thejeff wrote: Matt Filla wrote: Republicans are already treating Clinton’s presidency as illegitimate Though to be fair, in that article, they're not so much arguing that Clinton shouldn't be able to appoint Justices because her presidency is (or will be, should she win) illegitimate, but more of a "nyah, can't make me" approach. Along with a side line of "Well, we don't really need 9 Justices anyway."
I am a little perplexed by the idea that “As the Court’s size shrinks, activist majorities become mathematically harder to put together. Four votes out of seven is harder to achieve than five of nine.”
You still have to reach a majority for something. Does he expect a 7 member court to simply not reach a decision more often? They may tout that as an argument, but the aim was clearly baldly spelled out by Trump himself. The Republicans are standing firm until they can get Scalia clones that will repeal Roe V. Wade, Obamacare, and anything else passed by a Democrat.
And for those who are wondering... Treason is defined by a congressional majority vote.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: And for those who are wondering... Treason is defined by a congressional majority vote. Huh? Treason is defined in the Constitution:
Article III, section 3 wrote: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Congress can determine punishment for treason, subject to the usual processes of passing laws, but it can't redefine it. Nor does Congress handle individual cases - those go to the courts.
thejeff wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: And for those who are wondering... Treason is defined by a congressional majority vote. Huh? Treason is defined in the Constitution:
Article III, section 3 wrote: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Congress can determine punishment for treason, subject to the usual processes of passing laws, but it can't redefine it. Nor does Congress handle individual cases - those go to the courts. Congress handles those cases when they are impeachment trials, and tha's when the broad bounds for definitions of what consists of treason, especially in the modern day, come into play.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: Matt Filla wrote: Republicans are already treating Clinton’s presidency as illegitimate Though to be fair, in that article, they're not so much arguing that Clinton shouldn't be able to appoint Justices because her presidency is (or will be, should she win) illegitimate, but more of a "nyah, can't make me" approach. Along with a side line of "Well, we don't really need 9 Justices anyway."
I am a little perplexed by the idea that “As the Court’s size shrinks, activist majorities become mathematically harder to put together. Four votes out of seven is harder to achieve than five of nine.”
You still have to reach a majority for something. Does he expect a 7 member court to simply not reach a decision more often? They may tout that as an argument, but the aim was clearly baldly spelled out by Trump himself. The Republicans are standing firm until they can get Scalia clones that will repeal Roe V. Wade, Obamacare, and anything else passed by a Democrat As for this, Trump doesn't actually speak for the Senate. We'll see what happens. Not every bluff and threat is carried through. I have my doubts they'll actually be able to stick to an open block indefinitely, though there does seem to be movement in that direction.
Hopefully, the Democrats will take the Senate, change the rules to remove filibusters for Judicial candidates and proceed with confirmation hearings. Both for Scalia's replacement and the many empty seats throughout the federal judiciary. If not, it's going to get ugly. Public pressure will be about the only tool that can be applied in the short term and that's not likely to be effective on a party that wins when government is thought to be broken.
thejeff wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: Matt Filla wrote: Republicans are already treating Clinton’s presidency as illegitimate Though to be fair, in that article, they're not so much arguing that Clinton shouldn't be able to appoint Justices because her presidency is (or will be, should she win) illegitimate, but more of a "nyah, can't make me" approach. Along with a side line of "Well, we don't really need 9 Justices anyway."
I am a little perplexed by the idea that “As the Court’s size shrinks, activist majorities become mathematically harder to put together. Four votes out of seven is harder to achieve than five of nine.”
You still have to reach a majority for something. Does he expect a 7 member court to simply not reach a decision more often? They may tout that as an argument, but the aim was clearly baldly spelled out by Trump himself. The Republicans are standing firm until they can get Scalia clones that will repeal Roe V. Wade, Obamacare, and anything else passed by a Democrat As for this, Trump doesn't actually speak for the Senate. We'll see what happens. Not every bluff and threat is carried through. I have my doubts they'll actually be able to stick to an open block indefinitely, though there does seem to be movement in that direction.
