  We're our own worst enemy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 20, 2014, 02:34:35 pm
I thought several celebrities were right to point out that even if North Korea did the hacking, it was the American media that published the embarrassing private emails.  We're our own worst enemy.

Why should media outlets not have published the embarrassing private emails?  The news media is not the agent of Sony.  It has no duty of loyalty to Sony.  No fiduciary duty toward Sony, and even if you are of the opinion that all news outlets in this country have some patriotic duty toward the nation as a whole or toward the people in the nation, this mess did not hurt the country or the nation as a whole or the people in it.  It hurt Sony.  It certainly raises concerns about what the hackers might do next or might do or how they MIGHT hurt the nation as a whole or the people in it, but THIS mess did not do that, nor did the publishing of the embarrassing private emails.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 21, 2014, 04:59:23 pm
There is no legal or fiduciary in this situation, but there certainly was a moral duty.  The news networks were trafficking in stolen property, which they knew at the time was stolen.

This was not leaks about our government, which could be construed to be in the public interest to make known, but strictly private property that was none of the public's business.

But media failing in their ethical duties is hardly news, and is in itself none of the Government's business.  Doesn't change the fact that the media was acting in an unethical manner.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 21, 2014, 05:39:14 pm
There is no legal or fiduciary in this situation, but there certainly was a moral duty.  The news networks were trafficking in stolen property, which they knew at the time was stolen.

This was not leaks about our government, which could be construed to be in the public interest to make known, but strictly private property that was none of the public's business.

But media failing in their ethical duties is hardly news, and is in itself none of the Government's business.  Doesn't change the fact that the media was acting in an unethical manner.
Poor taste, poor judgement, poor logic, poor morals, whatever you call it, if they hadn't been published, North Korea loses.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 21, 2014, 05:40:23 pm
BTW, yesterday North Korea said we were trying to frame them.  Today they say even worse is coming.  LOL  "Did you see my client's face when he stole your purse?"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 21, 2014, 08:23:16 pm
[quo ie author=davep link=topic=96.msg205254#msg205254 date=1419202763]
There is no legal or fiduciary in this situation, but there certainly was a moral duty.  The news networks were trafficking in stolen property, which they knew at the time was stolen.  This was not leaks about our government, which could be construed to be in the public interest to make known, but strictly private property that was none of the public's business.  But media failing in their ethical duties is hardly news, and is in itself none of the Government's business.  Doesn't change the fact that the media was acting in an unethical manner.
[/quote]

Trafficking in stolen property?

Really?

If so, in the case of websites, TV stations or radio, to whom did they sell it?

Traffinking in stolen property is an incredible stretch.  They paid no one for it, and sold it to no one.  If THAT were to be considered "trafficking in stolen property," then any virtuall time the news media obtains any confidential information and discloses it, without the consent of all involved, they would be trafficking in stolen property.  That interpretation would pretty much eliminate news.

You consider the news media to have been acting in an unethical manner.  You would be very hard pressed to find anyone in news, anyone who actually addresses such issues on a regular basis and thinks about them, who would agree with you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 21, 2014, 08:45:40 pm
I would be amazed if anyone in the news field agreed with me.  That says more about those in the news field than it does about my statement.

The media knew that the emails were stolen.  Yet they publicized them to get readership and listenership, which results in income to them.  That is certainly trafficking in stolen property.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 21, 2014, 09:07:53 pm
Then if you listened to or read any of the stories, you were equally guilty of being in possession of stolen property, and of engaging in a conspiracy to traffick.  And if you did NOT listen to or read any of the contents, then you aren't really in a position to comment because you at the very least would not know whether there was a legitimate public interest in any of them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 21, 2014, 10:48:18 pm
Cute, but silly, on a par with many of your posts.  While watching the news, they do not warn you of everything they are going to say.  Even you know that.  Nor did I profit from the information.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 21, 2014, 11:28:00 pm
There is no requirement that a person profit from being in possession of stolen property for the crime to be committed, nor is there any requirement that one participating in a criminal conspiracy profit in any manner.

As to my comment being cute but silly, yours was only the latter.

Your idea that the news media reporting what had been stolen, and in the case of virtually every news outlet other than the first one disclosing the content simply repeating what had already been disclosed and which by that disclosure ceased to be confidential, sort of defines silly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 22, 2014, 08:57:14 am
Ethics is hardly a silly subject.  And unethical actions are hardly silly actions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 22, 2014, 06:50:29 pm
Ethics is hardly a silly subject.  And unethical actions are hardly silly actions.

Agreed.

You simply do not know what is or is not ethical in news.  Your comments on this issue rather clearly establish that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 22, 2014, 07:12:07 pm
Funny thing.   Norh Korea is experiencing severe internert problems at this time.  Fascinating
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 07, 2015, 01:09:12 pm
Clearly France needs gun control
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: wmljohn on January 07, 2015, 02:21:47 pm
Ummmm... Wow.  This topic has either been dead or something fishy is going on...

Quote
Jes Beard
Hero Member
Posts: 7933

Re: Politics, Religion, etc.

« Reply #156 on: December 22, 2014, 07:50:29 pm »


Quote from: davep on December 22, 2014, 09:57:14 am

Ethics is hardly a silly subject.  And unethical actions are hardly silly actions.

Agreed.

You simply do not know what is or is not ethical in news.  Your comments on this issue rather clearly establish that.



Report to moderator   74.193.25.75 (?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CurtOne
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 11455

Re: Politics, Religion, etc.

« Reply #157 on: December 22, 2014, 08:12:07 pm »


Funny thing.   Norh Korea is experiencing severe internert problems at this time.  Fascinating

Report to moderator   75.132.234.230 (?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CurtOne
Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 11455

Re: Politics, Religion, etc.

« Reply #158 on: Today at 02:09:12 pm »


Clearly France needs gun control
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 07, 2015, 02:23:00 pm
I think we need more BEERFAN posts about President Obama.  That's what the topic is missing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 07, 2015, 02:27:02 pm
Obama is toast
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 11, 2015, 03:26:57 pm
Interesting.  A guy on MSNBC is saying that the shooter in the French Grocery store was an African American that was born in France.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 11, 2015, 04:02:30 pm
"an African American that was born in France."

It was MSNBC.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: wmljohn on January 12, 2015, 11:18:30 am
Quote
an African American that was born in France.

I guess you could be an African American born in France if your parents are U.S. Citizens.  It would be cool to be a French African American with the duel citizenship though.  I would insist that everyone call me a French African American.  I think the law is if you are born in France you have to wait till you are 18 years of age to apply for duel citizenship.  Until then you are American.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 12, 2015, 01:46:07 pm
It is quite possible to be an African American born in France if your parents were US Citizens.  However, this gentleman's parents were born in Senegal, and were not American Citizens.

Not only was it poor reporting, but it also shows a rather odd mindset that conflates Americans with African ancestry with every black person outside of Africa regardless of location.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 12, 2015, 05:20:31 pm
.... an African American that was born in France.

So far the comments have only been on the nationality/race issue.

There is another problem, too, one which is actually more serious, and which goes hand in hand with the racial prism by which MSNBC views the world: ".... an African American that was born in France.

Unless the reference was to a dog or some other NON-human, "that" was the wrong pronoun.  Of course, liberals such as MSNBC can be given a pass since it could not possibly indicate racism on the part of good liberals....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 12, 2015, 08:36:28 pm
That may have been my error rather than that of MSNBC.  I know I have said in the past that I have a grandfather that was born in Holland.  Certainly was poor English, but to be honest, I meant no disrespect to my grandfather or his race and didn't mean to imply that he wasn't a human being.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on January 12, 2015, 09:47:35 pm
I have a border collie that insists he is a who.

Has anyone noticed Fox "News" isn't on Dishnet any more? Evidently it is a contract thing. Probably, and unfortunately, temporary.

I notice that Fox is paying for advertisement on Dishnet channels featuring Blowhard Bill claiming Dishnet is "censoring the news".   I find that sort of humorous on couple levels.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 12, 2015, 02:18:49 pm
Headline in ABC News feature:

Fresh Offensive, Hezbollah Troops Fast Approaching Israeli Border From Syrian Side

And the first sentence (my emphasis):  "Bolstered by the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah and its patrons in Tehran, the Syrian Army continued its rapid advance into southern Syria today, inching closer to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights"

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 26, 2015, 11:20:00 pm
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12566473/man-accused-punching-ex-st-louis-cardinal-curt-ford-telling-go-back-ferguson

This is sad.  I spent time with Curt Ford a few summers ago in Springfield when he was managing the wood bat college summer league team.  He's a class act and all the kids on the team who happened to be white, showed nothing but respect for him and became better ball players.  Sorry to see this.  Even if he was a Cardinal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on April 08, 2015, 02:27:27 pm
Mitt Romney kicked butt on his NCAA tournament bracket.

http://games.espn.go.com/tournament-challenge-bracket/2015/en/entry?entryID=11705084
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on May 02, 2015, 05:09:29 pm
Anyone know how bail works?  Specifically, one of the accused policemen in Baltimore has been left out on 350 thousand dollar bail.  Does he get that money back when he shows up in court?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on May 02, 2015, 05:25:42 pm
Most of it.  I think the bondsman keeps a percentage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on May 02, 2015, 07:17:30 pm
Does the Government keep any of it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: AndyMacFAIL on May 03, 2015, 12:46:53 am
Anyone know how bail works?  Specifically, one of the accused policemen in Baltimore has been left out on 350 thousand dollar bail.  Does he get that money back when he shows up in court?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_bondsman

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 08:05:32 am
Not sure what wikipedia says, but the process varies from state to state, but in general it is as follows:

1) If the accused uses a bail bondsman, he gets NOTHING back of what he pays to the bondsman, who is not giving anything to the courts UNLESS the defenant fails to appear in court.  At that time the bondsman is given a period of time to produce the defendant before the court or the bondsman is required to pay to the court the entire amount of the bond.  This is consistent with the entire idea of bond -- that it is not intended to punish, but merely to assure the defendant shows up fr trial.  Generally bondsman reguire the defenant to pay them (the bondsmen) 10% of the amount the court set for the bond in order for the bondsman to make the bond.  Sometimes, for any variety of reasons, a bondsman might make a bond without being paid anything (or agreeing to take considerably less than 10%) and other times a bondsman might require more, or might require some further security in case the defendant fails to show (though this practice is generally frowned on by courts, sometimes is prohibitted by statute, and can result in a court removing a bondsmna or bonding company from the approved list of bondman).  The bonding company is essentially an insurance company, insuring that the defendant appear in court when required.
2) If the accused uses a cash bond, the accused deposits the money with the clerk of the court and gets every cent back if he appears in court at all times as required.  If he fails to appear, the court keeps the money.
3) If the accused uses a property bond, the accused executes what amount to conditional deeds to the court clerk for real estate appraised at a value as great as or greater than the bond amount, and he gets it back if he appears.  If he fails to appear, he, or the foolish relative or friend to put up their home, loses the property to the court.

The bonding system is subject to considerable abuse, and some jurisdictions are trying to get rid of it.  The abuses include courts of requiring bonding companies to pay up when a defendant fails to appear, bondsmen being given what amount to police powers (and sometimes more) when going to get a defendant to appear in court (sometimes after the bonding company failed to inform the defendant of a court date); and a cozy relationship between bonding companies and judges such that some judges consistently set bonds far higher than appropriate in order to enrich the bonding companies.... who often are the largest contributors to judicial campaign funds.

Frequently decent judges will set lower bond amounts for cash or property, or will set lower bonds if the defendant has hired private counsel since that is taken as an indication the defendant is more likely to appear in court as required.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on May 03, 2015, 10:54:21 am
Thanks, Andy and Jes.

The problem with the process is obvious.  Take, for example, the policeman that has a bail of 350,000 dollars.  Since he is not likely to have that much cash or even that much property, he must come up with about 35,000 dollars of his own money, which he does not get back.  I suppose I won't feel sorry for him if he is convicted, but it seems a miscarriage of justice for him (or her, don't know which) to lose 35,000 dollars even though being not guilty of the charges.

It seems to me that the Government should reimburse those found not guilty for out of pocket costs of bail.  Even more than the grand jury system, it might discourage the government to indict people if their case is questionable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 11:48:58 am
A couple of points for you to consider, davep --

1) In THIS case it is unlikely that any of the six cops actually had to put up anything for their bond.  Just as bonding companies court favor of the judges with campaign contributions, often they do favors for other folks in making bond (I had a bondsman twice bond ME out of jail at no charge when I had no cash on me to make bond and had to either wait until morning when I could have someone bring cash or wait until a court appearance and an O.R. bond), and in the case of police officers bonding companies will sometimes curry favor with police by either making their bonds without payment (or assurance of payment) or with a heavily compromised charge.  And more importantly fellow officers would almost certainly have quickly rallied together to put up property bonds so no one lost anything -- three modest homes would be more than enough to cover a $350K bond, and it would be very surprising if there were not that many officers owning their homes free and clear in Baltimore and eager to help their brother in blue.

2) That is frequently NOT true for schmucks like Freddie Gray who get arrested, often on utterly bullshit charges, such as the bogus "switchblade knife" charge the officers in this case filed against Gray.  Those folks, freguently poor and with no one in their family or among their close friends owning real estate or having mush cash themselves, frequently are unable to make even relatively modest bonds of perhaps $5,000, and when they have to await trial in jail, often knowing it will be a year or more before they go to trial on a charge when they might face a maximum of 11 months and 29 days in jail if they were convicted, did not get probation and served every last day in custody (something very unusual, and on misdemenor charges in many jurisdictions those convicted of misdemenors serve no more than 50% of their sentence even if they are a repeat offender), you have tremendous coercive pressure on pervectly innocent defendants to plead guilty at a preliminary hearing or initial appearance or a status conference when he comes to court and learns that if he just pleads guilty right then and there he will be immediately released, though remain on probation.  This is the way a great many poor folks in general, and poor, black, inner-city kids in particular, end up with ugly criminal records, often without actually even engaging in the behavior for which they were charged and pled guilty.

My understanding is that in the Freddy Gray case, he had at least 18 arrests between 2007 and 2015 (and since he was only 25, that would have only been his ADULT arrest record, with his record before age 18 likely sealed and unavailable, but also likely to have reflected even more arrests):
    March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
    March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
    January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
    January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
    December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
    December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
    August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
    January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
    September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
    April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
    July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
    March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
    March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
    February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
    August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
    August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
    August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
    July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)   
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/30/freddie-gray-arrest-record-criminal-history-rap-sheet
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/freddiegray.asp

With that many arrests, and as little time as he served in prison as a result of them, there are some reasonable conclusions:
A) He likely was arrested multiple times on utterly bullshit charges where there was little to no evidence and the prosecution ended up unable to prove its case, the kind of thing which frequently happens when cops make utterly unwarranted arrests;
B) He likely spent a fair amount of unwelcome, and undeserved, time sitting in jail waiting for cases to get before judges who dismissed them after a minimal review of the evidence;
C) He ended up spending a significant sum of money paying bondsmen;
D) It is perfectly reasonable that he would run from police if he saw them, even if he was doing nothing at all wrong at the time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on May 03, 2015, 12:32:26 pm
Whether or not Fredie was right or wrong, and whether or not the charged police are guilty or innocent, the fact remains that the Government can cause a great amount of damage by charging an innocent person, even when they are not convicted.  I think we should do the same thing her as we should in civil cases.

In civil cases, the loser should pay reasonable court costs.  In criminal cases, the Government that fails to win a conviction should make the person whole.

Not to the point where the Government should foot the bill for million dollar lawyers.  But certainly bail costs.  If he posts bail and then the charges are dropped or he is not convicted, any out of pocket costs should be reimbursed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 12:55:09 pm
In civil cases, the loser should pay reasonable court costs.  In criminal cases, the Government that fails to win a conviction should make the person whole.

I am not disagreeing with your position on reimbursement of bond costs, and would even extend it to reasonable reimburcement of legal costs, even when they would be large sums, but the difference between civil and criminal cases is not just the burden of proof, but also that in civil cases the party being forced to pay a judgment actually feels it and therefore has an actual incentive not to bring unwarranted actions, while in criminal cases government is not known for similar sensitivity to cost concerns.  There is no difference to believe it would make the slightest difference in the number of bad arrests made or bogus charges or the number of times prosecuting attornies pursued to trial cases they should never have allowed to appear in court for an initial appearance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on May 03, 2015, 01:15:11 pm
I don't agree.  I believe that if the town/state (perhaps not federal) had to budget for repaying money in those cases, there would be substantial pressure not to arrest without at a reasonable chance of prosecution.

But that isn't the point.  Whether it reduces false arrests or not, at least it would mean the arrestee would be made whole for out of pocket bail money.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on May 03, 2015, 01:34:49 pm
I don't agree.  I believe that if the town/state (perhaps not federal) had to budget for repaying money in those cases, there would be substantial pressure not to arrest without at a reasonable chance of prosecution.

Considering the lack of sensitivity government generally has to cost concerns, why would it exist here?  It simply would be a demand for greater revenue, not for any increased responsibility.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 06, 2015, 08:07:02 am
Clearly the Chicago city flag is causing mindless violence.  Ban it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 25, 2015, 01:09:53 pm
Freedom of speech.  Freedom to misspeak.  Freedom to apologize.  Freedom to make an ass of oneself.  ESPN has released Cowherd, in spite of his profuse apologies.  Of course, he was leaving this month anyhow.  The WWE has fired Hulk Hogan in spite of his prolific apologies.  Of course, Donald Trump lost some business for his idiot remarks, but he didn't apologize.  Over the last ten years or so we've seen a large number of politicians, tv personalities, Hollywood actors who've made gaffs and are pilloried.  Seems to me we will soon have nothing but commentators who are so milk toasty because they're afraid something they say might offend an Amish Eskimo albino that all they give us are shots of Bartman trying to catch a foul ball.  Give it a break.  Accept apologies.  I'm willing to bet all of us have said something in our lives about a race, a culture, a lifestyle that we wish we could obliterate.  Social media and THE media have made it all but impossible to hide all our transgressions.

I hope the suppression of the freedom of expression doesn't make us all a boring stewpot.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on July 25, 2015, 01:20:26 pm
Some people have even said bad things about the Dutch Race.  But those of us in the master race merely consider the source and make excuses for their idiocy.

Just out of curiosity, what did Cowherd say?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 25, 2015, 01:22:31 pm
He was quoting some stats about undereducated ball players.  It's at that link I posted yesterday on that other topic.  Go to espn.com, you'll find it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 25, 2015, 01:22:59 pm
And, every thing I've ever said about Dutchbags is true.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on July 25, 2015, 10:51:20 pm
Is he the one that was talking about DR players?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 25, 2015, 11:15:30 pm
yes
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on July 25, 2015, 11:44:49 pm
Why did he apologize?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 01, 2015, 08:00:25 am
It's almost enough to turn me into a Sox fan:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/walker-5-million-cubs-family-ricketts/index.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 01, 2015, 09:03:50 am
Odd.  Almost makes me more interested in Walker.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 01, 2015, 09:24:22 am
Odd.  Almost makes me more interested in Walker.

That, and the fact that otto hates him, are so far about the only things that have interested me in Walker.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 01, 2015, 11:03:59 am
The fact that he took on the Government Employees Union and mostly won was enough to win my support.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 01, 2015, 11:10:08 am
Yeah...he takes on a liberal special interest union using conservative special interest PAC money. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 01, 2015, 11:15:34 am
Exactly.  Might as well at least even things up a little bit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 01, 2015, 11:22:33 am
Agree.  But it's not like Walker gets St. George status for trying to slay a dragon.  Special interest isn't special.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 01, 2015, 11:30:53 am
That is why I didn't use the term special interest.  Some special interests are bad for the country.  Some special interests are good for the country.  Most are both at different times, or at best neutral.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 01, 2015, 11:32:05 am
Same could be said for your average teacher's union.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 01, 2015, 03:17:22 pm
True.  And, of course, the average political contributor.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 01, 2015, 04:05:15 pm
I wish I was "Rickett's Average".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 01, 2015, 05:02:05 pm
Sorry.  I wasn't going to say anything, but sometimes unions don't really represent.  Yes, many teachers in Wisconsin opposed Walker, but I know a number who supported him.  About 15 years ago, the teachers union in Minnesota would only support abortion choice candidates in spite of a poll among it's members that was more than 72% opposed  such a policy.  Didn't matter.  Here in Illinois, Rauner is facing the same thing.  Since I lived in Springfield, I had a number of friends in the state government.  They were forced to support Democrats.  They were also forced to work overtime, making phone calls for candidates they didn't like.  When we lived in Sheboygan Wisconsin, the Kohler Company went on strike in spike of a 60-40 vote against a strike because, as the union leader told them, "We're not striking for us.  We're striking for our brethren in Michigan."  Unions are great ideas gone awry.  As a former teacher, unions do more to protect crappy teachers than supporting good ones.  It would be great if it wasn't so.  Of course, doctors aren't unionized and they protect their crappy colleagues, too.  I'll grant that.

So, in an argument like this, for me, it's a pox on both their houses.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 01, 2015, 06:59:19 pm
I agree completely.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Pistol on August 01, 2015, 10:22:51 pm
That's the smartest thing Curt has ever said.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 02, 2015, 10:47:03 am
Damning with faint praise.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 02, 2015, 11:44:37 am
I think unions have generally lost their way.  On the other hand, political action committees never really had any redeeming qualities.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 02, 2015, 11:49:35 am
Guilds, the ancestors of unions, seem to do a better job of policing their own and protecting rights.   Interesting that many new unions do an excellent job of improving working conditions and protecting workers...then it always breaks down when greed (and corruption) creep in. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 02, 2015, 11:56:24 am
Sort of like investment banks...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 02, 2015, 11:59:51 am
Or political parties...or democracies...or home owner associations...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 02, 2015, 12:01:19 pm
Or Roman Republics...or Animal Farms...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 02, 2015, 12:13:57 pm
Or Gardens of Eden...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 02, 2015, 12:22:16 pm
Is there a less appetizing matchup next year than Clinton-Bush?  Just wondering.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on August 02, 2015, 12:22:59 pm
Is there a less appetizing matchup next year than Clinton-Bush?  Just wondering.

Right now they all look like unappetizing matchups to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 02, 2015, 12:24:44 pm
I'm hoping Biden jumps in for no other reason is to hear Obama's linguistic gymnastics trying to stay neutral.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on August 02, 2015, 12:25:37 pm
I'm hoping Biden jumps in for Biden's  linguistic gymnastics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 02, 2015, 12:26:28 pm
LOL
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 02, 2015, 12:28:25 pm
Bernie!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 02, 2015, 12:37:25 pm
Bernie v Rand would be interesting.  Polar opposites who often express respect for one another.  I wonder how long it would take to get dirty.  A week?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on August 03, 2015, 01:53:37 pm
The team is from the town of Liberal, Kansas.   

Read the many heartfelt comments.   And then consider the yahoo who couldn't resist sniping at the name "Liberal".  There's a time and place for everything but I can't recall anything more objectionable than what this guy said.

Just a response to this post in Around Baseball that I thought was more appropriate here, but I was reading a story on legal immigration this morning on Breitbart and the comments there were just disgusting.  The top comment with 174 likes was from someone who mentioned how they wished Obama was dead for policies like that.   

I'm a little bit of a Politico junkie, but the comments sections on stories there are just cesspools of really disturbed, hateful people from all political persuasions. 

As low as our voter turnout in this country is, it's pretty disturbing to think that perhaps a sizeable portion of the people who do actually vote are the types of people you wind up seeing commenting on places like Politico, Breitbart and the like.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on August 03, 2015, 02:02:36 pm
Bernie v Rand would be interesting.  Polar opposites who often express respect for one another.  I wonder how long it would take to get dirty.  A week?

My wife and I were just having this conversation this morning. Those are the only two I would vote for right now, because I think they actually believe in something and haven't completely given in to political charade and nonsense. I'd rather have someone in office I can respect than someone I agree with. Paul is the guy I want, through and through, but if one of the assclowns on the Republican side beats him out, and Bernie as on the Dem side, I'm voting Bernie. For real.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 03, 2015, 02:02:49 pm
Political comment sections are the only ones that make sports message boards look sane.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on August 03, 2015, 02:03:17 pm
Political comment sections are the only ones that make sports message boards look sane.

Yeah no kidding.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on August 03, 2015, 02:20:10 pm
Quote
I'm a little bit of a Politico junkie, but the comments sections on stories there are just cesspools of really disturbed, hateful people from all political persuasions.

Fun with democracy:  their vote counts just as much as yours.  This is why I don't believe in encouraging (all) people to vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 03, 2015, 03:19:05 pm
Terrorist!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on August 03, 2015, 03:34:35 pm
Political comment sections are the only ones that make sports message boards look sane.
What about political comment section ON a sports message board?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on August 03, 2015, 05:20:53 pm
The Bears board sets the floor for that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 03, 2015, 07:42:57 pm
What about political comment section ON a sports message board?

Depends. Sometimes it can be civil, but most times if there are significant differences it will be just slightly better than the political site comment section.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 03, 2015, 07:43:58 pm
Depends. Sometimes it can be civil, but most times if there are significant differences it will be just slightly better than the political site comment section.
go to hell
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 03, 2015, 09:14:06 pm
Curt is just afraid of being alone.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 03, 2015, 09:15:31 pm
go to hell

💔
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 04, 2015, 01:28:10 pm
See.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2015, 05:26:36 pm
At least three, and very likely more attacks have taken place in France.  More than 30 people reported dead, and reports of several more attacks going on currently.  The attacks include both shootings and suicide bombings.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 13, 2015, 05:31:25 pm
60 reported dead at this time...probably will grow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 23, 2015, 10:50:56 am
My views on gun control are likely to the left of most people on this board, but I found this now deleted tweet my Doug Gottlieb pretty funny.

"Not sure how many people understand, our "right to bear arms" is not in the constitution- it is an AMENDMENT to the document."

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 23, 2015, 11:45:47 am
My views on gun control are likely to the left of most people on this board, but I found this now deleted tweet my Doug Gottlieb pretty funny.

"Not sure how many people understand, our "right to bear arms" is not in the constitution- it is an AMENDMENT to the document."

To some of us it is no more funny than those who believe the language, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," actually means government can restrict, limit or prohibit that right without infringing on it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 25, 2015, 12:30:46 pm
No more or less funny when people conveniently leave out the first two clauses on the amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 25, 2015, 01:09:50 pm
No more or less funny when people conveniently leave out the first two clauses on the amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

Those two clauses do not alter the meaning of the rest of it.  If anything, they amplify the meaning.  Those two clauses simply emphasize that the reason for the substantive language (which I quoted), is in recognition of what is pointed out in the first 13 words.  If you actually speak English, and apply the normal rules of construction of language to those two clauses, there is no way they alter the meaning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 25, 2015, 01:13:36 pm
Since I don't speak English I will have to take your word on it...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 25, 2015, 01:35:57 pm
Since I don't speak English I will have to take your word on it...

If you dispute what I wrote about its meaning, why not explain how and why I am wrong?

Use the standard rules of construction to explain how or why it means anything else.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 25, 2015, 02:23:18 pm
Tis the season for giving, Jes. I gave you something to rant about.  You're very welcome!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on December 25, 2015, 03:10:07 pm
Great.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 25, 2015, 03:57:03 pm
Tis the season for giving, Jes. I gave you something to rant about.  You're very welcome!


Whether you are referring to my three line post or my two line post, if either are rants, I must be getting very efficient at it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 15, 2016, 10:25:54 pm
Iowa, just wanted to say from following your FB posts that I'm glad we're on the same page on this year's election this time around.  :)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on January 25, 2016, 03:35:16 pm
(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tT37Y05UxKVoHJwXOUG2AaeAlAE=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3985396/gun%20ownership%20states.png)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 25, 2016, 03:57:58 pm
Does that chart include gun suicides?  If so, it is pretty meaningless.

Can you give us one that only compares gun MURDERS?  Or would that show that guns are good, rather than bad for citizens?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on January 25, 2016, 04:05:56 pm
Yes it does.

You can sort columns by the arrows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 25, 2016, 04:34:48 pm
That settles it.  Ban charts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on January 25, 2016, 05:46:55 pm
So in DC gun ownership is the lowest at nearly 3.6% yet gun murders are more than double the next highest at 16.5%.  So is that chart supposed to be damning to gun ownership?  Unless I am reading it wrong the percentage of gun ownership is not a predictor of gun murders.  In fact it's all over the place.  i guess like with most stats, you can pull out whatever you want depending on your agenda.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on January 25, 2016, 07:16:06 pm
when did we start moving the crazy from bears over to here?

To robb's point you can probably charge Gun Murders vs Population of people earning below 2x poverty lvl and get the same graph you have above with a trend line slapped onto it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on January 25, 2016, 08:34:48 pm
So is that chart supposed to be damning to gun ownership? 

My chart?  Nope, just the raw numbers that Dave was asking for. Through in population density to the poverty that Method mentioned and I think you'd get a much more meaningful graph for murders.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 25, 2016, 09:15:04 pm
when did we start moving the crazy from bears over to here?

Davep has always been here.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 25, 2016, 10:36:42 pm
ISF, just wondering what are the tea leaves telling you in Iowa?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on January 26, 2016, 12:23:58 am
That we're "F"d whether we end up with Hilary or Trump.

But that's the last time Ill even click on this topic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 26, 2016, 12:52:34 am
That we're "F"d whether we end up with Hilary or Trump.

But that's the last time Ill even click on this topic.

Actually that's probably the best, most accurate post in the history of the Politics topic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 26, 2016, 09:59:52 am
For decades, we have had to choose which candidate was least bad.  This year, it might be a tie.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on January 26, 2016, 10:38:48 am
I am not excited about anybody on either side.  If this country can not only elect, but overwhelmingly reelect Obama, I have no faith whatsoever things will ever change.  Throw Republicans in the White House and you'll just get more of the same.  Throw Dems in charge in Congress and more of the same.  They are all beholden to their donors.  Re-election is the most important consideration on every vote and bill.  Growing the power of the government is all they ever do, both sides.  This will seemingly never change until it all blows up like Greece.  Although Greece is a firecracker to our nuke.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 26, 2016, 04:48:32 pm
The closer we get to Donald Trump winning the nomination, the more I think we should have stuck with the "smoke filled rooms" method of selecting presidential nominees.

I'm still totally mystified on how he's still on top of the polls and looking like he'll soon be winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 26, 2016, 05:06:03 pm
I'm still totally mystified on how he's still on top of the polls

How about because there are a shitload of really, really dumb voters out there?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on January 26, 2016, 06:03:17 pm
I dont give a damn about Isis or any of the mess people want to **** about or truthfully politics in general but if this country is really in need of something new so bad that we're even considering Donald Trump we're in trouble.

The problem is as a God fearing Christian man I doubt Hilary's any better.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on January 26, 2016, 06:19:50 pm
I'm still totally mystified on how he's still on top of the polls and looking like he'll soon be winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.

FWIW, fivethirtyeight.com still has Cruz with a 49% chance to win Iowa compared to Trump's 42% in their polls-plus forecast (in addition to state polls, these forecasts factor in national polls and endorsements).  Of course, I don't think Cruz is any better than Trump.  In some ways, I think he's worse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 26, 2016, 06:37:50 pm
Cruz isn't my favorite, but he is light-years better than Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 26, 2016, 07:07:01 pm
I think John Kasich is by far and away the best guy of anyone who's running, but his chances of being elected aren't much better than CurtOne's. 

I think Cruz would be better than Trump, but I still couldn't vote for him.  I think he's a snake oil salesman and a charlatan.  The government shutdown was nothing more than a reckless act of self promotion on his part, and that automatically disqualified him in my eyes.  I also have a lot of trouble with anyone running as a "constitutional" conservative who supported what Kim Davis did in Kentucky.  It's all well and good if you want to run against gay marriage and play to the evangelical crowd, but don't portray yourself as a "strict constitutionalist" and still stand on the same stage with someone who defied a constitutionally decided upon Supreme Court ruling.  He knows how to play to his crowd, and he's pretty much the ultimate in the say anything/do anything to be elected politician.  I seriously even think he'd make Nixon look like a pillar of ethics if he got elected. 

Rubio is my backup pick if/when Kasich loses whatever viability he has left, but I can't say I'm really in love with him either.  Still, he's a better person than Trump or Cruz, there's no way I can vote for another Bush, and he's less likely to say something he'll regret later than Christie.

It's a really ugly field of candidates we have to choose from this year. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 26, 2016, 07:09:55 pm
The government shutdown was nothing more than a reckless act of self promotion on his part, and that automatically disqualified him in my eyes.

The only thing wrong with the government shutdown was that it ended.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 26, 2016, 07:19:09 pm
FWIW, fivethirtyeight.com still has Cruz with a 49% chance to win Iowa compared to Trump's 42% in their polls-plus forecast (in addition to state polls, these forecasts factor in national polls and endorsements).  Of course, I don't think Cruz is any better than Trump.  In some ways, I think he's worse.

Yeah I don't think 538 has a great feel yet on that one.  They had a Trump/Iowa chat today, and the first thing they said right off the bat was, "Donald Trump has overtaken Ted Cruz as the most likely winner in the Hawkeye State, according to our polls-only forecast. (And he’s closed the gap on Cruz in our polls-plus forecast.)"

It seems like they have more confidence in the "polls only" approach, but we'll see. 

Nate Silver did have an interesting theory that we might find out that Trump's support in these polls might be overstated when people finally show up to actually vote.  We'll see how that works out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on January 26, 2016, 08:30:29 pm
I never went to a caucus because I was too young or in medical school before I moved out of Iowa, but from my understanding there is a far amount attempting to get people to switch their support to different presidential hopeful. The Cruz/Trump I doubt will switch. I do wonder if Kasich/Bush/Cristie supports will switch to Rubio and let him have a chance to out perform the polls.

I'm with JR. I can't vote for Cruz or Trump for the reasons he stated. If either one get the nomination I will be voting for the whackiest third party candidate.

I did enjoy Trump picking on Bob Vaderplaats (evangelical leader in Iowa) on Twitter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on January 27, 2016, 12:37:42 am
Bernie!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on January 27, 2016, 08:38:26 am
There's a glimmer of hope in my mind that Trump is just acting bat-**** crazy because he knows it's his best chance of getting elected, and if/once elected, he may turn more normal.  Cruz has already proven that he's legitimately bat-**** crazy as a Senator.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on January 27, 2016, 10:16:11 am
Until he starts rounding up brown people and deporting them for being muslims.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on January 27, 2016, 10:33:37 am
I'd vote for Bernie before any of Trump, Cruz, or Clinton.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on January 27, 2016, 10:39:20 am
If it winds up being Bernie against either Trump or Cruz, watch Bloomberg get in.  It's been very entertaining.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2016, 01:30:19 pm
Bernie will not get in.  If Clinton fails, for one reason or another, Biden will be the nominee.

Although there is a lot of talk about a Republican brokered convention, Democratic rules make it quite a bit easier to broker a democratic convention unless one person has a majority of votes bound by primaries.  Substantially fewer voters are bound by rule to primary winners.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on January 27, 2016, 03:16:51 pm
Vote Trump, he will take on China and ISIS, just see how well he resolves conflicts with a debate host....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on January 27, 2016, 03:43:05 pm
What's more beneficial for Trump?  Be a "normal" candidate, or make a big show out of a conflict with a TV host?

The latter, by far.  Which is why I hold out hope that he's actually just brilliant enough to realize that acting like a crazy person gives him the best chance to get elected and he's actually far more reasonable than he puts on.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for Trump in a million years on the chance that I'm wrong and he really isn't acting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 27, 2016, 03:47:03 pm
The Trump supporters scare me more than Trump does.  Although the media usually portrays them as white and xenophobic, there are many races represented in his ranks.  His high rating does not come from Republicans.  Some, yes, but he has Democrats, Tea Party, and Independents who are disillusioned with career politicians and the status quo.  Just like the Germans who elected Hitler.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2016, 05:55:32 pm
Trump sticks his thumb in the eyes of all politicians, and since he stands for absolutely nothing politically, he is able to appeal to the ignorant voters on both sides of the political spectrum who feel that the "man" has held him back.  The victim mentality of both political parties can coalesce around him and convince themselves that he will "set things straight", regardless of what that means to them individually.

The same situation applied to Jesse Ventura who made it to the Governorship of Minnesota, one of the most liberal states in the country.  The idiots from both sides believed that his bluff and bluster would be used for the things they felt the "Government" was withholding from them.

He did absolutely nothing, which is the best we could hope for with Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on January 27, 2016, 07:19:12 pm
Trump is so popular because he a reality star and this is a reality tv populace.  The real Trump isn't even the guy he depicts on his reality show.  On the show he plays a character.  Essentially he is running as that character and the morons in this country are dumb enough to eat it up.   Obama was smart enough to appeal to that.  We don't care about qualifications any longer, we want celebrities.  Why?  Because with reality tv everyone can be a celebrity. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2016, 07:55:30 pm
I'd vote for Bernie before any of Trump, Cruz, or Clinton.

Of course.  Bernie is a socialist.  He would be attractive to you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2016, 08:02:54 pm
You folks seem to miss the fact that Trump has not yet broken a simple majority of support from Republicans.  Most prospective voters not only do not support him, most prospective voters view him very, very negatively.  Republicans do not make up a majority in this country, not even close to it, and Trump has not yet won even t he reluctant support of half of what is considerably less than 40% of the public.

His actual support is likely about 20% of the electorate as a whole.  In the primaries, that can result in a very strong victory.  In a general election, not so much,
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on January 27, 2016, 08:06:22 pm
Hilary's gonna be the president whether we like it or not.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2016, 08:07:20 pm
The same can be said about every candidate on both sides.  No one has enough support to win a general election.

But there are enough Republicans that will vote for whoever is nominated by the Republicans, and enough Democrats that will vote for whoever is nominated by the Democrats, that each nominee, whoever it is, will get about 40% of the vote.  The winner will go to whoever can sway the most ignorant voters.

Trump against Bernie would probably be a close call.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2016, 08:07:51 pm
Hillary will be a convicted felon before she is president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2016, 08:12:08 pm
I think the Obama Administration will be able to delay things until after the election, if they choose to do so.  But I think that Biden would become the democratic nominee if it comes anywhere close to that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2016, 08:47:47 pm
I think the Obama Administration will be able to delay things until after the election, if they choose to do so.  But I think that Biden would become the democratic nominee if it comes anywhere close to that.

What do you suppose the longterm consequences would be of the Democrats nominating Biden if Biden does no make a song appearance in the primaries and Sanders gets a clear majority of primary votes?

It would turn off the very group of young voters the Democrats want to count on for several elections to come.  They would not only stay home in 2016, they would turn their backs on the Democratic party.

The Democrats can survive a bad thumping in a single general election, just as the Republicans did in 1964, and the Dems did in 1972 and 1980.  Surviving the rejection of the primary winner who turned on young voters would be much more difficult.  I doubt that convention voters would be so short-sighted.  If Sanders gets a majority in the primaries, and no skeletons fall out of his closet between the last primary and the convention, I think he will be the nominee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2016, 09:18:29 pm
And Obama is toast.

Sanders would have to have about 80 % of the primary votes in order to get more than 50 % of the actual votes in the convention.  Almost 40 % of the delegates are appointed "at large" and although they usually vote along with their state delegations, they are not bound to do so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2016, 09:39:17 pm
And Obama is toast.

Sanders would have to have about 80 % of the primary votes in order to get more than 50 % of the actual votes in the convention.  Almost 40 % of the delegates are appointed "at large" and although they usually vote along with their state delegations, they are not bound to do so.

Obama is toast.  The guy has less than a year left.  He's done for.

And I saw it before any of you.

If Sanders gets more than 50% of the primary vote, the convention will not deny him the nomination in the absence of something falling loudly from a closet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 27, 2016, 09:45:10 pm
There is almost no way that the Democrats would nominate Sanders.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 27, 2016, 09:57:32 pm
How many steak dinners do you want to put on it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on January 27, 2016, 10:45:31 pm
There is almost no way that the Democrats would nominate Sanders.
]
Dave... is your real name Sisyphus?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 28, 2016, 09:16:51 am
]
Dave... is your real name Sisyphus?

No.

As I have said before, the Democrats are politically much smarter than the Republicans.  They do not knowingly nominate a candidate that has almost no chance of winning a national election.  The Republicans might nominate Trump, but the Democrats will not nominate Sanders unless the party elite has no choice.

A similar thing happened in New Jersey a few years ago.  The Senatorial nominee had a series of revelations that caused the polls to indicate that he would not win.  They took him off the ballot and replaced him with a former Senator that could, and did, win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 28, 2016, 08:20:49 pm
No.

As I have said before, the Democrats are politically much smarter than the Republicans.  They do not knowingly nominate a candidate that has almost no chance of winning a national election.

1972 and 1980 would suggest otherwise regarding nominating a candidate with almost no chance of winning.  And as I pointed out, taking the nomination away from Sanders if he is widely and legitimately seen as having won the nomination in the primaries (i.e. getting more than 50% of the popular vote and winning a majority of the delegates up for bid), it would so strongly alienate young voters as to cripple the party for several elections to come.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on January 29, 2016, 11:51:14 am
br, Trump is now up in both the "polls only" and "polls-plus" Iowa forecasts on FiveThirtyEight.

I wonder if there's any chance skipping the debate hurts him, but it seems really doubtful.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on January 29, 2016, 11:57:48 am
If nothing he's done before now has hurt him, skipping the debate certainly won't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on January 29, 2016, 12:26:33 pm
Especially considering he reportedly raised more than $6M for veterans' causes last night (1M out of his own pocket)...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on January 29, 2016, 01:01:41 pm
I really am starting to like Rubio after watching another debate.  although I would like to see Christie go after Hilary, I don't think he could ever get elected.  Rubio would have the best chance in the general against Hilary.  Trump will implode if nominated, maybe on purpose.  He was a friend and big admirer of the Clinton's before his "conversion" to conservatism.  His ego is boosting him now but I cuold see him growing tired of the whole thing long before the fall and tanking on purpose. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 29, 2016, 01:17:11 pm
Cruz and Rubio are the two best of those left standing, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on January 29, 2016, 01:18:21 pm
I really am starting to like Rubio after watching another debate.  although I would like to see Christie go after Hilary, I don't think he could ever get elected.  Rubio would have the best chance in the general against Hilary.  Trump will implode if nominated, maybe on purpose.  He was a friend and big admirer of the Clinton's before his "conversion" to conservatism.  His ego is boosting him now but I cuold see him growing tired of the whole thing long before the fall and tanking on purpose. 
i agree completely.  I'm still suspicious whether  Trump is making it easier for Hillary.  He's hoaxing Republicans and the American people.  It's the world's biggest punk.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on January 29, 2016, 09:31:35 pm
It might have started that way, bit if Trump actually is the Republican nominee, I suspect that any agreement that he may have with the Clintons would go by the wayside.  It would be a terrible temptation to be that close to being President and not really go for it.  He is not known for his small ego.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on January 29, 2016, 10:27:41 pm
Any agreement or understanding he might have had with Hillary will be when when she is not the nominee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 12, 2016, 12:55:43 pm
I think Alan Grayson is a whack job. While he is out supporting the Occupy Wall Street Movement Grayson was running a hedge fund out of the Caymen Islands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/alan-graysons-double-life-congressman-and-hedge-fund-manager.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 12, 2016, 08:37:56 pm
You only THINK he's a whack job?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 16, 2016, 09:23:54 pm
Whack job?

(http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Marco-Rubio-Water.png)


Can anyone name an accomplishment from this one?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 16, 2016, 09:36:47 pm
otto is posting selfies?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2016, 07:41:23 am
Can anyone name an accomplishment from this one?

Before his nomination in 2008, can you name any accomplishments of Obama?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 17, 2016, 03:53:10 pm
legally addled
Quote
Before his nomination in 2008, can you name any accomplishments of Obama?


So, you can't name one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 17, 2016, 09:45:34 pm
legally addled

So, you can't name one.

Rubio is not my candidate and I won't be voting for him.  Why should I make any effort to name any accomplishment by him?

Obama, on the other hand, is your boy, and I don't seen any mention of any accomplishment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 18, 2016, 12:03:33 am
Trump is Toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on February 18, 2016, 01:42:39 am
Im fairly certain Rubio is my candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 18, 2016, 07:53:15 am
Most bizarre presidential primary season I can recall.  In the latest Qunnipiac national poll, my guy Sanders is ahead of all of the Republican contenders whereas Hillary is about even with them (actually, Hillary lags behind most of them).

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 18, 2016, 09:25:53 am
Legally Addled


I'm pretty sure President Barack Hussein Obama isn't running again and I will put either Democratic candidate up against any republic one in terms of accomplishments.

Additionally, a quick check of Wikipedia will give you your desired answer on marco rubio or our President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 18, 2016, 10:36:23 am
Most bizarre presidential primary season I can recall.  In the latest Qunnipiac national poll, my guy Sanders is ahead of all of the Republican contenders whereas Hillary is about even with them (actually, Hillary lags behind most of them).

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324

The frustrating thing to me is my man Kasich usually polls better general election wise than any Republican running and is a fairly popular governor in an important state, and he's having to move left for the Democrat/independent voters in these Republican primaries since he's not as famous or as crazy as Trump or as sleazy as Cruz. 

This year's election feels like it's coming straight from a dystopian novel.  It's just amazing how the extremes of both parties have taken control of our political processes. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 18, 2016, 10:41:47 am
As far as political candidates are concerned, the United States of America has "jumped the shark".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on February 18, 2016, 11:19:53 am
No surprise there - the media makes it easy to manipulate the mindless voters
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 18, 2016, 11:23:17 am
Our politicians reflect the voters they hope to lead.

Trump just didn't happen over night, he reflects the wants of a lot of white, xenophobic and somewhat bigoted authoritarian voters.

Cruz reflects those voters too, but his group includes the fundamentalist christian wing who don't want to participate in society, just rule over it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 18, 2016, 11:41:54 am
Unlike the far left who want health control, gun control, birth control, voter control, border control, control control...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on February 18, 2016, 11:44:47 am
Nearly all of our President's since the beginning have been Christians, even our current claims to be.  Other than lately, it seems to have worked out so far.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 18, 2016, 12:13:03 pm
Quote
As far as political candidates are concerned, the United States of America has "jumped the shark".

This is the best description I've seen of the presidential race.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 18, 2016, 12:35:39 pm
Yeah, Robb.  The current Muslim president has been a disaster.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2016, 12:52:15 pm
I don't think that Obama is a Muslim, but he certainly has been a disaster.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 18, 2016, 01:47:57 pm
Quote
Unlike the far left...


Anyone to the left of ted cruz would be far left to you. Also, is everyone on the left, far left? And is it close to far, far, far away land?

Quote
...who want health control...

Just how is expanding healthcare coverage to 10's of millions of people thru private health insurance companies control?

Quote
...gun control...

How has the gun out of control worked for you?

Quote
...birth control...

Having a choice to use contraception in family planning is considered control to you?

Quote
...voter control...

Voter ID to limit participation in voting, voter purges, closing of voter ID locations. limiting ID types for voting, requiring endless documents to get voter ID's. When do republic pols actually widen the path to voting?

Quote
...border control...

I do believe that a law requiring all kindergarten children to color within the lines in needed in this day and age.

Quote
...control control...

This usually happens when authoritarian republic pols are elected to office.