Hopefully, the Democrats will take the Senate, change the rules to remove filibusters for Judicial candidates and proceed with confirmation hearings. Both for Scalia's replacement and the many empty seats throughout the federal judiciary. If not, it's going to get ugly. Public pressure will be about the only tool that can be applied in the short term and that's not likely to be effective on a party that wins when government is thought to be broken. There is absolutely nothing that stops the Senate from stonewalling the Supreme Court justice appointment indefinitely unless the Democrats get the majority. The Constitution give the President and the Senate roles to play in replacing a vacancy, but puts absolutely no time requirement... or for that matter, any requirement at all that they do so.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: And for those who are wondering... Treason is defined by a congressional majority vote. Huh? Treason is defined in the Constitution:
Article III, section 3 wrote: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Congress can determine punishment for treason, subject to the usual processes of passing laws, but it can't redefine it. Nor does Congress handle individual cases - those go to the courts. Congress handles those cases when they are impeachment trials, and tha's when the broad bounds for definitions of what consists of treason, especially in the modern day, come into play. I guess, if you're impeaching someone for treason, then you're right, but it doesn't need to be treason to impeach them and you can charge someone with treason without impeaching them, so I'm not sure what the point is.
Has there ever been an impeachment for treason? I know there have been treason trials and convictions.
I'm also not at all sure of the relevance of this, so I should probably just let it drop.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: As for this, Trump doesn't actually speak for the Senate. We'll see what happens. Not every bluff and threat is carried through. I have my doubts they'll actually be able to stick to an open block indefinitely, though there does seem to be movement in that direction.
Hopefully, the Democrats will take the Senate, change the rules to remove filibusters for Judicial candidates and proceed with confirmation hearings. Both for Scalia's replacement and the many empty seats throughout the federal judiciary. If not, it's going to get ugly. Public pressure will be about the only tool that can be applied in the short term and that's not likely to be effective on a party that wins when government is thought to be broken.
There is absolutely nothing that stops the Senate from stonewalling the Supreme Court justice appointment indefinitely unless the Democrats get the majority. The Constitution give the President and the Senate roles to play in replacing a vacancy, but puts absolutely no time requirement... or for that matter, any requirement at all that they do so. As I said. It gets ugly.
As for who stops them? We do. We make it politically untenable. We vote the bastards out. Because there's no other option if we want to keep the country functioning.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: Hillary Clinton isn't Bernie Sanders, but I've got news for you... Sanders wasn't the perfect candidate either. He absolutely sucked when it came to relating to anyone whose skin wasn't as pale as his was. And that's important in anyone going to lead this country. This...seems like a bit of an overstatement. It's also irrelevant. I highly doubt Citizen Healer was a Bernie voter.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
And, is it just me, or are all the articles I'm seeing about "Bill Clinton, Inc." establish that the Clintons and their friends actually did profit substantially from Clinton Foundation activities?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
And the Bundys got off?!? Man, what a day!
Hey, now. I come to the election thread to relax and take a break from Bundy discussions.
Some times I keep wondering if Al Bundy is pulling one over on us...
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: And the Bundys got off?!? Man, what a day! That's insane. What the hell happened there?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff,
Obviously white privilege had it uses.
They kicked off a juror for being "biased" right before the verdict. That might be part of it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
RE: Donald Trump says "the election should be cancelled, and given to him"
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Thomas Seitz wrote: thejeff,
Obviously white privilege had it uses.
That's not just white privilege though. Plenty of white people get convicted.
From what I'd seen of it earlier, it seemed that the prosecutor had made a pretty clean case. Nothing out of line from the judge or anything. Basically open and shut.
Did they just get a bunch of anti-government sympathizers on the jury? Screw up in the jury selection?
Nice try hillary!
I am joking. (and only because everyone is fine)
Countdown till someone not in 5...4..3...2...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: It's much harder to do basic math, like ratios, when your head is planted so deeply in your own ass. But I don't think the basic math matters. Why would it be harder to get 4/7 for an "activist" decision rather than 4/7 for a conservative decision?
Somebody's still got to get to a majority right? Why not go all the way? If 5/9 (56%) is easy to get an activist majority and 4/7 (57%) is hard, imagine how hard it would be to get an activist majority if they needed 100% (1/1)! It's foolproof!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: And the Bundys got off?!? Man, what a day! So...
Bundys and Friends (white) armed occupy government facilities illegally and threaten innocent employees and law enforcement: standoff with law enforcement, are eventually (mostly) peacefully taken into custody, and now acquitted.
Native Americans (non-white) and Friends are unarmed protesting an illegal pipeline, violation of their lands' sovereignty, and possible contamination of their drinking water: met by armed violent response by law enforcement and military
>:(
thejeff wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: And for those who are wondering... Treason is defined by a congressional majority vote. Huh? Treason is defined in the Constitution:
Article III, section 3 wrote: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Congress can determine punishment for treason, subject to the usual processes of passing laws, but it can't redefine it. Nor does Congress handle individual cases - those go to the courts. Congress handles those cases when they are impeachment trials, and tha's when the broad bounds for definitions of what consists of treason, especially in the modern day, come into play. I guess, if you're impeaching someone for treason, then you're right, but it doesn't need to be treason to impeach them and you can charge someone with treason without impeaching them, so I'm not sure what the point is.
Has there ever been an impeachment for treason? I know there have been treason trials and convictions.
I'm also not at all sure of the relevance of this, so I should probably just let it drop. Andrew Johnson, I think. I'll have to check.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: And the Bundys got off?!? Man, what a day! So...
Bundys and Friends (white) armed occupy government facilities illegally and threaten innocent employees and law enforcement: standoff with law enforcement, are eventually (mostly) peacefully taken into custody, and now acquitted.
Native Americans (non-white) and Friends are unarmed protesting an illegal pipeline, violation of their lands' sovereignty, and possible contamination of their drinking water: met by armed violent response by law enforcement and military
>:( Guess they should've brought guns.
I have a question for you guys. Do you feel because of the strong polarization of the american election process it is literally impossible to find a candidate that would not be smeared to look like Satan himself. Seems to me that between one side or the other any potential candidate is going to be dissected and found some way to seem as bad as possible. I'm fairly certain if Jesus Christ or Buddha (which by the way there is a rather entertaining anime starring those two.) where running for office the opposing side would find someway to make them out to be the devil himself.
This is less election related but still int he ball park. I wonder how hard it would be to change the system to a direct democracy. I would say something like. A voting app on phones and pc's in library's and at home with complex pin numbers to say have a few laws voted on like once a day. There is flaws of course it means slow response times to matters that need to be reacted on quickly. (and other issues)
Or I also wonder about I believe it was Aristotle's Idea of scholar kings. if you want to be a politician you forgo all your wealth family and social ties to go into a monastery for the rest of your life and spent it researching everyone else in society and making the best polices one can come up with. Since the theory is the only way you can make unbiased decisions about a society is to take yourself out of the society. (this all might be super off topic but you guys seem like smart cookies and I'm interested in responses)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Bundy decision basically just created a precedent for similar folks, letting them know they can launch an armed takeover on federal property and not get in trouble
With Trump potentially not conceding, this has horrible possible connotations for the next few months.
MMCJawa wrote: The Bundy decision basically just created a precedent for similar folks, letting them know they can launch an armed takeover on federal property and not get in trouble
With Trump potentially not conceding, this has horrible possible connotations for the next few months.
That is horrifying I kind of wonder if this is how some people felt before civil wars began. although I think the level of communication in this day and age probably changes that a bit. I could imagine an earlier time in history where this could actually lead to a civil war.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: But, actually, it leads to my next bit...
Erica Garner blasts Clinton campaign over discussions staffers had about her father’s death in WikiLeaks emails
Political campaign discusses strategy, news at 11.
I read the article. Was there something offensive I was supposed to notice? Are we shocked that campaign staffers are spending time thinking about how the campaign will be perceived in the public? Did they actually do something other than talk?