Can you name a republic law of recent conservative memory in which they expanded rights to Americans?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 18, 2016, 02:46:39 pm
P2, are you watching Fivethirtyeight? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 18, 2016, 03:30:05 pm
otto, that is one of the best, articulate posts you've ever made.  Very good.   Only miss was Cruz.  Can't vote for him.  Our country doesn't need another Bush or Clinton.  Trump is insane.  Doc Carson is uninspiring.  Maybe Kasich, maybe Sanders.  Bloomberg would be interesting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 18, 2016, 04:49:32 pm
No, DMF.  What is that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 18, 2016, 05:51:59 pm
Fivethirtyeight.com.  Nate Silver and a bunch of other data-driven guys.  Four years ago he was blogging with the New York Times (I think) and correctly predicted more political outcomes than anyone else and then spun it into his own thing.  Sharp guy, good reading.  It's where I've been getting most of my political news.  They have some new stuff up about Bernie's road to the nomination.  It won't be easy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 18, 2016, 06:00:37 pm
My bad.  I follow Nate Silver some, but not much over the past year or so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on February 18, 2016, 07:00:51 pm
Playtwo, to be clear I never said Obama is a Muslim, I said he is a so-called Christian, there is a difference. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2016, 08:49:26 pm
If the Pope can question Trump's Christianity, I suppose you can question Obama's Christianity.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on February 18, 2016, 10:34:00 pm
Playtwo, to be clear I never said Obama is a Muslim, I said he is a so-called Christian, there is a difference. 

As a non christian... i'd really like to know what the difference is... he seems to be pretty christian to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 18, 2016, 10:40:26 pm
I have never heard Trump talk about his religious beliefs, but just in looking at what I know of his life and actions, I would have guessed that he was about as non-religious as anyone can get.  Please note that I do not equate non-religious with atheist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 18, 2016, 11:14:17 pm
Donald trump would only believe in god, if god was donald trump.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 18, 2016, 11:20:32 pm
Additionally, a quick check of Wikipedia will give you your desired answer on marco rubio or our President.

Could you point to where I "desired (an) answer on macro rubio or out president"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 18, 2016, 11:36:50 pm
Bloomberg would be interesting.

Bloomberg getting into a Trump vs. Sanders race would basically just gift wrap the election for Sanders, and word has it that would be the only way Bloomberg gets in.  I think Sanders would love it if he could portray himself as the man of the people versus a couple of ego driven billionaires trying to buy the presidency.


I'd be interested in voting for Bloomberg in that kind of race, but he'd be making a mistake if he ran. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 19, 2016, 07:30:18 am
Bloomberg getting into a Trump vs. Sanders race would basically just gift wrap the election for Sanders, and word has it that would be the only way Bloomberg gets in.  I think Sanders would love it if he could portray himself as the man of the people versus a couple of ego driven billionaires trying to buy the presidency.


I'd be interested in voting for Bloomberg in that kind of race, but he'd be making a mistake if he ran. 

Not at all.  It would seriously increase the odds a Republican would win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 23, 2016, 08:52:36 am
Trump tweet

Donald J. Trump

‎@realDonaldTrump

I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $'s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!
8:42 AM - 22 Feb 2016
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 23, 2016, 09:03:28 am
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse response to Mr Trump.

Ben Sasse ‏@BenSasse  16h16 hours ago
Ben Sasse Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Yeah, we should definitely put @realDonaldTrump in charge of the FBI and the IRS.
#WhatWouldNixonDo
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 23, 2016, 05:03:00 pm
Anyone but Trump. Seriously. Except maybe Cruz.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on February 23, 2016, 05:19:26 pm
Cant we just delay this for a year? see if more competent candidates come around?

I have changed my view on Trump, if enough people want to vote for him and he gets the crown.... so be it. they had it coming to em.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on February 23, 2016, 05:22:55 pm
He's gonna be the POTUS whether we like it or not.

Anyone but Hilary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on February 23, 2016, 05:36:52 pm
I'm to the point where I think Hillary is the least bad of all of them.  She and Kasich are the only two I don't think would be complete disasters (and don't get me wrong, I think both of them would be bad). I have no confidence in any of the other four governing on a daily basis.

It says a lot about the political system when someone who is as far right as Rubio is branded as the "establishment" candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2016, 06:50:28 pm
He's gonna be the POTUS whether we like it or not.

Anyone but Hilary.

The perfect Trump supporter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 23, 2016, 07:31:42 pm
I honestly don't know how far right Rubio is. I think he's pretty standard republican, which is obviously right of center, but I don't think Rubio is an extreme manifestation of right wing politics.

Paul was always the guy I wanted, but he was never going to get elected. I'd love Kasich, but that's not going to happen either. Even though I am actually very concerned about the practical outcomes of some of Bernie's more extreme leftist positions, the truth is that Washington is so gridlocked that I doubt he'd be able to accomplish much of the things on his furthest-left-leaning agenda. Within that context, I would gladly vote for Bernie over Hillary, Trump, and Cruz, because I think he is a truly decent man, someone who is honest and stands by principles, and someone not so pig headed as to be unreasonable. I'd vote for Hillary ahead of Trump or Cruz; Trump because he's a lunatic narcissist, Cruz because he's ideologically dangerous.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 23, 2016, 07:32:44 pm
Property in Belize is starting to become appealing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2016, 07:40:33 pm
, I would gladly vote for Bernie over Hillary, Trump, and Cruz, because I think he is a truly decent man

Yup.  It's always "decent" to forcibly take the earnings of one person to give them to another,

Can't get more decent than that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 23, 2016, 07:41:42 pm
I'm to the point where I think Hillary is the least bad of all of them.  She and Kasich are the only two I don't think would be
It says a lot about the political system when someone who is as far right as Rubio is branded as the "establishment" candidate.

With the Democratic party producing radical leftists like Obama and Sanders, it is going to make any mainstream politician look far to the right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 23, 2016, 08:00:27 pm
Clinton will become President, Democrats will regain the Senate, and then she'll name Obama to the Supreme Court.    The Republicans will have shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on February 23, 2016, 08:10:13 pm
With the Democratic party producing radical leftists like Obama and Sanders, it is going to make any mainstream politician look far to the right.

The Heritage Foundation rates Rubio as the 4th most conservative senator, behind only Cruz, Mike Lee, and Richard Shelby.  And the Heritage Foundation doesn't like anyone who's not far right.  He's clearly far right, and nowhere close to being part of the same "establishment" of guys like Bush and Kasich. 

http://heritageactionscorecard.com/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on February 23, 2016, 08:34:20 pm
Bold prediction:  The Republican Party will NEVER AGAIN win a Presidential election as long as the United States of America exists.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 23, 2016, 08:34:37 pm
Rubio is fairly close to Cruz on how far right he is, he just isn't a jerk. I could vote for Rubio or Kasich. Anyone else and I'm finding out if I can write in none of the above or voting for the wackiest third party candidate I can find. I'd prefer Hillary or Cruz or Trump which really scares me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2016, 08:45:44 pm
The Heritage Foundation rates Rubio as the 4th most conservative senator, behind only Cruz, Mike Lee, and Richard Shelby.  And the Heritage Foundation doesn't like anyone who's not far right.  He's clearly far right, and nowhere close to being part of the same "establishment" of guys like Bush and Kasich. 

http://heritageactionscorecard.com/


What specific positions of Rubio's do you consider "far right"?  You shouldn't have any problem listing five or six,
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 23, 2016, 08:48:24 pm
The Heritage Foundation rates Rubio as the 4th most conservative senator, behind only Cruz, Mike Lee, and Richard Shelby.  And the Heritage Foundation doesn't like anyone who's not far right.  He's clearly far right, and nowhere close to being part of the same "establishment" of guys like Bush and Kasich. 

http://heritageactionscorecard.com/ (http://heritageactionscorecard.com/)

I don't like that Rubio doesn't have exceptions for ****/incest in his abortion platform, and I'm concerned as inexperienced as he is that he'll get pushed into a war that we don't absolutely have to be fighting, since he's definitely the most hawkish of the Republicans still in the race.  I'll still be interested in how he answers the no exceptions abortion question in the general election because that will be brought up in a debate.  Hopefully he'll be able to provide a better answer to that than Richard Mourdock or Todd Akin did. 

Aside from that, he's the best Republican still running besides Kasich.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2016, 08:58:03 pm
I don't like that Rubio doesn't have exceptions for ****/incest in his abortion platform, and I'm concerned as inexperienced as he is that he'll get pushed into a war that we don't absolutely have to be fighting.  He's definitely the most hawkish of the Republicans still in the race.  I'll still be interested in how he answers the no exceptions abortion question in the general election because that will be brought up in a debate.

Its actually a very simple question to answer.

The only justification for interfering with a woman's right to control her own body is that an abortion is not just controlling her body, but ending another human life which is entitled to the same protection from government as any other human life.

If the unborn child is in fact a human life, you do not kill that child just because of the circumstances of conception.

If you did, then a DNA test done on a five year old child showing that the child was the result of a **** instead of the mother's consensual sex with her husband would justify killing the child at age five.  And I am unaware of anyone who would support that.

If the unborn child is not a human life, the state has no basis to interfere with a woman's decision to abort.  If it is a human life, then the circumstances of conception do not matter.

The difficulty is not one of those opposed to abortion explaining their opposition.  The difficulty with with folks who are squishy on the issue never having really decided whether believe the unborn child is human, or, when the child becomes human after conception.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 23, 2016, 08:58:54 pm
Bold prediction:  The Republican Party will NEVER AGAIN win a Presidential election as long as the United States of America exists.

I'll be happy to take the over on that bet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on February 23, 2016, 09:11:03 pm
Aside from that, he's the best Republican still running besides Kasich.

Well, as much as I'm not a fan of Rubio, I'll agree with that.  But that's not saying much when the "besides Kasich" crew is Trump, Cruz, and Carson.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 23, 2016, 09:14:14 pm
The Heritage Foundation rates Rubio as the 4th most conservative senator, behind only Cruz, Mike Lee, and Richard Shelby.  And the Heritage Foundation doesn't like anyone who's not far right.  He's clearly far right, and nowhere close to being part of the same "establishment" of guys like Bush and Kasich. 

http://heritageactionscorecard.com/

I agree that he is much farther to the right than either Bush or Kasich.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 23, 2016, 10:11:40 pm
Well, as much as I'm not a fan of Rubio, I'll agree with that.  But that's not saying much when the "besides Kasich" crew is Trump, Cruz, and Carson.

Yeah that is damning with faint praise there . . .
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 23, 2016, 10:28:51 pm
I no longer care about "right" or "left".  I'm looking for "sane".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 23, 2016, 10:44:51 pm
And you thought you'd find it here?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on February 23, 2016, 11:15:51 pm
Im not a Trump supporter. I voted for Rubio. As a matter of fact I think it's a bad reflection on the state of our country that Trump is even seriously being considered and it makes me want to claw my eyes out to even hear the Trump supporters talk but as a God fearing Christian man I dont feel like I can vote democrat with a clear conscience so if Trump wins the ticket he'll get my vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 23, 2016, 11:21:22 pm
And the Trump insanity continues in Nevada.

The amazing thing reading through all these exit/entrance polls is that Trump is consistently 30-40% no matter what the demographic is.  It doesn't seem to matter if you're a high school graduate or have a post graduate degree.  It doesn't matter if you make $30,000 or $300,000.  It doesn't matter if you're evangelical or secular.  It doesn't matter if you're "very" conservative or moderate.  He's consistently getting that share of the vote with everyone. 

He just cannot be stopped.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Reb on February 23, 2016, 11:47:18 pm
Donald Trump and catchers pitch framing.

Really.

Scroll down to middle of piece below.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/23/my-very-peculiar-and-speculative-theory-of-why-the-gop-has-not-stopped-donald-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on February 24, 2016, 12:04:34 am
So pitch framing is irrelevant now because umpires realize what's happening.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 12:16:27 am
Im not a Trump supporter. I voted for Rubio. As a matter of fact I think it's a bad reflection on the state of our country that Trump is even seriously being considered and it makes me want to claw my eyes out to even hear the Trump supporters talk but as a God fearing Christian man I dont feel like I can vote democrat with a clear conscience so if Trump wins the ticket he'll get my vote.

"Voted" is a past tense verb.

You live in Tennessee.

Tennessee has not yet had their primaries< meaning the only way you could have voted was to have fraudulently registered in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or this evening in Nevada, and then driven their to illegally vote.... or you could have voted in your dreams.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 12:30:29 am
So pitch framing is irrelevant now because umpires realize what's happening.

LESS relevant.  Not IRrelevant.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on February 24, 2016, 12:47:23 am
I guess this shows that I dont have you on ignore but I early voted dumbass.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 07:40:01 am
I guess this shows that I dont have you on ignore but I early voted dumbass.

I forgot about the foolishness of Tennessee's early voting, allowing votes to be cast before late developments are even known, and allowing voters to voter for candidates who end up having dropped out of the race before election day.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Ray on February 24, 2016, 08:32:48 am
Bold prediction:  The Republican Party will NEVER AGAIN win a Presidential election as long as the United States of America exists.

I think the most interesting part of this declaration is the qualifier.....as long as the USA exists? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on February 24, 2016, 08:43:36 am
Michael Bloomberg will decide to enter the presidential race as an independent.   Enough of the electorate dislikes both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the former NYC mayor wins the popular vote in a handful of states.  That results in none of the candidates winning a majority in the electoral college.

More confusion is added as both parties dispute the election in Illinois accusing the other side of fraud.     Appeals are filed and the case goes to the Supreme Court where no ruling is made because all votes end in a 4-4 tie. 

The election goes to the House of Representatives where the Republicans have maintained control.  The Republicans can’t bring themselves to vote for Hilary Clinton and dislike Donald Trump enough that no decision is made by Inauguration Day.

Meanwhile, the Senate, where the Democrats now have a majority,  selects the next vice-president from the top two vote getters in the electoral college and Hillary Clinton’s running mate becomes acting president until the House can finally come to a conclusion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 24, 2016, 11:08:09 am
Consider Rubio's abortion position to be the similar to the pro-choice position.  He is personally opposed to exceptions, but as a matter of law he isn't going to do anything to to enact it because that isn't supported by many Americans.  It would be where I am as well.

Just to give me a glimmer of hope if the election was thrown to House, is there anything in the constitution that says they have to pick from  Trump or Clinton?  Could they choose somebody that didn't run?  If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination Bloomberg won't get in.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on February 24, 2016, 11:54:59 am
Just to give me a glimmer of hope if the election was thrown to House, is there anything in the constitution that says they have to pick from  Trump or Clinton?  Could they choose somebody that didn't run?
The House would have to choose between the three top vote getters in the electoral college. 

What I neglected to say is that it would be one vote per state in the house.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 24, 2016, 12:16:23 pm
Welp, 4 years is a short time period.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 24, 2016, 12:19:42 pm
But Hillary,being indicted for the email scandal and, wanting a top legal mind as running mate, chooses Cruz as her running mate, thus making him acting president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 24, 2016, 12:28:25 pm
That's like the old Jesse Jackson-Jesse Helms ticket.  Let's offend Everybody.

Rubio is too far right to win, and he's too inexperienced (letting Christie dismantle him in the debate was shocking).  Kasich is interesting but doesn't have a prayer at the nomination.  Cruz is scary ideologically, plus I think someday we will find out he's a Frank Underwood level of slime.  Trump can't win a general election.  Looks like it will be Hillary to me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 24, 2016, 12:37:21 pm
Yup.  It's always "decent" to forcibly take the earnings of one person to give them to another,

Can't get more decent than that.

How absurdly reductionist of you. Our current system does this already, and basically any viable candidate supports a progressive tax system.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 24, 2016, 12:39:40 pm
I no longer care about "right" or "left".  I'm looking for "sane".

Bingo
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on February 24, 2016, 12:41:47 pm
trump can always go back to trump university to fleece more "students".

He'll be OK.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2016, 01:08:41 pm
And yet...somehow...383,259 people in Tennessee have already managed to vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2016, 01:12:00 pm
"I forgot about the foolishness of Tennessee's early voting,..."

Not quite as quickly as you managed to forget the foolishness of your last post.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 24, 2016, 02:59:24 pm
Consider Rubio's abortion position to be the similar to the pro-choice position.  He is personally opposed to exceptions, but as a matter of law he isn't going to do anything to to enact it because that isn't supported by many Americans.  It would be where I am as well.

I think the problem with Rubio's position is that more and more Republicans are against exceptions for **** and incest.  Paul Ryan is against exceptions.  Ted Cruz is against them.  Rand Paul is against them. 

The activists are pushing Republicans too far to the right on the issue, and if enough of them are taking that position and have expressed opposition against exceptions when running for office, it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility that they would feel compelled to pass a bill with no exceptions that a President Rubio would feel compelled to sign. 

That of course being if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade or if a Republican controlled congress and a Republican president wanted to pass a strong piece of legislation that would allow them to challenge Roe vs. Wade.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 24, 2016, 03:05:20 pm
Seriously, enough Republicans are taking a "no ****/incest exceptions" stance to abortion that it makes me think the pro-choice people have a point.

I'm against abortion on demand and think it ought to be restricted and should be illegal once a fetus becomes viable (except for ****/incest), but if you have enough people voted into office who think someone who got raped can't have one when they've found out they've become pregnant or that Plan B ought to be illegal, I can see the point of keeping choice open.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 24, 2016, 03:15:34 pm
Quote
Trump can't win a general election.

Actually, I wouldn't underestimate Trump's chances of winning the general election if he's nominated, and Hillary and the Dems would be making a big mistake if they did.  His chances of winning the nomination were already underestimated enough as it was, in spite of all the crazy things he's said and done already.

There might be enough independents who are nodding their heads at all the crazy things Trump is saying.  There might be enough "anybody but Hillary/Bernie" voters who will hold their noses and vote for him.  There might be enough people who simply think he's the lesser of two evils in the general election or that his business experience trumps (sorry) some of the extreme rhetoric he's spewed.  The young people who showed up to vote for Obama probably aren't going to do the same for Hillary, especially if those young voters wind up thinking Bernie got a raw deal in the nominating process.  He might have an outside chance of winning 20-30% of the African American vote since he's not a traditional Republican, and if he does that, he's going to have a big leg up on Hillary. 

Nobody's really been able to figure out Trump's appeal yet, and we might find out that it extends a lot further than just people showing up for Republican primaries for the first time to vote for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 24, 2016, 03:30:58 pm
Quote
Actually, I wouldn't underestimate Trump's chances of winning the general election if he's nominated, and Hillary and the Dems would be making a big mistake if they did.

Oh, I'm sure they're not.  It's a personal opinion.  The negative overall opinion numbers on Trump are really, really high.  Lots of people can't stand the guy, but they're not the ones showing up to vote in primaries.  I think if the Republican party had a compelling candidate to put up against Trump, he wouldn't have gotten this far, but so far it's been Amateur Hour, and now it's probably too late for anyone else.  A brokered convention would be awesome, though.

Hillary has been shrewdly conducting the general election all along.  She's been speaking to the moderate center rather than playing to the liberal fringe like Bernie.  I get that Bernie is telling what believes, but I think he's also unelectable--he's just too liberal.  Bernie can't win for the same reason that Cruz can't win.  Too far away from the center.  I think Hillary gets that.  Lots of people can't stand her, but I don't think it will be enough in the end.  As someone who would kind of like a few more years of the Bill Clinton administration, I'm okay with it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2016, 04:09:19 pm
If only we get a few more years of the 1990's economy, too....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 24, 2016, 04:11:04 pm
I'll go with the guy who sticks to principle and doesn't pander for votes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on February 24, 2016, 04:11:17 pm
And I don't mean Cruz.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2016, 04:12:22 pm
Hard to stick to principles you don't have. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 24, 2016, 04:14:55 pm
I'll go with the guy who sticks to principle and doesn't pander for votes.
So you don't support Hillary?  Or is "guy" generic?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2016, 04:15:22 pm
Although, I can remember one time in junior high when I was required to sit in the assistant principal's office all week.  I was certainly stuck then.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 24, 2016, 04:20:57 pm
The abortion issue is a good example of the "slippery slopism" prominent in both parties.   Republicans resist issues of gun control because it's a slippery slope to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment; Democrats resist limiting abortion because it's a slippery slope to eroding the woman's right to choose.   The whole "**** and incest" issue is the red herring because if any kind of compromise can ever be reached it means giving up something.  By giving up opposing "**** and incest" can end abortion on demand, Republicans will do it.   It's an attempt to get wiggle room in the negotiations.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 24, 2016, 04:27:08 pm
That of course being if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade or if a Republican controlled congress and a Republican president wanted to pass a strong piece of legislation that would allow them to challenge Roe vs. Wade.

It wouldn't make abortion illegal in the US.  It would return the issue to the states.  Now someplace like Texas might propose a full out ban, but that won't be the the law of the US.  I think what Curt says is a smart analysis, boy that hurts.  If Rubio was given a bill that out lawed abortion except in the case of ****/incest/life of the mother he'd sign it in a heart beat.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2016, 04:27:40 pm
"Republicans resist issues of gun control because it's a slippery slope to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment..."

I think Republican (or moderate Democrat) resistance to gun control has little to do with the proverbial slippery slope.  Much more to do with getting on the NRA's hit list.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 04:52:51 pm
"I forgot about the foolishness of Tennessee's early voting,..."

Not quite as quickly as you managed to forget the foolishness of your last post.

Not at all.  I admitted the fact that I was wrong.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 04:54:05 pm
How absurdly reductionist of you. Our current system does this already, and basically any viable candidate supports a progressive tax system.

So the fact that something is done makes it either right, or at least acceptable?

I assume then that you support legalizing ****.  That also happens with great frequency.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 04:55:04 pm
That's like the old Jesse Jackson-Jesse Helms ticket.  Let's offend Everybody.

Rubio is too far right to win,

On what issues?  And I hope you can mention more than one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 24, 2016, 04:56:48 pm
"Republicans resist issues of gun control because it's a slippery slope to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment..."

I think Republican (or moderate Democrat) resistance to gun control has little to do with the proverbial slippery slope.  Much more to do with getting on the NRA's hit list.
The NRA is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 04:57:21 pm
Consider Rubio's abortion position to be the similar to the pro-choice position.  He is personally opposed to exceptions, but as a matter of law he isn't going to do anything to to enact it because that isn't supported by many Americans.  It would be where I am as well.

Just to give me a glimmer of hope if the election was thrown to House, is there anything in the constitution that says they have to pick from  Trump or Clinton?  Could they choose somebody that didn't run?  If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination Bloomberg won't get in.

The House would have to choose between the three top vote getters in the electoral college. 

What I neglected to say is that it would be one vote per state in the house.

Bennett nails it.  And this means that since the Republicans have a stranglehold on the delegations of more than 30 states, if it ends up in the House, the Republicans will decide the winner.... though they would NOT have to pick the candidate who ran as a Republican.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 05:16:10 pm
I think the problem with Rubio's position is that more and more Republicans are against exceptions for **** and incest.  Paul Ryan is against exceptions.  Ted Cruz is against them.  Rand Paul is against them. 

The activists are pushing Republicans too far to the right on the issue, and if enough of them are taking that position and have expressed opposition against exceptions when running for office, it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility that they would feel compelled to pass a bill with no exceptions that a President Rubio would feel compelled to sign. 

That of course being if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade or if a Republican controlled congress and a Republican president wanted to pass a strong piece of legislation that would allow them to challenge Roe vs. Wade.

Most of the staunchest abortion opponents would also oppose an abortion ban at the federal level.  It simply is not an issue for the federal government to decide.  If a state wanted to legalize murder, not just of the unborn, but of anyone, it would have the power to do so.  There is nothing in the Constitution which would give the Federal government power to regulate the issue.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 05:17:18 pm
I think the problem with Rubio's position is that more and more Republicans are against exceptions for **** and incest.  Paul Ryan is against exceptions.  Ted Cruz is against them.  Rand Paul is against them.

So the problem with Rubio's position is not actually his position, but the position other Republicans have taken?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 05:21:51 pm
By giving up opposing "**** and incest" can end abortion on demand, Republicans will do it.   It's an attempt to get wiggle room in the negotiations.

No.  It isn't.  I know some folks wouldn't understand a principled position if it hit them in the face, but most abortion opponents oppose it because they consider abortion murder, and if so they oppose **** or incest exceptions, not because they want "wiggle room in the negotiations," but because they consider it murder.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on February 24, 2016, 06:54:44 pm
So the fact that something is done makes it either right, or at least acceptable?

I assume then that you support legalizing ****.  That also happens with great frequency.

Ahh, yes, the infallible logic of the mighty jesbeard. You win, jes. I am obviously pro ****.

Every once in a while, I peek beneath the ignored post banner, and every time, I am swiftly reminded why it is I blocked you in the first place.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 24, 2016, 07:13:38 pm
WHAT!!!???  You can block people? Geeze Louise, ten years worth of insults down the drain....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 24, 2016, 08:19:09 pm
Ahh, yes, the infallible logic of the mighty jesbeard. You win, jes. I am obviously pro ****.

Every once in a while, I peek beneath the ignored post banner, and every time, I am swiftly reminded why it is I blocked you in the first place.

If you do not, then you need to acknowledge that the excuse you offered as a justification for redistributing wealth is more than lame.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on February 24, 2016, 10:33:47 pm
Quote
Every once in a while, I peek beneath the ignored post banner

Sometimes I click, but life is too short to engage. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 26, 2016, 07:39:51 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dilemma-of-conservatives-who-say-theyll-never-vote-for-donald-trump?mbid=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

It’s like Wolfgang Pauli’s famous crack, “That is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” He doesn’t even have a bad character. People with bad characters can have strengths. As far as I can tell he has no character. He’s a bully with subordinates. He does business in ways that good businesspeople despise—and he’s not even very good at that. He says things about people, especially his wives, that are so obnoxious that calling them obnoxious doesn’t come close to how awful they are. He constantly lies about things that can be checked. He brags incessantly—really unattractive in itself—but he doesn’t even brag about things that he could appropriately be proud of. The guy is pathetic.

The oddest thing about his popularity with white middle-class and working-class males is that if he lived next door to them, they would despise him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 26, 2016, 07:59:08 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dilemma-of-conservatives-who-say-theyll-never-vote-for-donald-trump?mbid=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

It’s like Wolfgang Pauli’s famous crack, “That is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” He doesn’t even have a bad character. People with bad characters can have strengths. As far as I can tell he has no character. He’s a bully with subordinates. He does business in ways that good businesspeople despise—and he’s not even very good at that. He says things about people, especially his wives, that are so obnoxious that calling them obnoxious doesn’t come close to how awful they are. He constantly lies about things that can be checked. He brags incessantly—really unattractive in itself—but he doesn’t even brag about things that he could appropriately be proud of. The guy is pathetic.

The oddest thing about his popularity with white middle-class and working-class males is that if he lived next door to them, they would despise him.

He has two appeals.  He appeals to the true xenophobic bigots, and to the sort of true authoritarians who would love to have a Benito Mussolini as president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 26, 2016, 11:10:40 pm
Trump is a jackass, and much worse.  But his appeal is not only to xenophobics and fascists, which is a small part of his following.  Most of his followers are those who are sick and tired of being manipulated into being represented by people that are not willing or able to carry through on their campaign promises, and foolishly believe that just because Trump is a bully, he will be THEIR bully, totally forgetting that most of what he promises, he can NOT produce, and and what he WILL produce will be just the opposite of what they want.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 26, 2016, 11:32:28 pm
Trump is a jackass, and much worse.  But his appeal is not only to xenophobics and fascists, which is a small part of his following.  Most of his followers are those who are sick and tired of being manipulated into being represented by people that are not willing or able to carry through on their campaign promises, and foolishly believe that just because Trump is a bully, he will be THEIR bully, totally forgetting that most of what he promises, he can NOT produce, and and what he WILL produce will be just the opposite of what they want.
So how much are you giving his campaign?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 26, 2016, 11:51:29 pm
Democracy is a delicate enterprise. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2016, 04:12:45 am
Trump is a jackass, and much worse.  But his appeal is not only to xenophobics and fascists, which is a small part of his following.  Most of his followers are those who are sick and tired of being manipulated into being represented by people that are not willing or able to carry through on their campaign promises, and foolishly believe that just because Trump is a bully, he will be THEIR bully, totally forgetting that most of what he promises, he can NOT produce, and and what he WILL produce will be just the opposite of what they want.

I did not write "facists."  I wrote "authoritarians."  While facists are pretty much by definition authoritarians, not all authoritarians are facists.  I chose the word "authoritarians" for a reason.  I chose not to use the word "facist" for a reason.  (While Trump himself certainly appears to be facist, I am not suggesting that most of his supporters are... or would even understand the term.)  The reason I chose "authoritarian" instead of "facist," is that "authoritarian" fits, while facist does not, and there is sound evidence for the conclusion they are authoritarian, a conclusion which certainly did not originate with me.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533
My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

Not all authoritarians are Republicans by any means; in national surveys since 1992, many authoritarians have also self-identified as independents and Democrats. And in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political scientist Marc Hetherington found that authoritarianism mattered more than income, ideology, gender, age and education in predicting whether voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. But Hetherington has also found, based on 14 years of polling, that authoritarians have steadily moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party over time. He hypothesizes that the trend began decades ago, as Democrats embraced civil rights, gay rights, employment protections and other political positions valuing freedom and equality. In my poll results, authoritarianism was not a statistically significant factor in the Democratic primary race, at least not so far, but it does appear to be playing an important role on the Republican side. Indeed, 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters I surveyed score in the top quarter of the authoritarian scale—more than twice as many as Democratic voters.

Political pollsters have missed this key component of Trump’s support because they simply don’t include questions about authoritarianism in their polls. In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.

Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate—Republican or Democrat—whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant.




Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2016, 09:30:30 am
So how much are you giving his campaign?

I give the same amount to all campaigns of all parties.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2016, 09:35:06 am
I realize that you used the term authoritarian.  I did not use it because the term is meaningless psychobabble.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 27, 2016, 10:22:46 am
I give the same amount to all campaigns of all parties.
So, if I run, you'll send me money?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2016, 12:44:15 pm
As much as I gave to Trump and Hillary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 27, 2016, 05:46:23 pm
I expect TEN times what you gave Trump and Hillary.

BTW, since Hillary always said in news conferences that "WE are the President," wouldn't this be a third term?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2016, 06:36:21 pm
I give the same amount to all campaigns of all parties.

Sounds like Donald Trump....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 27, 2016, 06:39:17 pm
I realize that you used the term authoritarian.  I did not use it because the term is meaningless psychobabble.

His next  the last paragraph provides a a working definition, which is neither meaningless nor psychobabble.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2016, 08:12:31 pm
Actually, it is a great example of psychobabble.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 27, 2016, 08:15:06 pm
I expect TEN times what you gave Trump and Hillary.

That is a coincidence.  I personally believe that you are worth exactly ten times what I gave Trump and Hillary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 27, 2016, 10:15:45 pm
C1 = TH
T = H/C1
H = T/C1

Odds are H/C1 or T/C1 are undefined.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 27, 2016, 10:33:25 pm
That is a coincidence.  I personally believe that you are worth exactly ten times what I gave Trump and Hillary.
Dave, a few years ago I told my board of directors that I was so pleased with the work of our volunteers that I had doubled their salaries.  A couple board members laughed, the rest were picking their jaws off the table...then you could see the lights coming on...very, very slowly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2016, 11:10:44 am
Of COURSE he won't condemn the Klan -- condemning the Klan would be directly attacking his core supporters.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/28/468455028/trump-wont-condemn-kkk-says-he-knows-nothing-about-white-supremacists
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 28, 2016, 01:02:51 pm
Trump is a populist.  His one ability is to convince large numbers of disparate and even opposing groups that he is really on THEIR side.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2016, 01:30:40 pm
Trump is a populist.  His one ability is to convince large numbers of disparate and even opposing groups that he is really on THEIR side.

In this case, he is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 28, 2016, 05:31:35 pm
Trump is a populist.  His one ability is to convince large numbers of disparate and even opposing groups that he is really on THEIR side.
Trump is a jackass.

from my favorite pastor and writer:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/26/max-lucado-trump-doesnt-pass-the-decency-test/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on February 28, 2016, 05:52:35 pm
Hard to disagree but I'd vote for Ric Flair over Hilary.

Once again remember that I voted for Rubio but maybe Trump looks so good to some because of his competition.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2016, 06:29:19 pm
Hard to disagree but I'd vote for Ric Flair over Hilary.

Once again remember that I voted for Rubio but maybe Trump looks so good to some because of his competition.

Hey, MANY of us would vote for Rick Flair over Hilary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 28, 2016, 06:30:44 pm
Speaking of our former Secretary of State and the policies carried out under her....
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cia-weapons-syrian-jihadis-isis-selling-facebook/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 28, 2016, 06:33:52 pm
Captain Obvious would clearly be an improvement over Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 28, 2016, 07:58:57 pm
Hard to disagree but I'd vote for Ric Flair over Hilary.

Get him to run and I'm all in.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 29, 2016, 10:20:46 am
I'm starting to think CurtOne has a good point (yeah I said that) about Trump just being a Republican party troll.  How does anyone take this guy seriously?  Is he just running just to make some point about how many backwoods racists there still are in this country?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on February 29, 2016, 10:20:53 am
This man who has such a superior intellect, such great command of current issues and is surrounding himself with the best advisors doesn't know who David Duke is and doesn't have advisors who might be able to clue him in on David Duke?  Seriously?   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on February 29, 2016, 11:25:07 am
Maybe it's because I'm neither old nor southern, but I didn't know who David Duke was.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on February 29, 2016, 11:49:34 am
You arnt running for president either.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 29, 2016, 11:55:10 am
Likely cause your too young, I'm 39 and 1991 was around the time that I first started following politics so it was one of the first elections that I heard about.  Duke vs Edwin Edwards would be a lot like Trump vs Clinton.  Somebody made bumper stickers in support of Edwards, "Vote for the crook, it's important."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 29, 2016, 01:34:49 pm
I must also be young.  I remember Duke from one of the elections, but who is Edwin Edwards?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on February 29, 2016, 01:50:39 pm
The Democrat that Duke ran against.  16 years as Louisiana Governor, 10 years in federal prison.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on February 29, 2016, 02:08:14 pm
I thought only Illinois Governors went to prison.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on February 29, 2016, 02:44:39 pm
Maybe it's because I'm neither old nor southern, but I didn't know who David Duke was.

But I assume you know what the KKK is?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on February 29, 2016, 03:55:00 pm
Karen's Korner Kitchen!   When we lived shortly in Buckley, IL, the best restaurant in town was Karen's Korner Kitchen.  Right on the corner, it had a huge sign, KKK.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on February 29, 2016, 04:48:12 pm
This man who has such a superior intellect, such great command of current issues and is surrounding himself with the best advisors doesn't know who David Duke is and doesn't have advisors who might be able to clue him in on David Duke?  Seriously?

Trump actually DID know.  When he was thinking about running for president on the Constitutional Party ticket (I think that was the ticket), he finally bowed owed of consideration with an announcement which specifically referenced David Duke by name, and calling him a racist, and also mentioning that since Duke (and two other folks he mentioned, one of whom was openly a communist) was in the party, Trump did not want to also belong.  And then just Friday, two days before his Jake Tapper interview, he responded to questions about David Duke endorsing him and he specifically and by name disavowed Duke's endorsement.

When Tapper asked the question, he said he had not heard of Duke, that he did not even know who Duke was, which is why Tapper was so taken aback.

Trump was doing as Trump so often does, simply playing the media in order to seize control of another news cycle, without paying anything for ads.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 01, 2016, 05:45:48 pm
Most of my former co-workers were Republican.  Most of my family is Republican.  Many of my friends are Republican.  I don't believe a single one of them support Donald Trump.  All of them are agonizing over who they will vote for in November.  Then I realized something, they all have brains and values.  Go figure.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 01, 2016, 06:11:37 pm
You must have been adopted?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Reb on March 01, 2016, 06:36:45 pm
John Oliver on Trump.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/02/29/john_oliver_shredded_donald_trump_for_20_straight_minutes_on_last_week_tonight.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 01, 2016, 07:07:21 pm
Make fun all you want but EVERYONE Ive spoken to in my neck of the woods supports Trump.

My dentist even said "Ill help him build that damn wall" and that's the only comments I could even post.

Most people are saying much worse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on March 01, 2016, 07:12:12 pm
Where do you live? 1933 Germany?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 01, 2016, 07:12:43 pm
There are a lot of angry folks looking for scapegoats.  Trump would be their guy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 01, 2016, 07:35:45 pm
I dont live in Knoxville but I dont live but about 15-20 mins from there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 01, 2016, 07:37:04 pm
It's just like that story Curt posted.

People are voting with their middle finger.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on March 01, 2016, 07:43:24 pm
Look at the states where Ben Carson gets more votes than John Kasich.  Those are states I will never move to.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on March 01, 2016, 07:46:32 pm
Trump appears to be on track for a win in Georgia, Vermont, Virginia, Alabama, Mass, Tennessee.

Losing to Rubio in Ark, barely losing to cruz in Texas. 3 states not reporting anything yet as  polls still open.

Trump your 2016 GOP presidential candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 01, 2016, 07:56:26 pm
I sometimes wonder if Trump will be the last GOP candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 01, 2016, 08:48:49 pm
Most of my former co-workers were Republican.  Most of my family is Republican.  Many of my friends are Republican.  I don't believe a single one of them support Donald Trump.  All of them are agonizing over who they will vote for in November.  Then I realized something, they all have brains and values.  Go figure.
Make fun all you want but EVERYONE Ive spoken to in my neck of the woods supports Trump.

My dentist even said "Ill help him build that damn wall" and that's the only comments I could even post.

Most people are saying much worse.

Yeah it looks like Trump's support is mostly coming from backwoods, rural areas.  Just flipping through the Tennessee counties, granted Trump even wins the bigger counties like Davidson County where Nashville is, but his margins there aren't anywhere near what they are in the smaller counties, where he's winning 45-50% of the vote. 

I'm like Curt, I know of absolutely no one who is voting for Trump or at least is willing to admit it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 01, 2016, 08:54:54 pm
Look at the states where Ben Carson gets more votes than John Kasich.  Those are states I will never move to.

+1
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 01, 2016, 09:03:52 pm
Although I guess on the flip side, I'm living in one of those states, haha.

I badly wanted to vote for Kasich today, but I knew it would be a wasted vote.  I wound up voting for Rubio, although not with a great deal of enthusiasm.

What might even be sadder about tonight than Trump sweeping Super Tuesday is that it looks like Cruz is going to win two states to Rubio's zero.  Cruz to me is pretty much as bad as Trump, but he's now going to have more of a case to call on Rubio to quit the race after tonight than Rubio will against Cruz.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Ray on March 01, 2016, 09:11:30 pm
I know who both are, but then again, I was from louisiana. Duke versus Edwards was in my mid teens when I was a lot more interested in politics.  Talk about ashamed to even pick a side.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on March 01, 2016, 09:30:47 pm
Baseball related politics tweet...

Craig Calcaterra ‏@craigcalcaterra 
The Rubio love from conservatives is quickly becoming "sure, the Royals won the Series, but the Cards are the better team!" stuff.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2016, 10:19:51 pm
Where do you live? 1933 Germany?

Central eastern Tennessee.

Same difference.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 01, 2016, 10:21:48 pm
ruz to me is pretty much as bad as Trump

How?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on March 02, 2016, 06:52:18 am
How?

Cruz has proven himself as a hardline ideologue who thinks what Washington needs is someone who will draw a line in the sand, dig in his heels, and demand his way or the highway even more than what we've already had for the last decade.  In my opinion, he's MORE dangerous than Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 02, 2016, 07:03:00 am
Cruz has proven himself as a hardline ideologue who thinks what Washington needs is someone who will draw a line in the sand, dig in his heels, and demand his way or the highway even more than what we've already had for the last decade.  In my opinion, he's MORE dangerous than Trump.

Ah.... in other words he takes positions based on principles.

I can understand how some people don't like that.

Of course the failure of those in Congress to do that is what has given rise to Trump, but then you have already said you would prefer Trump.  Not surprising.

But which of Cruz's "hardline ideolog(ical)" positions is it that you find so troublesome?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on March 02, 2016, 07:03:50 am
When the final 5 are Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Rubio and Cruz you know this country just simply doesn't care any more.  Obama ushered in the celebrity president, which is why Trump is doing so well.  Trump doesn't even have to study the issues, he just tells us how great everything is going to be and the shills believe him because he fired people on Apprentice.  What is your stance on North Korea?  "We're going to have a great foreign policy, it will be beautiful, you won't even believe it."  What is your stance on the EU and bailing out failing members?  "The EU will love me, I do very well with the EU, we're going to have a great relationship with the EU."  What should we do in about Putin and Russia?  "Putin likes me, I do very well with the Russian people.  Have you seen my numbers there?  We're going to have a great relationship with Russia."  About the only policies he has espoused so far are kicking illegals out and starting a trade war with China and possibly Mexico.  Trump is so bad i could almost vote for Hillary.  Almost.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 02, 2016, 07:20:16 am
When the final 5 are Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Rubio and Cruz you know this country just simply doesn't care any more.  Obama ushered in the celebrity president, which is why Trump is doing so well.  Trump doesn't even have to study the issues, he just tells us how great everything is going to be and the shills believe him because he fired people on Apprentice.  What is your stance on North Korea?  "We're going to have a great foreign policy, it will be beautiful, you won't even believe it."  What is your stance on the EU and bailing out failing members?  "The EU will love me, I do very well with the EU, we're going to have a great relationship with the EU."  What should we do in about Putin and Russia?  "Putin likes me, I do very well with the Russian people.  Have you seen my numbers there?  We're going to have a great relationship with Russia."  About the only policies he has espoused so far are kicking illegals out and starting a trade war with China and possibly Mexico.  Trump is so bad i could almost vote for Hillary.  Almost.

Hit the nail on the head there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 02, 2016, 07:22:20 am
I'm not particularly fond of Hillary.  But I don't understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Trump to Hillary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on March 02, 2016, 07:28:50 am
Ah.... in other words he takes positions based on principles.

I can understand how some people don't like that.

Of course the failure of those in Congress to do that is what has given rise to Trump, but then you have already said you would prefer Trump.  Not surprising.

But which of Cruz's "hardline ideolog(ical)" positions is it that you find so troublesome?

Correct.  I think Trump is the 2nd worst of the 5 remaining likely candidates. 

You think the Congress has failed to take positions on principles?  That's why Congress has wasted their time by voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 60 times?

It's okay to have a position based on principles (even if they're principles I don't agree with), but Cruz has been among the leaders igniting the vitriol in 21st century politics.  Now we're at the point where the Senate is publicly refusing to do their job and even consider confirming a Supreme Court justice because we'll have a new president in 11 months.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on March 02, 2016, 07:29:49 am
I'm not particularly fond of Hillary.  But I don't understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Trump to Hillary.

I have a college-educated friend whose favorite candidate is Trump.  It blows my mind.

I'd prefer Kasich out of the current lot, but I realize his chances are pretty slim.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 02, 2016, 07:32:09 am
I'm not particularly fond of Hillary.  But I don't understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Trump to Hillary.

I don't, and Hillary would actually have a chance to convince me to vote for her in the general over Trump.

More than likely, though, I'll just find a third party candidate I can support with a protest vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 02, 2016, 08:10:43 am
Interesting juxtaposition of Trump and Goldwater:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/opinions/trump-vs-goldwater-zelizer/index.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 02, 2016, 09:15:26 am
Correct.  I think Trump is the 2nd worst of the 5 remaining likely candidates. 

You think the Congress has failed to take positions on principles?  That's why Congress has wasted their time by voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 60 times?

Voting for repeal of Obamacare is meaningless, since they know that the President would never sign such a bill.  But they could merely have passed spending bills that defund Obamacare, but have not had the nerve to do so.  The bills they have passed were meaningless on the face of it, and were merely a method of gaining votes for reelection.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 02, 2016, 09:17:12 am
I'm not particularly fond of Hillary.  But I don't understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Trump to Hillary.

I agree.  But I also don't understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Hillary to Trump.  They would both be equally horrible.  It is rather like choosing which incurable cancer you wish to die from.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 02, 2016, 09:43:19 am
Interesting juxtaposition of Trump and Goldwater:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/opinions/trump-vs-goldwater-zelizer/index.html


My guess of how it would play out.  Trump would fail to unify the Republicans and a larger than normal percentage won't vote for him, maybe 80% of registered Republicans.  This would lead to a fairly large win for Hillary.  People like myself will realize voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary will make sure that they vote for Republicans for the Senate and House leaving a fairly split Senate and Republican House which leads to very little getting done for 4 years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 02, 2016, 09:57:32 am
The winning President is an extremely strong draw for both Senators and Congressmen.  If Hillary wins the Presidency, I think it is extremely likely that the Democrats will win back the Senate.  And the House has not shown itself to be willing to stand firm on it's principles in the face of media attack.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 02, 2016, 10:15:47 am
Decent chance the Democrats take the Senate no matter what happens with the Presidential election.  It would take a fairly large Republican wave to keep it.  Too many Republicans are running in blue and purple states this cycle.

What has the House passed other than a budget?  Shutting down the government for months doesn't sound like an appealing option.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 02, 2016, 10:58:11 am
Just wondering, what do you Nebraska people think about Ben Sasse?  He's kind of impressed me lately with how strongly he's come out against Trump.  He's one of the few Republicans in Washington who's had the guts to take a strong stand against Trump, and he's done a nice job articulating the case against him.  I'm just wondering if he's worth my time thinking about as a possibility for 2020. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on March 02, 2016, 11:03:38 am
The odds that Chris Christie will be Trump's running mate have to be pretty good right now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 02, 2016, 11:39:12 am
Just wondering, what do you Nebraska people think about Ben Sasse?  He's kind of impressed me lately with how strongly he's come out against Trump.  He's one of the few Republicans in Washington who's had the guts to take a strong stand against Trump, and he's done a nice job articulating the case against him.  I'm just wondering if he's worth my time thinking about as a possibility for 2020. 

I can't speak for all of Nebraska, but I like him a lot.  He is smart and media savy.  His tweets during the Washington DC snow storm were hilarious when he was stuck on a train.  I would consider him to be Ted Cruz without the creepy personality and poor political judgement (shut down over Obamacare for example).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 02, 2016, 11:42:06 am
Interesting juxtaposition of Trump and Goldwater:

I mentioned that comparison to a co-worker the other day. (His only response was, "How old are you, anyway"?)

My guess is that Clinton will win convincingly, and people will want to blame Trump.  But really Trump is just the symptom, not the cause. Trump is just the puss oozing from an infection.  Ironically Ted Cruz is the Republican Party's last best hope, and yet it is Cruz and his Tea Party ilk who are much more responsible for the present dysfunction of government and the corresponding anger of voters. Come November, when the Republicans lose, there will be  much finger pointing. But the sensible Republican will understand that they have met the enemy and he is us.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 02, 2016, 11:44:22 am
Not me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on March 02, 2016, 01:05:59 pm
I think I'm buying into the argument that Trump is the Frankenstein's monster that the Republican party created.  Reap what you sow.

I loved the John Oliver take on Trump.  It should be required viewing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 02, 2016, 01:39:21 pm
I think I'm buying into the argument that Trump is the Frankenstein's monster that the Republican party created.  Reap what you sow.

I loved the John Oliver take on Trump.  It should be required viewing.

There are a fair amount of Trump voters that could also be Sanders voters, so I don't think it is just a Republican issue.  Trump is just has more of a draw then a Senator from Vermont.