I would agree that they were insensitive in how they referred to him (and her), but not egregiously so. Everything is political, doubly so during a political campaign. BLM is a social and political movement, so they're already politicizing his death.
Part of politics is changing policy for government agencies.
How do the Bundys get off? Did they not have enough evidence?
Basically, Oregonians are united in hating the Bundys, so the only people who are "unbiased" are far-right to begin with. Leads to most normal Oregonians getting kicked off the jury right off-the-bat. Gark can explain it better.
Also, acting like some people who kinda know Clinton saying some stuff about how to run a campaign is a "scandal" is basically Wikileaks's main job now.
Coriat wrote: Re: the invitation to scrutinize whether or not these are the main issues important to billionaires, I'd certainly want to add at least one more, taxes. And that is one where the trump-vs-1% theory seems to fall down, since it's not necessarily traditional for a president to show his enmity towards the rich by cutting their taxes.
BigNorseWolf explained it better than I did…
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tax cuts are for everyone. Tax breaks are for your rich friends.
Tax cuts help anyone who pays taxes. Not just the rich. If Trump is going to look out for the 1%, he is going to offer tax breaks, not tax cuts. We can presume the tax cut is there to help everyone who gets it. Not to provide cover for helping out the 1%.
Quote: To the points that you did raise:
1) Globalization. I'm mostly OK with this one and not going to argue it. I can accept that the anti-trade platform he's run on is counter to the interests of, at least, large portions of the wealthy. Sure, put this in the W column if you're an anti-globalist.
2) Big banks. I'm not sure this one belongs on the list. I'm sure he's mentioned this stuff, but I haven't seen him make a big deal out of it and I'm not sure I'd expect much to change on this count under his administration one way or another. My understanding of his plans for being president is that he'll focus on a few high-profile, signature issues, and leave most everything else to others, and I haven't seen any sign that bailout policy is going to be at the top of his list. This pretty much means that it will stay in the hands of Congressmen, staffers, lobbyists, and the usual crowd, the people who implemented the stuff we've done in the past. Neutral/tie game here.
You are correct that bailouts have not been a big issue with this campaign, although Cruz and Trump sparred over it during the Republican primaries, where both clearly opposed TARP. Cruz accurately hit Trump for expressing his verbal support back in 2008 and 2009, Trump hit back by pointing out Cruz’s wife is a Goldman Sachs banker.
But I do see it becoming a major issue in the new few years. Another recession is going to hit sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. We have gone eight years since the last one and so it is likely to be sooner rather than later. And because the problems with the US banking system were merely papered over last time, the recession is going to result in either another government bailout or some bank failures. So even if it isn’t on Trump’s radar, it likely will be, and he won’t leave that decision to subordinates. No subordinate will want to make that call and take the blame.
And just like with TARP, the political pressure to extend a bailout is going to be tremendous. Even though many citizens were contacting their congressional representatives to vote no, most of them caved and passed TARP. So it isn’t enough to just say you will be against something like TARP, you have to be able to withstand the political and media pressure.
And Trump showed me could do that on the weekend of Oct 8th and 9th. The media hit him with everything they had, the Republicans betrayed him, and the pressure to give up was off the charts. Trump didn’t quit, he just fought back harder. Now I know he won’t quit if he is President and there is another banking crisis.
Quote: 3) Political control. Far as I can tell this one belongs firmly in the L column. I'm not necessarily inclined to believe that Trump is personally not influenceable by the money of the 1% (which is his main argument on this count). If he wasn't eager for more money, he wouldn't have spent so much time this campaign pushing his products. But I also don't think that that is the most important factor. Billionaires don't get heard because they have the President on speed dial and direct deposit prearranged - which they don't. They get heard because they buy the people who influence the people who surround the President and work in the administration.
Or they serve in the administration directly. Now, the parade of non-policy-related scandals Trump has courted lately has been drowning out much talk of, say, who his cabinet will be, but last I heard (in the summer) fellow billionaires were prominent on his list (which again doesn't suggest he is crusading against them). I recall hearing of Icahn and several CEOs floated as cabinet picks.
Even if you grant that Trump himself is not corrupt (I don't, but for the sake of argument) - think U.S. Grant and his infamously corrupt administration without the suggestion of personal wrongdoing. If you aren't disciplined about managing your administration, you don't have to be personally accepting the cash in order to preside over a cesspool of corruption and influence peddling. Trump seems anything but disciplined when it comes to managing his campaign, so I don't see that changing if he ends up managing an administration. And in any case if you put other billionaires in your cabinet, then other billionaires is who you'll be hearing when you decide on policy.
The gameboard changed as soon as the Trump-Billy Bush tape hit the TV networks. That was when Trump could see who his enemies and who his friends are. And he saw that he had way more enemies than he thought he had, including much of the Republican party. That wasn’t just a media bombshell or a Democratic political maneuver, it was a Republican coup.
If Trump wins, he is going to have to go to war with his own party and purge his Republican enemies from DC. That will mean he has to bring in outsiders if he has any chance of success. He said the following on October 13th…
“For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. Our campaign represents a true existential threat, like they haven’t seen before. This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we, the people, reclaim control over our government.”
No presidential candidate has ever talked like that before, and it isn’t just talk, he is backing it up with specific policy proposals now.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday will propose a five-year ban on executive branch officials lobbying after they leave government if he is elected, according to excerpts of a speech on fixing ethics problems in Washington.
Trump also will say he plans to ask Congress to impose its own five-year ban on former lawmakers and their staff lobbying as well as set a lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying for foreign governments.
This is going to start filtering out some of the billionaire minions who shuttle in and out of government and the corporate lobbying firms . Of course, I would prefer ten years, but five is a decent start.
Now I concede that Trump’s cabinet will likely consist of many who are in the 1%. If he is at all sincere about what he is saying, and I can’t prove that he is, then those cabinet members have to be like him…assuming he is sincere..fed up with what their peers are doing, and determined to pry the levers of power out of their hands and give it back to the people. Peter Thiel would be one such person.
As long as we are going to add more issues to it, I have a fourth issue to raise that I considered before but didn’t include because it isn’t a consensus among the billionaires. That would be whether the USA is going to have peaceful relations with Russia(Trump's position), or go back to a cold war or worse(Hillary's position). Only some billionaires actually want the US to go hostile with Russia, George Soros being the foremost I can name.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: NPC Dave wrote: Every four years we saw an ever escalating amount of money invested into the presidential candidates. Obama and Romney set new records in 2012, which had been set in 2008, and so on. Of course, no amount of laws could ever hope to stop it, the monied interests would find some way to get around it.
But Trump has shown how to get around that. He has used social media to get his message out and bypass the gatekeepers. He accomplished this with a fraction of the money other candidates spend. He has provided a roadmap for candidates in the future, and as they follow it the billionaires will lose influence as their money can’t buy social media followers or counter the messages which spread virally from smaller internet communities.
Trump accomplished NONE of that. It was GIVEN to him by the media, an estimated billion dollars worth of free publicity, because of the decades he's spent being a sideshow attraction. They do it because Trump means ratings. Exactly, they do it because Trump means ratings. That is how Trump accomplished the impossible feat of campaign finance reform without passing a law. He built up his brand and built a political message into the entertainment he provided. The media had no choice but to give him that publicity, their ratings would dive if he wasn’t on the screen.
You don’t get people to watch and listen to you without earning their attention. Trump earned their attention, he earned those ratings, and he earned that publicity.
Knight who says Meh wrote: Quote: The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders. We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits, protecting the political speech of advocacy groups, corporations, and labor unions, and protecting political speech on the internet. We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government. This is what you support voting for Trump.
Sure, is there a problem with that paragraph above? I particularly agree with the following line…”free-market approaches to free speech”.
Trump has shown us that you don’t need a billion dollars or more to run for President. Not if you build your own personal brand, build your own following in social media that reaches more people than even a major news network show, and build a message that resonates with voters. The news networks are becoming irrelevant, you and I and anyone else won’t need them to get our message out.