Agree on John Oliver.  I wonder how much papa Drumpf left Donald?  It might be possible that adjusting for inflation Donald J Drumpf has lost money vs making it.

www.DonaldJDrumpf.com
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on March 02, 2016, 02:35:15 pm
Is there a bigger narcissist in the world than Donald Trump?  Maybe Kanye West?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on March 02, 2016, 02:38:34 pm
Is there a bigger narcissist in the world than Donald Trump?  Maybe Kanye West?

Definitely Kanye.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 02, 2016, 02:43:50 pm
I think everything is going exactly as Bill, Hillary, and Donald planned.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 02, 2016, 02:45:33 pm
Latest poll shows 6 out of 10 Republicans feel betrayed by their party and have no one to support this fall.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 02, 2016, 05:15:34 pm
I'm not particularly fond of Hillary.  But I don't understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Trump to Hillary.

Who said they would?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 02, 2016, 05:22:51 pm
Correct.  I think Trump is the 2nd worst of the 5 remaining likely candidates. 

You think the Congress has failed to take positions on principles?  That's why Congress has wasted their time by voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 60 times?

It's okay to have a position based on principles (even if they're principles I don't agree with), but Cruz has been among the leaders igniting the vitriol in 21st century politics.  Now we're at the point where the Senate is publicly refusing to do their job and even consider confirming a Supreme Court justice because we'll have a new president in 11 months.

The question was very simple, and very narrow.  For whatever the reason might be, you did not even begin to address it.

To help out, here, again, is the question: But which of Cruz's "hardline ideolog(ical)" positions is it that you find so troublesome?

Your first paragraph above simply says you don't like him.

Your second paragraph refers to what CONGRESS has done, not any position Cruz has taken, and most of the 60 votes you reference have been in the House, not even the chamber of Congress Cruz is in.  Cruz is in the Senate, and has virtually no control or influence in getting matters voted on there.

Your third paragraph refers to "vitriol," without mentioning anything about his positions, and then goes on to say that "he Senate is publicly refusing to do their job" regarding consideration of a Supreme Court nominee.... who has not even been named.

So, again I ask, which of Cruz's "hardline ideolog(ical)" positions is it that you find so troublesome?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 02, 2016, 05:25:59 pm
My guess of how it would play out.  Trump would fail to unify the Republicans and a larger than normal percentage won't vote for him, maybe 80% of registered Republicans.  This would lead to a fairly large win for Hillary.  People like myself will realize voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary will make sure that they vote for Republicans for the Senate and House leaving a fairly split Senate and Republican House which leads to very little getting done for 4 years.

Ah.... a government which does not do much.... and davep has trouble understanding how why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Hillary to Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 02, 2016, 05:28:30 pm
What has the House passed other than a budget?  Shutting down the government for months doesn't sound like an appealing option.

It sounds like the best thing Congress could do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 02, 2016, 06:01:48 pm
I loved the John Oliver take on Trump.  It should be required viewing.

Last night after viewing that clip, I realized I have been vastly underestimating my "brand" and therefor my net worth. Now I can afford to retire whenever I want!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on March 02, 2016, 06:10:16 pm
Hillary and Trump are definitely not two equally terrible cancers. Trump is cancer. Hillary is acute IBS. Sucks to have IBS, but at least it's not cancer
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 12, 2016, 09:44:20 am
http://qz.com/634578/a-republican-confession-from-52-years-ago-has-a-lot-to-say-about-this-years-election/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 12, 2016, 06:01:49 pm
http://qz.com/634578/a-republican-confession-from-52-years-ago-has-a-lot-to-say-about-this-years-election/


There is an immense difference between Trump, who has never even voted in a primary election ans is not even really a Republican, and a sitting Republican senator who was very active in the party before the 1964 election and remained active after it, even being called, "Mr. Republican."  Before Kennedy's assassination columnists were already writing about an anticipated general election race between Kennedy and Goldwater in 1964, and the race was expected t be quite competitive, with many even forecasting a fairly easy win for Goldwater.  Not quite the same for Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on March 15, 2016, 04:28:41 pm
JFK would have destroyed Mr. Extremist.

We all know it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 04:48:32 pm
JFK would have destroyed Mr. Extremist.

We all know it.

JFK certainly didn't "know it."

Of course, I have forgotten how much smarter than he is that you are.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 15, 2016, 05:18:32 pm
The cover of todays USA TODAY says Trump doesnt have a prayer of beating Hilary head to head.

We wont have to hear his mouth long but the alternative OTOH...

I still wish Ric Flair would run with Arn Anderson as his VP.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 15, 2016, 05:37:04 pm
Hillary, Democrats, liberals, and the mainstream media can underestimate Trump in the general election at their own risk.

Regular Republicans and the mainstream media have already done enough underestimating of Trump the last few months as it is. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 15, 2016, 06:01:43 pm
JFK would have destroyed Mr. Extremist.

We all know it.

True.  But he would have been a true Republican.  Kennedy could never win the Democratic nomination today, with the loony left taking over the party.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 15, 2016, 06:03:55 pm
Ah.... a government which does not do much.... and davep has trouble understanding how why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Hillary to Trump.

Did I say that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 06:18:39 pm
Hillary, Democrats, liberals, and the mainstream media can underestimate Trump in the general election at their own risk.

Regular Republicans and the mainstream media have already done enough underestimating of Trump the last few months as it is. 

m the ation
Few people are underestimating Trump.  They fully understand the harm he would do to the Republican party if he gets the nomination, likely causing the Republicans to lose the Senate, and polluting the Republican brand for years, and wrecking even greater harm to the nation if he somehow won in November.

The only ones underestimating Trump are his supporters.  Most of them believe he could not possibly harm the nation as much as he likely would if he were elected.

I do not underestimate him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 06:20:16 pm
Did I say that?

I believe so.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 15, 2016, 06:47:06 pm
Can you point to the post?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 06:49:01 pm
Can you point to the post?

Why bother?  If you deny saying it, I doubt that I care enough to look for it, but my memory is you have posted that at least once.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 06:53:24 pm
It was easier than I thought:

I agree.  But I also don't understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would prefer Hillary to Trump.  They would both be equally horrible.  It is rather like choosing which incurable cancer you wish to die from.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 15, 2016, 07:33:20 pm
Thanks.  It certainly was, and is my belief, but I didn't remember posting it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 15, 2016, 07:38:15 pm
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton.  But the choice between her or Trump is an absolute no-brain-er. (Which, I guess, excludes me from the Intelligent/Thoughtful club.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 15, 2016, 07:43:50 pm
If Rubio had been as eloquent in the debates as he was in his suspension speech, he might have won.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on March 15, 2016, 07:48:48 pm
True.  But he would have been a true Republican.  Kennedy could never win the Democratic nomination today, with the loony left taking over the party.


Donald Trump is about to be the GOP candidate.... who has gone loony???
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 08:00:19 pm
Thanks.  It certainly was, and is my belief, but I didn't remember posting it.

I actually thought you had posted it twice, but stopped searching after finding that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 08:09:54 pm
On a completely different topic, but still in the political vein, today I gave students in my four study skills classes a very simple reading comprehension exercise.

They are 7th and 8th graders.  They have all either recited or heard recited to them the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in the first period of school for more than 1,300 times since they started school.  The exercise was to explain what the Pledge means.

Not one came close, and that was with all of them allowed to work together and to use dictionaries.

Not one.

I pretty much expected as much, and it is one of the reasons why when I hear people complaining that "kids don't learn the Pledge anymore," I think those complaining are wildly misguided.  The kids generally have no understanding at all as to what it means.  Having them mindlessly recite something they do not understand is pointless.  The other reason most of those complaining are misguided is because I believe most schools still do have the kids recite the pledge.... even if they have no idea what a "pledge" is, let alone understanding the rest of it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 15, 2016, 08:14:07 pm
What did they say that the pledge meant?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 09:40:56 pm
Clueless.  The words are a mishmash to them.  The closest I can recall at the moment is one kid who thought it was a promise of loyalty to dead soldiers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 15, 2016, 09:47:36 pm
Im old enough to remember when my 2nd grade teacher would read us the bible every morning.

She'd get shot if she did that now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 15, 2016, 09:53:35 pm
Im old enough to remember when my 2nd grade teacher would read us the bible every morning.

She'd get shot if she did that now.

You are quite wrong.

It still happens.  It shouldn't, but it does,  It shouldn't have been happening when you were in school, unless you were in a private school.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: papa smurf on March 15, 2016, 10:09:43 pm
I know I will get hammered for this but the constitution does not state that you can not have prayer in school...it's meaning is that it can not have a state sponsored religion that everyone is forced to partake in.  Our founding fathers believed in GOD and put his name on our money, in our pledge etc.  Now for the bashing from the liberals because I have a different opinion then they do.   But we live in a free country and they have that right.   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: AndyMacFAIL on March 15, 2016, 11:53:53 pm
I know I will get hammered for this but the constitution does not state that you can not have prayer in school...it's meaning is that it can not have a state sponsored religion that everyone is forced to partake in. Our founding fathers believed in GOD and put his name on our money, in our pledge etc.  Now for the bashing from the liberals because I have a different opinion then they do.   But we live in a free country and they have that right.   


100% incorrect. 

The phrase "In God We Trust" was placed on U.S. currency in the 1860s by the Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase during the Civil War after an appeal to him to do so by a Reverend from Pennsylvania: 

https://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

The "Pledge of Allegiance" was written in 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy.  It was meant to be a pledge for all nations until the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added in 1923.  The phrase "under God" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954 in response to the Communist threat of the times.  The daughter of the writter of the poem even objected to the change in the poem:

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm


Our founding fathers had nothing to do with putting God on our money or in the Pledge.  Those actions happened over 80 and 175 years after our founding fathers formed the U.S.A.

You're more than entitled to your view on school prayer but please do at least a little Google search before you try to pass off stuff as fact.



Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2016, 06:43:05 am
I know I will get hammered for this but the constitution does not state that you can not have prayer in school...it's meaning is that it can not have a state sponsored religion that everyone is forced to partake in.  Our founding fathers believed in GOD and put his name on our money, in our pledge etc.  Now for the bashing from the liberals because I have a different opinion then they do.   But we live in a free country and they have that right.   

The Constitution also does not say government can not pay for the construction of churches or burn infidels at the stake.  Seriously.  Those words are nowhere in the document.

What it DOES say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  And thru the 14th Amendment, that language is taken to be applicable to state and local government.

Do you seriously contend that having a school lead children in prayer (and this only addresses schools leading prayer or teaching any religious dogma as fact, not students praying on their own, or the actual study of religion) is not "respecting religion"?

The key Supreme Court decisions addressed the issue more than 35 years ago.  Abbngton was in 1963 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/374/203 and Engle was in 1962 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421 

Both of those decisions were well before Dusty was born, let alone before he began school.

One thing I often find amusing is how many conservatives and how many of those who are most strident in their mindless insistence that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited in school (in spite of the fact that the kids are reciting something they do not even begin to understand) is that the reason it was written, and its logical actual function (to the extent that it has any), is the exact opposite of what those conservatives would want.

AndyMcFAIL is right that the author of the Pledge was Bellamy and that he was a socialist.  He wrote it at a time when the American spirit was so strongly individualistic that he and other socialists were quite aware of the fact that the American public as it then existed would never accept socialism, let alone embrace it or vote for it.  So he came up with the Pledge in the hope of indoctrinating kids, getting people to pledge allegiance to the all powerful state, and to gradually come to believe and accept what they were reciting.  The Pledge was intended to help pave the way for socialism in this country, and, to a remarkable degree, it has done exactly that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 16, 2016, 09:32:32 am
I spent part of my childhood living in England. I attended a little village school, no more than 75 kids, five teachers and a headmaster. The first thing the students did in the morning was pray.  The headmaster would loudly announce, "Lord's Prayer please, Yanks excused".  After that we sang, "God Save the Queen please, Yanks excused".  I was the only "Yank" in school.  I prayed, I sang, I lived.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 16, 2016, 09:36:56 am
If Rubio had been as eloquent in the debates as he was in his suspension speech, he might have won.

I don't know, Rubio's had his eloquent moments.

In hindsight, he should have focused on getting re-elected to the Senate instead of jumping the gun on running for President.  The people in Florida obviously didn't like that he probably spent more time the last two years running for President instead of being their senator. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on March 16, 2016, 09:43:35 am
I don't know, Rubio's had his eloquent moments.

In hindsight, he should have focused on getting re-elected to the Senate instead of jumping the gun on running for President.  The people in Florida obviously didn't like that he probably spent more time the last two years running for President instead of being their senator. 

100% correct. Most feel he forgot about his constituents once he got on the big stage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2016, 10:36:26 am
I spent part of my childhood living in England. I attended a little village school, no more than 75 kids, five teachers and a headmaster. The first thing the students did in the morning was pray.  The headmaster would loudly announce, "Lord's Prayer please, Yanks excused".  After that we sang, "God Save the Queen please, Yanks excused".  I was the only "Yank" in school.  I prayed, I sang, I lived.

I don't think anyone has suggested a person would not survive (or has not survived) if they are required to recite the pledge, or a prayer, or even to join a particular church and tithe to it.  It is equally true that the nation will survive (and has survived) in the absence of someone doing any of those things.  Survival really is not the question.  The question is whether the First Amendment, which (in conjunction with the 14th) prohibits government from doing anything respecting the establishment of religion, and, whether you or I think it does, the Supreme Court has decided that having a public school lead kids in prayer does qualify as "respecting" the establishment of religion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on March 16, 2016, 11:15:56 am
Quote
In hindsight, he should have focused on getting re-elected to the Senate instead of jumping the gun on running for President.

Yep.  He was Not Ready For Prime Time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 16, 2016, 12:28:50 pm
If Rubio had not joined the "gang of eight" on the immigration issue, he might have had a chance.  A great many conservatives are sick and tired of politicians claim to be conservative during campaigns, but sacrifice what they claimed to be their beliefs once elected.

The line in the sand formed many conservatives on this issue seems to be a path to citizenship for those that came here illegally.  If he had resisted that aspect, he would not have so much of his conservative base.  Having shown himself to be willing to compromise on this issue caused many to fear that he would do so on other issues important to them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on March 16, 2016, 01:25:51 pm
Count me in among the unintelligent crowd that would vote for Hillary over Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 16, 2016, 03:19:33 pm
Survival really is not the question.

Of course.  I was just sharing a little personal experience.

Interestingly, I can remember my 3rd/4th grade teacher, Mrs. Jones, a great and wonderful person, pointing out to the class one day that, as the only 'Yank", I was the only person in the room who had a choice concerning praying and singing. I liked that. Never had time to get a big head about it...as soon as I got on the playground my school chums would start asking me why my country was napalming little Vietnamese children. And when they found out what town in America I was from they wanted to know why I nuked all those poor little Japanese children.  Hard questions to answer even for an eight year old.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2016, 04:54:10 pm
as soon as I got on the playground my school chums would start asking me why my country was napalming little Vietnamese children. And when they found out what town in America I was from they wanted to know why I nuked all those poor little Japanese children.  Hard questions to answer even for an eight year old.

You probably benefited from that, if only by learning what the United States was doing at the time, and what it had done.  A lot of kids in the U.S. were remarkably ignorant of both of them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: papa smurf on March 16, 2016, 04:59:14 pm
yes many more lives would have been saved if we would have invaded japan...not
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 16, 2016, 05:02:05 pm
Many more lives would have been lost if the US had invaded Japan.  Especially Japanese lives. But try explaining that to an eight year-old who's already pissed off that you don't have to sing God Save the Queen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on March 16, 2016, 05:58:42 pm
yes many more lives would have been saved if we would have invaded japan...not
The military had ordered 500,000 body bags.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 16, 2016, 06:28:46 pm
You probably benefited from that, if only by learning what the United States was doing at the time, and what it had done.  A lot of kids in the U.S. were remarkably ignorant of both of them.

Wow.  I don't know what kind of childhood you had, but in mine, I don't think that there was a single school kid that didn't know that we had dropped an atomic bomb on Japan.  And everyone I knew also seemed to know that we were at war in Viet Nam.  It is quite possible that many of them didn't now what napalm was, but I'm not sure what difference that makes.  I didn't know what specific weapons we used in Korea, but I was pretty sure that we used some.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 16, 2016, 06:33:44 pm
I have never questioned Hiroshima.  I have misgivings about Nagasaki.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 16, 2016, 07:21:10 pm
The really horrible thing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not the bombs themselves. Destroying cities and annihilating civilians was, by the summer 1945, a common event. Literally millions of civilians had died from allied bombing before Hiroshima.  As for pure killing ability, the only novel thing the A-Bomb provided was efficiency.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 16, 2016, 07:56:32 pm
Dresden, Tokyo and Berlin all had bombing raids that killed as many in one raid as either of the Atomic Bombs did.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 16, 2016, 08:03:42 pm
It took about 3000 allied aircraft, over several days to bomb Hamburg.  People literally melted from the ensuing firestorm. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 16, 2016, 08:05:11 pm
Wow.  I don't know what kind of childhood you had, but in mine, I don't think that there was a single school kid that didn't know that we had dropped an atomic bomb on Japan.  And everyone I knew also seemed to know that we were at war in Viet Nam.  It is quite possible that many of them didn't now what napalm was, but I'm not sure what difference that makes.  I didn't know what specific weapons we used in Korea, but I was pretty sure that we used some.

In third grade my bet is that most kids did not know the nuclear bombs also vaporized schools and all of the children in them.  I was quite aware we bombed Japan.  I believe it was Jr. High before I learned that at east one of them was dropped on a school full of children, and our use of napalm in bombing village was not even known by many adults until this wonderful photo from 1972http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_44/836396/kim-phuc-inline-3-102715_5f1b58e53f930a6c1ac76fe2e7991806.today-inline-large.jpg

Perhaps FDISK was not in 3rd grade until 1972 or 1973, but I thought he was at least a couple of years older than that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 16, 2016, 08:11:15 pm
Jes, you don't drop a nuclear bomb on a school.  You drop it on a school district.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 17, 2016, 05:49:31 am
If Rubio had been as eloquent in the debates as he was in his suspension speech, he might have won.

If the dog hadn't stopped to ****, he wold have caught the rabbit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 22, 2016, 01:33:56 pm
Donald Trump's detachment with reality knows no ends.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mateagold/status/712041259221782528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 22, 2016, 01:39:20 pm
I'm not sure Trump should talk about a well run company.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-worse-than-you-think-trumps-business-disaster-2016-03-04

I was going to make an easy Curt is old joke about the Cubs being well run, but I thought I'd let it go this time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 22, 2016, 02:30:29 pm
I'm not sure Trump should talk about a well run company.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-worse-than-you-think-trumps-business-disaster-2016-03-04

I was going to make an easy Curt is old joke about the Cubs being well run, but I thought I'd let it go this time.

It's amazing the Republicans never ran ads on that from the get go.  That has everything you'd want to turn off prospective Republican primary voters, from failure of a public corporation to running a seedy gambling enterprise (which you wouldn't think would turn off evangelicals, but nothing else he's done or said has done that up to this point). 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 22, 2016, 02:36:21 pm
Not to mention that his casinos and hotels are 80% staffed with immigrants.  Wanna bet they're all legal?

Trump looked at the candidates in both parties and decided the Republican party would be the easiest to hijack.  All he had to do is get 24 to 30% of the vote in the early primaries and he'd be the favorite.  The only time he has considered office he was going to run as a third party candidate, and most of his donations have gone to Democrats.  This whole thing is the biggest hoax ever pulled.  Any time now, Ashton Kutcher is going to jump out and says, "USA, you just got punked."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 22, 2016, 02:45:54 pm
It's amazing the Republicans never ran ads on that from the get go.  That has everything you'd want to turn off prospective Republican primary voters, from failure of a public corporation to running a seedy gambling enterprise (which you wouldn't think would turn off evangelicals, but nothing else he's done or said has done that up to this point). 

I don't think they could have done it even if they wanted to.  Trump has a brand and trying to take that brand apart would have been difficult, especially when he gets all the free media that he wants.  In early debates it might have worked, but he would have just played it off as the media is picking on me and his supporters wouldn't have cared. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 22, 2016, 02:47:56 pm
Not to mention that his casinos and hotels are 80% staffed with immigrants.  Wanna bet they're all legal?

Trump looked at the candidates in both parties and decided the Republican party would be the easiest to hijack.  All he had to do is get 24 to 30% of the vote in the early primaries and he'd be the favorite.  The only time he has considered office he was going to run as a third party candidate, and most of his donations have gone to Democrats.  This whole thing is the biggest hoax ever pulled.  Any time now, Ashton Kutcher is going to jump out and says, "USA, you just got punked."

One thing that's been interesting to me lately has been all the willing accomplices in this.  CNN has been in the tank for Trump winning the Republican nomination from the beginning.  In the conservative media where you would think they wouldn't be propping up someone who's not that conservative like Trump, Drudge Report, Breitbart, and Daily Caller have pretty much been Trump PR outlets. 

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been propping him up too, although for them, it makes a lot of business sense.  They get Trump inflated ratings for their shows in the near term the more they talk about him and defend him, and in the long term, they get to trash Hillary for four years while still getting to bemoan that the Republicans haven't nominated a "true" conservative since Reagan.

It's bizarre that all of these outlets that ought to be bringing down a complete dangerous fraud like Trump are very much responsible for promoting him and keeping him afloat.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 22, 2016, 03:15:37 pm
MSNBC has been calling out Trump pretty much all along.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 22, 2016, 03:56:41 pm
MSNBC has been calling out Trump pretty much all along.

They have.  And they have been doing a reasonably good job of it.  Unfortunately their ratings are so low they reach nearly no one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 22, 2016, 03:59:06 pm
MSNBC has been calling out Trump pretty much all along.
And Fox has been calling out Clinton and Sanders.   Both FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left have lost impartial credibility.  And BTW, Trump does have a couple of butt buddies on MSNBC in the morning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 22, 2016, 04:01:11 pm
And Fox has been calling out Clinton and Sanders.   Both FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left have lost impartial credibility.  And BTW, Trump does have a couple of butt buddies on MSNBC in the morning.

They've all lost impartial credibility.

CNN has just totally sold itself up the river for Trump ratings, just like it did for the Malaysian Airlines flight and Ebola.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 22, 2016, 04:33:47 pm
The only good thing on MSNBC is Lockup.

And no Im not a Trump supporter.

Every Trump supporter Ive spoken to around here are only doing so because they like his racist promises.

If my options are Trump or Hilary then Im most definitely gonna write in Ric Flair.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 22, 2016, 04:34:52 pm
I'd rather write in Charlotte.  Rick's taken too many bumps.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 22, 2016, 04:37:02 pm
https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/zWo_4FBBN25pfyZv_xbweQ--/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz00MDA-/http://www.tshirtmall.com/images/gallery_large/VWSNC27.jpg.cf.png
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 22, 2016, 04:38:47 pm
I'd definitely be OK with Charlotte too but I bet me and you are the only ones here who know who she is Curt.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 22, 2016, 04:46:39 pm

Wouldn't bet on it.  There are guys in the wrestling closet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 22, 2016, 04:50:46 pm
If my options are Trump or Hilary then Im most definitely gonna write in Ric Flair.

Ha!  I think I might be right there with you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 22, 2016, 05:06:11 pm
I'm not sure that "calling out Trump" would have made much of a difference.  In the three weeks before the primary here in Florida, you couldn't watch TV or listen to the radio for more than 10 minutes without being bombarded with ads "calling out Trump".  But it made no difference.

Part of Trump voters actually think that Trump would make a good president.  But I believe an even larger part of Trump supporters are more interested in "sticking a thumb in the eye of the Republican Establishment".

For years, they have been told that only a "moderate" can win in the general election, only to see the moderates lose.  For years they have voted for candidates in the House and Senate that promised to end Obamacare, reduce spending, reduce the national debt, etc. only to see them refuse to do those things necessary to accomplish this because it might imperil their reelection. 

They are sick and tired of "political correctness", and are pleased to see a candidate who refuses to be "politically correct", even when that particular "incorrectness" is idiotic on the face of it.

Trump would make a horrible President.  But not as horrible as Hillary, Sanders or Biden.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on March 22, 2016, 06:28:13 pm
Speaking of less than desirable politicians

Former Toronto mayor, Rob Ford, has died at 46.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 22, 2016, 06:29:11 pm
I'd definitely be OK with Charlotte too but I bet me and you are the only ones here who know who she is Curt.

At age 29, she does not meat the constitutional minimum requirements.... regardless how much you might like her positions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on March 22, 2016, 07:57:26 pm
I really disappointed in you, Dave.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on March 22, 2016, 08:05:24 pm
I'm not sure that "calling out Trump" would have made much of a difference.  In the three weeks before the primary here in Florida, you couldn't watch TV or listen to the radio for more than 10 minutes without being bombarded with ads "calling out Trump".  But it made no difference.

Part of Trump voters actually think that Trump would make a good president.  But I believe an even larger part of Trump supporters are more interested in "sticking a thumb in the eye of the Republican Establishment".

For years, they have been told that only a "moderate" can win in the general election, only to see the moderates lose.  For years they have voted for candidates in the House and Senate that promised to end Obamacare, reduce spending, reduce the national debt, etc. only to see them refuse to do those things necessary to accomplish this because it might imperil their reelection. 

They are sick and tired of "political correctness", and are pleased to see a candidate who refuses to be "politically correct", even when that particular "incorrectness" is idiotic on the face of it.

Trump would make a horrible President.  But not as horrible as Hillary, Sanders or Biden.

This is not what GOP voters are sick of. They are sick of being told all about the free market and having their entire party pander to bigpharma and all out protectionism.

They are tired of being told they stick up for the little guys economic interest while all full on voting for every bail out.

Obamacare is better then the alternative, where those who can afford and pay for insurance subsidize all those that do not pay for it. My only problem with obamacare is that they did not go full single payer.

Who is worse off today then they were 8 years ago when we diving into the worst recession in 80 years? show of hands on this board. whose life is actually worse off today then 8 years ago?

Mine is much better. i lost my job in the restaurant industry at the first start of the recession at the start of 2008. My company was bought out by Bain capital in 2007,  and they started laying us off with righteous vengeance at the first start of the faultering.

I am at a loss to find peers who were worse off 8 years ago then they are now. I'll wager that few off you are worse off now then you were at the time as well.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 22, 2016, 08:22:33 pm
I say the same to my mother and wife.

Life is much better today than it was 8 years ago but most anti Obama people are that way because he's black and they'll never acknowledge that.

If Barack was white and his name was John Smith nobody would have an issue with him.

In the South anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 22, 2016, 08:27:25 pm
You choose an odd example of the voter's ire.

The most unpopular law in the land among republican voters is Obamacare.  You may find Democrats that like it, but most Democrats like free stuff.

I agree that many voters of both parties do not like free trade.  Many Democrats seem to be voting for Trump because, unlike those in charge of both parties, they would rather have protectionism.

I agree that voters in both parties are sick and tired of bail outs.  But, of course, although a great many Republicans voted for it, both parties have been in favor of bail outs.  Obama orchestrated the bail out of the Automobile industry and the Automotive Unions.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on March 22, 2016, 08:35:36 pm
You choose an odd example of the voter's ire.

The most unpopular law in the land among republican voters is Obamacare.  You may find Democrats that like it, but most Democrats like free stuff.

I agree that many voters of both parties do not like free trade.  Many Democrats seem to be voting for Trump because, unlike those in charge of both parties, they would rather have protectionism.

I agree that voters in both parties are sick and tired of bail outs.  But, of course, although a great many Republicans voted for it, both parties have been in favor of bail outs.  Obama orchestrated the bail out of the Automobile industry and the Automotive Unions.

What is the alternative to Obamacare where those who pay for insurance do NOT pay for those who dont?

Lets be honest, insruance holders have long paid for those in the system that do not pay for insurance. the real problem with health care is the genuine lack of competition that every member of congress seems to support entirely.

Health care is the only industry in this country where you can obtain a service and have no idea what the real charges are until AFTER you receive the service... its also the only service where the prices are completely disparage depending on how you choose to pay for the service. (beyound normal additional charges for paying with a CC vs cash)

I'll ask again, who here is worse off today then they were 8 years ago? I mean it honestly... is your life worse today? or only your perspective of it? why are so many people so needlessly angry?

Have we as a society really lost that much perspective of the common struggle that we must **** and moan about having it so good?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 22, 2016, 08:42:25 pm
I'll tell you one understated problem with Obamacare.  A lot of the insurance plans on Obamacare is hardly real insurance for low income people.  I was helping my brother with Obamacare, and the lowest price plan he was eligible for and was already stretching his budget carried a $10,000 deductible.

If you're an employee at Wal-Mart and wind up with cancer or in a car wreck and you have a health plan with a $10,000 deductible, you're really not insured at all.

And I think Obamacare is only covering maybe 1/4 of the previously 40,000,000 some odd uninsured before it went into effect.

It's a bad system, even if your goal is universal coverage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on March 22, 2016, 08:46:12 pm
I'll tell you one understated problem with Obamacare.  A lot of the insurance plans on Obamacare is hardly real insurance for low income people.  I was helping my brother with Obamacare, and the lowest price plan he was eligible before and was already stretching his budget carried a $10,000 deductible.

If you're an employee at Wal-Mart and wind up with cancer or in a car wreck and you have a health plan with a $10,000 deductible, you're really not insured at all.

And I think Obamacare is only covering maybe 1/4 of the previously 40,000,000 some odd uninsured.

Not a good system. 

A 10K deductible loss on your credit is a lot easier to overcome then a 100K charge from a hospital for emergency coverage.

We have to fix the issue of people who willfully choose to not have insurance and then go to the ER for any problem and pass the costs onto the rest of us.  IMO the real problem is a genuine lack of competition in the healthcare space. in terms of both coverage, and opaque billing practices.

Obamacare only attempts to patch the really bad situations... and that in and of it self imo is a failure of the entire program, they half assed it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 22, 2016, 08:48:20 pm
Both parties do a great job of lying with statistics.  Health insurance and employment are two excellent examples.  Yes employment is up.  Why?  Because people looking for work for a long time, gave up and no longer count in the statistics.  Many employers cut hours to avoid paying the health insurance and hired others in low paying, unfulfilling jobs.  What we have is a lot of people working for minimum wage in part time work.  Obamacare is responsible for some of that, not all of that.   And neither Trump nor the Republicans will fix it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on March 22, 2016, 08:50:20 pm
Trump would make a horrible President.  But not as horrible as Hillary, Sanders or Biden.

I'll take a political hack over a demagogue.  I could not imagine a more dangerous world than one with Putin and The Donald being the guys with their fingers on the button. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on March 22, 2016, 08:52:01 pm
Trump would make a horrible President.  But not as horrible as Hillary, Sanders or Biden.

I'll take a political hack over a demagogue.  I could not imagine a more dangerous world than one with Putin and The Donald being the guys with their fingers on the button. 
Amen

Our hope is that whoever is voted in, the other party controls the House and Senate.  With Trump on the ticket, I fear that won't happen.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on March 22, 2016, 08:54:31 pm
The alternative to healthcare in which those who pay for healthcare insurance pay for those who do not pay for healthcare insurance, it is to have each person pay for his own healthcare, either through insurance or with his own assets.  I have no problem with the Government paying for necessary healthcare for those who have no assets, through general taxation.

I suspect that we would not agree on a definition for necessary healthcare.

I agree that lack of competition is a severe problem.  But the lack of competition comes through federal and local government regulations rather than the industry itself.

I, myself, am no worse off now than I was 8 years ago, but that is because I have been retired for 15 years, and am living off of the money I saved during my working life.  I have a 32 year old daughter who lost her job 3 years ago and is now working at a job that pays less than her last one.  Another daughter who is 42 retired from the Navy 3 years ago, and was unable to find a job for two years.  She is certainly not better off than she was 8 years ago.  I have no idea who your peers are, but you seem to be in a segment of the economy that is doing better than many others.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 22, 2016, 08:57:06 pm
Both parties do a great job of lying with statistics.  Health insurance and employment are two excellent examples.  Yes employment is up.  Why?  Because people looking for work for a long time, gave up and no longer count in the statistics.  Many employers cut hours to avoid paying the health insurance and hired others in low paying, unfulfilling jobs.  What we have is a lot of people working for minimum wage in part time work.  Obamacare is responsible for some of that, not all of that.   And neither Trump nor the Republicans will fix it.

Eliminating ObamaCare would fix much of that overnight.  Revising the tax code to reduce the corporate tax rate ad allow repatriation of overseas dollars would fix much more of it, though not in a matter of days.  And ending other government policies or programs which actually encourage employers here to move production overseas would also do much to help.

All of those are moves Cruz supports.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on March 22, 2016, 09:51:58 pm
We have to fix the issue of people who willfully choose to not have insurance and then go to the ER for any problem and pass the costs onto the rest of us.  IMO the real problem is a genuine lack of competition in the healthcare space. in terms of both coverage, and opaque billing practices.

Obamacare only attempts to patch the really bad situations... and that in and of it self imo is a failure of the entire program, they half assed it.

That is only a small part of what people with health insurance are paying for.  They also subsidize Medicare/Medicaid patients. The dirty little secret is that hospitals most often lose money on Medicare patients and take a huge loss on Medicaid patients. People with insurance pay for this. This is a much larger chunk of money than people without insurance going to an ED for a common cold.

Obama care for the middle class has been horrible. Insurance premiums have risen, deductibles (even outside of the market place have gone up), HSA's were neutered. When I was in residency 10 years ago most plans had 2 tiers, generic/brand. Then it became 3 tiers.  5 years ago it became 4/5 tiers.  Today a lot of drug plans have 97 tiers. It is uncommon to see a prior authorization for a generic medication that is under $10 in out of pocket costs. One of the other fun parts of Obama care is it let drug companies take generic medications that have been around longer than DaveP has been alive and make the branded. They could do this because these drugs didn't have a study proving their efficacy. So a $2 drug no becomes a $100 drug. Even when it becomes generic again (the branded period isn't as long) the cost for the generic is higher because their are fewer companies that make it a generic. The upside of this a drug that doctors knew works now has a study proving that the drug works, it only costs more. Yeah!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on March 22, 2016, 10:59:43 pm
Quote
Trump would make a horrible President.  But not as horrible as Hillary, Sanders or Biden.

Yep, time to stop reading the politics thread.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on March 22, 2016, 11:14:26 pm
At this point, Hillary's going to have to do or say something that really turns me off to not vote for her in a Hillary vs. Trump general election and not cast a protest vote for Ric Flair instead.


Even with that, I'd say the chances of me voting like Dusty and casting a vote for Ric Flair are better than I'd like for them to be.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on March 22, 2016, 11:45:26 pm
LMAO
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 23, 2016, 04:12:55 am
At this point, Hillary's going to have to do or say something that really turns me off to not vote for her in a Hillary vs. Trump general election and not cast a protest vote for Ric Flair instead.


Even with that, I'd say the chances of me voting like Dusty and casting a vote for Ric Flair are better than I'd like for them to be.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMqaItzolOg
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on March 23, 2016, 09:12:48 am
Jimmy Herring 2016
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on March 23, 2016, 09:33:40 am
I've voted for John Bell in the past three presidential elections.  Looks like he'll get another vote from me this year.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on March 28, 2016, 02:17:45 am
Trump Threatens to Run TV Ads Slamming Ricketts' 'Rotten Job' of Running Cubs
It appears that Round Two of Donald Trump's battle against the Ricketts family is getting underway as the Republican frontrunner blasted the clan for doing a "rotten job" of running the Chicago Cubs
By James Neveau

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has made it a habit during this campaign to push back against critics and take on all comers, and on Monday he continued his battle with the Ricketts family.

Trump, who has been the target of ads paid for by family matriarch Marlene Ricketts, has called out the family on several occasions, and now he’s floating the idea of running ads about the “rotten job” the family has done in running the Chicago Cubs.

“I’ll start taking ads telling them all what a rotten job they’re doing with the Chicago Cubs," Trump Trump told the Washington Post. "I mean, they are spending on me. I mean, so am I allowed to say that? I’ll start doing ads about their baseball team. That it’s not properly run or that they haven’t done a good job in the brokerage business lately.”

Controversy between each side began in February after a Super-PAC run by Marlene Ricketts bought $3 million worth of ads criticizing Trump.

The candidate responded by saying that the family had “a lot to hide,” and Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts said that it was “surreal” to see Trump threaten his mother. He also said that the family’s spending in the political sphere was “an open book.”
Published at 7:11 AM CDT on Mar 22, 2016

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Trump-Criticizes-Ricketts-Rotten-Job-of-Running-Cubs-373048071.html#ixzz44BByRPuS

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on June 09, 2016, 03:19:30 pm
I was very surprised that Bernie didn't do better in "progressive" areas like San Francisco.  Santa Cruz was the only major city in the state to prefer Bernie.  That should have sent a pretty clear message to him that Dems are not ready to support change on the scale that he advocates.  Too bad, in my view.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 09, 2016, 03:36:15 pm
I was very surprised that Bernie didn't do better in "progressive" areas like San Francisco.  Santa Cruz was the only major city in the state to prefer Bernie.  That should have sent a pretty clear message to him that Dems are not ready to support change on the scale that he advocates.  Too bad, in my view.
Maybe they see Hillary as more of a sure thing against Trump than Bernie.  I can't say for sure until Jes and JeffH declare one of them "toast."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on June 09, 2016, 03:58:54 pm
Maybe they see Hillary as more of a sure thing against Trump than Bernie.  I can't say for sure until Jes and JeffH declare one of them "toast."

I don't think I would ever declare Hillary toast, particularly if Trump actually runs as the Republican nominee, though I still have hope to possibly one day call her a convicted felon.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on June 09, 2016, 05:37:03 pm
I dont like either one of them but Hilary's gonna win and you all know it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on June 09, 2016, 06:30:00 pm
I hope so! (Words I never expected to write re: Hillary and her election chances)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on June 28, 2016, 04:55:42 pm
Some of these pictures of the airport coming out of Istanbul remind me of the movie Bullitt
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: AndyMacFAIL on July 17, 2016, 05:39:19 pm

(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv23/K_M_A_2/BBF/BryantRizzo2016_zpsotv7ppjq.jpg)

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on July 30, 2016, 10:28:39 pm
WTF?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2016, 08:39:47 am
WTF?

What.... you can't get behind that ticket?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on July 31, 2016, 12:32:02 pm
It's mind boggling that Trump seems to have 45% of the vote or so.  The level of anger in the electorate is beyond anything that I have seen in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on July 31, 2016, 02:02:16 pm
Both of the options suck.

Ric Flair is defintely getting my vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on July 31, 2016, 02:14:12 pm
I can't believe either of the main candidates have any support.  One is a crooked egomaniac who has bribed, stolen and cheated their way to the top.  The other is, well, they're both like that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2016, 02:43:25 pm
Both of the options suck.

Ric Flair is defintely getting my vote.

No one would expect anything else.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on July 31, 2016, 04:48:11 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 31, 2016, 05:57:46 pm
I have sent that ad to dozens of friends the past two weeks.  If they can get up to 15%, they will be in debates, and that could make things interesting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on July 31, 2016, 06:06:30 pm
I agree...it would be fun to see them in the debates. I'm very familiar with Johnson, familiar enough to know he's twice as smart and about 10 times more honest than either of the major party candidates.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on July 31, 2016, 06:52:47 pm
FDISK, give us a rundown on Johnson.  What are his strengths and weaknesses?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on July 31, 2016, 09:13:33 pm
Wow, an actual organic discussion of the Libertarian candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on July 31, 2016, 11:50:53 pm
Easy Big Boy, Johnson isn't a REAL Libertarian. Just happens to be running under that flag.

Johnson was a very popular and successful governor. He's a centrist, slightly right of center fiscally, slightly left of center socially.  A combination that precludes his ever being nominated by either major party. As the ad states he was a very popular Republican Governor in a very Democratic state.

Oh yea...he once scaled Mt Everest with a broken leg. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on July 31, 2016, 11:55:45 pm
That's okay, Trump isn't a real Republican.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on July 31, 2016, 11:58:49 pm
Nope, Trump is more of a Mussolinist
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 01, 2016, 12:10:14 am
At least the damb trains ran on time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 23, 2016, 04:11:20 pm
It strikes me that Trump's intonation is reminiscent of Ralph Kramden.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Reb on August 23, 2016, 04:20:42 pm
Great clip.

http://www.jackiegleason.com/ralph.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on August 23, 2016, 05:16:02 pm
It strikes me that Trump's intonation is reminiscent of Ralph Kramden.

Reason enough to vote for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 23, 2016, 05:20:57 pm
One of these days............pow, right in the kisser.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 23, 2016, 05:24:16 pm
It strikes me that Trump's intonation is reminiscent of Ralph Kramden.

I know what you mean.  Hillary, on the other hand, is reminiscent of Rod Blagojevich
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on August 31, 2016, 08:18:25 am
So a benchwarmer sits on the bench, something he's good at, during the national anthem and the media makes him a celeb grande.  In my thinking, however, neither he nor the media attention will stop one cop from shooting someone when they fear bodily harm.  JMO
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2016, 09:11:25 am
The flag/national anthem represent a system that allows people to develop solutions to social problems through self-governance.  The process is very slow but it's the responsibility of those who care to work towards making things better.  I understand Kap's anger and frustration, but not his venting against the principles that will allow positive change.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on August 31, 2016, 09:26:58 am
Gotta wonder if he has exhausted other means of effecting change in the system...

Like contacting his representatives would do any good...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on August 31, 2016, 10:24:26 am
I think he should protest income equality too and give me his check.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 31, 2016, 10:25:57 am
The cynic in me makes me think it is very hard to cut him now and he gets to keep his non-guaranteed money.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on August 31, 2016, 10:50:28 am
My cynical voice says start him every game and see how long that lasts
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2016, 10:50:47 am
I understand that Kap's skill set (even when he's 100%) do not fit well in Chip Kelly's offensive system.  It would be in Kap's best interests to move to another team if the financial side can be worked out.  I understand the Vikings now need a QB.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on August 31, 2016, 10:53:20 am
I understand that Kap's skill set (even when he's 100%) do not fit well in Chip Kelly's offensive system.  It would be in Kap's best interests to move to another team if the financial side can be worked out.  I understand the Vikings now need a QB.

I don't follow the NFL as much as I used to because the Bears stink, but isn't Kap supposed to be a running QB that can throw.  That would seem to fit well or is it is lack of accuracy?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on August 31, 2016, 10:58:48 am
Christian Ponder is also on the 49ers roster...

hahaha
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on August 31, 2016, 10:59:34 am
According to Greg Cosell, Kelly's offense requires precision timing and accuracy, neither of which are strengths of Kap.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on August 31, 2016, 11:10:25 am
Christian Ponder is also on the 49ers roster...

hahaha
Sure gives you something to think about it, doesn't it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on August 31, 2016, 11:36:40 am
Vikings dilemma similar to POTUS - which one hurts the team less
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on August 31, 2016, 11:59:46 am
I can't imagine anything less important than whether or not a pro athlete sits during the national anthem.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on August 31, 2016, 12:11:26 pm
What if it was CurtOne ?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on August 31, 2016, 12:30:51 pm
Im a 49ers fan and they're all retarded if they start Gabbert over Kap.

They're gonna be horrible.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on August 31, 2016, 01:06:06 pm
There is a certain irony to this event.   The action he took has alienated a number of those he was trying obtain support from.  In other words,  he may have done more harm than good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on August 31, 2016, 06:47:45 pm
The flag/national anthem represent a system that allows people to develop solutions to social problems through self-governance.  The process is very slow but it's the responsibility of those who care to work towards making things better.  I understand Kap's anger and frustration, but not his venting against the principles that will allow positive change.

Venting?

Venting?

The guy did not stand.

That's a strange vent.  And so far I have seen not one comment from him which could be described as even arguably being "against the principles that will allow positive change."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2016, 11:51:23 am
Venting?

Venting?

The guy did not stand.

That's a strange vent.  And so far I have seen not one comment from him which could be described as even arguably being "against the principles that will allow positive change."

vent 1  (vĕnt) n. 1. Forceful expression or release of pent-up thoughts or feelings: give vent to one's anger.

Standing is probably not venting.

Talking to the press in the interview that I heard probably is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on September 01, 2016, 06:30:18 pm
He has some pretty nifty police pig socks he wears to practice too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2016, 07:24:02 pm
Gotta wonder if he has exhausted other means of effecting change in the system...

Like contacting his representatives would do any good...

Is there some requirement that a person first exhaust all other means of effecting change in the system before a silent, perfectly respectful protest?

I don't recall ever seeing it?  Is that part of the hidden language of the First Amendment?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2016, 07:28:26 pm
vent 1  (vĕnt) n. 1. Forceful expression or release of pent-up thoughts or feelings: give vent to one's anger.

Standing is probably not venting.

Talking to the press in the interview that I heard probably is.

Perhaps.  I have not listened to any interview with him and have so far only seen and read printed quotes from him from the comments he made when initially asked questions about why he did not stand.  In reading it, the comments seemed rather reserved, nothing forceful at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 01, 2016, 10:48:25 pm
He certainly has the right to conduct a peaceful protest, just as others have the right to conduct a peaceful protest against his actions.  Do you feel that they do not have that right?  Or has the counter protest been violent?  I haven't followed it since the interview I saw.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 01, 2016, 11:22:36 pm
He certainly has the right to conduct a peaceful protest, just as others have the right to conduct a peaceful protest against his actions.  Do you feel that they do not have that right?  Or has the counter protest been violent?  I haven't followed it since the interview I saw.

Do you have some reason to ask that I believe those complaining about him do not have that right?  Could you point to anything I have written where I might have suggested that?  This is not a challenge, or an effort to argue, but instead an effort to improve my writing so I avoid any such reasonable conclusion in the future.... assuming your question was actually reasonable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 02, 2016, 10:23:13 am
Can you tell me where I stated that you believe that those expressing their complaints do not have the right to do so?  I asked a question.  I did not make a judgement.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 02, 2016, 06:24:56 pm
Do you have some reason to ask that I believe those complaining about him do not have that right?  Could you point to anything I have written where I might have suggested that?  This is not a challenge, or an effort to argue, but instead an effort to improve my writing so I avoid any such reasonable conclusion in the future.... assuming your question was actually reasonable.

Can you tell me where I stated that you believe that those expressing their complaints do not have the right to do so?  I asked a question.  I did not make a judgement.

I did not write that you stated that I "believe that those expressing their complaints do not have the right to do so."  I also never suggested you were not asking a question.  Instead I  asked if you had "some reason to ask that I believe those complaining about him do not have that right."  Nowhere is there even a suggestion that you lacked the "right to do so."  Your question only made sense if there was something I had written which would lead a reasonably sane person to think I had at least suggested that a person did not have "the right to conduct a peaceful protest," hence my question to you: Could you point to anything I have written where I might have suggested that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on September 02, 2016, 07:35:06 pm
Smh...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 02, 2016, 07:51:34 pm
Let me know when Jes tells us Trump or Hillary is toast
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on September 03, 2016, 06:05:24 am
America is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 03, 2016, 09:46:45 am
Hillary is going to win in a landslide.  More Electoral votes than her husband had in either of his two victories.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 03, 2016, 09:48:27 am
I don't know.  The race has tightened significantly over the past 1-2 weeks.  If Trump is perceived as being strong in the debates, he's got a real chance.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 03, 2016, 09:54:28 am
Much of the Republican establishment is refusing to support him.  And that is where the money comes from to run a campaign.  He will lose in Ohio, North Carolina and Florida, which pretty much makes the rest of the country meaningless.  Is there a Democratic state that is going to swing to Trump?  I don't see any.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 03, 2016, 10:13:13 am
It's pretty much dead even in Ohio and North Carolina, and Hillary's lead in Florida is razor thin.  It's an uphill battle for Trump, but Nate Silver has his odds of winning at better than 30%.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 04, 2016, 09:34:39 am
I just wonder how far this guy would go if some major backers bought him ads and he was allowed to debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/04/politics/gary-johnson-richmond-times-dispatch/index.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on September 08, 2016, 04:34:37 pm
You don't have to wonder anymore.