The next generation of politicians are going to include people who build their own brand and build their own following from the ground up, it won’t just be puppets bought and paid for by billionaires. I like this free-market approach. Campaign finance reform laws are going to be out of date.
Quote: This is not "sticking it to the Billionaire Boys."
Trump has you fooled.
Trump has you fooled as surely as if you were here arguing climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China.
Trump has you fooled as surely as if you were here arguing Hillary Clinton is dying of Parkinson's.
As surely as if you were here arguing that Obama was born in Kenya...
Or that Vince Foster and Antonin Scalia were murdered.
Or that Ted Cruz's father killed JFK
Or that vaccines are liked to autism
Or that thousands cheered 9/11 in New Jersey
Trump has you fooled.
Fooled about what? The conflicts between him and the other billionaires are real. The main issues I identified in this election are real(albeit some are in dispute). Will this country have open borders or return to nationalism? Will paid lobbying continue as usual or be dramatically reformed?
Quote: And he's not even trying that hard...
Another thing I appreciate about Trump is how hard he is making Hillary work to earn the presidency. If she wins, at least he made her work for it.
Knight who says Meh wrote: Donald Trump wrote: I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything. This is what he thinks he can get away with because he's a star.
Correction: He said the women let him get away with it because he’s a star.
Quote: And you want to make him President... Yes I do, although I am not voting for him because he said that, or proud to vote for him because he said that. I am proud to vote for him because of his stand on the issues which are at stake in this election. And there are far more important things at stake in this election than how easy it is for a billionaire to get laid.
I get it. It isn’t fair that most women would rather have sex with a billionaire or a quarterback than us Ordinary Joe Schmoes. I agree but life isn’t fair. As men, we can still build our bodies and minds to be successful and attractive and attract a woman who admires us. That was always good enough for me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Soo If your boss sexually assaults you its only sexual assault if you fight back? how easy it is to get laid? what? you should say how easy it is for him to get away with sexual assault.
CrusaderWolf wrote: NPC Dave wrote: I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay). Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump". Loathe? That is a strawman argument. I am sure the three guys I cited also loathe gay conversion therapy. I didn’t cite those guys because I was arguing some gays like that therapy.
I cited those three men because this particular dispute started over the assertion that Trump wants 16 year old gay children to undergo gay conversion therapy. That is false and if 80% of gays still believe it than 80% of gays are seeing an illusion that is not there.
I posted the link to the 20% last time, but here it is again
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: CrusaderWolf wrote: NPC Dave wrote: I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay). Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump". So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."
And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016. I was curious so I went to see why this year’s platform was the most anti-GLBT in history. I read this, “Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of ‘pray the gay away’ — it’s all in there”
Ok, sure it is all in there. Does that mean it will actually happen? When do Republicans ever keep their promises? Here is another plank in the platform… We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare.
I tell pro-life Christians that if they think the Republicans are actually going to do this, they are hallucinating. And they don’t believe me.
I think Trump might keep his promises, but he isn’t going to fight for this as President. To paraphrase Peter Thiel, this election is about more important things than who is going to use which bathroom.
BigNorseWolf wrote: CrusaderWolf wrote: Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" No, just that unless you're going to call 20% of homosexuals self hating it's entirely possible that he's voting for trump and doesn't hate the LGBT crowd.
He may just hate some other group that trump wants to make life terrible for. That group would be the 1%, but I wouldn’t use the word “hate” or “terrible”. I would say that I despise the stupidity* of the 1% and I am morally outraged with the disruption and chaos they cause. And I am not going to say that Trump is going to make their lives terrible, just that he is a thorn in their side at the moment, and I am going to see if I can’t help drive that thorn in a little deeper.
*The problem rich people have is they think that because they were good at what made them rich, that must mean they are good at anything else they try. They aren’t. My biggest fear isn’t that Trump loses, it is that Trump wins and discovers he doesn’t have the skill set to achieve what I think are his objectives. Managing executive branch bureaucrats is an entirely different skill than managing private sector employees.
Kung Fu Joe wrote: NPC Dave wrote: No one controls Donald Trump... ...not even Donald Trump! I actually thought about saying that myself, but I knew if I didn’t, someone else would. Thank you Kung Fu Joe!
Lets get a scenario here just for the sake of seeing where the line is drawn. lets say Boss 1. (we will use numbers and letter designations) Hits on employee A. employee A does not appreciate these advances however employee A is worried what boss 1 would do if the adavnces were rejected. therefore employee A allows it. Is employee A being sexually assaulted?
Now It may just be him bragging about conquest or it might be him using his influence money and power to put women in situations where they can not do anything about it. Do you know for a fact which it is?
Also the wording is terribly inconsistent with yours "let him" is a passive response. as opposed to wanted him to.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: Lets get a scenario here just for the sake of seeing where the line is drawn. lets say Boss 1. (we will use numbers and letter designations) Hits on employee A. employee A does not appreciate these advances however employee A is worried what boss 1 would do if the adavnces were rejected. therefore employee A allows it. Is employee A being sexually assaulted? YES
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Uh thanks Rysky. It was some what rhetorical made to be a obvious yes but I didn't realize I had made the scenario almost exactly like the definition.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: Uh thanks Rysky. It was some what rhetorical made to be a obvious yes but I didn't realize I had made the scenario almost exactly like the definition. Sorry, I knew you were being rhetorical, but Poe's Law is unfortunately in full swing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NPC Dave wrote: CrusaderWolf wrote: NPC Dave wrote: I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay). Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump". Loathe? That is a strawman argument. I am sure the three guys I cited also loathe gay conversion therapy. I didn’t cite those guys because I was arguing some gays like that therapy.
I cited those three men because this particular dispute started over the assertion that Trump wants 16 year old gay children to undergo gay conversion therapy. That is false and if 80% of gays still believe it than 80% of gays are seeing an illusion that is not there.
I posted the link to the 20% last time, but here it is again
Let's apply this rationale to another issue:
You believe Trump wants to stick it to the 1%, to clean out their influence from politics.
However, there are several 1%-ers who are backing Trump, including Peter Thiel who you've mentioned a few times now.
If Trump really wanted to stick it to he 1%, all billionaires would oppose them. Since several of them don't, you and the billionaires who oppose him must be seeing an illusion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: And for those who are wondering... Treason is defined by a congressional majority vote. Huh? Treason is defined in the Constitution:
Article III, section 3 wrote: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Congress can determine punishment for treason, subject to the usual processes of passing laws, but it can't redefine it. Nor does Congress handle individual cases - those go to the courts. Congress handles those cases when they are impeachment trials, and tha's when the broad bounds for definitions of what consists of treason, especially in the modern day, come into play. I guess, if you're impeaching someone for treason, then you're right, but it doesn't need to be treason to impeach them and you can charge someone with treason without impeaching them, so I'm not sure what the point is.
Has there ever been an impeachment for treason? I know there have been treason trials and convictions.
I'm also not at all sure of the relevance of this, so I should probably just let it drop. Andrew Johnson, I think. I'll have to check. Andrew Johnson was impeached (but not convicted or removed) for violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Not treason.
MMCJawa wrote: The Bundy decision basically just created a precedent for similar folks, letting them know they can launch an armed takeover on federal property and not get in trouble
With Trump potentially not conceding, this has horrible possible connotations for the next few months.
No actual precedent, but it's likely similar folks will treat it as such. We'll see how they're treated in years to come.
The Bundys themselves are still being held on charges from the standoff at the ranch, so we'll see how that plays out.
NPC Dave wrote: Coriat wrote: Re: the invitation to scrutinize whether or not these are the main issues important to billionaires, I'd certainly want to add at least one more, taxes. And that is one where the trump-vs-1% theory seems to fall down, since it's not necessarily traditional for a president to show his enmity towards the rich by cutting their taxes. BigNorseWolf explained it better than I did…BigNorseWolf wrote: Tax cuts are for everyone. Tax breaks are for your rich friends. Tax cuts help anyone who pays taxes. Not just the rich. If Trump is going to look out for the 1%, he is going to offer tax breaks, not tax cuts. We can presume the tax cut is there to help everyone who gets it. Not to provide cover for helping out the 1%. And yet somehow the 1% keep pushing for the actual tax cuts. For the top rates to be lowered, even at the cost of closing loopholes.