What is Aleppo?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 08, 2016, 05:18:09 pm
Otto, of course Hillary knows Aleppo.  She gave birth to it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on September 08, 2016, 05:23:51 pm
Don't encourage it...just spray, and maybe it will leave...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 08, 2016, 05:28:41 pm
At least we know he ain't dead, which most here had hoped.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 08, 2016, 05:29:48 pm
Otto, of course Hillary knows Aleppo.  She gave birth to it.

Actually a pretty good line.

Too dambed bad Johnson didn't think of it -- Question: What do you do about Aleppo?  Answer: What I would like to do is force President Obama and Secretary Clinton to take care of their bastard child, but we have already seen they have only made a greater mess of things with their parenting.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 26, 2016, 09:33:38 am
Nate Silver has the election at essentially 50:50 as of today.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 26, 2016, 10:37:45 am
People hate both candidates so bad that they're like horses in a barn fire.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 26, 2016, 01:23:13 pm
One of them is much, much worse than the other.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on September 26, 2016, 01:26:08 pm
Pancreatic cancer is much worse than lung cancer.  It doesn't mean I want to get either one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 26, 2016, 04:05:33 pm
One of them is much, much worse than the other.
I know, but I just can't vote for Trump either.   ;D
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 26, 2016, 04:44:19 pm
Nate Silver has the election at essentially 50:50 as of today.

Either way, Obama is toast.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 26, 2016, 05:12:35 pm
Actually, right now Silver is giving the edge to Trump.  http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/26/silver-trump-would-win-if-election-were-held-today/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 26, 2016, 06:05:19 pm
That's not what the now-cast says.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on September 27, 2016, 02:00:30 am
Trump took Hilary behind the wood shed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 27, 2016, 05:11:56 am
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2016, 06:56:14 am
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

One of my favorite lines....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on September 27, 2016, 01:30:33 pm
I just said that to get people here fired up.

I honestly don't give a **** and don't like either one of them.

I will vote because that's what a grown man is supposed to do but I'm not in the tax bracket that the results of this election is gonna effect me,I'm too old to get drafted, and I'm not looking for a handout from the government so other than having to hear their mouth for the next 4 years its no sweat off my sack.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 27, 2016, 02:10:41 pm
I'm reminded of the debates between Nixon and Kennedy.  Most agreed that Nixon won the debate, but the public was turned off by Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow.

Last night, Hillary, who's been told she doesn't smile enough, managed a big phony smile too often.  I thought she presented herself better than Trump, didn't repeat herself, and didn't toot her own horn as much as Donald, but every time she flashed that big toothy smile that was so fake, it turned me off.  I haven't heard anybody else comment on it, so maybe it's just me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 27, 2016, 02:17:45 pm
Quote
because that's what a grown man is supposed to do

No, a grown man should become educated enough about the issues to make a sensible choice.  If your attitude is what you claimed, do us all a favor and don't vote.

Dusty, you're not saying anything different from how something like half of America feels, but I'm talking about all of them, too.  We'd be better off if they didn't vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on September 27, 2016, 02:28:15 pm
I would certainly have the quality of a candidate's smile high on my list of determining factors in casting my vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on September 27, 2016, 03:05:55 pm
Or sighing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 27, 2016, 03:28:19 pm
I would certainly have the quality of a candidate's smile high on my list of determining factors in casting my vote.
P2, it wasn't the smile.  It was how fake and insincere it looked.  Play-acting.  You seem to dismiss the fact that people dislike Hillary because they feel she isn't honest and trustworthy.  An insincere smile doesn't help her.  BTW, since I posted that I've overheard some people in the grocery story that actually mentioned it.  Please go back to my original post.  Do you think whether a guy shaved before the event should influence your vote?  Me either, but in 1960 it did.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 27, 2016, 04:15:28 pm
I would say that phoney smiles are about a important in a political race as 20 year old comments about flat chested women.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 27, 2016, 04:27:32 pm
Question.  Who was the last President to have facial hair?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2016, 04:49:47 pm
I will vote because that's what a grown man is supposed to do but I'm not in the tax bracket that the results of this election is gonna effect me,I'm too old to get drafted, and I'm not looking for a handout from the government so other than having to hear their mouth for the next 4 years its no sweat off my sack.

Yeah.... but why are YOU voting?

The idea that the outcome of the election will only effect you if you would be in a tax bracket likely to pay higher taxes, or if you are young enough to be drafted if we go to war (we no longer have a draft, but if we have another war comparable to WWII you are not too old to end up drafted), or if you are looking for a handout indicates you really haven't thought much about this.

Did the recession of 2008-2009 effect you?  Would higher prices on nearly everything you buy effect you?  Would an end of our constitutional republic effect you?  Would full-blown, single-payer, nationalized health care and socialized medicine effect you?  Would more or fewer government regulations on business effect you?

And does something have to directly effect you before you care about it?  Would you have been one of those in 1860 who if you were not a slave or a slave owner didn't care whether slavery continued or was ended?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2016, 04:51:06 pm
Question.  Who was the last President to have facial hair?

Nixon if we count the five o'clock shadow.  Taft otherwise.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on September 27, 2016, 04:51:50 pm
Taft had a mustache.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on September 27, 2016, 05:21:16 pm
Right.  And I think Teddy had one too, but historians have claimed that Dewey lost to Truman because his mustache reminded people too much of Hitler.  Fact?  Maybe, but no politician since has had any.  My simple point is that not all people vote rationally.  Mustaches, smiles, 5 o'clock shadows, Clinton pursing his lips, Gore wandering over to Bush's podium...none of these things should matter, but they do.  How about the Johnson ad that was anti-Goldwater showing a nuclear explosion...should that have been as effective, considering that Goldwater had never (to my knowledge) advocated that kind of violence?

So, would it be silly to vote for or against someone because of a smirk or a smile, yes...but it will still happen.

I also am tired of being told that since I will vote for neither of these people, I'm wasting my vote.  Using that logic, whenever someone votes for the loser in an election, it must be a wasted vote.  We should all wait and see what the poll says in November and vote for the one who is going to win to avoid wasting our vote.  Irrational.  I think not voting my conscience and for someone I think would be a good President is wasting my vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on September 27, 2016, 06:46:35 pm
Jes...

Call me a name or make fun of me or whatever you want but my mom says all the time that I'm a very simple man.

Feed me good at night, give me a roof over my head, give me a Playstation to play in my down time, and let me play golf on my days off and Ill never complain.

I do the things a man's supposed to do like keep a job and be a good Christian man,husband, and daddy and keep my yard up but other than that I'm very easy to please.

In being an easy to please, laid back, man I've learned to choose my battles wisely and if it does not effect me or my family I truthfully don't give a ****.

The majority of the things this election is based around doesn't even mean as much to me as UT beating Georgia Saturday.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on September 27, 2016, 07:51:35 pm
Jes...

Call me a name or make fun of me or whatever you want but my mom says all the time that I'm a very simple man.


I have no doubt but that you are.  Now, where was it that I called you names?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on October 07, 2016, 01:09:11 pm
Did the recession of 2008-2009 effect you? 

The republic inspired Great Recession effected everyone. Especially the drumpfster fire picking at the bones of failed businesses.

Would higher prices on nearly everything you buy effect you? 

During the entire Obama Admistration inflation has been very low. Most prices have been uneffected during this time.

Would an end of our constitutional republic effect you? 

The end of our constitutional republic will not shortened by this election or the next or the next or the next...

Would full-blown, single-payer, nationalized health care and socialized medicine effect you? 

Does Medicare or private health insurance have different outcomes? Even with private health care costing more?

Would more or fewer government regulations on business effect you?

Clearly having less regulations and consumer protections would very much negatively effect people. Most people do NOT want to be test tube consumers for the idiotic libertarian bathtub size government that you adovate for.

And does something have to directly effect you before you care about it? 

That depends on whether he considers himself a Democrat (answer is no) or a republic (then answer is yes).

Would you have been one of those in 1860 who if you were not a slave or a slave owner didn't care whether slavery continued or was ended?

The depends on whether he would have considered himself a republican federalist (Party of Abe Lincoln then answer is yes) or a bigoted southern limited federal government states righter (then answer is still yes because that is the way it is) 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 07, 2016, 05:08:34 pm
Did the recession of 2008-2009 effect you? 

The republic inspired Great Recession effected everyone. Especially the drumpfster fire picking at the bones of failed businesses.

Anytime someone like Trump moves in to scavenge on the remains of failed businesses or to purchase distressed properties, the owners, and society both, are made better off.  If NO one bought them, the owners and society would suffer complete losses, and when vultures like Trump move it, it drives up what the sellers get.

Greed is good.

Would higher prices on nearly everything you buy effect you? 

During the entire Obama Admistration inflation has been very low. Most prices have been uneffected during this time.

That is rather unresponsive to the question.  My question did not mention Obama at all

Would an end of our constitutional republic effect you? 

The end of our constitutional republic will not shortened by this election or the next or the next or the next...

The outcome of elections will determine when the constitutional republic ends, regardless when that might be.  Neither you nor I have any crystal ball allowing a meaningful forecast of when, but the outcome of elections will most certainly decide it.

Would full-blown, single-payer, nationalized health care and socialized medicine effect you? 

Does Medicare or private health insurance have different outcomes? Even with private health care costing more?

Yes.  It is surprising that you support ObamaCare, but ask that question.  Your question suggests that whether ObamaCare continues, is expanded, is replaced by single payer or is replaced with market competition, makes no difference.  If that is the case, why does it matter to yo whether ObamaCare is continued?  Let's scrap it.

Would more or fewer government regulations on business effect you?

Clearly having less regulations and consumer protections would very much negatively effect people. Most people do NOT want to be test tube consumers for the idiotic libertarian bathtub size government that you adovate for.

My question did not suggest otherwise.

And does something have to directly effect you before you care about it? 

That depends on whether he considers himself a Democrat (answer is no) or a republic (then answer is yes).

So the Democrats wanting to end free trade want to do so because they care about other people?

Would you have been one of those in 1860 who if you were not a slave or a slave owner didn't care whether slavery continued or was ended?

The depends on whether he would have considered himself a republican federalist (Party of Abe Lincoln then answer is yes) or a bigoted southern limited federal government states righter (then answer is still yes because that is the way it is) 

Your ignorance of history is once again showing.  In 1860, there were many non-slaves who were also non-slave-owners who cared whether slavery continued or was ended.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on October 07, 2016, 05:54:27 pm
Question for the board - what affect have these last two posts had on you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on October 07, 2016, 06:05:52 pm
As much as the last 12,000 posts have had.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 07, 2016, 07:23:12 pm
I don't know what all the commotion is about the latest revelation about Trump.  What reason is there to be surprised?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 07, 2016, 07:34:27 pm
I don't know what all the commotion is about the latest revelation about Trump.  What reason is there to be surprised?

None.

Nor is there any reason to be surprised by seeing that in Hillary's private speeches to Wall Street groups that she said politicians should always have a public position and a private position on every issue, or that she claimed she was a firm supporter of completely free trade and truly open borders -- a worldwide common market.

Nor is there often any reason for a wife or husband to be surprised in most cases when they finally catch their spouse in the act, but that doesn't lessen the resulting anger.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on October 07, 2016, 08:23:39 pm
I don't know what all the commotion is about the latest revelation about Trump.  What reason is there to be surprised?

Which revelation is that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 07, 2016, 08:29:05 pm
Which revelation is that?

That he is crude, says crude things about women, and used his celebrity status and position to bed or fondle women.

And that there is audio of him boasting of it.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on October 07, 2016, 08:31:28 pm
Too bad he isn't a Democrat.  That would be considered a resume enhancement.

On the other hand, if you liked Bill Clinton, you gotta love Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 20, 2016, 01:16:35 am
For those who watched the game, but still feel some civic  duty (or curiousity) about the final debate, here is the full thing -- http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/presidential-debate-full-video-replay-watch-wednesday-night-youtube-tonight-yesterday-free-streaming-third-final
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on October 20, 2016, 01:55:16 am
I watched the replay.

I don't like either one enough to take the time out of my day to vote.

I do feel one would probably be a safer bet though.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on October 20, 2016, 09:48:35 am
Honestly I'd rather watch Games 2 and 3 of this series on a continuous loop with Bartman interspliced for good measure than be subjected to one more Donald/Hillary debate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 20, 2016, 09:57:55 am
I didn't watch.  Not much to learn and minimal entertainment value.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 20, 2016, 10:07:54 am
I didn't watch.  Not much to learn and minimal entertainment value.
That does it.  I was debating on whether to write you in or Jes.  Congrats.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on October 20, 2016, 10:15:32 am
Hillary will win in a landslide.  Trump will be lucky to lose by 15 million votes.  Why watch?  This thing was over weeks ago.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on October 20, 2016, 10:26:34 am
Hillary will win in a landslide.  Trump will be lucky to lose by 15 million votes.  Why watch?  This thing was over weeks ago.

Just wondering Robb, does it look like Evan McMullin is going to win Utah?  That's starting to become a pretty amazing story.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on October 20, 2016, 02:26:18 pm
I would say he is the favorite at this point.  Mormons, who are very conservative in general still aren't going to hold their nose and vote for someone of Trump's ilk.  And they aren't voting for McMullen because of his faith, they like him for his conservative approach.  I still haven't decided on him myself, but I am taking a close look.  I think if the election tightens and it looks like Trump has any chance of winning,  Utah will vote for him to try to keep Hillary out.  But if it stays like this with Hillary running away with it they'll vote for McMullen.  Just my opinion, could be dead wrong though. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on October 23, 2016, 02:03:06 pm
Life-long Cubs fan Hillary Clinton changed her allegiance to the Mets when she moved to New York and ran for the Senate.  I wonder if she is changing back.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 23, 2016, 02:04:18 pm
She'll root for the Indians.  She needs Ohio.  Illinois and New York are in the bag.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 23, 2016, 03:31:53 pm
                     (https://scontent.fsnc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14708358_1120096171409830_7407802617465797728_n.jpg?oh=e38e68f04ba1bd8e074ca63945f86223&oe=58A76492)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on October 26, 2016, 08:28:39 pm
Uh, then how is it foolish for someone t vote for a 3rd party candidate?

And, if you answer, it would probably be best to move this to the Politics thread.

Odds are an estimate, and even a one in a hundred shot occasionally wins.  Voting for someone who had virtually zero chance makes no sense if there is another candidate that has a better chance of defeating someone that would be a disaster.

One large reason why the odds are 100 to 1 against is because of idiots who are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on October 26, 2016, 08:33:14 pm
They both suck and you all know it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on October 26, 2016, 09:33:08 pm
Absolutly.  But Hillary is so much worse than Trump that anyone that considers himself conservative on many issues is foolish to withhold his vote for Trump merely because he wants to make some statement that no one will ever hear.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on October 26, 2016, 09:34:08 pm
Perfect is fighting a far less formidable enemy than good when it comes to this election. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on October 26, 2016, 09:47:38 pm
Compared to Hillary, Trump is good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 26, 2016, 09:49:27 pm
Idiot.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 26, 2016, 09:51:38 pm
You're evidently not too bright either.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 26, 2016, 10:23:01 pm
Odds are an estimate, and even a one in a hundred shot occasionally wins.  Voting for someone who had virtually zero chance makes no sense if there is another candidate that has a better chance of defeating someone that would be a disaster.

One large reason why the odds are 100 to 1 against is because of idiots who are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Perfect being the enemy of the good....

So between Hillary and Trump, which one is "the good?"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 26, 2016, 10:28:40 pm
Absolutly.  But Hillary is so much worse than Trump that anyone that considers himself conservative on many issues is foolish to withhold his vote for Trump merely because he wants to make some statement that no one will ever hear.

A write-in vote is a statement that no one will ever hear.

That is not remotely the case with a vote for the Libertarian Party.

In the entire history of the United States, never would the change of one vote alter the outcome of the election.  So with hundreds of millions of votes cast, never once has it happened.  Part of this is because of the nature of the electoral college system.  For your individual vote to determine the outcome of the election, not only would the outcome of the election have to depend on the Electoral College votes of your particular state, but the vote in your state would have to have been so close that changing your vote would change which candidate had the most votes in your state.

What DOES happen when you vote for a candidate is NOT that you determine the outcome of an election, but your vote gets added to a candidates vote total to help provide what the candidate and supporters will declare is a "mandate" if they win, or which will do little to nothing if they lose.  But a "mandate" for what if you vote for Hillary?  A mandate for more undeclared war in the Middle East with unreviewable kill-list drone strikes killing thousands of innocents who just happened to be nearby?  A "mandate" for or against trade agreements?  A "mandate" for or against increasing immigration from Syria and other war torn nations?  A "mandate" to be female?  Voting for Trump would produce even less of a "mandate" since the guy has taken multiple sides on virtually every issue.

Voting for a third party candidate, however, generally amounts to increasing the vote total for a very clear set of principles, which those holding office know they have to attend to if they hope to get those voters in the future and which those seeking office in the future know they have to promise to attend to in order to attract that large block of voters with clearly defined desires.

In fact if you vote for either Hillary or Trump the reasons for that vote will be so blurred by personality, character issues, and absolutely ambiguous, contradictory or clearly misrepresented positions each have taken, that no one, not even the winner, will be able to sort out what positions those voting for either of the two major candidates want pursued.

That is not the case with a vote cast for a Libertarian candidate.  It is quite clear what positions those in office, or in the future SEEKING office, will have to advance and pursue in order to win support of those voters.

If you truly want your vote to count and to make a difference, you actually need to vote for the third party candidate most closely reflecting your views.  Votes cast for either winner or the loser in the presidential race end up being lost in the noise and do nothing whatsoever.

Before you write this off as a foolish approach which would never make a difference in American politics, particularly when the 3rd party candidates never attract more than a couple of percentage points of the electorate, look again to our nation's history. 

In the 1920's the Socialists began drawing 2-3% of the vote, largely behind Eugene Debs.  The never reached 5%, only got to 4% once, and yet withing 15 years, 9 of the ten positions in their platform had been enacted into law as members of Congress and presidents sought to win over that identifiable block of voters which might well have been enough to turn the outcome of an election.

The problem with Nadar was not that he drew votes from Gore (and if Gore had been elected, 9/11 still would have happened, we still would have invaded Aghanistan and still would have invaded Iraq -- in other words, there would have been little difference), it is that he did not CONTINUE running and drawing 2-3% of the vote in support of clearly identifiable positions which one or both of the major parties would have had to embrace in order to attract those voters.

I'm a libertarian.  I believe in reducing the size, scope and power of government, particularly the central government; I believe government tries to regulate our lives far too much and does it very poorly; I believe government should stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace and allow consumers to decide outcomes; I believe conduct which does not directly hurt another person should be legal; and I believe that voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, is the best way to register that set of concerns in such a manner as to assure that politicians pay attention to them.  It in fact is the ONLY way they will pay attention to them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on October 26, 2016, 10:31:52 pm
Compared to Hillary, Trump is good.

Trump is good compared to the ebola virus at least . . .
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on October 26, 2016, 10:32:41 pm
Hillary is a snake, no doubt.

But Trump is a flaming sack of **** left on your doorstep by drunken high schoolers.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 26, 2016, 10:38:34 pm
Trump is good compared to the ebola virus at least . . .

I sincerely challenge that.  I believe the ebol virus killed only one person in the U.S.  I believe both Hillary and Trump would kill many more than that.  Actually, it would appear that Hillary already has.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on October 26, 2016, 10:53:34 pm
(https://scontent.fsnc1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14670731_10210635149656600_4647877798776374673_n.jpg?oh=7cf3ea48cbbffc71da1515e7b28e7b6d&oe=589F8C9E)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on October 26, 2016, 11:23:43 pm
Absolutly.  But Hillary is so much worse than Trump that anyone that considers himself conservative on many issues is foolish to withhold his vote for Trump merely because he wants to make some statement that no one will ever hear.
Just curious, Dave, was the vote for Lincoln in 1860  a wasted vote?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on October 27, 2016, 09:58:10 am
If I thought both major party candidates were bad (but neither catastrophic), I would vote for a preferable third party or write-in candidate.  If I thought that both major party candidates were bad and one was catastrophic, I would vote for the merely bad candidate rather than a better third party or write-in candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on October 27, 2016, 12:13:24 pm
Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to American politics in my lifetime.  Maybe ever.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on October 27, 2016, 12:22:31 pm
Neither alternative is acceptable.  Neither will get my vote.  I weep for my country much like I did when Obama was elected and he has been everything I feared he would be.  The only thing stopping him from being worse is losing both houses of congress, although they didn't stop him nearly enough.  Hilary will have a lasting impact on the constitution with her pick of liberal supreme court justices.  Trump is unstable and would most likely ruin our standing in the world even worse than Obama has and could easily plunge us into world war 3 just through ego alone.  This is like receiving a death sentence and being asked which method you would prefer.  There is no choice, both end up with you dead.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on October 27, 2016, 12:28:13 pm
Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to American politics in my lifetime.  Maybe ever.

I fear we are headed down a path which a lot of other governments have taken where fist fights are commonplace in the houses of legislature.  I just don't like the direction politics has take the last 20 years and in particular the last 2 years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on October 27, 2016, 12:59:56 pm
Have to bottom out before we can start over
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: dev on November 05, 2016, 02:00:39 pm
Neither alternative is acceptable.  Neither will get my vote.  I weep for my country much like I did when Obama was elected and he has been everything I feared he would be.  The only thing stopping him from being worse is losing both houses of congress, although they didn't stop him nearly enough.  Hilary will have a lasting impact on the constitution with her pick of liberal supreme court justices.  Trump is unstable and would most likely ruin our standing in the world even worse than Obama has and could easily plunge us into world war 3 just through ego alone.  This is like receiving a death sentence and being asked which method you would prefer.  There is no choice, both end up with you dead.
LOL I would ask what irrational fears you had...but I don't need to waste my time reading them...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: dev on November 05, 2016, 02:04:45 pm
Too bad he isn't a Democrat.  That would be considered a resume enhancement.

On the other hand, if you liked Bill Clinton, you gotta love Trump.
Is that because both were accused of harassment?...With YOUR logic, if you like the Iraq invasion you should love Hillary...but if you are voting for Trump, which it sounds like you are, then you think the Iraq invasion was wrong...I am glad you finally saw the light.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 05, 2016, 04:01:18 pm
When I was growing up, there were some claims that the news organizations were biased, but all the networks tried to give balanced reporting.  Newspapers had the rep of being either Democrat or Republican, but not the tv news.  That was in the 50's.  In the 60's, especially as Vietnam grew as an issue, television news became more and more accused of having a left bias, particularly since "experts" said journalism people tended to be idealistic and crusaders.  This increased until the late 80's and 90's until FOX was born in 1996.  "Fair and balanced."  Actually far to the right to balance the perceived left of all the others.  MSNBC came into being as the ultra-left news.  ABC, CBS, and NBC continue to try to pretend they're impartial, but still lean more left than right.  CNN, I think, has actually made the most strides at staying down the middle and exposing issues on both sides, but they're not perfect.

The reason I'm typing this is that journalists used to be our ombudsmen.  They would ferret out the truth when claims were made in our elections and our politics.  Politicians could rarely get away with outright lies or taking things out of context to make the opponent look bad.  They could do it, but they took the chance of being exposed to the general public.

Take the current situation in Missouri.  I don't live there, but I get all the political ads out of St. Louis.  For governor they have a Democrat, who up to a few years ago was a registered Republican and a Republican who was a delegate to the last Democratic convention that nominated Obama.  Yeah, screwed up.  The Democrat is accused of spending nearly 3 million dollars on decorating his Secretary of State office.  True, but deceptive.  The state told him to remodel the entire Sec of State building, and gave him a $3M budget to do it.  Not just his office.  ALL of the Sec of State offices.

 The Republican is accused of stealing $700K from a charity.  He came back from Iraq and started a veteran's organization to help vets find jobs.  His family put over $600,000 into the project.  In the third or fourth year of operation, he took a salary of $700,000 to pay himself for not having taken a salary of any kind the first few years and to repay the loan from his family.

These two issues highlight the mudslinging, and neither is really true, but nobody gives people the real truth.  (I had to dig for it.)  Where is the press to expose this nonsense?  It's why in all our politics today we have outright lies and distortions.  It's sexier to promote the crap instead of the truth.  It gets better ratings, and cheats all of us of what ideas and policies do the candidates really have.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 05, 2016, 08:20:31 pm
Is that because both were accused of harassment?...With YOUR logic, if you like the Iraq invasion you should love Hillary...but if you are voting for Trump, which it sounds like you are, then you think the Iraq invasion was wrong...I am glad you finally saw the light.

Obviously, irony doesn't come across well on a board like this.

I did not care about the fact that Clinton was a womanizer and sexual predator, because it had no effect on the policies he tried to implement.  I do not care about the fact that Trump is a womanizer and sexual predator, because it has no effect on the policies that he will try to implement.  But I DO have a problem with those who did not care about the fact that Clinton was a womanizer and sexual predator, but find it unacceptable in Trump.  In a word, they are hypocrites, and that was the point I was trying to make with the irony.

Both Hillary and Trump are disgusting human beings in my opinion.  That is unfortunate, but the system we have has forced us into a position that one of them, disgusting as he or she is. will be the next president.  Given that choice, I would much, much rather have Trump trying to implement the policies I expect from him than Hillary trying to implement the policies I expect from her.

I was not a supporter of Trump in any of the primaries.  I would much have preferred Rubio or Cruz.  I would even have preferred the horrible candidates of earlier years such as Romney or McCain.  But you have to play the hand you are dealt, or just go home.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 07, 2016, 12:31:46 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/opinions/navarro-republican-voting-for-clinton/index.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 07, 2016, 12:44:55 pm
I agree with DaveP - I was a womanizer back in my day also
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 07, 2016, 01:12:53 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/opinions/navarro-republican-voting-for-clinton/index.html


Navarro made clear back in March that she was never going to support Trump.  Really nothing new there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 07, 2016, 01:46:31 pm
Quote
CNN, I think, has actually made the most strides at staying down the middle and exposing issues on both sides, but they're not perfect.

I'd disagree on CNN.  They're big time responsible for building Trump up early on during the primaries, with their wall to wall coverage of his campaign rallies to post-debate softball interviews with him immediately after debates CNN was sponsoring.    If Trump somehow does become President, CNN is going to bear a lot of the responsibility for more or less promoting his candidacy during the Republican primaries.

That was a classic case of building someone up early just so they could tear him down later once the general election started.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 07, 2016, 01:52:18 pm
I'd disagree on CNN.  They're big time responsible for building Trump up early on during the primaries, with their wall to wall coverage of his campaign rallies to post-debate softball interviews with him immediately after debates CNN was sponsoring.    If Trump somehow does become President, CNN is going to bear a lot of the responsibility for that for propping up his candidacy during the Republican primaries.

That was a classic case of building someone up early just so they could tear him down later once the general election started.
I've thought all along that CNN has seen covering Donald Trump as a huge ratings bonanza.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 07, 2016, 02:05:25 pm
Agree with Ben.  I think the media were as caught off guard as everyone else in the beginning--Trump was a spectacle, and people wanted to see what was going on (=ratings).  They didn't treat him like a real candidate, and thus he thrived.  By the time they figured out what he was, it was too late to make much of a difference.  Doesn't feel like anything nefarious (built up to tear down).  Maybe incompetence, but if so then a lot of us were incompetent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 07, 2016, 02:09:23 pm
As much as I dislike the Super Delegate format that the Democrats have, it saved them from having a farther left candidate.  If the Republicans had a similar format, they could have stymied a BS run like Trump's.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 07, 2016, 02:15:43 pm
Quote
CNN had a great October, topping all of cable news in the genre’s key demographic group of 25-54 for the first time in 15 years. For the first time since 2001, CNN beat Fox News Channel for the month, in both total day and primetime, in the age bracket that is the currency of news ad sales. CNN also enjoyed its most watched month in 11 years thanks in some measure to October’s race-changing 2005 Access Hollywood tape leak, in which GOP White House hopeful Donald Trump was heard on a hot mic boasting to Billy Bush about his Famous Men Get To Grope Women With Impunity Pass.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 07, 2016, 04:20:10 pm
Coming from someone who really don't give a **** and don't like either candidate tomorrow will be fun to just sit back and watch people go ape ****.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 07, 2016, 04:20:57 pm
But Hillary will win and my guess is she's the safest bet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 07, 2016, 05:11:47 pm
I wonder if this will affect the vote in New Hampshire:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-gop-senator-trump-could-get-us-into-a-nuclear-war-121502731.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 07, 2016, 05:33:15 pm
With both major candidates at over 60% dislike rates, we are going to have 4 years of gridlock and rancor regardless who is elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 07, 2016, 06:21:31 pm
The primary process is responsible for both Trump and Hillary.  If the candidates were selected by the parties themselves, neither would have been considered.

It takes a certain kind of lunacy to have a party's candidate selected by people who are not members of the party.  Democrats voted in the Republican primaries for Trump on the assumption that he could never be elected in a National election.  Republicans probably did the same thing for Hillary, or would have if they didn't think that Sanders had less of a chance than Hillary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 07, 2016, 06:32:17 pm
Agree with Ben.  I think the media were as caught off guard as everyone else in the beginning--Trump was a spectacle, and people wanted to see what was going on (=ratings).  They didn't treat him like a real candidate, and thus he thrived.  By the time they figured out what he was, it was too late to make much of a difference.  Doesn't feel like anything nefarious (built up to tear down).  Maybe incompetence, but if so then a lot of us were incompetent.

Definitely the ratings Trump brought in had a big part of how the 24 hour news networks covered him in the primaries. 

In CNN's case, though, they gave him fluff post-debate interviews straight from the podium to give him a chance to correct mistakes he made during CNN sponsored debates and even more puff sit down interviews afterwards.  They had Jeffrey Lord on as a paid CNN cheerleader for Trump during the primaries, which I don't seem to recall networks hiring on a conservative commentator before for the specific purpose of propping up one candidate during the primaries.

They may have wanted Trump to win the primaries to keep the ratings bonanza going during the general election (and also likely in part because he was the easiest candidate for Hillary to face), but they've definitely had a bias in their coverage in this election from the getgo. 

Really all three of the 24 hour cable news channels have become an embarrassment to journalism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 08, 2016, 07:43:26 am
Not sure who will win today but I do know who will lose; America.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 08, 2016, 07:58:51 am
The United States of America has jumped the shark.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 12:44:00 pm
Well for everyone who's worried about a Trump presidency, you should be able to rest easy.  Trump's chances are so bad, they're close to the chances the Cubs had of winning the World Series after they lost Game 4. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cubs-have-a-smaller-chance-of-winning-than-trump-does/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 08, 2016, 12:44:22 pm
The United States of America has screwed the pooch.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 08, 2016, 01:08:28 pm
But you all watch and see.

Our lives will change very little no matter who wins.

This is just another day to watch the world argue, stress, and riot.

If it wasn't election day it would be because a cop shot some deserving thug.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2016, 01:08:51 pm
I'm pulling for neither to get to 270.  My odds are very very bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2016, 01:10:04 pm
"If it wasn't election day it would be because a cop shot some deserving thug."

Dusty has a lot in common with Forrest Gump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 08, 2016, 01:14:53 pm
Why you say that Curt?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2016, 01:30:02 pm
You state blunt truths as you see the world.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 08, 2016, 03:52:02 pm
But you all watch and see.

Our lives will change very little no matter who wins.

This is just another day to watch the world argue, stress, and riot.

If it wasn't election day it would be because a cop shot some deserving thug.
In some ways I agree Dusty, but in others I don't.  I am a health insurance broker and watching people filing into my office day after day having to make the choice between paying for health insurance or eat, isn't fun.  Oh and if they can't afford it they get to pay a penalty for a couple of 5% of their income.  This year the premiums are going up on average 30% over last year.  People today are paying nearly double what they were just a few short years ago.  That is a direct result of the election of 2008.  Millions are affected by this disaster of a law.  Even the poor who make too much for Medicaid but not enough for a subsidy, (yes, there is a gap) are being punished for not having insurance by taking away a minimum of $695 this year.  It's a train wreck, and there is no end in sight because Hilary won't repeal it once she gets in.  And if any of you think Trump can win I've got some desert property to sell you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 08, 2016, 04:21:15 pm
The costs of health care were going up rapidly well before the ACA.

Is the ACA the best way to manage the costs of health care?  Probably not, but to point at Obama and say it's all his fault is naive and/or specious.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 08, 2016, 04:24:20 pm
The health care companies spending more than a million dollars a day lobbying Congress have nothing to do with why it is not working as well as it should.  Yeah, right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 08, 2016, 04:48:52 pm
It was set up to fail from the beginning. The penalty/tax is too low to force people to buy insurance causing the healthy to avoid it. The things people have to buy to meet Obamacare minimums are too great and drive up the price. More and more people are being driven to high deductible plans, but HSA were gutted. It was a crappy law. It had nothing to do insurance companies or Republicans, it was all on the Democrats.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 04:49:03 pm
Well for everyone who's worried about a Trump presidency, you should be able to rest easy.  Trump's chances are so bad, they're close to the chances the Cubs had of winning the World Series after they lost Game 4. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cubs-have-a-smaller-chance-of-winning-than-trump-does/

Silver revised that this weekend to give Trump about a 40% chance of winning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2016, 04:51:25 pm
About 30% as of now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 04:55:37 pm
But you all watch and see.

Our lives will change very little no matter who wins.

Health care (in other words expanding or ending ObamaCare), trade wars, real wars, restricting abortion versus expanding abortion and having the government pay for it, a recession as opposed to a strong economy, or even just a continued slow economy as opposed to strong growth, an expansion of gun control to the point you can no longer buy ammo or new guns for a reasonable price, citizenship to 11M illegals who would almost all vote for liberal Democrats or mass deportations.... all of those are very real things, some of which are likely to happen under one, but not the other.

Of course, if you think none of those things make any difference in your life, or you think they qualify as "very little.... change," you might be right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 04:56:19 pm
About 30% as of now.

Still much better than the Cubs' chances down 3-1.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 05:01:33 pm
The costs of health care were going up rapidly well before the ACA.

Is the ACA the best way to manage the costs of health care?  Probably not, but to point at Obama and say it's all his fault is naive and/or specious.

First, the cost of health care is going up more now than before ObamaCare, and it had actually slowed quite a bit before passage of the law.

Next, and more important, the question is not at the moment the cost of health care, but the cost of health insurance.  And the cost of health insurance is soaring.  Pointing to Obama and saying it is all his fault (or a fault he shares with the members of Congress which passed ObamaCare) is perfectly appropriate.  It makes no sense to point to anyone else.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2016, 05:27:40 pm
Exit polls are showing that 60% of the voters HATED the choice they had.  60% didn't want either candidate.  I'm trying to remember any time in my lifetime that the Presidential choice was that BAD.

The winner is going to have to do more work AFTER the election to prove himself/herself to people.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2016, 05:29:00 pm
Robb, Lindsay Graham says he wrote in Evan McMullin.  So did I.  Think two votes will do it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 08:19:37 pm
NY Times now has Trump at 88% chance to win Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president/florida
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 08:22:59 pm
Looks like this is going to be a long night.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 08:42:06 pm
NY Times projection tool now has Trump at 54% odds to win the election.  Wow.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 08, 2016, 08:52:37 pm
Damn.

Trump's gonna win ain't he?

I ain't got a dog in it though truthfully.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 08, 2016, 08:54:23 pm
Fivethirtyeight still has Clinton at 73%.  I hope they're right. 

Nate Silver took a lot of criticism for not taking as strong a position on a Clinton win as other prognosticators.  But so far, his live odds haven't really changed from what he had based on polls, and the race is much more competitive than anyone else thought it would be.  Fivethirtyeight's status might improve even more after tonight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 08, 2016, 09:00:22 pm
538 won't change much as the forecast now is based on called races and pre-election polls. So, it seems as if there are a lot of states that have actual votes that do not match the polls and, until they are called, they are not included in the 538 model. So, their 70%+ forecast now is probably too optimistic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 09:00:23 pm
It looks like Hillary is going to narrowly pull out Virginia.

Trump is going to need to win a state like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Minnesota to win.

It looks like Trump is having a great early return in Wayne County, Michigan where Detroit is, though.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 08, 2016, 09:01:42 pm
Florida, Michigan, and NC and he wins.  It's going to be really close. What a disaster.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 08, 2016, 09:04:36 pm
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/796186194707120128
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 09:07:03 pm
Trump up to 64% odds on the NY Times website.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 08, 2016, 09:07:27 pm
538 won't change much as the forecast now is based on called races and pre-election polls. So, it seems as if there are a lot of states that have actual votes that do not match the polls and, until they are called, they are not included in the 538 model. So, their 70%+ forecast now is probably too optimistic.

Yeah, I saw Nate Silver's live blog post about that pop up about 30 seconds after I posted.  Still, fivethirtyeight looks good by showing a lot of uncertainty when other sites were at 85%-99% for Clinton.  That gives me a little hope that their overall forecast (~300 electoral votes for Clinton) will work out.

I really can't believe Trump actually has a chance to win. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 08, 2016, 09:09:32 pm
The fact that it's even close is horrifying.  This is the guy endorsed by the KKK and Nazi's and he's a **** hair away from the White House.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 09:09:44 pm
Florida, Michigan, and NC and he wins.  It's going to be really close. What a disaster.

This election is going to be a disaster regardless which of the two major candidates wins.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 08, 2016, 09:17:35 pm
The fact that it's even close is horrifying.  This is the guy endorsed by the KKK and Nazi's and he's a **** hair away from the White House.

"Horrifying" is too weak a word to express how disgusted I feel about the results so far.

Fivethirtyeight is down to 55% Clinton now that they've given Florida to Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 09:19:46 pm
NY Times is now at 79% Trump . . .
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 09:21:19 pm
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b0d58252626ccb25decb99e1138a437f?convert_to_webp=true)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 09:31:58 pm
Trump just won Ohio.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 08, 2016, 09:40:01 pm
What I find funny is I work for Marriott and 99% of the people I speak to aren't even from the South let alone Tennessee and every single one of them I've spoken to but 3 (which were Mexicans or married to one) have all been for Trump and the polls are saying the same but this group here all seem to hate him.

Looks to me like you all better get over it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 09:42:05 pm
A Trump win would be a disaster.  But at least a Trump win would be less of a disaster than a Hillary win.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 09:59:25 pm
Rubio holding on to his Senate seat was a pleasant surprise.  But Johnson holding on in Wisconsin is an absolute shocker.  Is it possible that Hillary could actually lose this thing?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 08, 2016, 10:01:52 pm
I just don't understand how anyone could think Clinton is more of a disaster than Trump.  Literally every bad thing you could say about Clinton you could also say about Trump.  He's a liar.  He's been on trial a lot, so I don't know how you could call her a criminal and let him get a free pass.  He's bragged about his ability to sexually assault women...even Clinton's husband hasn't bragged about that.

But Clinton has qualifications--she has been First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State.  Trump...well, he had a successful reality show.  He got Vince McMahon's head shaved at Wrestlemania 23.  He made at least one appearance on Access Hollywood.  Not sure how that makes him a better candidate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 10:02:32 pm
A Trump win would be a disaster.  But at least a Trump win would be less of a disaster than a Hillary win.

Depending entirely on what Trump we get.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2016, 10:03:46 pm
I understand that Vancouver is a great place to live.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 10:06:29 pm
I just don't understand how anyone could think Clinton is more of a disaster than Trump.  Literally every bad thing you could say about Clinton you could also say about Trump.  He's a liar.  He's been on trial a lot, so I don't know how you could call her a criminal and let him get a free pass.  He's bragged about his ability to sexually assault women...even Clinton's husband hasn't bragged about that.

But Clinton has qualifications--she has been First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State.  Trump...well, he had a successful reality show.  He got Vince McMahon's head shaved at Wrestlemania 23.  He made at least one appearance on Access Hollywood.  Not sure how that makes him a better candidate.

Both Clinton and Trump are despicable people.  The only difference between them is that Trump is less likely to continue the destructive policies of Obama.  And is much more likely to appoint decent Supreme Court Justices than Hillary.

In addition, I would much rather have Trump in charge of foreign policy than Hillary.

Unfortunately, Trump is going to hurt our economy, at least at first.  After hours futures trading have already lost me about a year's income, and he isn't even likely to win, yet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 08, 2016, 10:07:47 pm
Trump is a racist, a demagogue, and a misogynist.  You own that when you vote for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 10:09:16 pm
The biggest problem I see from all this is that the country is strongly moving in the direction of a populist electorate.  Trump is a pure populist, and Sanders came close to defeating Hillary with his populist views.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2016, 10:12:19 pm
They have a good PCL team
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 10:12:42 pm
Ron Johnson had been catching up in Wisconsin.  That pretty much clinches the Senate for the Republicans.

538 now has Trump as a 61% favorite.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 08, 2016, 10:16:01 pm
I feel sick. President Donald Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 08, 2016, 10:17:12 pm
Hilary is a criminal, a liar, and oversaw some of the worst foreign policy decisions in this nation's history.   Anyone voting for her must own that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 10:18:04 pm
Trump is a racist and a demagogue.  You own that when you vote for him.

I agree.  Of course, he was running against a criminal and a demagogue, and a lot of people had to own that when they voted for her.  The above post was modified to include misogynist.  Look at how many people owned that when the voted for Bill Clinton, and again when they voted for his wife, who not only was his enabler, but actively attacked the women her husband preyed upon.

But this was the wrong year to run an elitist.  Sanders probably would have won for the Democrats.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 10:21:38 pm
The thing that's shocking for me is that Trump pushed normally Republican voters like br and me to Hillary.  I'm guessing people like Tico, Robb, and Curt vote for most other Republicans besides Trump. 

Of course, he's kept Republicans like DaveP in the Republican camp who detest Hillary even more than Trump, but to make up the loss of Republican voters like some of us ... I'm not even sure I want to go there. 

Sad sign for our country that it looks like we're heading down that road.  If Trump holds up in Michigan and Wisconsin, it might be a good two years for the Republicans, but I really hate what the future looks like if the GOP becomes the party of Trump and the alt-right people that have been building him up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 10:22:06 pm
Hilary is a criminal, a liar, and oversaw some of the worst foreign policy decisions in this nation's history.   Anyone voting for her must own that.

I would genuinely be happy to see her in a prison cell.... unfortunately, about the only chance that has of happening is for Trump to be elected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 10:23:19 pm
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the odds are still in favor of Hillary winning tonight.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 08, 2016, 10:24:14 pm
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the odds are still in favor of Hillary winning tonight.

I actually don't think the are at this point.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 10:26:29 pm
He still had to win either Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 10:26:33 pm
Yeah I agree with jes.  It looks like Trump is probably favored to win at least one of MI, WI, or PA, and if he does that, he should win the election. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 08, 2016, 10:31:45 pm
People didn't vote for Trump as much as they voted against Hillary.  I thought it would be the other way around.  Some didn't want a woman.  Some didn't want a Clinton, any more than they wanted another Bush.  Some seriously feel she is not trustworthy.  But the common people identified with Trump over Clinton who they see as an elitist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 08, 2016, 10:32:09 pm
Fox just gave Wisconsin to Trump. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 08, 2016, 10:36:59 pm
Looks like it's over.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 08, 2016, 10:38:50 pm
Appalling.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 08, 2016, 10:42:18 pm
Man, I never thought I would be sad that Hillary lost. 2016 is a really weird year for me.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 10:45:21 pm
She still hasn't lost yet.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 08, 2016, 10:45:34 pm
The thing that's shocking for me is that Trump pushed normally Republican voters like br and me to Hillary..

Just to be clear, I'm open to voting for anyone...but I haven't voted Republican (for President, at least) since 2000.  Libertarian the last three elections, Democrat today.  I'm embarrassed that I could be remotely connected to the current version of the Republican party in any way. 

Hopefully there is still some path for Clinton to win.  If not, I guess it makes sense that the high of a Cubs World Series win would be followed by something like this a week later.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 08, 2016, 10:47:36 pm
She has to win arizona or that's it.   And she isn't going to win arizona.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 08, 2016, 11:00:40 pm
Clinton's odds down to 14% on 538.  Cubs were down to 12% after game 4...so maybe there's still a chance?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 08, 2016, 11:06:27 pm
Jake Tapley on CNN said the market may be down on Wednesday by more than after 9/11.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 11:12:42 pm
Futures are down over 900 points right now.  If you have any money, buy heavily about an hour after the market opens tomorrow, assuming Trump wins.  This will be much like the Brexit vote.  Everything will drop immediately, and then gradually return to normal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 08, 2016, 11:16:45 pm
If this was the cosmic price of the Cubs winning the World Series, I think I would prefer that they hadn't.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on November 08, 2016, 11:17:31 pm
Be greedy when others are fearful, and be fearful when others are greedy
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 08, 2016, 11:31:14 pm
Be interesting to see what the market does if Hillary pulls it out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 08, 2016, 11:46:38 pm
People didn't vote for Trump as much as they voted against Hillary.  I thought it would be the other way around.  Some didn't want a woman.  Some didn't want a Clinton, any more than they wanted another Bush.  Some seriously feel she is not trustworthy.  But the common people identified with Trump over Clinton who they see as an elitist.

Yeah, it's easy to identify with a guy who lives in a gold penthouse on top of a Manhattan skyscraper that has his name on it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2016, 12:10:26 am
Probably more so than identifying an elitist corrupt politician that considers herself above the law and uses a charity to sell her influence around the world.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 09, 2016, 01:18:48 am
This is the Politics And Religion thread so I'm just gonna throw this out there...

1Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

If you claim to be a Christian man yet don't agree with this then that's called blasphemy.

Today is s good day.

Cue Ice Cube...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 09, 2016, 01:39:55 am
AP just called the election for Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 09, 2016, 01:49:33 am
Lol...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:35:38 am
This is the Politics And Religion thread so I'm just gonna throw this out there...
1Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
If you claim to be a Christian man yet don't agree with this then that's called blasphemy.

To the list of things DUSTY does not understand, we can now comfortably add the meaning of the word "blasphemy."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 09, 2016, 07:11:21 am
RISE UP YE DEPLORABLES!!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 09, 2016, 07:36:40 am
MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 09, 2016, 07:43:06 am
And honestly what has Hillary done that Trump hasn't done more of?  What in all honesty has she done that is criminal?  There is no proof that any of the money the foundation took in lead to any favors for other countries.  Yet Trump used his foundation money illegally!  There literally should be an investigation into his foundation practices.  And if you think that Hillary is a liar then you haven't been paying attention to fact checking this election.  Trump LITERALLY lies half the time he opens his mouth. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

I'm truly frightened for what the next 4 years will do to set our country back.  While I have always voted Democrat - I always respected the other candidate.  But not this time.  We shouldn't have to make excuses for our presidents behavior to our children.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 09, 2016, 07:49:58 am
Since having to be politically correct is now a thing of the past, we’ll probably start to hear “Merry Christmas” again instead of “Happy Holidays”.  That doesn’t bother me as much as what it will lead to.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 09, 2016, 07:51:57 am
Futures are down over 900 points right now.  If you have any money, buy heavily about an hour after the market opens tomorrow, assuming Trump wins.  This will be much like the Brexit vote.  Everything will drop immediately, and then gradually return to normal.
Brexit was mentioned several times during the election night coverage.   It didn’t take long at all before the Brits realized they had made a huge mistake.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 09, 2016, 07:52:49 am
America’s toughest sheriff, 84-year old Joe Arpaio failed in his reelection bid in Maricopa County (Phoenix).  Voters decided that $130 million spent on defending him in lawsuits was enough.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 09, 2016, 08:00:52 am
Right now, Hillary is up in the popular vote, and Nate Silver tweeted early this morning that she was still likely to win that by 1-2%.

That's going to cause a really interesting dynamic if she really does stay ahead in the popular vote.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 09, 2016, 08:06:21 am
Just to be clear, I'm open to voting for anyone...but I haven't voted Republican (for President, at least) since 2000.  Libertarian the last three elections, Democrat today.  I'm embarrassed that I could be remotely connected to the current version of the Republican party in any way. 

Hopefully there is still some path for Clinton to win.  If not, I guess it makes sense that the high of a Cubs World Series win would be followed by something like this a week later.

Ha! My apologies to you br.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 09, 2016, 08:11:28 am
Fivethirtyeight still has Clinton at 73%.  I hope they're right. 

Nate Silver took a lot of criticism for not taking as strong a position on a Clinton win as other prognosticators.  But so far, his live odds haven't really changed from what he had based on polls, and the race is much more competitive than anyone else thought it would be.  Fivethirtyeight's status might improve even more after tonight.

I'm not sure any of the prognosticators are looking very good at all this morning, but at least Silver had Trump at 25% odds or so of winning.  That's a lot better than places that were giving him hell like the Huffington Post that embarrassingly only had Trump's odds at like 1%.

Actually Silver had been talking up a lot lately the possibility that Trump would win the electoral college but lose the popular vote, which looks like has a very good chance of happening at the moment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2016, 08:26:51 am
To the list of things DUSTY does not understand, we can now comfortably add the meaning of the word "blasphemy."

He won't learn unless you define it for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 09, 2016, 10:43:00 am
Yeah, I follow Fivethirtyeight pretty closely, and it's clear that Silver and company were anxious about the models and were giving Trump a very real shot.  A polling error away from a Trump presidency.

I can't wait for the factory jobs to come rolling back in.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 09, 2016, 10:56:24 am
I can't wait for the reactions when he's not able to deliver on his top campaign promises like building a wall, deporting 12 million people, and blocking Muslims from entering the country. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 09, 2016, 11:01:20 am
My guess is that the supporters were mostly venting anger and fear, and needed to have someone channel those feelings.  Trump did so with amazing skill.  I doubt there will be a lot of push back when most of his plans get nowhere (except erases of anything that constitutes Obama's legacy including ObamaCare and the nuclear deal with Iran).  Plus, Trump will always be able to blame opposition from Congress for failing to implement/fund his crazy ideas like the wall and deportation of Muslims.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 09, 2016, 11:13:16 am
Another prediction gone wrong as the Dow is up 140 points.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2016, 11:16:53 am
He will be held to the same standard that Obama was held to with his promise that if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.

Trump will not build a wall, at least a physical wall that extends along the entire Mexican border.  Nor will he deport 12 million people.  I doubt that too many that voted for him actually will expect it.  But I would expect him to be more vigorous about deporting those caught breaking the law, and will be less willing to release newly caught illegal aliens on their own recognizance.

Of much more importance will be the first Supreme Court nominee to replace Scalia, which he will do almost immediately.  His choice will probably set the stage for the rest of his term.  The next thing will be how complete will be his cancelling of many of Obama's executive orders that have been so vexing in the areas of immigration and healthcare.  This is something he can do immediately, and how quickly he does it and how thorough he is about it will be closely watched by many of his supporters.

I expect the first big battle will be over the repatriation of profits held overseas.  This is not something he can do without Congress, and there will be great resistance among Democrats in the Senate.  It should be a good test of whether or not he can be a leader, as well as a demagogue.  One promising thing today is the statements by many Republicans that they intend to do things piecemeal rather than with one large omnibus bill.  The larger the bill, the more tradeoffs and bribes that water down the bill to uselessness.

The greatest danger, of course, is how he will deal with things like tariffs and imports.  Hopefully, he will not do too much damage to the economy, or that the repatriation of foreign profits more than off set or mitigate the damage.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: craig on November 09, 2016, 01:33:34 pm
Will this be the first Republican president with Republican majorities in both Senate and House since Hoover?  Democrats have periodically had all three, but I can't recall any Republican control in our lifetimes. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 09, 2016, 01:49:03 pm
No, I believe George W. Bush had that a couple times.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 09, 2016, 01:49:41 pm
This is the first Democrat President who calls himself a Republican to have both Houses.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: bitterman on November 09, 2016, 02:09:37 pm
Say goodbye to Roe v Wade decision.. If you voted for Kim Jung Un.. I've got the best bridge for you to buy. It's the greatest quality bridge. Top notch. @#&%.

I have a singular rule: never underestimate the colossal stupidity of people. And i fu@#ing had a modicum of faith.. Well.. That's gone.

PT Barnum is our new overlord

I had new found optimism with the Cubs winning.. Now.. FU@#!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dave23 on November 09, 2016, 02:30:21 pm
DJIA up 300+ right now...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 09, 2016, 02:34:27 pm
Say goodbye to Roe v Wade decision.. If you voted for Kim Jung Un.. I've got the best bridge for you to buy. It's the greatest quality bridge. Top notch. @#&%.

I have a singular rule: never underestimate the colossal stupidity of people. And i fu@#ing had a modicum of faith.. Well.. That's gone.

PT Barnum is our new overlord

I had new found optimism with the Cubs winning.. Now.. FU@#!

Is the killing of unborn babies that important to you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 09, 2016, 03:11:04 pm
The impression I get today is that good triumphed over evil and that the working class took back control over their country today.

I noticed the neighbor has an American flag flying too.

Its completely different than the tone here today and over the last several months.

I guess some here really took Trump's comments about the Ricketts clan to heart.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 09, 2016, 03:21:13 pm
That's how they felt in Zimbabwe when Mugabe took over.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 09, 2016, 03:34:26 pm
I finally came up with the name I've been trying to remember for several weeks

Full Definition of Hobson's choice
1   an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative
2:  the necessity of accepting one of two or more equally objectionable alternatives
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 09, 2016, 03:37:46 pm
My son, not a Trump supporter, claims that we need to relax because he perceives that Trump was putting on a show to garner publicity.  Free publicity.  The more outrageous things he said, the more coverage he got.  Obviously, he didn't plan the "****" tape, but I doubt he meant everything he said.   As a "change" candidate, he now will have to answer all those angry people who elected him why the wall's not being built, why Hillary is not being investigated by a special prosecutor and going to jail, why the immigration problem isn't fixed, why the Iran deal is not undone, why businesses are still going to China and Mexico, and why he still won't reveal his tax returns.

I'm sure he got some votes from anti-feminists and from racial bigots, but that doesn't explain the huge swing to him.  The irony is that what some comedians said turned out to be true: a lot of people who were voting Trump lied to polsters our of embarrassment. 

I was mentally set for a Hillary presidency and figured, oh, well, the worst she can do is continue to rob us blind and continue lying.  We can survive that for 4 years.  I'm going to need time to soak in the new reality.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 09, 2016, 03:43:52 pm
The thing I found interesting during his speech was when he said for the next 2, 3, 4 years we're going to blah blah blah.  Is it possible he might govern for a few years and then step down to go back to his businesses?  I would love it as Pence would be a much better option.  Trump can then say he didn't need 4 years to do what he wanted.  I'm not sure this guy even wants to be President all that much. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 09, 2016, 03:50:11 pm
Pence is a much worse option.  Unless, of course, you want fetus funerals, gay conversion therapy, and creation museums in every state. Then he's awesome.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 09, 2016, 03:53:20 pm
The thing I found interesting during his speech was when he said for the next 2, 3, 4 years we're going to blah blah blah.  Is it possible he might govern for a few years and then step down to go back to his businesses?  I would love it as Pence would be a much better option.  Trump can then say he didn't need 4 years to do what he wanted.  I'm not sure this guy even wants to be President all that much. 
Maybe he realizes that when he's done nothing he can't be reelected.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 09, 2016, 04:08:49 pm
you want fetus funerals

That really isn't fair to what the law Pence signed does.  The law requires hospitals/abortion clinics to not dump fetal tissue in landfills.  They need to either incinerate or interred.  It makes it illegal to dump fetal tissue into landfills.   The only time their would be a "fetus funeral" is if the parents wanted to have one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 09, 2016, 04:10:22 pm
I still don't buy that Trump supporters were too embarrassed to tell pollsters who they were voting for.  I haven't met a shy Trump supporter yet.  In all the clips I saw of televised Trump rallies (with thousands and thousands of people in attendance), I never saw anyone trying to hide his or her face from the camera.  So I just don't think there's any chance they would have any problem telling an anonymous pollster who they have never met (and never will meet) that they were planning to vote for Trump.

So far, Trump's popular vote total is still behind Romney and McCain.  I don't think Trump really outperformed the polls.  It was just that Clinton wasn't inspiring enough to get Millennials off the couch yesterday, so she significantly underperformed the polls.

I agree with Cletus that Pence is a terrible far, far right social conservative...Clinton probably should have focused a little more on him because Millennials will turn out to vote on social issues.  I worry a lot about the input he will likely have on choosing Supreme Court justices. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: craig on November 09, 2016, 04:32:36 pm
No, I believe George W. Bush had that a couple times.
 
Correct, thanks. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:17:49 pm
He won't learn unless you define it for him.

I don't think that would help.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2016, 05:17:52 pm
Pence is a much worse option.  Unless, of course, you want fetus funerals, gay conversion therapy, and creation museums in every state. Then he's awesome.

Has Pence advocated those things?  I must have missed it.  Can you provide a link?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:20:12 pm
Trump will always be able to blame opposition from Congress for failing to implement/fund his crazy ideas like the wall and deportation of Muslims.

I would agree that deportation of people simply because they are Muslim would be a crazy idea, as well as being unconstitutional, but perhaps even crazier is thinking he said he would do that.  Is there any chance you could refer to a credible source for the claim?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:20:59 pm
Say goodbye to Roe v Wade decision.

Let's hope so.

If I would have been confident of that one, I would have voted for Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:22:44 pm
That really isn't fair to what the law Pence signed does.  The law requires hospitals/abortion clinics to not dump fetal tissue in landfills.  They need to either incinerate or interred.  It makes it illegal to dump fetal tissue into landfills.   The only time their would be a "fetus funeral" is if the parents wanted to have one.

It is not just unfair to what the law Pence signed does, it demonstrates a rather serious misunderstanding of the role of a governor and the way government works in this country... but not a misunderstanding which is surprising.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:25:03 pm
I still don't buy that Trump supporters were too embarrassed to tell pollsters who they were voting for.

They may not have.  There are always some people who simply will refuse to talk to pollsters.  If that group of people is disproportionately made up of Trump voters, you have a serious source of polling error.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:25:57 pm
Since having to be politically correct is now a thing of the past, we’ll probably start to hear “Merry Christmas” again instead of “Happy Holidays”.  That doesn’t bother me as much as what it will lead to.

When did we STOP hearing "Merry Christmas"?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 05:27:01 pm
MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN!

The Black Lives Matter movement, and Hillary's entire campaign, or liberalism in general, does not embody a healthy does of hatred?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 09, 2016, 05:31:26 pm
Quote
It was just that Clinton wasn't inspiring enough to get Millennials off the couch yesterday, so she significantly underperformed the polls.

Yeah I think that was a big factor.  Hillary didn't get millennials going like Obama did, and I always thought that would be a big problem for her.  It probably didn't help their complacency that places like Huffington Post were giving her a 99% chance of winning the election either.  Really the Huffington Post guy and other liberals who were giving Nate Silver a hard time for giving Trump a 1 in 3 chance probably learned a lesson the hard way there.  A lot of millennials living in Huffington Post type bubbles probably thought the election was already in the bag for her and may not have voted.

It sounds like African American turnout wasn't what it was for Obama either.  Places like Philadelphia, Detroit, areas in North Carolina, etc. apparently didn't turn out African American voters for Hillary like they did for Obama, and even with the reduced turnout, she didn't get the share of African American voters that Obama got either.

Modern elections aren't about convincing undecided voters anymore because there are simply fewer of them.  They're all about turning out your block of voters.  Donald Trump had his energized and motivated to vote for him.  Hillary didn't.  That's the difference there, just like it's been in every election since 2000.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 09, 2016, 06:02:35 pm
This is the first Democrat President who calls himself a Republican to have both Houses.

I'm coming to the conclusion that Trump can consider himself a Republican.  Unfortunately he's coming from the alt-right wing of the party, and that scares the crap out of me.

Part of the many reasons why I voted against Trump was for the alt-right people who might be pushing a lot of the agenda in his administration.  Stephen Bannon has turned Breitbart into a whack job website, and he's the one who ran Trump's campaign.  I'm sure he's going to have a big role to play in President Trump's administration, and he'll have people who think and act like him littered throughout.  Politico ran an article about Stephen Miller who was the warm up act at a lot of Trump's rallies, and he's a certified nutjob.  Trump was a regular on Alex Jones's shows and retweeted Infowars.com stuff throughout the campaign, and that site is nothing but a cesspool of whacky conspiracy theories.  The thought that people like George Will are leaving the Republican party and being replaced by guys like Stephen Miller and Stephen Bannon is a scary thought to me.  That's probably only going to get worse now that Trump is in the driver seat of the party.

I still think of myself as a Mitt Romney type Republican, but it looks like people who think like Romney aren't going to be welcome in the party for much longer.  Sean Hannity wants Paul Ryan out as House speaker yesterday, and I don't know how you could consider Ryan as anything but a solid conservative Republican (I even think Ryan is too far to the right on social issues for my tastes, but he's probably the most admirable national Republican in office that I can think of at the moment).  The alt-right and social right people in the Ted Cruz mold are taking over and even people who ordinarily would be considered very right wing Republicans like Ryan are getting pushed out of leadership or are at least going to have very tenuous holds on leadership.

Part of why I voted for Hillary because I wanted the future of the Republican party to be guys like Paul Ryan, Ben Sasse, and Marco Rubio.  Unfortunately it looks like the future is now going to be Donald Trump, Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Alex Jones and other con artists and alt-right whackos.  I'm sure the Republicans will get a lot of their policy goals done in the next couple of years (some of which I'll be happy to see), but long term, there's going to be a heavy price to pay in the country and in the party for that.  Hope I'm wrong.

 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 09, 2016, 06:16:12 pm
There weren't enough hours in a day for voters to decide what was a fact, a half-truth, or an outright lie.

Both candidates had a high unpopularity rating so it came down to who would have the best chance of breaking the Washington gridlock.  Trump, being the outsider was the choice.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2016, 06:42:47 pm
As I hear the breakdown of the results, it appears that Trump generally received about the same percentage of votes compared to population as Romney.  Hillary lost because a large number of Democratic voters, especially in the black areas, just did not turn out in the same numbers as they did for Obama, which is not surprising, but fewer than Gore, which is surprising.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robert L on November 09, 2016, 06:47:11 pm
Jim Comey
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 09, 2016, 06:47:42 pm
The Black Lives Matter movement, and Hillary's entire campaign, or liberalism in general, does not embody a healthy does of hatred?

I assume you meant dose and not does.  And no it does not embody a healthy dose of hatred.  Not even close to what Drumpf was doling out.

And how do you think that Hillary and liberalism in general embody hatred?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 09, 2016, 07:16:31 pm
I think the Obamacare huge price jumps announced a week before the election hurt Hillary far more than the emails,   it's the economy, stupid.  People don't care about womanizing, lying, lousy language, or bad judgement,  but you start taking money out of their pockets...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 09, 2016, 07:54:45 pm
You know how to stop these protests?

Tear gas, fire hoses, and shotguns.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 09, 2016, 08:01:21 pm
As long as people don't use them as an excuse to riot or damage property, no reason to do any of that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 08:08:53 pm
I assume you meant dose and not does.  And no it does not embody a healthy dose of hatred.  Not even close to what Drumpf was doling out.

"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em up like bacon" does not embody hatred?

And how do you think that Hillary and liberalism in general embody hatred?

The claims that conservative or Republicans want to poison people or push granny off a cliff embody no hatred?  The "white privilege" nonsense and class warfare blaming "the greedy one-percenters" embody no hatred?  The "basket of deplorables" embodies no hatred?  Your use of "Drumpf" embodies no hatred?

Are you for real?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 09, 2016, 08:15:02 pm
You know how to stop these protests?

Tear gas, fire hoses, and shotguns.

"These protests"?

What protests?

Does Dusty want to use tear gas and shotguns on Colin Kaepernick?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 09, 2016, 08:19:28 pm
This could last all night.

These are the people who don't have jobs to go to in the morning.

You know they're wired up on all the free medication they get too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robert L on November 09, 2016, 08:30:28 pm
it's the First Amendment Dusty
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 09, 2016, 08:43:19 pm
You know how to stop these protests?

Tear gas, fire hoses, and shotguns.

You were born in the wrong era.  Though, Trump and his supporters are going to try their hardest to get us back to those days.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 09, 2016, 08:46:26 pm
I'm honestly just trying to get you all fired up.

I care less about this and know less about this than anyone here and I'm man enough to admit it.

Im truthfully not a republican or a democrat and didn't like either candidate.

I voted for Rubio in the primaries.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 10, 2016, 02:15:30 pm
Heh.  California threatening to secede.  Didn't Texas do the same thing after Obama was elected?  Won't happen.  All those folks in California would have to get passports to go to Vegas and Reno.

The Democratic party would have the most to lose.  Big Blue State.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 10, 2016, 02:59:05 pm
Heh.  California threatening to secede.  Didn't Texas do the same thing after Obama was elected?  Won't happen.  All those folks in California would have to get passports to go to Vegas and Reno.

The Democratic party would have the most to lose.  Big Blue State.

I've read about that too.  Just assuming a state like that or say Vermont really truly wanted to secede, I wonder how the federal government or a President Trump would react to that.  One of the crazy #calexit articles I read mentioned that secession would be a legal thing for them to do, and that's not how the federal government has viewed it historically.  I'm reading Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson right now (By the way, I get the feeling Trump would have a lot in common with Andrew Jackson.), and he considered secession and nullification of federal laws to be illegal.  Abraham Lincoln considered secession to be illegal. 

You'd think in the 21st century that you wouldn't resort to force to bring them back, but the federal government can't just let them walk. 

It's never likely to happen anyway, but that's a thought that's always crossed my mind a time or two whenever secession talk like that gets brought up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 10, 2016, 03:13:24 pm
I've read about that too.  Just assuming a state like that or say Vermont really truly wanted to secede, I wonder how the federal government or a President Trump would react to that.  One of the crazy #calexit articles I read mentioned that secession would be a legal thing for them to do, and that's not how the federal government has viewed it historically.  I'm reading Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson right now (By the way, I get the feeling Trump would have a lot in common with Andrew Jackson.), and he considered secession and nullification of federal laws to be illegal.  Abraham Lincoln considered secession to be illegal. 

You'd think in the 21st century that you wouldn't resort to force to bring them back, but the federal government can't just let them walk. 

It's never likely to happen anyway, but that's a thought that's always crossed my mind a time or two whenever secession talk like that gets brought up.

Well if California is going to break away I would imagine that Northern California and other red parts of the state aren't going to want to follow would be 1 part of the problem.  The bigger problem is how is California going to get water.  I really doubt President Trump is going to continue allow California to have access to most of their water supplies.  If Northern California stays in the US, then the problems would be worse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 10, 2016, 03:15:12 pm
Would California pay for the wall between them and the U.S.?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 03:25:49 pm
Actually seceding is a nonstarter, of course, but I completely understand the desire to decouple ourselves from the misogynist racists and/or rubes who think Trump as president is a good idea.  Right now I'm ashamed of being from the Midwest.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 10, 2016, 03:59:26 pm
I think you need to be a little more charitable.  Where there misogynist and racists that voted for Trump?  Yes.  They weren't the majority.  There are multiple reasons for voting for him that don't include either of those.  Calling people rubes is also pretty offensive. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 10, 2016, 04:26:40 pm
People who voted for Trump are rubes.  It may be hurtful to hear that but the truth can hurt.  Those same people may not think they are racists and misogynists but they are endorsing a man who most definitely is and they are aligning with folks like the KKK and Nazi's. So, they may not think they are racists and misogynists but their actions in this case say otherwise.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 04:33:07 pm
A HUGE percentage of the people who voted for Trump were completely deceived.  They bought into his rhetoric--which was about 75% lies--as the gospel truth.  He's probably 5x the criminal/liar that Hillary is, but they think that She should be locked up.  They think he's going to help them.

He's not.

Ironically, the party that will help those people (the ones who are really angry and lost their jobs and are at the lower end of the economic spectrum?) would be the other one.

I get that some people who voted for Trump have their reasons, not all of which are deplorable.  However, I'll stand by my assertion that lots and lots and lots of people who voted for Trump are rubes.  Someday, maybe, I'll feel sorry for them when they get taught again that trickle-down economics don't work and maybe they don't have *any* health care options and *still* don't have the manufacturing job he promised to bring back, but right now I think I'm a bit too pissed off.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Ray on November 10, 2016, 04:35:43 pm
I think the mistake in that line of thinking is there wasn't a reasonable alternative.  Many of us think Hilary is an even worse person than trump. If there was reasonable alternative, fine think that, but your calling an awful lot of voters something they're not.

Don't all those bad guys you mention normally support the Republican party?  Doesn't that mean that Republicans are always always lining themselves with them...in walks in the reincarnation other Ronald Reagan, he runs and wins, and a lot of what you say still holds true. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 10, 2016, 04:48:03 pm
I don't know how you could think Clinton was worse than the racist and misogynist guy who had the support of the KKK and Nazis. But, if you did, you can always choose to abstain.  Presumably you didn't and voted for Trump which says a lot about you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on November 10, 2016, 04:49:08 pm
I just don't understand the "Hillary is worse than Trump" line of thinking.  Literally every bad thing that has been said about Clinton during this campaign--she's a liar, she's corrupt, she may be a criminal, she may have misused her charity, and so on--you can say about Donald Trump.  And I'd argue that there is far more evidence that those descriptions of Trump are accurate.

Then on top of that, you have the constant misogynistic and racist rhetoric that was Trump's campaign.  You have a guy who mocked a disabled reporter and encouraged violence against protesters at some of his rallies.  And he openly bragged about committing sexual assault because he wanted to impress Billy Bush.  I just don't get it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 10, 2016, 04:49:43 pm
Labels like "racist" and "misogynist" are too extreme for most people I have ever met...
I don't associate skin color or gender as automatic identifiers like some extremists do when seeing a person they don't know.
I do know that some stereotypes are accurate - but that is not extreme enough to judge a person on appearance alone.
Most of us "rubes" have to whisper - or use similes or metaphors to have daily discussions about what is degrading our society into 3rd world status...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 10, 2016, 04:55:52 pm
I just don't understand the "Hillary is worse than Trump" line of thinking.  Literally every bad thing that has been said about Clinton during this campaign--she's a liar, she's corrupt, she may be a criminal, she may have misused her charity, and so on--you can say about Donald Trump.  And I'd argue that there is far more evidence that those descriptions of Trump are accurate.

Then on top of that, you have the constant misogynistic and racist rhetoric that was Trump's campaign.  You have a guy who mocked a disabled reporter and encouraged violence against protesters at some of his rallies.  And he openly bragged about committing sexual assault because he wanted to impress Billy Bush.  I just don't get it.
Pay-for-play has been around for a long time.  Both parties have used it extensively.  Nobody was better at it than George W. Bush.  When big-business and big-oil said "jump", he said "how high?".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 04:57:53 pm
Quote
Many of us think Hilary is an even worse person than trump.

You're wrong.  You've bought into what the alt-right Breitbart people have been selling about Hillary for 20 years.

Is she perfect?  No.  Would she be my first choice?  No.  Is she a better person than Donald Trump?  Unquestionably.

She's spent her whole career championing the rights of children.  Donald Trump champions himself.  The Clinton Foundation (which she actually took flack for) does great charity work around the world.  The Donald Trump Foundation (to which he doesn't even contribute) appears to benefit primarily Donald Trump.  The list goes on.  It is well documented.

That people didn't educate themselves enough to find out what kind of people they were voting for makes them rubes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 10, 2016, 05:00:24 pm
Education is key - voters should be required to pass a TEST before being allowed to vote
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 05:04:56 pm
Education is key - voters should be required to pass a TEST before being allowed to vote

Amen to that, brother. 

That's the biggest thing I'm taking away from this election.  I've had my doubts about straight-up democracy for a while now, but this election is the poster child for its faults.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 10, 2016, 05:05:56 pm
I think they should place truth collars on all politicians (and pundits).  Every time they lie, they get shocked. Would have put a stop to Trump...and it would have been highly entertaining.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 10, 2016, 05:07:44 pm
Good candidates won't run - when the media will expose their privacy
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 10, 2016, 05:09:09 pm
Sarah Palin getting shocked every 2 minutes is something for late-night TV
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 10, 2016, 05:10:10 pm
Consider this hypothetical.

The Democratic Party nominates a candidate who is an all around despicable human being.  This person puts forth a progressive agenda.

The Republican Party nominates a candidate who is an all around decent human being.  This person puts forth a conservative agenda.

There are millions upon millions of Democratic/progressive voters who would vote for the Democratic candidate simply because of his or her agenda.

Is that OK?

I say yes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 05:16:33 pm
Quote
Consider this hypothetical.

Good one.  As I consider it, let me first throw out that it's a flawed analogy for this election (you probably know that) because no one has any idea what Trump is really going to do once he takes office.  All we know for sure--through the mounds of available evidence--is that he's a despicable human being.  He contradicted himself so many times that believing any particular promise tends dangerously toward rubishness, if you ask me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:16:51 pm
Heh.  California threatening to secede.  Didn't Texas do the same thing after Obama was elected?  Won't happen.  All those folks in California would have to get passports to go to Vegas and Reno.

The Democratic party would have the most to lose.  Big Blue State.

Texas, as a state, never "threatened" to secede after Obama was elected, though there have been discussions about the possibility.  The same is true presently in California.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:19:15 pm
Actually seceding is a nonstarter, of course, but I completely understand the desire to decouple ourselves from the misogynist racists and/or rubes who think Trump as president is a good idea.  Right now I'm ashamed of being from the Midwest.

After what you put in your first sentence, some of the rest of us from the Midwest may also be ashamed you are from the same part of the country.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:25:50 pm
I've read about that too.  Just assuming a state like that or say Vermont really truly wanted to secede, I wonder how the federal government or a President Trump would react to that.  One of the crazy #calexit articles I read mentioned that secession would be a legal thing for them to do, and that's not how the federal government has viewed it historically.  I'm reading Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson right now (By the way, I get the feeling Trump would have a lot in common with Andrew Jackson.), and he considered secession and nullification of federal laws to be illegal.  Abraham Lincoln considered secession to be illegal. 

You'd think in the 21st century that you wouldn't resort to force to bring them back, but the federal government can't just let them walk.

Why?

And if they attempt to do so, do you send in federal troops, a la Lincoln, which started a civil war resulting in the death of one of every twenty people in the country?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:27:33 pm
I think you need to be a little more charitable.  Where there misogynist and racists that voted for Trump?  Yes.  They weren't the majority.  There are multiple reasons for voting for him that don't include either of those.  Calling people rubes is also pretty offensive.

Now, now, such things are only offensive when conservatives say them.  When good liberals do, there is no offense, and, besides, when liberals say something like that, well, you just know it's true.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 05:29:47 pm
Quote
There are millions upon millions of Democratic/progressive voters who would vote for the Democratic candidate simply because of his or her agenda.

Is that OK?

It's tough.  I completely see your point, and I could argue it either way, but in the end it would come down to a personal decision even if we didn't want it to.  It's a spectrum. 

For me personally, the moral part of it matters.  I think it's important that the president is someone that kids can look up to.  It's not everything, but it matters to me.  John Edwards would never get my vote.  In retrospect, I was pretty happy with The thought of Donald Trump living in the White House forever cheapens the office of the president, and that makes me sad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:30:42 pm
Pay-for-play has been around for a long time.  Both parties have used it extensively.  Nobody was better at it than George W. Bush.  When big-business and big-oil said "jump", he said "how high?".

Bull.  Utter bull.  The Clintons rented out the damb Lincoln bedroom, and you want to point fingers at George W.

You lose anything resembling credibility with such nonsense.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:32:52 pm
All we know for sure--through the mounds of available evidence--is that he's a despicable human being.

And that description somehow does not fit both of the Clintons?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 05:34:34 pm
Jes, anyone who takes you off ignore long enough to argue with you is also a rube.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 10, 2016, 05:35:15 pm
Cable news, ain't. Spin is accepted as analysis. Lies are accepted as business as usual. The entire process is a circus. In such an environment it doesn't surprise me that the head huckster wins.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 05:37:54 pm
Cable news, ain't. Spin is accepted as analysis. Lies are accepted as business as usual. The entire process is a circus. In such an environment it doesn't surprise me that the head huckster wins.

The guy who lied the most and best won.  I find that sad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 05:40:27 pm
Okay.  Clearly I had some **** to say.  I think it's out.  I'll resume mostly lurking now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:42:50 pm
I just don't understand the "Hillary is worse than Trump" line of thinking.

Then you have rather limited understanding.  I completely understand it, even though I do not share it.

Then on top of that, you have the constant misogynistic and racist rhetoric that was Trump's campaign.

The words "constant," "continual," and "repeated" are different for a reason.  They mean different things.  You might want to check the meaning of each.

You have a guy who mocked a disabled reporter and encouraged violence against protesters at some of his rallies.

Except that he didn't.  He used gestures which he also used to describe other people, including Ted Cruz and a perfectly healthy general, who he was trying to make fun of for being confused or taking positions which he thought made no sense or were inconsistent with what he thought was obvious or what he thought they had said before.... the one you are referencing simply happened to be disabled.... a reporter Trump had passing contact with, never with an in depth or one-on-one interview, with all of that contact more than 20 years earlier.  There is no reason to believe Trump actually knew the guy was disabled.

And he openly bragged about committing sexual assault because he wanted to impress Billy Bush.  I just don't get it.

This is utter bull.  Read the transcript.  Listen to the recording.  He did not say that he ever DID grab a woman by the genitals, but only boast that he COULD.  Earlier this year he also boasted that he COULD should someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it because he was so popular.  Are you similarly going to contend that was Trump admitting that he HAD shot someone on 5th Avenue?

Look, I do NOT like Trump.  I consider him a despicable human being, and I actually would have preferred Clinton over Trump.... but only by the narrowest of margins, since I also consider her a despicable human being and I hope she soon gets a chance to wear an orange jumpsuit on a regular basis.... but your claims about him are nonsense.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:46:25 pm
A HUGE percentage of the people who voted for Trump were completely deceived.  They bought into his rhetoric--which was about 75% lies--as the gospel truth.  He's probably 5x the criminal/liar that Hillary is, but they think that She should be locked up.  They think he's going to help them.

He's not.

Ironically, the party that will help those people (the ones who are really angry and lost their jobs and are at the lower end of the economic spectrum?) would be the other one.

I get that some people who voted for Trump have their reasons, not all of which are deplorable.  However, I'll stand by my assertion that lots and lots and lots of people who voted for Trump are rubes.  Someday, maybe, I'll feel sorry for them when they get taught again that trickle-down economics don't work and maybe they don't have *any* health care options and *still* don't have the manufacturing job he promised to bring back, but right now I think I'm a bit too pissed off.

I respectfully submit that you have no clue what you are talking about, and suggesting that any higher percentage of  Trump voters are "rubes" than Hillary voters, or than were Obama voters, is an assertion making no sense.

It would also be interesting to hear you explain what "trickle down economics" is, and to point to any example of Trump saying he supports it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 05:49:19 pm
Amen to that, brother. 

That's the biggest thing I'm taking away from this election.  I've had my doubts about straight-up democracy for a while now, but this election is the poster child for its faults.

Considering some of your comments here it is amusing to see you calling for your own disenfranchisement.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 10, 2016, 05:52:50 pm
Well...there is plenty of blame to go around.

1. Hillary is a very uninspiring idea.  Back in the old days, when I had a job, I used to handle classified data all day, every day. If I had done what Hillary did I'd be typing this from a Federal lockup. If she had been merely the 'usually unlikable politician' she would have won hands down. 

2. TV media is crap.  The NY Times and Washington Post reported day after day after day the total nonsense that was Donald Trump. But...Despite the best efforts by a few types, TV "news" completely abdicated their responsibility, opting instead to reap the financial benefits of sensationalism.  Cable news organizations are simply entertainment.   Jon Stewart, a blatantly entertainment entity, provided more "news".

3. We, the people, suck. We let it happen.  Our fault, most of all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 10, 2016, 05:56:46 pm
If there really that many misogynists and bigots and KKK folks out there, how the hell did Obama get elected twice?  I think it's sour grapes, and I didn't vote for Trump.  I'm sure a lot of those rednecks did vote for Trump, but their numbers probably don't come close to negating the Black and Latino vote for Hillary. 

Hillary made too many mistakes:
1. She should have dumped Bill 5 or 10 years ago.  Without his baggage, the misogynist claims against Trump would have carried more weight.
2. She let the NRA and Trump define her stand on the 2nd Amendment.
3. Dumbass wants to build a wall and send criminals back to Mexico; I don't know her position.  I know she has one but she never clarified it.
4. Other than continuing on the same track, I'm unsure of her foreign policy ideas.  Certainly better than dumbass' but what is it?
5. Instead of talking what her plans were, she got down in the mud with Trump and slung crap with him.
6. She seemed to be more concerned about breaking the glass ceiling for women than showing how she was a better choice than dumbass.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 10, 2016, 06:04:31 pm
People who voted for Trump are rubes.  It may be hurtful to hear that but the truth can hurt.  Those same people may not think they are racists and misogynists but they are endorsing a man who most definitely is and they are aligning with folks like the KKK and Nazi's. So, they may not think they are racists and misogynists but their actions in this case say otherwise.
Oddly enough, when Hillary called Trump's supporters a basket of deplorables is when many in his campaign credit as the moment things started clicking.  The deplorables didn't care, and the ones who weren't deplorable got angry and motivated.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 10, 2016, 06:05:41 pm
Hillary was the Bob Dole of the Democratic Party.  "Hey, she deserves it.  Let her give a shot."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 10, 2016, 06:07:02 pm
The "deplorables" didn't care because they didn't know what the word deplorable meant.  Sounds like adorable.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 06:09:47 pm
The Clinton Foundation (which she actually took flack for) does great charity work around the world.  The Donald Trump Foundation (to which he doesn't even contribute) appears to benefit primarily Donald Trump.

I always find this one amusing.  So you are trying to suggest that most of the "charitable spending" by the Clinton Foundation comes from the pocket of the Clintons?

How much money did she contribute to the Foundation each of the last several years.  From the wikileaks documents it appears the Clintons not only were not giving their own money to heir foundation, but that they were using it as a means of getting contributors to poney up more than $60 MILLION paid directly to Bill.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 10, 2016, 06:13:57 pm
Calling a huge portion of the electorate "deplorables" was a "New Coke" level bad idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 06:28:42 pm
Hillary was the Bob Dole of the Democratic Party.  "Hey, she deserves it.  Let her give a shot."

Sort of.  It was carefully engineered by the Clinton machine to seem that way.  "Why I never considered running for office in New York.  Do you really think I should?  Well, I guess so. . . ."  A total load of horseshit.  My own personal opinion is that she stuck with Bill *because* she wanted to run for president and was just waiting for her turn.  I could be wrong about that, though.

Part of why people hate her is she does a crappy job of covering up what a shrewd politician she is.

Her flaws as candidate and campaign are just part of the perfect storm that conspired to give us Trump as president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 10, 2016, 06:47:28 pm
Here you go, Trump voters.  Here's your chance to celebrate.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article113915898.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article113915898.html)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 10, 2016, 07:01:30 pm
Jes, anyone who takes you off ignore long enough to argue with you is also a rube.
I'm going to assume Jes replied to one of my posts with his usual one-sided nonsense.  Your advice to not override his ignore status is correct.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Ray on November 10, 2016, 07:09:59 pm
Ouch.  Names hurt. 

So some think folks shouldn't vote if you don't agree with who got their vote?  Wow.  No comment.

I think a lot of folks who voted Trump were looking at supreme Court and perhaps undoing some of Obamas more damaging stuff in addition to not thinking much of Hillary. If both candidates are bad, then look for other reasons to elect one.   It doesn't have to be because I'm a racist or a rube or any of the other stuff you care to label me. 
 

I didnt enter this to have some huge debate and be ridiculed but some of the labels are so inaccurate and ill informed some people here are painting half the country with, I ended up posting and probably shouldn't have because no good will come of it. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 10, 2016, 07:23:58 pm
[quote author=DelMarFan link=topic=96.msg297036#msg297036 date=1478818673
She's spent her whole career championing the rights of children.  Donald Trump champions himself.  The Clinton Foundation (which she actually took flack for) does great charity work around the world.  The Donald Trump Foundation (to which he doesn't even contribute) appears to benefit primarily Donald Trump.  The list goes on.  It is well documented
[/quote]

The Clinton Foundation does very little actual charity work.

It donates money to The Clinton Health Initiative. There isn't a website for what this actually does.

It donates money to the Clinton Health Access Initiative. They negiotiate with companies to get low cost HIV medications. They could buy the medicine, but they don't. The lowest percentage goes to this.

They donate money to Clinton Library. I'm not sure how this is consider charity work. If you take out the overhead and the money that goes to the Clinton Library and assume that the Clinton Health Initiative is an actual charity, then less than 80% of the money goes to charity work, which is a pretty crappy percentage. This isn't Jimmy Carter and Habit for Humanity.

Clinton and Trump are two sides of the same coin. If he does something stupid he'll lose the congress and grid lock will happen. Hopefully he'll do a better job. If not it is another 4 years of doing nothing about our nations problems. Much like it was been since Clinton and the congress quit working with each other.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 10, 2016, 07:30:51 pm
Why?

And if they attempt to do so, do you send in federal troops, a la Lincoln, which started a civil war resulting in the death of one of every twenty people in the country?

The civil war started when South Carolina fired upon Federal troops in Fort Sumpter.  Since you know everything, you must know that.  Of course, facts mean nothing to you unless they support your agenda of the day.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 10, 2016, 07:35:40 pm

For me personally, the moral part of it matters.  I think it's important that the president is someone that kids can look up to. 


I made quite a few enemies among conservatives when I criticized them for wanting to impeach Bill Clinton for his sexual preditory actions against a young intern.  I have no idea how old you are, but if you were an adult at that time, I assume you were calling for his impeachment along with them.  If so, then you are truly a consistent person.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 08:45:37 pm
I made quite a few enemies among conservatives when I criticized them for wanting to impeach Bill Clinton for his sexual preditory actions against a young intern.

Hmmm.... I don't recall that being among the articles of impeachment.  Could you perhaps point it out to me?  Just to make it easy:

Article I: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. States that contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Article II: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

Article III: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

Article IV: States that using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. States that William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

States, with reference to each article of impeachment, that: (1) in so doing, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States; and (2) William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.


Despite the Clinton team's successful spin that it was all about him having sex with Lewinsky, that actually was not involved at all.  Had he done everything he did EXCEPT for diddling the intern, he still would have been impeached, only without the chance of spinning it the way he did he likely then would have actually been removed.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 09:00:17 pm
I ended up posting and probably shouldn't have because no good will come of it.

The fact that not everyone agrees with you, or that some strongly disagree and even call you names, does not mean no good comes from a post or a discussion.  Don't let those who pis$ and moan on hearing something they don't like discourage you from trying to engage in conversation.... and if you limit yourself to exchanges which will never offend anyone, you are only going to contribute to really boring exchanges.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 09:06:20 pm
If (Trump) does something stupid he'll lose the congress and grid lock will happen.

Gridlock..... if we first kill ObamaCare and then we get gridlock so we have no other similar stupidity forced on us, I might actually end being a big fan of Trump's.

Unfortunately I suspect he will end up doing more than his share of very harmful $hit, like passing the childcare plan he tossed out there to try to win women voters.  Dems will love it, and enough Republicans would join that passage would be a near certainty.... and it would be horrible.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 09:07:53 pm
The civil war started when South Carolina fired upon Federal troops in Fort Sumpter.  Since you know everything, you must know that.  Of course, facts mean nothing to you unless they support your agenda of the day.

Not really, despite the northern effort to spin it that way.  No Union troops died in the attack, and if Lincoln had not sent in troops, there would have been no war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 09:12:13 pm
I thought about including this in my response to Jeff but didn't.  I think the government functioned well during the Clinton years.  In a lot of ways, I would like to have that kind of administration again (in terms of a congress that could work together, even a little bit).  I did not vote for his re-election, however, primarily for the reasons you are calling me on.  Asking that I called for impeachment is a bit of a stretch.  You cherry-picked from what I said, too.  It's a spectrum.  The "good person" is just part of it.

Quote
I think a lot of folks who voted Trump were looking at supreme Court and perhaps undoing some of Obamas more damaging stuff in addition to not thinking much of Hillary.

That's not what you said first, Ray.  You said something about Hillary being a worse person than Donald Trump, which is why I responded the way I did.  I'm careful about what I say.  I never said "Anyone who voted for Donald Trump is a rube," nor do I believe that.  If you're that worried about the Supreme Court, fine.  That's different.  I don't agree, but that's life.

My point is that there are a bunch of people out there who voted for Donald Trump because exactly what you said--they believe Hillary is a worse person than Donald Trump because Rush Limbaugh told them so.  They believe that that Trump cares about them and will fight to make their lives better.  They couldn't name a Supreme Court justice if their life depended on it nor come up with the real nuts and bolts of why the Supreme Court is important.  These are the rubes I'm talking about, and they tipped the election to Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 09:16:01 pm
Here you go, Trump voters.  Here's your chance to celebrate.


Neither Trump, nor any of his inner circle, have ever been associated with the Klan, nor have they invited the Klan to have any part in the campaign or celebration.  Quite a bit different from FDR, who appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court, or Bill Clinton, who worked very closely with a Klansman in the Senate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 10, 2016, 10:25:33 pm
Most of us "rubes" have to whisper - or use similes or metaphors to have daily discussions about what is degrading our society into 3rd world status...

You seriously think we are degrading into a 3rd world status?  Have you been to a 3rd world country and actually stayed in the country.  That is just a wrong statement.  You should spend some time in one before you make that statement.  We are a spoiled society.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 10, 2016, 10:28:02 pm
The Clinton Foundation does very little actual charity work.

It donates money to The Clinton Health Initiative. There isn't a website for what this actually does.

It donates money to the Clinton Health Access Initiative. They negiotiate with companies to get low cost HIV medications. They could buy the medicine, but they don't. The lowest percentage goes to this.

They donate money to Clinton Library. I'm not sure how this is consider charity work. If you take out the overhead and the money that goes to the Clinton Library and assume that the Clinton Health Initiative is an actual charity, then less than 80% of the money goes to charity work, which is a pretty crappy percentage. This isn't Jimmy Carter and Habit for Humanity.

Clinton and Trump are two sides of the same coin. If he does something stupid he'll lose the congress and grid lock will happen. Hopefully he'll do a better job. If not it is another 4 years of doing nothing about our nations problems. Much like it was been since Clinton and the congress quit working with each other.

Where did you get your information?  This site tells a different story of the foundation:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 10:39:54 pm
Come on, man.  Any organization called FactCheck is clearly a liberal media shill.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 10, 2016, 10:56:35 pm
Ok then point me to a place that investigated this more than just Trump saying "I've heard from some people..."

I'm willing to be educated, just not by FoxNews. Or by Trump the liar.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 10, 2016, 11:04:52 pm
sorry, left out the purple again.  Was being sarcastic.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 10, 2016, 11:48:10 pm
sorry, left out the purple again.  Was being sarcastic.

It is not the name which shows its political leanings, but its origin, funding, and track record.  It is about as neutral as MSNBC.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 11, 2016, 08:18:35 am
Right Jes.  So do you suggest another independent site (at least as independent as can be in this environment)?

I'm seriously trying to get to the truth rather than spewing information from MSNBC or FoxNews because I don't fully trust either one.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 11, 2016, 11:02:40 am
I can totally understand the bitterness and feelings of loss that are being felt by many on this board right now.  I felt the same way in 2008 and 2012.  I couldn't understand how people could elect a President that so differs from my own values.  I couldn't understand how someone could pick a president who sat in sermons for 20 years as his pastor berated and condemned America, a President who had many communist friends and was a big fan of Saul Alinsky.  Especially in 2012 I grieved after the election.  I barely watched the news.  I didn't want to know what was going on.  I grieved for the country I felt had turned from me.  I totally get your feelings Delmar and Grrr and others.  I felt them 4 years ago.  I won't tell you to rally behind Trump as I didn't vote for him either.  He is a blustering buffoon who isn't anywhere near as smart as he thinks he is, which may be his most dangerous fault.   I do think labeling anyone who voted for him as deplorable, racist or fill in the blank is way out of line.  Many of my non-racist, intelligent, successful, good-natured friends voted Trump.  How dare anyone label them with such things just because they disagree politically.  There were a host of reasons to vote for Trump which had nothing to do with racism, mysogeny or any other of your labels.  Are you really suggesting that more than 55 million Americans are racist idiots?  Can your narrow world view not expand enough to include the very thought that people who don't agree with you may be normal good people too?  I realize you were venting and again, I get it.  However, your comments and labels were offensive, inappropriate an quite frankly, immature.  I don't need an apology because I didn't vote for Trump, but maybe when you calm down you can see that your behavior has sunk below the very kinds of people that you condemn. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 11:14:46 am
Agreeing somewhat with Robb.  I think the irony is in the rubes.  Just doing some reading and watching some opinionated tv, and the common theory put forward at the moment is that Trump struck a nerve with all those people tired of being politically correct and considered rubes.  It's that elitist thing again.  And I see that in some of your comments.  I didn't vote for Trump.  I consider him a dumbass, but I know people who did.  I don't think they're rubes but they sure will get their backs up if you treat them that way.  Maybe the key is to not only respect people of different races and beliefs, but also of different education levels and intelligence.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 11, 2016, 11:19:34 am
My final post in this topic

Trump supporters will soon be thinking of this old adage

(http://i.quoteaddicts.com/media/q4/1317629.png)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 11, 2016, 11:28:44 am
Where did you get your information?  This site tells a different story of the foundation:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/



https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Administrative Expensenses: 8.7%
Fundraising Expenseneses: 4.2%
Clinton Presidentional Center: 6.1%

They update the numbers so that comes out to 81%

The rest of the money goes to
Clinton Health Access Initative
http://www.clintonhealthaccess.org/about/

Clinton Global Initiative
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative

It sounds like they do some really neat conferences.

Clinton Climate Initiative
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative

I hope those are ok sites to use.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 11, 2016, 11:30:59 am

Are you really suggesting that more than 55 million Americans are racist idiots? . 