Perhaps that actually matters to them.
Irontruth wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: But, actually, it leads to my next bit...
Erica Garner blasts Clinton campaign over discussions staffers had about her father’s death in WikiLeaks emails
Political campaign discusses strategy, news at 11.
I read the article. Was there something offensive I was supposed to notice? It was the first news article I read after reading the subtheme of the thread kicked off by Comrade Moonrunner's statement that "[Bernie] absolutely sucked when it came to relating to anyone whose skin wasn't as pale as his was" which happened to be about a black-skinned supporter of Bernie's.
Still irrelevant, sure, but the whole "Bernie couldn't get minority (i.e., black, i.e., black over 30) votes" is, I find, one of the more annoying talking points scripted by the Clinton campaign (and apparently from the sitting Labor Secretary, which, I've read but couldn't say, is a violation of the EDIT: Hatch Act.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: I have a question for you guys. Do you feel because of the strong polarization of the american election process it is literally impossible to find a candidate that would not be smeared to look like Satan himself. Seems to me that between one side or the other any potential candidate is going to be dissected and found some way to seem as bad as possible. I'm fairly certain if Jesus Christ or Buddha (which by the way there is a rather entertaining anime starring those two.) where running for office the opposing side would find someway to make them out to be the devil himself. Well we HAD a socialist jew that was good with sparrows in the election for a while...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: And the Bundys got off?!? Man, what a day! So...
Bundys and Friends (white) armed occupy government facilities illegally and threaten innocent employees and law enforcement: standoff with law enforcement, are eventually (mostly) peacefully taken into custody, and now acquitted.
Native Americans (non-white) and Friends are unarmed protesting an illegal pipeline, violation of their lands' sovereignty, and possible contamination of their drinking water: met by armed violent response by law enforcement and military
>:( Developing: 100+ Militarized Police Raiding #NoDAPL Resistance Camp Blocking Pipeline’s Path
And La Principessa's Single Mother Comrade just headed out there earlier this week.
:(
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NPC Dave wrote: That group would be the 1%, but I wouldn’t use the word “hate” or “terrible”. I would say that I despise the stupidity* of the 1% and I am morally outraged with the disruption and chaos they cause. Nothing they do is stupid. They have the entire system working for them, and ITS WORKING.
Quote: *The problem rich people have is they think that because they were good at what made them rich, that must mean they are good at anything else they try. They aren’t. My biggest fear isn’t that Trump loses, it is that Trump wins and discovers he doesn’t have the skill set to achieve what I think are his objectives. Managing executive branch bureaucrats is an entirely different skill than managing private sector employees. Trump is good at being born rich. Seriously. He inherited his entire fortune and would have been richer if he'd just sold the company and put the money into other peoples investments .
Yes, he got a "small loan" of a few million (in 1975 money) from his father, but after he didn't blow that he ALSO got the entire company: if i run the hardware store for someone you can bet i don't inherit the entire thing when they retire.
The idea that Donald trump will, out of the goodness of his heart, close tax loopholes that make him richer by billions because we're paying him 250,000 dollars is absolutely absurd. The man has never shown that he even understands the concept of what sacrifice is, much less made one.
He is promoting trickle down economics, the same economic platform that romney, reagan, bush 2 and bush 1 all went for. The same economic platform the 1% has always justified. They aren't not promoting trump because he has a bad idea, they're not promoting him because he's going to lose, and if he loses big their control over the system could take a huge hit.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
@Comrade: I don't know as much about this as I probably should, but on general principles, ignoring claims of treaty rights and intentionally building directly on a group's sacred gravesites and using armed forces to attack them and push them off is...
Uh, more historical than I'd like. o wo; Also wrong. I think I'm with the protesters on this one, especially because of that treaty claim. That needs to get resolved, and I hope all of them will be okay.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