Yes. Actually the number of racist idiots is much higher but that's the number that showed up to vote on Tuesday.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2016, 11:35:20 am
I think that only a small minority of those who voted for Trump are racist idiots.  Most have legitimate grievances that their government has not worked well for them.  Many do not like the direction things have gone in this country in terms of social issues.  Many are looking for solutions to complex world problems that will ease their fear of terrorism.  Many feel that that rolling the dice with an unknown as President, someone who promises "change", is a better bet for them than continuing with the status quo (i.e., Hillary).

For me, Clinton's character issues are very troubling but Trump's are disqualifying.  But now that he has been elected, my hope is that most of the crazy stuff he spouted represented a strategy for winning the election that he will abandon now that it has served his purpose.  Historically, his political stances seem to have been quite moderate and I'm hopeful that he will govern that way.  Time will tell.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 11:36:05 am
Warren Buffett on President-elect Trump: 'He deserves everybody's respect'
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2016, 11:36:58 am
Trump has done nothing to earn my respect.  I hope that will change.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 11:39:24 am
Trump has done nothing to earn my respect.  I hope that will change.
LOL  Mine either, but I thought Buffett's comment was interesting since he was so anti before the election.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 11, 2016, 11:43:23 am
I think that only a small minority of those who voted for Trump are racist idiots.  Most have legitimate grievances that their government has not worked well for them.  Many do not like the direction things have gone in this country in terms of social issues.  Many are looking for solutions to complex world problems that will ease their fear of terrorism.  Many feel that that rolling the dice with an unknown as President, someone who promises "change", is a better bet for them than continuing with the status quo (i.e., Hillary).

For me, Clinton's character issues are very troubling but Trump's are disqualifying.  But now that he has been elected, my hope is that most of the crazy stuff he spouted represented a strategy for winning the election that he will abandon now that it has served his purpose.  Historically, his political stances seem to have been quite moderate and I'm hopeful that he will govern that way.  Time will tell.



The big problem is that Trump is likely to delegate the work to a group of people that are much worse than he is.   Mike Pence is an absolute nightmare and he'll probably end up as the de facto President as soon as Trump realizes how hard the job is.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 11, 2016, 11:44:35 am
The office of the Presidency does deserve respect though.  The not my President crap from both sides needs to end.  If Trump turns out to be every -ist in the book, that won't do much to distinguish him from other office holders and America survived them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2016, 11:44:39 am
It's true that a small percentage of Trump supporters are racist idiots.  Most are merely idiots.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2016, 11:50:33 am
Under the heading of Be Careful What You Ask For.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2016, 11:54:37 am
Trump should come out with a strong, unambiguous statement about the abhorrence of racism with a specific denunciation of the Clan.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2016, 11:56:22 am
Why would he start now?  He had an entire election cycle to make such a statement and didn't.  He won, he doesn't have to say anything now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 11:58:09 am
Has Jes said, "Trump is toast" yet?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dihard on November 11, 2016, 12:00:30 pm
As one of the few people on this board who is not a straight, white, male, I need to chime in.  I need to say that it terrifies me that we have put someone in the White House of the character and temperament of Trump.  But even more than that, it terrifies me what he has emboldened in others.  I feel like I know many of you.  I like and respect almost all of you, regardless of some of the things I've read in this thread that I vehemently disagree with.  (And the Bears board version of this, which I accidentally stumbled upon, actually left me unable to sleep.)  I hope you'll read this article, as it says almost exactly what I would say to each of you who supported Trump.  And lest you think the reports of people exhibiting hatefulness are being overblown by the media, I will tell you that I have already had multiple friends experience it personally, being called racial or homophobic slurs.  In a metropolitan area.  In a blue state.  I can only imagine what it is like in other parts of the country.  Thanks to those of you willing to read this, and do what you can to support your fellow Americans right now, who are scared, and not without reason to be.  I hope and pray we can heal and protect each other from the ugliest among us.

https://medium.com/@jessicashortall/voted-for-trump-i-have-only-one-plea-7d5994c7a3d1#.2bb4yrn2i 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 12:02:09 pm
heh, this Calexit and 2012's Texas threat really echo Mikhail Gorbachev's prophecy that the United States would break up just like the Soviet Union did.  My recollection is that he even had a map that showed California and a sector from North Dakota straight south through Texas as the "new nations."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 11, 2016, 12:07:24 pm
As one of the few people on this board who is not a straight, white, male, I need to chime in.  I need to say that it terrifies me that we have put someone in the White House of the character and temperament of Trump.  But even more than that, it terrifies me what he has emboldened in others.  I feel like I know many of you.  I like and respect almost all of you, regardless of some of the things I've read in this thread that I vehemently disagree with.  (And the Bears board version of this, which I accidentally stumbled upon, actually left me unable to sleep.)  I hope you'll read this article, as it says almost exactly what I would say to each of you who supported Trump.  And lest you think the reports of people exhibiting hatefulness are being overblown by the media, I will tell you that I have already had multiple friends experience it personally, being called racial or homophobic slurs.  In a metropolitan area.  In a blue state.  I can only imagine what it is like in other parts of the country.  Thanks to those of you willing to read this, and do what you can to support your fellow Americans right now, who are scared, and not without reason to be.  I hope and pray we can heal and protect each other from the ugliest among us.

https://medium.com/@jessicashortall/voted-for-trump-i-have-only-one-plea-7d5994c7a3d1#.2bb4yrn2i 

That is the approach that should be taken, thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2016, 12:11:52 pm
The racists and other bigots are not really of much use to Trump now.  He's smart enough to understand that denouncing them in clear terms serves his interests regardless of what he really feels.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2016, 12:15:46 pm
I don't think Trump is that smart. I think he reacts without thought and will never admit he was wrong afterward.  The more people plead with Trump to do the right thing, the more he will resist.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 11, 2016, 12:20:54 pm
So in response to Robb and partly Curt.  I think that about 90% of my friends voted for Trump.  I live in Indiana.  That's what is bothering me the most.  I don't understand how my friends could vote for him.  I also believe the many things he said and did are disqualifying.  Things no other candidate could get away with.  I don't think that my friends know that I am a Democrat.  I normally try to stay away from political discussions because my parents never talked politics (probably because my Dad was a Democrat and my mom was a Republican).  I have always felt your political leaning is personal - and it is.  I'm angry that my friends don't see him as disqualifying with his behavior and beliefs and intentions.  Its disheartening.  I'm not talking policy differences which it seems that Robb felt disheartened with in 2008 and 2012.  I understand people will differ with respect to the role of the government in society.  I accept that and didn't feel this way after Bush was elected.  I respected Bush as a person, but disagreed with his policy.  That's fine. Most of my friends are very passionate about not allowing gay marriage and I'm sure that and abortion were the 2 main issues in them voting for Trump.  I believe it isn't the governments place to regulate those issues.  My problem isn't with policy (really we don't know what Trump's policy is going to be at all), but its with the man himself.  I'm embarrassed that he is the leader of our country. Mortified of his behavior and what it will do globally.  Ashamed that my kids have to watch him govern our country.

I wouldn't say that 55 million people are racist or bigots or sexists.  I would say that 55 million people do not care enough about those issues.  They care about others issues more than plain human decency. That makes me very sad.  Already hate crimes are up after Trump's election.  Those that voted for him whether they agree with his racism/sexism own that part of him too during his stint. They are essentially saying that his behavior is ok even though I know for sure they would be mortified if any of their kids behaved that way.  To me that is very hypocritical.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 11, 2016, 12:55:13 pm
I appreciate your comment Grrr, it has to be tough living among people so opposed to your viewpoints.  I will say that for all of the issues I had with Trump I had just as many with Clinton.  She didn't just look the other way as her husband raped, fondled and harassed scores of women, she threatened, bullied and destroyed the reputations of those woman for dare speaking out.  Does that no disqualify her in your mind as well?  Clinton was grossly negligent in protecting our foreign workers abroad and 4 men died because of it.  Then she stood next to their caskets and lied to their grieving families.  It takes a special kind of sadistic person to do that.  She and Bill operated a pay for play scheme with her office, growing rich through their public "service".  Hilary was fired from the Watergate commission by a democrat for lying and cheating.  There are many disqualifying actions Hilary is every bit as guilty of as Trump that could make her disqualified to run this country.  But many here were willing to look the other way because they agreed with her policies.  Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 01:19:36 pm
We're all over-analyzing as is the media.  Step back.  Take a deep breath.  Let's see how things sort out.  Bottom line more people, given a hobson choice, chose Trump.  Probably half his votes were not votes for him but votes against Hillary.

We simply don't have the spirit of the past.  We refuse to accept the will of the majority as expressed in the electoral system.  Happens at every level.  Hell, it happens in high school at Homecoming Queen elections.  We need to get back to basics of majority rule.  When I was younger and advising student council it was amusing how often we voted on things until the vote came out the way a few of the leaders wanted.  Seems like that's still the case.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 11, 2016, 01:21:28 pm
Grr, you might want to watch the Michael Moore Morning Joe interview.  I think he gives a reasonable explanation of Trump voters and why African Americans didn't vote in Michigan.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 11, 2016, 01:52:22 pm
I've been boycotting the Homecoming dance for 40 years.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 02:03:13 pm
I've been boycotting the Homecoming dance for 40 years.
You weren't elected queen either?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2016, 02:14:25 pm
Curt, if we were back to the basics of majority rule, Hillary would be President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 02:17:03 pm
Curt, if we were back to the basics of majority rule, Hillary would be President.
That's why I said within our electoral system.

If we didn't have the electoral college, we could just let California and New York vote and see who we get.  The founders were wise to put that in, and people who espouse getting rid of it are foolish.  It would take an amendment, and I can figure 40 states who would vote no.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2016, 02:18:39 pm
I prefer the electoral college system, but it's not majority rule.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on November 11, 2016, 02:20:38 pm
I wonder how the election would have turned out if "popular vote wins" was in place before the election.  You have to think that there are many millions of people who don't vote simply because they live in a comfortably red or blue state.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 02:30:23 pm
It's a majority of the electoral votes, right?  270 is majority.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 11, 2016, 02:51:31 pm
It's a majority of something, that's true.  Just not voters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2016, 02:53:02 pm
Hmmm.... I don't recall that being among the articles of impeachment.  Could you perhaps point it out to me?  Just to make it easy:


Reading comprehension, Jes.  Did I say that was among the articles of impeachment.  I said that many conservatives wanted to impeach him for that reason.  It may surprise you to know that I had no direct conversations with a single member of the House that created the articles of impeachment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2016, 03:01:24 pm
Not really, despite the northern effort to spin it that way.  No Union troops died in the attack, and if Lincoln had not sent in troops, there would have been no war.

Despite your effort to spin it that way, the first state seceded from the union more than two months BEFORE Lincoln became president.  Would there have been a war if Lincoln had not sent in troops.  Of course not.  And there would have been no World War ll if Roosevelt had not sent troops against Japan and Germany.  By your logic, the Unites States started the war.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 11, 2016, 03:07:19 pm

My point is that there are a bunch of people out there who voted for Donald Trump because exactly what you said--they believe Hillary is a worse person than Donald Trump because Rush Limbaugh told them so.

I believe that Hillary is a much worse person than Trump, and I have not listened to a single word that Limbaugh has said in the past ten years.

But that is not the reason why I voted for Trump.  Quite simply, I voted for him because I believe that the policies I expect him to implement, (in spite of several things I am against) will on the whole be much better for the country than those that I would have expected Hillary to have implemented (or maintained).
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: wmljohn on November 11, 2016, 03:07:50 pm
A majority rules for POTUS?  I saw a video today explaining that as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The Electoral College is one of the best things the forefathers put in place to select the POTUS.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 11, 2016, 04:13:01 pm
I appreciate your comment Grrr, it has to be tough living among people so opposed to your viewpoints.  I will say that for all of the issues I had with Trump I had just as many with Clinton.  She didn't just look the other way as her husband raped, fondled and harassed scores of women, she threatened, bullied and destroyed the reputations of those woman for dare speaking out.  Does that no disqualify her in your mind as well?  Clinton was grossly negligent in protecting our foreign workers abroad and 4 men died because of it.  Then she stood next to their caskets and lied to their grieving families.  It takes a special kind of sadistic person to do that.  She and Bill operated a pay for play scheme with her office, growing rich through their public "service".  Hilary was fired from the Watergate commission by a democrat for lying and cheating.  There are many disqualifying actions Hilary is every bit as guilty of as Trump that could make her disqualified to run this country.  But many here were willing to look the other way because they agreed with her policies.  Sound familiar?

Robb, I had started on a length discussion on all these points to show that I've found conflicting reports on their accuracy.  There is no doubt that Bill had sexual issues and that Hillary "attacked" the accusers.  On a personal note - after I learned of Bill's sexual misconduct, I voted for Perot.  I guess I believe that Hillary's attacks as initially believing her husband was innocent - he seemed to be very good at lying.  And it really wasn't "scores of women."  But the Watergate firing is flat out wrong if you look it up.

So the issue comes down to that there are conflicting reports on Hillary's involvement on everything she's been accused of.  But there is no confusion on Trump because we have video proof of him saying these things.  And we still don't have his tax returns!  We don't know what type of conflicts he is going to have. I just don't see Hillary's issues as damning as Trumps.  Not even close in my book and I guess that's where we should just agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 11, 2016, 04:49:34 pm
I wonder how the election would have turned out if "popular vote wins" was in place before the election.  You have to think that there are many millions of people who don't vote simply because they live in a comfortably red or blue state.
2016 numbers are not yet available.  Here's a chart of 2012 turnout by state.  Note that California is 41st and New York is 44th.

1. Would those not voting have done so in the same percentage as those who did?  Who's to say. 

2.  Did the non-voters not go to the polls because they knew their candidate had already lost?  Again, who's to say.

3.  Flip question 2.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/03/chart34.jpg&w=742)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 04:59:41 pm
Right Jes.  So do you suggest another independent site (at least as independent as can be in this environment)?

I'm seriously trying to get to the truth rather than spewing information from MSNBC or FoxNews because I don't fully trust either one.

Not everyone here limits their posts to spew, though quite clearly many do.

As for another site, if you find one where you have a much higher percentage to wheat to chaff, please do let me know.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 05:05:02 pm
Already hate crimes are up after Trump's election.

Are you counting the hate crimes by liberals and anti-Trump protestors against anyone they think my be sympathizing with Trump, or in your mind does the hate only run in one direction?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 05:05:47 pm
I don't think Trump is that smart. I think he reacts without thought and will never admit he was wrong afterward.  The more people plead with Trump to do the right thing, the more he will resist.

While that is a reasonable belief, and one I share, there is still ample room for hope.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 05:11:23 pm
Reading comprehension, Jes.  Did I say that was among the articles of impeachment.  I said that many conservatives wanted to impeach him for that reason.  It may surprise you to know that I had no direct conversations with a single member of the House that created the articles of impeachment.

I never thought you did, but those were the opinions that mattered.  If you are saying you spoke to some yahoos who voiced a desire to impeach Clinton for diddling Monica, I wouldn't question that in the least, but it was NOT the reason he was impeached, and was an opinion shared by yahoos who made no difference in anything that happened.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 05:13:33 pm
I wonder how the election would have turned out if "popular vote wins" was in place before the election.  You have to think that there are many millions of people who don't vote simply because they live in a comfortably red or blue state.

That's an important point, but only half of the matter.

If the election turned on who won the popular vote, campaigns, campaign stops, organization and ad spending would be vastly different.

Trump won under the rules in place at the time.  That is all that really matters.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 05:15:43 pm
Despite your effort to spin it that way, the first state seceded from the union more than two months BEFORE Lincoln became president.  Would there have been a war if Lincoln had not sent in troops.  Of course not.  And there would have been no World War ll if Roosevelt had not sent troops against Japan and Germany.  By your logic, the Unites States started the war.

That's an impressive cluster of contortion and non-sequitor.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 05:33:44 pm
And it really wasn't "scores of women."

Actually it WAS "scores of women."

In my prior life I worked in news, a career that started in 1982 with the ABC TV affiliate in Jonesboro, Arkansas, as a reporter.  One weekend I went out to cover a stop Governor Clinton was in the NW corner of the state to make announcements related to recent flood damage in the area and we were there, along with all the Little Rock and Memphis stations, all of whom had much greater familiarity with Clinton and his behavior.

As small as the station was, when I was volunteering to cover this on a weekend, I was doing it without a photographer and was shooting the story along with reporting it.  To help me out, and because I liked her company, I had my 19-year-old girlfriend (I was then 28) along with me to hold the microphone and learn a bit of the business.  She was an intern there.  She was also quite attractive.

At the conclusion of the news conference after his statement, all of the other news crews were packing up, and Clinton took two steps forward to where my girlfriend was still standing with the microphone in her outstretched hand, put his right hand right behind her right elbow at that arm still held out the mic, and then used his left hand to gently stroke the top side of her forearm, looked her gently in the eyes and cooed to her about how he had never seen her before but he knew she would have a bright future in the business because she was so attractive.

Shannon, my girlfriend was stunned.  She just sort of stammered and pulled back.  Not one of the other news people reacted at all.  To them it was simply another day covering Clinton.  They had seem him do the same sort of thing time after time.

Even before I saw him trying to hit on my girlfriend I had heard the stories about his womanizing.  Thinking that "scores" is in any way an exaggeration really underestimates just how much of a dog he was.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 11, 2016, 05:41:32 pm
Grrr, what did you find out about Clinton on Epstein's plane?  How about his trips to sex-slave island?  Perhaps Hilary should have listed her husband at the top of her deplorable list.  Trump has cheated on 3 wives which I find deplorable and morally reprehensible so what to do when you have to choose the Clintons or Trump?  I voted third party.  Others looked at the issues and voted for the policies that most closely aligned with their own.  That included people in former Obama states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Wisconsin.  Did those folks become racist ignoramus's the past four years because they are the same people who put Obama in office.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 11, 2016, 06:03:05 pm
Thanks for the story Jes.  If it wasn't so reprehensible, it might be funny.  I'd only heard about alleged womanizing and only found a couple of documented sexual assault, and a few sexual indiscretions which appeared to be mutual.

In reference to the "scores" comment I thought Robb was referring to the sexual assault cases against him not the total of womanizing allegations.  But that's all semantics.  He was a pig and I was disappointed I supported him the first go round.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: grrrrlacher on November 11, 2016, 06:05:43 pm
Grrr, what did you find out about Clinton on Epstein's plane?  How about his trips to sex-slave island?  Perhaps Hilary should have listed her husband at the top of her deplorable list.  Trump has cheated on 3 wives which I find deplorable and morally reprehensible so what to do when you have to choose the Clintons or Trump?  I voted third party.  Others looked at the issues and voted for the policies that most closely aligned with their own.  That included people in former Obama states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Wisconsin.  Did those folks become racist ignoramus's the past four years because they are the same people who put Obama in office.

Robb, again I'm not saying those people became racist or are racist, but they are responsible for putting a racist in office and anything that goes along with that.  They have to own that aspect of his presidency good or bad or ugly they are responsible. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 11, 2016, 11:22:21 pm
Thanks for the story Jes.  If it wasn't so reprehensible, it might be funny.

Oh, it is funny, now, though at the moment I was not laughing about it.  Haven't had any contact with the old girlfriend in more than 30 years, though I sometimes wonder if she has also shared the story...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 11, 2016, 11:36:54 pm
Some excellent stats in here:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-voters-dislike/index.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 12, 2016, 12:07:28 am
I hope these people don't do this for a living.   http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-here-s-our-final-electoral-map-of-the-1478473458-htmlstory.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 12, 2016, 10:04:39 am
My projection wouldn't have been too much different.  I thought he would win Florida and Ohio, but I really never dreamed that he would win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  And I felt North Carolina was a coin toss.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 12, 2016, 11:43:09 am
One thing I am tired of hearing is that we are deeply divided nation.  How many elections have been blowouts?  Especially not involving an incumbent?  I would imagine the phrase deeply divided nation could have applied in all but a very small handfulls of elections.  Small issue I know but to me it's just lazy.  America is and will probably always be divided.  Unless we start raising children in brainwashing camps and programming them from childhood we are always going to be divided. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 12, 2016, 12:44:08 pm
One thing I am tired of hearing is that we are deeply divided nation.  How many elections have been blowouts?  Especially not involving an incumbent?  I would imagine the phrase deeply divided nation could have applied in all but a very small handfulls of elections.  Small issue I know but to me it's just lazy.  America is and will probably always be divided.  Unless we start raising children in brainwashing camps and programming them from childhood we are always going to be divided. 

We were a lot more divided in 1860 anyway.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 12, 2016, 01:10:21 pm
For the last 40 years, the election map that went county by county showed massive red area compared to smaller blue around big cities.  Even California, Washington, and Oregon are much more red than blue.  Ever since WWII, the country has gotten more urban and rural people feel left out.  Rubes, if you will.  Often I find that city folks have totally lost touch with the roots...where there food comes from, small town values, faith, etc.  There are other issues that divide us, but unlike slavery, JR, they aren't localized to a certain group of states like slavery, which it made it relatively easy to break apart and fight.  Abortion for instance.  It divides our country, but how do you have a civil war about it?  So it just tears us and polarizes us. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2016, 04:41:48 pm
One thing I am tired of hearing is that we are deeply divided nation.  How many elections have been blowouts?  Especially not involving an incumbent?  I would imagine the phrase deeply divided nation could have applied in all but a very small handfulls of elections.  Small issue I know but to me it's just lazy.  America is and will probably always be divided.  Unless we start raising children in brainwashing camps and programming them from childhood we are always going to be divided.

Have you sat in on any public school classrooms lately?

There is a real effort to do just that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2016, 04:45:29 pm
We were a lot more divided in 1860 anyway.

As Curt mentioned, it really is not so much that we are less divided than in 1860, but that the division is not divided along such easily identified political/geographic lines.  Urban/rural might come close to identifying the division, but the "urban/rural" division does not really lend itself to clean divisions of political units.

I suspect we are every bit as divided as we were in 1860.  It is just that there is much more mixing of the division.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 12, 2016, 06:56:03 pm
I think a lot of the sense of division comes from the gerrymander districts in the House. Republicans and a democratic have mostly safe congressional districts and very few swing districts. This has gutted both parties centers and it makes bipartisan bills nearly impossible. Throw in ways that liberal/conservatives can go after RINO/DINO and it really limits working across the aisle. While I think the difference between the average democrat and republican is great, in congress the gap is much, much wider.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2016, 07:26:44 pm
I think a lot of the sense of division comes from the gerrymander districts in the House. Republicans and a democratic have mostly safe congressional districts and very few swing districts. This has gutted both parties centers and it makes bipartisan bills nearly impossible. Throw in ways that liberal/conservatives can go after RINO/DINO and it really limits working across the aisle. While I think the difference between the average democrat and republican is great, in congress the gap is much, much wider.

So if the "sense of division" is greater today than in the past, is this gerrymander thing new?

(http://www.commoncause.org/states/massachusetts/news/the-original-ma-gerrymandered.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2016, 07:30:15 pm
More seriously, this is interesting -- http://www.columbia.edu/~so33/SusDev/Lecture11MinorityExample.pdf
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 12, 2016, 07:50:54 pm
So if the "sense of division" is greater today than in the past, is this gerrymander thing new?

(http://www.commoncause.org/states/massachusetts/news/the-original-ma-gerrymandered.jpg)

It isn't new. It has been greatly improved to the point where most districts are now safe Dem or Repub.  How many blue dog democrats are left?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 12, 2016, 08:16:46 pm
It isn't new. It has been greatly improved to the point where most districts are now safe Dem or Repub.  How many blue dog democrats are left?

Take a look at the pdf link I posted.  It explains a lot about why it has gotten worse, and more common, and how it leads to greater polarization.... and greater gridlock.  Of course, since I am far more concerned with what Congress does do than what it doesn't do, I don't mind gridlock nearly as much as most.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: bitterman on November 13, 2016, 07:49:37 am
This is a thing who spent years trying to deligitimize an African American president with a crazy birth certificate conspiracy.

This a thing who called Mexicans rapists, murders, and some are probably OK.

I could copy and paste quotes that are examples of a morally bankrupt and dangerous person, but we've all seen them.

I can not forgive anyone who voted for that piece of filth. Imagine if this thing was your kids teacher.  Imagine leaving your daughter in a room with it.

This is a moral Armageddon.  An embarrassing stain for anyone who has ethics. This is the Cubs losing game 7 and then Joe Maddon complaining it's bc of the Mexican Umpire.

Don't reply with an attack on other candidates with fodder from the usual suspects; defend a son of a man who attended KKK rallies and whose demonstrated the sins of its father.  Who claims to not know who David duke is and was ok with the support of white supremacist groups.

Fu@&ing defend that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on November 13, 2016, 08:53:56 am
Don't reply with an attack on other candidates with fodder from the usual suspects; defend a son of a man who attended KKK rallies and whose demonstrated the sins of its father.  Who claims to not know who David duke is and was ok with the support of white supremacist groups.


Great debate strategy.  This is horrible, but now take your number reason the guy is President, the number one reason why a moral, intelligent person might have voted for him off the table because it destroys my argument.  Therefore, you can't use it because it's not fair.  One could reverse your post and plug in the many sins of the Clintons and it would read pretty much the same.  Therefore, if it is the same, then perhaps people voted for the issues instead of the person.  Of course that can't be.  It has to be that people who voted for him are rubes, bigots, racist idiots.  When you start from a place of anger and hostility; what do you expect in return?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 13, 2016, 09:10:33 am
What does Joe Buck have to do with Donald Trump?

Some on each side see only what they want to see.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 13, 2016, 09:50:33 am
In more fun political news, Senator Ben Sasse spent Saturday afternoon as an Uber driver in Lincoln.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: bitterman on November 13, 2016, 10:55:24 am
That thing is all anger and hostility. I didn't start with it. I'm responding to it.

You can't be moral and vote for that thing. You can point to your ideology but that's not morality.  What that means is just so long as your precious issue is taken care..  @#&# women and Mexicans and Muslims and everyone but you. This thing makes hatred OK.  I didn't do that.

I am asking a simple thing: defend that thing. Take its words and defend them on their own merits.  Don't talk to me about secretary Clinton (unless you know of an innumerable racist, sexist history) .. Bc then you need to talk about Kasich.. Rubio.. Et al. Defend it.  Defend it like they were your kids grade school teacher.  You'd be cool with that type of person teaching kids, right?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2016, 11:24:52 am
This is a thing who spent years trying to deligitimize an African American president with a crazy birth certificate conspiracy.

This a thing who called Mexicans rapists, murders, and some are probably OK.

I could copy and paste quotes that are examples of a morally bankrupt and dangerous person, but we've all seen them.

I can not forgive anyone who voted for that piece of filth. Imagine if this thing was your kids teacher.  Imagine leaving your daughter in a room with it.

This is a moral Armageddon.  An embarrassing stain for anyone who has ethics. This is the Cubs losing game 7 and then Joe Maddon complaining it's bc of the Mexican Umpire.

Don't reply with an attack on other candidates with fodder from the usual suspects; defend a son of a man who attended KKK rallies and whose demonstrated the sins of its father.  Who claims to not know who David duke is and was ok with the support of white supremacist groups.

Fu@&ing defend that.

"This is a thing...."

You challenge others to "defend" someone you in your very first sentence brand as a "thing," a non-human, and then you repeat that in your next sentence and once more later.

There is no sincerity in your challenge when you begin it that way, and there is no actual desire to discuss issues.

I do not shy away from anything remotely resembling an argument or debate, but you made it more than clear in your very first sentence you are not interested in anything resembling that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2016, 11:28:08 am
Guess what..... the claims that Trump's election have brought a wave of hate crime against minorities is nonsense.  Imagine that.  http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/election-night-hijab-attack-false
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 13, 2016, 01:01:36 pm
I think we're seeing more rancor post election because almost everyone expected a Clinton win.  I tuned in to the election coverage expecting Clinton to be declared the winner as soon as a dozen polls closed.  We live in a replay and do-over society when we don't like a result.  I expect it to continue for some time.  I doubt there would have been this much rancor by Trump supporters had Clinton won; some, but not this much.  I think the Democratic Party just underestimated how disliked she is by the masses.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2016, 01:33:43 pm
That thing is all anger and hostility. I didn't start with it. I'm responding to it.

You can't be moral and vote for that thing. You can point to your ideology but that's not morality.  What that means is just so long as your precious issue is taken care..  @#&# women and Mexicans and Muslims and everyone but you. This thing makes hatred OK.  I didn't do that.

I am asking a simple thing: defend that thing. Take its words and defend them on their own merits.  Don't talk to me about secretary Clinton (unless you know of an innumerable racist, sexist history) .. Bc then you need to talk about Kasich.. Rubio.. Et al. Defend it.  Defend it like they were your kids grade school teacher.  You'd be cool with that type of person teaching kids, right?

Bitter has always been a whiny little thing, but this does seem a little extreme, even for him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 01:59:42 pm
Disagree, Curt. Trump would have ranted about his "second amendment people" "doing something" about the "rigged election." There would absolutely have been protests, and given what actually happened at his rallies, perhaps much more violent protests than we're seeing now. His campaign showed a penchant for inciting violence - why in the world would we assume things would be different had he lost? Hell, even though he *WON*, so much of his public commentary has been to either continue to aggrandize himself ("Mitt called to congratulate me" "Kasich called to congratulate me" "Jeb, George W, and George HW called to congratulate me") or to continue to whine about those who disagree with him ("Professional protestors/media very unfair!" "NYT losing thousands of subscribers because of their poor coverage of me" "NYT so dishonest"). This guy and his followers were going to be noble in defeat? I don't think so - he's been a mixed bag at best in victory!

For however much Clinton is "disliked by the masses" let's not forget that Trump is disliked even more. His favorability ratings were lower, and Clinton is going to end up with at least a million more votes than him. Let's not let the electoral college obscure that fact.

Also think there's a LOT more to current protests than people simply expected Clinton to win. As mentioned before, she's going to win the popular vote by a VERY sizable margin, and many of the people who are protesting feel that Trump is personally dangerous to them. That combination of factors is leading to the "not my president" stuff that you're hearing. Had Trump not called Mexicans rapists or threatened Nazi-style registration of Muslims, had he vehemently disavowed the full-throated support of white supremacy groups, were his comments (to say nothing of the present allegations) about women not so vile, the post-election mood would be VERY different. Millions of voters legitimately FEAR what this outcome means for them. Pundits who want to boil these protests down to millennial cry babies who didn't get their way are painfully and sanctimoniously out of touch.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 13, 2016, 02:07:57 pm
You may be right, tico, but most of the people I know that voted Trump were resigned to Clinton winning.

I don't think we will ever see a Republican or conservative candidate win the popular vote again.  Just too many urban voters and the number is growing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 13, 2016, 02:09:25 pm
Well if you want our country over run with Muslims when we're clearly at war with them then Hillary was your man.

The Mexicans OTOH are a different issue.

They're normally very nice, hard working, people so if they want to come here and do the jobs the rest of us don't want to do for 10 times the pay they'd get at home then God bless them.

Just make them legal and make them pay taxes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2016, 02:26:54 pm
I could care less if the country is "over run" with muslims, as long as they come here legally, and are vetted to reduce the likelihood of bringing in those who come with the intention of doing harm.  In most muslim countries, this is quite possible.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 13, 2016, 03:01:05 pm
"Just make them legal and make them pay taxes."

Like Trump?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 04:16:09 pm
The vetting
...and are vetted to reduce the likelihood of bringing in those who come with the intention of doing harm.  In most muslim countries, this is quite possible.

This is already in place and happening. The vetting process for someone coming out of the Middle East takes 1-2 years to complete normally. Trump's suggestion that all immigration from the Middle East needs to stop until an appropriate vetting process is in place is nothing more than prejudice-inciting red herring.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2016, 04:31:00 pm
Yes, Tico.  It is taking place in areas where it can be done.  But there is no way to vet many of those asking for asylum from Syria.  There is literally no way to determine if a great many are who and what they say they say they are.  Those who can not be proven to be who and what they say they are should not be allowed into the country, no matter how long we have unsuccessfully tried to vet them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 04:51:58 pm
Yes, Tico.  It is taking place in areas where it can be done.  But there is no way to vet many of those asking for asylum from Syria.  There is literally no way to determine if a great many are who and what they say they say they are.  Those who can not be proven to be who and what they say they are should not be allowed into the country, no matter how long we have unsuccessfully tried to vet them.

Actually, my friend has worked extensively with the Syrian refugee population. When our elected officials suggest it is no system to vet these people, they are either ignorant or selling you an easy line for their own political gain. The truth is the system works so "well" that many have no prayer of passing, and those that do literally take YEARS.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 04:54:33 pm
You are literally more likely to be killed by the clothes you are wearing than an immigrant terrorist. That's the actual data to this point, as opposed to the inflaming and dishonest narrative that pols use to rally their base.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 13, 2016, 05:15:09 pm
Well when your wife or kids get beheaded or blown up dont come crying to me.

Truth is I've heard more Trump supporters say this is why they're behind him than for any other reason.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 05:24:03 pm
Don't let the actual facts and a vulnerable view of humanity get in the way of bigotry, Dusty.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 13, 2016, 05:24:19 pm
I see good and bad in both of them.

There's a reason I didn't vote.

I just think this is one in the "good" column for Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 05:28:23 pm
Dusty, I'm no fan of Hillary, either. The way the media simply ignored her collusion with the DNC and major news outlets to secure the Democratic nomination and influence the presidential debates was beyond shameful. The fact that she knowingly lied about Benghazi, telling the families of killed Americans that it was all due to an internet video is reprehensible. I have little doubt there are serious issues with her charity and donors gaining influence in her State Department. Both nominees were criminal and embarrassing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 13, 2016, 05:45:50 pm
I agree Tico.

I have a Filipino wife and half Filipino son and you saw my post in regards to the Mexicans so I can honestly say from the bottom of my heart that I'm not a racist.

I just don't quite believe its a great idea to be bringing the Syrians over here RIGHT NOW.

In the future if the process seems to be better then most definitely but not right now.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2016, 05:54:11 pm
Actually, my friend has worked extensively with the Syrian refugee population. When our elected officials suggest it is no system to vet these people, they are either ignorant or selling you an easy line for their own political gain. The truth is the system works so "well" that many have no prayer of passing, and those that do literally take YEARS.

I would be interested in hearing how they do it for refugees in Syria.  If they indeed do not allow anyone in to the country until their past has been vetted, I have no problem with it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 13, 2016, 05:56:17 pm
We live in a time where race is a serious issue.

Much more than any other time in my life and it was heavily discussed recently with the presidential debates and such and my wife said multiple times "Dusty you're not racist but you are horribly sexist".

Seeing that I hand her my paycheck every week and never tell her what she can and can't do or buy I'm not sure "horribly" quite fits but with my good ol' Southern Baptist background I'm sure she's right to an extent.

Guess that's why I'm not heartbroke that Trump won even if I may think he's unfit.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on November 13, 2016, 06:07:09 pm
Your wife is done with you the instant she gets her green card.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 13, 2016, 06:14:20 pm
LMFAO

She's been here for 28 years.

She's adopted.

She's more Southern than me.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2016, 06:18:17 pm
Don't confuse Cletus with facts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 13, 2016, 06:22:49 pm
Just to show you all the mindset of my wife I didn't vote but she did.

She's not one bit upset by who won.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 13, 2016, 07:04:32 pm
Quote
You are literally more likely to be killed by the clothes you are wearing than an immigrant terrorist. That's the actual data to this point, as opposed to the inflaming and dishonest narrative that pols use to rally their base.

Quote
Truth is I've heard more Trump supporters say this is why they're behind him than for any other reason.

Rubes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 13, 2016, 07:10:04 pm
Trump on 60 minutes seemed to have lost some of the swagger and seemed more reasonable. I hope that is the Trump that shows up to the White House.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 08:37:55 pm
I would be interested in hearing how they do it for refugees in Syria.  If they indeed do not allow anyone in to the country until their past has been vetted, I have no problem with it.

Dave, I personally am not intimately familiar with the process, but you don't have to search very hard to find multiple articles on the subject. Here's one that overviews the basics:

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

The gist of it is that refugees are first vetted by UNHCR, a process that often takes more than a year. After passing UNHCR's extensive background checks, interviews, biometric scans against known databases, etc., they then have to go through screening on the US side of things, because we're not going to take UNHCR's word. And if the refugees are Syrian, the US uses even tighter screening measures.

The notion that the screening process is a dangerous sieve by which terrorists are coming into the country is a vile lie that scheming pols have used to grossly manipulate a willfully ignorant voting population.   
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 08:48:50 pm
This article goes into much more detail:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2015/11/19/exclusive-longtime-immigration-lawyer-pastor-explains-the-refugee-process/

Trump's lies about immigration are some of the most hurtful he has spoken, as they damage not a political opponent, but the ability of another human being to flee absolute hell and come to the country that holds up the Statue of Liberty as one of its icons.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2016, 08:54:13 pm
For however much Clinton is "disliked by the masses" let's not forget that Trump is disliked even more. His favorability ratings were lower, and Clinton is going to end up with at least a million more votes than him. Let's not let the electoral college obscure that fact.

You can try to twist and explain and justify, though efforts to do any of them involve more projection than they involve actual knowledge.  There is little more we actually know beyond one simple thing, and let's not let the demonstrations obscure that fact -- Trump won.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2016, 09:09:50 pm
Actually, my friend has worked extensively with the Syrian refugee population. When our elected officials suggest it is no system to vet these people, they are either ignorant or selling you an easy line for their own political gain.

The word that there was no effective vetting process in place did not come from "our elected officials," but from multiple Obama administration appointees.

 Jeh Johnson, the head of Homeland Security, has said that “we’re not going to know a whole lot” about Syrian refugees. FBI Director James Comey told Congress that the FBI cannot adequately check the backgrounds of Syrian refugees because the necessary records do not exist. Former FBI director James Kallstrom said the refugee policy was “crazy.”....  Assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, Michael Steinbach, said of the vetting process that “it’s not even close to being under control.” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and NCTC Director Nicholas Rasmussen have made similar statements.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 09:26:27 pm
Also, Dave, in case you're wondering, the "more likely to be killed by your clothes" isn't a pithy comment. It's actually true. Here's a superficial story reporting on extensive research by the Cato Institue (study linked in web article) on the likelihood of death-by-immigrant-terrorist.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/13/12901950/terrorism-immigrants-clothesHere's
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 13, 2016, 10:35:42 pm
Tico - thanks for the article.  I appreciate the help.

First, let me start by saying that I do not believe that refugee groups make up a substantial threat to the general population of the United States beyond that which already exists, for no other reason than I believe that if a terrorist wants to come here, there are so many ways that he could come here that there would be no reason to go through the process.

However, that said, the article you cited does very little to quell the fears of anyone that is concerned about them.

The fact that a refugee can not be guaranteed entry to the United States would seem rather unimportant, since the entire west is a target for terrorists.  If they wanted to go through the refugee process, they would probably be equally satisfied with going to Germany or France as the United States.k

The article entirely glosses over the vetting process itself.  It would seem to me that if a terrorist were to go through the process, it would be quite easy to go through an interview process.  In a previous life I spent a lot of time in Syria and Turkey purchasing spices grown in the area.  Even during time of peace, I can not conceive of a way to independently verify if a person came from a particular town,  went to a particular school, what kind of associations he had with various groups, whether he had spent time in an army, militia, etc.  What mosque he might have attended and what was taught in those mosques, who were his associates, etc, which I would expect to be the core of any "vetting"

As I said, I see very little danger in refugees, even those from Syria.  But I don't think it is fair to look down on those who legitimately believe that actual vetting can not be conducted in a third world country that has been in revolution for a decade.  If you believe that terrorists would want to come through the refugee system, it is not unrealistic to believe that the current vetting system would not stop them.

One large problem with our political (and social) system is that each side tends to dismiss the views of others, rather than understand and refute them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on November 13, 2016, 11:00:00 pm
The article from Patheos goes into some detail about the process from an immigration attorney. As I personally know people involved in the process, all I can say is their opinion backed by their expertise means significantly more than at-a-distance speculation. The people on the ground actually conducting the vetting say it works, and the data completely backs them up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 13, 2016, 11:37:32 pm
Quote
Trump on 60 minutes seemed to have lost some of the swagger and seemed more reasonable. I hope that is the Trump that shows up to the White House.

I couldn't bring myself to watch, but I certainly hope that this is true.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2016, 11:43:58 pm
Also, Dave, in case you're wondering, the "more likely to be killed by your clothes" isn't a pithy comment. It's actually true. Here's a superficial story reporting on extensive research by the Cato Institue (study linked in web article) on the likelihood of death-by-immigrant-terrorist.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/13/12901950/terrorism-immigrants-clothesHere's

Sorry, tico, and not really wanting to let facts, logic or math get in the way of what you think is at least a pithy comment, but you are wrong when you write, "You are literally more likely to be killed by the clothes you are wearing than an immigrant terrorist."

The error is more than just a grammatical one in the wrong tense of the verb "are."  The reason for the choice of the present tense "are" is to suggest that the data of what has happened up to this point is meaningfully predictive of what will happen in the future if we continue to allow immigrants to enter under the same policies we have.  That is an exceedingly foolish assumption.  In other words the error would not appear to be innocent, but instead to be deliberately misleading.

Neither you, I, davep, the CATO Institute, nor the liberal hack who writes for vox.com who made the claim you repeat know what the odds of death by terrorist in the future WILL BE.  We can only look at what the odds in the past HAVE BEEN.  The analyst with CATO knew this, which is why he wrote that "From 1975 through 2015, the chance of an American being murdered by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709 a year," using the correct verb tense "was."  The hack with vox.com seemed to miss that.

While neither you, I, davep, the CATO Insititute, nor the liberal hack writer with vox.com know what the odds WILL BE in the future, particularly if ISIL does as it has promised, or as we have seen it do in European nations, it does stand to reason that the odds will be higher if we as a nation have lax to no vetting of immigrants than if we have heightened scrutiny.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 13, 2016, 11:58:34 pm
Don't let the actual facts and a vulnerable view of humanity get in the way of bigotry, Dusty.

You don't really think he was waiting for your permission, do you?

I see good and bad in both of them.

There's a reason I didn't vote.

Whatever the reason, we are thankful for it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 14, 2016, 10:01:40 am
I couldn't bring myself to watch, but I certainly hope that this is true.

Some of the highlights
- Going to repeal Obamacare and keep the parts that people like.  I'll be interested to see how this is going to work, because it likely will send prices soaring.
- Still going to build a wall, but parts might be a fence.  Frank Luntz tweeted that building a wall on the Mexican boarder would take 3x more concrete than the Hoover Dam
- Only going to deport illegals with criminal records at the start.  Trump estimated the number at 2-3 million (I'm not sure where he came up with that number).  The rest would be TBD after the boarder was secure. 
- Bannon as an adviser worries me, but at least he wasn't the Chief of Staff. I took away that a lot of what he said in the campaign will be on the table.  I could be wrong.  I didn't vote for the guy, but I hope for the countries sake he doesn't govern like the Alt-Right wants him too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 14, 2016, 10:22:48 am
Quote
Bannon as an adviser worries me, but at least he wasn't the Chief of Staff. I took away that a lot of what he said in the campaign will be on the table.  I could be wrong.  I didn't vote for the guy, but I hope for the countries sake he doesn't govern like the Alt-Right wants him too.

Yeah that scares the crap out of me too.  Bannon is really bad news.  Whatever argument there might be that Hillary has as bad or worse character than Trump, she certainly does not have worse character than Bannon, and it looks like he has a powerful position in Trump's administration. 

Like you said, at least Bannon isn't Chief of Staff, but it certainly sounds like he has a John Ehrlichman type role in Trump's administration, and that's bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 14, 2016, 10:31:52 am
Bannon is the only move that concerns me so far.  Knowing he would back off a lot on the wall, Obamacare, deportation, and everything else was a given.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 14, 2016, 10:56:46 am
Interesting.  Before he was appointed yesterday (or the day before) I had never heard of him (I assume I have heard his name on some newscast or other, but nothing that caused it to stick).  The only thing I have heard about him since then is that he works for Breitbart, which doesn't help a lot since I have never read Breitbart and no nothing about it other than that Otto doesn't like them.

Can someone point to impartial information about him?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 14, 2016, 11:10:50 am
Bannon is a smart guy.  Ivy League school and a graduate degree in economics.  He worked with Goldman Sacs.  From there he made a documentary with Michelle Buchanan.  He used a few more conservatives to get into Palin's inner circle.  After Palin he became friends with Breitbart and took over Breitbart media after his death.  Breitbart was then turned into two things 1) Alt-right jumping off point and 2) Trump media.  There is an open question of how much he is using the alt-right vs him really believing in it.  It does seem that wants to turn the Republican party into a more European conservative movement, which would have a much different feel than the current Republican party.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 14, 2016, 12:44:06 pm
Irony: the Electoral College was originally set up by the Founders, not only so larger and more populous states could not control the other states and dominate the election, but also by putting in that extra step, it would make it harder for the rubes to get control and the elites could maintain control because the college would be a buffer.  Damn Elites.  Damn Rubes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 14, 2016, 01:55:48 pm
It does seem that wants to turn the Republican party into a more European conservative movement, which would have a much different feel than the current Republican party.

Can you give a short description of a European conservative movement?  It is another term that I haven't heard.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 14, 2016, 02:18:32 pm
It is a far more populist movement with a large amount of racial bigotry thrown in.

This would be an example, UKIP is another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(France)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 14, 2016, 04:49:45 pm
Can you give a short description of a European conservative movement?

The NAZI's were a European conservative movement.... and much of the alt-right would be very comfortable there.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 14, 2016, 05:37:01 pm
Who is the alt-right, and what do they have in common with the NAZIs?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 14, 2016, 06:10:10 pm
Who: People who get endorsed by Nazis
In common with: Nazis
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 14, 2016, 06:19:43 pm
And I anticipate a possible next question, "what do Nazis stand for?"

This is starting to remind me of Harry Belefonte's old song, "Hole in the Bucket". 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 15, 2016, 11:00:01 am
Who is the alt-right, and what do they have in common with the NAZIs?

Dave, I was looking up some stuff on why I strongly oppose Bannon and to answer your alt-right question. 

And then I came across this article straight from the leaders of the alt-right movement themselves, and I think this answers everything.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

Basically this article admits that alt-right is a cultural movement that's more into white identity politics than economic conservatism. 

Quote
In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the alt-right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t. Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for President since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the western European and American way of life.

Alt-righters describe establishment conservatives who care more about the free market than preserving western culture, and who are happy to endanger the latter with mass immigration where it serves the purposes of big business, as “cuckservatives.”

Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.

The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 15, 2016, 11:08:37 am
CBJ, I actually hadn't quite appreciated the idea that the alt-righter's and people like Bannon were trying to move the Republican party to a UKIP style party (or the French New Right like like Marine Le Pen) until you mentioned it and until I read that article. 

I guess I also always viewed the alt-right as racist uneducated people or radio, internet and TV hosts profiting off of those people.  I actually didn't realize Bannon was an Ivy Leaguer until you mentioned it, and after reading that article, I think Milo Yiannopoulos is right in describing his alt-right crowd as "dangerously bright". 

I'm even more glad I voted against Donald Trump now that I'm learning more about these people.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 15, 2016, 11:14:48 am
Interesting.  Before he was appointed yesterday (or the day before) I had never heard of him (I assume I have heard his name on some newscast or other, but nothing that caused it to stick).  The only thing I have heard about him since then is that he works for Breitbart, which doesn't help a lot since I have never read Breitbart and no nothing about it other than that Otto doesn't like them.

Can someone point to impartial information about him?

And in addition to the above, here are a few other reasons why I think Bannon is a scumbag, some of which you might agree or disagree with.

For starters, some Breitbart editors feel Trump provided financial backing to Breitbart to basically turn it into his propaganda arm.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/breitbart-staffers-believe-trump-has-given-money-to-site-for?utm_term=.bi2evqeLn#.vbd6p86zE (https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/breitbart-staffers-believe-trump-has-given-money-to-site-for?utm_term=.bi2evqeLn#.vbd6p86zE)

Here's an article from CNN Money with some of Breitbart's most incendiary headlines since it became the trumpet site for the alt-right.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/breitbart-incendiary-headlines/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/breitbart-incendiary-headlines/)

Breitbart coordinated with a Democratic operative to help take down Marco Rubio during the primaries.

http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2016/10/25/breitbart-reporter-proud-working-shady-democrat-operative-expose-rubio/ (http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2016/10/25/breitbart-reporter-proud-working-shady-democrat-operative-expose-rubio/)

http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/10/24/breitbart-news-worked-alongside-leftist-activist-attack-conservatives/ (http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/10/24/breitbart-news-worked-alongside-leftist-activist-attack-conservatives/)

Breitbart kept up a major false narrative in Paul Ryan's primary race that he was in the "fight of his life" and kept pumping up his Trump style primary opponent.  Ryan, of course, wound up winning that primary with 84% of the vote.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/19/desperate-paul-ryan-floods-wisconsin-airwaves-misleading-television-ads/ (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/19/desperate-paul-ryan-floods-wisconsin-airwaves-misleading-television-ads/)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/09/good-soul-paul-ryan-bows-populism-career-flashes-eyes/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/09/good-soul-paul-ryan-bows-populism-career-flashes-eyes/)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 15, 2016, 12:06:45 pm
CBJ, I actually hadn't quite appreciated the idea that the alt-righter's and people like Bannon were trying to move the Republican party to a UKIP style party (or the French New Right like like Marine Le Pen) until you mentioned it and until I read that article. 

I guess I also always viewed the alt-right as racist uneducated people or radio, internet and TV hosts profiting off of those people.  I actually didn't realize Bannon was an Ivy Leaguer until you mentioned it, and after reading that article, I think Milo Yiannopoulos is right in describing his alt-right crowd as "dangerously bright". 

I'm even more glad I voted against Donald Trump now that I'm learning more about these people.

I think it is going to be a realllllllllllllllly interesting 4 years.  One one side you will have the Tea Party which is the smaller governement on the other will be the Trumpkins which want massive spending, protecting social spending.  I just can't see how they work together, unless the Tea Party folds.  Eventually, I think one of Prebius or Bannon will win out.  If Prebius ends up staying then the Ryan wing of the Republican wins and I feel ok with a Trump Presidency.  If Bannon wins then poop. 

The alt right is scary because they are smart.  They can hit enough conservative notes that people won't notice all the other crap that they stand for.  I'm quite happy with my vote for Johnson and if the Republicans continue down this path, then I have a feeling I will be voting for a lot more 3rd party people at the presidential level.  I'll stay registered a Republican to be able to vote for local primaries, but if the Trump wing takes over then I'm out too.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 15, 2016, 02:15:52 pm
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on November 15, 2016, 02:24:24 pm
"Pamela Ramsey Taylor, who runs a local non-profit group in Clay County, referred to the first lady as an "ape".
"It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said.

Ms Taylor told local news outlet WSAZ, which first carried the story, that she acknowledged her Facebook post could be "interpreted as racist, but in no way was intended to be", and that she was expressing a personal opinion on attractiveness, not the colour of a person's skin."

I mean that seems possible.  I am also purple impaired.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 15, 2016, 02:27:18 pm
"Pamela Ramsey Taylor, who runs a local non-profit group in Clay County, referred to the first lady as an "ape".
"It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said.

Ms Taylor told local news outlet WSAZ, which first carried the story, that she acknowledged her Facebook post could be "interpreted as racist, but in no way was intended to be", and that she was expressing a personal opinion on attractiveness, not the colour of a person's skin."I mean that seems possible.  I am also purple impaired.

That isn't racist like "While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration," isn't a racist sentiment either by the alt-right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 15, 2016, 02:32:50 pm
JR, I'm confused. Are you saying that referring to the First Lady as an Ape is not racist? I can't imagine that's what you are saying...but I'm unclear on your meaning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 15, 2016, 02:36:12 pm
Oh wait, I think I understand. Carry on the good work!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on November 15, 2016, 02:40:06 pm
Oh wait, I think I understand. Carry on the good work!

Yeah I need to learn how to use purple myself . . .
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 15, 2016, 02:43:43 pm
Bannon has supporters.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on November 15, 2016, 02:50:18 pm
My mother-in-law, a 92 year old holocaust survivor and a US citizen for over 65 years, is frightened for her (and our) safety for the first time.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 15, 2016, 04:17:19 pm
Even the backwoods hillbilly knows you can't call blacks "apes".

Lol
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 15, 2016, 04:44:25 pm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-supremacist-groups-love-stephen-bannon-article-1.2873208

“The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office,” Republican operative John Weaver, who managed John Kasich’s presidential bid, tweeted. “Be very vigilant, America.”
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 15, 2016, 04:53:32 pm
"Pamela Ramsey Taylor, who runs a local non-profit group in Clay County, referred to the first lady as an "ape".
"It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said.

Ms Taylor told local news outlet WSAZ, which first carried the story, that she acknowledged her Facebook post could be "interpreted as racist, but in no way was intended to be", and that she was expressing a personal opinion on attractiveness, not the colour of a person's skin."

I mean that seems possible.  I am also purple impaired.

It make sense for those in Clay County, West Virginia, to be upset by this.... all 9,386 (according to the last census).

The rest of us.... not so much.  It is an utterly insignificant backwater effecting no one.

When you have to look for something said by someone in Clay County, West Virginia, in order to get offended, you are working too hard at being offended.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 15, 2016, 05:03:53 pm
Who's offended?  You are the only person who appears agitated. Simply passing on interesting tidbits others might have missed.

For instance, did you know that North Korea is asking China to quit calling the fat little kid with nucs, fat?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/15/north-korea-begs-china-to-stop-calling-kim-jong-un-fat.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 15, 2016, 09:00:29 pm
Who's offended?  You are the only person who appears agitated

You do understand that "offended" and "agitated" are different words for a reason.... don't you?

Assuming that I am agitated by the posts of others here about the comment (which I am not), that would not mean I am offended by the comment from someone I do not know, in a place I have never heard of (which I am not), which not only makes no difference to me, it is a comment which will not actually cause any harm to anyone in any way.... other than those who wake up in the morning eager to find the next opportunity to be offended.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 15, 2016, 10:24:48 pm
Obviously not a KKK or Nazi endorsed move.  Good for you Donald. (Although might be against the nepotism law.)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-requests-security-clearance-son-law-jared-kushner-n684491
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 16, 2016, 11:45:44 am
That is an issue that I have never heard discussed.  I can't imagine that the President's wife does not become privy to a lot of secret information.  Is she given a security clearance. 

For that matter, does the President require a security clearance?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 16, 2016, 12:48:19 pm
Of course the President requires a clearance. And anyone with a clearance knows better than to divulge information to their spouse, unless, of course, said spouse also has a clearance AND A NEED TO KNOW.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 16, 2016, 12:51:55 pm
Which brings up the case of Hillary Clinton.  Part of her "defense" was that she didn't realize classified data was not being handled properly.  Clinton had a clearance and was therefor responsible for the proper dissemination of classified data. At that point ignorance is no longer a real excuse.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 16, 2016, 03:25:26 pm
Those who were on the board back in about 2010 might well remember discussions concerning how soon the world would run out of oil.  The general prediction at that time was about 30 years, although there were some that predicted that extracting oil from shale deposits could double that.

Currently, proven world reserves are estimated at about 100 years, factoring into account the increase of usage through the years.  Mostly because of the oil fields coming on line in Wyoming, North and South Dakota.

Today, the Geological Survey announced the discovery in Texas that is the largest oil discovery ever in the United States, estimated to be a minimum of triple the size of the deposits in Wyoming, North and South Dakota.  Even more important, the cost of extraction, estimated to be on average about 50 dollars per barrel in the north are expected to be about half that in West Texas.  With this discovery, proven oil supplies are now expected to be 300 years or more.

"The U.S. Geological Survey has made its largest discovery of recoverable crude ever under parts of West Texas, the federal agency announced Tuesday.

A recent assessment found the "Wolfcamp shale" geologic formation in the Midland area holds an estimated 20 billion barrels of accessible oil along with 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. That's three times higher than the amount of recoverable crude the agency found in the Bakken-Three Forks region in the upper midwest in 2013, making it "the largest estimated continuous oil accumulation that USGS has assessed in the United States to date," according to a statement.

“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” said Walter Guidroz, program coordinator for the USGS Energy Resources Program.

Guidroz attributed that potential to "changes in technology" — i.e., the advent and perfection of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Such advances "can have significant effects on what resources are technically recoverable," he said.

The announcement comes the same day the U.S. Energy Information Administration said that U.S. drilling activity has become "increasingly concentrated in the Permian Basin," the ancient seabed teeming with hydrocarbons that spans West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. That's even as crude prices have remained in the lower, $40- to $50-per-barrel range.

"The Permian now holds nearly as many active oil rigs as the rest of the United States combined, including both onshore and offshore rigs, and it is the only region in EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report where crude oil production is expected to increase for the third consecutive month," according to the energy administration.

During the oil downturn, the Permian Basin has remained one the most active oil fields in the United States.

That's because extracting fossil fuels from the ground is cheaper to do there than in other places, independent oil producer Don McClure told the Tribune this summer. That means it is generally the last place producers leave and the first place they return to when prices plummet, he said, noting Permian wells also produce for decades longer on average than those in other regions."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 16, 2016, 03:26:40 pm
Of course the President requires a clearance.

Which brings up an obvious question.  What if the President didn't meet the requirements to get a clearance?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 16, 2016, 03:58:26 pm
Beats me. 

I know that the investigators pay close attention to social media. They also take a very dim view of past bankruptcies.  BUT...Although no one would ever admit it,  the rules are obviously different for politicians.  If I had operated an open classified server, I'd be in jail.  Hillary got to run for President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 16, 2016, 10:31:18 pm
Of course the President requires a clearance. And anyone with a clearance knows better than to divulge information to their spouse, unless, of course, said spouse also has a clearance AND A NEED TO KNOW.

I think Hillary pretty much demolished the idea that anyone with a clearance would "know better" of much of anything.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 16, 2016, 10:36:07 pm
Those who were on the board back in about 2010 might well remember discussions concerning how soon the world would run out of oil.  The general prediction at that time was about 30 years, although there were some that predicted that extracting oil from shale deposits could double that.

I was around then, and likely took part in any such discussion, but I genuinely don't remember it.  I know I have taken part in several such discussions over the years, and generally forget all of them fairly quickly because the position the world will soon "run out of oil" are so patently absurd that it is just hard to credit them with enough merit to commit them to memory.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 16, 2016, 10:38:27 pm
"I think Hillary pretty much demolished the idea that anyone with a clearance would "know better" of much of anything."

That statement is about 100% incorrect. "Anyone with a clearance" does know better, including Hillary.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 17, 2016, 04:47:43 am
And we get plenty of reminders - and annual refresher training
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 17, 2016, 07:50:10 am
A lot has changed since the Walker family fiasco.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 17, 2016, 08:27:22 am
And we get plenty of reminders - and annual refresher training

Except that Hillary apparently blew her training off.  After all, you don't need it when the rules don't really apply to you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 17, 2016, 09:22:08 am
A lot has changed since the Walker family fiasco.

What was the Walker family fisaco?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 17, 2016, 09:56:50 am
https://news.usni.org/2014/09/02/john-walker-spy-ring-u-s-navys-biggest-betrayal
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on November 17, 2016, 10:35:43 am
https://news.usni.org/2014/09/02/john-walker-spy-ring-u-s-navys-biggest-betrayal
Powers Boothe did a great job in the movie

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Spies-Powers-Boothe/dp/B00BBONM4U
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on November 17, 2016, 12:11:25 pm
I had heard of John Walker, but had not heard it referenced as the Walker Family Fiasco.

I was stationed in the Air Force Security Service base (the Air Force electronic spy arm) in Misawa Japan in the 1970s.  I was in purchasing, and had nothing to do with security or spy functions, but as a staff member I was not only allowed, but required to attend a security briefing every Tuesday morning.  At the time, it dealt with what was going on in Viet Nam, and even then I was surprised that so much classified information was given to so many support officers that had absolutely no reason to hear it.  I knew that since then, much of this was changed, but I do not know to what extent.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 17, 2016, 01:21:40 pm
I was in the Navy in the 80s - it was a daily topic of discussion for us
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 17, 2016, 02:00:09 pm
Over the last 20 years I've seen things get better and worse. For instance:

Better: Information became highly compartmentalized. A top secret clearance did not mean you had the need to know. There were entire projects/hallways/buildings completely off limits without the proper authorizations. General security briefings became rare.

Worse: At some levels computing moved from individual to centralized. More efficient and reliable but it also meant that system administrators, being able to access all data, became super security risks. I used to tell my bosses that their #1 security risk was ME. They used to laugh at that...until Snowden happened, that is. I'm retired now and I do not miss the extra scrutiny; the monthly polygraphs, the drug tests and monitoring of social media and personal relationships.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 17, 2016, 02:45:44 pm
I wonder what percentage of what's considered classified really needs to be classified.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 17, 2016, 02:47:44 pm
My experience?  Less than one percent.

The percentage rises significantly as unclassified data is combined with other unclassified data to create classified data. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 17, 2016, 02:49:49 pm
That's even less than what I would have guessed.  But doesn't surprise me.  Also why I was somewhat less hopped up than some people about the whole email thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 17, 2016, 02:55:17 pm
Sort of my feeling, EXCEPT for the deliberate, willful aspects. People who deliberately break the rules simply because it's easier are the last people to be trusted.

Also, and this might be the most troubling, the SOS has access to lots of human intelligence.  HUMIT requires THE highest level of security.  Far above, for instance, the design of nuclear weapons. A breach in HUMIT security often leads to people losing their lives.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 17, 2016, 03:04:58 pm
Luckily, most civil servants mistrust politicians with secrets. Having the clearance and the authorized need to know does not mean you will automatically receive information.

Which is why, for instance, I have to laugh when a private citizen/real estate magnate claims he knows more about a terrorist organization than generals.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on November 17, 2016, 03:42:30 pm
Quote
Which is why, for instance, I have to laugh when a private citizen/real estate magnate claims he knows more about a terrorist organization than generals.

Yes.  That was no more ludicrous than any of two-score other absurd things he said while campaigning, however.  Sad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 17, 2016, 03:58:06 pm
Agreed.  And lest my criticisms of Clinton are misconstrued, she broke the rules, Trump defies logic and decency.  One is Watergate, the other is Mussolini.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 17, 2016, 04:02:15 pm
“The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office,” Republican operative John Weaver, who managed John Kasich’s presidential bid, tweeted. “Be very vigilant, America.”
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on November 17, 2016, 07:48:15 pm
Funny you should mention Mussolini.   On one of the history channels tonight, they were showing footage of him.  Trump in a uniform.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 20, 2016, 04:34:52 pm
(https://scontent.fsnc1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15181372_1647874985505165_5796175704953621327_n.jpg?oh=4569aed30e95c037aa9b666447ad26f0&oe=58B4D1F5)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on November 21, 2016, 07:26:17 am
Can't fix stupid
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 26, 2016, 12:51:26 am
We've lost Fidel Castro.

Rest in peace.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on November 26, 2016, 11:49:21 am
"We"?  My condolences to Tennessee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on November 26, 2016, 01:10:47 pm
I said that as a joke.

I was trying to watch Lockup on MSNBC and saw it or I wouldn't have even knew it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on November 26, 2016, 02:51:50 pm
I said that as a joke.
I was trying to watch Lockup on MSNBC and saw it or I wouldn't have even knew it.

Considering that FDISK probably knew that Castro hasn't been living in Tennessee, most people probably took his post as even more clearly a joke than your post.  Sometimes it is a good idea to grant others the same consideration you would like yourself.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 02, 2016, 09:21:35 am
Trump is nominating Mattis as Secretary of Defense.  What are the odds of his getting the law changed to allow this?  It should be a very easy law for the Democrats to filibuster.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 02, 2016, 11:07:08 am
The NPR report I heard this morning suggested he has democratic support as well, so he's likely to get the waiver required.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 02, 2016, 06:26:25 pm
I am surprised at that, but I hope it is true.  He would be a good one.  But he would have to have the vote of at least 8 Democratic Senators.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 04, 2016, 04:43:35 pm
The posts on the other thread were not very informative.  What did Arrieta tweet, and who complained about it, and for what reason?  And what made it anti-semetic?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 04, 2016, 05:16:09 pm
The posts on the other thread were not very informative.  What did Arrieta tweet, and who complained about it, and for what reason?  And what made it anti-semetic?

The mindset of the folks who claimed it was anti-semitic is the only thing that made it anti-semitic.

In other words, it wasn't.

Jake Arrieta ‏@JArrieta34  Nov 9
Time for Hollywood to pony up and head for the border #illhelpyoupack #beatit
5,654 replies 27,523 retweets 56,212 likes
Reply  5.7K   Retweet  28K   
Like 56K 
 
keithlawVerified account
‏@keithlaw
@JArrieta34 candidates & politics aside, this reads to me as an anti-Semitic comment (and I'm not Jewish).


More from Law here:
Ryan: Sometimes I wonder why you invite the type of firestorm that you did yesterday with the Arrieta tweet. You had to have known what 90% of the response would be before you tweeted it, and one would presume that you felt Arrieta meant nothing malicious or anti-semitic by the tweet in the first place. Yet now, there are inevitably people out there who might think less of Arrieta based on your tweet, and as a result he might want to have a word with you at some point. And it all could have been avoided. Intent might matter to you, but it might not matter to Arrieta, if he feels like he’s defending himself against baseless charges of bigotry by random internet people who latched onto your tweet.
Klaw: Because I say what I believe and don’t worry that a bunch of idiots might yell at me for it. (I did give the Block button a big workout yesterday.) Staying silent because you fear the reaction is how we end up here....
Lars: Can you explain why you thought Arrieta’s comments were anti-Semitic? The answer is probably obvious and I’m just being naive but it wasn’t clear to me.
Klaw: “Hollywood” as a dog-whistling term for anti-Semites goes back decades. It’s the whole conspiracy-theory bit about Jews controlling Hollywood, the media, the banks, etc., the modern twist on the Wandering Jew character of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Anti-Semitism isn’t as overt as it was a generation or two ago, so a lot of folks didn’t understand why I connected that word and usage to Judaism.....
Hugo Z: That’s a real reach with Arrieta, considering that he was obviously referencing non-Jews such as Cher and Lena Dunham.
Klaw: To be absolutely clear, again, I did not say he was trying to attack Jews. I said that was how it read, because I’m familiar with the dog-whistle use of the word. If I did that, and a couple of folks said to me, hey, Keith, that word means something, I’d delete and rephrase. (FTR, I didn’t realize so many celebs did the ‘leave the country’ bit. Alec Baldwin said it in 2004 and he’s still here. I guess I just ignored those quotes when they happened.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 04, 2016, 05:19:35 pm
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/09/16-celebrities-who-said-they-would-leave-the-country-if-trump-won/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 04, 2016, 05:24:36 pm
Thanks.

OK.  So Arrieta made a joke and Law made an idiot of himself.  Where did Epstein come into the picture?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 04, 2016, 06:11:09 pm
As the point was also made that their is a difference between Hollywood and celebrities, all of those 14 have been in Hollywood movies. Hollywood has also been used to describe celebrities in common usage, usually a slur when they become full of themselves and having nothing do with being Jewish.

Jake on twitter is mostly tweeting about Health shakes, workouts and dominating other teams.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 04, 2016, 06:24:57 pm
What did Epstein apologize for?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 04, 2016, 06:55:35 pm
He didn't unless there is another quote out there than the gm  meetings. When asked Espstein basically said he believes in the first amendment, but you have to take other peoples feelings into account.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: craig on December 05, 2016, 08:43:31 am
As the point was also made that their is a difference between Hollywood and celebrities, all of those 14 have been in Hollywood movies. Hollywood has also been used to describe celebrities in common usage.....

Thanks guys for explanation.  I had no clue, and was myself totally ignorant, that in generations past "Hollywood" had for some reason sometimes been associates with Jewish, or as a "dog-whistle" for anti-semitism.  That association apparently must exist, because reb and Keith Law both knew that.  I admit I certainly didn't, and my guess is that is a very uncommon association in the present culture.  So I think for most of us, that was indeed a "dog-whistle" that >95% of America wouldn't hear at all.  Law and reb obviously did, so presumably if they did there might be others who may have heard it also. 

Obviously for the other >95% of the culture, "Hollywood" alludes to celebrities and movie stars, the faces on grocery-store magazines, and sometimes associated with wine-women-and-song lifestyles and temptations.  Arrieta pretty obviously did not have anti-semitism in mind. 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: chgojhawk on December 05, 2016, 08:53:36 am
I am 50 years old, upper middle class, a huge Cubs fan, have a graduate degree and I am Jewish.

I have never heard "Hollywood" used as an anti-Semitic reference prior to reading posts this week. I have friends who are white sox fans who would love to find something, anything, to tarnish the Cubs right now. Guess what, I haven't heard from a single person about Jake's comment.

This seems to be a large pile of nothing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: BearHit on December 05, 2016, 10:45:02 am
You need to find better friends
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 05, 2016, 01:07:34 pm
What a load of horseshit.   It isn't Jake's responsibility toresearch every possible obscure reference that may offend somebody before he's allowed to comment.   If the inference is so blatant then one wouldn't have to look it up to find it.   Political correctness run amok as usual.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on December 05, 2016, 01:36:48 pm
What a load of horseshit.   It isn't Jake's responsibility toresearch every possible obscure reference that may offend somebody before he's allowed to comment.   If the inference is so blatant then one wouldn't have to look it up to find it.   Political correctness run amok as usual.

I wouldn't say it's run amok, I'd say it's Keith Law doing Keith Law things.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Reb on December 05, 2016, 05:21:39 pm
I am 50 years old, upper middle class, a huge Cubs fan, have a graduate degree and I am Jewish.

I have never heard "Hollywood" used as an anti-Semitic reference prior to reading posts this week. I have friends who are white sox fans who would love to find something, anything, to tarnish the Cubs right now. Guess what, I haven't heard from a single person about Jake's comment.

This seems to be a large pile of nothing.

I hesitate to post the link below but, on balance, it may be elucidating to some folks.  There is a ton of this kind of stuff out there, if you know where to look. Totally get that most folks here would be unaware of this.  Why should you know?  To my knowledge, nobody here is a wacko.  But, it's out there. Unfortunately, it is seeping into the mainstream a bit more these days. 

I went to Hollywood High School. Not just L.A. but the borders of Hollywood (believe me, not a glamorous neighborhood at all).  Know this territory.  Know several people on periphery of entertainment business, etc. I know about this, the code words that folks get when tell some what they do and where they live. The connection is subtle, generally, but out there. Wackos. No, don't think Arrieta knowingly made an anti-Semitic remark but think he was likely influenced by stuff out there. There is a history. You should know about it.

http://www.rense.com/general64/decon.htm
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 05, 2016, 05:51:17 pm
I hesitate to post the link below but, on balance, it may be elucidating to some folks.  There is a ton of this kind of stuff out there, if you know where to look. Totally get that most folks here would be unaware of this.  Why should you know?  To my knowledge, nobody here is a wacko.  But, it's out there. Unfortunately, it is seeping into the mainstream a bit more these days. 

I went to Hollywood High School. Not just L.A. but the borders of Hollywood (believe me, not a glamorous neighborhood at all).  Know this territory.  Know several people on periphery of entertainment business, etc. I know about this, the code words that folks get when tell some what they do and where they live. The connection is subtle, generally, but out there. Wackos. No, don't think Arrieta knowingly made an anti-Semitic remark but think he was likely influenced by stuff out there. There is a history. You should know about it.

http://www.rense.com/general64/decon.htm

Yes, of course he was influenced in his word choice and in his choice of commenting at all by "stuff out there," like the news reports of one bozo star or starlet after another quoted as spouting the, "I'll leave if Trump wins" nonsense most of us saw during the campaign.  There is absolutely no reason to think anything else was involved.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: OkieCubsFan on December 05, 2016, 06:27:42 pm
I hesitate to post the link below but, on balance, it may be elucidating to some folks.  There is a ton of this kind of stuff out there, if you know where to look. Totally get that most folks here would be unaware of this.  Why should you know?  To my knowledge, nobody here is a wacko.  But, it's out there. Unfortunately, it is seeping into the mainstream a bit more these days. 

I went to Hollywood High School. Not just L.A. but the borders of Hollywood (believe me, not a glamorous neighborhood at all).  Know this territory.  Know several people on periphery of entertainment business, etc. I know about this, the code words that folks get when tell some what they do and where they live. The connection is subtle, generally, but out there. Wackos. No, don't think Arrieta knowingly made an anti-Semitic remark but think he was likely influenced by stuff out there. There is a history. You should know about it.

http://www.rense.com/general64/decon.htm

Yeah, he was influence by all the actors who publicly said they would leave the US if Trump was elected.  Sometimes things are just simple.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 05, 2016, 06:31:48 pm
Nor is there any reason why the bulk of society should research the odds and ends of society to ensure that they do not accidentally offend someone.  These nutjobs are going to be offended no matter how much they are catered to.  I would much rather that general society were unaware of the silly mind and word games that whackos on both sides play.

I have never read Brietbart, and avoid Huffington Post whenever possible.  I have no desire to learn in detail what scum they spread, and do not care in the slightest if I say something that would only offend someone on the one side or the other.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 05, 2016, 06:32:36 pm
Reb serious question if someone says to you "He/She has gone Hollywood" is the first thing that pops into your head that person converted d to Judaism?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 05, 2016, 06:36:16 pm
This would be a good watch for those offended by Arrieta's comments.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on December 09, 2016, 12:45:27 am
This can't be real, can it?   

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/12/09/sources-former-red-sox-manager-bobby-valentine-being-considered-for-united-states-ambassador-to-japan/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DUSTY on December 09, 2016, 12:52:45 am
Trump did hire Vince McMahon's wife.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 09, 2016, 01:10:02 am
This can't be real, can it?   

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/12/09/sources-former-red-sox-manager-bobby-valentine-being-considered-for-united-states-ambassador-to-japan/

It would seem to be.  http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/bobby-valentine-us-ambassador-japan-president-donald-trump-administration-red-sox-mets/1ayx3zfnevkt51msaiarwqsvoj    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/trump-considering-bobby-valentine-for-ambassador-to-japan/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on December 09, 2016, 07:37:06 am
This can't be real, can it?   

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/12/09/sources-former-red-sox-manager-bobby-valentine-being-considered-for-united-states-ambassador-to-japan/
If WWE's Linda McMahon can be nominated to head the SBA, why not?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on December 09, 2016, 07:58:35 am
Too bad Yokozuna and Mr. Fuji have passed on or else one of them would probably already have the ambassadorship in the bag.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on December 09, 2016, 08:07:26 am
I don't really see anything egregious about nominating Linda McMahon.  Yeah, it's easy to dismiss her as just being part of WWE.  But really, she and her husband took over a small business in 1980, and it is now one of the biggest entertainment companies in the world.  She has always received a lot of credit for being the smarter business mind in her family.  She actually seems like she could be qualified for the position she is taking over. 

But I don't understand how being a baseball manager in Japan for a few years in any way gives Valentine the qualifications to be an Ambassador.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 09, 2016, 08:20:37 am
Linda does not wear a fake mustache with the same panasche.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on December 09, 2016, 09:05:36 am
I don't really see anything egregious about nominating Linda McMahon.  Yeah, it's easy to dismiss her as just being part of WWE.  But really, she and her husband took over a small business in 1980, and it is now one of the biggest entertainment companies in the world.  She has always received a lot of credit for being the smarter business mind in her family.  She actually seems like she could be qualified for the position she is taking over. 

But I don't understand how being a baseball manager in Japan for a few years in any way gives Valentine the qualifications to be an Ambassador.
At least Linda was smart enough to make sure it was Vince's hair on the line in the match with Donald Trump, not hers.

And you did not hear much about her when Vince almost went to prison over the steroid scandal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 09, 2016, 09:59:42 am
This can't be real, can it?   

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/12/09/sources-former-red-sox-manager-bobby-valentine-being-considered-for-united-states-ambassador-to-japan/

Probably no worse than Shirley Temple as ambassador to the UN.  Might as well give useless jobs to useless people.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 09, 2016, 10:04:54 am
Although Trump is perhaps the last of the Republicans that I wanted to see as President, I have to admit that so far, his major cabinet appointments are excellent.  Mattis, Sessions, Pruitt and DeVos are refreshing changes from what we have had in the past from both parties.

Of course, he could still screw it up with Romney as Secretary of State.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 09, 2016, 10:29:15 am
Pruitt is awful and Flynn is dangerous.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 09, 2016, 10:59:12 am
Welcome to the new Middle Ages.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on December 09, 2016, 11:14:38 am
Sessions should bring a nice dose of good ol boy racism which will certainly appeal to the Trump voters. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 09, 2016, 11:17:22 am
Sessions should bring a nice dose of good ol boy racism which will certainly appeal to the Trump voters. 

He reminds me a lot of Byrd of West Virginia.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 09, 2016, 11:18:52 am
Pruitt is awful and Flynn is dangerous.

What dangerous things do you think Flynn can do as Secretary of Homeland Security?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 09, 2016, 11:30:14 am
Probably no worse than Shirley Temple as ambassador to the UN.  Might as well give useless jobs to useless people.
Does that mean you're going to be Sec of State.?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 09, 2016, 11:37:36 am
Quote
She actually seems like she could be qualified for the position she is taking over. 

Don't forget that one of her chief qualifications is all the money they've given Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 09, 2016, 12:01:53 pm
Does that mean you're going to be Sec of State.?

No.  I am holding out for the only really important job.  Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on December 09, 2016, 04:16:04 pm
I'm not a huge fan of Trump's cabinet picks up to this point.  I don't think having a general as Secretary of Defense is an especially healthy thing.  The whole point of having a Secretary of Defense is to emphasize civilian control over the military, and while someone like George Marshall was a good one, I still think it's best to have a civilian leading that department. 

After reading biographies on Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy, and Bush 43, every single one of them realized at some point in their presidencies, you have to make decisions for yourself when it comes to how the military should be used and not take whole cloth what career minded or, in a lot of cases, incompetent generals recommend.  Trump already has two of them in his cabinet and might have a third in Petraeus.  I hope Trump is going to be ready to overrule is generals whenever is necessary, but since it looks like he's relying on them heavily in his cabinet, it's a concern to me that he won't do that when he should.

And speaking of Petraeus, while I greatly respect what he's done as a truly great general, it does seem hypocritical that Trump spent much of the campaign threatening to throw Hillary in jail for the email server while he's considering someone who shared military secrets with his mistress for the very same cabinet position Hillary had.  Bob Corker is far and away the best choice for State, and I hope gets it.

Also, I have no idea what Ben Carson would know about housing and urban development, and no being a brain surgeon doesn't qualify him for that role any more than being a Muslim would disqualify someone from being President.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JR on December 09, 2016, 04:16:51 pm
Steve Mnuchin is a fine choice for Treasury, though, so I'll give him that.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 09, 2016, 04:31:13 pm
Petraeus would be a very poor choice for Secretary of State by Trump, given that he has been convicted of the crime that Trump criticized Hillary for.  The fact that he would be very well qualified for the position in all other respects really fades into the background.

Our country has always had a philosophy of civilian control of the military.  And it has worked well, in spite of the fact that about 25% of our presidents have been military men.  Presidents have never been reluctant to replace Generals that do not consider themselves to be responsible to the civilian government, and I doubt very strongly that Trump would hesitate for a second to do so.

A Cabinet officer has no need to be a technocrat.  It is his job to administer the laws and the policies of the President.  A brain surgeon is probably as qualified to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as a Senator and former President's wife is qualified to be Secretary of State.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 09, 2016, 04:54:55 pm
Sessions should bring a nice dose of good ol boy racism which will certainly appeal to the Trump voters.

On what basis do you contend Sessions is a racist?  Anything more than good old northern bigotry toward the south?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 09, 2016, 04:57:23 pm
Probably no worse than Shirley Temple as ambassador to the UN.  Might as well give useless jobs to useless people.

Not to say that the ambassador to the U.N. is a useful job, but it is not one Shirely Temple ever held.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 09, 2016, 05:04:48 pm
I'm not a huge fan of Trump's cabinet picks up to this point.  I don't think having a general as Secretary of Defense is an especially healthy thing.  The whole point of having a Secretary of Defense is to emphasize civilian control over the military, and while someone like George Marshall was a good one, I still think it's best to have a civilian leading that department. 

After reading biographies on Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy, and Bush 43, every single one of them realized at some point in their presidencies, you have to make decisions for yourself when it comes to how the military should be used and not take whole cloth what career minded or, in a lot of cases, incompetent generals recommend.  Trump already has two of them in his cabinet and might have a third in Petraeus.  I hope Trump is going to be ready to overrule is generals whenever is necessary, but since it looks like he's relying on them heavily in his cabinet, it's a concern to me that he won't do that when he should.

And speaking of Petraeus, while I greatly respect what he's done as a truly great general, it does seem hypocritical that Trump spent much of the campaign threatening to throw Hillary in jail for the email server while he's considering someone who shared military secrets with his mistress for the very same cabinet position Hillary had.  Bob Corker is far and away the best choice for State, and I hope gets it.

Also, I have no idea what Ben Carson would know about housing and urban development, and no being a brain surgeon doesn't qualify him for that role any more than being a Muslim would disqualify someone from being President.

Corker is an incompetent buffoon, as evidenced by setting the treaty ratification process on its head with the Iran nuke deal.  As to the number of generals in his cabinet, it appears Trump will nominate three -- the exact same number Obama had to start his first term.  As to Carson, I don't even know what qualifies the federal government to HAVE a Department of Housing and Urban Development.  I will applaud Trump on that front if Carson either makes moves to eliminate the department or proves himself so utterly incompetent that it does nothing at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 10, 2016, 12:14:12 pm
The only appointments Trump has made that concern me are Flynn and the Breitbart guy.  otherwise, this looks like the winner of the student body election picking his prom committee
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 10, 2016, 12:45:51 pm
What are the concerns about Flynn?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 10, 2016, 12:58:54 pm
Like Trump he spouts things as fact and when proof cannot be supplied blames the fact finder
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 10, 2016, 01:00:48 pm
Flynn Facts...his own people called them.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 10, 2016, 01:10:28 pm
Continuing the Dark Ages theme...the witch hunts begin.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-team-energy-department-staff-worked-climate-change/story?id=44100049
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Dihard on December 10, 2016, 02:31:35 pm
Sigh. Another day, another terrifying or depressing story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 10, 2016, 02:38:11 pm
At least we'll have a good buddy of Putin's at State.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 10, 2016, 02:46:09 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/07/tillerson-might-be-the-worst-one-on-trumps-list/?utm_term=.8b7dc7545ec8
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 10, 2016, 07:29:28 pm
At least we'll have a good buddy of Putin's at State.

And in the Oval Office, too, according to the CIA.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 10, 2016, 07:37:35 pm
Continuing the Dark Ages theme...the witch hunts begin.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-team-energy-department-staff-worked-climate-change/story?id=44100049

Removing, marginalizing, or restricting the future roles of anyone who has either pushed the Global Warming nonsense or gone along with international moves to do so is one of the best things Trump might do, and certainly very much in line with the wishes of those who elected him.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 10, 2016, 07:39:47 pm
And in the Oval Office, too, according to the CIA.

So the CIA has not only concluded that Trump is a "good buddy of Putin," but they are also sharing reports to that effect with you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 10, 2016, 07:47:02 pm
A Gallup poll earlier this year indicated that almost 2/3 of those polled are worried either a "great deal" or a "fair amount" about global warming.  It seems that those who feel the issue of global warming is nonsense are in the minority.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 10, 2016, 08:13:21 pm
Well, that certainly is ironclad proof.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 10, 2016, 08:23:50 pm
Removing, marginalizing, or restricting the future roles of anyone who has either pushed the Global Warming nonsense or gone along with international moves to do so is one of the best things Trump might do, and certainly very much in line with the wishes of those who elected him.

You have no proof that "Global Warming is nonsense".   That's your belief, not necessarily a fact, and I support your right to follow any religion you see fit.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 10, 2016, 08:28:37 pm
"Well, that certainly is ironclad proof."

You are right, popular opinion is not ironclad proof. Unpopular opinion isn't either.

So why don't you prove something instead?  Logically, rationally, and dispassionately prove something instead of expecting everyone to simply believe what you believe.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 10, 2016, 09:22:59 pm
The need for proof resides in he that proposes a principle or theory.  Those who propose the Anthropomorphic Global Warming theory have never allowed it to be peer reviewed, and have yet to provide the necessary raw data that would have to be available for peer review.

The contention has been based upon data gathered over the last 50 years by surface temperature readings that have been kept secret during that time.  Even though those results fly in the face of satelitte measurements during that time.  The theory has been totally unable to answer the most obvious inconsistency of the theory - the fact that during the past 18 years mankind has produced record amounts of global warming gasses yearly, with literally no corresponding increase in global temperatures.

But I agree with you.  Both sides accept their belief as a religion rather than as a science.  But in that sense, a new religion has taken over the reins of Government, and rightfully should take our policy in a new direction.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 10, 2016, 09:27:47 pm
A Gallup poll earlier this year indicated that almost 2/3 of those polled are worried either a "great deal" or a "fair amount" about global warming.  It seems that those who feel the issue of global warming is nonsense are in the minority.

Who won the election?

What was his position on Global Warming?  Didn't Hillary ever continually press that issue?  And didn't she lose?

Regardless what Gallup might have indicated, those you consider to be in the minority won, and the issue you, and Hillary, wanted to put front and center proved to be a loser.

Go Trump!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 10, 2016, 09:34:44 pm
Removing, marginalizing, or restricting the future roles of anyone who has either pushed the Global Warming nonsense or gone along with international moves to do so is one of the best things Trump might do, and certainly very much in line with the wishes of those who elected him.

You have no proof that "Global Warming is nonsense".   That's your belief, not necessarily a fact, and I support your right to follow any religion you see fit.

Nowhere in my post did I even suggest that Global Warming is nonsense.

The only proof required for my point is the electoral vote total.  I believe that proof will be coming shortly.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 10, 2016, 09:38:46 pm
"Nowhere in my post did I even suggest that Global Warming is nonsense"

Yo Jes, what about your exact phrase , "Global Warming nonsense"? 

LOL...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 10, 2016, 09:39:23 pm
LOL..../......
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on December 10, 2016, 09:48:02 pm
This should be highly entertaining.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 10, 2016, 09:55:20 pm
"Nowhere in my post did I even suggest that Global Warming is nonsense"

Yo Jes, what about your exact phrase , "Global Warming nonsense"? 

LOL...

I do without question consider it to be nonsense, but my intent in the post was to refer to what Trump voters (and I was not one) to be "Global Warming nonsense."  Poor writing initially on my part, and even poorer reading of your post by me in responding to it, particularly when you had accurately quoted my complete comment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 10, 2016, 09:59:28 pm
I believe the scientific evidence that our planet has gone through numerous Ice Ages and warming.  Why are we panicking as if this were something new?  I believe that man has some impact on the weather, but man is full of himself if he thinks he's the big deal; man is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.   I believe that while warmers and deniers are arguing blame, little is being done to prepare civilization for coming changes.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Ray on December 11, 2016, 10:04:48 am
I believe the scientific evidence that our planet has gone through numerous Ice Ages and warming.  Why are we panicking as if this were something new?  I believe that man has some impact on the weather, but man is full of himself if he thinks he's the big deal; man is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.   I believe that while warmers and deniers are arguing blame, little is being done to prepare civilization for coming changes.

This is what I've always thought.  Some things are simply bigger than man.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 11, 2016, 10:46:36 am
This is what I've always thought.  Some things are simply bigger than man.

But dismissing Global Warming alarmists as present day Chicken Little's misses the most important part of all of this.

If you look at those who are pushing Global Warming, or make even the most cursory look at the prescriptions they urge, what you will clearly see is that they are those calling for greater government control over private lives and over economic decisions and that the prescriptions they urge are, not surprisingly, doing exactly what they have generally been calling for all along -- greater government control over private lives and over economic decisions.

In other words you have socialists who have found a boogeyman which they hope will allow them to accomplish through fear-mongering the very same thing they could not successfully persuade the American public to embrace thru the traditional debate between socialist control and liberty.

Chicken Little was a foolish alarmist without an agenda.

Those behind Global Warming claims are not fools, but assume we are, and they without question have an agenda, extending far beyond scaring barnyard animals.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 11, 2016, 01:48:25 pm
Almost everything in nature is bigger than Man. That's why Man spends so much time trying to understand it. Science isn't a political party or a belief system.

Its completely understandable to BELIEVE in the existence or nonexistence of Global Warming.  That's a natural human response, although not systematic, and certainly not science.  My own disbelieve in Global Warming is a ready example.

But I know nothing. I'm not an expert and have not studied in the field. I haven't collected data, observed phenomenon, or developed hypothesis.  All I have are two things. An opinion and an open mind.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 11, 2016, 02:03:08 pm
Science, Bi_ch!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/11/watch-snl-go-after-trumps-cabinet-picks-by-introducing-walter-white-as-the-head-of-dea/?utm_term=.290ecf8bd267
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 11, 2016, 03:18:45 pm
Almost everything in nature is bigger than Man. That's why Man spends so much time trying to understand it. Science isn't a political party or a belief system.

Its completely understandable to BELIEVE in the existence or nonexistence of Global Warming.  That's a natural human response, although not systematic, and certainly not science.  My own disbelieve in Global Warming is a ready example.

But I know nothing. I'm not an expert and have not studied in the field. I haven't collected data, observed phenomenon, or developed hypothesis.  All I have are two things. An opinion and an open mind.

An open mind is a wonderful thing to have.  But how do you reconcile an open mind with the belief that someone that doesn't accept anthropomorphic Global Warming is returning to the News Dark Ages?

And how do you reconcile an open mind with the belief that political activity based on the belief in Anthropomorphic Global Warming is good, while political activity based on a rejection of Anthropomorphic Global Warming is bad.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 11, 2016, 05:12:08 pm
My comment on the Dark Ages referred to the apparent willingness of Trump and his followers to begin a modern day witch hunt of any DOE employee who might have ever worked on any scientific (non-political) Global Warming study.  How do you reconcile that?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 11, 2016, 05:50:35 pm
Would it be proper for Trump to now make a list of all CIA employees who might have worked on intelligence regarding Russia's possible (probable) hacking?

Where does it stop?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 11, 2016, 06:13:24 pm
Well there has BEEN no such request regarding the hacking, perhaps because no one in the Trump camp is concerned by such an investigation and all understand that such an investigation was reasonable and needed.

As to the request regarding Global Warming, it has become so incredibly politicized and contrary to science that it seems perfectly reasonable to determine exactly who has been doing exactly what, and then to double-check any of the supposed science, with those who were not engaging in true scientific research or were involved in falsifying or withholding data or those who were involved in pushing the Global Warming agenda shown the door, or criminally prosecuted in those cases where a prima facie criminal case could be made out.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 11, 2016, 06:35:42 pm
As to the request regarding Global Warming, it has become so incredibly politicized and contrary to science that it seems perfectly reasonable to determine exactly who has been doing exactly what, and then to double-check any of the supposed science, with those who were not engaging in true scientific research or were involved in falsifying or withholding data or those who were involved in pushing the Global Warming agenda shown the door, or criminally prosecuted in those cases where a prima facie criminal case could be made out.

I agree with part of what you just wrote.  The process has become highly politicized.  So much so, in fact, that the President-Elect has appointed a corporate fox to head the environmental hen house.

Questions: What criteria do you use to determine what is good science versus what is bad science?  Who makes those decisions?  Does the outcome of an election instantly qualify people to stand in judgement?

Another question:  What happens to the quality of science if the scientist has to worry about the political ramifications of any possible conclusion drawn from their work? Ramifications like....oh I don't know...say....being criminally prosecuted?

By the way, I've decided that my Dark Ages allusion is probably flawed. After all, the really famous witch hunts began long after the Middle Ages. They burned witches during the Reformation.  Galileo died under house arrest during the Renaissance.  (The people in political power, wanting of course to retain all the benefits of political power, decided that Galileo needed to be, in effect, criminally prosecuted for espousing a politically incorrect model of the solar system. ) 

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 11, 2016, 09:02:15 pm
Questions: What criteria do you use to determine what is good science versus what is bad science?  Who makes those decisions?  Does the outcome of an election instantly qualify people to stand in judgement?

If it is absent true peer review (which requires opening the actual data to public scrutiny), it is bad science.  If it involves altered data, it is bad science.  If those advancing a theory ignore reality, lie in presenting their data and theories, and bully and threaten (or at least advocate) the criminal prosecution of those challenging their theories simply on the basis of challenging them, it is likely bad science.  And if the hypothesis and predictions those hypothesis produce end up seriously missing the mark, but those proclaiming themselves as scientists steadfastly hold onto them, it is bad science.

Who makes those judgments?  The public, and true scientists who are not simply pushing a political agenda.

Another question:  What happens to the quality of science if the scientist has to worry about the political ramifications of any possible conclusion drawn from their work? Ramifications like....oh I don't know...say....being criminally prosecuted?

I am unaware of anyone urging any criminal prosecutions based solely on the conclusions drawn from their work.... except for those supporting Global Warming calling for the prosecution of those challenging the Global Warming alarmists.  I urged criminal prosecution for existing and actual crimes if a prima facie case can be made out, which is vastly different from prosecution for disputing the theory du jure of the established intelligencia.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2016, 01:32:49 am
Many of the links in the citations were partially truncated in cutting and pasting this, but with any real effort you should still be able to find the full urls even for the truncated links.
********************
Trump's choice to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been widely maligned in the media as a “prominent denier of climate science.” [1] This portrayal of Mr. Pruitt, however, isn't justified. What Pruitt actually said was far less offensive than “I deny science.” Rather, as voiced in his op-ed, he merely stated that, “Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged.” [2] This isn't a denial of science. It's an acceptance that much ambiguity exists within the scientific research and has for quite some time.

INCONSISTENT WARNINGS:
To start, let's review the lack of historical consistency. In a 1950 article entitled “Is the World Getting Warmer,” we were warned of global warming, stating “In the United States, long-term climatological records which have been accumulating over many years indicate that the weather is becoming warmer and drier.” [3] But in 1958, geophysicist Maurice Ewing and geologist William Donn warned of a coming ice-age, rather than an age of increased warming. [4] [5] In 1965, an environmental report written by the President's Science Advisory Committee flipped the script again, warning President Johnson about global warming, rather than of a coming ice-age, advising “an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide could act, much like the glass in a greenhouse, to raise the temperature of the lower air.” [6] But in 1970, a Washington Post's article entitled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future” again went back to warning the public of a coming ice-age [7] and in 1972, geologists George J. Kukla and R. K. Matthews wrote to President Nixon also warning of the supposed “new ice age.” [8] In 1974, Time magazine released an article on global COOLING, advising that “when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.” [9] In 1975, the New York Times also released an article on global cooling, citing a scientific study from the National Academy of Sciences which warned of “an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's climate for the past 10,000 years.” [10]

In 1976, however, the tone began to flip back towards warming, with scientists concluding, “The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. [but] ...Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect...” [11] And by 1979, after studying early computer models, the somewhat stronger case for global warming appeared to solidify in a report entitled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A scientific Assessment,” which warned of the socioeconomic impacts of global warming. [12]

FRAUD EXPOSED:
Then a major scientific controversy occurred. In 1998, climatologist Michael E. Mann (along with others) developed new statistical models to produce global temperature patterns, creating a now infamous graph known as “the hockey stick graph.” [13] It was dubbed “hockey stick” because the line representing temperature was relatively perpendicular through most of the graph until it spiked straight up at the far right end, projecting large and sudden temperature increases in the near future. [14] This finding supposedly ended all debate and cemented cause for concern. It was widely circulated, widely cited, referenced as the basis for Al Gore's Oscar winning film “An Inconvenient Truth,” and used to foment fear and stir up support for drastic regulations. Many years later, however, it was thoroughly and widely discredited. [15][16] Mann had used a controversial subset of tree ring records from high and arid mountains in the US Southwest. ...The scientists who published that original data (Graybill and Idso 1993) had specifically warned that the ring widths should not be used for temperature reconstruction, and in particular warned that their 20th century portion is unlike the climatic history of the region and is probably biased by other factors.” [16] Never the less, Mann used this data and, in addition, “exaggerated the significance of the bristlecones so as to make their chronology out to be the dominant global climatic pattern rather than a minor (and likely inaccurate) regional one.” [16] His method also appeared to remove the “medieval warm period” which previously suggested a period of several hundred years which was warmer than our present day. It also appeared to remove the “little ice age” which occurred after the medieval warm period, which had strongly suggested that average temperatures fluctuate throughout history. [15] Doing so allowed Mann to misrepresent history and claim that the climate was mostly stable for about a thousand years up until the present, where he concluded that 1998 was the warmest year of the last millennium. “This claim was not, in reality, supported by data.” [16] “Furthermore, Mann put obstacles in place for subsequent researchers wanting to obtain his data and replicate his methodologies, most of which were only resolved by the interventions of US Congressional investigators and the editors of Nature magazine, both of whom demanded full release of his data and methodologies some six years after publication of his original Nature paper. [16] Most damning of all? “Mann had re-done his hockey stick graph at some point during its preparation with the dubious bristlecone records excluded and saw that the result lost the hockey stick shape altogether, collapsing into a heap of trendless noise. However, he never pointed this out to readers.” [16] Lastly, he also indicated that he had confirmed the statistical significance of his results, “yet when the scores were later revealed they showed no such thing; and by then he had taken to denying he had even calculated them.” [16] Essentially, he was caught lying in an attempt to foster a career advancing research paper. Though exposed as a fraud, the damage had already been done and numerous citizens, politicians, and activists have bought into it ever since. To this day, many individuals still believe in the supposed scientific consensus that began to emerge before this supposedly authoritative research was discredited.

NOT A CONSENSUS:
So why, to this day, do people still routinely hear the talking point “97% of scientists agree” when it comes to global warming? In 2013, Australian scientist John Cook - author of the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand - analyzed 12,000 abstracts (summaries of studies) and claimed “97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global warming agree global warming is happening and we are the cause.” [17] The problem? His method of review was so unthoughtful that it entirely distorted the results. Using the qualifier “papers taking a position,” Cook subjectively identified 34 percent of the papers as having supposedly expressed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, and of that 34%, since 33% appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change (in his assessment), he then divided 33 by 34 and got 97%. But as the National Review points out, “When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that 'only 41 papers' of the 11,944 had endorsed what Cook claimed they endorsed.” That's only 0.3% of all 11,944 papers or “1% of the 4,014” that had specifically expressed an opinion. In addition, “several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.” [18] Attempting to right this false public narrative, a 2015 NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus advised the following:

“The claim of 'scientific consensus' on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit. ...On the contrary, there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated.” [19] (If interested in learning more about the many disagreements scientists have regarding climate change science, you're encouraged to read this cited paper.)

FAILED PREDICTIONS:
This isn't to say that Global Warming might not be true, it's simply to point out the extraordinary degree of ambiguity which exists within the research, complicated further by the numerous failed predictions by global warming alarmists. For instance, experts claimed the Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016. They were proven wrong. [20] While a 2013 IPCC report claimed that Antarctica was losing significant amounts of land ice, a 2015 NASA study used satellite data to debunk that notion and confirm that the Antarctic ice sheet actually gained in size nearly every year since 1992. [21] In a 1985 study, alarmists warned that “Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries.” Again, we know this did not occur. [22] In 2007, U.N. scientists claimed the world only had eight years left to avoid the worst effects of global warming. [23] Eight years has passed and global devastation has yet to occur. Even Secretary of State John Kerry warned back in 2009 that "the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now. Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and - yes - even to American national security." Again, this dire prediction never materialized, but no politician seems to answer for these fear tactics which empower them. [24]

And that's not all. For decades, the global warming alarmists were insisting that inclining CO2 levels were akin to pollution which would wreak havoc on our environment. Contrary to their projections, however, 28 years of satellite data have confirmed that the increased CO2 levels actually contributed to INCREASING global vegetation, since plants need CO2 to live. [25] And in addition to the above failed predictions, many continue to push the theory that natural disasters have been on the rise due to global warming. But per a 2014 International Federation of the Red Cross Natural Disaster Report, globally, there's actually been a decline in losses due to natural disasters. “Moreover, US hurricane and tornado activity trends since 1950 have remained flat or are decreasing respectively.” [26] Lastly, and most uncomfortable for those who insisted devastation was around the corner, satellite data confirms there's essentially been NO global warming since our last peak in 1997-1998. [27]

CONCLUSION:
To conclude with full disclosure, we at WAC are not climatologists. We're admittedly speaking outside our field of economics and are understandably limited in that sense. We can't be entirely sure if global warming is a legitimate concern or not. What we CAN offer, however, is an economist's perspective; one which seeks to verify statistical significance, looks for flaws in predictive modeling, looks for replication of results, looks for sampling set errors which inadvertently or purposely skew results, one which examines historical literature and cross references old predictions with reality, and one which questions the legitimacy of public policy responses. What we can conclude is that there exists much ambiguity with this issue. Yes, most scientists agree that the Earth has generally warmed since 1800. Yes, many agree that at least some part of this warming was partially the result of human existence. Yes, many scientists agree that CO2 levels have likely increased. The disagreements, however, are largely over the depth of our presumed impact, if it's mostly natural or not, whether it's actually linked to CO2 levels, whether it's reasonable to allocate resources towards alleviation efforts, and whether successfully alleviating climate change is even within the realm of plausibility. It's absolutely sensible to debate these finer points and doing so doesn't mean one is ignoring evidence. A scientist, for instance, might be unconvinced that temperature levels are following CO2 levels while believing that climate largely fluctuates over time, yet they may still accept that we're presently in a moderate warming phase and that humans are indeed a minor contributor to that. They could believe this despite also believing that our impact is so negligible that it's unreasonable to adopt reactionary socioeconomic policies which damage economic growth in a vain effort to combat moderate climate changes. Unfortunately, in today's toxic political atmosphere, such a stance would have a scientist labeled “a science denier,” despite their views falling within the parameters of current research. As Mr. Pruitt correctly concluded, the intricacies of this debate are “far from settled,” and discussion “should be encouraged.” It's not as simple as “join us in saving the world” or “admit you hate science.”
___________________________
Sources:
[1]
http://www.cnn.com/…/…/trump-picks-scott-pruitt-to-head-epa/

[2]
http://www.nationalreview.com/…/climate-change-attorneys-ge…

[3]
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/…/is-the-world-getting-w…

[4]
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/123/3207/1061 (requires subscription)

[5]
http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/ (an article about citation 4 with no subscription required, for those without a subscription to sciencemag.org)

[6]
http://dge.stanford.edu/…/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%2…

[7]
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpos…/…/147902052.html…

[8]
http://www.economonitor.com/…/an-important-letter-sent-to-…/

[9]
http://www.wsj.com/…/notable-quotable-global-cooling-143034…

[10]
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/…/ice…/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf

[11]
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/193/4252/447

[12]
https://www.nap.edu/…/carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientif… (can be downloaded after logging in as a guest)

[13]
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hock…

[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf (photo of graph only)

[15]
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey…

[16]
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/…/hockey-stick-retrospective.p…

[17]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php…

[18]
http://www.nationalreview.com/…/climate-change-no-its-not-9…

[19]
https://www.heartland.org/…/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagre…

[20]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-w…/

[21]
https://www.nasa.gov/…/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i…

[22]
http://www.nytimes.com/…/ideas-trends-continued-a-dire-long…

[23]
https://www.theguardian.com/…/climatechange.climatechangeen…

[24]
http://www.politifact.com/…/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ic…/

[25]
http://www.wnd.com/…/oops-rising-co2-proves-beneficial-to-…/

[26]
http://notrickszone.com/…/inconvenient-truths-2014-global…/…

[27]
http://www.climatedepot.com/…/satellites-no-global-warming-…
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 12, 2016, 10:36:08 am
Volumes upon volumes upon volumes of data and studies have been released for peer review.  Over 90% of publishing scientists (peer reviewed?) believe Global Warming exists.  You have done an excellent job of representing the other 10%. 

By the way, "peer review" does not mean "released to the public".   It's a painstaking process which is not the least bit democratic.  The "public" are not involved in the process, lawyers do not sit in judgment.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 12, 2016, 12:12:46 pm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/350px-Climate_science_opinion2.png)


Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[114] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[123][124][125][126]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[127] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[128]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[115]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[116]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[120]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[129] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[130] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[122]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)


Quote
The claim of 'scientific consensus' on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit.

The only thing here without merit is your argument against anthropogenic global warming. Which seems to be based on creating doubt instead of actual peer-reviewed scientific fact.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 12, 2016, 01:05:03 pm
The globe may indeed be warming but man's role in that cycle is anything but proven.  Scientists are still guessing at global temperature over the course of the planet's existence so how can they know if the globe has ever warmed naturally in the past?  Is man to blame for the increased temps or is this just a normal cycle that has more to do with external forces like sun activity?  I think the reason why many believe the science to be a hoax is because of the ridicule of any who oppose their theories as settled.  If I published a paper putting forth my theories I would want all data I could get to help prove or disprove my theory so I can get closer to the truth.  There may be 90% of scientists convinced anthropogenic climate change is real, but why are they so opposed to anyone of the opposite viewpoint?  Is any science ever truly settled?  Isn't questioning the majority not only encouraged but essential to science?  Why then the hostility toward anyone who doesn't fall in line?  Could it be because those whose livelihood is dependent on grant money that pours in from environmentalist donors and foundations would quickly dry up if they discovered the theory to be false? Enough documents have been leaked to show that there is a groupthink mentality among experts to shut down any discussion on alternatives which leaves many like me skeptical.  It really is too bad this had to enter the political arena.  We should all be in agreement that we want to leave the planet in better shape than we found it.  Unfortunately this has become yet another right vs left battle with closed minds on both sides more interested in winning than what is right.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 12, 2016, 01:51:33 pm
Quote
There may be 90% of scientists convinced anthropogenic climate change is real, but why are they so opposed to anyone of the opposite viewpoint?

There is no may be. Also, you're arguing in support of a flat earth because that is all you see. Unlike the other which that uses scientific fact to prove that it is round.

Quote
Is any science ever truly settled?

Yes.

Quote
Isn't questioning the majority not only encouraged but essential to science?

Questioning with critical thinking is always encouraged and essential. Blind denial based on a political viewpoint is ignorant.

Quote
Why then the hostility toward anyone who doesn't fall in line?

Ridiculing your ignorant political viewpoint against anthropogenic global warming is not hostility.

Quote
Could it be because those whose livelihood is dependent on grant money that pours in from environmentalist donors and foundations would quickly dry up if they discovered the theory to be false?

I'm wondering how this is relevant. The same can be said of the head in sand deniers of warming. In regard to the people who study warming, their papers are peer-reviewed. Your denial is based on doubt (politically based) and without any peer-reviewed scientific facts.

Quote
Enough documents have been leaked to show that there is a groupthink mentality among experts to shut down any discussion on alternatives which leaves many like me skeptical.


What documents are you referring too?

Quote
It really is too bad this had to enter the political arena.

It entered the political arena for two reasons. One, it requires governments and people to change and second, it was made more political because your side found that it was easier to deny politically than with facts in the scientific world.

Quote
We should all be in agreement that we want to leave the planet in better shape than we found it.

We should be, but your side doesn't.

Quote
Unfortunately this has become yet another right vs left battle with closed minds on both sides more interested in winning than what is right.

Actually it is not left verses right. Its scientific fact verses a political viewpoint. 

I have an open mind if you can present actual facts to back your assertion that anthropogenic global warming is a myth started by the Chinese to undermine capitalism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 12, 2016, 02:02:28 pm
Quote
but man is full of himself if he thinks he's the big deal; man is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.

One ant is your house is not a problem, 1 Trillion would be.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 12, 2016, 02:06:11 pm
Quote
Could it be because those whose livelihood is dependent on grant money that pours in from environmentalist donors and foundations would quickly dry up if they discovered the theory to be false?

Which seems more likely?  >90% of climatologists conspiring on a worldwide massive hoax in order to keep their grant money coming, or the petrochemical industry and those who profit from it most doing just about everything they can to deny that anything involving burning fossil fuels could be changing the planet?

Quote
this has become yet another right vs left battle with closed minds on both sides

Yes, it is unfortunate that this has become a right vs left battle, because the science is quite clear.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 12, 2016, 02:20:36 pm
Scientific consensus:  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2016, 10:09:14 pm
Volumes upon volumes upon volumes of data and studies have been released for peer review.  Over 90% of publishing scientists (peer reviewed?) believe Global Warming exists.  You have done an excellent job of representing the other 10%. 

By the way, "peer review" does not mean "released to the public".   It's a painstaking process which is not the least bit democratic.  The "public" are not involved in the process, lawyers do not sit in judgment.

Re-read my comment.  I did not write that peer review means released to the public.

I wrote that "true peer review... requires opening the actual data to public scrutiny."  That is not only a bit different from peer review meaning "released to the public," "peer review" was a phrase I introduced into the exchange at that point in the discussion, and since it is a phrase subject to somewhat different meanings, I was defining my use of it.  You don't get to define my terms, particularly when I offer a definition right in my post.  In this context you asked me what I would consider "good science."  I submit that my response makes considerable sense as to the meaning of "good science."  If the data is not available for examination, peers can not meaningfully review it or the publication based on it.  Publication which does not afford the opportunity for review of all of the data does not allow meaningful review.

The scientific method involves forming hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, including allowing others to make further observations and possibly replicate the experiments producing the data or conclusions.  In lab experiments, peers can run their own experiments.  In dealing with climate data, the "experiments" are to a very large degree the examination of the data.... and if the data, the RAW data and the way it is collected, is not made available, or is altered before it is made available, then no real peer review can take place and the conclusions are not really the result of science at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 12, 2016, 10:13:23 pm
Scientific consensus:  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

As I mentioned in my last post, regardless the name of the organization or the url, when the raw, unfudged data used is not made available for public review, any "consensus" is something far less than scientific.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 13, 2016, 06:48:06 am
I find it ironic that Rick Perry is going to head the Department of Energy.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 13, 2016, 07:30:22 am
I find it ironic that Rick Perry is going to head the Department of Energy.

Wasn't that the one he could not remember the name of?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 07:45:50 am
Quote
I have an open mind if you can present actual facts to back your assertion that anthropogenic global warming is a myth started by the Chinese to undermine capitalism.
Where in my response did I say anything of the kind?  Try this article to start.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: otto105 on December 13, 2016, 09:02:41 am
Robb

Citing an 7 year old story from the conservative noise machine that was debunked is not adding anything to the debate. Nor changing the scientific consensus on Global Warming.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/)


Can you provide any actual information?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 13, 2016, 09:18:21 am
Having the East Anglia University investigate the Global Warming Emails is rather like having Hillary and Bill Clinton investigate the Clinton Foundation bribes and kickbacks.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 09:38:17 am
Classic liberal response.  Don't mention the valid arguments posted, simply attack the messenger.  This is why there is no dialogue in this country any more.  There is no allowance for belief other than your own.  In my original post I allowed that warming may be an issue but that I was skeptical of the science.  You respond by stating that it is a fact and anyone who doesn't agree with you is basically an idiot.  Like I said, typical.  Scientists in the 70's were sure a new ice age was coming.  It was settled and of course it was all man's fault.  What happened to that?  Can you see why people would be skeptical?  Or is everybody who doesn't think what you think an idiot?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 09:40:14 am
Robb

Citing an 7 year old story from the conservative noise machine that was debunked is not adding anything to the debate. Nor changing the scientific consensus on Global Warming.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/)


Can you provide any actual information?

What does the age of the story have to do with anything?  If these guys were fudging results 7 years ago does that mean it is impossible it could still be going on today?  And please don't pretend factcheck.org is anything but another liberal wing of the media. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 09:45:23 am
Here is another article in Forbes.  Of course it is 3 years old so it can't be true any more.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#113b1444171b

Just in case you didn't click the article here is the opening: "Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 09:49:17 am
Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 09:49:56 am
Now please tell me what factcheck.org says about this survey.  I'm sure it was all made up.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on December 13, 2016, 11:33:01 am
Try this article to start.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

"Climategate" investigated 8 times and all investigations concluded that generally, there was no wrongdoing.  Some of them seemed to have minor issues with scientists' willingness to share computer files a specific graph within their report.  But overall there was nothing wrong with their conclusions, and data was not inappropriately manipulated.  Here's the Wikipedia list of all the investigations; you can follow the links there for more information.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

Scientists in the 70's were sure a new ice age was coming.  It was settled and of course it was all man's fault.  What happened to that?

That was never scientific consensus.  That was a  minority position that got a lot of attention in a couple magazine articles, but research still supported warming over cooling. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#113b1444171b

Just in case you didn't click the article here is the opening: "Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

I haven't seen that quoted before, but here's my initial take after a few minutes of Googling and skimming some of the journal article:

 - The sample may be problematic.  Geoscientists and engineers may be scientists, but they're not climate scientists there is no reason to consider them to be authorities on climate change.  It's the same thing as surveying chemists about evolution, and then using it as evidence that biologists are wrong.

 - Additionally, the sample was made up of members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGA), whose members often work in the petroleum industry.  There's an obvious conflict of interest here--if you  survey tobacco CEOs they're going to tell you smoking doesn't cause cancer.  And if you survey people deep enough in the petroleum industry that they join a professional association of petroleum workers, they're going to tell you their products aren't warming the earth.

 - The journal is called "Organizational Studies."  That journal is dedicated to studying how organizations work.  It focuses on social science, not climate science.  Without reading the full article, I'm not even sure that it was intended to take a position on climate change--it fits the journal better if it's an attempt to document how APEGA members understand climate change.

 - The Forbes article you linked and quoted was an opinion piece in a publication that focuses primarily on business news.  I don't think that author's interpretation has much relevance to the climate change debate.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 13, 2016, 11:42:19 am
Wasn't that the one he could not remember the name of?

Yes it was.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 13, 2016, 11:48:22 am
Climate change is real.  Man is certainly a major cause.  The left ignoring nuclear power, a cheap non-carbon emitting power source, in favor of solar and wind power is agenda driven and stupid.  If the left was really serious about we would be building nuclear power plants like the France and switching the trucking industry to natural gas.  These would decrease carbon emissions quickly in the US and wouldn't increase costs.  Instead we waste large amounts of money on wind and solar and get no where.  Both parties are part of the problem.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 13, 2016, 12:05:50 pm
Well, it's pretty clear what we're going to do now.  Burn more oil and coal.  That's sure to help.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 12:06:37 pm
Why are you so sure more carbon is bad?  There is a saturation point where carbon essentially has no effect at all on surface temperatures.  Implementing all of the climate change proposals would at most lower average temperatures by a degree and even that is iffy.  And judging by history man thrives in warmer temperatures and struggles during colder cycles.  No matter the opinions of the "Experts" here, the science is anything but settled.  Considering the fact that temperatures are impossible to accurately determine even a hundred years ago let alone thousands, we don't know how many times the earth has cycled through warmer and cooler periods.  Around 1,000 AD many scientists believe the Earth was at least as warm as it is now if not warmer.  What was the cause then?  Camel farts? 

The point of the climategate article was not to discredit the global warming believers as a whole, it was to point out that bias does exist and dissenters are shut down.  What other area of science ridicules anyone who dare question the consensus?  What are they so afraid of? 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 12:08:43 pm
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/  Roy Spencer is a climatologist who doesn't believe in man-made global warming.  Does that make him a tool of the right?  Uneducated?  An idiot?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on December 13, 2016, 12:18:50 pm
Why are you so sure more carbon is bad?  There is a saturation point where carbon essentially has no effect at all on surface temperatures.

Yes, and when that happens you get Venus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 13, 2016, 12:30:00 pm
Well, it's pretty clear what we're going to do now.  Burn more oil and coal.  That's sure to help.

Well, it's pretty clear what we're going to do now. Continue to burn oil and coal.  That's sure to help.

Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on December 13, 2016, 12:58:16 pm
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/  Roy Spencer is a climatologist who doesn't believe in man-made global warming.  Does that make him a tool of the right?  Uneducated?  An idiot?

I don't know what his motivations are, but Googling "Roy Spencer" or "Roy Spencer is wrong" brings up plenty of detailed rebuttals to his claims.  Here's one: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_quote.htm

He's also an intelligent design proponent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Intelligent_design), so his disbelief of the scientific consensus isn't limited to just one field.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 02:13:38 pm
What does intelligent design belief have to do with global warming?   Since the consensus seems to be king on global warming shouldn't that also apply to intelligent design?   The vast majority of humans believe in some form of intelligent design so that makes it right.  Right?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CUBluejays on December 13, 2016, 02:16:14 pm
Well there is intelligent design in that God made the world and there is intelligent design that the world is 6000 years old.  I'm guessing, without looking, that Roy Spencer is the 6,000 year old intelligent design.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:26:02 pm
Classic liberal response.  Don't mention the valid arguments posted, simply attack the messenger. 

Robb, Robb, Robb.  Really? Look what happened when I simply posted that DOE employees shouldn't be persecuted by the incoming administration.  Is that being a  liberal?

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:27:37 pm
Scientists in the 70's were sure a new ice age was coming.

Another thing I missed in the 70's!  DAMN that Coors Light! 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:34:37 pm
American Meteorological Society ( A leading, nonpartisan scientific journal):

"Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.
"Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years."
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:41:32 pm
American Physical Society (Leading American Physics, peer reviewed journal)

https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201204/manheimer.cfm
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 02:44:47 pm
Well there is intelligent design in that God made the world and there is intelligent design that the world is 6000 years old.  I'm guessing, without looking, that Roy Spencer is the 6,000 year old intelligent design.
I am of the opinion that God made the Earth in 6 creative periods he called days.  How many years were those periods?  No idea.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 02:45:05 pm
American Physical Society (Leading American Physics, peer reviewed journal)

https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201204/manheimer.cfm
It's decided!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:49:15 pm
NO, it's not decided.  Just more opinions. Are we to only consider the studies...the research...which supports our predetermined opinions? (Besides, if you had actually read the article, and unless you are a SUPER fast reader you didn't, you would see the author is sort of a moderate.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:52:01 pm
It seems to me that the logical, rational, most careful approach would be to at least listen to experts. Unless, of course, a political agenda is more important to you than the truth.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:57:11 pm
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Run for cover, NASA scientists. They're coming for you!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:58:12 pm
American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:58:49 pm
American Chemical Society:

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 ::)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:59:17 pm
American Geophysical Union:

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 02:59:42 pm
American Medical Association:

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:00:08 pm
American Meteorological Society:

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:00:32 pm
American Physical Society:

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:00:55 pm
The Geological Society of America:

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:01:23 pm
International academies: Joint statement:

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:01:49 pm
U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:02:42 pm
U.S. Global Change Research Program:

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

Geeze Loiuse...I hope those people have money in the Bank....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:03:06 pm
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:04:04 pm
Obviously we are witnessing one of the greatest conspiracies in the history of the (non-warming) world....
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:08:38 pm
http://time.com/4502561/donald-trump-stephen-hawking-climate-change/

Lock him up!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:09:31 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plReQcO6sz0&ab_channel=LarryKing

Another crackpot
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: brjones on December 13, 2016, 03:20:52 pm
What does intelligent design belief have to do with global warming?   Since the consensus seems to be king on global warming shouldn't that also apply to intelligent design?   The vast majority of humans believe in some form of intelligent design so that makes it right.  Right?

There's a difference between scientific consensus and belief.  Evidence drives scientific consensus, while faith drives belief.  Evidence is objective, while faith is subjective.

People believe in intelligent design because of their faith.  Scientists accept climate change to be true because of evidence.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:27:58 pm
If you want to see my post that was just removed (for whatever reason) , simply google DeGrasse Tyson + Global Warming
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 03:55:27 pm
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

    David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
    Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
    Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
    Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
    Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
    Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
    Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
    Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
    Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
    Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
    Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
    Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
    Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
    Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
    Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
    Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
    Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
    Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
    Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
    Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
    Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 03:55:43 pm
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[75][76]
    Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[77][78][79]
    Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[80][81][82]
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[83][84]
    Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[85][86]
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[87][88]
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[89][90]
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[91][92]
    Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[93][94]
    Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[95][96]
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[97][98]
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[99][100]
    Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[101][102]
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[103][104]
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[105][106]
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[107][108]
    Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[109][110]
    Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[111][112]
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[113][114][115]
    Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[116][117]
    Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[118][119]
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[120][121][122][123]
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[124][125]
    Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[126][127]
    Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[128][129]
    George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[130][131]
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[132][133]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 03:56:11 pm
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
    Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
    Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
    Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
    John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
    Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
    David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
    Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
    Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
    Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
    Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 03:56:26 pm
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

    Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[156][157][158]
    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [159][160]
    Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[161][162]
    Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[163][164]
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 03:57:33 pm
But you're right, the science is settled. 
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 03:58:54 pm
Actually...I said the opposite.  Typical Conservative response, attack the messenger.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 04:04:55 pm
Among the amazing total of 168 "scientists" (of the many, many thousands of scientists in the world) is  "Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]". 

I've met Mr. Chylek. His argument is not so much against global warming as it is against lazy science. But having been a DOE contracted employee, I'm  sure he's on a list...somewhere.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 13, 2016, 04:05:51 pm
No attack FDISK, but you did present countless statements saying that in essence, the science is settled.  Just to quote one of your quotes,     **
    Posts: 81
        View Profile Personal Message (Online)

Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1205 on: Today at 03:02:42 pm »

    Quote

U.S. Global Change Research Program:

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

How else can I read that statement than they are saying it is fact?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 13, 2016, 04:16:52 pm
Is the argument here really about whether or not there is scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know what the dividing line is between not-consensus and consensus, but unless you're drawing that line at 99%, it's clear to any objective observer that there is absolutely scientific consensus on the matter. Arguing anything else is just silly, frankly. (Note: the ARGUMENT is silly. The PERSON is not, lest anyone run around crying "ad hominem!")

Want to argue that the consensus is wrong? Go for it! People much smarter than me say the consensus is wrong! Doesn't mean there's not a consensus.

At this point, it's more reasonable to argue that Trump won the popular vote than there is no consensus on global warming.

The consensus could be wrong! It's been wrong several times before! But accuracy does not mean anything one way or another as it relates to consensus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 04:38:28 pm
Consensus is fact.

But personal attacks are also fact.  I originally entered this discussion not because I had a relevant opinion on Global Warming, but instead because of Tump's call for a list of names in the DOE.   Clearly that is a form of personal attack and intimidation. 

But what's a little erosion of personal rights when compared to belief systems?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on December 13, 2016, 04:44:20 pm
The good news is that the DOE told Trump to **** off. They aren't participating in this witch hunt and giving him any names.  I hope as many people as possible stonewall this atrocity of a president.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 04:51:56 pm
No, actually a union told Trump to jump in a lake.  From personal experience, that union represents a VERY small percentage of DOE and DOE contracted employees.

In the mean time, Trump has instructed followers to compose a list of people who agreed with the consensus.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Cletus on December 13, 2016, 05:02:47 pm
The Director of Public Affairs for the DOE said they are not giving any names to the transition team. Sounds like more than an union objection to me.

“The Department of Energy received significant feedback from our workforce throughout the department, including the National Labs, following the release of the transition team’s questions. Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a department spokesman. “Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of DOE (Department of Energy) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people. We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.

“We will be forthcoming with all publically-available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.” Burnham-Snyder’s email had the last sentence in boldface for emphasis.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 05:43:20 pm
My mistake.  I just read about the DOE statement.  I was operating on old data...from this morning.

In a little over a month the DOE will be Trump's to do with as he pleases. If I was the Director of Public Affairs I would be seriously contemplating a career change.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 13, 2016, 05:57:33 pm
Robb
Citing an 7 year old story from the conservative noise machine that was debunked is not adding anything to the debate. Nor changing the scientific consensus on Global Warming.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/)
Can you provide any actual information?

Claiming a consensus exists, does not make it so, nor does claiming something is science make it science, or calling a website "factcheck" make it at all concerned with checking facts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 13, 2016, 06:06:29 pm
We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis....

Engineers?

Engineers?

Their qualifications would be.....?  What exactly?

And geoscientists.... in other words geologists -- rockhounds and the folks who figure out where to drill for oil.

Hey, I agree with their conclusions, but trotting them out as scientists on this issue steals credibility from any other arguments you present.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 13, 2016, 06:18:49 pm
My mistake.  I just read about the DOE statement.  I was operating on old data...from this morning.

In a little over a month the DOE will be Trump's to do with as he pleases. If I was the Director of Public Affairs I would be seriously contemplating a career change.

Is the Director of Public Affairs a civil service job, or a political appointee?  There isn't a lot that even the President can do if he is not a political appointee.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: method on December 13, 2016, 06:56:12 pm
I am not sure why some of you are quoting professional organizations staffed by professionals in their fields as any sort of proof. Not sure if you knew this or not, but 90% is not a consensus its a conspiracy.... its very very easy to see.

The sad part is that no one alive now will really see the brunt of the effects of anthropogenic effects on the climate and our planet... we'll be long gone before the real consequences are felt. Bright side here again, is we wont have to deal with this... we'd rather save 10-15% NOW! thats the best for all of us!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 08:05:52 pm
Is the Director of Public Affairs a civil service job, or a political appointee?  There isn't a lot that even the President can do if he is not a political appointee.

That might be the most naive thing I've ever seen you write.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on December 13, 2016, 08:08:53 pm
We desperately need some Cubs player movement.  This is brutal.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 08:11:57 pm
I would be happy to move this to the Politics and Religion thread.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: JeffH on December 13, 2016, 08:37:27 pm
Ha!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 13, 2016, 08:40:00 pm
Is the Director of Public Affairs a civil service job, or a political appointee?  There isn't a lot that even the President can do if he is not a political appointee.

That might be the most naive thing I've ever seen you write.

Things may well have changed since I have been in, but it was damb hard to fire anyone in the civil service that didn't commit public murder.  Government contracter personnel was a different thing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 13, 2016, 08:58:12 pm
I guess you are right.  A vindictive President (Trump) would be powerless.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 13, 2016, 09:52:34 pm
Not powerless.  But certainly not all powerful.  Civil Service laws still exist and are in effect.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 01:45:04 am
Is the Director of Public Affairs a civil service job, or a political appointee?  There isn't a lot that even the President can do if he is not a political appointee.

That might be the most naive thing I've ever seen you write.

What part of it is naive?  Is the question naive, or is it naive to point out the even Presidents can have considerable difficulty in firing federal employees who are not political appointees?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 01:57:01 am
I am not sure why some of you are quoting professional organizations staffed by professionals in their fields as any sort of proof. Not sure if you knew this or not, but 90% is not a consensus its a conspiracy.... its very very easy to see.

The sad part is that no one alive now will really see the brunt of the effects of anthropogenic effects on the climate and our planet... we'll be long gone before the real consequences are felt. Bright side here again, is we wont have to deal with this... we'd rather save 10-15% NOW! thats the best for all of us!

Considering the effect of compound growth (which is much the same as compound interest), thinking that even if the Global Warming forecasts come to pass they would so great as to outweigh what would amount to increasing economic growth to the degree represented by what you would get from reducing costs by 10-15% a year, evidences either a complete lack of understanding of economics or blind worship to the alter of environmentalism.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 02:13:21 am
There's a difference between scientific consensus and belief.  Evidence drives scientific consensus, while faith drives belief.  Evidence is objective, while faith is subjective.

And "scientific.... evidence" which is not subject to review is simply not evidence at all.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 02:18:54 am
But you're right, the science is settled.

When I was in TV news, working at several different stations, I worked with a number of meteorologists.  Everyone of them I spoke with about it was in agreement -- that claims of anthropogenic Global Warming were nonsense.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 02:23:07 am
I originally entered this discussion not because I had a relevant opinion on Global Warming, but instead because of Tump's call for a list of names in the DOE.   Clearly that is a form of personal attack and intimidation.

If it is a personal attack or intimidation, exactly what is it that anyone is being threatened with, and just how does such a request compare to the calls from Global Warming alarmists that those they call "climate deniers" be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 02:26:52 am
The good news is that the DOE told Trump to **** off. They aren't participating in this witch hunt and giving him any names.  I hope as many people as possible stonewall this atrocity of a president.

And any denial of the transition team's request will delay the gathering of that information by, what, two months?

Personally I would love to see efforts to "stonewall" the requests once repeated from the Oval Office instead of the transition team.

I suspect that such conduct would be beyond civil service protections and would make it very easy for Trump to do some needed housecleaning.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 02:27:11 am
Actually...I said the opposite.  Typical Conservative response, attack the messenger.

There was no attack of the messenger... though your post above is a typical FDISK response, showing difficulty in understanding what is a personal attack and what is not.


Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 14, 2016, 08:17:44 am
Consensus is fact.


No, it's really not. I'm not trying to suggest that the consensus on global warming is wrong, merely challenging the way you are using the word here.

There is scientific *consensus* on the idea that athropogenic global warming is a *fact*.

con·sen·sus
kənˈsensəs
noun
general agreement.
"a consensus of opinion among judges"
synonyms:   agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity, solidarity; More
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 14, 2016, 08:21:34 am
Claiming a consensus exists, does not make it so...

In other news, Jes challenges the notion that there is consensus on the fact that the world is indeed round.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 14, 2016, 08:32:04 am
Well, the earth isn't round.  It's an oblate ellipsoid.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 14, 2016, 09:28:25 am
I believe the scientific evidence that our planet has gone through numerous Ice Ages and warming.  Why are we panicking as if this were something new?  I believe that man has some impact on the weather, but man is full of himself if he thinks he's the big deal; man is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.   I believe that while warmers and deniers are arguing blame, little is being done to prepare civilization for coming changes.
10 of these forum pages ago, that is what I posted.  In the meanwhile, we had 10 pages of proof or denial posts, nature vs. man posts, professional citation posts, but only one, ONE, offering any kind of solution.  Which was my point.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 14, 2016, 10:22:57 am
No, it's really not. I'm not trying to suggest that the consensus on global warming is wrong, merely challenging the way you are using the word here.

There is scientific *consensus* on the idea that athropogenic global warming is a *fact*.


How am I using the word differently? When 90% of the "judges" agree is that not a consensus?  I think it is.  Therefore, consensus is fact. (Whether the judges ultimately turn out to be correct is another matter....)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 14, 2016, 10:25:14 am
Not powerless.  But certainly not all powerful.  Civil Service laws still exist and are in effect.

Dave, I worked for a prime contractor to a National Lab for my entire career.  NOT ONCE did I hear the phrase "Civil Service laws".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 14, 2016, 10:38:40 am
10 of these forum pages ago, that is what I posted.  In the meanwhile, we had 10 pages of proof or denial posts, nature vs. man posts, professional citation posts, but only one, ONE, offering any kind of solution.  Which was my point.

I think people need to be convinced that there is a possible problem before anything can be done. As for the Ice Ages, yes the last Ice Age was a mere blink of an eye ago.  If you believe in radical ideas (like the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth) then we might possibly still BE IN the Ice Ages. Yes warming and cooling has been a natural...and will continue to be a natural occurrence.  But if you read some of those boring professional citations you will see that real scientific work suggests that the accelerated and unprecedented carbon buildup in the atmosphere appears to be the primary source of the problem.   

If you want to do something about it then it seems that a reasonable approach would be to limit the possible harm until we understand the problem better.  If Man made Global Warming does indeed turn out to be incorrect then we have done no harm. (Except to the oil industry, that is.)
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: CurtOne on December 14, 2016, 12:03:09 pm
We are still arguing whether or not it's true, rather than some sensible solutions.  I think it was CBJ who suggested we take our left-wing brains out of the sand and follow France's lead of returning to nuclear power and going to natural gas to power trucks.  Those are solutions that are good for all of us regardless of global warming beliefs.  I think there are other rational solutions out there that go beyond what is causing climate change.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 14, 2016, 12:35:08 pm
Curt, the argument against doing anything is that the problem doesn't exist. Trump (and a few people around here) argue that any changes are not needed because Global Warming is a hoax. Trump has appointed an oil state AG to head the EPA.  Trump has already indicated that he will pull out of international agreements on the environment. IF...and this is still an IF...IF man-made global warming exists then it is time for reasonable policy. My impression is that the motivation behind non-reasonable policy is nothing more than greed.

As for nuclear energy. If my father were alive he would say something like, "of course!"  I can hear his words now, "Burning hydrocarbons is a very wasteful use of a valuable resource that is needed, and will be needed, elsewhere."  Then he would break into a diatribe on ignorance and the state of my current report card.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 14, 2016, 01:27:03 pm

consensus is fact.


This is very obviously false, and I'm somewhat surprised that you're trying to make the equivalence.

Fact: the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence

Consensus: general agreement; group solidarity in sentiment and belief

These are clearly not the same things.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 14, 2016, 01:29:44 pm
Fact: the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence

Yes, I consider the 90% consensus on man-made global warming to be actual, it has actual existence, and is an actual occurrence.

That there is a consensus is a fact. Whether the consensus conclusions represent a fact is another question. I suspect our only problem here is in semantics.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 14, 2016, 01:31:24 pm
Yes the notion that there is a consensus on global warming as real is a fact. I agree completely and must have previously misunderstood.

I thought you were using the fact that consensus exists to then also argue that global warming is a fact.

Again, I believe global warming is a thing, not trying to argue otherwise.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on December 14, 2016, 01:39:24 pm
The board has not reached a consensus on the meaning of the word "consensus".
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 14, 2016, 01:41:00 pm
I suspect this board will never reach a consensus on that or anything else, for that matter.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Bennett on December 14, 2016, 01:45:21 pm
I suspect this board will never reach a consensus on that or anything else, for that matter.
There could be a consensus on the above statement.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Robb on December 14, 2016, 02:25:09 pm
I suspect this board will never reach a consensus on that or anything else, for that matter.
The Cubs are world series champions.  There, dispute that!
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 14, 2016, 05:42:14 pm
Not powerless.  But certainly not all powerful.  Civil Service laws still exist and are in effect.

Dave, I worked for a prime contractor to a National Lab for my entire career.  NOT ONCE did I hear the phrase "Civil Service laws".

Perhaps not surprising.  Prime contractors would not be subject to civil service laws, since they are not civil service employees.

I worked in government procurement, where 90 percent of the employees of Air Force Logistics Command were civil service employees.  I heard a LOT about the Civil Service Laws.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 07:12:26 pm
In other news, Jes challenges the notion that there is consensus on the fact that the world is indeed round.

This IS typical among those pushing Global Warming.  Instead of addressing the merits of an argument, they ridicule those disagreeing with them, claim there is a consensus, and insist that ends any rational discussion.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 07:47:56 pm
Perhaps not surprising.  Prime contractors would not be subject to civil service laws, since they are not civil service employees.

I worked in government procurement, where 90 percent of the employees of Air Force Logistics Command were civil service employees.  I heard a LOT about the Civil Service Laws.

.... you really would have thought that FDISK would have understood that.  For some reason I would suspect that that the Director of Public Affairs would NOT be a prime contractor but was instead a direct federal employee, meaning the relevant question would be whether that person was covered by the Civil Service Laws or was a political appointee, as you originally suggested.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 14, 2016, 08:50:53 pm
10 of these forum pages ago, that is what I posted.  In the meanwhile, we had 10 pages of proof or denial posts, nature vs. man posts, professional citation posts, but only one, ONE, offering any kind of solution.  Which was my point.

No.  You may have only seen one post which YOU considered a "solution," but part of the reason for that is that you have been looking for the wrong thing to "solve," and would seem to consider as a "solution" the very thing most people in this country believe is a far greater concern that Global Warming represents even if it is real.

method inadvertently made the point very well with this post:
I am not sure why some of you are quoting professional organizations staffed by professionals in their fields as any sort of proof. Not sure if you knew this or not, but 90% is not a consensus its a conspiracy.... its very very easy to see.

The sad part is that no one alive now will really see the brunt of the effects of anthropogenic effects on the climate and our planet... we'll be long gone before the real consequences are felt. Bright side here again, is we wont have to deal with this... we'd rather save 10-15% NOW! thats the best for all of us!
  (emphasis added)

Costs of 10-15% a year would be a massive drag on the economy and on economic growth.  The difference between inflicting that on the economy and avoiding it would be close to the economic difference between no economic growth an an economic growth rate of roughly the same -- 10 to 15% a year, which would be absolutely massive, far greater economic growth that any of us have ever seen in the United States in our lives.

And despite that difference (and I am using method's own numbers in this discussion), Global Warming supporters dismiss the costs of the kind of government controls they support as if the controls would be insignificant, not worthy of concern.

The true "solution" needs to solve the right problem, and the problem of giving the government virtually unlimited control over all economic activity to fight the Global Warming boogeyman is a far greater problems than the Global Warmist predict.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 15, 2016, 01:30:11 am
Curt, the argument against doing anything is that the problem doesn't exist. Trump (and a few people around here) argue that any changes are not needed because Global Warming is a hoax. Trump has appointed an oil state AG to head the EPA.  Trump has already indicated that he will pull out of international agreements on the environment. IF...and this is still an IF...IF man-made global warming exists then it is time for reasonable policy. My impression is that the motivation behind non-reasonable policy is nothing more than greed.

Two points:

1) Trump may argue Global Warming is a hoax, and end his argument there, but many, including myself, have a bit more than that in our position.  I certainly agree that the idea of anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax, but I go well beyond that, and so do many others.  My position continues to point out that A) even if it is not a hoax, warmer temperatures would likely be good for humans, not bad; B) That even if the effects were to be harmful and not helpful, that the cost of the proposed solutions would be far worse than any harmful effects from Global Warming.
2) Gordon Gekko was right -- Greed is good.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 15, 2016, 01:46:03 am
I think people need to be convinced that there is a possible problem before anything can be done.

I agree.  And the possible problem is giving government control over virtually all economic activity, which is to say to give it control over nearly our entire lives.

If you want to do something about it then it seems that a reasonable approach would be to limit the possible harm until we understand the problem better.  If Man made Global Warming does indeed turn out to be incorrect then we have done no harm. (Except to the oil industry, that is.)

First, once government assumes a power, it rarely, gives it up, and only after considerable struggle.  Second, you dismiss both the economic costs, and giving government control over virtually all economic activity, as "no harm."  Many of us consider the harm from such economic costs and loss of freedom to be far greater than even what the fear mongering Global Warmists try to scare us with.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 15, 2016, 08:35:39 am
This IS typical among those pushing Global Warming.  Instead of addressing the merits of an argument, they ridicule those disagreeing with them, claim there is a consensus, and insist that ends any rational discussion.

Your post I responded to wasn't putting forth an argument against global warming. Your post said there is no scientific consensus, which is hogwash. There is scientific consensus. Disagree with it all you like. Many respected scientists much smarter and better informed than you and I do.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: FDISK on December 15, 2016, 02:36:39 pm
Tico, unfortunately the new government has no use for the logic of at least listening to an overwhelming consensus of scientists. And you know what they say about government, once it has power...
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 15, 2016, 03:25:09 pm
Yeah, these cabinet appointments are terrifying in terms of the direction they signal for the country.

Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 15, 2016, 05:22:27 pm
Your post I responded to wasn't putting forth an argument against global warming. Your post said there is no scientific consensus, which is hogwash. There is scientific consensus. Disagree with it all you like. Many respected scientists much smarter and better informed than you and I do.

You are missing the point entirely, so much so that it would appear to be deliberate.

Your response in no way presented anything supporting your claim of scientific consensus.  Your post instead did exactly as I described -- instead of addressing the merits of an argument, you attempted to ridicule me (not even my position, but me directly) as is the playbook norm of ridiculing those disagreeing with you, you emptily claimed there is a consensus, and insist that ends any rational discussion.

Here again is your post to which I made my comment:
In other news, Jes challenges the notion that there is consensus on the fact that the world is indeed round.

And that was in response to this excerpt from one of my posts: "Claiming a consensus exists, does not make it so..."

And now YOU try to take the high ground in this?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 15, 2016, 09:31:30 pm
Apparently jes missed FD's 17 pages of consensus links, and orgs like NASA are full of ignorant sluts.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 15, 2016, 09:47:50 pm
Apparently jes missed FD's 17 pages of consensus links, and orgs like NASA are full of ignorant sluts.

You still can't address the merits of either the underlying issue, or of the question of whether your post was ridiculing those disagreeing with you. claiming there is a consensus and insisting that ends any rational discussion.

Is it really that hard to admit what you are doing?

It's Alinsky's rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

Take pride in how well you stick to it, but, man, at least admit what you are doing.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 15, 2016, 10:20:15 pm
Jes, there was no need to post anything supporting the notion of consensus given that FD had just exceeded creataforum's hosting bandwidth with page after page of articles and stories and publications and organizations supporting the notion of scientific consensus. I'm not "emptily claiming" anything. Would it make you feel better if I copy/pasted all the stuff you apparently ignored from FD? Why would anyone give you more evidence when you've simply ignored reams of it?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Jes Beard on December 15, 2016, 10:39:14 pm
Jes, there was no need to post anything supporting the notion of consensus given that FD had just exceeded creataforum's hosting bandwidth with page after page of articles and stories and publications and organizations supporting the notion of scientific consensus. I'm not "emptily claiming" anything. Would it make you feel better if I copy/pasted all the stuff you apparently ignored from FD? Why would anyone give you more evidence when you've simply ignored reams of it?

When you make a claim without offering anything to support the claim, that is actually the very definition of "emptily claiming"... but you still can't acknowledge the degree to which you embrace Alinsky, can you?
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: ticohans on December 16, 2016, 09:29:28 am
Jes, you're not an idiot. As you very well know, this has been a group conversation on an open internet forum. I did not make the claim with nothing to support it. My comments were clearly within the context of an ongoing thread of communication with any number of participants referencing each others' posts. Again, go back and read FD's stuff. I'm not copy/pasting things for you.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: Playtwo on December 16, 2016, 09:36:02 am
The scientific method doesn't fit everyone's tastes.  Particularly when it contradicts their biases.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: DelMarFan on December 16, 2016, 10:54:04 am
And some people don't understand it.
Title: Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
Post by: davep on December 16, 2016, 02:16:23 pm
Yep.  People on both sides of the issue.